Martial law declaired at all NFL football games!!

[Gpmo]

The tricky part though is if the stadiums are built using public fund then it is considered a public place therefore imho i should not be subjected to a search or seizure with out probable cause. Because that is the other issue in this thread. Also i thought that rights can not be withheld to an individual in an area that is considered public? Unlike your home which is private.

Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk

 

[Dan]

If that is true Dan then the debate gets MUCH more complicated. I am not sure of the statutes and no doubt they vary with each city and state involved. We will see I guess.

This is what I've been able to find via google but can't say that it's 100% accurate.

TEAM - STADIUM OWNER
Arizona Cardinals - State of Arizona
Atlanta Falcons - State of Georgia
Baltimore Ravens - State of Maryland (Maryland Stadium Authority)
Buffalo Bills - Erie County, New York
Carolina Panthers - Carolinas Stadium Corporation (Carolina Panthers)
Chicago Bears - City of Chicago (Chicago Park District)
Cincinnati Bengals - Hamilton County, OH
Cleveland Browns - City of Cleveland
Dallas Cowboys - City of Arlington
Denver Broncos - City of Denver (Metropolitan Football Authority)
Detroit Lions - Wayne County / City of Detroit
Green Bay Packers - City of Green Bay
Houston Texans - Harris County, TX
Indianapolis Colts - State of Indiana
Jacksonville Jaguars - City of Jacksonville
Kansas City Chiefs - Jackson County
Miami Dolphins - Stephen M. Ross (owner of Miami Dolphins)
Minnesota Vikings - State of Minnesota (Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission)
New England Patriots - Kraft Sports Group (Robert Kraft, owner of the Patriots)
New Orleans Saints - State of Louisiana (Louisiana Stadium/Expo District)
New York Giants - State of New Jersey (New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority)
New York Jets - State of New Jersey (New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority
Oakland Raiders - City of Oakland and Alameda County
Philadelphia Eagles - Philadelphia Eagles
Pittsburgh Steelers - City of Pittsburgh and County of Allegheny
San Diego Chargers - City of San Diego
San Francisco 49ers - City of San Francisco and County of San Francisco
Seattle Seahawks - State of Washington
St. Louis Rams - City of St. Louis (St. Louis Regional Sports Authority)
Tampa Bay Buccaneers - Hillsborough County, FL
Tennessee Titans - City of Nashville and Davidson County
Washington Redskins - Daniel Snyder (Owner of Redskins)

 

[captain]

Stirring dicussion was what i was hopeing for. Its about choice and lack of right to choose. we are kept in a state of fear... By goverment.. Media... Corporations... For a purpose. As i pointed out to friends just like the concept of those takeing advantage and crying discrimination and demanding favortism based on what happened hundreds of years ago... We tend to look at folks who use those circumstances as manipulators to thier own gain do we not? So as in this ... Isnt the concept of constant refrence and infrence to the fear and " what if's" of terrorisim.... Actually promoting and dare i say ...an act of terrorisim unto itself????

I stated this before, I dont think that has one thing to do with terrorism directly, it has everything to do with politically correct negligence. Every time that something goes wrong people want to sue... Look at the fair recently in I think Indiana, when the stage blew over everyone wanted to start sueing the govt because they never warned of impending weather... REALLY, so now people can't make decisions for themselves when it comes to weather..... This same principal applies to stadiums, wasn't it just recently when the man was attacked outside the baseball stadium, the perps chased him outside but the ball club and stadium was in the lawsuit just days later for not providing enough security... REALLY! and you guys wonder why this is going on, its about money not terrorism.

 

[Gpmo]

I stated this before, I dont think that has one thing to do with terrorism directly, it has everything to do with politically correct negligence. Every time that something goes wrong people want to sue... Look at the fair recently in I think Indiana, when the stage blew over everyone wanted to start sueing the govt because they never warned of impending weather... REALLY, so now people can't make decisions for themselves when it comes to weather..... This same principal applies to stadiums, wasn't it just recently when the man was attacked outside the baseball stadium, the perps chased him outside but the ball club and stadium was in the lawsuit just days later for not providing enough security... REALLY! and you guys wonder why this is going on, its about money not terrorism.

I think you have nailed a lot of it on the head. Our civil and criminal justice systems have needed an over haul for decades. Some folks feels like they are entitled to money any time life happens. I have heard many times oh its the politicians and lawyers who got us here in this situation. Maybe if some of the judges would stand up and say no to frivilous cases things could be different.

Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk

 

[chrisjp]

then have me sign a waver ... Not fondle my tenders!!





Oh i will bet lots n lots of monopoly money on the back of your ticket is a waiver of damage and liability if you use it... Blah blah blah.... So that argument about the money concept goes right out the window

 

[The Tekken]

Oh i will bet lots n lots of monopoly money on the back of your ticket is a waiver of damage and liability if you use it... Blah blah blah.... So that argument about the money concept goes right out the window

I hope it is only Monopoly money you are using there, cos if not I will take that bet and you will lose! Waivers mean nothing if negligence can be demonstrated. Had any surgery lately? If so, remember all those waivers you had to sign? You are still able to successfully bring a suit against the doctor(s) involved if they do not execute what is termed the "minimum standard of care" (ie: they are in any way negligent). The same would be true of a stadium: If it could be shown that inadequate precautions were taken to protect the spectators and you were attacked, a waiver would not protect the owners.

On a personal note, and please take this in the nicest possible way, I suspect even during a pat down nobody would be in a hurry to "fondle your tenders" mate!

 

[Schexy1]

This is what I've been able to find via google but can't say that it's 100% accurate.

TEAM - STADIUM OWNER
Arizona Cardinals - State of Arizona
Atlanta Falcons - State of Georgia
Baltimore Ravens - State of Maryland (Maryland Stadium Authority)
Buffalo Bills - Erie County, New York
Chicago Bears - City of Chicago (Chicago Park District)
Cincinnati Bengals - Hamilton County, OH
Cleveland Browns - City of Cleveland
Dallas Cowboys - City of Arlington
Denver Broncos - City of Denver (Metropolitan Football Authority)
Detroit Lions - Wayne County / City of Detroit
Green Bay Packers - City of Green Bay
Houston Texans - Harris County, TX
Indianapolis Colts - State of Indiana
Jacksonville Jaguars - City of Jacksonville
Kansas City Chiefs - Jackson County
Minnesota Vikings - State of Minnesota (Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission)
New Orleans Saints - State of Louisiana (Louisiana Stadium/Expo District)
New York Giants - State of New Jersey (New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority)
New York Jets - State of New Jersey (New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority
Oakland Raiders - City of Oakland and Alameda County
Pittsburgh Steelers - City of Pittsburgh and County of Allegheny
San Diego Chargers - City of San Diego
San Francisco 49ers - City of San Francisco and County of San Francisco
Seattle Seahawks - State of Washington
St. Louis Rams - City of St. Louis (St. Louis Regional Sports Authority)
Tampa Bay Buccaneers - Hillsborough County, FL
Tennessee Titans - City of Nashville and Davidson County

Even though these are owned by local or state governments, they technically are still considered private property.

The Superdome (New Orleans) is managed by a company out of Tennessee. That company manages many government owned civic and conventions centers around the country. Managing the facility is more like a play on words. They are hired to make a profit for the owner (city or state) but they are considered tenants.

So in other words, the building may be owned by a public entity but it leased to a tenant. During that lease period it falls under the rules of private property.

Think of it this way, if you lease or rent a room at a city community center to hold a party or wedding, who has the right to control who can enter that room?

 

[chrisjp]

so the end answer is: if we wish to gather anywhere in any potential situation of implied danger we will be subjected to someone else's actions of self preservation which includes ability to violate basic rights and freedoms? is that about correct based on what everyone else is saying and rationalizing? ...so i say...we the public get to inspect and pat down all crew members and officials at NASCAR races due to the potential "negligence" of those officials...or we can pat down and inspect all members of congress and state legislators along with lie detectors based on the possible ramifications of their "negligence" as one post already put...what is good for the goose is good for the gander...right?? why are you WILLING to forfeit your basic rights to not be touched or implied guilty of ANYTHING just because someone else who has a heck of allot more money than you wants to make sure you don't take their money by violating your rights in the name of "your safety" which in reality is their "profits"...come on ....it would be cheaper and less offensive to freak'n put metal detectors at each gate and wand.....cheaper and faster and just as efficient i would propose

 

[The Tekken]

so the end answer is: if we wish to gather anywhere in any potential situation of implied danger we will be subjected to someone else's actions of self preservation which includes ability to violate basic rights and freedoms? is that about correct based on what everyone else is saying and rationalizing?

Sheesh...you're STILL not getting it. Your "basic rights and freedoms" do not include taking a firearm onto private property if the owner (or in this case often renter) prohibits it! I'm not sure it can be put any simpler than that. You obviously WANT that to be your right, but it isn't! What is it you don't understand about that?

 

[chrisjp]

this discussion was NEVER about the want or need to carry a weapon...it was about the basic right of UNREASONABLE SEARCH OR SIEZURE... the implication that we under the false pretense of TERRORISM or as we have rationalized it down to .. PROFITS AND LIABILITY... and we are guilty till proven innocent... i NEVER mentioned in any of my posts a weapon!!! please for the love of god folks understand what i am saying here....NOBODY to protect their money or under a blanket fear of TERRORISM have ANY right to frisk ME!!

only others mentioned weapons...not me!!

 

[Gpmo]

Some public parks and national parks have public and private individuals monitoring and collecting fees for use. Along with some pools and city skate parks. So if the the public owns the land and building even if it is a local buisness that collects the revenue it's still considered a public place. Same with universities. And in a public place you ARE afforded your rights that come with being a legal citizen. That means no touchy touchy with out probable cause.

Also I believe the laws are not as cut and dry as if you own your business then you can tell customers what rights they can have at your business. If you are in a retail environment I believe that it is still considered a public area and all protected rights must be observed.

 

[Schexy1]

this discussion was NEVER about the want or need to carry a weapon...it was about the basic right of UNREASONABLE SEARCH OR SIEZURE... the implication that we under the false pretense of TERRORISM or as we have rationalized it down to .. PROFITS AND LIABILITY... and we are guilty till proven innocent... i NEVER mentioned in any of my posts a weapon!!! please for the love of god folks understand what i am saying here....NOBODY to protect their money or under a blanket fear of TERRORISM have ANY right to frisk ME!!

only others mentioned weapons...not me!!

I think the key word in your statement is "UNREASONABLE". We can even add "ILLEGAL". Nothing is unreasonable or illegal once you give consent. As someone stated earlier, consent is given when you purchase the ticket and in some cases once you cross the threshold.

I know a lot of people are worried about what they are losing with regards to the constitution but I look at it like this. The constitution was written over 200 years ago. Did the Founding Fathers get it right?

Here are some of the things that many of us have lost over the years:
The right to be property, to be bought and sold or even killed at the owner’s whim
The right to have your family become slaves or indentured servants because you owe someone money
The right to be forced to pay debts with sex
The right to marry a 10 year old
The right to be forced to marry someone not of your choosing
The right to work at the age of 8
The right to be killed on the job and be counted as an acceptable loss

Many things have changed since then and many things in the constitution are just not applicable today or at least need some serious revisions.

I guess the only positive I have seen in this thread so far is that no one has blamed Bush or Obama for this.

 

[kml]

I think the key word in your statement is "UNREASONABLE". We can even add "ILLEGAL". Nothing is unreasonable or illegal once you give consent. As someone stated earlier, consent is given when you purchase the ticket and in some cases once you cross the threshold.

I know a lot of people are worried about what they are losing with regards to the constitution but I look at it like this. The constitution was written over 200 years ago. Did the Founding Fathers get it right?

Here are some of the things that many of us have lost over the years:
The right to be property, to be bought and sold or even killed at the owner’s whim
The right to have your family become slaves or indentured servants because you owe someone money
The right to be forced to pay debts with sex
The right to marry a 10 year old
The right to be forced to marry someone not of your choosing
The right to work at the age of 8
The right to be killed on the job and be counted as an acceptable loss

Many things have changed since then and many things in the constitution are just not applicable today or at least need some serious revisions.

I guess the only positive I have seen in this thread so far is that no one has blamed Bush or Obama for this.

Man Oh man... Does this mean in olden days I would have been tied down and forced to paid off some of my Visa card with hot jiggy jiggy with the cute bank teller at the local credit union?

If that's so, let me tell ya, times are changing and not for the better....

lease:

cheers
ken

 

[The Tekken]

The right to be forced to pay debts with sex

Wait, wait...what was that one again?

I have a VERY attractive young female client who has not paid her bill. You mean I can collect that in sex?

Oh wow...WHAT a fekkin' country!!!

 

[The Tekken]

this discussion was NEVER about the want or need to carry a weapon...it was about the basic right of UNREASONABLE SEARCH OR SIEZURE...only others mentioned weapons...not me!!

You're right Chris. My apologies. Still...assuming what they are doing is legal the only thing you can do is vote with your wallet. Simply don't go!

 

[Gpmo]

So I am having this same convo with a friend in emails. I wanted to post his thought for you all to read as it is good. I don't exactly agree with him but it's still valid an worth the attention.

"Most stadiums receive public funds for their creation, but whoever is operating it for a specific event is the liable party. We threw away any semblance of privacy in November 2001 when our representatives passed the patriot act. Our litigious society sucks, but it's a hard issue to tackle because civil law protects our ability to seek reparation when we are harmed. I'd rather have an exploited and semi-functioning system than no system at all. That isn't to say we shouldn't seek to improve them, but I'm much more concerned with malfunctions in congress than with corporations trying to not get sued, personally. And the quote you were thinking of was "Those who trade their privacy for security will soon find they have neither."
Security ultimately is an illusion, but like I said, the searches aren't to make us safe, they are to prove that the operator did everything they could be expected to in an effort to make a safe environment so the don't get raped by the courts when I sue them because you snuck in a bottle and broke it on my head." - J

 

[Schexy1]

Man Oh man... Does this mean in olden days I would have been tied down and forced to paid off some of my Visa card with hot jiggy jiggy with the cute bank teller at the local credit union?

If that's so, let me tell ya, times are changing and not for the better....

lease:

cheers
ken

You might want to pay the bill, the collections department has been outsourced to a country where women aren't allowed to work. Unless you like to

 

[The Tekken]

Man Oh man... Does this mean in olden days I would have been tied down and forced to paid off some of my Visa card with hot jiggy jiggy with the cute bank teller at the local credit union?

If that's so, let me tell ya, times are changing and not for the better....

Is he tall?

 

[Sous]

You're right Chris. My apologies. Still...assuming what they are doing is legal the only thing you can do is vote with your wallet. Simply don't go!

It was my fault that weapons were brought into this discussion. You should remember, you commented on how it had nothing to do with the debate.

 

[The Tekken]

It was my fault that weapons were brought into this discussion. You should remember, you commented on how it had nothing to do with the debate.

Yeah...getting to that age I guess...!