"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
Matt Whiting wrote:
It is obvious that you haven't yet learned to think on your own and
probably are still living with your parents.

You've now posted several personal attacks against Emily. She correctly
understood the law in one of her anecdotes and yet was attacked for
defending her rightful actions. I've posted elsewhere information that
supports her position. Your attack posts are self-referentially absurd and
I'm surprised you don't realize how this comes across.


First of all, "Emily" didn't in any shape or form correctly understand the
law in her self explained antics dealing with airport security. You are
completely wrong if you believe this.
Quite frankly, you "legal hair splitters" make my hair hurt! :-)
Secondly, duly appointed and authorized airport security has legal authority
to approach anyone at anytime, anywhere on the airport property.....period!
The manner of this approach is of course always subject to "hair splitting"
interpretation by people like you and Emily, but make no mistake about it ,
if you are on an airport property that is protected under law by an acting
authorized security agency, you have no "free or public zone" where your
"rights" of privacy take precedent over this authority. You may not like it,
and the security approach might not meet with your "delicate interpretation
"of your "rights", but like it or not, its perfectly legal.
As I said before, the system stinks , and there are good cops and there are
bad cops out there. But the fact remains; they are still duly authorized
cops, on their own duly authorized ground, and only people more concerned
with themselves than they are with security, start the type of idiotic
response to being approached that you and Emily are endorsing.
Dudley Henriques