dagies Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Back when I was in college we'd have been looking forward to a "welcome" like this to a hockey game. Or to Upson, Gamble, the Union, the Spud, etc. I could understand why forecheck might complain, but Dirty/Diggler of all people?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diggler Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 I wouldn't mind be groped by some of the chicks, but GropoCop looks like Grizzly Adams ugly sister. Plus she stole my pop at the WJC. I'm still bitter! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 In fact, I know 4 guys who were team hosts at the WJT tournament who told me that she would routinely place herself in a position to be able to check out the players while they were walking around in the lockerooms w/o their breezers.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, it wasn't all that difficult to do. I saw a naked Czech player without even trying. Maybe it's a European thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 I wouldn't mind be groped by some of the chicks, but GropoCop looks like Grizzly Adams ugly sister. Plus she stole my pop at the WJC. I'm still bitter!  Ok, I get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyMom Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 They just need to get rid of the GropoCop. Students know who I'm talking about. Seriously, nearly every student who has ever attended a hockey game could charge this lady with sexual harrasment. She either hates students, loves groping students or both. That made me laugh, probably harder than I should have laughed. Anyway, I was incorrect yesteday when I thought the searches were legal but using the evidence was not. I still think that they should search people when they come in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Well, it wasn't all that difficult to do. I saw a naked Czech player without even trying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyMom Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 I wouldn't mind be groped by some of the chicks, but GropoCop looks like Grizzly Adams ugly sister. Plus she stole my pop at the WJC. I'm still bitter!  <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ok, that makes it wrong. How did she steal your pop? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Didn't you mean to use this smiley  instead of this one , PCM? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> In my best Hank Hill voice: Dang it! NO! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diggler Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Ok, that makes it wrong. How did she steal your pop? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Cause I tried to smuggle it in. The one time I try! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyMom Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Cause I tried to smuggle it in. The one time I try!  <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What a skank. Grizzly Adams' sister.......I'm gonna make sure I find her the next game I'm at. I'll make sure I don't get too close though. I wonder if she looks like the lady that wrote parking tickets when I went to UND. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDProud Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 I go to all the games and have used various doors over the years. I have had to open my purse, been patted down, and have also walked on through without being questioned and I definately do not look like a college student. The way I read the ruling is that they didn't have the right to charge him with a crime, but had the right to do the search. Therefore, in the future, the punishment for getting caught will be that you can't come in to that game. I think our security just took a hit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Ya know, you really do have lovely, eyelashes <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I saw him first! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 I saw him first! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 I saw him first! Geez guys, rent a (chat)room. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyMom Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 OK, I wasn't going to tell my story of run-ins with security, but I will now. My building has a contract with a security company that shall remain nameless. During a recent rotation change, we were assigned a new 250-300 lb female security guard. This lady felt compelled to introduce herself to me during her first week. She interrupts herself and throws in the comment "wow...you have gorgeous eyelashes," which I totally ignore as she moves on with her introduction. A week later, I walk into work wearing a yellow Michigan jacket that I had purchased last year during during a visit to Ann Arbor. This woman proceeds to lean over to me after I walk thru the security unit and practically whispers "you know...I have a slinky silk dress that same yellow color at home." This poor woman had no idea what my job title was, but she did figure out the next morning as she was re-assigned. Honestly, I still wake up to nightmares...oh the horror! Good Lord! Can a pup tent truly be slinky? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
administrator Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Sorry to hijack the thread, but can people really not edit their posts? There were a couple such complaints in this thread. I just tested it with a standard "member" account and it works for me. Our intent is for you to be able to edit your own posts for 24 hours so you can fix typos, change your mind, etc... When you're viewing a thread like this, there should be a green edit button in the lower right corner (just left of "quote") of any individual post that you made within the last day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyMom Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Sorry to hijack the thread, but can people really not edit their posts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 I saw him first! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> PCM, I had no idea! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinnesotaNorthStar Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 PCM, I had no idea! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Run away......fast... I have no problem being searched. But, if the officer felt something he thought was contraband he should have been allowed to ask him to remove it. I know I've been asked to remove smokes from my pocket on numerous occasions just to verify it wasn't something else.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDLAW Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Run away......fast... I have no problem being searched. But, if the officer felt something he thought was contraband he should have been allowed to ask him to remove it. I know I've been asked to remove smokes from my pocket on numerous occasions just to verify it wasn't something else.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think the decision in the current case involved two main points... 1) Was the search voluntary; and 2) Was the search in violation of equal protection. First, just because you enter the establishment (i.e. REA), you may be saying "Yea, you can search me and... if you find something you don't want me to bring in... you can take it... but don't use it against me for use in a criminal proceeding." Moreover, if you are using "public" persons to do this (i.e. peace officers, etc.), make sure those persons know that they are only there for the purpose of upholding the REA's rules. That makes a difference. Second, if you want to search people... search EVERYONE... not just students. For if you only search students, you are... as I think the ND Supreme Court was trying to get at... you better have a better excuse or justification. Remember, it is against the REA rules to bring in outside drinks, food, etc., for anyone. However, if you only harp on students, you are being selective in you enforcement and such enforcement is being accomplished by a state actor. Therefore, tread lightly. The result... search everyone or no one upon entry and have the cops arrest and sieze evidence only upon those items being found in the open once inside the REA. That way, it affects those students and non-students alike! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 I think the decision in the current case involved two main points... 1) Was the search voluntary; and 2) Was the search in violation of equal protection. First, just because you enter the establishment (i.e. REA), you may be saying "Yea, you can search me and... if you find something you don't want me to bring in... you can take it... but don't use it against me for use in a criminal proceeding." Moreover, if you are using "public" persons to do this (i.e. peace officers, etc.), make sure those persons know that they are only there for the purpose of upholding the REA's rules. That makes a difference. Second, if you want to search people... search EVERYONE... not just students. For if you only search students, you are... as I think the ND Supreme Court was trying to get at... you better have a better excuse or justification. Remember, it is against the REA rules to bring in outside drinks, food, etc., for anyone. However, if you only harp on students, you are being selective in you enforcement and such enforcement is being accomplished by a state actor. Therefore, tread lightly. The result... search everyone or no one upon entry and have the cops arrest and sieze evidence only upon those items being found in the open once inside the REA. That way, it affects those students and non-students alike! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If the goal is to keep out booze and dead rodents, perhaps they'll just hire REA personnel to search for contraband rather than police officers. That would probably alleviate many headaches for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diggler Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 I can completely see keeping out alcohol, but I've never understood why they are so against gophers being brought in. Sure take them away if students are sneaking them in in plain sight, but other then that let it go. What's the big deal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 I can completely see keeping out alcohol, but I've never understood why they are so against gophers being brought in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.