State Fair Security Theater

[RPBrown]

My wife and I went last Thursday and had a similar occurrence. Before I could say anything about CHL he wanded me and did not detect anything. I was carrying my Colt Defender IWB. The wife also goyt wanded, she pulled out a small metal wallet she carries in her pocket with the essentials (DL, CHL, credit cards). She pulled it out and she was waved through also. She was carrying her XD9sc IWB.

Makes me feel warm and fuzzy knowing security is so tight (sarcasm off now)

[mojo84]

Wondering what kind of potential liability is created by giving the false appearance of safety and security when in fact, there really isn't much and the wanding is as ineffective as is being discussed here. If a store or private enterprise did such, I think they would be held liable if something bad happened. See Cracker Barrel thread where one seems to think they may be held liable for not responding to a domestic dispute as one thinks they should. I don't see where Cracker Barrel provides the appearance of security like they do at the state fair.

[RPBrown]

Wondering what kind of potential liability is created by giving the false appearance of safety and security when in fact, there really isn't much and the wanding is as ineffective as is being discussed here. If a store or private enterprise did such, I think they would be held liable if something bad happened. See Cracker Barrel thread where one seems to think they may be held liable for not responding to a domestic dispute as one thinks they should. I don't see where Cracker Barrel provides the appearance of security like they do at the state fair.

I think that due to the ease of access to outer fences, even if the gate security were tighter, getting a weapon inside would be extremely easy if someone so inclined to do so. With that, I am not sure they could or would be held liable.

With a store, however, IMHO, I would think that if they are posted they could and should be held liable as they have decided to prevent us from having the ability to protect ourselves and they are not providing us protection either. Last time I checked, a 30.06 sign wouldn't stop a bullet .

[Mark G26]

Had to laugh today, and share it here.

Picked up an extra day off, so my bride suggested that we go to the State Fair today..

We arrived, after a long traffic jam, and walked up to the gate.

The security person wanded me before I had a chance to declare that I was carrying. She wanded my left leg and my left butt, completely missing my 3:00 but alarming on my harmonicas. I pulled out some of my harmonicas and she waved me through.

They did not even scan me. Wonder if the wand even worked?

[hobbes]

I had a similar experience. Was wanded before I thought about asking for an officer. When the wand beeped, I was asked to empty my pockets. I pulled out my wallet from one pocket and my cell phone from the other, was re-wanded, still beeped, and was waved through. They never wanded where I was carrying at 6:00, and I realized later that I forgot to pull the spare magazine from my pocket!

[Pawpaw]

Last time I checked, a 30.06 sign wouldn't stop a bullet .

It depends on what it's made of & how thick it is.

[tornado]

It might be interesting to see how many times you could enter and not be detected. My guess would be that it is North of 30%. It may be WAY North of that.

So far in this thread, we're still at 100%. Any reports to the contrary?

[drjoker]

Deleted. It was unwise of me to describe how to circumvent security as it could be taken out of context.

[EEllis]

Wondering what kind of potential liability is created by giving the false appearance of safety and security when in fact, there really isn't much and the wanding is as ineffective as is being discussed here. If a store or private enterprise did such, I think they would be held liable if something bad happened. See Cracker Barrel thread where one seems to think they may be held liable for not responding to a domestic dispute as one thinks they should. I don't see where Cracker Barrel provides the appearance of security like they do at the state fair.

Among other thing there is the fact that they hire outside security for screenings. The security company would take the initial hit, usually up to a mil or so and only after that would the fair, which is it's own separate entity, be liable. There is also the issue where the Fair doesn't have to have perfect security they just have to make a reasonable effort. If no where is any more secure than the Fair then there is limited liability for the fair. Anyone can sue for anything so nothing will keep lawsuits from happening, but you try and stack the deck as best you can to maximize your arguments and lessen the other sides. The wanding theater may not make the Fair more secure but it does provide an argument that they are trying to make the Fair safer. In court the more effort they can show the less someone is likely to get and that correlates to smaller settlements if they negotiate when someone sues.