Cedar Point new security checkpoint

Sunday afternoon there was no security at the front gate. We got in around 1:30pm. When we left shortly before 8pm the front parking lot was considerably more full than when we arrived. If they had checked anyone earlier how much good did it really do if one fourth of the people parked in the front lot just waltzed right in like we did because they came later in the day?

On Sunday the security theater was not there, I think they only do it on Friday and Saturday, when all the outdoor haunts are open.

As someone mentioned, some of the Tenable people need to work on their social skills. The guy late Saturday night saw me and just said "raise em", not exactly a good way to welcome someone to Cedar Point.

CPNostalgia said:
Agreed. I read all of the posts on this thread and I was scratching my head over how everyone was so bothered by a taking a couple of minutes out of their time to increase their safety.

It's the idea that you're assumed to be a criminal that is the problem. Last Friday, I was walking out of work to my car after staying late to do an upgrade. I was carrying two unopened bottles of beer and two pieces of pizza. Some doofus security guy outside of the arena where they were having a concert goes, "Better hope the GRPD doesn't see you carrying those." WTF? Since when is carrying unopened beer a crime? How do you get it home from the store? Mind your own business.

As far as CP, I think these security measures accomplish nothing. Yes it's their property and they can do what they want so it's not violating my Constitutional rights - that would be the case if government were wanding me or asking for my papers when walking down the street (which will probably happen at some point in the future). But it doesn't mean I have to like their procedures. I wonder if in park security presence has been reduced because they are spending extra on the wanding goon squad outside the gate? I also wonder why it's so random or why sometimes I can leave my keys in my pocket and the thing beeps three of tour times and the dude says "go ahead." They are wasting their money on these guys. I agree with other people. If someone wants to do damage to people, they will find a way - whether it's getting a weapon in under a fence, in a baby stroller, using it on the people in the security line outside, or whatever.

MDOmnis said:

I was carrying two unopened bottles of beer and two pieces of pizza. Some doofus security guy ... goes, "Better hope the GRPD doesn't see you carrying those." WTF? Since when is carrying unopened beer a crime?

It was the pizza. It's against the law to carry open slices of pizza in GR. :-)

I wonder if in park security presence has been reduced because they are spending extra on the wanding goon squad outside the gate?

At amusement parks or elsewhere, I wonder about that myself.

I'm also wondering: does have Security Theater at the gate, or at any entrance, provide the business with a defense in a legal proceeding? "Golly, we're super sorry nine people were killed in the rampage, but we screen pretty much everyone and the perpetrator was clever enough to get by us"?

That's an interesting question. Does the park have a duty to ensure that its property is devoid of any weapons? Or is posting that they are not allowed sufficient action since it is not specifically banned in state laws? Maybe attempting to have security checks at the entrances actually opens them up if something happens since they acknowledged the potential of an incident but failed to stop it? Are there any lawyers on here? :)

I hope not. I don't want these checkpoints to become standard procedure because of some legal bull****. They seem to only appear on random days, which leads me to believe that is not the case.

Top_Thrill_Tyler said:

Does the park have a duty to ensure that its property is devoid of any weapons?

No, not unless they make it clear that they are actively preventing all weapons from entering the park.

It's private property, it's posted (presumably). They have a fully sworn law enforcement agency on-site in case any issues arise.

If they tell guests that they do prevent all weapons from entering the property, and then one slips through and is used, they would likely be liable. However, if they tell guests not to bring a weapon on property, and a guest does so, the guest is liable. You can't hold the property owner liable unless they take responsibility. You can't hold Cedar Fair liable for a guest climbing a fence and being fatally struck by a Raptor train, for instance.

Note: IANAL.

Thabto said:

If a criminal wants to do something, they will find a way.

This is a terrible reason to not have security checkpoints. Going by this logic nothing should ever have a lock on it because if a criminal wants to get into whatever is on the other side of the lock "they will find a way". While we are at there shouldn't be passwords to get into any accounts because if a hacker want to get into your account "they will find a way". Some of you don't seem to get the point of security checkpoints, they are not there to stop every single malicious attack because that is not realistically possible, they are there to stop some from happening. It's just like locking your car door, you will deter some criminals from breaking in but not all. I am all for a private entity doing what they see fit to keep their customers safer and thus, protecting their business. If they can prevent one incident then that means they are protecting their investment from taking a hit. If something happens big or small it will scare off some people from visiting, thus causing them to lose money.

Dead Sexeh said:I am all for a private entity doing what they see fit to keep their customers safer and thus, protecting their business. If they can prevent one incident then that means they are protecting their investment from taking a hit. If something happens big or small it will scare off some people from visiting, thus causing them to lose money.

And being strip-searched before being allowed to enter your friendly neighborhood Walmart will not push customers away? Are you consenting to that?

They can protect their properties and prevent incidents without making a huge inconvenience at the entrance. They can get more cops to patrol the park or set up security cameras. And to add to the post above, I think these checkpoints will push people away. The few of us here on these boards are not the only ones upset about this, how many people do you think may spend their money elsewhere at a place you won't get searched?

topthrilldragster4lyf said:

Dead Sexeh said:I am all for a private entity doing what they see fit to keep their customers safer and thus, protecting their business. If they can prevent one incident then that means they are protecting their investment from taking a hit. If something happens big or small it will scare off some people from visiting, thus causing them to lose money.

And being strip-searched before being allowed to enter your friendly neighborhood Walmart will not push customers away? Are you consenting to that?

Yes because a non contact wanding is the same as a strip search

Thabto said:

They can protect their properties and prevent incidents without making a huge inconvenience at the entrance. They can get more cops to patrol the park or set up security cameras. And to add to the post above, I think these checkpoints will push people away. The few of us here on these boards are not the only ones upset about this, how many people do you think may spend their money elsewhere at a place you won't get searched?

So you are ok with them being able to watch every step you take in the park along with being able to profile people who seem "strange"(strange could be any minority or the hot blonde in yoga pants), but it is too intrusive for them to check your bag or use a metal detector to scan for objects?

I would say vary few if any people would not visit the park due to a non intrusive wanding. My reason for thinking this is because parks for years have used metal detectors and bag searches. It also seems that according to this thread people are taking more visits to the park to see if they are doing a security search at that time of day. There has been no one on here who has made the stance of if they use metal detectors then i am not going to the park. It has been a lot of I don't like it and am looking for something to complain about.

Can't wait for the inevitable traffic jam during halloweekends so everyone can scurry over there to complain about how poor of a job the park did managing traffic :)

"Hi, this wanding is certainly not intrusive, I am simply placing this phallic object between your legs and in very close proximity to your chest, among other areas."

Wanding is intrusive. Security cameras mounted atop posts and buildings are, of course, not being held between my legs while I try to enter the park. And Security Theater is useless unless every guest... and every employee... and every vendor...and every contractor.... is screened every time they set foot on Cedar Fair property.

I highly doubt anyone is going to the park more often just to see if they get searched. Some of us go very often and at odd times which we never would have bothered mentioning before the security checkpoints became a topic of conversation.

Dead Sexeh said:

Thabto said:

If a criminal wants to do something, they will find a way.

This is a terrible reason to not have security checkpoints. Going by this logic nothing should ever have a lock on it because if a criminal wants to get into whatever is on the other side of the lock "they will find a way". While we are at there shouldn't be passwords to get into any accounts because if a hacker want to get into your account "they will find a way". Some of you don't seem to get the point of security checkpoints, they are not there to stop every single malicious attack because that is not realistically possible, they are there to stop some from happening. It's just like locking your car door, you will deter some criminals from breaking in but not all. I am all for a private entity doing what they see fit to keep their customers safer and thus, protecting their business. If they can prevent one incident then that means they are protecting their investment from taking a hit. If something happens big or small it will scare off some people from visiting, thus causing them to lose money.

Logically, we really should not need locks or passwords. But there are people out there who do not care about others and do things (sometimes illegally) in a selfish attempt to get what they want. Using locks and passwords is a deterrent to the large percentage of "lazy criminals" that, somehow, think it's okay to take what isn't theirs, but only if it's not completely protected.

Ever heard the commandment to love your neighbor? If someone believes that, they wouldn't be going after something that isn't theirs.

Dead Sexeh said:

topthrilldragster4lyf said:

Dead Sexeh said:I am all for a private entity doing what they see fit to keep their customers safer and thus, protecting their business. If they can prevent one incident then that means they are protecting their investment from taking a hit. If something happens big or small it will scare off some people from visiting, thus causing them to lose money.

And being strip-searched before being allowed to enter your friendly neighborhood Walmart will not push customers away? Are you consenting to that?

Yes because a non contact wanding is the same as a strip search

No one claimed that. You said:

Dead Sexeh said:I am all for a private entity doing what they see fit to keep their customers safer

Bolded for emphasis. If Walmart saw fit to strip search you, you would be okay with that. That's what you said.

noggin said:

"Hi, this wanding is certainly not intrusive, I am simply placing this phallic object between your legs and in very close proximity to your chest, among other areas."

Wanding is intrusive. Security cameras mounted atop posts and buildings are, of course, not being held between my legs while I try to enter the park. And Security Theater is useless unless every guest... and every employee... and every vendor...and every contractor.... is screened every time they set foot on Cedar Fair property.

It's not useless if everyone isn't screened(hint locking car door example). The presence of security deters the lazy criminals for attempting attacks.

What if I told you that there is a safety protocol that happens to almost everyone in the park multiple times and is just as if not more intrusive than the wanding. The only reason this protocol is there is too keep the guest safe. It involves employees with their hands by your legs, sometimes between them and even sometimes touching your legs (gasp human contact). This procedure is also done in a manor where some employees don't do a proper security check and others do it in a very rude manner. The only reason that everyone doesn't have a problem with this security aspect is because they have always had to deal with it. This security aspect is checking restraints. This just seems to be people complaining of change and possibly people upset that they can no longer sneak water bottles and other things into the park.

topthrilldragster4lyf said:

Dead Sexeh said:

Dead Sexeh said:I am all for a private entity doing what they see fit to keep their customers safer

Bolded for emphasis. If Walmart saw fit to strip search you, you would be okay with that. That's what you said.

Stawman

Dead Sexeh said:

This security aspect is checking restraints.

Is this where I bring up the argument that having operators check restraints isn't necessary? No...not the right place? :)

I'm with Thabto and everyone else who is against the Security Theater. Someone above mentioned they don't like being treated as a criminal or guilty party, which is EXACTLY how I feel. I went to CP last friday and was really shocked that Security Theater was there for opening night for HalloWeekends. I'm not happy about this at all and I truly hope this doesn't become a daily occurence for cedar point. It's not as bad as King's Dominion's security checkpoint, I will say that. That park makes one feel like they are trying to board a plane for crying out loud! But I can see Cedar Point getting to that degree.

Dead Sexeh said:

topthrilldragster4lyf said:

Dead Sexeh said:

Dead Sexeh said:I am all for a private entity doing what they see fit to keep their customers safer

Bolded for emphasis. If Walmart saw fit to strip search you, you would be okay with that. That's what you said.

Stawman

Yours is the straw man. Fail, troll.

Dead Sexeh said:
The presence of security deters the lazy criminals for attempting attacks.

I assume you mean "from" attempting attacks. So the presence of Security Theater at the Marina gate will persuade the "lazy" criminal who went to all the bother of loading his gun and secreting it in his backpack, who's approaching the Soak City gate, which has no Security Theater, to not follow through on his planned massacre?

This procedure is also done in a manor...

Huh. I thought it was done on the ride platform, not in a large country house.

This security aspect is checking restraints.

I'm okay with people being in my personal space checking restraints: they are ensuring my safety in preparation for a specific experience. It's the worthless wanding at the gate I object to.