Cedar Point new security checkpoint

Yeah, Hawkeye brings up a point that is largely lost in the hate-response-to-hate that dominates our culture. It's convenient to just paint the guy as a radical jihadist, but claiming allegiance to ISIS right before you shoot 50 people doesn't really make you part of the scene. The known details so far suggest an American guy with a history of domestic abuse and bigotry who really hated gay people. The guy is as much a religious zealot as the nut job who went shooting up abortion clinics in Michigan.

With regards to surveillance, I think it's very important to remember that cameras in and of themselves do nothing. Having this kind of "behind the scenes security" is more about collecting evidence for after the fact than actually monitoring active situations. Coming from multiple facilities that operate hundreds of cameras, it's much more difficult than the movies make it seem to pick something out of the norm from a couple hundred still images at a time. The resources, training, and man power you need to truly monitor something like that outweighs the cost effectiveness of it, especially at public assembly venues like Cedar Point, You'll pretty much only see that type of monitoring in a casino-style environment, and even then they're not watching the people, just the dealers.

Individuals who are skilled at the kind of behavior detection you're talking about would be standing right at the checkpoint or are relatively close so that they can intervene if necessary, just as they are at the airport or at many of the more high profile checkpoints I've coordinated.

Just keep in mind that, through and through, there are a lot of things that you can do to minimize risk and to mitigate losses in the event of an incident. At public assembly venues however, we deal with these kinds of things in relatives, not absolutes. With these kinds of attacks, they're pretty much impossible to stop, so plans are developed around acceptable loss relative to the majority. It's a sad reality, but the reality that we currently live in none the less.

thedevariouseffect said:

Also, with a domestic issue, there's intelligence, but not as much as there used to be given a certain whistleblower.

That's simply untrue. If anything, federal agencies have too much intelligence. Even when agencies collected evidence only on certain suspicious individuals, those agencies were rarely able to draw conclusions from said evidence (see 9/11). Having more evidence to comb through does not improve the process. It makes it more cumbersome.

This jackass was literally investigated by the FBI specifically in the context of terrorism, and that still didn't result in preventing this. If that doesn't work, no amount of spying on me and my porn habits will improve things.

No, but this FBI screening didn't correlate with the actual purchase because that data wasn't included in the information on whether to sell this firearm to this individual.

thedevariouseffect said:

We're referring to overseas Daesh first.

Daesh had nothing to do with the Orlando killer. He was American born and learned his anti-gay hate from his daddy.

Sandy Hook, Aurora, etc had nothing to do with Daesh. "Overseas" hasn't been involved in ANY recent US terrorism/mass murders

thedevariouseffect said:

No, but this FBI screening didn't correlate with the actual purchase because that data wasn't included in the information on whether to sell this firearm to this individual.

I'm not talking about gun control.

I'm saying it's become clear that no amount of domestic surveillance is adequate to stop things like this, so there is absolutely no justification for blanket spying on US citizens, which is what you seemed to suggest with your "thanks to a certain whistleblower" comment.

The Big Picture

Paisley said:

Have there been any checkpoints set up at Soak City at all?

I saw it set up on one day when I was there, wanding people in bathing suits.

This topic has taken more unnecessary turns for the worst than Mean Streak.

I still agree with Pete. They don't need to wand & bag check people. It is an annoyance. Do they have enough security in place, yes. They have surveillance cameras all over the property, that scan the parking lots & toll booths. Plus, the CP security officers are commissioned through the city of Sandusky, and the bonded officers have full arrest powers. Instead of the wanding & bag checks, why not have some officers stand outside of the gates during opening & closing like they do at Kings Island?
Source about video surveillance, go to YouTube and type in cedar point police department. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xKyUmDerwfI

Who cares if it's annoying. In my opinion there are far more important things to worry about and be annoyed about than a simple security check. If it slows you routine down arrive earlier like you do at an airport.

It is annoying because it is unnecessary. If it was anything but theater and considered vital for the safety of guests, they would do it everyday instead of intermittently. It is just your conditioning to the fears of society that makes you think a check point is appropriate.

It's actually not done everyday is potentially intentional.

On our side it's called RAM: Random Antiterrorism Measures.

You up security randomly, intermittently, and irregular durations/times. It's done so someone watching security can't get a good schedule or know every process perfectly. The second part could be a reaction to a tip off, call in, credible threat, or other reasons.

I'm not saying that that's exactly what happens, in our line of work it's sometimes done deliberately. You may see a base start checking every car, or bring out bomb and dog drugs, increased security presence, longer checks, etc. It's all done so no one watching learns how we operate. The biggest thing is none of us are part of the security and police force on Point, so none of us have access to what they have. So everything here is just speculation, which proves it works, because that's exactly what security needs is full speculation, not factual information.

Pete said:

It is annoying because it is unnecessary. If it was anything but theater and considered vital for the safety of guests, they would do it everyday instead of intermittently. It is just your conditioning to the fears of society that makes you think a check point is appropriate.

To be fair, Josh made the point at CB that checkpoints may have deterred the Orlando jackass from targeting Downtown Disney, instead choosing the softer target of Pulse. In light of that detail, I would expect these checkpoints to become common or even permanent going forward.

Of course, even if we have checkpoints at every venue imaginable, the checkpoints themselves (bottlenecks of hundreds or thousands of people, herded like cattle) become a very desirable target. So we're not really solving anything with the checkpoints, we're just scrambling to contain the blowback.

The article said Disney Springs does not do security and bag checks, so choosing Pulse over Disney Springs because of security is false.

As for CP, thinking about when security theater runs, it seems to run at times when they have lots of teens and twenty somethings in the park. Seems to run a lot during spring school bus trips, major holidays like the 4th of July and then again during Halloweekends. Makes me think the main purpose is to curb under age drinking and perhaps keep things like knives, etc. out that certain kids may bring. I highly doubt anything like RAM is going on here. Can't say I blame them to try to keep the adolescents in line. As far as for everything else, the non-intrusive security they have in place seems to be effective and sufficient, even right after 911 when security was at the height of hysteria.

Pete said:

The article said Disney Springs does not do security and bag checks, so choosing Pulse over Disney Springs because of security is false.

Read it again. He chose Pulse over Disney Springs for whatever reason, but he BYPASSED Disney World because they DO have bag checks and metal detectors.

It even goes into minor details about how they visited and scoped out the place.

Yeah, my fault for misinterpreting Josh's point. He was scouting the two locations, it would seem, because they're softer than the others.

Pete said:

Makes me think the main purpose is to curb under age drinking...

Having visited both CP and KI on multiple occasions this year, and having encountered these checkpoints multiple times, the process would have never prevented someone from sneaking booze in. They wand you and check bags. A kid could easily smuggle in a bottle of whatever, provided it's non-metallic and fits in a pocket.

Well, you would think something as bulky as a bottle in a pocket would raise suspicion if they ask you to empty your pockets. Now, filling a Aquafina bottle with Vodka would probably work as I doubt they will take the cap off and sniff it.

Two times I purposely kept my cell in my pocket to see if they would catch it with the wand and they didn't. Same thing with the metal detectors at Progressive Field, walked right through with my cell phone in my pocket. Could easily have been a small weapon.

Pete said:

...if they ask you to empty your pockets.

They don't in my experience. They ask you to remove all metal objects from your pockets.

Two times I purposely kept my cell in my pocket to see if they would catch it with the wand and they didn't. Same thing with the metal detectors at Progressive Field, walked right through with my cell phone in my pocket. Could easily have been a small weapon.

I'm no metal detector expert, but I'm not sure that's true. These wands don't seem to provide a "yes" or "no" response sound, but instead the sound seems to vary depending on the amount or density of metal. I would be surprised if the amount or density of metal in a cell phone is anything like a gun, no matter how small.