Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 140 posts

Re: TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court

#21

Post by staunch »

mindslight wrote: post #2

The best interaction I ever had with the TSA was when I came upon a pair openly wearing their uniforms around a grocery store, so I was able to call them fascist child molesters to their faces.

That's incredibly cowardly of you.

You're using "fighting words" which is not speech that is protected under the first amendment.

The common response to fighting words like this is a fistfight. In this case you're making a coward's bet that they value their source of income enough not to kick your ass.

A police officer might have (legally) arrested you for trying to start a fight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words#United_States

Re: TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court

#22

Post by staunch »

ihsw2 wrote: post #16
clubm8 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>* The best interaction I ever had with the TSA was when I came upon a pair openly wearing their uniforms around a grocery store, so I was able to call them fascist child molesters right to their faces.* I'm no fan of the TSA, but do you think that was productive? Maybe direct your ire at the people at the top who make these policies instead. There's been progress on that front with several Trump administration offic…

> There's been progress on that front with several Trump administration officials confronted while dining for example. Normalizing the harassment of elected officials is dangerous and it puts us on a direct path towards politically-motivated random acts of violence.

It's the exact reason the Roman Republic failed!

The powerful political actors realized they could just physically intimidate and impede their opponents with gangs. No one that believes in a functioning society should support politically motivated violence of any kind.

Re: TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court

#23

Post by bilbo0s »

madengr wrote: post #20
rayiner wrote: post #4

The opinion is here (should be up on the CA3 website later today): http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=310762278918844... . The relevant discussion starts at 12-13. The gist of the suit is this: Ordinarily, you cannot sue the federal government (sovereign immunity). The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), broadly waives sovereign immunity for tort claims. An exception to that waiver of immunity is where the agen…

Now, can you assault one without some sort of trumped up federal charge?

"...can you assault one without some sort of trumped up federal charge?..."

???

Genuinely curious here, if a person assaults someone who works for the federal government, (or even the local government for that matter), and they charge him/her for that assault...

is that charge really "trumped up"?

I thought that there were actually laws against that?

Isn't "trumped up" when you DON'T actually assault the federal or local government person and they SAY that you did in order to charge you with a crime?

Re: TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court

#24

Post by [deleted] »

madengr wrote: post #20
rayiner wrote: post #4

The opinion is here (should be up on the CA3 website later today): http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=310762278918844... . The relevant discussion starts at 12-13. The gist of the suit is this: Ordinarily, you cannot sue the federal government (sovereign immunity). The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), broadly waives sovereign immunity for tort claims. An exception to that waiver of immunity is where the agen…

Now, can you assault one without some sort of trumped up federal charge?

[deleted]

Re: TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court

#25

Post by kevin_b_er »

rayiner wrote: post #4

The opinion is here (should be up on the CA3 website later today): http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=310762278918844... . The relevant discussion starts at 12-13. The gist of the suit is this: Ordinarily, you cannot sue the federal government (sovereign immunity). The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), broadly waives sovereign immunity for tort claims. An exception to that waiver of immunity is where the agen…

So who's responsible for abuse by the TSA now or is the TSA and its officers totally immune from illegal acts?

Re: TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court

#26

Post by rayiner »

bilbo0s wrote: post #23
madengr wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now, can you assault one without some sort of trumped up federal charge?

"...can you assault one without some sort of trumped up federal charge?..." ??? Genuinely curious here, if a person assaults someone who works for the federal government, (or even the local government for that matter), and they charge him/her for that assault... is that charge really "trumped up"? I thought that there were actually laws against that? Isn't "trumped up" when you DON'T actually assault the federal or l…

Assault/battery are state law crimes or civil torts. But 18 USC 111 makes it a federal crime to assault any federal employee (not just law enforcement officers) in the performance of her duties. Presumably, OP is referring to the idea that having special laws to make assault a federal, rather than state, crime is "trumped up."

Re: TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court

#27

Post by instaheat »

existencebox wrote: post #11
clubm8 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>* The best interaction I ever had with the TSA was when I came upon a pair openly wearing their uniforms around a grocery store, so I was able to call them fascist child molesters right to their faces.* I'm no fan of the TSA, but do you think that was productive? Maybe direct your ire at the people at the top who make these policies instead. There's been progress on that front with several Trump administration offic…

First, and more clearcut, I don't think ire should be limited. Those who voluntarily participate in enforcing the current system are not exempt from the fallout of their choices any more than much of HN would suggest engineers be exempt from the ethical decisions of our employment. Look recently, people are saying Microsoft employees should quit because MS sells office products to ICE. If that's the line in the sand…

I would have taken that opportunity to throw up on the agent.

Re: TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court

#28

Post by binarymax »

rayiner wrote: post #4

The opinion is here (should be up on the CA3 website later today): http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=310762278918844... . The relevant discussion starts at 12-13. The gist of the suit is this: Ordinarily, you cannot sue the federal government (sovereign immunity). The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), broadly waives sovereign immunity for tort claims. An exception to that waiver of immunity is where the agen…

If they are not law enforcement, can you actively resist arrest and detainment with self defense?

Re: TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court

#29

Post by mindslight »

staunch wrote: post #21
mindslight wrote: post #2

The best interaction I ever had with the TSA was when I came upon a pair openly wearing their uniforms around a grocery store, so I was able to call them fascist child molesters to their faces.

That's incredibly cowardly of you. You're using "fighting words" which is not speech that is protected under the first amendment. The common response to fighting words like this is a fistfight. In this case you're making a coward's bet that they value their source of income enough not to kick your ass. A police officer might have (legally) arrested you for trying to start a fight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighti…

Given that it's political speech, and given that I am unable to state this opinion in the direct venue - while I'm being assaulted and detained by them - I think it's justified. Or at least worth playing the grey areas if we're doing any individual action to stand up for our rights. Also, I was a decade younger.

I don't see how anything you've said supports the characterization of "cowardly", unless you mean I was wrong to say something that could be classified as "fighting words" and then not back it up with fighting.

Re: TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court

#30

Post by bilbo0s »

rayiner wrote: post #26
bilbo0s wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...can you assault one without some sort of trumped up federal charge?..." ??? Genuinely curious here, if a person assaults someone who works for the federal government, (or even the local government for that matter), and they charge him/her for that assault... is that charge really "trumped up"? I thought that there were actually laws against that? Isn't "trumped up" when you DON'T actually assault the federal or l…

Assault/battery are state law crimes or civil torts. But 18 USC 111 makes it a federal crime to assault any federal employee (not just law enforcement officers) in the performance of her duties. Presumably, OP is referring to the idea that having special laws to make assault a federal, rather than state, crime is "trumped up."

So wait, is OP saying that 18 USC 111 is a "trumped up" law?
Post reply on HN