81–90 of 140 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait..so, a federal employee, if they are not a law enforcement official, can punch you as part of their job and not get into legal trouble?
No, a federal employee can punch you while carrying out their job and the federal government does not get into legal trouble. (Is the way I understood it from reading the post above.)
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.
>* 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 wr…
There are much more effective ways you could protest the TSA. Mouthing off to random employees in a grocery store was clearly not chosen based on effectiveness but laziness, so don't lie to yourself about the lack of venues. It's cowardly because you wouldn't use fighting words like this in a context where you believed they might respond like many reasonable people would: with a punch in the mouth. You're hiding behi…
I didn't ask myself the best way to protest the TSA, and then choose to go find some agents in a grocery store. I was there to buy groceries, which I still accomplished.
> you wouldn't use fighting words like this in a context where you believed they might respond like many reasonable people would: a punch in the mouth
I think our disagreement is fundamentally based on your considering it reasonable for someone to respond violently to a verbal insult? This is going to depend entirely on personal and local culture, and I do not have such expectation. I'm used to the response being a quicker retort, and going your separate ways. If someone resorts to starting a fight it's an automatic loss in the court of public opinion.
> your personal opinion that they're fascists and child molesters
They're patently fascist, having power due to the synergy of government and corporations. Ping-ponging between the two legal regimes is the basis of being able to force you into a warrantless search, yet still dole out federal penalties.
And they're plainly molesters - both with the rummaging through our personal effects, and every time one of their hands brushes my nuts. I personally don't have direct evidence to warranty "child" (although I would imagine they would have to be fondling them too?), but it is a concept our society understands.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> Turns out all this was over a pair of nail clippers the wife forgot she had packed... Nail clippers are not allowed now!? I fly with nail clippers all the time (including to/from the US) and have never had an issue. Looking at the TSA site, nail clippers are explicitly permitted as well [1]. Was the agent actively looking to hassle you? [1] https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/whatcanibring/...
[0] https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-chromium-scissors-scissor-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Heh point taken. I'm no slave to civility by any means, but I am mindful that screaming at a couple off duty agents trying to shop, who I've had no prior interaction with, probably does not help my cause ;-)
I didn't "scream", but stated. They ended up making the scene, I did not. We've all got pent up frustration, but when dealing with thugs they're inevitably going to try to escalate - so you need to remain calm. I do think it is useful to influence what is perceived as being the general consensus. Both generally for public opinion, and specifically to undermine the organization's morale. In fact, that's also what my c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it would have been perfectly reasonable for German citizens to make uniformed members of the SS feel uncomfortable and unwanted by means short of violence. Is this situation different? Is the difference one of quality or quantity?
Are you seriously asking if the situation of the TSA is different than the situation of the SS in Nazi Germany?
It appears to be provoking a kneejerk response from people who don't want to address the question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, a federal employee can punch you while carrying out their job and the federal government does not get into legal trouble. (Is the way I understood it from reading the post above.)
If punching someone* is within the scope of their employment by the federal government and the person doing the punching is not a law enforcement officer, you cannot sue that individual for intentional torts. *not sure why it would be, if you weren't a law enforcement personnel
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.
And the response from the government is that either it's fake news or that they just don't care.
To a lot of people this is an injustice. And they have no avenue to demand change.
These people ruin lives. Imagine what kind of mental trauma these children will have for the rest of their lives.
And they get upset that people don't treat them with respect when they go about their lives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If punching someone* is within the scope of their employment by the federal government and the person doing the punching is not a law enforcement officer, you cannot sue that individual for intentional torts. *not sure why it would be, if you weren't a law enforcement personnel
An example is a military servicemember or police officer who needs to assault you to prevent you from assaulting someone else. Normally you could sue but because they're preventing you from committing a crime by use of force they have immunity.
Intentional torts against "investigative or law enforcement officers" are specifically permitted by the FTCA.
The loophole is when a federal employee is specifically not a law enforcement officer.
> She and her husband had sued for false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution over a July 2006 altercation at Philadelphia International Airport. Why does it take 12 years to get this far in a case? It seems like a right to a speedy trial should apply to civil cases too.
> It seems like a right to a speedy trial should apply to civil cases too. It doesn't apply to civil cases, and it doesn't apply to the suing party in any case: it applies to the defense (only) in criminal cases. Read the Sixth Amendment. If you’d like to change that, there is a process for Constitutional Amendments. There are good reasons attached to the impacts of pending criminal charges (which can include pre-tri…
Speedy trial is more a right in theory than in practice these days.