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

111–120 of 140 posts

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

#111

Post by syshum »

idontpost wrote: post #90
dragonwriter wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It's also worth noting that most defendants never go to trial, and those who do mostly waive the right to a speedy trial. Speedy trial is more a right in theory than in practice these days.

More and more most rights seem to in theory only, for example a person is suppose to have to right to be free from searches unless there is probable cause they have committed a crime... except >>

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

#112

Post by rsync »

pc86 wrote: post #44
baybal2 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If they are not law enforcement, can you actively resist arrest and detainment with self defense? There is a substantiated legal opinion that DHS men are not law enforcement officers, and thus you can. I wonder, if anybody actually tried.

Nobody has tried because nobody has ever been arrested by the TSA. The TSA calls the airport police or local police and they arrest you. It's hard to imagine a scenario where airport police will not take the TSA's word for it.

"Nobody has tried because nobody has ever been arrested by the TSA. The TSA calls the airport police or local police and they arrest you. It's hard to imagine a scenario where airport police will not take the TSA's word for it."

I was in a situation very shortly after (as in, Oct/Nov 2001) 9/11 wherein the TSA (or whatever they were at that disorganized point) called the police over and the police officer openly derided and made fun of them for both not being actual law enforcement and having no idea what to do with the situation at hand.

Things are different now, of course ...

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

#113

Post by tptacek »

syshum wrote: post #108
tptacek wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is accurate. First: there are lots of places that actual police officers conduct administrative searches; for instance, any time you go to court. Second: if the TSA finds contraband during a search, you can be arrested for it, and that happens routinely. Yes, the airport police arrest you, not the TSA, but the arrest is based on evidence from the TSA's search. Do a Google search for [administrative…

>>First: there are lots of places that actual police officers conduct administrative searches; for instance, any time you go to court. This is where we start threading the needle on what a "search" is, the courts rules awhile back that a Metal Detector is not a search and I have never been to a government building where I had to do through more than Metal Detector and they did not Search me beyond that basic metal de…

As long as we agree that we're operating in different planes, mine where the Supreme Court matters and yours where it doesn't, I'm comfortable with us agreeing to disagree here.

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

#114

Post by forapurpose »

jschwartzi wrote: post #79
crazypyro wrote: post #73

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.

> An example is a military servicemember ... who needs to assault you to prevent you from assaulting someone else.

A military service member has no more authority or right to do that then a Hacker News member.

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

#115

Post by lisper »

beirut_bootleg wrote: post #66
rayiner wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TSA screeners are not authorized to make arrests or use force in the course of their duties. They will, however, call airport police, who are law enforcement officers, to do those things.

Would this be the same airport police that drags bloodied fliers from planes? I’m a magnet for random checks in the EU - getting my laptop swabbed for bomb-making material because oooh scary stickers or something. It may very well just be my luck, but regardless I’m staying the hell away from the US just on the basis of these TSA horror stories. You can keep your legal weed and I can keep my teeth.

> I’m staying the hell away from the US

I think that's wise. It is far from clear that, as a practical matter, the U.S. is still governed by the rule of law.

(I am a naturalized U.S. citizen, but even that doesn't give me a whole lot of confidence that the government won't fuck with me. I am having to think long and hard nowadays before saying anything critical of the U.S. government on line.)

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

#116

Post by clubm8 »

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 mean, do you stop and harangue off duty police officers? Members of the military?

Both are complicit in far worse IMHO.

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

#117

Post by dragonwriter »

idontpost wrote: post #90
dragonwriter wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It's also worth noting that most defendants never go to trial, and those who do mostly waive the right to a speedy trial. Speedy trial is more a right in theory than in practice these days.

> It's also worth noting that most defendants never go to trial, and those who do mostly waive the right to a speedy trial.

In terms of the right to study and public trial, that's kind of the ideal case, though the first part key be problematic for other reasons. If the government internalizes the speedy trial protection so as to not charge people until it is ready, or nearly do, to prosecute, then delay will usually be in the interest of the defense, who will not likely be prepared in advance of the initiation of the prosecution.

If the right had to be regularly invoked, that would be the sign of a serious problem.

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

#118

Post by forapurpose »

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…

> But if the federal agent is not a law enforcement officer, you can only sue her for negligent torts [and not for intentional torts]

That seems backward: I can grasp the argument that inevitably people will make unintentional mistakes in the course of their job and can't be sued every time. But based on rayiner's comment, they are liable for unintentional errors but not for intentional harm?

What is the point of that? Is there some context or history in which it makes sense? Or do I misunderstand?

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

#119

Post by DannyBee »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #110
DannyBee wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(i'll say i actually gravely dislike the TSA, but think this is clearly the right result) "The majority holding is probably correct as a matter of statutory interpretation." Yeah, agreed. Reading this statute, it's fairly clear it was not meant to apply here, but it does raise the sad issue of "we've separated these jobs enough to create a loophole". If they were designated LEOs, they'd clearly fall under the statute…

Yeah, there aren't that many complaints because they throw them away and most people know there's no point in filing a complaint in the first place. You get assaulted or molested by the TSA, you live with it.

No post body was provided.

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

#120

Post by mindslight »

dang wrote: post #106
mindslight wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry! I really hadn't intended it as flamebait, just a mild quip over the absolute futility of the situation. I honestly thought it would fit in with the HN consensus regarding the TSA.

I believe you! But comments like that are the first term of an infinite sequence leading to hell. The main insight is we're all responsible for what follows what we post. It's a bit weird, but it's a model that actually works. I think of it as similar to how one handles fire in other places, like campsites or gas stations.

Yeah. I had thought that given the topic, I was at a campsite and not a gas station.
Post reply on HN