> they do not function as “investigative or law enforcement officers.”
But they can arrest people?
TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court
121–130 of 140 posts
Re: TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court
#122Earlier 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 a slippery slope to "politically-motivated acts of violence" in this country. Boom. A direct, slippery, direct path. We better watch out. Yelling at a bad person eating in a Mexican restaurant could be the new Fort Sumter.
Anyway, gotta jet and get home. Probably gonna walk past the only abortion clinic within 500 miles that has bulletproof glass windows and got firebomed for like the 30th time last week and over the past 20 years by right-wing terrorists. This is normal and not strange at all. I do it every day I'm not working from home.
Re: TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court
#123I don't understand, shouldn't them not functioning as “investigative or law enforcement officers” expose them to more liability, not less ??
I believe LEOs are given immunity so long as they act in "good faith," e.g. the "I feared for my life" defense.
The exceptions to the exceptions to the exceptions on immunity are confusing. You seem to be referring to self-defense cases, which are something else altogether and not limited to law enforcement.
Re: TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
So who's responsible for abuse by the TSA now or is the TSA and its officers totally immune from illegal acts?
The TSA has an administrative process for filing claims (like most agencies). They went through that and it was denied. There is no claim in that lawsuit that the process was not fair or reasonable.
It's a bit ridiculous that the only process for this sort of thing is a recipe for bias and lack of justice. If an agency that is known for incompetence and overreach is simply allowed to investigate itself, without any independent oversight, I don't have much faith that complaints are given a fair hearing.
Re: TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court
#125The 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 tha…
It's really the difference between negligence and justifiable harm.
If the officer is negligent, they're not immune. That seems to make sense to me.
If they intentionally harm you, and that harm is justified in the course of their duty (say, they hit you with a nightstick and break your arm in order to stop you from attacking someone else), then they're immune. That seems to make sense to me as well.
The problem is when they claim that the harm was necessary and justified, but that they could have -- just as safely -- de-escalated the situation another way. Then it becomes a judgment call: was this harm justified-intentional or negligent? Unfortunately the review boards and courts err on the side of the LEOs nearly universally on this one.
Re: TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court
#126Earlier 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
Just out of curiosity, doesn't this leave a large loophole for extrajudicial gangsterism if the government created a job that included, say, punching people who didn't pay their taxes?
It's not a loophole if people follow a law's explicit purpose.
Re: TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If its a police officer, you can sue for intentional torts because it was committed by a "investigative or law enforcement officer". 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.
Sorry, I don't know who upvoted me but you're obviously right.
Re: TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.)
Only come to the US if you really have to do so. I also think conferences should move elsewhere in more neutral and accepting places.
US under the name of nationalism has become quite a racist country. I have a common surname and I always get stopped and questioned because I have a certain surname. Half an hour extra for every international flight even though I am a permanent resident here.
It’s just stupid. Traveling to/from US is a menace.
Re: TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 tha…
It's really the difference between negligence and justifiable harm. If the officer is negligent, they're not immune. That seems to make sense to me. If they intentionally harm you, and that harm is justified in the course of their duty (say, they hit you with a nightstick and break your arm in order to stop you from attacking someone else), then they're immune. That seems to make sense to me as well. The problem is w…
We're not talking specifically about non-LEOs. Remember that the GP says,
> if the federal agent is not a law enforcement officer, you can only sue her for negligent torts [and not for intentional torts]
Re: TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's really the difference between negligence and justifiable harm. If the officer is negligent, they're not immune. That seems to make sense to me. If they intentionally harm you, and that harm is justified in the course of their duty (say, they hit you with a nightstick and break your arm in order to stop you from attacking someone else), then they're immune. That seems to make sense to me as well. The problem is w…
We're not talking specifically about non-LEOs. Remember that the GP says, > if the federal agent is not a law enforcement officer, you can only sue her for negligent torts [and not for intentional torts]
Ugh, I meant to type:
We're talking specifically about non-LEOs
Sorry.