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

131–140 of 140 posts

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

#131

Post by krageon »

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 in roughly the same boat (I also got dogs brought out to sniff my luggage, the whole package). When I went through the US, it was surprisingly not much worse. Of course, at the time I did not really go into the states, I just made a stopover. I did have to grab my luggage in one place and take it somewhere else, going through the security everyone else had to go through (again). I got bomb swabbed, dogs were brought out, they asked me some hairy questions and I had to power all my electronics and explain what every cable in my bag did. It was terrible, but I wasn't physically harassed. I never flew through the states again.

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

#133

Post by pc86 »

mnm1 wrote: post #70
pc86 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The TSA aren't armed so I'm curious how they'd ever shoot anyone. When has a TSA officer ever killed someone in the exercise of his or her duties? Detention at an airport security checkpoint is not kidnapping.

It's not part of TSA duties to arrest someone either, but they did it somehow, so that means they could pack their own gun and kill people too or do any number of things that is not part of their duties. https://www.tsa.gov/blog/2016/07/03/tsa-myth-busters-do-tsa-...

No they don't. They call the police and the police arrest you.

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

#134

Post by cglace »

erric wrote: post #58
cglace wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you accomplished nothing. . . Seriously, most of these people are not "fascist child molesters" and probably already hate their job. Congrats on making them view the general population as people they detest a little more.

>probably already hate their job These are people who chose to opt into a career where they perpetuate security theater on to millions of fellow citizens, waste our time, offer no tangible benefit, and collect a paycheck and pension for the privilege of doing so. I _hope_ they hate their job.

>These are people who chose to opt into a career where they perpetuate security theater on to millions of fellow citizens, waste our time, offer no tangible benefit, and collect a paycheck and pension for the privilege of doing so.

These people took an open job because they needed one. Do you believe the people serving you burgers at McDonalds did it because they believe in the corporate mission of the restaurant? Also, all of the things you listed are not things that can be equated with child molestation. At worst they are inefficiencies in our system. Calling someone names does not get rid of those inefficiencies. It just creates more animosity.

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

#135

Post by cglace »

miaklesp wrote: post #76
cglace wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you accomplished nothing. . . Seriously, most of these people are not "fascist child molesters" and probably already hate their job. Congrats on making them view the general population as people they detest a little more.

They all are! Normal people just choose another job.

I'm pretty sure "normal people" don't have such a strong opinion about the TSA. I'm also pretty sure these "normal people" don't have the skills or capital to just change jobs on a whim.

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

#136

Post by mieseratte »

gdwatson wrote: post #123
mieseratte wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> You seem to be referring to self-defense cases, which are something else altogether and not limited to law enforcement.

You're right, that particular situation is not limited to law enforcement. Really, I'm conflating a number of protections[0] to things like erroneously seized evidence, protection from civil liability, etc.

[0] - http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2007/06/the...

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

#137

Post by erric »

cglace wrote: post #134
erric wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>probably already hate their job These are people who chose to opt into a career where they perpetuate security theater on to millions of fellow citizens, waste our time, offer no tangible benefit, and collect a paycheck and pension for the privilege of doing so. I _hope_ they hate their job.

>These are people who chose to opt into a career where they perpetuate security theater on to millions of fellow citizens, waste our time, offer no tangible benefit, and collect a paycheck and pension for the privilege of doing so. These people took an open job because they needed one. Do you believe the people serving you burgers at McDonalds did it because they believe in the corporate mission of the restaurant? Al…

That's the point, there are _other_ jobs they should have taken because these jobs were knee-jerk reactionary responses that shouldn't exist to begin with.

I don't support McD's however I'm sure you could be describing a generic fast food place. You really can't compare working fast food to working for the government. People work for the government for a whole lot more different reasons then working fast food type jobs. For one, it's 100x easier to get a job at McDriveThrough then it is to get hired on as a federal employee. I'm talking from personal experience here.

I didn't say anything about molesting children. You are confusing my comment there with someone else's. I'm also not calling anyone names.

At the very _best_ what I'm describing are inefficiencies in our system, and anyone who's working for that system is part of the problem.

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

#138

Post by DannyBee »

syshum wrote: post #92
DannyBee wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong.... Classic

Not quite - usually these processes are handled by appointed administrative law judges who are not directly associated with the agency.

In DHS's case, i don't remember what they do. But the process is usually not quite that dumb.

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

#139

Post by DannyBee »

kelnos wrote: post #124
DannyBee wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not quite that stupid - see my other comment.

It's usually an ALJ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_law_judge#List_...

I admit to not remebering how DHS does it though.

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

#140

Post by yellowapple »

forapurpose wrote: post #118
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 tha…

So if I'm a TSA agent and being sued for accidentally punching someone in the face (e.g. I tripped), I guess now it's a worthwhile defense to claim I did it intentionally and with utmost malice.
Post reply on HN