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

51–60 of 140 posts

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

#51

Post by DannyBee »

kevin_b_er wrote: post #25
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?

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.

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

#52

Post by dsr_ »

cglace wrote: post #43
mindslight wrote: post #29

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…

It's about as brave as a redneck driving by some black kids screaming ###### at them. Seriously, you are characterizing people that may just check some ID's as child molesters. You sound unhinged.

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?

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

#53

Post by pc86 »

mnm1 wrote: post #40

So in other words not only can the tsa arrest and likely even beat, shoot, and kill you, but as a citizen you have no recourse, not even the recourse you would have against normal police. In other words, they truly are above the law even more so than police. Please tell me I misunderstood this article. I'd like to know how this lady got arrested. Shouldn't they just have kicked her out of the airport instead? Or did…

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.

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

#54

Post by mindslight »

ghaff wrote: post #42
mindslight wrote: post #29

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…

It's not political speech. It's you being an asshole which, under other circumstances, could well lead to someone punching you in the face.

Sure, I'll take the characterization of being an asshole. But I don't see how that's much of an indictment, as the situation is well beyond the point of social decorum.

Which is the whole problem - the "breach of the peace" occurred when the uniformed gang setup shop to assault, detain, and molest people. What I did was to just not entirely peacefully assent to their rule, which necessarily involves shooting from behind trees. We certainly could use more of it, lest we want to end up having to literally shoot from behind trees.

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

#55

Post by instaheat »

bilbo0s wrote: post #38
instaheat wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think you may be underestimating the number of agents who have been thrown up on. (And the number who have had to call for cleanups for vomit that did not land on them, and medical personnel for the ill traveler, is even larger.) The thing is though, that's what they signed up for. If they can't handle vomit, they should look for another job. From a certain point of view, it's better for the TSA agent to be soiled…

Actually, I made no estimations at all. In this person's scenario, I would have simply enjoyed throwing up on them.

It's the little things. As he stated, the agent wouldn't let him sit down and it was over a pair of nail clippers. Perhaps the vomit wouldn't have made them blink at all, doesn't mean I wouldn't get some form of enjoyment out of it. Sounds like the agent was being a prick. Are we surprised?

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

#56

Post by s73v3r_ »

"“For most people, TSA screenings are an unavoidable feature of flying,” but it is “squarely in the realm” of Congress to expand liability for abuses, Circuit Judge Cheryl Ann Krause wrote."

How on earth is the TSA not already covered under those laws? This is why I can't get behind "originalist" judges; they interpret the laws and the Constitution too literally. Because the TSA wasn't explicitly named under the act (likely because they didn't exist back then), they don't qualify?

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

#57

Post by [deleted] »

mindslight wrote: post #29
staunch wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wr…

[deleted]

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

#58

Post by erric »

cglace wrote: post #36
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.

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.

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

#59

Post by dfundako »

dsr_ wrote: post #52
cglace wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about as brave as a redneck driving by some black kids screaming ###### at them. Seriously, you are characterizing people that may just check some ID's as child molesters. You sound unhinged.

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?

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

#60

Post by ihsw2 »

sincerely wrote: post #41
staunch wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What do you think a war is, if not "politically motivated violence"?

Do you believe the US is in a state of civil war?
Post reply on HN