10 ms·

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

191 points by devy 8y ago

mindslight 8y ago
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.
- clubm8 8y ago
  >* 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 officials confronted while dining for example.
  - braythwayt 8y ago
    It's not an either-or ;-)
    - clubm8 8y ago
      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 ;-)
      - mindslight 8y ago
        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 comment was doing here - given that courts have no problem continuing to bless this fascism, it's about the only hope we've got. How much of the support for say the Iraq war was due to simple herd consensus - that feeling that you expect any arbitrary person to be in general support of it, and thus talking about it will likely just lead to an irreconcilable argument? "Support the troops" is a motte-and-bailey setup.
        RankingMember 8y ago
        So you simply stated, in a polite way "Excuse me, but I'd just like to note that, in my estimate, you two are fascist child molesters. This concludes my political statement of opinion. Good day."? I'm just having trouble imagining how you politely call someone a fascist child molester.
  - mieseratte 8y ago
    > There's been progress on that front with several Trump administration officials confronted while dining for example. What is the progress / outcome? Have there been any changes in policy resulting from public confrontations?
    - tomschlick 8y ago
      Nope. Just a bunch of people circle jerking over accosting officials in public and recording it.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      The resignation of Scott Pruitt.
      - mieseratte 8y ago
        > The resignation of Scott Pruitt. I hadn't realized that was his stated reason[0] for doing so. Thank you for providing a real answer instead of just downvoting and moving along! [0] - https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/05/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-resigns/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/05/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-res...
  - existencebox 8y ago
    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 we're drawing, "working directly for the TSA" seems pretty well and truly over it. (Full disclosure, I'm actually not sold on this "hard" stance, but TSA seems more of a slam dunk than office products in terms of complicity, and if I regardless put myself in the eyes of someone who DOES believe this stance...) There's a fair discussion about "was the way you confronted them that of a professional adult" but at the end of the day, I'm finding it hard to honestly be too upset at the language used outside of a very token "tsk tsk". TSA has not had a history of treating my wife and I respectfully so it's difficult to reciprocate, and can even see the argument that by adding social friction to working there you erode their ability to push policies like this if workers go "wait this may be a bad idea that may make people really angry at us." ESPECIALLY now that there's no real legal recourse outside of petitioning congress. (An anecdote: I was very sick going through security recently, extremely sleep deprived and falling over without support, they pulled us over to secondary screening and refused to let me sit down while they were checking my bags, ended up vomiting into a trashcan while the agent gave me lip. Turns out all this was over a pair of nail clippers the wife forgot she had packed... and on the RETURN trip.)
    - instaheat 8y ago
      I would have taken that opportunity to throw up on the agent.
      - bilbo0s 8y ago
        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 with vomit than it is to allow a potentially contagious passenger on what may be a very long flight.
  - DamnYuppie 8y ago
    > There's been progress on that front with several Trump administration officials confronted while dining for example. No there hasn't. It just makes everyone think these are petulant children. They ask for respect and equality of others but don't wish to give it to anyone who doesn't agree with their ideology.
    - AlexandrB 8y ago
      What's funny about your comment is that it's ambiguous whether you're calling the Trump officials or the protestors yelling at them petulant children.
      - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        Why does it have to be either/or? It could be both/and. But in the instance of the comment in question, I think it was pretty clear that it was the protesters who were acting like petulant children.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      "They ask for respect and equality of others but don't wish to give it to anyone who doesn't agree with their ideology." In this case, "doesn't agree with their ideology" actually means, "Believes that many classes of people don't deserve human rights".
  - ihsw2 8y ago
    > 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.
    - staunch 8y ago
      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.
      - sincerely 8y ago
        What do you think a war is, if not "politically motivated violence"?
        ihsw2 8y ago
        Do you believe the US is in a state of civil war?
        staunch 8y ago
        Politics in this context clearly means internal politics but there are many different causes of war. Many wars have been fought in self-defense, for example to challenge a foreign invasion.
    - jacquesm 8y ago
      You mean like when the now president of the United States did it?
      - ihsw2 8y ago
        There is a difference between exercising your freedom of speech and the social justice warrior crusading that the parent commenter is advocating. Nobody is above criticism, that much is certain, but we shouldn't cross the River Styx into a world where random acts of violence is the preferred method of political expression.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    "Maybe direct your ire at the people at the top who make these policies instead." These agents still choose to carry out those policies.
  - CNJ7654 8y ago
    "Progress" Yes! Completely bypassing the democratic system and resorting to harassment to reach your goals! How progressive!
- staunch 8y ago
  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/Fighting_words#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words#United_States
  - mindslight 8y ago
    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 wrong to say something that could be classified as "fighting words" and then not back it up with fighting.
    - ghaff 8y ago
      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.
      - mindslight 8y ago
        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.
    - cglace 8y ago
      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.
- cglace 8y ago
  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.
  - erric 8y ago
    >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.
    - cglace 8y ago
      >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.
      - erric 8y ago
        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.
- pc86 8y ago
  I'm 100% sure this never happened.
- dang 8y ago
  Please don't post flamebait to HN. It leads to off-topic flamewars. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - mindslight 8y ago
    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.
    - dang 8y ago
      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.
      - mindslight 8y ago
        Yeah. I had thought that given the topic, I was at a campsite and not a gas station.
everdev 8y ago
> 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.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > 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-trial detention or restrictive bail terms) why speed is prioritized over other factors as a right of criminal defendants and not litigants generally, though.
  - idontpost 8y ago
    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.
    - syshum 8y ago
      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 <<<insert a list 1000 miles long of other times government can search you>>>
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > 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.
rayiner 8y ago
The opinion is here (should be up on the CA3 website later today): http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=31076227891884466185 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 agent of the government commits an intentional tort (e.g. federal employee punches you, as opposed to accidentally running over your dog, which would be a negligent tort). However, that exception does not apply to law enforcement officers--under the FTCA, the federal government takes responsibility for the intentional torts of law enforcement. Ordinarily, even if you cannot sue the government, you can sue the individual officer in his personal capacity. Under the Westfall Act, however, the FTCA is the exclusive remedy for torts of federal agents acting within the scope of their employment. That leaves a loophole: you can sue federal law enforcement officers under the FTCA for both intentional and negligent torts. But if the federal agent is not a law enforcement officer, you can only sue her for negligent torts. The issue in this case is whether TSA agents are law enforcement officers such that you can sue the federal government for their intentional torts. The majority holding is probably correct as a matter of statutory interpretation. Still, it puts TSA in a weird loophole, where they act like law enforcement officers (including all of the power-tripping that can result in commission of intentional torts), but can't be held liable under the FTCA like law enforcement officers. The dissent makes a good point: > Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro dissented from Wednesday’s decision. > “By analogizing TSA searches to routine administrative inspections, my colleagues preclude victims of TSA abuses from obtaining any meaningful remedy for a variety of intentional tort claims,” he wrote.
- madengr 8y ago
  Now, can you assault one without some sort of trumped up federal charge?
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    "...can you assault one without some sort of trumped up federal charge?..." ??? Genuinely curious here, if a person assaults someone who works for the federal government, (or even the local government for that matter), and they charge him/her for that assault... is that charge really "trumped up"? I thought that there were actually laws against that? Isn't "trumped up" when you DON'T actually assault the federal or local government person and they SAY that you did in order to charge you with a crime?
larrik 8y ago
I don't understand, shouldn't them not functioning as “investigative or law enforcement officers” expose them to more liability, not less??
- mieseratte 8y ago
  I believe LEOs are given immunity so long as they act in "good faith," e.g. the "I feared for my life" defense.
  - gdwatson 8y ago
    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.
    - mieseratte 8y ago
      > 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-good-faith-doctrine.aspx http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2007/06/the...
- jtbayly 8y ago
  Yes, if it wasn't for another law that protects federal employees in general doing their job from being sued for... doing their job.
dannyw 8y ago
This is very unfortunate. I guess there are no chances for this to change in this congress.
return_True 8y ago
If they are not LEO, then they do not have the power to detain people, do they? That means effectively the false imprisonment is actually kidnapping?
- compiler-guy 8y ago
  TSA agents don't detain you. They call police who do. The response time is in seconds.
  - r00fus 8y ago
    Smells like a loophole. Doesn't that violate the spirit of the law?
    - setr 8y ago
      Only if you assume that the relevant police are operating blindly at the request of the TSA officer. If they're doing their jobs... then they should themselves be checking that this event does in fact call for detainment. It would be the same with mall security calling an actual police officer. Or you calling 911 on someone else. The officer should still be operating with autonomy, and can turn down your request to detain when its unnecessary or unreasonable (though I would imagine these psuedo-authorities are provided benefit of the doubt)
mnm1 8y ago
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 they know they would not be held responsible and just went ahead and kidnapped her anyway?
- pc86 8y ago
  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.
  - mnm1 8y ago
    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-officers-arrest-passengers https://www.tsa.gov/blog/2016/07/03/tsa-myth-busters-do-tsa-...
    - pc86 8y ago
      No they don't. They call the police and the police arrest you.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
"“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?
- syshum 8y ago
  An orginalist would rule the TSA unconstitutional on several fronts... not the least of which 4th Amendment, 10th Amendment, Article I Section 8, etc.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    Not if that's not the question before the court.
lmilcin 8y ago
That's it. I'm never gonna come to United States. I no longer see United States as free, democratic and safe country to visit. United States usurps itself power to do whatever they want with me upon its soil. My electronic devices searched through, my social accounts surrendered, my belongings damaged or stolen on a whim of TSA without right to appeal or get reimbursed, I can be detained for however long U.S. wants without any judicial procedure. Working in IT for large companies, I have been asked to come to US on few occasions but fortunately I have always been able to avoid this. Now I am going to straight decline based on the fact that I don't feel safe coming there.
- cheeze 8y ago
  Hate to say it, but that's exactly what Trump wants (you to not come to the States) :/
mikeymop 8y ago
> they do not function as “investigative or law enforcement officers.” But they can arrest people?
monkey88 8y ago
The judge was another one of Kennedy's clerks. No surprise there.

191 points by devy 8y ago

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.

clubm8 8y ago
>* 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 officials confronted while dining for example.
- braythwayt 8y ago
  It's not an either-or ;-)
  - clubm8 8y ago
    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 ;-)
    - mindslight 8y ago
      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 comment was doing here - given that courts have no problem continuing to bless this fascism, it's about the only hope we've got. How much of the support for say the Iraq war was due to simple herd consensus - that feeling that you expect any arbitrary person to be in general support of it, and thus talking about it will likely just lead to an irreconcilable argument? "Support the troops" is a motte-and-bailey setup.
      - RankingMember 8y ago
        So you simply stated, in a polite way "Excuse me, but I'd just like to note that, in my estimate, you two are fascist child molesters. This concludes my political statement of opinion. Good day."? I'm just having trouble imagining how you politely call someone a fascist child molester.
- mieseratte 8y ago
  > There's been progress on that front with several Trump administration officials confronted while dining for example. What is the progress / outcome? Have there been any changes in policy resulting from public confrontations?
  - tomschlick 8y ago
    Nope. Just a bunch of people circle jerking over accosting officials in public and recording it.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    The resignation of Scott Pruitt.
    - mieseratte 8y ago
      > The resignation of Scott Pruitt. I hadn't realized that was his stated reason[0] for doing so. Thank you for providing a real answer instead of just downvoting and moving along! [0] - https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/05/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-resigns/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/05/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-res...
- existencebox 8y ago
  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 we're drawing, "working directly for the TSA" seems pretty well and truly over it. (Full disclosure, I'm actually not sold on this "hard" stance, but TSA seems more of a slam dunk than office products in terms of complicity, and if I regardless put myself in the eyes of someone who DOES believe this stance...) There's a fair discussion about "was the way you confronted them that of a professional adult" but at the end of the day, I'm finding it hard to honestly be too upset at the language used outside of a very token "tsk tsk". TSA has not had a history of treating my wife and I respectfully so it's difficult to reciprocate, and can even see the argument that by adding social friction to working there you erode their ability to push policies like this if workers go "wait this may be a bad idea that may make people really angry at us." ESPECIALLY now that there's no real legal recourse outside of petitioning congress. (An anecdote: I was very sick going through security recently, extremely sleep deprived and falling over without support, they pulled us over to secondary screening and refused to let me sit down while they were checking my bags, ended up vomiting into a trashcan while the agent gave me lip. Turns out all this was over a pair of nail clippers the wife forgot she had packed... and on the RETURN trip.)
  - instaheat 8y ago
    I would have taken that opportunity to throw up on the agent.
    - bilbo0s 8y ago
      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 with vomit than it is to allow a potentially contagious passenger on what may be a very long flight.
- DamnYuppie 8y ago
  > There's been progress on that front with several Trump administration officials confronted while dining for example. No there hasn't. It just makes everyone think these are petulant children. They ask for respect and equality of others but don't wish to give it to anyone who doesn't agree with their ideology.
  - AlexandrB 8y ago
    What's funny about your comment is that it's ambiguous whether you're calling the Trump officials or the protestors yelling at them petulant children.
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      Why does it have to be either/or? It could be both/and. But in the instance of the comment in question, I think it was pretty clear that it was the protesters who were acting like petulant children.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    "They ask for respect and equality of others but don't wish to give it to anyone who doesn't agree with their ideology." In this case, "doesn't agree with their ideology" actually means, "Believes that many classes of people don't deserve human rights".
- ihsw2 8y ago
  > 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.
  - staunch 8y ago
    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.
    - sincerely 8y ago
      What do you think a war is, if not "politically motivated violence"?
      - ihsw2 8y ago
        Do you believe the US is in a state of civil war?
      - staunch 8y ago
        Politics in this context clearly means internal politics but there are many different causes of war. Many wars have been fought in self-defense, for example to challenge a foreign invasion.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    You mean like when the now president of the United States did it?
    - ihsw2 8y ago
      There is a difference between exercising your freedom of speech and the social justice warrior crusading that the parent commenter is advocating. Nobody is above criticism, that much is certain, but we shouldn't cross the River Styx into a world where random acts of violence is the preferred method of political expression.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  "Maybe direct your ire at the people at the top who make these policies instead." These agents still choose to carry out those policies.
- CNJ7654 8y ago
  "Progress" Yes! Completely bypassing the democratic system and resorting to harassment to reach your goals! How progressive!
staunch 8y ago
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/Fighting_words#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words#United_States
- mindslight 8y ago
  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 wrong to say something that could be classified as "fighting words" and then not back it up with fighting.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    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.
    - mindslight 8y ago
      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.
  - cglace 8y ago
    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.
cglace 8y ago
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.
- erric 8y ago
  >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.
  - cglace 8y ago
    >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.
    - erric 8y ago
      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.
pc86 8y ago
I'm 100% sure this never happened.
dang 8y ago
Please don't post flamebait to HN. It leads to off-topic flamewars. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- mindslight 8y ago
  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.
  - dang 8y ago
    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.
    - mindslight 8y ago
      Yeah. I had thought that given the topic, I was at a campsite and not a gas station.

everdev 8y ago

> 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.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> 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-trial detention or restrictive bail terms) why speed is prioritized over other factors as a right of criminal defendants and not litigants generally, though.
- idontpost 8y ago
  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.
  - syshum 8y ago
    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 <<<insert a list 1000 miles long of other times government can search you>>>
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > 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.

rayiner 8y ago

The opinion is here (should be up on the CA3 website later today): http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=31076227891884466185 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 agent of the government commits an intentional tort (e.g. federal employee punches you, as opposed to accidentally running over your dog, which would be a negligent tort). However, that exception does not apply to law enforcement officers--under the FTCA, the federal government takes responsibility for the intentional torts of law enforcement. Ordinarily, even if you cannot sue the government, you can sue the individual officer in his personal capacity. Under the Westfall Act, however, the FTCA is the exclusive remedy for torts of federal agents acting within the scope of their employment. That leaves a loophole: you can sue federal law enforcement officers under the FTCA for both intentional and negligent torts. But if the federal agent is not a law enforcement officer, you can only sue her for negligent torts. The issue in this case is whether TSA agents are law enforcement officers such that you can sue the federal government for their intentional torts. The majority holding is probably correct as a matter of statutory interpretation. Still, it puts TSA in a weird loophole, where they act like law enforcement officers (including all of the power-tripping that can result in commission of intentional torts), but can't be held liable under the FTCA like law enforcement officers. The dissent makes a good point: > Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro dissented from Wednesday’s decision. > “By analogizing TSA searches to routine administrative inspections, my colleagues preclude victims of TSA abuses from obtaining any meaningful remedy for a variety of intentional tort claims,” he wrote.

madengr 8y ago
Now, can you assault one without some sort of trumped up federal charge?
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  "...can you assault one without some sort of trumped up federal charge?..." ??? Genuinely curious here, if a person assaults someone who works for the federal government, (or even the local government for that matter), and they charge him/her for that assault... is that charge really "trumped up"? I thought that there were actually laws against that? Isn't "trumped up" when you DON'T actually assault the federal or local government person and they SAY that you did in order to charge you with a crime?

larrik 8y ago

I don't understand, shouldn't them not functioning as “investigative or law enforcement officers” expose them to more liability, not less??

mieseratte 8y ago
I believe LEOs are given immunity so long as they act in "good faith," e.g. the "I feared for my life" defense.
- gdwatson 8y ago
  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.
  - mieseratte 8y ago
    > 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-good-faith-doctrine.aspx http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2007/06/the...
jtbayly 8y ago
Yes, if it wasn't for another law that protects federal employees in general doing their job from being sued for... doing their job.

dannyw 8y ago

This is very unfortunate. I guess there are no chances for this to change in this congress.

return_True 8y ago

If they are not LEO, then they do not have the power to detain people, do they? That means effectively the false imprisonment is actually kidnapping?

compiler-guy 8y ago
TSA agents don't detain you. They call police who do. The response time is in seconds.
- r00fus 8y ago
  Smells like a loophole. Doesn't that violate the spirit of the law?
  - setr 8y ago
    Only if you assume that the relevant police are operating blindly at the request of the TSA officer. If they're doing their jobs... then they should themselves be checking that this event does in fact call for detainment. It would be the same with mall security calling an actual police officer. Or you calling 911 on someone else. The officer should still be operating with autonomy, and can turn down your request to detain when its unnecessary or unreasonable (though I would imagine these psuedo-authorities are provided benefit of the doubt)

mnm1 8y ago

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 they know they would not be held responsible and just went ahead and kidnapped her anyway?

pc86 8y ago
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.
- mnm1 8y ago
  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-officers-arrest-passengers https://www.tsa.gov/blog/2016/07/03/tsa-myth-busters-do-tsa-...
  - pc86 8y ago
    No they don't. They call the police and the police arrest you.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

"“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?

syshum 8y ago
An orginalist would rule the TSA unconstitutional on several fronts... not the least of which 4th Amendment, 10th Amendment, Article I Section 8, etc.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Not if that's not the question before the court.

lmilcin 8y ago

That's it. I'm never gonna come to United States. I no longer see United States as free, democratic and safe country to visit. United States usurps itself power to do whatever they want with me upon its soil. My electronic devices searched through, my social accounts surrendered, my belongings damaged or stolen on a whim of TSA without right to appeal or get reimbursed, I can be detained for however long U.S. wants without any judicial procedure. Working in IT for large companies, I have been asked to come to US on few occasions but fortunately I have always been able to avoid this. Now I am going to straight decline based on the fact that I don't feel safe coming there.

cheeze 8y ago
Hate to say it, but that's exactly what Trump wants (you to not come to the States) :/

mikeymop 8y ago

> they do not function as “investigative or law enforcement officers.” But they can arrest people?

monkey88 8y ago

The judge was another one of Kennedy's clerks. No surprise there.