4 ms·
> 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 ca
by forapurpose 8y ago
> 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?
- kelnos 8y agoIt'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.
- forapurpose 8y agoWe'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]
- forapurpose 8y agoUgh, I meant to type: We're talking specifically about non-LEOs Sorry.
- yellowapple 8y agoSo 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.