+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: "TSA screeners win immunity from abuse claims: appeals court" (/showthread.php?tid=218480)
"TSA screeners win immunity from abuse claims: appeals court" - SteveG - 07-11-2018
What's your CongressCreep doing about this?
TSA screeners win immunity from abuse claims: appeals court
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tsa-lawsuit/tsa-screeners-win-immunity-from-abuse-claims-appeals-court-idUSKBN1K125W
(Reuters) - Fliers may have a tough time recovering damages for invasive screenings at U.S. airport security checkpoints, after a federal appeals court on Wednesday said screeners are immune from claims under a federal law governing assaults, false arrests and other abuses.
In a 2-1 vote, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia said Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screeners were not “investigative or law enforcement officers,” and were therefore shielded from liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
The majority said it was “sympathetic” to concerns that its decision would leave fliers with “very limited legal redress” for alleged mistreatment by aggressive or overzealous screeners, which adds to the ordinary stresses of air travel. “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. The FTCA generally affords the government sovereign immunity when employees commit intentional torts, a type of civil wrong.
Wednesday’s decision was the first by a federal appeals court on whether a waiver of immunity for investigative and law enforcement officers extended to screeners.
Re: "TSA screeners win immunity from abuse claims: appeals court" - Janit - 07-11-2018
So were is the boundary between "intentional torts" (civil) and actual "crimes" (criminal).?
Re: "TSA screeners win immunity from abuse claims: appeals court" - cbelt3 - 07-11-2018
Janit wrote:The very real boundary is the unwillingness of the justice system to arrest, indict, try, and convict any of these rent-a-goon people for sexual harrasment, rape, or assault.
So were is the boundary between "intentional torts" (civil) and actual "crimes" (criminal).?
I still shudder when I recall one of the sonofabiotch rent-a-goons who did not believe the X Ray I showed him and PUSHED his finger into my shoulder with his full strength until he could feel the stainless steel plate that holds it together. Effectively tearing the muscle and scar tissue that was slowly building around it even four months later. I was in agony for the whole flight. Sucker hurt for about 3 weeks afterwards. Much Advil.
Re: "TSA screeners win immunity from abuse claims: appeals court" - Ombligo - 07-11-2018
So if TSA isn't law enforcement, nor airline employees - why can they order me around and touch me?
Re: "TSA screeners win immunity from abuse claims: appeals court" - bfd - 07-11-2018
As our police state continues to add more bodies to its body count … it's MeToo.2