TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court
How is this possible? This is a problem with government provided anything.... if Govco employees are granted immunity from prosecution.
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 are shielded by government sovereign immunity from liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act because they do not function as "investigative or law enforcement officers."
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/tsa-screeners-win-immunity-flier-abuse-claims-u-150740124.html0
Replies
." why would someone want to be a moderator in the first place?"
mindyabizness
"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole of the law. The rest is commentary."
Rabbi Hillel (c20 BCE)
Here is a description of what happened according to plaintiff.
https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20120302758
The lady was arrested and prosecuted. She was found not guilty of any crimes and then sued.
Mini Mart Magnate
Mini Mart Magnate
“Everyone behaves badly--given the chance.”
― Ernest Hemingway
Mini Mart Magnate
Looks like attitude was a player in this whole thing.
In addition to rulings like this we will see a lot more of individuals with civil cases being forced into arbitration instead of having a day in court with a jury of one's peers.
Heres Tom with the Weather.”
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the district court must "accept as true the factual allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn there from." Krantz v. Prudential Invs. Fund Mgmt., 305 F.3d 140, 142 (3d Cir.2002) (quoting Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996)). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. The plaintiff need not satisfy any "probability"
Heres Tom with the Weather.”
Mini Mart Magnate
Was it "lost"?
Did the amount of time for the lawsuit to be filed lead to it being automatically purged?
I'm really scratching my head on that -- because this whole thing should be on tape, and then it doesn't become a he-said she-said affair.
Mini Mart Magnate
Mini Mart Magnate
Unless you'd rather the video not make its way into a court of law or the public domain, of course.
I agree with Mustang, it seems a bit convenient, and I also agree with Cad, you can't keep everything, but who knows for sure what happened to this prima facie evidence.
“Everyone behaves badly--given the chance.”
― Ernest Hemingway
Do you have an appointment?
No! But he's expecting me.
That's when I said to Ahmad Abdul from Mexico " Do you know where the owner is?"
He said "Yes I locked him outside"
That's rude of you. Go and take this gentlemen to see him and make sure you tell the
owner that he needs to let us know when He's having an associate stop in.