Originally Posted by
DeafBlonde
From this report on the "Papers Please" web site, it looks like Phil may have a fighting chance to win this one. ^ I just don't know which defendant would be more culpable, TSA or the Phoenix PD.
Disagree there is a fighting chance. I'm wondering if there is
any chance to win.
Here is the core/opening statement of the defense argument (emphasis added):
This case cannot be evaluated in the context of traditional public space. Rather, the incident occurred in an area inherently encompassing a risk to public safety-a security checkpoint inside an airport. In the wake of the calamitous events of September 11, 2001, the federal government purposefully and intentionally changed security protocols utilized at all airports as a matter of national security. TSA agents were given specific directives which require them to utilize enhanced scrutiny of passenger activity, and to mitigate influences which interfere with or distract them from their responsibilities to the public. Law enforcement officers working at airports are present, in part, to provide support to TSA agents, and most importantly to protect the public. It is against that backdrop that this case must be evaluated, pursuant to existing standards governing Plaintiff’s claims. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s intentional refusal to comply with reasonable regulations in a non-public forum rendered him subject to investigation and eventual arrest, due to his noncompliance. Plaintiff’s subjective belief that he did not interfere with TSA or City Defendants is not borne out by the allegations in his Complaint.
Reasonable regulations? Non-public forum?
Translation:
- Remember 9/11. Terrorists are scary. Remember 9/11
- You don't have constitutional rights in an airport. Remember 9/11
- The right to travel freely is not a right. Flying is a privilege. Government employees can make up secret rules and force citizens to comply with them. You can walk to Hawaii. Remember 9/11
- Citizens don't have any right to question what the government does, or how they do it, or why, or whether it's effective. My god, don't you remember 9/11?!?!?!
- If you resist or fail to comply with our secret rules (even the super secret ones that don't exist or we make up after the fact), you will be arrested. Remember 9/11
- We get to decide what "resists" means and once we do, it's a fact not subject to anyone's review. Remember 9/11
- Legal mumbo jumbo, blah, blah, blah. Qualified immunity. Remember 9/11
- We can make up allegations, destroy evidence, lie, cheat, and steal. Qualified immunity. Remember 9/11. Qualified immunity.
- Legal mumbo jumbo, blah, blah, blah. Qualified immunity. Remember 9/11
- Remember 9/11
The State will continue to defend the position that airports are a special "sans freedom zone" and citizens cannot question what happens there. The majority of the public not only thinks this is just fine and dandy, they actively support it ("anything for security" ring a bell?). I don't see anything changing until something so egregious happens that it shocks the consciousness of a majority of the public. In other words, until TSA does something worse than 9/11, they will continue to do what they do with unqualified impunity. You remember 9/11, right?
It saddens me that people would read items 2-6 and not see a problem.
I remember 9/11. We lost so much.