Hacker News Reader

Comment by michaelhoffman | Hacker News Reader

If you read the linked article, you will find that the United States has laws that waive sovereign immunity for torts committed by people acting on behalf of the federal government. Which is what I assume would be alleged here.

That doesn't mean that they would win such a lawsuit, however.

View on HN

They can waive torts, yes. Doing so is a very specific process.

Cops regularly get qualified immunity for absolutely egregious conduct. The military is not going to get successfully sued for shooting down a $12 balloon while acting in good faith on national security duties.

What do you think the "very specific process" involved for the federal government waiving immunity to tort claims? I assume that is what you mean by "waive torts" which is a phrase that doesn't really make sense. Since it is "very specific", can you describe it?

Again, you may want to carefully read the article you linked, and linked articles within such as the one on the Federal Tort Claims Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act

You ask what the procedure is, and then link right to it. Legislation giving citizens the right to sue in certain scenarios. Without the government's OK, no suing the government.

The decision here would be "there's no clearly established law that the US can't shoot down a balloon with an F-22" on qualified immunity grounds.

That legislation has already been passed. The Federal Tort Claims Act has been the law of the land for 77 years.

And qualified immunity in these sorts of scenarios (and much, much more deliberately egregious conduct) has been the reality of the land since 1967.

Qualified immunity is for personal liability, not government liability.

Individual government employees are covered by qualified immunity, not their employer

Reply on news.ycombinator.com