No, because she is not literally “locked in.” As I understand the situation, they told Collier she would be arrested if she left without agreeing to a DPS chaperone, so she sat down. The mere threat of future arrest isn’t “restraint” or “confinement.”
I mean, not by strict definition but for all practical purposes…
The guy asked if there was a tort claim, and there’s not if Collier wasn’t physically prevented from leaving and chose to stay rather than test the threat of arrest. Clearly, it was a savvy political move by her—the publicity has been priceless. I’m just saying it doesn’t appear tortious.
Totally. But will you admit that they are probably but almost definitely NOT bluffing? They have proven time and again over the last 6 months that they will weaponize the “justice” department and use lawfare to hurt anyone who stands up to them. If Dr. Lector said he might eat me…he might not…but
I don’t know if they’re bluffing, but neither does she. That’s the point. You don’t know if there’s a boundary unless you test it, and don’t ever comply in advance. What I do know, is that those who have stood up to MAGA overreach consistently win (see, e.g., Perkins Coie).
Let’s hope that continues. I’m getting nervous.