If punching someone* is within the scope of their employment by the federal government and the person doing the punching is not a law enforcement officer, you cannot sue that individual for intentional torts.

*not sure why it would be, if you weren't a law enforcement personnel

An example is a military servicemember or police officer who needs to assault you to prevent you from assaulting someone else. Normally you could sue but because they're preventing you from committing a crime by use of force they have immunity.

> An example is a military servicemember ... who needs to assault you to prevent you from assaulting someone else.

A military service member has no more authority or right to do that then a Hacker News member.

If its a police officer, you can sue for intentional torts because it was committed by a "investigative or law enforcement officer".

Intentional torts against "investigative or law enforcement officers" are specifically permitted by the FTCA.

The loophole is when a federal employee is specifically not a law enforcement officer.

Sorry, I don't know who upvoted me but you're obviously right.

Just out of curiosity, doesn't this leave a large loophole for extrajudicial gangsterism if the government created a job that included, say, punching people who didn't pay their taxes?

It's not a loophole if people follow a law's explicit purpose.