Did United Airlines have any other choice than to eject that passenger?

[Juma]

Of course it has bearing since they have no right to evict him from if he wasnt a security fisk.

What does rights have to do with anything? They had a reason to say "sorry for your luck and you have to now go." The reason doesn't even have to be a good one. If he's upset over that, he can 1) leave as instructed and later 2) address the issue. From that, the airline might make things right for him and possibly make some procedural adjustments so it doesn't effect others in this upsetting way. Another scenario is that if he's upset over it, he can (like before) 1) leave as instructed and later 2) address the issue, and if from that, he's not happy, then he can find more creative law biding methods to pursue. He could perhaps notify groups sympathetic to his situation and possibly garner media attention. If you want (more) sympathetic listeners, don't raise them to give reasons for us to blame the 'victim'.

Rights have everything to do with this. You and the company has a contract.

 

[fast]

If you want (more) sympathetic listeners, don't raise them to give reasons for us to blame the 'victim'.

Raise them?
are we getting closer to an explanation about teaching white kids?

What did Ravensky mean by, "little"?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Of course it has bearing since they have no right to evict him from if he wasnt a security fisk.

What does rights have to do with anything? They had a reason to say "sorry for your luck and you have to now go." The reason doesn't even have to be a good one. If he's upset over that, he can 1) leave as instructed and later 2) address the issue. From that, the airline might make things right for him and possibly make some procedural adjustments so it doesn't effect others in this upsetting way. Another scenario is that if he's upset over it, he can (like before) 1) leave as instructed and later 2) address the issue, and if from that, he's not happy, then he can find more creative law biding methods to pursue. He could perhaps notify groups sympathetic to his situation and possibly garner media attention. If you want (more) sympathetic listeners, don't raise them to give reasons for us to blame the 'victim'.

But unless corporate procedures allowed that, they weren't going to change them on the fly. You have four problems that need to be asked/addressed, some before and some after. Does a flight crew driving or being driving violate either union or FAA regulations (that has to be decided before that late). Will driving reach the city in time for rest rules (can be done that night). Does the difference in 5 hours of working make the crew ineligible to work the next day (decided that night) And what is the liability of of the crew toward United if something happens because they drive, for example getting in an accident, crashing the plane the next day etc (decided before that night). Working in a heavily regulated, union run job provides less flexiility than a normal job.

The biggest screw up in this situation were lawyers. They either needed to make the CoB clear or if they believed they can't, make sure that the procedures followed by employees are legal and include situations like this.

 

[coloradoatheist]

What does rights have to do with anything? They had a reason to say "sorry for your luck and you have to now go." The reason doesn't even have to be a good one. If he's upset over that, he can 1) leave as instructed and later 2) address the issue. From that, the airline might make things right for him and possibly make some procedural adjustments so it doesn't effect others in this upsetting way. Another scenario is that if he's upset over it, he can (like before) 1) leave as instructed and later 2) address the issue, and if from that, he's not happy, then he can find more creative law biding methods to pursue. He could perhaps notify groups sympathetic to his situation and possibly garner media attention. If you want (more) sympathetic listeners, don't raise them to give reasons for us to blame the 'victim'.

Rights have everything to do with this. You and the company has a contract.

Yes and no, there are multiple legal issues with this. Contractual law is different than property law. You can violate a contract and be required to pay damages for breaking a contract but you can still have property rights.

 

[zorq]

Of course it has bearing since they have no right to evict him from if he wasnt a security fisk.

What does rights have to do with anything? They had a reason to say "sorry for your luck and you have to now go." The reason doesn't even have to be a good one. If he's upset over that, he can 1) leave as instructed and later 2) address the issue. From that, the airline might make things right for him and possibly make some procedural adjustments so it doesn't effect others in this upsetting way. Another scenario is that if he's upset over it, he can (like before) 1) leave as instructed and later 2) address the issue, and if from that, he's not happy, then he can find more creative law biding methods to pursue. He could perhaps notify groups sympathetic to his situation and possibly garner media attention. If you want (more) sympathetic listeners, don't raise them to give reasons for us to blame the 'victim'.

Are you serious. Rights have a LOT to do with it. Suppose I walk into your home while you are relaxing on the couch and insist that you leave because I need your home right now. If you don't leave you should know that I have friends in the police force who will be removing you from your home. If you are upset about that you can leave as instructed and address the issue later.

Does that make sense to you as a reasonable response? Is that what you recommend we do? I don't think so.

If you are in your home, you have a right to stay in your home regardless of what someone else demands. It doesn't matter if that person owned the home before you and will own the home after you, if you are in your home you don't vacate based on the whims of any random passerby.

Why is this analogy appropriate? Because the Dr. in question purchased a seat on that flight for the duration of the flight acknowledging that it would be valid so long as the flying could be accomplished safely. That was HIS seat. Just like that is YOUR home. United was tresspassing on his seat and they should have vacated the vicinity of his seat as soon as he made it clear that nobody else was welcome to use HIS seat.

What kind of pansy pushover children are YOU raising?

 

[laughing dog]

Of course it has bearing since they have no right to evict him from if he wasnt a security fisk.

What does rights have to do with anything? They had a reason to say "sorry for your luck and you have to now go." The reason doesn't even have to be a good one. If he's upset over that, he can 1) leave as instructed and later 2) address the issue.

He was on the phone when the security people started to remove him. He was trying to get his rights from this lawyer. An extra minute or two would not have inconvenienced anyone.

From that, the airline might make things right for him and possibly make some procedural adjustments so it doesn't effect others in this upsetting way. Another scenario is that if he's upset over it, he can (like before) 1) leave as instructed and later 2) address the issue, and if from that, he's not happy, then he can find more creative law biding methods to pursue. He could perhaps notify groups sympathetic to his situation and possibly garner media attention. If you want (more) sympathetic listeners, don't raise them to give reasons for us to blame the 'victim'.

Why do you keep injecting "raising" people into the discussion? At least you did not inject race into this time.

 

[coloradoatheist]

What does rights have to do with anything? They had a reason to say "sorry for your luck and you have to now go." The reason doesn't even have to be a good one. If he's upset over that, he can 1) leave as instructed and later 2) address the issue.

He was on the phone when the security people started to remove him. He was trying to get his rights from this lawyer. An extra minute or two would not have inconvenienced anyone.

From that, the airline might make things right for him and possibly make some procedural adjustments so it doesn't effect others in this upsetting way. Another scenario is that if he's upset over it, he can (like before) 1) leave as instructed and later 2) address the issue, and if from that, he's not happy, then he can find more creative law biding methods to pursue. He could perhaps notify groups sympathetic to his situation and possibly garner media attention. If you want (more) sympathetic listeners, don't raise them to give reasons for us to blame the 'victim'.

Why do you keep injecting "raising" people into the discussion? At least you did not inject race into this time.

and how long does somebody have to wait for someone to supposedly talk to his lawyer? Can I stall forever saying I'm talking to someone? It was a really big gamble for the Dr. He was risking a prison sentence for his behavior.

 

[zorq]

and how long does somebody have to wait for someone to supposedly talk to his lawyer? Can I stall forever saying I'm talking to someone? It was a really big gamble for the Dr. He was risking a prison sentence for his behavior.

Yeah you wouldn't believe how many people are sent to prison every day for having the audacity to sit in seats that they own.

 

[laughing dog]

and how long does somebody have to wait for someone to supposedly talk to his lawyer? Can I stall forever saying I'm talking to someone?

Is there any evidence that this person was stalling or that he was on the phone for a long period of time? If so, please produce it so that your questions seem relevant. If not, please stop stop this babbling.

It was a really big gamble for the Dr. He was risking a prison sentence for his behavior.

Please stop this babbling.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Raise them?
are we getting closer to an explanation about teaching white kids?

What did Ravensky mean by, "little"?

Mockery, mostly. How did you not catch that?

And why did you bring race into it?

 

[untermensche]

Those that give corporations the right to assault people without consequence basically think corporations are above the law.

They now give corporations the right to assault.

What will they give them next?

These Libertarians concerned about the liberties of man.

 

[fast]

What does rights have to do with anything? They had a reason to say "sorry for your luck and you have to now go." The reason doesn't even have to be a good one. If he's upset over that, he can 1) leave as instructed and later 2) address the issue. From that, the airline might make things right for him and possibly make some procedural adjustments so it doesn't effect others in this upsetting way. Another scenario is that if he's upset over it, he can (like before) 1) leave as instructed and later 2) address the issue, and if from that, he's not happy, then he can find more creative law biding methods to pursue. He could perhaps notify groups sympathetic to his situation and possibly garner media attention. If you want (more) sympathetic listeners, don't raise them to give reasons for us to blame the 'victim'.

Rights have everything to do with this. You and the company has a contract.

Okay, there's a contract. I'm not honoring it; get off the plane.

... I'm not getting off the plane; we have a contract, and I expect you to honor it.

We've established all that, just like we've established it's time for you to go.

...I'm not going anywhere; you'll have to drag me off this plane

(Flight attendants and pilot: "fast, what say you?")
Fast: have everyone else exit the plane (to board another) and let Mr. "I got a contract" contemplate (whether for a mother, he should of had another).

Pilot: no other planes available.
Pilot: we don't have time to argue or delay (time is money and all that and we have a schedule to keep)
Son of a non-authoritarian: ain't gonna get this non-whitey to move (no, wait, sumbodee didn't say non-authoritarian).

So, to rephrase, the resistent passenger: I'm not leaving
Security: oh yes you are
Passenger: I got rights

From me to you: and?

 

[fast]

What did Ravensky mean by, "little"?

Mockery, mostly. How did you not catch that?

And why did you bring race into it?

Saying, "good little authoritarian" hit me as an unjustified attack against white people. Even still, I wrote, "people," but changed it in light of 2 things, 1) felt I might be unjustifiably including them as if prominently authoritarian and 2) to give the person the opportunity to explain. I didn't do it without reason, and I avoided explanation to diminish deniability.

Mockery? I think it ran a little deeper than that. And no, "little" wasn't mockery, although the entire statement can be viewed as much.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Is there any evidence that this person was stalling or that he was on the phone for a long period of time? If so, please produce it so that your questions seem relevant. If not, please stop stop this babbling.

It was a really big gamble for the Dr. He was risking a prison sentence for his behavior.

Please stop this babbling.

It was a Sunday afternoon at 5pm. Most people don't have access to a lawyer during the day let alone on a Sunday evening. Customer service agents just roll their eyes at someone saying they are going to call their lawyer and sue. It's an idle threat and they should go about their business without waiting. That lawyer would need hours to find out if the Dr had a legal standing to stay.

He was flirting with three major rules.

1) Trespassing
2) Failure to obey a flight crews orders
3) Resisting arrest

yes you can gamble and get lucky.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Those that give corporations the right to assault people without consequence basically think corporations are above the law.

They now give corporations the right to assault.

What will they give them next?

These Libertarians concerned about the liberties of man.

We did not give them a right to assault people. We gave them the already existing right to ask someone to leave their property and if they don't its trespassing.

 

[fast]

What does rights have to do with anything? They had a reason to say "sorry for your luck and you have to now go." The reason doesn't even have to be a good one. If he's upset over that, he can 1) leave as instructed and later 2) address the issue. From that, the airline might make things right for him and possibly make some procedural adjustments so it doesn't effect others in this upsetting way. Another scenario is that if he's upset over it, he can (like before) 1) leave as instructed and later 2) address the issue, and if from that, he's not happy, then he can find more creative law biding methods to pursue. He could perhaps notify groups sympathetic to his situation and possibly garner media attention. If you want (more) sympathetic listeners, don't raise them to give reasons for us to blame the 'victim'.

Are you serious. Rights have a LOT to do with it. Suppose I walk into your home while you are relaxing on the couch and insist that you leave because I need your home right now. If you don't leave you should know that I have friends in the police force who will be removing you from your home. If you are upset about that you can leave as instructed and address the issue later.

Does that make sense to you as a reasonable response? Is that what you recommend we do? I don't think so.

If you are in your home, you have a right to stay in your home regardless of what someone else demands. It doesn't matter if that person owned the home before you and will own the home after you, if you are in your home you don't vacate based on the whims of any random passerby.

Why is this analogy appropriate? Because the Dr. in question purchased a seat on that flight for the duration of the flight acknowledging that it would be valid so long as the flying could be accomplished safely. That was HIS seat. Just like that is YOUR home. United was tresspassing on his seat and they should have vacated the vicinity of his seat as soon as he made it clear that nobody else was welcome to use HIS seat.

What kind of pansy pushover children are YOU raising?

That was his seat? If that were the case, I need to leave this thread head hung down in shame.

 

[jab]

The relevant rule talks about being denied boarding--he wasn't denied bording, he was boarded on the plane and then had his boarding rescinded--there's a difference.

 

[untermensche]

Those that give corporations the right to assault people without consequence basically think corporations are above the law.

They now give corporations the right to assault.

What will they give them next?

These Libertarians concerned about the liberties of man.

We did not give them a right to assault people. We gave them the already existing right to ask someone to leave their property and if they don't its trespassing.

OK.

The corporation is allowed to say: You, Mr. paying customer are scum and are trespassing.

Sure they can say that.

But that's it. They are done. They have exhausted their rights.

 

[jab]

wasn't flight late anyway, because the fracas delayed things?
He didn't fall: he was dragged and jerked so that his head hit an armrest.

 

[coloradoatheist]

We did not give them a right to assault people. We gave them the already existing right to ask someone to leave their property and if they don't its trespassing.

OK.

The corporation is allowed to say: You, Mr. paying customer are scum and are trespassing.

Sure they can say that.

But that's it. They are done. They have exhausted their rights.

Yes, and businesses have that right. And he has the right to say United sucks. There were damages if United falled to get him to his destination, 4 times the face value of his ticket.