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

[jab]

Arguing against the analyses of every single Professor of Law and aviation-law Attorney who has read the Contract of Carriage and FAA Regulations and then offered an opinion, all of whom can cite literally tens of thousands of breach-of-contract judgments, is very stupid.

And every single law attorney has put up an opinion?

Relying on a straw man during a discussion is very stupid.

You made the argument that every lawyer said the same thing. Can you prove that?

no--she said every lawyer who commented on it said the same thing, and asked you to find a dissenting comment from a lawyer.

 

[laughing dog]

On what basis would any sane jury of the doctor's peers award UA anything?

Is the definition of sane anyone who agrees with you? While more in the minority there are definitely a lot of people out there whose personal opinion was for United and a lot against. It would come down to several things in court and jury selection.

I asked a simple question, and you could not answer it. Which is truly telling.

 

[jab]

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'.

Um, his rights have to do with UA's customer contract, which specifies who can legitimately be removed involuntarily from their seat in a plane. The terms for demanding this removal were not in the contract. (One poster on this thread does keep implying the removal fit constant practice. But the practice, of forcing people in Dr. Dao's position, off UA planes, if true, is simply an ongoing a violation of the contract.)

 

[Artemus]

no--she said every lawyer who commented on it said the same thing, and asked you to find a dissenting comment from a lawyer.

For the record, Artemus is a masculine name. I'm so pretty that a lot of people get confused.

 

[Keith&Co.]

no--she said every lawyer who commented on it said the same thing, and asked you to find a dissenting comment from a lawyer.

For the record, Artemus is a masculine name. I'm so pretty that a lot of people get confused.

I have always thought you were male... Mostly because of your shoulders, i think.

 

[Artemus]

For the record, Artemus is a masculine name. I'm so pretty that a lot of people get confused.

I have always thought you were male... Mostly because of your shoulders, i think.

I should probably shave them when I go sleeveless.

 

[LordKiran]

1) Airlines use their own flights to move crew about, they don't stick them on other people's flights.

2) Chicago is big. Louisville isn't. There are 7 flights/day. At the time in question there were three left, the actual flight, a code-share on American an hour later and the second United flight (which we know was at least scheduled to be full as they couldn't rebook him on it) 3 hours later, most likely too late.

Nor can I find any other United flight arriving in Louisville in the time period in question.

Again, deliberately intellectually dishonest.


1) Airlines routinely put their crews on other airlines' flights.

2) "most likely too late" Too late for what? We can all look up the flights out of Louisville. They start departing early in the morning and continue throughout the day and into the evening.


Without any evidence, you've decided that the crew in question had to be on one of those early flights. You know that there's no evidence for this, yet you continue to act as if that were the case.

Well consider that LP's only other option is to admit to being wrong (Or simply cease responding.) Not something he's likely keen on considering after 80+ pages of arguing. Good way to make himself look stupid.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Is the definition of sane anyone who agrees with you? While more in the minority there are definitely a lot of people out there whose personal opinion was for United and a lot against. It would come down to several things in court and jury selection.

I asked a simple question, and you could not answer it. Which is truly telling.

to answer your question. United breaches their contract with the Dr so they owe him actual damages of flight cost, hotel, lost work. But because of the Drs actions it caused United to have to pay its customers for the delays so the DR owes United for the costs of refunding all the flights costs. LP also added clean up costs.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, deliberately intellectually dishonest.


1) Airlines routinely put their crews on other airlines' flights.

2) "most likely too late" Too late for what? We can all look up the flights out of Louisville. They start departing early in the morning and continue throughout the day and into the evening.


Without any evidence, you've decided that the crew in question had to be on one of those early flights. You know that there's no evidence for this, yet you continue to act as if that were the case.

Well consider that LP's only other option is to admit to being wrong (Or simply cease responding.) Not something he's likely keen on considering after 80+ pages of arguing. Good way to make himself look stupid.

I know Loren probably won't, but he should say something about 1 because it's normal. Number 2 will be in dispute until either side provides what flight the crew was destined for.

 

[coloradoatheist]

There were other "options" -- but the least costly was to remove 4 passengers. And the least costly is the best choice, for the benefit of the public/consumers generally.

We can assume the profit-seeking company will generally choose the least costly option.

But this is turning out not to be the least costly option after all. As has been pointed out several times in its own thread, United seems to have assumed its practices could violate its own, self-composed contract with its customer as it chose. WRONG, whoops: breaking the law is sometimes the least costly option, true, for a corporation--until it gets caught. Even libertarians believe, I understand, that the government should enforce contracts between private parties.

We need to make sure we are talking about the correct laws there. If the practice breaches contract then they are held to actual damages instead of contracted payment. In some cases the actual damages might be less than the offered damage. However for the legality of asking him to leave their property, that's different.

 

[Bomb#20]

That's a popular myth. It was the Indiana Supreme Court that said it*, not the USSC. What the USSC said was that if you kill an officer attempting an illegal arrest, it's manslaughter rather than murder, which is not the same as saying you have a right to do it. Moreover, that USSC decision wasn't based on the constitution, but on English Common Law, which is a standard fallback source applied when there's no statute. Most states now have statutes on this point, making the USSC decision moot.

(* Arguably. The Indiana case is usually read as limited to cases of excessive force.)

It might be a popular myth that it's a myth.

John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The USSC stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/177/529/case.html

I'm not seeing any indication that the facts might show no offense had been committed except in cases where the arresting officers were using excessive force. "He, of course, had no right to unnecessarily injure, much less to kill, his assailant". Bad Elk wasn't freed; he died of TB in jail, waiting for retrial.

Be that as it may, in Illinois resisting unlawful arrest is prohibited. That makes a USSC decision that was based on the Common Law inapplicable. There's a reason in the case you cite the USSC needed to state "The law upon the subject of arrests in that state is contained in the Compiled Laws of South Dakota 1887, section 7139 and the following sections, and it will be seen that the common law is therein substantially enacted.". That's not the law in Illinois.

 

[Ford]

I asked a simple question, and you could not answer it. Which is truly telling.

to answer your question. United breaches their contract with the Dr so they owe him actual damages of flight cost, hotel, lost work. But because of the Drs actions it caused United to have to pay its customers for the delays so the DR owes United for the costs of refunding all the flights costs. LP also added clean up costs.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, deliberately intellectually dishonest.


1) Airlines routinely put their crews on other airlines' flights.

2) "most likely too late" Too late for what? We can all look up the flights out of Louisville. They start departing early in the morning and continue throughout the day and into the evening.


Without any evidence, you've decided that the crew in question had to be on one of those early flights. You know that there's no evidence for this, yet you continue to act as if that were the case.

Well consider that LP's only other option is to admit to being wrong (Or simply cease responding.) Not something he's likely keen on considering after 80+ pages of arguing. Good way to make himself look stupid.

I know Loren probably won't, but he should say something about 1 because it's normal. Number 2 will be in dispute until either side provides what flight the crew was destined for.

I've already said this, but I'll repeat it here: If Loren provides the proof that the flight crew needed to be on one of those early flights (thus making rest rules critical), I'll happily concede the argument. If Loren were to provide that proof, not only would I have no leg left to stand on, but this entire thread would be done for - apart from the discussion of whether or not security was overly violent. It would be game over. United would be fully justified in removing passengers in order to get the crew to their next flight in time.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But because of the Drs actions it caused United to have to pay its customers for the delays

No, the Dr's actions did not CAUSE UA to return the ticket money to its passengers. UA's actions, which UA admits were in error, and UA's attempts to stem the damage done to the company include returning the ticket money.
The manager's choices
1) to not up the incentives
2) to not go to the 5th person identified by the computer for involuntary bump
are the actions that cost UA this money.

 

[zorq]

It might be a popular myth that it's a myth.

John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The USSC stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/177/529/case.html

I'm not seeing any indication that the facts might show no offense had been committed except in cases where the arresting officers were using excessive force. "He, of course, had no right to unnecessarily injure, much less to kill, his assailant". Bad Elk wasn't freed; he died of TB in jail, waiting for retrial.

Be that as it may, in Illinois resisting unlawful arrest is prohibited. That makes a USSC decision that was based on the Common Law inapplicable. There's a reason in the case you cite the USSC needed to state "The law upon the subject of arrests in that state is contained in the Compiled Laws of South Dakota 1887, section 7139 and the following sections, and it will be seen that the common law is therein substantially enacted.". That's not the law in Illinois.

You are correct. That isn't the law in Illinois.

 

[Artemus]

There is good explanation by yet a third law professor that I've found commenting on the case at Daily Kos. If the United Airlines gate agent told the port cops that Dao was a threat to safety and must be removed, then probable cause for arrest "technically" existed. However,

These “officers” appear to have been dressed in jeans and blue shirts with arm patches and baseball caps with some sort of inscription on the front.. It is not clear that they displayed badges and explained their authority. If they did not, then there was no way for Dr. Dao to know they were officers with the authority to arrest, and to issue orders pursuant to arrest--get up, put your hands behind your back, etc.--which must be complied with even though they comprise affirmative acts by the arrestee. From a reasonable person in Dr. Dao’s position they may have simply looked like hired goons of the airline, with no more arrest authority than a bar bouncer. If so, then I believe he had a right to passive resistance (not initiating a breach of the peace or affray), and would have acted lawfully by going limp.

This is immediately followed by

Whichever way this would come out on a closer examination of the details of the episode, none of this is a defense for United, who through its agents misled the “officers” about a “disruptive” passenger they claimed they had a right to remove. And none of it makes the actions of the apparently poorly trained security officers prudent or reasonable in a general sense.

That makes it three for three in law professors saying that United had no right to tell the port cops that Dao must be removed and that the port cops were seriously negligent in the performance of that removal.

Come on coloradoatheist, show us one of those counter examples you keep claiming are out there. You owe it to your fans!

 

[RavenSky]

You keep claiming this, but you also keep ignoring the fact that he had already paid for his occupancy of that seat, and that United had already accepted said payment AND already boarded Dr. Dao.

Likewise, a hotel does not get to take your money, give you the key to the room, deliver you and your luggage into the room, and then decide to revoke the transaction because some VIP shows up without a reservation and demands that view.

1) This wasn't a case of a VIP, they needed those seats for operational reasons.

Doesn't matter why they claimed to need them, you have FAILED to show why they needed THAT SPECIFIC SEAT

2) In many hotels you can show up and find that an elite traveler came along and took the room you had booked. (Akin to the usual case of being denied at the gate, rather than after boarding.) You aren't going to get booted from the room itself because the law provides special protections booting people from the place they're going to sleep.

You have completely failed to show this special law that "provides special protections booting people from the place they're going to sleep" but good on you for finally acknowledging that Dr. Dao being IN his seat is materially different from still being off the airline at the gate.

No, Dr. Dao was NOT "trespassing". He had paid for that seat, and United not only accepted payment for that seat, but put him in the seat. They don't get to retroactively claim "trespass"

If the owner of the property says "Go!" and you don't have special legal protection against that but refuse to go you are trespassing. There's no special legal protection beyond the IDB compensation, the airline was within it's rights to say "Go!"

Wrong.

 

[RavenSky]

No one had yet show this to be the ONLY flight which would have satisfied United's needs. 1) you've yet to show that this IS the consequence.
2) Those hundreds of passengers are not Dr. Dao's responsibility.
3) HundredS? Plural? What class of plane carries 200 passengers and requires a crew of four?

You think a plane only makes one flight in a day?

No, but apparently you do

You keep insisting that this one crew member absolutely had to be on THIS flight in THIS seat, yet you still fail to show any facts to support your position. Without that, you have zero basis for defending United's actions.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Loren was wrong about the hotel. Here is a link from with a response from a lawyer for it. A hotel can kick you out of their room for anything and they will need to refund your money for any services not rendered. so you would get your money back for the night.

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-a-hotel-manager-kick-me-out---my-husband-after-1589263.html

 

[coloradoatheist]

There is good explanation by yet a third law professor that I've found commenting on the case at Daily Kos. If the United Airlines gate agent told the port cops that Dao was a threat to safety and must be removed, then probable cause for arrest "technically" existed. However,


This is immediately followed by

Whichever way this would come out on a closer examination of the details of the episode, none of this is a defense for United, who through its agents misled the “officers” about a “disruptive” passenger they claimed they had a right to remove. And none of it makes the actions of the apparently poorly trained security officers prudent or reasonable in a general sense.

That makes it three for three in law professors saying that United had no right to tell the port cops that Dao must be removed and that the port cops were seriously negligent in the performance of that removal.

Come on coloradoatheist, show us one of those counter examples you keep claiming are out there. You owe it to your fans!

It's interesting that the article said they didn't have anything describing them as police but one of the criticisms against the group that came was that one guy had a vest that said police.

Here is an article addressing the legal and appropriate legal rules. Of all the the arguments against United, none of them has quoted law and which laws actually apply or why they don't apply here.

https://professional-troublemaker.com/2017/04/13/united-airlines-fiasco-was-it-legal/

 

[RavenSky]

You still don't get it, do you?

Again, you've utterly failed to demonstrate that the need to get the crew on the flight in question was driven by anything other than convenience.

The crew doesn't get there, the plane doesn't fly. The plane isn't in the right location so even if crew gets there later it still can't make it's flights until it manages to reposition to the right airport.

Repeating your unsubstantiated claim and still not providing any factual support whatsoever is "not a rebuttal at all".

 

[untermensche]

Corporations write the laws.

Politicians as their servants merely make what the corporations write into laws.

This is a moral issue.

Are non-human entities with human servants to have the right to assault people?