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

[coloradoatheist]

No, they can't go to assault. All they can do is do what every other business can do, ask them to leave. If they refuse to leave then they can call in security. What does a bar do when they have a bouncer come in and escort someone out?

... AND if "security" is not a police officer (which in this instance, was not), then they are just as liable for assaulting a person as any other regular civilian. If a crime was not committed (and this is not trespassing either, due to the technicalities around how that is administered - so no crime was committed), then the "bouncer" or "security guard" is guilty of assault.

Bars are no different than retail shops (where I have a good deal of experience as a private detective), in that those "private security professional's" are performing "citizen arrests". If the person detained (or dragged off, or publically humiliated in any way) is not proven to have committed a crime, then the crime was wrongful imprisonment and assault against that person by the security professional.

That is the different issue in this and with the lawsuit that he would have against that company who did it. So it would come down to the laws, statue and common, in the state of Illinois regarding what rights a security firm has in removing someone that's not wanted from an establishment.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Quoting the linked article:

Now, before you write us angry letters, let us reiterate that we’re not judging whether a policy is fair or was applied or enforced correctly. We’re merely saying that there are rules in place that allow for passengers already on a plane to be removed, and passengers are subject to them.

No one has argued that there are no rules that ever allow for passengers already on the plane to be removed. The highly qualified people who have actually analyzed the contract of carriage and quoted the relevant sections say unanimously that there were no grounds to have him removed.

Per my earlier post the terms of Article 25 only cover allowing a person not being allowed to board; not being taken off once boarded (apart from disruptive and dangerous acts by the passenger).

furthermore, no term of any contract provides the right to assault a person. It is not illegal to violate the terms of a contract, so this passenger did not commit a crime and could not be so much as touched by anyone, not even police unless they issued a written trespass notice to him (which they couldn't because they weren't cops.)

The men that dragged him off the plane should be arrested for assault and for impersonating a police officer. They were wearing "police" jackets after being told it was illegal for them to do so in the past. They knowingly impersonated police, knowing it was illegal, and then illegally assaulted a person. All United did was call security. Secuirty should have called the cops to issue a trespass warning. THEN the rent-a-cops could have legally dragged him off the plane... but still be liable for the unnecessary use of force.

I disagree at least with one thing you said. A tresspass warning does not have to written, it can be oral as long as the person receiving it is known to be aware of it.

 

[Malintent]

Quoting the linked article:

Now, before you write us angry letters, let us reiterate that we’re not judging whether a policy is fair or was applied or enforced correctly. We’re merely saying that there are rules in place that allow for passengers already on a plane to be removed, and passengers are subject to them.

No one has argued that there are no rules that ever allow for passengers already on the plane to be removed. The highly qualified people who have actually analyzed the contract of carriage and quoted the relevant sections say unanimously that there were no grounds to have him removed.

Per my earlier post the terms of Article 25 only cover allowing a person not being allowed to board; not being taken off once boarded (apart from disruptive and dangerous acts by the passenger).

furthermore, no term of any contract provides the right to assault a person. It is not illegal to violate the terms of a contract, so this passenger did not commit a crime and could not be so much as touched by anyone, not even police unless they issued a written trespass notice to him (which they couldn't because they weren't cops.)

The men that dragged him off the plane should be arrested for assault and for impersonating a police officer. They were wearing "police" jackets after being told it was illegal for them to do so in the past. They knowingly impersonated police, knowing it was illegal, and then illegally assaulted a person. All United did was call security. Secuirty should have called the cops to issue a trespass warning. THEN the rent-a-cops could have legally dragged him off the plane... but still be liable for the unnecessary use of force.

I disagree at least with one thing you said. A tresspass warning does not have to written, it can be oral as long as the person receiving it is known to be aware of it.

You are correct. Legal advice on this subject is to provide it in writing to avoid the claim they didn't understand, didn't hear, or have a different understanding of the terms. A verbal warning is legally sufficient, technically.

 

[Malintent]

... AND if "security" is not a police officer (which in this instance, was not), then they are just as liable for assaulting a person as any other regular civilian. If a crime was not committed (and this is not trespassing either, due to the technicalities around how that is administered - so no crime was committed), then the "bouncer" or "security guard" is guilty of assault.

Bars are no different than retail shops (where I have a good deal of experience as a private detective), in that those "private security professional's" are performing "citizen arrests". If the person detained (or dragged off, or publically humiliated in any way) is not proven to have committed a crime, then the crime was wrongful imprisonment and assault against that person by the security professional.

That is the different issue in this and with the lawsuit that he would have against that company who did it. So it would come down to the laws, statue and common, in the state of Illinois regarding what rights a security firm has in removing someone that's not wanted from an establishment.

another good point... state law varies on this. I was speaking in terms of how the law was in New York, in the 1990's, which I trust is highly representative of nation-wide current practice.

When I worked as a private detective for a large retail clothing chain, the average settlement for a wrongful imprisonment lawsuit was $50,000. That is just for detaining a person that you can't prove shoplifted. As a security professional in that space, you have to be completely POSITIVE the person committed a crime.

A person has not stolen anything until they have passed the point of last checkout (not necessarily out the door). You haven't broken the law if you walk around the store putting things in your pockets. You better count every single item and know where it came from and what the person did with it before stopping them past that last point of sale. If they take the items out of their pockets at the register and pay, they didn't break any laws, and stopping them exposes the establishment to wrongful imprisonment (if you detain), assault (if you touch them physically), and slander (if you accuse them of a crime in a public space).

 

[RavenSky]

I disagree at least with one thing you said. A tresspass warning does not have to written, it can be oral as long as the person receiving it is known to be aware of it.

1. You will need to show that this "trespass warning" could legally apply to an airplane seat that Dr. Dao already paid for and was seated in,
2. That a verbal "trespass warning" is legal Chicago,
3. That said "trespass warning" was, in fact, issued.

Until all three are shown to be facts, this is just more unsubstantiated opinions being repeated ad nauseum

 

[atrib]

It's not a special right. If I invite someone over to my house and say he I would like you to leave now, they have to.

Except for the detail that when you invite someone to your home, you do not make them pay in advance for a ticket to reserve a seat on your couch. And you certainly do not get to assault them after they have paid for said ticket, have been welcomed into your home and seated on your couch.

 

[coloradoatheist]

It's not a special right. If I invite someone over to my house and say he I would like you to leave now, they have to.

Except for the detail that when you invite someone to your home, you do not make them pay in advance for a ticket to reserve a seat on your couch. And you certainly do not get to assault them after they have paid for said ticket, have been welcomed into your home and seated on your couch.

Except it's not quite and there are circumstances where yes it does apply. If I say I will give you $300 to paint my inside walls but then when you are inside I say I want you out of the house, then yes I can ask them to leave and if they acknowledge that I asked them to leave they would have to leave. They can come back and say I still owe them the $300 which is a contract dispute. About the assault. You can't just assault them, but the variance for what you can do about getting them to leave varies around the country.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I disagree at least with one thing you said. A tresspass warning does not have to written, it can be oral as long as the person receiving it is known to be aware of it.

1. You will need to show that this "trespass warning" could legally apply to an airplane seat that Dr. Dao already paid for and was seated in,
2. That a verbal "trespass warning" is legal Chicago,
3. That said "trespass warning" was, in fact, issued.

Until all three are shown to be facts, this is just more unsubstantiated opinions being repeated ad nauseum

Tresspassing in in Illinois also applies to property like boats, planes, cars, etc.

2) I will look for it, but I haven't seen any statues or rules in the statues I have looked at that said a verbal warning in Illinois does not apply. Can you supply one that says it's not allowed in Illinois?

3) The flight attendant saying you need to leave the plane, the security guard saying you need to leave the plane isn't in dispute. Though I need to confirm the first part.

 

[Malintent]

I disagree at least with one thing you said. A tresspass warning does not have to written, it can be oral as long as the person receiving it is known to be aware of it.

1. You will need to show that this "trespass warning" could legally apply to an airplane seat that Dr. Dao already paid for and was seated in,
2. That a verbal "trespass warning" is legal Chicago,
3. That said "trespass warning" was, in fact, issued.

Until all three are shown to be facts, this is just more unsubstantiated opinions being repeated ad nauseum

It seems you are jumping into the conversation midway and missing the flow of dialog. No one said anything about trespassing being part of this incident. I said that IF United called security and security did what they were supposed to do when the passenger refused to leave, which would be to call a real police office to the scene, THEN that cop would have to first issue a trespass warning, and then could enforce it (and dragging someone away would be in scope for that).

OTHERS have made the erroneous claim that this passenger in this case was trespassing once a flight attendant asked them to deplane. That is simply not so.

Regarding verbal versus written... it is a minor distinction. Verbal is universally allowed, but in a high-stakes confrontation one would be wise to do it the best way, not the minimally acceptable way.

Regarding your request for other people to prove their points with evidence about easily goggled things... do it yourself if all you have is "nuh uh".

 

[coloradoatheist]

1. You will need to show that this "trespass warning" could legally apply to an airplane seat that Dr. Dao already paid for and was seated in,
2. That a verbal "trespass warning" is legal Chicago,
3. That said "trespass warning" was, in fact, issued.

Until all three are shown to be facts, this is just more unsubstantiated opinions being repeated ad nauseum

It seems you are jumping into the conversation midway and missing the flow of dialog. No one said anything about trespassing being part of this incident. I said that IF United called security and security did what they were supposed to do when the passenger refused to leave, which would be to call a real police office to the scene, THEN that cop would have to first issue a trespass warning, and then could enforce it (and dragging someone away would be in scope for that).

OTHERS have made the erroneous claim that this passenger in this case was trespassing once a flight attendant asked them to deplane. That is simply not so.

Regarding verbal versus written... it is a minor distinction. Verbal is universally allowed, but in a high-stakes confrontation one would be wise to do it the best way, not the minimally acceptable way.

Regarding your request for other people to prove their points with evidence about easily goggled things... do it yourself if all you have is "nuh uh".

I was watching the Rockies game the other night and at least one and if not two people ran onto the field of play during the action. Security is the group that went after them. So if by your definition they need to do issue a written warning for trespassing then security couldn't do anything while the person was running around on the field. The cop would have to chase the person down and then write a written warning about it and that's it.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Except for the detail that when you invite someone to your home, you do not make them pay in advance for a ticket to reserve a seat on your couch. And you certainly do not get to assault them after they have paid for said ticket, have been welcomed into your home and seated on your couch.

Except it's not quite and there are circumstances where yes it does apply. If I say I will give you $300 to paint my inside walls but then when you are inside I say I want you out of the house, then yes I can ask them to leave and if they acknowledge that I asked them to leave they would have to leave. They can come back and say I still owe them the $300 which is a contract dispute. About the assault. You can't just assault them, but the variance for what you can do about getting them to leave varies around the country.

An appropriate analogy would have part of the contract you made with the painter explicitly stating the only reasons why you can ask them to leave.

 

[bilby]

Except for the detail that when you invite someone to your home, you do not make them pay in advance for a ticket to reserve a seat on your couch. And you certainly do not get to assault them after they have paid for said ticket, have been welcomed into your home and seated on your couch.

Except it's not quite and there are circumstances where yes it does apply. If I say I will give you $300 to paint my inside walls but then when you are inside I say I want you out of the house, then yes I can ask them to leave and if they acknowledge that I asked them to leave they would have to leave. They can come back and say I still owe them the $300 which is a contract dispute. About the assault. You can't just assault them, but the variance for what you can do about getting them to leave varies around the country.

So now all you need do is show that United Airlines employed Dr Dao to perform some kind of maintenance on their aircraft (and then changed their minds) and you will have a watertight case, and not a rambling mishmash of inapt analogies.

 

[zorq]

Except for the detail that when you invite someone to your home, you do not make them pay in advance for a ticket to reserve a seat on your couch. And you certainly do not get to assault them after they have paid for said ticket, have been welcomed into your home and seated on your couch.

Except it's not quite and there are circumstances where yes it does apply. If I say I will give you $300 to paint my inside walls but then when you are inside I say I want you out of the house, then yes I can ask them to leave and if they acknowledge that I asked them to leave they would have to leave. They can come back and say I still owe them the $300 which is a contract dispute. About the assault. You can't just assault them, but the variance for what you can do about getting them to leave varies around the country.

Again, you are flipping the roles around. How about if you tell someone that you will pay them $300 to paint the inside of their house, they accept the money and invite you inside but then change their mind and kick you out. Now you don't have $300 AND you didn't get to paint those walls you wanted to paint. Does that make the contract violation more clear?

When you pay for a service, AND sign a contract to those ends you get to recieve that service according to the terms of the contract. There is no way to interpret the situation in which United was acting responsibly here.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Except it's not quite and there are circumstances where yes it does apply. If I say I will give you $300 to paint my inside walls but then when you are inside I say I want you out of the house, then yes I can ask them to leave and if they acknowledge that I asked them to leave they would have to leave. They can come back and say I still owe them the $300 which is a contract dispute. About the assault. You can't just assault them, but the variance for what you can do about getting them to leave varies around the country.

Again, you are flipping the roles around. How about if you tell someone that you will pay them $300 to paint the inside of their house, they accept the money and invite you inside but then change their mind and kick you out. Now you don't have $300 AND you didn't get to paint those walls you wanted to paint. Does that make the contract violation more clear?

When you pay for a service, AND sign a contract to those ends you get to recieve that service according to the terms of the contract. There is no way to interpret the situation in which United was acting responsibly here.

But we are discussing two different laws here and that's the problem have with this. You can breach a contract and pay for the breach of contract but still have control over the underlying asset. and it's not paying a customer for his property, it's the opposite way round.

 

[zorq]

Again, you are flipping the roles around. How about if you tell someone that you will pay them $300 to paint the inside of their house, they accept the money and invite you inside but then change their mind and kick you out. Now you don't have $300 AND you didn't get to paint those walls you wanted to paint. Does that make the contract violation more clear?

When you pay for a service, AND sign a contract to those ends you get to recieve that service according to the terms of the contract. There is no way to interpret the situation in which United was acting responsibly here.

But we are discussing two different laws here and that's the problem have with this. You can breach a contract and pay for the breach of contract but still have control over the underlying asset. and it's not paying a customer for his property, it's the opposite way round.

I don't understand this. Can you rephrase? As I see it my reversed analogy is much more appropriate than your analogy.

 

[RavenSky]

Except for the detail that when you invite someone to your home, you do not make them pay in advance for a ticket to reserve a seat on your couch. And you certainly do not get to assault them after they have paid for said ticket, have been welcomed into your home and seated on your couch.

Except it's not quite and there are circumstances where yes it does apply. If I say I will give you $300 to paint my inside walls but then when you are inside I say I want you out of the house, then yes I can ask them to leave and if they acknowledge that I asked them to leave they would have to leave. They can come back and say I still owe them the $300 which is a contract dispute. About the assault. You can't just assault them, but the variance for what you can do about getting them to leave varies around the country.

You are attempting the same false analogy as before

United Airlines did NOT pay Dr. Dao to board their airplane

 

[RavenSky]

1. You will need to show that this "trespass warning" could legally apply to an airplane seat that Dr. Dao already paid for and was seated in,
2. That a verbal "trespass warning" is legal Chicago,
3. That said "trespass warning" was, in fact, issued.

Until all three are shown to be facts, this is just more unsubstantiated opinions being repeated ad nauseum

Tresspassing in in Illinois also applies to property like boats, planes, cars, etc.

2) I will look for it, but I haven't seen any statues or rules in the statues I have looked at that said a verbal warning in Illinois does not apply. Can you supply one that says it's not allowed in Illinois?

3) The flight attendant saying you need to leave the plane, the security guard saying you need to leave the plane isn't in dispute. Though I need to confirm the first part.

You are presenting the argument that "trespass laws" apply, so I don't need to supply the evidence. You do.

What little I did look at talks about painting purple stripes and that the "no trespass" notice does have to be written, but seems to only apply to private property. The couple of sources I looked at made it clear that these laws do not apply to public spaces (i.e. shopping centers, restaurants) even though they are privately owned. That is as far as I bothered to waste my time looking for evidence for/against YOUR claim.

As to your comment that flight attendants or security guard saying "you have to leave" - that is not a trespass warning even in places that allow verbal trespass warnings.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Quoting the linked article:

Now, before you write us angry letters, let us reiterate that we’re not judging whether a policy is fair or was applied or enforced correctly. We’re merely saying that there are rules in place that allow for passengers already on a plane to be removed, and passengers are subject to them.

No one has argued that there are no rules that ever allow for passengers already on the plane to be removed. The highly qualified people who have actually analyzed the contract of carriage and quoted the relevant sections say unanimously that there were no grounds to have him removed.

Per my earlier post the terms of Article 25 only cover allowing a person not being allowed to board; not being taken off once boarded (apart from disruptive and dangerous acts by the passenger).

furthermore, no term of any contract provides the right to assault a person. It is not illegal to violate the terms of a contract, so this passenger did not commit a crime and could not be so much as touched by anyone, not even police unless they issued a written trespass notice to him (which they couldn't because they weren't cops.)

The men that dragged him off the plane should be arrested for assault and for impersonating a police officer. They were wearing "police" jackets after being told it was illegal for them to do so in the past. They knowingly impersonated police, knowing it was illegal, and then illegally assaulted a person. All United did was call security. Secuirty should have called the cops to issue a trespass warning. THEN the rent-a-cops could have legally dragged him off the plane... but still be liable for the unnecessary use of force.

I would agree the airline was wrong. Further the man had already boarded, so 'the Clean Hands Doctrine' would apply. It's terms infer that passengers who are overbooked are not allowed to board, but he had already been accepted to board and had boarded.

 

[coloradoatheist]

But we are discussing two different laws here and that's the problem have with this. You can breach a contract and pay for the breach of contract but still have control over the underlying asset. and it's not paying a customer for his property, it's the opposite way round.

I don't understand this. Can you rephrase? As I see it my reversed analogy is much more appropriate than your analogy.

The issue isn't that there isn't many times that someone pays for your house for you to do something that has the same laws. Usually when someone is paying you it's for a service. The only thing I can think of is someone paying to have a party at your house and that doesn't happen often. Landlord/tenant laws are different.

But there are many services where you do occupy their property for the service. You wouldn't make the case that you own the barbershop seat while getting a haircut.

 

[RavenSky]

It seems you are jumping into the conversation midway and missing the flow of dialog.

Since I was not talking to/about you, it seems you are the jumping in without cause.

I said that IF United called security and security did what they were supposed to do when the passenger refused to leave, which would be to call a real police office to the scene, THEN that cop would have to first issue a trespass warning, and then could enforce it (and dragging someone away would be in scope for that).

The bolded is my point as well. Perhaps if you addressed my actual position instead attacking me on a personal level because you don't like me, you'd notice that our positions are mostly in agreement in this thread.

First you say:

No one said anything about trespassing being part of this incident.

then you say:

OTHERS have made the erroneous claim that this passenger in this case was trespassing once a flight attendant asked them to deplane. That is simply not so.

It is this latter one that I am addressing, and I agree with your position on this point

Regarding verbal versus written... it is a minor distinction. Verbal is universally allowed, but in a high-stakes confrontation one would be wise to do it the best way, not the minimally acceptable way.

Verbal is not "universally allowed", and so far there is no evidence that it would be allowed in this situation.