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

[RavenSky]

I am not "contesting" anything yet because you have repeatedly failed to provide any facts TO contest. I am simply reminding you YET AGAIN that your ill-formed opinion is not a fact.

Provide sourced facts.

If you're not contesting anything you are in effect conceding.

"Conceding" that you are talking bullshit out of your ass and have not supplied even a single substantiated fact in this entire thread? Yep.

Anything else? Nope.

 

[RavenSky]

The point is that it does nothing to support your position.

You... of all people... DARE to yap about "support your position"



Ah Loren, you are too fucking funny

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wether i go to my doctor today or in two weeks is not important. On the other hand if I need to be somewhere tomorrow then another flight tomorrow is completely useless.

For a lot of people it is though. I have to take off work, sometimes arrange babysitting. It's not that easy. However with airline travel there is no expectation that you will get there within your time frame. and if you absolutely need to be somewhere at a certain time, you drive.

And that's supposed to be some sort of guarantee?

~20 years ago. We were heading to an out of town airport. Report on the radio--the highway is closed at the pass. I didn't have a GPS to route around the problem. We stopped at the next gas station and got a map (I knew the intended route, didn't need a map) and I figured out another way there. We just made the plane.

If you truly have to be somewhere at a certain time, go the day before.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Let me explain this so even you understand: a non emergencency visit to the doctor is not time critical. The exact timing of the service is not an essential part of the service. Did you underdtand that?
Can you also understand that this is in totally contrast to travel where the exact timing to the nearest several minutes often are of outmost importance?

Can you understand that the airlines don't even promise your arrival timing to within several minutes? Anything less than 15 minutes late is considered on time. We have tickets booked where one flight is even noted as often being 30+ minutes late. (And that's something we take into consideration in booking--I would never book a connection that would fail if I were 15 minutes late.)

 

[Malintent]

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.

they would need to have a cop issue a trespass notice, and then for the person to violate the notice, to have him ARRESTED. Private security can chase, tackle, and escort out anyone that is posing a threat to the safety of anyone, including themselves... and jumping onto the field is considered a threat to safety.

Sitting in a seat speaking calmly is not a threat to anyone's safety.

 

[Malintent]

Here is the link the Illinois Statues about property. For real property there are a couple of sections.

21-3 a (3)
It says that a person is trespassing after they have received notice from the owner or occupant that they are to depart
21-3 a Says it can be given orally in in writing.

Yup. but it is nearly impossible to prove that a legal trespass notice was given verbally unless you record it (which kind of is the same thing as giving it in writing... there is a record of it).

 

[Malintent]

Your analogy is fucked up. Dr Dao was NOT being paid to perform a service for UA. UA was providing a service to Dr Dao in exchange for the price of the ticket. Dr Dao had paid for his ticket, and had been boarded and seated on the plane by UA personnel. When UA asked him to depart, he challenged UA's claim that they could involuntarily remove him from the aircraft, after he had been boarded and seated. He apparently also contacted his lawyer to ascertain if UA could do this. UA reacted by calling in the airport's hired rent-a-cops to remove him by force, which they did. During which Dr Dao sustained a broken nose, broken teeth, and apparently a concussion. You tell me, who was in the wrong here?

I think they're response is that when confronted by the "police" and told to leave, he should have left regardless of whether it was an illegal order or UA was in the wrong and he could simply sue for breach of contract later. By not immediately complying with the authorities, he relinquished his right to not be beaten up and forcefully thrown off the plane.

That makes no sense whatsoever. I am very glad no one I have ever even heard of holds this opinion (except you - allegedly). This is the kind of attitude that can do some serious damage to the freedoms and rights of everyone in this country. You have the right to be a passive punch bag if you want to be, but I hope your attitude continues to be met with extreme disdain by others.

 

[Malintent]

But the argument that the law professors have stated is that boarding refers to being inside the door instead of the airline definition of boarding finishes with all passengers on board and doors closed. They argue that since the contract is vague it should go in favor of the flyer. But then that means that it's a contractual belief, not a statutorial belief and one that is an opinion. So when the cops arrive and say I need to follow the law in regard to whether boarding is defined as one, can they turn to any statues in Illinois or Federal law to know which law applies? Absent an explicit law on this, then the cops would fall back on a tradional definition and then let the courts decide if there was a breach of contract. And that traditional law, the owner of a property has asked someone to leave and they can't take off without them being removed from the plane. The officers would comply with that.

This assumes there is nothing else that defines "boarding". However, in common use they refer to "the boarding process", every airline I've flown treats it about the same. That seems to me to be the relevant definition--and by that definition one can be denied boarding even after one is on board.

Furthermore, that's how it has worked in the past--when something comes up they can kick you off even after boarding.

You are flat wrong about "boarding".. on two levels. 1) "common use" of a word means fuck all in federal or state regulations. How you like to mangle words, or how you perceive others to use them has no bearing on reality. 2) "when something comes up" is not a contractual "out". "Safety" is the only means by which the airline can eject a passenger or all of the passengers.

Airline operators may choose to break their contract with the passenger, and deal with the consequences of legal action. What makes this case interesting is that this person refused to leave, forcing them to resort to police action to exercise a trespass warning (not that they thought about it and decided to go that route - there was little thought on their part - they just wanted to get him off so they could use his seat for someone else). The individuals posing as cops (who should be in jail right now for that) could not issue a valid trespass warning, no crime was being committed, so they had no right to so much as touch that man.

United Airlines is a scumbag company for violating their contract with that passenger in that way.
The people who provided Security Services broke at least 2 laws, not the least of which is aggravated assault.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I think they're response is that when confronted by the "police" and told to leave, he should have left regardless of whether it was an illegal order or UA was in the wrong and he could simply sue for breach of contract later. By not immediately complying with the authorities, he relinquished his right to not be beaten up and forcefully thrown off the plane.

That makes no sense whatsoever. I am very glad no one I have ever even heard of holds this opinion (except you - allegedly). This is the kind of attitude that can do some serious damage to the freedoms and rights of everyone in this country. You have the right to be a passive punch bag if you want to be, but I hope your attitude continues to be met with extreme disdain by others.

I do not hold this opinion. I am stating what I think people like Loren Pechtel are saying. They present the idea that if you do not obey the police then you're asking for whatever treatment they "bestow" upon you. You'll see this opinion showing up on threads about police killings of unarmed black people as well as in threads about the Israeli treatment of Palestinians. I am merely repeating what is being said by a few members in this thread.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That makes no sense whatsoever. I am very glad no one I have ever even heard of holds this opinion (except you - allegedly). This is the kind of attitude that can do some serious damage to the freedoms and rights of everyone in this country. You have the right to be a passive punch bag if you want to be, but I hope your attitude continues to be met with extreme disdain by others.

I do not hold this opinion. I am stating what I think people like Loren Pechtel are saying. They present the idea that if you do not obey the police then you're asking for whatever treatment they "bestow" upon you. You'll see this opinion showing up on threads about police killings of unarmed black people as well as in threads about the Israeli treatment of Palestinians. I am merely repeating what is being said by a few members in this thread.

Basically, yes. You break the law, law enforcement is entitled to use whatever force is necessary to stop the lawbreaking. The cops shouldn't use any more force than need be, but if something bad happens from the reasonable application of force (this case, the cigarette seller etc.) then too bad.

The intent of the cops here was to remove him and had he not resisted he would have been unharmed. That's reasonable force. His breaking free and thus falling is entirely on him, the cops get no blame.

 

[Malintent]

I do not hold this opinion. I am stating what I think people like Loren Pechtel are saying. They present the idea that if you do not obey the police then you're asking for whatever treatment they "bestow" upon you. You'll see this opinion showing up on threads about police killings of unarmed black people as well as in threads about the Israeli treatment of Palestinians. I am merely repeating what is being said by a few members in this thread.

Basically, yes. You break the law, law enforcement is entitled to use whatever force is necessary to stop the lawbreaking. The cops shouldn't use any more force than need be, but if something bad happens from the reasonable application of force (this case, the cigarette seller etc.) then too bad.

The intent of the cops here was to remove him and had he not resisted he would have been unharmed. That's reasonable force. His breaking free and thus falling is entirely on him, the cops get no blame.

THEY WERE NOT COPS!!! THEY WERE PRIVATE CITIZENS WORKING FOR A SECURITY COMPANY AND THEY HAVE NO MORE AUTHORITY TO USE FORCE THAN YOU OR I DO
Also recall the flight was not "overbooked", nor was there a maintenance or weather issue. There was no threat of safety from this passenger.

Let's please discuss factual instances and not hypothetical events that did not occur.

 

[laughing dog]

Let's please discuss factual instances and not hypothetical events that did not occur.

If that is your standard, you'd better put LP on ignore.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Basically, yes. You break the law, law enforcement is entitled to use whatever force is necessary to stop the lawbreaking. The cops shouldn't use any more force than need be, but if something bad happens from the reasonable application of force (this case, the cigarette seller etc.) then too bad.

Can you tell us what law was broken in this case? This was the airline using physical force to resolve a contract dispute, not a criminal issue.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Basically, yes. You break the law, law enforcement is entitled to use whatever force is necessary to stop the lawbreaking. The cops shouldn't use any more force than need be, but if something bad happens from the reasonable application of force (this case, the cigarette seller etc.) then too bad.

Can you tell us what law was broken in this case? This was the airline using physical force to resolve a contract dispute, not a criminal issue.

Trespassing and possibly not following a flight attendants instructions.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is incredible that this thread is still going on. Some people will justify almost any level of force from people with any level of authority of control.

Basically, yes. You break the law, law enforcement is entitled to use whatever force is necessary to stop the lawbreaking. The cops shouldn't use any more force than need be, but if something bad happens from the reasonable application of force (this case, the cigarette seller etc.) then too bad.

The intent of the cops here was to remove him and had he not resisted he would have been unharmed. That's reasonable force. His breaking free and thus falling is entirely on him, the cops get no blame.

THEY WERE NOT COPS!!! THEY WERE PRIVATE CITIZENS WORKING FOR A SECURITY COMPANY AND THEY HAVE NO MORE AUTHORITY TO USE FORCE THAN YOU OR I DO

Also recall the flight was not "overbooked", nor was there a maintenance or weather issue. There was no threat of safety from this passenger.

Let's please discuss factual instances and not hypothetical events that did not occur.

What does it say when I knew who you were replying to based solely on the reply, without even looking to see who you quoted?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Can you tell us what law was broken in this case? This was the airline using physical force to resolve a contract dispute, not a criminal issue.

Trespassing and possibly not following a flight attendants instructions.

He didn't sneak onto the plane. He had a ticket, had boarded the plane quite legally and in compliance with the airplane. It'd be extremely hard to get a jury to say he was trespassing.

 

[laughing dog]

Trespassing and possibly not following a flight attendants instructions.

He didn't sneak onto the plane. He had a ticket, had boarded the plane quite legally and in compliance with the airplane. It'd be extremely hard to get a jury to say he was trespassing.

Exactly.

This thread is fascinating. UA screwed up when it did not offer sufficient compensation to induce one more passenger to give up a seat. It compounded the screwup by not looking for other alternatives to getting the crew to its destination. Finally, it put the icing on the screwup cake by not having the pilot order the passenger off the plane.

Yet, there are a number of putative free-market evangelists and libertarians employing counter-factual and delusional rationales to defend the use of violence and an involuntary technique to address the issue.

 

[Malintent]

Can you tell us what law was broken in this case? This was the airline using physical force to resolve a contract dispute, not a criminal issue.

Trespassing and possibly not following a flight attendants instructions.

No legal trespass warning was issued. Any claim of trespass is over and done with. caput.. forget about it. They could have gone that route if a REAL COP was available to issue it... but that didn't happen so please stop repeating this error (and the error regarding "overbooking" - also did not occur and is off the table - stop repeating it) Following flight attendant's instructions is Federal law and an interesting point to pursue... I do not believe that ANY random utterance from a flight attendant becomes law-of-the-plane. I may look over the FARs to get a better idea, but I do not have time this second. Likely, the authority of the Flight Attendants begins and ends with flight safety. They cannot say, "give me all the money out of your wallet" and then have you arrested for failing to follow their instructions, obviously. The authority they have to kick a person off of the plane is strictly related to the Safety of the flight.... but if someone wants to go look that up, see FAR part 135, 35, and 121.

 

[Malintent]

Trespassing and possibly not following a flight attendants instructions.

He didn't sneak onto the plane. He had a ticket, had boarded the plane quite legally and in compliance with the airplane. It'd be extremely hard to get a jury to say he was trespassing.

especially because no trespass warning was issued. you can't be guilty of a crime you weren't even charged with.

If you own a business that is open to the public, and you ask someone to leave, and they don't, THEY ARE STILL NOT TRESSPASSING. Not until you call the police to have them removed. The police will issue a trespass warning, and then immediately enforce it.

Think about it... if you own property that is open to the public, then you would be able to have any person arrested that you want at any time, simply by CLAIMING the person is trespassing. Tha tis why the cops have to issue the warning (and document it) before arresting anyone. obviously, once they receive the warning, they have the opportunity to vacate the premises before the cop arrests them for violating the trespass warning (and then - AND ONLY THEN) are they actually trespassing if they do not leave once they receive the warning.

 

[fast]

He didn't sneak onto the plane. He had a ticket, had boarded the plane quite legally and in compliance with the airplane. It'd be extremely hard to get a jury to say he was trespassing.

Exactly.

This thread is fascinating. UA screwed up when it did not offer sufficient compensation to induce one more passenger to give up a seat. It compounded the screwup by not looking for other alternatives to getting the crew to its destination. Finally, it put the icing on the screwup cake by not having the pilot order the passenger off the plane.

Yet, there are a number of putative free-market evangelists and libertarians employing counter-factual and delusional rationales to defend the use of violence and an involuntary technique to address the issue.

His so-called right to sit in the airlines seat was revoked, and not unlike a loud mouth cellphone user in a theater interrupting others, he quietly sat there interrupting others by delaying departure time by not leaving when instructed to. Other rights, real rights, need to be violated.