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

[Malintent]

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His so-called right to sit in the airlines seat was revoked, and not unlike a loud mouth cellphone user in a theater interrupting others, he quietly sat there interrupting others by delaying departure time by not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.

.. and just like in a theater, if someone authorized to call the cops on someone to have them removed on a trespass warning calls the actual cops, and not some dumb-shit private citizen that is illegally wearing a jacket that has the word "police" written on it, then that person would have to leave with that actual police officer.

That didn't happen.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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His so-called right to sit in the airlines seat was revoked...

At random. You speak as if he was doing something disruptive to lose the seat.

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.

Seriously, bad analogies need to be criminalized.

The original question asked was 'what crime did the guy commit'. CA said 'tresspassing', I said and ld agreed, that it'd be impossible to get a conviction on such a charge in this case. Now you spin the wheel back to the beginning of the argument, where a man who lawfully purchased a ticket, lawfully boarded, can in no way be expected to think he has a right to be on the plane.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Thank you for reinforcing my observation. Dr Dao was not interrupting anyone. The delay was due solely to UA's serial screwups.

Other rights, real rights, need to be violated.

At lleast you did not feel the need to interject race into that babble.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

This takes us back to reasonable expectations. I wouldn't have thought it legal for a Steward on the plane to throw me off... at random. There is a chance I'd dig my heels because I'd think "I'm on the plane, I bought a ticket, I want to go to the destination, they need to figure out how to deal with their staffing issue". A cop enters the situation, there is less wiggle room about who has ultimate authority to say how things go, assuming the officer isn't a complete ass and explains what is happening and why it is actually allowed to happen.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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.

Here is an Illinois Supreme Court decision that explicitly says that a Company can use reasonable force to remove a trespasser from it's property. It doesn't have to wait for the police to show up. And the statue as I pointed out earlier, says trespassing can be given orally or written.

http://law.justia.com/cases/illinois/supreme-court/1961/35745-6-5.html

 

[coloradoatheist]

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.

This takes us back to reasonable expectations. I wouldn't have thought it legal for a Steward on the plane to throw me off... at random. There is a chance I'd dig my heels because I'd think "I'm on the plane, I bought a ticket, I want to go to the destination, they need to figure out how to deal with their staffing issue". A cop enters the situation, there is less wiggle room about who has ultimate authority to say how things go, assuming the officer isn't a complete ass and explains what is happening and why it is actually allowed to happen.

But in the case I linked to they also thought they could be there, but they still were charged with trespass. The fine in your case would be the minimum or maybe something else for that it. This is one case where the law should be codified to meet what people expect.

 

[Juma]

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.

Here is an Illinois Supreme Court decision that explicitly says that a Company can use reasonable force to remove a trespasser from it's property. It doesn't have to wait for the police to show up. And the statue as I pointed out earlier, says trespassing can be given orally or written.

http://law.justia.com/cases/illinois/supreme-court/1961/35745-6-5.html

Why do you keep bringing up trespassing? Nobody was trespassing on the plane.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Why do you keep bringing up trespassing? Nobody was trespassing on the plane.

You should really take the time to explain that to him in five or six different ways so that he'll have more examples to ignore.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Here is an Illinois Supreme Court decision that explicitly says that a Company can use reasonable force to remove a trespasser from it's property. It doesn't have to wait for the police to show up. And the statue as I pointed out earlier, says trespassing can be given orally or written.

http://law.justia.com/cases/illinois/supreme-court/1961/35745-6-5.html

Why do you keep bringing up trespassing? Nobody was trespassing on the plane.

Except that isn't the case. United asked him to leave their premises. It's only trespassing once he refuses to leave. If he had walked out he wouldn't have been trespassing. Once he refused yes he was.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Here is an Illinois Supreme Court decision that explicitly says that a Company can use reasonable force to remove a trespasser from it's property. It doesn't have to wait for the police to show up. And the statue as I pointed out earlier, says trespassing can be given orally or written.

http://law.justia.com/cases/illinois/supreme-court/1961/35745-6-5.html

I'm moving to Illinois!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why do you keep bringing up trespassing? Nobody was trespassing on the plane.

Except that isn't the case. United asked him to leave their premises.

Actually, they did that after they invited him onto their premises, and to no fault of his own, was he being told to leave. And lets get rid of the word premises here and replace it with "airplane".

If he had walked out he wouldn't have been trespassing. Once he refused yes he was.

This situation is so much more complicated. He wasn't merely on a property, he had paid to be there... and shipped to another location. That is called "gray area".

He was instructed to board, he did. He did nothing wrong and was instructed to leave. Then the staff decided to really blow the moose.

 

[KeepTalking]

Here is an Illinois Supreme Court decision that explicitly says that a Company can use reasonable force to remove a trespasser from it's property. It doesn't have to wait for the police to show up. And the statue as I pointed out earlier, says trespassing can be given orally or written.

http://law.justia.com/cases/illinois/supreme-court/1961/35745-6-5.html

I'm moving to Illinois!

I tried that legal maneuver on my wife last night. She decided to hedge her bets, and write it out instead. Man, was that painful, I had entirely forgotten that we have a number of sharp calligraphy pens in the house.

 

[ZiprHead]

Seriously, bad analogies need to be criminalized.

And then the poster needs to be ejected, violently.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm moving to Illinois!

I tried that legal maneuver on my wife last night. She decided to hedge her bets, and write it out instead. Man, was that painful, I had entirely forgotten that we have a number of sharp calligraphy pens in the house.

There is always a catch.

*unpacks bags*

 

[Shadowy Man]

This situation is so much more complicated. He wasn't merely on a property, he had paid to be there... and shipped to another location. That is called "gray area".

Furthermore, he effectively signed a contract with the airlines for that passage and the contract specifically states what reasons they might refuse transport and the reason they gave is not on that list. So, clearly they were in breach of contract. The question really comes down to what right do they have to physically remove him even if they are in the wrong. And the other question is can it be considered justifiable to use force to remove him even if he's in the right. And can that force be applied by persons who are not technically police officers. I believe it is these latter questions that really constitute the "gray area" that can be hashed out in court.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This situation is so much more complicated. He wasn't merely on a property, he had paid to be there... and shipped to another location. That is called "gray area".

Furthermore, he effectively signed a contract with the airlines for that passage and the contract specifically states what reasons they might refuse transport and the reason they gave is not on that list. So, clearly they were in breach of contract. The question really comes down to what right do they have to physically remove him even if they are in the wrong. And the other question is can it be considered justifiable to use force to remove him even if he's in the right. And can that force be applied by persons who are not technically police officers. I believe it is these latter questions that really constitute the "gray area" that can be hashed out in court.

This is like an NFL play, where I really have no idea what the ruling should be. Was it a football move? Did the airliner have a right to remove him (and by whom and in the manner performed) post boarding? I really don't know what the letter of the law says. What I do know is that it wasn't the greatest idea what they would end up doing.

 

[Malintent]

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.

Here is an Illinois Supreme Court decision that explicitly says that a Company can use reasonable force to remove a trespasser from it's property. It doesn't have to wait for the police to show up. And the statue as I pointed out earlier, says trespassing can be given orally or written.

http://law.justia.com/cases/illinois/supreme-court/1961/35745-6-5.html

correct. However, one is not a trespasser until one violates a trespass warning. Shop owners cannot just "hereby declare you a trespasser".

A racist shop owner sees a black person in the store. so, he beats him up and drags him into the back. He then calls the police and says that he was trespassing. That sound about the way the law works to you? It shouldn't. you see, that is one of the many reasons why private citizens cannot be judge and jury (and executioner).. they HAVE to call the police so that the proper control can be placed on what happens to people.
This racist store owner would have to have had a trespass warning on record for that individual to keep himself out of jail for assaulting him.

 

[ZiprHead]

Uh oh...

United Airlines 'saddened' by death of giant rabbit after transatlantic flight

 

[Malintent]

Why do you keep bringing up trespassing? Nobody was trespassing on the plane.

Except that isn't the case. United asked him to leave their premises. It's only trespassing once he refuses to leave. If he had walked out he wouldn't have been trespassing. Once he refused yes he was.

fucking read something other than your own posts... You are wrong about what is or isn't trespassing.. and there is no excuse for it, considering how many people pointed it out to you and the extremely large font used to do it... and I won't be reading any more of your uneducated nonsense.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

You are using circular logic - he was trespassing because he was trespassing - nope. And it has already been demonstrated that he wasn't trespassing.