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

[RavenSky]

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

You are restating a statute that I already demonstrated is NOT applicable. That is for real property - i.e. land and buildings built on that land. It does NOT apply to vehicles (cars, airplanes, and the like). I provided the correct statute and quoted it in full, which clearly showed that Dr. Dao was not, and could not be, charged with trespass in a vehicle.

I find it amusing that you are ignoring those facts as if I never posted them.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Seriously

- - - Updated - - -

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.

wrong

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You are restating a statute that I already demonstrated is NOT applicable. That is for real property - i.e. land and buildings built on that land. It does NOT apply to vehicles (cars, airplanes, and the like). I provided the correct statute and quoted it in full, which clearly showed that Dr. Dao was not, and could not be, charged with trespass in a vehicle.

I find it amusing that you are ignoring those facts as if I never posted them.

This thread couldn't possibly get this long without people ignoring relevant information.

 

[fast]

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.

What demonstrates that?

If I invite you into my home and you enter my home, you are welcome and not trespassing, but the moment you're made aware that you're no longer welcome and you refuse to leave, you're trespassing, even before the police get there to put you on trespass notice. They would not put you on notice otherwise.

There was a contractual agreement between the airline and the passenger, so he was welcome to board the plane and sit in the assigned seat owned by the airline. I'm hesitant to say he had a right to be there--much like I'm hesitant to say you have a right to drive down Main Street. Driving on public highways is a privledge, and not a right, as they say. I'm also hesitant to say it was his seat. Yes, we refer to our very own driver's licenses as ours, but truth be told, they're still the property of the state.

If I say you're in my seat, it may simply be the case that you're in my assigned seat and it not convey ownership, and it seems we're kind of loose when we say we have a right to sit simply because we're authorized to do so. To jump to the conclusion that we have certain rights because we are authorized to do certain things seems to be slippery language. Yes, we do have certain rights that in fact granted to us by government, but not every instance of what's allowed is an instance of it being because of rights.

The airline can't revoke our rights, and even if I'm wrong when the permission (which can be taken away) to remain seated is revoked, that can not in and if self serve to revoke rights such as civil rights.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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

What demonstrates that?

If I invite you into my home and you enter my home, you are welcome and not trespassing, but the moment you're made aware that you're no longer welcome and you refuse to leave, you're trespassing, even before the police get there to put you on trespass notice. .

And if you're driving for Uber, can you tell a customer that they're trespassing?
You can say they're no longer welcome, such as if they refuse to put out their cigarette, but if you pass a police car, can you say they were trespassing in your vehicle?

 

[fast]

What demonstrates that?

If I invite you into my home and you enter my home, you are welcome and not trespassing, but the moment you're made aware that you're no longer welcome and you refuse to leave, you're trespassing, even before the police get there to put you on trespass notice. .

And if you're driving for Uber, can you tell a customer that they're trespassing?
You can say they're no longer welcome, such as if they refuse to put out their cigarette, but if you pass a police car, can you say they were trespassing in your vehicle?

Is that like a taxi cab? If I'm driving a taxi where my passenger lights up, I believe it may be permissible to stop at a safe and secure location and demand his exit. If he refuses and a cop is called and told that he is not welcome, the cop should be allowed to remove him.

If I am repo man and hook up to a vehicle while the customer is in the gas station and the customer runs and jumps in the car, the cop may not remove him, even with a repo order; however, if the repo agent also has a judge issued pick up order, then the cop can remove him.

If the uber is like a taxi and the cop can rightfully remove him, then the taxi driver should be able to remove him himself without the aid of police, yet the taxi driver may not violate other constitutionally backed rights, just like the cop shouldn't either.

The passenger of the cab might exclaim that he has rights, and he'd be right, but the specific rights he does have doesn't include what he thinks it does. He may have entered into a contractual agreement, just as a painter in your home might, and yes, we all have rights, but his being authorized to be in my home does not imply rights per se, just temporary permission, and such permission can be revoked, just like the permissibility of the airline passenger to be in the assigned seat can be rescinded.

 

[bilby]

And if you're driving for Uber, can you tell a customer that they're trespassing?
You can say they're no longer welcome, such as if they refuse to put out their cigarette, but if you pass a police car, can you say they were trespassing in your vehicle?

Is that like a taxi cab? If I'm driving a taxi where my passenger lights up, I believe it may be permissible to stop at a safe and secure location and demand his exit. If he refuses and a cop is called and told that he is not welcome, the cop should be allowed to remove him.

If I am repo man and hook up to a vehicle while the customer is in the gas station and the customer runs and jumps in the car, the cop may not remove him, even with a repo order; however, if the repo agent also has a judge issued pick up order, then the cop can remove him.

If the uber is like a taxi and the cop can rightfully remove him, then the taxi driver should be able to remove him himself without the aid of police, yet the taxi driver may not violate other constitutionally backed rights, just like the cop shouldn't either.

The passenger of the cab might exclaim that he has rights, and he'd be right, but the specific rights he does have doesn't include what he thinks it does. He may have entered into a contractual agreement, just as a painter in your home might, and yes, we all have rights, but his being authorized to be in my home does not imply rights per se, just temporary permission, and such permission can be revoked, just like the permissibility of the airline passenger to be in the assigned seat can be rescinded.

Only if the customer does something to cause it to be. Dr Dao didn't light a cigarette. If he had, then he would have been liable for forcible removal from the aircraft (assuming that he refused to leave when requested).

Flight crews have very broad powers to remove troublesome passengers, even for what might seem trivial behaviours. But they don't have unlimited power to remove passengers, and cannot remove passengers who have simply been selected at random. Of course, when people are given sweeping authority, they often (falsely) believe that their authority extends farther than it really does; and sometimes they believe (even more falsely) that their authority is effectively unlimited, and that people must obey their every utterance. This appears to be the cause of the issue here - those in power were simply unaware that their power was limited.

It is not reasonable to expect adult civilians to obey orders without question, even in the unusual circumstances where those orders are lawful. That expectation of obedience is only reasonable in a police state; and the USA is not yet such a state (despite the clear desire of some in this thread that it should be).

 

[fast]

Is that like a taxi cab? If I'm driving a taxi where my passenger lights up, I believe it may be permissible to stop at a safe and secure location and demand his exit. If he refuses and a cop is called and told that he is not welcome, the cop should be allowed to remove him.

If I am repo man and hook up to a vehicle while the customer is in the gas station and the customer runs and jumps in the car, the cop may not remove him, even with a repo order; however, if the repo agent also has a judge issued pick up order, then the cop can remove him.

If the uber is like a taxi and the cop can rightfully remove him, then the taxi driver should be able to remove him himself without the aid of police, yet the taxi driver may not violate other constitutionally backed rights, just like the cop shouldn't either.

The passenger of the cab might exclaim that he has rights, and he'd be right, but the specific rights he does have doesn't include what he thinks it does. He may have entered into a contractual agreement, just as a painter in your home might, and yes, we all have rights, but his being authorized to be in my home does not imply rights per se, just temporary permission, and such permission can be revoked, just like the permissibility of the airline passenger to be in the assigned seat can be rescinded.

Only if the customer does something to cause it to be. Dr Dao didn't light a cigarette. If he had, then he would have been liable for forcible removal from the aircraft (assuming that he refused to leave when requested).

Flight crews have very broad powers to remove troublesome passengers, even for what might seem trivial behaviours. But they don't have unlimited power to remove passengers, and cannot remove passengers who have simply been selected at random. Of course, when people are given sweeping authority, they often (falsely) believe that their authority extends farther than it really does; and sometimes they believe (even more falsely) that their authority is effectively unlimited, and that people must obey their every utterance. This appears to be the cause of the issue here - those in power were simply unaware that their power was limited.

It is not reasonable to expect adult civilians to obey orders without question, even in the unusual circumstances where those orders are lawful. That expectation of obedience is only reasonable in a police state; and the USA is not yet such a state (despite the clear desire of some in this thread that it should be).

Put that way, I may be more open-minded.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You are restating a statute that I already demonstrated is NOT applicable. That is for real property - i.e. land and buildings built on that land. It does NOT apply to vehicles (cars, airplanes, and the like). I provided the correct statute and quoted it in full, which clearly showed that Dr. Dao was not, and could not be, charged with trespass in a vehicle.

I find it amusing that you are ignoring those facts as if I never posted them.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Seriously

- - - Updated - - -

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.

wrong

And if you continue down to section 21-7 it deals with both the restricted areas at an airport and the restricted landing area there. It defines criminal trespass as either entering or staying in an area of the airport that is restricted and airport authorities have told you that it's restricted. It says that warning can be either verbal or written, so that written part doesn't apply here. Once Dr. Dao had his ticket revoked he was no longer a ticketed customer and he was in the restricted area of the airport, past security without a ticket. The penalty for this trespass is a felony 4.

 

[coloradoatheist]

What demonstrates that?

If I invite you into my home and you enter my home, you are welcome and not trespassing, but the moment you're made aware that you're no longer welcome and you refuse to leave, you're trespassing, even before the police get there to put you on trespass notice. .

And if you're driving for Uber, can you tell a customer that they're trespassing?
You can say they're no longer welcome, such as if they refuse to put out their cigarette, but if you pass a police car, can you say they were trespassing in your vehicle?

Fast answered, but for the second clause of your part is no. Do be trespassing the car does need to be pulled over and the passenger has a chance to exit on his or her own before cops are called or any self-help is permitted.

 

[Ford]

Flight crews have very broad powers to remove troublesome passengers, even for what might seem trivial behaviours.

The thing I still can't quite figure out is that there was a path for United to at least provide proof that they needed to remove the passengers who were being "troublesome" in that they were sitting in seats necessary to transport a flight crew.

It is quite simple. They provide the number and departure time of the flight this crew needed to staff out of Louisville. Invoke the "crew rest rules" and do the math in plain view of everyone. If they did not get on that particular flight and be on the ground 10 hours before their next flight left, that flight would have to be delayed or cancelled. It doesn't excuse the rough manner employed by the security guards, but a reasonable person would have to concede that it was necessary to get them on that flight in order for them to reach their destination, rest, and be bright eyed and bushy tailed for the trip out of Louisville.


Yet to date, they haven't provided this information.


IMO, there are only two possible explanations. One, that they're honestly so stupid they simply haven't thought of this angle, or two...the crew wasn't under the gun to get to Louisville at all, and this was a matter of convenience rather than necessity.

 

[fast]

And if you're driving for Uber, can you tell a customer that they're trespassing?
You can say they're no longer welcome, such as if they refuse to put out their cigarette, but if you pass a police car, can you say they were trespassing in your vehicle?

Fast answered, but for the second clause of your part is no. Do be trespassing the car does need to be pulled over and the passenger has a chance to exit on his or her own before cops are called or any self-help is permitted.

Actually, I was just being reasonable. An argument could be made that trespassing is independent of our reasonableness. Suppose unwelcomly someone sneaks into the backseat of the car--unbeknownst to the taxi driver. He's trespassing both before and after I pass a cop, whether or not I become aware that he's trespassing before passing the cop. It wouldn't be unlike a stowaway on a ship or a person hiding in the wheel well of a jet.

What's unreasonable is to tell the stowaway to jump off the moving ship, or to tell the guy to jump out the plane, or to tell the guy to jump out the moving taxi. Not giving someone a safe means to no longer be in a position of being a trespasser doesn't mean they aren't trespassing.

If the passenger of the taxi in the original example lights up, he becomes a trespasser the moment the driver says get the f out and doesn't. If the passenger doesn't exit the moving vehicle, then he's as much as a trespasser as the ship stowaway who refuses to jump in the ocean.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Fast answered, but for the second clause of your part is no. Do be trespassing the car does need to be pulled over and the passenger has a chance to exit on his or her own before cops are called or any self-help is permitted.

Actually, I was just being reasonable. An argument could be made that trespassing is independent of our reasonableness. Suppose unwelcomly someone sneaks into the backseat of the car--unbeknownst to the taxi driver. He's trespassing both before and after I pass a cop, whether or not I become aware that he's trespassing before passing the cop. It wouldn't be unlike a stowaway on a ship or a person hiding in the wheel well of a jet.

What's unreasonable is to tell the stowaway to jump off the moving ship, or to tell the guy to jump out the plane, or to tell the guy to jump out the moving taxi. Not giving someone a safe means to no longer be in a position of being a trespasser doesn't mean they aren't trespassing.

If the passenger of the taxi in the original example lights up, he becomes a trespasser the moment the driver says get the f out and doesn't. If the passenger doesn't exit the moving vehicle, then he's as much as a trespasser as the ship stowaway who refuses to jump in the ocean.

Yes they can't throw the person out of a car or ship or plane. They would have to stop where convenient and then either decide if they just want the person out of the vehicle or if they want o press charges.

 

[laughing dog]

You are restating a statute that I already demonstrated is NOT applicable. That is for real property - i.e. land and buildings built on that land. It does NOT apply to vehicles (cars, airplanes, and the like). I provided the correct statute and quoted it in full, which clearly showed that Dr. Dao was not, and could not be, charged with trespass in a vehicle.

I find it amusing that you are ignoring those facts as if I never posted them.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Seriously

- - - Updated - - -

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.

wrong

And if you continue down to section 21-7 it deals with both the restricted areas at an airport and the restricted landing area there. It defines criminal trespass as either entering or staying in an area of the airport that is restricted and airport authorities have told you that it's restricted. It says that warning can be either verbal or written, so that written part doesn't apply here. Once Dr. Dao had his ticket revoked he was no longer a ticketed customer and he was in the restricted area of the airport, past security without a ticket. The penalty for this trespass is a felony 4.

And yet, Dr. Dao has not been charged with any crime. UA never claimed he was trespassing. Which strongly suggests your analysis is crapola.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Flight crews have very broad powers to remove troublesome passengers, even for what might seem trivial behaviours.

The thing I still can't quite figure out is that there was a path for United to at least provide proof that they needed to remove the passengers who were being "troublesome" in that they were sitting in seats necessary to transport a flight crew.

It is quite simple. They provide the number and departure time of the flight this crew needed to staff out of Louisville. Invoke the "crew rest rules" and do the math in plain view of everyone. If they did not get on that particular flight and be on the ground 10 hours before their next flight left, that flight would have to be delayed or cancelled. It doesn't excuse the rough manner employed by the security guards, but a reasonable person would have to concede that it was necessary to get them on that flight in order for them to reach their destination, rest, and be bright eyed and bushy tailed for the trip out of Louisville.


Yet to date, they haven't provided this information.


IMO, there are only two possible explanations. One, that they're honestly so stupid they simply haven't thought of this angle, or two...the crew wasn't under the gun to get to Louisville at all, and this was a matter of convenience rather than necessity.

United said, though we'll see, is that they will prepare a full investigation by the 30th. With big investigations by this a company wants to make sure all the details are together and that they don't release wrong information. Munoz jumped too early on the morning after instead of preparing what he needed to say.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

The airline said "leave". He didn't. That makes him guilty of trespassing.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Permission can be revoked. That's what happened here.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I will agree with the first part. I've been saying for years that the airlines are too quick to IDB and the only fix is to raise the IDB compensation.

So far nobody has found any likely other alternative, nor would it have been practical for the airline to look for an alternative--that would take too long.

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.

There have been a large number of people on here who are infected with liberalitis. This was a situation lacking a good solution. Most liberals are unable to make a sane choice in such a situation and go with the path of inaction, no matter how much worse that makes the final outcome.

How about the following scenario:

The airline backs down. Scumbag is allowed to fly. However, every passenger who doesn't get to fly tomorrow due to the lack of crew gets a letter identifying Dr. Dao's refusal to comply with an IDB as the reason and suggests a class action lawsuit.

 

[Ford]

The thing I still can't quite figure out is that there was a path for United to at least provide proof that they needed to remove the passengers who were being "troublesome" in that they were sitting in seats necessary to transport a flight crew.

It is quite simple. They provide the number and departure time of the flight this crew needed to staff out of Louisville. Invoke the "crew rest rules" and do the math in plain view of everyone. If they did not get on that particular flight and be on the ground 10 hours before their next flight left, that flight would have to be delayed or cancelled. It doesn't excuse the rough manner employed by the security guards, but a reasonable person would have to concede that it was necessary to get them on that flight in order for them to reach their destination, rest, and be bright eyed and bushy tailed for the trip out of Louisville.


Yet to date, they haven't provided this information.


IMO, there are only two possible explanations. One, that they're honestly so stupid they simply haven't thought of this angle, or two...the crew wasn't under the gun to get to Louisville at all, and this was a matter of convenience rather than necessity.

With big investigations by this a company wants to make sure all the details are together and that they don't release wrong information.

Um...the flight schedules are public information. That's half. And unless their crew assignments are written in pencil and subsequently erased, they have the other half.

What's more, the crew in question - unless someone can point to a cancelled flight out of Louisville the next day - made their connection and were able to staff that aircraft.

Flight records would show who was on that aircraft. Not just the passengers, but the crew. And where they came from. There's not a lot to investigate here.

 

[bilby]

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.

The airline said "leave". He didn't. That makes him guilty of trespassing.

Says you. Sadly for your credibility, people who actually know the law disagree with you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

A lot of people don't realize things can go wrong. As an experienced traveler I know things can. They don't want you, you don't fly. At most you have a civil case against them. I think travelers should get more legal protections than they do but airplanes are some miracle machine that always gets you there when you expected to.

 

[laughing dog]

I will agree with the first part. I've been saying for years that the airlines are too quick to IDB and the only fix is to raise the IDB compensation.

So far nobody has found any likely other alternative, nor would it have been practical for the airline to look for an alternative--that would take too long.

A number of people have found likely alternatives in this thread. And you have hand-waved them away.

There have been a large number of people on here who are infected with liberalitis. This was a situation lacking a good solution....

No, you even admit there was a good solution - offer more compensation.

Most liberals are unable to make a sane choice in such a situation and go with the path of inaction, no matter how much worse that makes the final outcome.

Most kneejerk authoritarians would agree that using involuntary methods and violence did not make this outcome worse.

How about the following scenario:

The airline backs down. Scumbag is allowed to fly. However, every passenger who doesn't get to fly tomorrow due to the lack of crew gets a letter identifying Dr. Dao's refusal to comply with an IDB as the reason and suggests a class action lawsuit.

Now we get to the crux of the matter - it was all about not backing down. UA could have asked another passenger or even announced that the flight would be delayed until someone volunteered to leave. But they did not. Neither they nor you could fathom "not backing down".

BTW, your scenario shows you are infected with the worse case of liberalitis in the world.