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

[coloradoatheist]

I thought they were suspended with pending review. They may not have done anything illegal, but violated own internal policies.

Wearing the police jacket while on the job isn't illegal?

there is a lawsuit by the officers over this

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/city-changing-name-of-aviation-police-force-after-united-fiasco/

 

[laughing dog]

It was "preconsidered". They do offer compensation. In this instance, it was insufficient.
The security personnel did not give Dr. Dao a chance to refuse or obey - he was on the phone with his lawyer. Waiting 10 minutes or so would not have caused a problem.

How long does a policer have to give you to talk to you lawyer in any case? 10 minutes, 1 hour, 4 hours,

There was no police officer. Continue to grasp at those straws. The flight was delayed because UA effed up. BTW, if the officers had waited a bit, then maybe the doctor would have left without bleeding all over the plane which caused a much longer delay.

 

[Malintent]

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?

Yes. you say that you have asked the passenger to leave because they violated some term of your arrangement (or no reason at all, other than you are the owner of the vehicle and have the right to just ask them to leave), and that they refused. The cop will issue a trespass warning to the passenger, offer them the opportunity to vacate, and if they then continue to refuse, the cop can drag them off with the same degree of force that would be used in any "resisting arrest" situation. whether they get taken to jail or not at that point is entirely up to the cop (and the vehicle owner to press charges on the violation of the warning)

 

[Malintent]

I thought they were suspended with pending review. They may not have done anything illegal, but violated own internal policies.

Wearing the police jacket while on the job isn't illegal?

Yes. it is illegal to impersonate a police officer, regardless of the level of authority your employer grants you.

 

[RavenSky]

A better question would be how long a security officer should give you before committing assault.

With the settlement a lot of legal questions will go unaswered and will be answered with another case sometime.

Given that United Airlines released another statement taking FULL responsibility for what happened (including stating that the airport security didn't even hold any responsibility for what happened to Dr. Dao), and has dramatically changed their internal procedures, it appears to me that the legal questions have indeed been answered for everyone... except for maybe those who jumped to wrong conclusions and now can't admit they were wrong.

 

[LordKiran]

With the settlement a lot of legal questions will go unaswered and will be answered with another case sometime.

Given that United Airlines released another statement taking FULL responsibility for what happened (including stating that the airport security didn't even hold any responsibility for what happened to Dr. Dao), and has dramatically changed their internal procedures, it appears to me that the legal questions have indeed been answered for everyone... except for maybe those who jumped to wrong conclusions and now can't admit they were wrong.

It's like trying to argue with flat earthers. They can't accept any answer other than "You're right!"

 

[coloradoatheist]

With the settlement a lot of legal questions will go unaswered and will be answered with another case sometime.

Given that United Airlines released another statement taking FULL responsibility for what happened (including stating that the airport security didn't even hold any responsibility for what happened to Dr. Dao), and has dramatically changed their internal procedures, it appears to me that the legal questions have indeed been answered for everyone... except for maybe those who jumped to wrong conclusions and now can't admit they were wrong.

Not true. United is not a legal body unless I missed that constitutional amendment. I can't say please see United vs Dao for legal standing.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Given that United Airlines released another statement taking FULL responsibility for what happened (including stating that the airport security didn't even hold any responsibility for what happened to Dr. Dao), and has dramatically changed their internal procedures, it appears to me that the legal questions have indeed been answered for everyone... except for maybe those who jumped to wrong conclusions and now can't admit they were wrong.

It's like trying to argue with flat earthers. They can't accept any answer other than "You're right!"

There are three issues here.

1) What options could United have done in line with the airline protocols (both United and all airlines) that night
2) what was the legality of it
3) What should United do doing forward and what should all the airlines do going forward

3 is answered and I don't disagree with 3.

 

[zorq]

It's like trying to argue with flat earthers. They can't accept any answer other than "You're right!"

There are three issues here.

1) What options could United have done in line with the airline protocols (both United and all airlines) that night
2) what was the legality of it
3) What should United do doing forward and what should all the airlines do going forward

3 is answered and I don't disagree with 3.

3 is the same as 1 and as for 2 it is and always has been legal.

 

[RavenSky]

Given that United Airlines released another statement taking FULL responsibility for what happened (including stating that the airport security didn't even hold any responsibility for what happened to Dr. Dao), and has dramatically changed their internal procedures, it appears to me that the legal questions have indeed been answered for everyone... except for maybe those who jumped to wrong conclusions and now can't admit they were wrong.

Not true. United is not a legal body unless I missed that constitutional amendment. I can't say please see United vs Dao for legal standing.

United has attorneys, too. The fact that they settled so fast, and did so with a statement taking 100% sole responsibility for what happened, says that their attorneys did the legal research under existing law and that "a lot of legal questions" were, in fact, answered to United's satisfaction.

You seem to think there is some sort of ground-breaking legal territory that this case raises. Obviously United and their attorneys don't agree, any more than multiple legal experts who have published op-eds ever since this case made the news.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Not true. United is not a legal body unless I missed that constitutional amendment. I can't say please see United vs Dao for legal standing.

United has attorneys, too. The fact that they settled so fast, and did so with a statement taking 100% sole responsibility for what happened, says that their attorneys did the legal research under existing law and that "a lot of legal questions" were, in fact, answered to United's satisfaction.

You seem to think there is some sort of ground-breaking legal territory that this case raises. Obviously United and their attorneys don't agree, any more than multiple legal experts who have published op-eds ever since this case made the news.

All United would gain from winning this case is an unimportant legal ruling question and proving this board wrong. I would have advised that United settle quickly too, since personally it's easy for me to say you can prove a legal point that doesn't help you.

 

[Shadowy Man]

What if the cop was a scumbag himself and started first? The guy is a doctor, even though I think it was stupid on his part I am ready to give him benefit of the doubt.

A doctor with quite a colorful criminal past.

Even if this is true, it isn't relevant unless his past was used as some kind of justification for refusing transport, which we know it wasn't because the airlines stated they chose people at random.

 

[TSwizzle]

A doctor with quite a colorful criminal past.

Even if this is true, it isn't relevant unless his past was used as some kind of justification for refusing transport, which we know it wasn't because the airlines stated they chose people at random.

The context was in reference to scumbags and not to the dodgy doctor's disagreement with the airline. Apologies for the confusion.

 

[RavenSky]

All United would gain from winning this case is an unimportant legal ruling question and proving this board wrong. I would have advised that United settle quickly too, since personally it's easy for me to say you can prove a legal point that doesn't help you.

You are assuming they would have won. Every actual attorney who has written articles with their opinions on this case agree that United would have lost.

 

[coloradoatheist]

All United would gain from winning this case is an unimportant legal ruling question and proving this board wrong. I would have advised that United settle quickly too, since personally it's easy for me to say you can prove a legal point that doesn't help you.

You are assuming they would have won. Every actual attorney who has written articles with their opinions on this case agree that United would have lost.

That wasn't the case, I had two on the political fact and the one is now a lawyer on the bigger issues. But United's lawyers would have given there opinions on a scale of 0 to 100% and unless you have their legal brief we don't know what the lawyers said. But even on that scale of 0 to 100% there was nothing that United would gain by winning.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That was extremely quick. I suspect that it was a very generous settlement.

Or the reverse--his lawyers showed him how weak his position was.

He didn't attack a cop

Yes, he did--you don't break free from people holding you without attacking in some fashion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I thought they were suspended with pending review. They may not have done anything illegal, but violated own internal policies.

Wearing the police jacket while on the job isn't illegal?

“On airport property, Aviation Officers have all the powers possessed by Chicago Police Department officers, including the authority to make arrests,” according to the complaint. “Given their law enforcement functions, the Illinois Labor Relations Board has repeatedly determined that Aviation Officers qualify as special police officers.”

Sure seems to waddle and quack.

Police.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

All United would gain from winning this case is an unimportant legal ruling question and proving this board wrong. I would have advised that United settle quickly too, since personally it's easy for me to say you can prove a legal point that doesn't help you.

Agreed. A court win gets United nothing but $, a settlement stops him making a press spectacle of it.

 

[bilby]

Or the reverse--his lawyers showed him how weak his position was.

He didn't attack a cop

Yes, he did--you don't break free from people holding you without attacking in some fashion.

No he didn't. No cops were present at the time, so he couldn't have attacked one if he had wanted to.

And there's no evidence that he attacked anyone - pulling away from an attacker in an act of self defence isn't an attack.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Sure seems to waddle and quack.

Well, that's their claim. Do you just accept their claim because they made it?
Wait... Should everyone ELSE accept this claim just because they made it in their complaint?

“Given their law enforcement functions, the Illinois Labor Relations Board has repeatedly determined that Aviation Officers qualify as special police officers.”

Qualify for what purpose, though? Does this mean that they ARE cops or that for union or job security or promotion purposes they are equivalent to cops?

THey may waddle and quack, but have to wait for 'real' cops to actually perform the arrest, don't they? They can detain but not incarcerate.