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

[RavenSky]

The only person that beat the shit out of Dao was Dao.

- - - Updated - - -

Except it wasn't United who beat the passenger up, it was whom they thought were police. Most people when seeing security in that situation would have left peacefully too. And he got lucky, or unlucky since he was flirting with trespassing on at an airport.

The police didn't beat Dao up. He got hurt trying to break away from the police. The force was entirely his own.

horseshit.

It is shocking how much you worship authoritarianism...

 

[RavenSky]

I'm sure they did embarrass their boss. They also embarrassed themselves and their whole department. But that's not what got them fired.

I think it's much more likely they're just being thrown under the bus.

I think it's much more likely that they were fired for being violent and lying about it.

 

[RavenSky]

Yes and no. When United called security and said we have somebody who is no longer a ticketed passenger on our flight, can you please come help us.

The Dr became a person no longer allowed to be on someone else's property and it is the job of a police force to remove a person that is no longer welcome one someone else's property.

You keep repeating this erroneous premise to allow yourself to arrive at that "nice, authoritarian position that allows us to mete out violence in furtherance of profit" as KeepTalking so perfectly put it.

Dr. Doa BOUGHT AND PAID FOR THE SEAT. In addition to that, he was SEATED IN THAT SEAT. United does not then get to arbitrarily claim he was "no longer a ticketed passenger."

 

[RavenSky]

There aren't resolving the civil dispute, the DR had means to do that. They are settling a property dispute which is different law. He was on somebody's property who told them to leave. They remove him from the property and then he could sue for breach of contract, but he was on somebody else's property.

A rental apartment is property, too. If someone rents an apartment, pays the money to the landlord, gets the keys from the landlord, and moves into the property... the landlord does NOT get to then change his mind and ask police (real or security wanna-be's) to throw the tenant out under a bogus claim of trespassing on property

 

[coloradoatheist]

There aren't resolving the civil dispute, the DR had means to do that. They are settling a property dispute which is different law. He was on somebody's property who told them to leave. They remove him from the property and then he could sue for breach of contract, but he was on somebody else's property.

A rental apartment is property, too. If someone rents an apartment, pays the money to the landlord, gets the keys from the landlord, and moves into the property... the landlord does NOT get to then change his mind and ask police (real or security wanna-be's) to throw the tenant out under a bogus claim of trespassing on property

Except landlord/renter has its own class of laws, that don't apply here. It would have been nice to go to court to establish this, but United would win nothing if they did pursue it.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

A rental apartment is property, too. If someone rents an apartment, pays the money to the landlord, gets the keys from the landlord, and moves into the property... the landlord does NOT get to then change his mind and ask police (real or security wanna-be's) to throw the tenant out under a bogus claim of trespassing on property

Except landlord/renter has its own class of laws, that don't apply here. It would have been nice to go to court to establish this, but United would win nothing if they did pursue it.

But those laws are based on exactly the same thing. There's a vast difference in what a landlord can do based on whether someone is about to move into an apartment or has already taken possession of that apartment. Similarly, there needs to be a vast difference in what an airline can do based on whether someone is in a terminal or in a seat on the plane. Once they've taken possession of the property they've paid for, there needs to be vastly more limits on what the owners of the property are able to do to remove them.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Except landlord/renter has its own class of laws, that don't apply here. It would have been nice to go to court to establish this, but United would win nothing if they did pursue it.

But those laws are based on exactly the same thing. There's a vast difference in what a landlord can do based on whether someone is about to move into an apartment or has already taken possession of that apartment. Similarly, there needs to be a vast difference in what an airline can do based on whether someone is in a terminal or in a seat on the plane. Once they've taken possession of the property they've paid for, there needs to be vastly more limits on what the owners of the property are able to do to remove them.

Don't forget class differences, too. Imagine how the right-wing would be reacting if this were a rich White guy in first class who was dragged out of the plane.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Except landlord/renter has its own class of laws, that don't apply here. It would have been nice to go to court to establish this, but United would win nothing if they did pursue it.

But those laws are based on exactly the same thing. There's a vast difference in what a landlord can do based on whether someone is about to move into an apartment or has already taken possession of that apartment. Similarly, there needs to be a vast difference in what an airline can do based on whether someone is in a terminal or in a seat on the plane. Once they've taken possession of the property they've paid for, there needs to be vastly more limits on what the owners of the property are able to do to remove them.

They are different though. Landlord relationships are explicit in each state while other things aren't as explicit. If a state wanted to they could change the law in their area to make it explicit.

- - - Updated - - -

But those laws are based on exactly the same thing. There's a vast difference in what a landlord can do based on whether someone is about to move into an apartment or has already taken possession of that apartment. Similarly, there needs to be a vast difference in what an airline can do based on whether someone is in a terminal or in a seat on the plane. Once they've taken possession of the property they've paid for, there needs to be vastly more limits on what the owners of the property are able to do to remove them.

Don't forget class differences, too. Imagine how the right-wing would be reacting if this were a rich White guy in first class who was dragged out of the plane.

What happens if the plane needs to be changed and it's changed to a plane that doesn't have the same first class amenities?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The police didn't beat Dao up. He got hurt trying to break away from the police. The force was entirely his own.

"You honor, I did not throw that man from the 14th floor balcony. I was merely dangling him by the ankles over the banister so that he could enjoy the view. He fell to the pavement and died trying to break away from me. The force was entirely his own."

Which is nothing like what happened.

"Your honor, I did not throw that man from the 14th floor balcony. I was merely trying to drag him away from the edge and he pulled free of me, inertia did the rest."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There aren't resolving the civil dispute, the DR had means to do that. They are settling a property dispute which is different law. He was on somebody's property who told them to leave. They remove him from the property and then he could sue for breach of contract, but he was on somebody else's property.

A rental apartment is property, too. If someone rents an apartment, pays the money to the landlord, gets the keys from the landlord, and moves into the property... the landlord does NOT get to then change his mind and ask police (real or security wanna-be's) to throw the tenant out under a bogus claim of trespassing on property

1) Boarding is considered ongoing until the doors close.

2) For a myriad reasons the object rented might prove unavailable when you try to use it. I've been in an airplane seat that had I discovered the flaw while we were still on the ground I would have been removed from the flight (safety issue, the seat would have had to go empty and the plane was full.) As we were already in flight there was nothing to be done but tell the FA and let them tag it out for the next flight--no idea if that one was full or not.

 

[RavenSky]

Yes and no. When United called security and said we have somebody who is no longer a ticketed passenger on our flight, can you please come help us. It is up to the security group to know their protocols on what needs to be done, not United. And as I said, at the point where he would not come, they needed to deplane everyone called Chicago Police and let them handle it.

- - - Updated - - -

The police didn't beat Dao up. He got hurt trying to break away from the police. The force was entirely his own.

"You honor, I did not throw that man from the 14th floor balcony. I was merely dangling him by the ankles over the banister so that he could enjoy the view. He fell to the pavement and died trying to break away from me. The force was entirely his own."

Yes and no too. Disregarding for now whether they could arrest him, the police can use force to arrest someone that is resisting arrest. So it depends on what they police would normally use in the situation and what options they have in a confined space for someone resisting arrest.

A rental apartment is property, too. If someone rents an apartment, pays the money to the landlord, gets the keys from the landlord, and moves into the property... the landlord does NOT get to then change his mind and ask police (real or security wanna-be's) to throw the tenant out under a bogus claim of trespassing on property

Except landlord/renter has its own class of laws, that don't apply here. It would have been nice to go to court to establish this, but United would win nothing if they did pursue it.

YOU were the one insisting that the United situation falls under "property law"... if it does, that is "landlord/tenant" law and you are therefore wrong in your claims that United has the ability to unilaterally and arbitrarily revoke their rental of the seat after they've been paid for it.

 

[whichphilosophy]

There aren't resolving the civil dispute, the DR had means to do that. They are settling a property dispute which is different law. He was on somebody's property who told them to leave. They remove him from the property and then he could sue for breach of contract, but he was on somebody else's property.

A rental apartment is property, too. If someone rents an apartment, pays the money to the landlord, gets the keys from the landlord, and moves into the property... the landlord does NOT get to then change his mind and ask police (real or security wanna-be's) to throw the tenant out under a bogus claim of trespassing on property

I think this link I posted was overlooked, but this short video about China Eastern Airlines customer care

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnRi6pK6xvU

 

[bilby]

Yes and no. When United called security and said we have somebody who is no longer a ticketed passenger on our flight, can you please come help us. It is up to the security group to know their protocols on what needs to be done, not United. And as I said, at the point where he would not come, they needed to deplane everyone called Chicago Police and let them handle it.

- - - Updated - - -

The police didn't beat Dao up. He got hurt trying to break away from the police. The force was entirely his own.

"You honor, I did not throw that man from the 14th floor balcony. I was merely dangling him by the ankles over the banister so that he could enjoy the view. He fell to the pavement and died trying to break away from me. The force was entirely his own."

Yes and no too. Disregarding for now whether they could arrest him, the police can use force to arrest someone that is resisting arrest. So it depends on what they police would normally use in the situation and what options they have in a confined space for someone resisting arrest.

Are we also disregarding for now that they weren't the Police? Because they weren't the Police. But sure, let's just disregard the facts that are inconvenient to our narrative, so that we can arrive at a nice, authoritarian position that allows us to mete out violence in furtherance of profit. Or not.

If they are not the police

There is no "if". They are not police, and were told to stop wearing jackets that identified them as police prior to this incident.

So, let's stop disregarding the facts, shall we? That should help to clear up any misconceptions as to which party was legally and ethically in the right.

Not quite. It shows that the security group was in the wrong, not United. If security was there just to see if he would come quietly and he doesn't so they have to call the police, that's the security firms job to know. The same way a security firm is trying to remove a drunk person from a bar.

United employed the security group; In doing so, they were in the wrong.

In fact, they are in the wrong every time they bump a passenger prior to boarding. This wrongness rarely makes the news, because it has become commonplace - but it remains unethical, no matter how many times it happens.

This particular case made the news because the airline went through with the implied threat of force against passengers who don't meekly suffer their immoral treatment. But the fact remains that it was not the violence itself that renders UA's actions immoral here. They were in the wrong from the instant that they decided to stop trying to get volunteers by increasing the compensation offer, and to start declaring that they had the right to take the seat without agreement from the passenger.

All the rest of this is red herrings; The use of violence by the security people brought the case to national attention, but the wrongdoing by UA was not confined to this particular newsworthy case. It was (and remains) an ongoing breach of civilized rules of behaviour.

If you sold something to somebody, and now you want it back, you have to pay them a price for it that both parties agree to. If you obtain it by any other means, then you are doing something morally reprehensible - whether or not the law is on your side; whether or not actual violence occurs; whether or not you use a proxy (such as a security guard, bailiff, or policeman) to do your dirty work; Whether or not you are allowed to recover the product from the purchaser in other circumstances where he has breached reasonable contract terms (such as boarding the aircraft while drunk, or otherwise endangering its safety).

This is REALLY SIMPLE.

I don't understand how anyone with half a brain could fail to grasp such a straightforward principle of freedom of trade.

If you have sold something, you can't recover it from, or refuse to provide it to, the buyer, other than via mutually agreed compensation.

 

[RavenSky]

A rental apartment is property, too. If someone rents an apartment, pays the money to the landlord, gets the keys from the landlord, and moves into the property... the landlord does NOT get to then change his mind and ask police (real or security wanna-be's) to throw the tenant out under a bogus claim of trespassing on property

I think this link I posted was overlooked, but this short video about China Eastern Airlines customer care

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnRi6pK6xvU

perhaps it was ignored because it does nothing to add to the conversation

 

[laughing dog]

"Trying to be nice"? First, since you did not witness the event, you cannot judge whether anyone was "trying to be nice". Second, it is called maintaining good customer relations.

And I fail to see how this situation was the result of anyone "trying to be nice" unless by "nice" you mean "nasty and stupid".

Beginning boarding and loading things so people can get out on time is being nice compared to delaying everyone from onboarding based on the assumption people would play nice if they did get chosen.

You need to be consistent with your position. You were not there to witness the event, so your interpretation is suspect.

 

[Arctish]

"Your honor, I did not throw that man from the 14th floor balcony. I was merely trying to drag him away from the edge and he pulled free of me, inertia did the rest."

"Why were you trying to drag him away from the balcony?"

"I rented it to him for $50.00 so he could take pictures of the eclipse before I knew I could get twenty times as much from another photographer, so I told him to move and he didn't. He called his lawyer and was asking if he had a right to stay there as per our initial agreement but I wanted him to go so I grabbed him and started dragging him. It's his fault he died because resisting being dragged is the same thing as wanting to have your face bashed in."

 

[KeepTalking]

"You honor, I did not throw that man from the 14th floor balcony. I was merely dangling him by the ankles over the banister so that he could enjoy the view. He fell to the pavement and died trying to break away from me. The force was entirely his own."

Which is nothing like what happened.

It is exactly like what happened. If you are holding someone, against their will, over something that might cause them injury, and they subsequently fall on that thing and injure themselves in an attempt to get away from you, then you are the one at fault for putting them in that position.

 

[fast]

Which is nothing like what happened.

It is exactly like what happened. If you are holding someone, against their will, over something that might cause them injury, and they subsequently fall on that thing and injure themselves in an attempt to get away from you, then you are the one at fault for putting them in that position.

When an authority tells you to move your ass, you're supposed to move your ass, even when you have the right to keep your ass where your ass is, and if you don't, they should have the right to hand you your ass. Later, if you feel your rights were unlawfully taken from you, you can march your ass to the appropriate authorities where they can hand out some ass whooping to where they rightfully belong. If you don't respect authority, you're going down.

 

[Malintent]

It is exactly like what happened. If you are holding someone, against their will, over something that might cause them injury, and they subsequently fall on that thing and injure themselves in an attempt to get away from you, then you are the one at fault for putting them in that position.

When an authority tells you to move your ass, you're supposed to move your ass, even when you have the right to keep your ass where your ass is, and if you don't, they should have the right to hand you your ass. Later, if you feel your rights were unlawfully taken from you, you can march your ass to the appropriate authorities where they can hand out some ass whooping to where they rightfully belong. If you don't respect authority, you're going down.

Move your ass. Now!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

When an authority ...

Police are not your authority, the laws of the land are--to include the Constitution and its amendments, i.e., Bill of Rights. And the Bill of Rights comes from experience with tyrants and principles of fairness. If the police tell you to do something unlawful or unconstitutionally order you to do something, you don't have to listen to them. They, not you, will get in trouble later for their unlawful attempts to be an illegitimate authority. So, for example, if police break into your home and tell you to give them all your jewelry, you can shoot them or not listen or whatever is wisest for you to do to survive. If they tell you to leave because they are going to beat the crap out of someone, you ought to call the police on them, record it, and stand in their way unless they are going to kill you. If they try to unlawfully remove your rented property, you can record it and refuse. The uniform doesn't mean authority, but instead an agent of the executive branch of local government to do lawful things. Everyone involved in any dispute--including police--will be judged on the scene by observers and later by judges.