So refusing to be removed is a problem that justifies removal? There's an interesting line of reasoning. That is not a line of reasoning you want to allow your police. Interesting combination with the next step - bashing his face on the armrest and dragging him down the aisle of an airplane with unknown, unevaluated, and untreated injuries. So they can do that to somebody for refusing to be removed, and no other reason? Is that how injured passengers are usually removed from an airplane? I would have expected first aid to be rendered prior to the dragging part, myself. My Boy Scout First Aid manual clearly warns against moving injured people without first evaluating their injuries. And semi-conscious people are normally transported via stretcher, or wheelchair, in the circumstances familiar to me.
Yes. It is not the passenger's right to sit in that seat. Certainly, he could have refused to leave - and the airline crew could have relented - and the flight might have continued peacefully. But it didn't. The airline stood by the letter of its contract (despite the potential for bad PR) and brought in security as well as police. At that point, it has stopped being between the airline and the passenger, and has escalated to the police and the passenger. The passenger has lost the battle (though he may yet win the war). Actually, they didn't. He was hanging on and let go. By this point in the altercation, resistance was futile, and could only result in his own injury. It is certainly not unprecedented for a suspect in a crime to get injured while resisting being remanded into custody. The way to not get injured is to not resist. Yes. Once it has become a police situation, their priority is to contain it first and treat second. Once the passenger had committed a crime 'resisting arrest', his safety actually became secondary to the safety of everyone around him. Contain the situation (by removing the threat to the plane full of people), then treat the injured. (other wise you risk more injuries) No. That's how criminal suspect are removed from a plane. They are treated AFTER being subdued. No. The situation has not been contained at that point; the threat (which is what he has become) to the other passengers remains. Utterly beside the point. In a police situation, the threat is contained first, so you don;t have further victims. Can you imagine the police trying to treat a man holding a gun - without first separating the mean from his gun? No. I'm pretty sure you're going to reject this outright, but that changes nothing. The airline is certainly responsible for getting into this situation, but the passenger had to have known when 'I need to get home' is simply not going to happen in the face of police presence. You don't simply tell police you refuse to accept their authority.
The problem is, you can't just let bad policy have the upper hand just because any institution can get away with things legally because of bad policy. situations like this happen and arise because there "is" obviously a problem to address and it's not just going along with protocol. In this case, it isn't about the triviality of the fine print etc and who has legal technicality on their side. I disagree that it was just the police and passenger at that point as if united was not ultimately responsible from beginning. they are the ones who called police in and this fiasco would not have happened if they had handled it better. for one, they were too greedy to even further up compensation which i'm sure would have elicited some volunteers. it is not as if they were not in the wrong in the first place. they take in billions in revenue every year. United is number one with the highest fees of the airline industry and american airlines is second and they are a larger fleet and not as greedy as united. well, they learned their lesson that a little flexibility and better customer service than just profit margins would go along way and now they lost more than they would have if they would have done the right thing. the real responsiblity does not lie with the police, security and even marginally with the united's staff but more from the top down and how they need to review and modify policy. why defend a system that may need to be improved. it's like arguing when slavery was legal and if one resisted how they had no right to do so. lmfao. Complete exaggeration and nonsense. he was not any threat to other passengers. he just didn't want to give up his seat because he paid, boarded and needed to get home asap. again, quibbling over who 'had' legal right to do what is beside the point because laws and policy change when things are not right and to pretend that all the fault and responsiblity should lie with the customer is not right or true. but unfortunately and ironicly, if he hadn't refused, no one would have heard about it and the airlines wouldn't review or care because they wouldn't have to. this is how it often happens, if people are willing to go along with or accept something, nothing changes. http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/0...bacle-but-for-a-reason-some-might-not-expect/ like this type of stupid reasoning. so are we to believe that people can only determine one extreme from another? they can't discern between someone who actually is drunk, threat, stinks, etc? really? so because he resisted police, now it means that anyone for any reason will have legitimate right to resist any orders from airline staff as well as police?? that's manipulative scaremongering bullshit! this 'incident' was not only recorded but there were plenty of witnesses and statements as to what happened and why. if the individual was drunk, threatening others or any number of other inappropriate or illegitimate reasons, this would not result in people being upset with the airline or united having to address such backlash. No, this statement is stupid and myopic. if he had just complied and went to the gate agent (okay this is laughable) nothing would have been done seriously where an airline may need to review their policy deeply and seriously. hello, people have been doing this all along and nothing changed because they complied. once you are always sheepish going along with policy, they don't take you seriously. In this instance, his whole statement is moot and has no point. what recourse? to keep things the way they are? he's an idiot because this situation shook things up and that's how you ruffle enough feathers to effect CHANGE.
He did not bash his own face into the armrest. He was sitting in his seat, unarmed, and threatening nobody. Then he was injured, semiconscious, bleeding, and helpless to prevent himself from being dragged. What exactly does "subdued" mean - knocked out cold? I'm not seeing the threat of which you speak. Enlighten me - point to the passengers he endangered, say, and describe the threat to them so immediate and serious that it prevented first aid from being rendered for a possible concussion, and justified serious risk of yet greater injury, and outweighed the risks of spreading blood and so forth down the main aisle of a crowded airplane. Further victims of what? The presence of an elderly Chinese man sitting a chair in their vicinity? The only visible threat to other passengers was not only created and/or embodied by the "police", but spread throughout the plane by them. They didn't even contain the blood from the injuries they inflicted. Lots of Chinese men of his generation have hepatitis, for example - containing that threat to the other passengers would normally have been a priority, according to my First Aid manual. In the airplanes I have known, the seats are fastened to the floor and difficult for even young, strong men to use as weapons. I was assuming that was also the case in this incident, so that separating the man from his seat would not have been a priority in threat reduction. Did I miss something? Btw: is it only me who expects specialty airline and airport security personnel to have training in how to remove an unruly passenger from his seat safely? I've seen ordinary bouncers get badass biker drunks out of bar chairs and into the street with half this much fuss and no injury to anyone.
So now he was a criminal suspect? What crime was he suspected of committing? Taking the flight he paid the airlines for? That's not a crime, and there was nothing unruly or threatening about him that demanded that sort of physical violence. And that's why he will win the lawsuit. In the real world of law and justice that is and not in your imaginary one where customers' baggage has more rights than customers do.
It is sad that this incident monopolises public attention and yet the horrors of the various wars and etc take a back seat. Alex
He will win the lawsuit because the company will settle out of court in an effort to contain the damage. He presumably will receive damages which will be determined by what the company will pay and have no bearing on damages. Do you really think the damages would be the same if he was injured in a car accident where the other driver was found entirely negligent. Alex
What could I achieve other than enjoying reading my own posts? I think my observation is reasonable even though it may make folk feel uncomfortable that they become preoccupied with a somewhat trivial matter. The matter could have been handled in a better fashion by all involved. But really is it that big a deal. Alex
What does that have to do with anything? He will receive the damages to pay for his medical treatment plus emotional suffering and trauma as well as enough to make an example of United before all the world.
Everything. Two parts to a suit. Proving the claim for example negligence etc the first part and the second is damages. Establishing the first part has no part to play in the second part...generally ignoring the aspect of contribution or mitigation of damages which I can't recall sufficient to explain simply. He will get hush money and it will be more than he would get in a car accident as one example. Civil claims are not about making an example I believe but certainly the company will not come out such that others will think way to go. Alex
Agree. But in an airplane with a bunch of other people is not the appropriate place to effect changed in policy. I didn't say "just". The police trump other parties. See, this is the thing. I'm not defending the airline. If he had been able to stare down the airline, from his seat, and they had capitulated, it would have been great. But they called in the police. He lost.
You might want to brush up on the facts, so's you can fill in that middle bit. That is what I am fighting. The one-sided selection of facts, to suit an outraged opinion. If your stance is legit, then it will remain legit with all facts on the table.
3 things about that counter argument. 1 the plane wasn't over booked. secondly the process of boarding the plane for everyone and for and individual is not the same thing. in other words the plane not having completed boarding doesn't mean people haven't boarded the plane. thirdly the email from the CEO where he described the plane as fully boarded kind of shoot some gaping wholes in that counter argument
maybe you should watch the video. he was still even buckled in and they still kept pulling because they didn't 'give a shit'. the whole situation is he stood up for his rights and united used their policy and police against him. this situation is supposed to make you think about change, not just who or what was done so there would be no lawsuit because of fine print etc. that's lame. ironicly, he did the public a favor as this may spur airlines to review issues such as overbooking, compensation, public and customer relations, what to do with their employees, how to prioritize etc.
evidently it is because had he just concurred with the rest, nothing would have been done. so either your statement is naive or you are being as dismissive as united would have been had he complied. And he decided he wasn't moving from his seat and so what? you think people should just do anything police say unquestioningly? there are horror stories with that. it doesn't matter if united 'sicked' the police on him. they were escalating the situation because their policy is dumb from getgo or was past time for a tune-up. nothing would have happened and no change would be even considered without squeaky wheels or often big crashes and accidents. pfft.
