Passenger forcible removed from flight

[LWC]

Not so much tough but real. The problem is with the bad policy.

Lets compare this incident to shopping in a retail store. It is an industry standard to retain the right to refuse sale to anyone and most have a removal policy.

Now, here you are shopping. Not doing anything wrong at all, and are told to leave. Then, some mall cop tries to force you out. Are you seriously going to just comply? If so, Id say you are incredibly weak. Now, Id probably just leave because eff that store.

However, on a plane, the stakes are higher. There is work, family, etc waiting on your return. Also, what if your kids where there and they tried seperating you by force. What then? Its obvious in the video the airline and the rent a cops werent engaged in meaningful discussion and reason had left the plane. In a similar case, they are going to be listening when you tell them of your kids.

Suppose you comply and they use force anyway. Are you not going to act in protection of your kids?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Which one is it Chuck Norris? Are you goin bring the pain or are you going to leave because Paul Blart told you to?

[Ironman]

Lol... no, I wouldnt act like an idiot.

But, thats not the concern. At this point one thing is abundantly clear: the airline had stopped listening and stopped being reasonable. Would they seperate families? Im sure they would, because it doesnt happen until it does. Also, its clear to me that had I expressed concern about the seperation, they would not have heard me. Because, they stopped listening.

Now, Id disembark my kids, or at least intend to. But, if Im manhandled, who knows what happens next. Fight or flight is 100% instinct. Perhaps I flop on the ground like a limp noodle. Perhaps I become super violent. Until it happens I wont know. But, I do know fight or flight and adrenalin are seriously unpredictable.

This situation should never have escalated this far, but it did. But, it did. It got violent because of over reach. Something that will keep increasing in pervalance as long as people allow it to.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

It escalated to violence because the passenger refused to comply with orders. It's that simple.

[Goldeneagle]

Okay, you want to talk about the second part?

Airline didn't even follow the law they were basing "enforcement" action upon. They are required to provide written reasons for a passenger being denied a place on a flight. Furthermore, that should have happened BEFORE the passenger was even ON the plane. Since, we want to discuss the more general concept of compliance with authority, consider whether unjust actions require compliance. American Founders didn't think so. Were they in compliance with the Law of the Land as proclaimed by the British Monarch? No. Did they suffer. You bet. An unjust law does not have Authority and, therefore, does not require compliance. (This was the Founders' thinking) Doesn't mean there won't be immediate "pain." Still doesn't make improper enforcement of unjust policy right. And the enforcement was admittedly improper -- as corroborated by the suspension of those officers.

I will be very surprised if there are not sweeping regulatory changes made to airline passenger-rights policies.

Did we give up when the German's bombed Pearl Harbor????????

[qWuARk556]

Just because there's a gun present does not mean there is violence ( this is off-subject by the way) just because law enforcement puts on a gun, they don't shoot a person everyday. The security we're sent to his seat to ask him to get off the plane . He chose not to comply and was removed from the seat. If I had three security guys come to my seat and ask me to leave I wouldn't hang for dear life to the armrest. That is how he sustained his injuries. Yes..... I do believe he will get paid but I don't agree with the circumstances.

"Security guys". You mean, men in jeans? Ok. On that same logic. If someone saw you in a store and stated they were "security" and dressed as these dudes, are you going to comply? Really?

Also, yes, they dont shoot people everyday. But, the threat is there. The threat of violence is why alot of people comply. They know if they escalate violence will ensue and so they choose to comply. Violence was used, if only as the end game.

Maybe you have kids. Spanking is violent, but, I support it 100% when not abusively enacted. Kids know if they do "x" a spanking is coming. So, as they develop their cognitive abilities they tie violent outcomes to thier actions, so they avoid the violence with compliance (when they are thinking). Violence is there, in their minds. And the same is true for adults.

Whether or not physical occurs isnt relevant. The violence exists. Otherwise, why would you pay taxes? Not drive drunk? Obey "x" law? Because youre a reasonable person who values their life over disobediance.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[tradtiger]

Did we give up when the German's bombed Pearl Harbor????????

Go Otter! Seven years of college, down the drain!

[qWuARk556]

It escalated to violence because the passenger refused to comply with orders. It's that simple.

Its not that simple. This was not an order, it was a volunteer system.

Also, he had done nothing wrong.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[BULL21]

Lol... no, I wouldnt act like an idiot.

But, thats not the concern. At this point one thing is abundantly clear: the airline had stopped listening and stopped being reasonable. Would they seperate families? Im sure they would, because it doesnt happen until it does. Also, its clear to me that had I expressed concern about the seperation, they would not have heard me. Because, they stopped listening.

Now, Id disembark my kids, or at least intend to. But, if Im manhandled, who knows what happens next. Fight or flight is 100% instinct. Perhaps I flop on the ground like a limp noodle. Perhaps I become super violent. Until it happens I wont know. But, I do know fight or flight and adrenalin are seriously unpredictable.

This situation should never have escalated this far, but it did. But, it did. It got violent because of over reach. Something that will keep increasing in pervalance as long as people allow it to.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

It got violent because the passenger resisted following orders. He was told that he had to get off the plane and did not do it, so he had to be removed.
I don't know that fight or flight is relevant in this case because was he ever in danger. This sounds more like an angry temper tantrum.

[BigL]

As someone who flys often, this will be an interesting case to watch.

First I believe federal law says you have to comply with flight crew instructions. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46504
An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

Did he interfere with the flight attendant's ability to get the plane boarded and ready for takeoff by refusing to give up his seat? He did nothing wrong before that but once given a lawful order from a member of the flight crew and didn't follow it, what's the result?


Second thing is that United actually has a policy about refusal of transport. He was already on the plane with a confirmed seat so he wasn't denied boarding. They just refused to transport him.

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21

Just for comparison here is their denied boarding policy which states their compensation amounts, etc.:

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec25

In this case, they should have never allowed him (or those with unconfirmed seats) to board in the first place. Once boarded unless he was acting in a way that could cause safety issues in flight or in emergency situations, he should have been allowed to stay. It should have never gotten to this point. UAL was in the wrong and should have kept bumping up the payment amounts until they got a volunteer.

[Ironman]

Somebody had to!
Definition of violence
1
a : the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy
b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure
2
: injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage
3
a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force the violence of the storm
b : vehement feeling or expression : fervor; also : an instance of such action or feeling
c : a clashing or jarring quality : discordance
4
: undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)

[Hydestik]

It escalated to violence because the passenger refused to comply with orders. It's that simple.

Yeah he's not getting that point...

[systemnt]

It escalated to violence because the passenger refused to comply with orders. It's that simple.

Nope.
The Volunteer Enforcement Police chose to use violence to extract the paid passenger.
You know, the guy currently suspended, and most likely fired ...
If he had not chosen to physically try to remove a paid boarded and seated passenger with force:
a) no hurt doc
b) no video
c) no public outcry
d) no billion dollar loss
e) no CEO retraction of previous statements
f) no CEO apology
g) no massive potential lawsuit/settlement against airline and Volunteer Enforcement Police and/or individual VEP officer.
h) Chuck Norris wouldn't be on this thread

It's that simple.

[Quackerbox]

I cant believe this thread is still alive

[Ironman]

Its not that simple. This was not an order, it was a volunteer system.

Also, he had done nothing wrong.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Your thinker and definitions are all jacked up!

[Ironman]

Nope.
The Volunteer Enforcement Police chose to use violence to extract the paid passenger.
You know, the guy currently suspended, and most likely fired ...
If he had not chosen to physically try to remove a paid boarded and seated passenger with force:
a) no hurt doc
b) no video
c) no public outcry
d) no billion dollar loss
e) no CEO retraction of previous statements
f) no CEO apology
g) no massive potential lawsuit/settlement against airline and Volunteer Enforcement Police and/or individual VEP officer.
h) Chuck Norris wouldn't be on this thread

It's that simple.

I'll remember that next time I'm asked to step out of the car.

[BULL21]

"Security guys". You mean, men in jeans? Ok. On that same logic. If someone saw you in a store and stated they were "security" and dressed as these dudes, are you going to comply? Really?

Also, yes, they dont shoot people everyday. But, the threat is there. The threat of violence is why alot of people comply. They know if they escalate violence will ensue and so they choose to comply. Violence was used, if only as the end game.

Maybe you have kids. Spanking is violent, but, I support it 100% when not abusively enacted. Kids know if they do "x" a spanking is coming. So, as they develop their cognitive abilities they tie violent outcomes to thier actions, so they avoid the violence with compliance (when they are thinking). Violence is there, in their minds. And the same is true for adults.


Whether or not physical occurs isnt relevant. The violence exists. Otherwise, why would you pay taxes? Not drive drunk? Obey "x" law? Because youre a reasonable person who values their life over disobediance.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

You obviously have a problem with security guards. They are guys just doing their job dealing with a**holes giving them a hard time. If you were in a bar and the big a** bouncer comes up and says you gotta go, would you comply or tell him to go get someone in a uniform with a gun. Violence happens a lot of times because people feel they have the right to do anything,anytime.

This guy new that he was wrong for resisting. He just didn't care.