This guy asks,
“how is this video any different than the viral videos we see of people not complying with the police and then ending up tasered, or worse?”
Whether UA was right or wrong was immaterial. That ship sailed and that was for another day in court. Once the police were involved, and doing their jobs, the man has to respect that authority or else get dragged off the plane… bloody, it necessary.
What do you think?
But that rant was a white guy, with tatoos and a baseball cap on backwards.
Come on. He was on the phone with a lawyer. He planned to sue long before he got dragged off. I’d lay odds that he let himself get roughed up to add a few more zeroes to the settlement.
But then I’m cynical and suspicious.
Not if the authority is illegitimate. Although the right has been eroded of late, the principle that it is the right of someone being falsely arrested to resist with force has been part of our common law heritage for centuries, and has been upheld by state and federal courts.
I’m reporting what the man says in the video rant.
He can’t answer for himself.
So I’ll play along.
“The authority wasn’t illegitimate. A private company was asking a man that they felt uncomfortable having on the plane to leave. He wouldn’t, holding up the flight for everyone, disrupting their business. He needs to leave and take his case up with the civil courts, if he has a case.”
@Uncle Al ~ from what I understand, in ‘The Case of the Disbarred Doctor’ was that the authority was legitimate … & that is the topic of discussion
… I could be wrong …
or, do you believe that this man was ‘falsely arrested’?
… jus’ askin’
That’s been my position on this event from the beginning. United sucks and handled it poorly, but once law enforcement intervenes and gives an order, nicely at first, and he refused to comply that’s lawlessness. That he shrieked like a little girl was play acting because he knows everybody now carries a video camera on their phones. This was a set up from the start.
Comply with law enforcement always. If you’ve been aggrieved settle it in court.
Were there idiots on all sides? Yep.
Private company. Private property. His privileges were revoked. Leave peacefully and fight your battle later.
right on Racer x
Quickest way to get your ass beat in public. Ignore a law enforcement officer’s orders on a croweded commercial airline. Then again, this dumb dumb has a long history of breaking the law and resisting authority but hey none of that matters, he’s the new patrons saint of the Social Justice Warriors.
So what’s wrong with legal trannies, on private property, in bathrooms with little girls? Maybe she should just do as she’s told, and if she doesn’t like it, after he’s done with her, she might be able to find a lawyer she can afford, who’ll see what the insurance company is willing to give her. Like a loyal citizen.
Anonymous,
I’m guessing the Analogy Section of the SATs gave you a heck of a hard time.
AmIright?
I don’t sympothies with the Dr.however his situation was nothing like a rioter.
He had used his hard earned money to purchase exactly the seat he was in,why should he be removed for their mistake ???. He had a paid ticket in his pocket, did they show him another ticket with that seat printed on it ???.
It seems the guy was sitting there calmly and they clearly CHOSE to make it blow-up, it shouldn’t have happened at all.
again, it’s private property. it’s SPELLED OUT in fine print when you purchase your ticket. flight not guaranteed. so sorry.
This will play out interestingly.
#1: This is a civil issue! Private property or not.
#2: As soon as law enforcement goes ‘hands on,’ it’s no longer civil, it is now criminal. Probable Cause? Heh.
#3: A citizen has the right to resist an, ‘illegal arrest.’
#3 speaks volumes to the money he is going to receive for losing his teeth, possible concussion, and emotional distress.
I took exception to a general statement and commented that it contained an error. The point is important because it belies the common assertion that a law enforcer must be obeyed when he gives an order and that if he has made an error and is not acting properly within his authority then the conflict should be worked out in court.
There is too much that I don’t know (and likely you all don’t know) about the UA v. Dao conflict to assert the proper outcome with any confidence. There are some elements of the situation, though, that I don’t think are well understood.
United Airlines is a common carrier, and is so designated by the U.S. govt. That designation removes the argument that I usually agree with that the proprietor has a right to refuse service. When you’re a common carrier, that isn’t true in all cases. A CC publishes a carriage contract that it must adhere to just as passengers must adhere to their contractual obligations. That contract lays out the circumstances when the airline may deny boarding to a ticketed passenger, but that’s not what happened here. Dao had already boarded and taken his seat.
If Dao was unruly and causing trouble before he was told he was being denied travel, then by all means toss is butt off the plane. But if he became unruly as the result of having the airline personnel deny him his contractual rights then that’s a different matter.
But back to the point I was actually interested in laying out.
Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306.
Supreme Court of the United States, John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529.
Clearer now?
@Dianny April 14, 2017 at 10:01 pm
> Anonymous,
> I’m guessing the Analogy Section of the SATs gave you a heck of a hard time.
>
> AmIright?
Since you’re correction is guessing with a question, we know the answer.
With a response from a non-entity, I’m putting my money on Dianny.
Don’t feed trolls.
Is this a family member of Drinking with Bob?
BigGun, Your first comment, exactly, your second comment, exactly.
@Uncle Al April 14, 2017 at 10:32 pm
While the violence used will come into play, the legitimacy of the attack will never be allowed to. There is not a slippery slope, but an existential precipice, if a precedent might occur, that after making a transactional offer that is refused, one can not resort to (up to lethal) force to get one’s commercial way. That chip would become a crack that would spread in very bad ways.
Who the fuck talks like that^^^^^^^^^^
@Anonymous:
Quite so: United Airlines erred.
@Bad_Brad: The whoeverthefuckitis that’s posting nonsensical and irrelevant justification.
Bottom line is: you ask for a customer to volunteer and offer a stipend or; inconvenience an employee and long form the complaint within the civil realm. United knows that they are fubar’d, especially with the p.d. now not responding to assist in these situations no matter wtf is says on their ticket.
The setup began with a “business” that purposely over books. People are sue happy and trigger happy with smart phones. Lawyer’s payday.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again:
Don’t read/upvote/respond to anyone who doesn’t even have the decency to pick a screen name and stick to it. You’re almost always dealing with a troll.
I don’t have fakebook, it won’t let me play it.
Excuse me Sir, could I ask you to de-board in exchange for two Domestic round trip tickets and an assurance that your’e first up on the next flight out.
No ok Sir, how about 1 round trip anywhere we fly ?
Shouln’t that be the easy answer, Iv’e taken that deal Happily several times.
If not him someone will take it for sure.
Vietvet,
I’ve been saying the same thing. If you post as anonymous there’s two possibilities, either your not sure of your argument or your a Troll.
You are screwing me out of this flight by offering me another flight – that you can just as easily screw me out of???
I’ve paid $200/$400/$600/doesn’t matter for renting this seat that I’m currently sitting in until you deliver me to my destination – per a contractual obligation. But you can legally cancel said contract at any time – even after I’ve taken temporary possession of my guaranteed seat.
And I should trust that the offer of a next seat or voucher will be honored?
Trespassing – shoot the mother fucker on sight – drag his rotting carcass of the plane this moment because he is just inconveniencing all of us real people who actually paid for our guaranteed seats and weren’t stupid enough to get caught in the “completely random” drawing.
He shrieked like a little girl – I’d like to hear all these manly-men when their neck is shirked from the spine.
The process is the problem – not the passenger and his past or how he reacted.
WE HAVE GOT TO GET THESE FOUR PEOPLE WHO AREN’T PAYING AND AREN’T EVEN OUR EMPLOYEES OVER THERE NOW!!! RELINQUISH YOUR SEAT OR FEEL OUR AUTHORITY!!!
Wow – – – and a lot of people here are supporting that.
Still a conservative. Still love to be here. Not leaving because you cold hearted summabitches would have shot the asshole for not realizing how important it was to not keep you waiting (never mind TSA and the airline kept you waiting for ever, not to mention the likely wait on the tarmac because the airline also overbooked the runway).
But hey – he’s not the victim. So it’s okay.
There’s always a third option….