.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
rockingrobin
-
Posts
1,689 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by rockingrobin
-
-
9 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:
The red card comparison is a good one, though it's safe to assume the law of the land additionally applies in this case.
The passenger was disrupting the flight (at least in preventing it from taking off) by refusing to comply with established authority. The fact that he took a knock in the ensuring fracas is irrelevant. That was inadvertent when he was taken out of his seat - he brought that on himself - he wasn't assualted. There is always a scuffle when people resist in such situations and they are apt to get hurt in one way or another. The injury would not have happened if he had complied with instructions. He doesn't have a legal case, but of course, UA will have to settle this to get it out of the news. They have been truly stuffed here, quite unfairly.
I ask again: why didn't he just get off and pursue his legal case thereafter? Because he didn't have to get off? Well, yes he did. Would this guy also refuse to stop at a red light, even when there's no other traffic around, because it would make him late for work? Some rules just need to be adhered to, or it invites anarchy. This particular situation is trivial, but it does represent a minor breakdown in society, especially when the social media warriors misguidedly weigh in.
On whos authority and why did he have to get off
-
-
7 minutes ago, Rob13 said:
That'd be breach of contract. Store managers call the cops on argumentative customers routinely and have them removed for trespassing. Even when the customer has a legal complaint against the store manger, he's still guilty of trespassing once he's asked to leave. IMO, same would apply here. Definitely one for the lawyers to work out.
There is no contract between store and customer
-
7 minutes ago, Rob13 said:
Not defending UA, but I think private property laws would give UA the right to ask him to leave their plane. By not leaving he was trespassing.
The object of the C of C was to be on the aircraft for the purpose of transportation
-
1 hour ago, Dipterocarp said:
The man was asked to deplane under command authority inherent to the crew, the moment he failed to comply he was in breech of Uniteds own policy as outlined in their contract of carriage, and Federal Law. This police were called to ask him to deplane again. Again he refused and what happened after that is horrible but no reponsibility of United Airlines.
Another poster linked to a relevant statute, then via a plain language reading of wording incorrectly stated, the crew, have no authority to issue commands unless "in flight" meaning doors closed. I say I can smoke a ciggy in the lavatory. The plain language reading of the relative statute reads air carriers must prohibit smoking "on scheduled flights". Flight is defined as doors closed right? Anyway, they can't tell me no as they have no authority to ask me not to smoke, to put my seatbelt on, to open the windowshade, or any other of the mundane commands that are given thousands of times a day with the door open. They close the door I've already stubbed it out. I bought a ticket I have rights! Rubbish!
See how easy is is to be a poor solicitor when one has no knowledge of how law is actually interpreted in actual operations
Here is the post again
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. '
Definition of special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States
'An aircraft is in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States only while the aircraft is "in flight'
An aircraft is "in flight" from the moment when all external doors are closed following embarkation until the moment when one such door is opened for disembarkation, or in the case of a forced landing, until competent authorities take responsibility for the aircraft. 49 U.S.C. § 46501(1).
https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1405-special-aircraft-jurisdiction-us
As you can see the federal rule with regard interfering with duties of crew is only applicable when aircraft is 'in flight', all external doors closed etc
Smoking on aircraft is governed by separate rules and not dependent on the aircraft being in flight'
-
7 minutes ago, Dipterocarp said:
Check United contract of Carriage regarding Refusal of Carriage and safety. Yo are required to follow crewmwmber instructions (i.e. deplane) The authority is based on the statute you yourself posted, 49 US code 46504. Saying "it does not apply" a a gate is another rhetorical argument an attorney might make before a court but remember the Captain is the ultimate authority, they can have people removed for anything (even if reason later found to be invalid). Legal precedent would apply. I have seen people taken off planes ( the last time just for swearing) many times, no struggles but some of the reasons seemed pretty weeak.
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21
The federal regulation does not come into force until the plane is 'in flight'
Plus the CoC is in relation to safety section H
-
14 minutes ago, transam said:
Thought I read somewhere the UK has stated sarin gas was used...
Sarin contradicts the eye witness account
-
42 minutes ago, andersonat said:
The US Dept. of Transport set and publishes these rules (including the maximums that can be offered to induce passengers to give up their seats/tickets) - this is *not* "my" check list.
Not quite the maximum is for involuntary,
-
33 minutes ago, Dipterocarp said:
So you smoke some ciggy in a lavatory while the plane is at the gate. The Cabin Attendant says stop.You refuse, there is even an ashtray in there. Really clutching at straws now are we?
That would be a breach of contract and regulation 14 CFR 252 smoking aboard an aircraft
It is the act of smoking that is unlawful , not disobeying the crew
-
7 minutes ago, Dipterocarp said:
Failure to follow crew instructions is also an offense. (Deplane) I don't think the man assaulted any crew member. The plaintiffs laywyer may argue a point of law before a judge the Gate Agent giving the order is not valid, but that is specious and would fail as an absurd fiction as the agent whispering the order through a Cabin Attendant would have the same effect.
It does not look like private property but The aircraft is private property as well as the airport grounds. The police asking a person to vacate who does not comply is quilty of trespass. A sworn peace officer should have advised him the charges he would face if he failed to comply. It appears that did not happen, I can't get a straight answer if Chicago Aviation security have arrest authority or not. I think this is a reason they are probably on administrative leave at this time.
Please show me where it is an offense not to follow crew orders whilst the plane is not in flight
The private property is weak almost non existent, the passenger had a contract with the airline to enjoy such rights, unless the passenger committed an offence then it was not a matter for the police but a contractual dispute between airline and passenger
-
36 minutes ago, Dipterocarp said:
This isn't a rape case.
I don't agree with my fellow Americans. Many of them, and more importantly the courts tend agree the victims of Police Violence are responsible for their own suffering, because of their failure to comply with Police orders. I'm sorry just the way it is.
OK I will respond,,
It as been confirmed the captain did not order the passenger removed.
You ascertain the passenger occupied the seat illegally, I am assuming because he refused to comply with the crews request.
I take it you would be referring to 49 US code 46504
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. '
Definition of special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States
'An aircraft is in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States only while the aircraft is "in flight'
An aircraft is "in flight" from the moment when all external doors are closed following embarkation until the moment when one such door is opened for disembarkation, or in the case of a forced landing, until competent authorities take responsibility for the aircraft. 49 U.S.C. § 46501(1).
https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1405-special-aircraft-jurisdiction-us
-
30 minutes ago, Dipterocarp said:
When the crew give an order to deplane, you have no legal right to disobey, even if the justification of this order is unsound. As you enjoy absurd examples remember a ship Captain can order you set adrift in a lifeboat. He'll answer for it later but this is fundamental aviation/maritime law.
Whatever injuries this man poor old man suffered later are from his personal choice to illegally remain in his seat, the subsequent interactions with police and security could hardly be suspected, and no order was given by the airline to brutalize him. The man was not violent but this has been going on like this in the USA for a long time, there are many links online of people being dragged off airplanes. A country here police kill more people in a good 30 day period than UK cops have in 80 years! Almost complete impunity. Where pepper spray is applied directly into the eyes of non-violent college students for blocking footpaths (who could have been ignored indefinitely and have rights to protest under the Constitution).
It is a huge PR nightmare from UA they have deep pockets and will pay huge sums to settle out of court. Far too sympathetic a witness to put before a jury. 69 years old, concussed,broken nose and two teeth knocked out permanently? Horrible. I think this is more to do with police brutality in America than anything else.
The airlines in Japan released statements that they would never allow such a thing to happen, unthinkable. They offer cash (not rubbish flight vouchers). The CEO of United has said publicly that they will no longer use/call Law enforcement to remove passengers in such situations. Perhaps, by becoming the first US carrier to embrace non-violence they can improve as a compassionate
company. The US airlines have been for ages best known for rudeness.
I would not want to be the one delayed but any decent person would admit it is much better some flight is cancelled than an old man beaten by security forces.
' Whatever injuries this man poor old man suffered later are from his personal choice to illegally remain in his seat, the subsequent interactions with police and security could hardly be suspected, and no order was given by the airline to brutalize him '
This is nonsense and akin to saying a rape victim is to blame for the way they dress
-
Just now, spiderorchid said:
Yes scientists from Turkey days ago said that sarin was used to kill civilians. But the US said they had tracked and followed Syrian aircraft that the US said had dropped a sarin bomb. So show the proof, not mumble on what May says in scripted propergander. (something like that. lol)
So we know sarin gas was used. but who let it loose on the ground, because we know it was not dropped by an aircraft. It may have been fired by artillery.
British scientists , sarin or sarin like , therefore not pure sarin that would be expected from the syrian regime. with reports of a chlorine smell at the attack site then this would suggest manufacture by the di di method
-
Just now, neverere said:
Your statement is inaccurate. Be careful which reports you get your "facts" from. Yes, it is all part of today's dumbing down of the masses that causes this.
Which part is not accurate
-
36 minutes ago, spiderorchid said:
I wish the US would supply irrefutable confirmation of chemical attacks. But they don't. They said they had irrefutable evidence of every bs incursion since WW11, The bay of pigs, the Tonkin so called incident in which 55,000 US lives were wasted, Lebanon, where US marines were blown up in an attack on their hotel. Iraq, Iran, Somalia and so many more defeats to the worlds greatest super power, filled with bleats you post. You should give it a rest.. US won the war of Panama and Grenada. Wow. Stuffed up the rest. And still you bleat on
UK now saying highly likely Syria behind attack
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39591476
' Mrs May said British scientists had analysed material from the site of the attack that killed 80 people in rebel-held Khan Sheikhoun on 4 April.
They had said it was "very clear" sarin or a sarin-like substance was used '
-
Just now, Basil B said:
Yes they were in the wrong but that does not negate the fact that by refusing Dr Dao made himself a "disruptive passenger" allowing them to have him removed from the plane, forcefully if need be.
I do not know about American Law but in the UK basically there is Criminal and Civil, civil law deals with matters contractual, claims for damages etc, the Airline failing to fly DR Dao from Chicago to Louisville is a contractual matter, but DR Dao refuse to get off the plane as instructed, and thereby disobeying the instructions of the crew, made him a disruptive passenger and as such could have been arrested and charged and prosecuted under Criminal law.
Quite clearly the way the Airline approached this was well out of order and fortunately Dr Dao will probably be getting a lot more compensation than had he just walked off the plane as first instructed.
Disobeying the crews orders does not equate to being disruptive, otherwise the passenger would be compelled to slavishly carry out instructions that may be unlawfull.
-
Just now, Basil B said:
Yes, when he was told to get off the plane and refused he became a "Disruptive Passenger" and thus could be forcefully removed...
Still even being forcefully removed one would expect them to use no more force than necessary, in that situation Dr Dao would not know his rights and therefore think he could just sit there as it was a try on by the airline.
' Yes, when he was told to get off the plane and refused he became a "Disruptive Passenger" and thus could be forcefully removed. '
That is reversal of cause and effect.
Of course he could be asked to leave, equally so he can decline , the question that needs to be asked, is he within is right to refuse ?.
-
4 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:
I suspect (but could be wrong) that the victim's lawyers petitioning the court to stop any recordings being deleted has more to do with the chain of events - e.g. reasons given for calling in security staff to physically remove a passenger from the 'plane.
But agree that it will be interesting to find out the discussions between crew staff and the 'random selection' procedure applied.
UA CoC doesnt provide for random selection
' The priority of all other confirmed passengers may be determined based on a passenger’s fare class, itinerary, status of frequent flyer program membership, and the time in which the passenger presents him/herself for check-in without advanced seat assignment'
Rule 25
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec25
-
I thought he was on vacation needing to go oversees for health reasons
-
8 minutes ago, tuktuktuk said:8 minutes ago, tuktuktuk said:
You think the security guards bloodied his nose just for fun? Usually more to the story than that.
Explain, how did the bloody nose come about
-
3 hours ago, Dipterocarp said:
The public outrage stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of US law and aviation/maritime law in particular. The moment Dr. Dao disobeyed crew instructions he had committed a Federal offense and had no legal right to remain on the aircraft. Even if the airline had failed to uphold their contractual obligations the passenger had no right to force the airline to comply, only seek monetary damages before a court or arbitration. Mr. Dao's injuries are due his interaction with law enforcement, and his failure to comply with legal and valid instructions to deplane. Some of the officers are on leave for their brutal handling of Dr. Dao so surely he can charge them/ seek damages from the City of Chicago. I doubt any court would find the airline liable for bodily injury as there is no evidence any airline staff or crew touched him.
"The United Airlines Incident from the Perspective of an Airline Transport Pilot rated Aviation Attorney."
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/united-airlines-incident-from-perspective-airline-transport-fenton
The request from flight crew as to be lawfull , reasonable and justifiable , otherwise a passenger is compelled to obey instructions from crew even if such actions are unlawfull
-
4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:
The DOCTOR needed to see patients. They could have moved someone else off the plane that didn't have to help the sick and dying.
In this case the airline needs to be punished for forgetting the people that matter are the ones paying the bills and thinking that they are more important. Remember the saying "the CUSTOMER comes FIRST.
The airline was at fault for being so incompetent that they filled up the plane before working out that they needed to fly staff. They come across as a bunch of moronic oafs. The time to "offload" customers is before any one goes on board.
The question that arises , where is the distinction between denied boarding and refusal of travel
-
50 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:
I'm guesing Thomas Massie is a weapons expert? Not. Too much evidence out there that supports Syria did this with a bomb. Member of the G7 are holding off until they've got sold proof. Which any reputable person/organization would do. Unlike Massie who's just sprouting off his opinion.
Go with the experts opinions:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/04/syria-chemical-attack-idlib-province
Read the last part. If you blow up sarin, you destroy it.
Do some research. Like this:
Again, stick with experts advice. It's hard for them to prove exactly what it was as the experts don't have access to this area. It could be another chemical. But guaranteed, it was a chemical attack by Syria. They've done attacks like this before. Nothing new for Assad.
If you blow up sarin you destroy it, begs the question why did the US avoid the chemical weapon storage facilities at the airbase
-
1 minute ago, scorecard said:
Just wondering whether crew members can just front up to the gate, totally unannounced by a previous memo to the boarding agents / staff, show some company ID and say 'I want a seat on this flight and get boarded or do they need to show a document signed by a higher level of authority to get seats?
Doesn't of course change the fact it was all very poorly handled.
I understand but have not confirmed, that there was a later flight available
United Airlines removes engaged couple traveling to wedding from plane
in World News
Posted
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/17/524296265/bridal-couple-removed-from-united-airlines-flight-without-incident