Officer on leave after dragging United Airlines passenger off plane

[mommysboy]

I really believe it is in the public interest that UA and the third law enforcement officer are brought before the criminal court.

Edited April 13, 2017 by mommysboy
grammar error

[55Jay]

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

The only possible offence is disobeying an order from a police officer (or equivalent).  This amounts to obstruction.  Whether the Law Enforcement officer has that equivalent power is a key issue.

Yes, but when the order is unlawful or has no basis in law, such as in this case, it is not a lawful order or instruction therefore there is no "failure to obey".  Like telling you to jump off a bridge.  You say, No, screw you, I'm not going to jump.... and then they arrest and charge you with failure to obey an order.

 

If they try to compel you to comply by pushing you off the bridge, but you resist and manage to stay on the railing, that is not obstructing an officer in the performance of his duty.  Because he's got no legal justification.

 

Silly examples but it makes the point clear.  I hope so anyway.  Cheers.

[mommysboy]

Just now, 55Jay said:

Yes, but when the order is unlawful or has no basis in law, such as in this case, it is not a lawful order or instruction therefore there is no "failure to obey".  Like telling you to jump off a bridge.  You say, No, screw you, I'm not going to jump.... and then they arrest and charge you with failure to obey an order.

 

If they try to compel you to comply by pushing you off the bridge, but you resist and manage to stay on the railing, that is not obstructing an officer in the performance of his duty.  Because he's got no legal justification.

 

Silly examples but it makes the point clear.  I hope so anyway.  Cheers.

Yes, thanks.

[sandrabbit]

BBC  is showing a statement by his daughter where she talks about the family being shocked and no one should be treated that way.

[Dipterocarp]

11 hours ago, 55Jay said:

Yes, but when the order is unlawful or has no basis in law, such as in this case, it is not a lawful order or instruction therefore there is no "failure to obey".  Like telling you to jump off a bridge.  You say, No, screw you, I'm not going to jump.... and then they arrest and charge you with failure to obey an order.

 

If they try to compel you to comply by pushing you off the bridge, but you resist and manage to stay on the railing, that is not obstructing an officer in the performance of his duty.  Because he's got no legal justification.

 

Silly examples but it makes the point clear.  I hope so anyway.  Cheers.

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.

[rockingrobin]

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

[Dipterocarp]

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.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Dipterocarp

[rockingrobin]

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

[mommysboy]

1 hour 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.

 

Nobody said it was.  The word used was 'akin'.

 

As you say: 'tend'.

 

However in this case, that the officer failed to check his facts carefully and observe the mandatory duty of care now appears beyond dispute.  There were no grounds for removing the passenger- a real policeman would have realised this.  Crucially, the passenger was also not being disruptive.  It is not even certain the enforcement officer had the authority to act as he did.

 

It may be decided by a judge that the passenger partly contributed to his situation by not complying with the order to leave.  Yes, I think in this respect he was wrong, but in no way does this negate the assault that appears to have followed.  But since the order appears unlawful, this issue may not even be contested.

 

As an aside, I think any responsible poster would point out that it is generally a mistake to disobey an order made by a police officer, since most are issued with good grounds and within jurisdiction.  Failing to do so can result in criminal charges.  In this case, none of this applies however.

Edited April 14, 2017 by mommysboy
addition

[Dipterocarp]

Assault is a legal term. OJ Simpson was found not guilty of "murder", still facedcivil case of wrongful death. Similarly law enforcement are rarely held to individual account, and neither are the agents and officers  of guilty US corporations. The city will pay as well especially Chicago Police there are known for brutality going back decades and currently under Federal consent degree for patterns of human rights violations.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Dipterocarp

[Dipterocarp]

48 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

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

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 and facilities.. Once the mans boarding card is invalidated he has no legal business in the facility and can be asked to leave or face arrest. 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.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Dipterocarp

[rockingrobin]

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

[Dipterocarp]

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?

 

 

Edited April 14, 2017 by Dipterocarp

[rockingrobin]

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 

Edited April 14, 2017 by rockingrobin

[Dipterocarp]

Check United contract of Carriage regarding Refusal of Carriage and safety. You 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 in the US ( the last time just for swearing) many times, no struggles but some of the reasons seemed pretty weak. For example, a teenager pulled off shamed and frogmarched. They said they found "weed" in his checked bag.

 

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

Edited April 14, 2017 by Dipterocarp

[rockingrobin]

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

[Dipterocarp]

Attorneys spend their careers arguing what the plain language of statutes and contracts actually mean. You have to follow crew instructions to deplane when asked. That is why the airline called the police,for the mans non-compliance , interference with remember duties. Happens all the time. No excuse for the beating though.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Dipterocarp

[thaihome]

6 minutes ago, Dipterocarp said:

Attorneys spend their careers arguing what the plain language of statutes and contracts actually mean. You have to follow crew instructions to deplane when asked. That is why the airline called the police,for the mans non-compliance. Happens all the time. No excuse for the beating though.

The legality of the get off the plane order is somewhat hazy and police officer at the scene should have realized that and used common sense and his supposed training to realize that this could be a civil matter that he had no jurisdiction over.

 

Removal of a passive passenger on an airplane with the door still open is not a security or safety issues that falls within his purview.  His job should have been to mediate the situation not make it worse. 

TH 

[Dipterocarp]

The CEO has said they will no longer allow law enforcement to remove people in oversell situations.We will now all be the mercy of intransigent SJW warriors who stick to seats like Occupy Wall Street protestors or tree huggers who chain themselves to privately owned Redwoods. Sure some flights will now be cancelled. The louts who have made flying such a burden can voice their displeasure at baggage claim For me it is better to be delayed then see a man beaten.

[thaihome]

2 minutes ago, Dipterocarp said:

The CEO has said they will no longer allow law enforcement to remove people in oversell situations.We will now all be the mercy of intransigent SJW warriors who stick to seats like Occupy Wall Street protestors or tree huggers who chain themselves to privately owned Redwoods. Sure some flights will now be cancelled. The louts who have made flying such a burden can voice their displeasure at baggage claim For me it is better to be delayed then see a man beaten.

Don't be ridiculous.  You must be just trolling at this point.  

 

What will happen is airlines will have to offer enough compensation to passengers in order to get them to volunteer.  Somehow I don't think you travel much and haven't  seen what happens in an overbooked situation.  

 

There are always people interested in selling their seats for the right price. My experience is in fact there are usually more people willing then needed. The airline just has to offer the right price. In this case, the offer was a particularly shitty $800 in vouchers for having a 24 hour delay.

 

Vouchers are not highly thought of as most people do not fly enough to use them. Cash is king and likely $800 in cash would have people lined up in order to take the money and go rent a car for the 400 mile drive.

TH 

 

[Dipterocarp]

Good. I never have heard of the US airlines overing cash,  only vouchers and sometimes Upgrades. The Japanese airline do offer cash  and it is very effective in securing volunteers.

[mommysboy]

3 hours ago, Dipterocarp said:

Good. I never have heard of the US airlines overing cash,  only vouchers and sometimes Upgrades. The Japanese airline do offer cash  and it is very effective in securing volunteers.

If ever there was a case of penny wise pound foolish, then this is it.  In fact the airline has displayed folly of 'fable' proportions throughout.

[55Jay]

7 hours 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.

Cheap shots and insults aside, the salient, critical point here is UA's motivation behind the involuntary deplaning.

 

The scope of an airline's authority under the laws cited is not limitless, nor intended to extend to  discretionary business decisions, or routine service issues, such as this Dao incident.

 

The law does provide airline crews authority over pax relative to the safe operation of the aircraft and safety of all pax on board.  The law provides recourse and severe repercussions if a passenger interferes with and/or assaults crew in the performance of their duties; duties being the safe operation of the aircraft and safety of crew and pax on board.

 

The Dao incident doesn't meet that test at all. 

 

I notice (in a later post) you resurrected the Trespass scenario again, trying to bootstrap what took place  (or actually events that didn't) into a half-baked legal justification. 

 

I've got a fun theory that has a far better chance of being proven out as fact than that.  Do you want to hear it?  Not off topic, directly relevant to this event.

[55Jay]

4 hours ago, Dipterocarp said:

The CEO has said they will no longer allow law enforcement to remove people in oversell situations.We will now all be the mercy of intransigent SJW warriors who stick to seats like Occupy Wall Street protestors or tree huggers who chain themselves to privately owned Redwoods. Sure some flights will now be cancelled. The louts who have made flying such a burden can voice their displeasure at baggage claim For me it is better to be delayed then see a man beaten.

And they shouldn't.  But again, don't blame Dao or the public, United did this to themselves.  And created the conditions for it which has now blown up in their face.  Put the blame where it should be, Dip.

 

The louts who've made flying such a burden is UA (and others) by overselling seats and then putting the burden of THEIR intentional bullshit, onto the flying public, who've been conditioned to it as the new normal. Corporations will screw you over if they can get away with it, and unfortunately, at times, it's taken the government to step in and force them to clean up their act, do the right thing and quit fk'ing people over.  They do their best to find the loop holes and ways around the new legislation so they can.... well, you get it.  I hope.

 

At any rate, this wasn't an oversold flight.  That's been established.  But still interesting to note United tried to float that turd early on.  You ought to be feeling like your intelligence has been insulted by their flagrant arrogance, lying through their teeth, thinking you're a dope who'll believe anything they say.  You carry on blaming Joe Six Pack and ignoring rather simple elements of what went on here in a bid to defend the airline.  Or, maybe just avoid having to admit your initial instincts were wrong, so you gunna ride your failed argument into the dirt.  That's so Donald Trump of you!

Edited April 14, 2017 by 55Jay

[Andrew Dwyer]

Breaking news !!

http://www.daftynews.com/outcry-shocking-scenes-emerge-passenger-dragged-onto-ryanair-flight/

[55Jay]

8 minutes ago, Andrew Dwyer said:

Breaking news !!

http://www.daftynews.com/outcry-shocking-scenes-emerge-passenger-dragged-onto-ryanair-flight/

I needed a good laugh today, THANKS!  That's classic! 

[Dipterocarp]

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

[Naam]

14 minutes 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.

no responsibility except that United will pay through the nose.

[mommysboy]

6 minutes ago, Naam said:

no responsibility except that United will pay through the nose.

I think it likely UA would be held vicariously liable for what security did, even if the captain did not order the customer to be removed.

[Basil B]

12 hours 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.

• I have not seen any evidence of police in attendance.
• The Goons who dragged him off the plane were security employees of the Airport, not police.
• The assault up Dr Dao went far beyond reasonable force required to remove him from the plane.
• The crew could have intervened and instructed the goons to stop when they started to use excessive force, by not doing so they are just as responsible as the goons for the unjust assault.  

Edited April 14, 2017 by metisdead
Please do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes.