Officer on leave after dragging United Airlines passenger off plane

[lvr181]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I would expect the lawyers to be lining up to represent him. Gonna be a big payout. Seems like everyone hates United.

Yup, BUT I think the other airlines probably love United now - as an example of being stupid! The advertising has already started. 

[thaihome]

21 minutes ago, Basil B said:

Possibly not, but once a person is asked to leave and refuses they are committing an offence, so can be arrested thereby reasonable force could be used to take them into custody. 

So you think that all alternatives to jerking a 69 year old man out of his seat and dragging him through the plane had been throughly explored before it was done? There are numerous non-violent means of getting someone to do what you are asking. Once some of those have been tried and it is obvious you must use force, you then remove all bystanders from the area before preceding.  It's all in virtually every police manual in the first 10 pages on confronting non-complaint persons.

 

As others have said ( including me), the Chicago Police obviously understand this which is why the officer was suspended.  

TH 

[55Jay]

1 hour ago, Dipterocarp said:

Thanks. I read elsewhere there is no legal right in the UK jurisdictions to use force in the case of trespass. Sounded like "rubbish" to me. Apparently the Chicago Aviation Officers are sworn peace officers in state of Illinois so they have some authority. I thought they were just rent-a-cops. The same sequence of events should have happened, explaining charges and prior to cuffing. In the states however you are required to remain passive and not resist in anyway, such as flexing arms and struggling, or else they can lay other charges such as "resisting arrest" , etc

You're co-mingling a scenario that doesn't apply here.  Again.

 

Dr. Dao was not being arrested.   He had committed no crime.  He wasn't drunk or creating a disturbance or thought to be a threat.  By accounts from other pax, he was not belligerent or unruly even with the UA staff when they tried to unseat him twice.  He just said no, then no I can't, I really need to be at work tomorrow.  

 

They just couldn't let it go.  Pride comes before the fall. 

 

They used the correct buzz words they knew would get the second tier airport police there in a jiffy for some action.  What happened next was predictable and UA staff knew it.

 

CEO lied in his characterizations of this early on, trying to spin public opinion using the good old old "security" blanket.  Didn't work.  He still hasn't come clean.  Ego in the way now.

 

You're still behind the power curve, casting about trying to find something to prop up your failing position.

 

Meanwhile, Chicago PD took ownership and accountability.  Talk about irony! 

Edited April 12, 2017 by 55Jay

[thaibeachlovers]

10 minutes ago, thaihome said:

So you think that all alternatives to jerking a 69 year old man out of his seat and dragging him through the plane had been throughly explored before it was done? There are numerous non-violent means of getting someone to do what you are asking. Once some of those have been tried and it is obvious you must use force, you then remove all bystanders from the area before preceding.  It's all in virtually every police manual in the first 10 pages on confronting non-complaint persons.

 

As others have said ( including me), the Chicago Police obviously understand this which is why the officer was suspended.  

TH 

Was it just the man that dragged the victim down the aisle, or were the other two officers also suspended. They were actually in uniform and obviously complicit in what went on.

[reenatinnakor]

I bet you any money it wouldn't have happened if the passenger was a black man... And definitely not if a woman, of any race.

I've flown them many times and United are a shit airline, I hope they go bankrupt because of this and everyone associated with them loses their jobs. They could have handled this for about 1k cash... But no, now they will go out of business! It will be funny.

Sent from my LG-H990 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[55Jay]

7 minutes ago, reenatinnakor said:

I bet you any money it wouldn't have happened if the passenger was a black man... And definitely not if a woman, of any race.

I've flown them many times and United are a shit airline, I hope they go bankrupt because of this and everyone associated with them loses their jobs. They could have handled this for about 1k cash... But no, now they will go out of business! It will be funny.

Sent from my LG-H990 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

I hope they get their s**t together, come clean and use this event to re-calibrate.  I was soft on the CEO at first, but he's taking waayyy to long to pull his head out.  If I was on the board, I would have lost confidence in his judgement and ability to lead objectively. 

 

Like I said yesterday, suspect other majors are watching this disaster unfold and are checking and clarifying polices with their staff to ensure they never get into such an avoidable jam like this.

Edited April 12, 2017 by 55Jay

[ddavidovsky]

36 minutes ago, thaihome said:

So you think that all alternatives to jerking a 69 year old man out of his seat and dragging him through the plane had been throughly explored before it was done? There are numerous non-violent means of getting someone to do what you are asking. Once some of those have been tried and it is obvious you must use force, you then remove all bystanders from the area before preceding.  It's all in virtually every police manual in the first 10 pages on confronting non-complaint persons.

 

As others have said ( including me), the Chicago Police obviously understand this which is why the officer was suspended.  

TH 

You weren't there, and neither was anyone on this thread. So why not assume, as is most likely, that the security officer:

- first asked the man politely to accompany them off the plane

- then instructed the man to get off the plane

- then warned the man that if he didn't get off the plane he would be forcefully removed.

 

This is what security offices normally do, and we can safely assume the officer in this case wanted to achieve the objective with the minimum fuss. Those who assume otherwise are simply stirring up trouble - a typical SJW ploy.  Why the reckless assumption that the man was assaulted? He happened to take a knock against a chair arm and cut his lip. Grow up.

 

When someone causes a disturbance and other forms of irrational and unpredictable behaviour in a high-security place like an airplane there is certainly legal, moral and practical justification for their removal, by force if necessary. If he got hurt, it was his own fault. As we can see from the video clip, the man is displaying signs of diminished responsibility and could therefore have run amok. He broke the law and doesn't have a leg to stand on. The airline should prosecute.

Edited April 12, 2017 by ddavidovsky

[bartender100]

$50 million settlement to him is my guess, higher perhaps? 

[reenatinnakor]

You weren't there, and neither was anyone on this thread. So why not assume, as is most likely, that the security officer:

- first asked the man politely to accompany them off the plane

- then instructed the man to get off the plane
- then warned the man that if he didn't get off the plane he would be forcefully removed.
 
This is what security offices normally do, and we can safely assume the officer in this case wanted to achieve the objective with the minimum fuss. Those who assume otherwise are simply stirring up trouble - a typical SJW ploy.  Why the reckless assumption that the man was assaulted? He happened to take a knock against a chair arm and cut his lip. Grow up.
 
When someone causes a disturbance and other forms of irrational and unpredictable behaviour in a high-security place like an airplane there is certainly legal, moral and practical justification for their removal, by force if necessary. If he got hurt, it was his own fault. As we can see from the video clip, the man is displaying signs of diminished responsibility and could therefore have run amok. He broke the law and doesn't have a leg to stand on. The airline should prosecute.

Lol. Yeah because US security and police officers are world famous for their restraint in not killing people first and ask questions later.

The plane was not in the air so the risk was minimal and it wasn't overbooked... They just wanted their staff to take the seats because they <deleted> up their own personnel logistics. If it was a troublesome passenger or drunk hooligan then yes they deserve it and if this guy was unruly then one of the other hundred passengers would have tweeted about it by now. I hope United prosecute, since they won't have leg to stand on.

Sent from my LG-H990 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Basil B]

1 hour ago, thaihome said:

1 hour ago, Basil B said:

Possibly not, but once a person is asked to leave and refuses they are committing an offence, so can be arrested thereby reasonable force could be used to take them into custody. 

So you think that all alternatives to jerking a 69 year old man out of his seat and dragging him through the plane had been throughly explored before it was done? There are numerous non-violent means of getting someone to do what you are asking. Once some of those have been tried and it is obvious you must use force, you then remove all bystanders from the area before preceding.  It's all in virtually every police manual in the first 10 pages on confronting non-complaint persons.

 

As others have said ( including me), the Chicago Police obviously understand this which is why the officer was suspended.  

TH 

 

Keep your hair on... 

Should have read the snip to which I was replying.

 

1 hour ago, Basil B said:

1 hour ago, Dipterocarp said:

Thanks. I read elsewhere there is no legal right in the UK jurisdictions to use force in the case of trespass

Possibly not, but once a person is asked to leave and refuses they are committing an offence, so can be arrested thereby reasonable force could be used to take them into custody. 

My reply was to Dipterocarp and was disusing UK Law and the removal of a person trespassing, not necessarily on a plane.

 

[eldragon]

7 hours ago, mommysboy said:

 

Therein lies the blunder: this was much more than a procedural issue.

 

There are 'perfect storms' where just about everything contrives to produce a sticky situation.  Ultimately though, we are left with a 69 year old man being dragged roughly from his seat, having been faced with a quite extraordinary set of circumstances.

 

Every other participant in this story is a trained professional, whereas the victim is not, yet an element on this forum seem to place an undue emphasis on his competence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whether you agree with a rule or not, you can't disobey one and expect to avoid the use of force. I mean, in case you haven't noticed, airports and airplanes are highly secure environments. You're not understanding how security and law enforcement work if you think they're gonna sit there and negotiate with a guy over a seat on an airplane. Once they've made a decision to do something, they follow through with the plan.

 

I maintain the only issues here are with the airlines decision to bump the guy and their timing in doing so.

[thaihome]

4 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

...we can safely assume the officer in this case wanted to achieve the objective with the minimum fuss. ...

In a forum and specifically this thread full of disingenuous posts, this certainly rates in the top ten. 

TH 

[Andrew Dwyer]

Just to add to the confusion, another video has appeared filmed from the seat right behind him , make of this what you will !

http://www.ladbible.com/news/viral-new-footage-shows-united-airlines-man-20170412

[Rhys]

30 minutes ago, Andrew Dwyer said:

Just to add to the confusion, another video has appeared filmed from the seat right behind him , make of this what you will !

http://www.ladbible.com/news/viral-new-footage-shows-united-airlines-man-20170412

 

   Well, interesting....clearly he does not comply, with the request, by the officer.    Also clearly, he indicates that he will make a spectacle of himself. 

 

Do we have an arrogant Dr. Mode going here....and he got schooled... 

 

It will be interesting what security experts advise as the proper physical removal procedure.

 

He was going to removed by force, do they cuff him first?  

 

Additionally, interesting is the character background on the impaired MD.  The spin is going to bring this profiles to sway public opinion.

 

The Trump White America  supporters are having a field day with this issue and the He is not my president supporters, bring in 45's new immigration policy.

 

Anyway, just sad it played out this way. Could have been handled better of course.

 

[mommysboy]

2 hours ago, eldragon said:

Whether you agree with a rule or not, you can't disobey one and expect to avoid the use of force. I mean, in case you haven't noticed, airports and airplanes are highly secure environments. You're not understanding how security and law enforcement work if you think they're gonna sit there and negotiate with a guy over a seat on an airplane. Once they've made a decision to do something, they follow through with the plan.

 

I maintain the only issues here are with the airlines decision to bump the guy and their timing in doing so.

 

I would have left without fuss!  And then gone to town after I'd left the plane.  But at 55 my argumentative days are largely behind me, and I know human rights are Jack Sxxx.

 

Yes, as I stated he was obliged to comply.  But what you are not understanding is the bigger picture.

 

And you are failing to call in to question the competence of the officers, who appeared to use a heavy hand.  It was disgraceful behaviour.  In fact the treatment the man got was disgraceful start to finish.  The airline is most at fault though.

 

Edited April 12, 2017 by mommysboy

[Scott]

As I understand it, there are a lot of Asians who are upset and see this as being racial in nature.   I think United has a fairly prominent presence in Asia, so not so good for business.  

 

Whether what I have heard from Asian friends about how this is being received overseas, is correct or not, I don't know.   It is a perception and with situations like this perception is important.  

 

 

 

[reenatinnakor]

As I understand it, there are a lot of Asians who are upset and see this as being racial in nature.   I think United has a fairly prominent presence in Asia, so not so good for business.  
 
Whether what I have heard from Asian friends about how this is being received overseas, is correct or not, I don't know.   It is a perception and with situations like this perception is important.  
 
 
 

I'm chinese and fly to the US all the time... My mum called me last night from hk and told me to be careful lol! Lots of news coverage about it in hk and china but all saying the same thing same as all the western press, that United handled it wrongly.

Off course it's a racial issue... Do you think they would have dragged a black man off the plane like that? Asian lives don't matter it seems.

Sent from my LG-H990 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Scott]

37 minutes ago, reenatinnakor said:

 

I'm chinese and fly to the US all the time... My mum called me last night from hk and told me to be careful lol! Lots of news coverage about it in hk and china but all saying the same thing same as all the western press, that United handled it wrongly.

Off course it's a racial issue... Do you think they would have dragged a black man off the plane like that? Asian lives don't matter it seems.

Sent from my LG-H990 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

I am really not equipped to answer whether it's racial or not.   I wouldn't begin to try to answer that.   I know that many things that happen to Farang in Thailand are considered to be racial, when in fact they may not be.  

 

The perception among my Asian friends is that it is racial.   I can't argue with them.   They made a very unwise decision in removing an Asian-American and a doctor from a flight.   They further complicated it by creating such a spectacle in doing so.  

 

I have a former student and his girlfriend who live in the US and are on a trip to the East Coast from CA.  I said I hope he isn't on United.   He is and his response is they better not mess with him or his girlfriend.   Since he is a bodybuilder, I tend to agree.  

 

 

 

 

[55Jay]

8 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

You weren't there, and neither was anyone on this thread. So why not assume, as is most likely, that the security officer:

- first asked the man politely to accompany them off the plane

- then instructed the man to get off the plane

- then warned the man that if he didn't get off the plane he would be forcefully removed.

 

This is what security offices normally do, and we can safely assume the officer in this case wanted to achieve the objective with the minimum fuss. Those who assume otherwise are simply stirring up trouble - a typical SJW ploy.  Why the reckless assumption that the man was assaulted? He happened to take a knock against a chair arm and cut his lip. Grow up.

 

When someone causes a disturbance and other forms of irrational and unpredictable behaviour in a high-security place like an airplane there is certainly legal, moral and practical justification for their removal, by force if necessary. If he got hurt, it was his own fault. As we can see from the video clip, the man is displaying signs of diminished responsibility and could therefore have run amok. He broke the law and doesn't have a leg to stand on. The airline should prosecute.

Doesn't matter.  The problem here is there was no criminal or security reason to remove the Dr. from the plane.  Chicago PD get that, and that they were in the wrong in physically removing the guy from the plane.  Quite frankly, they should have even been there to begin with.

 

The Dr. was not causing a disturbance nor acting irrationally.  If you are referring to the video after he got back on the plane, then your just wrong, or intentionally obtuse.  

 

The plane being a "high security environment" is immaterial to this event.  

 

He broke no laws or security regs to precipitate this event.  The airline has no leg to stand on, which is why they (laughably) said they weren't pressing charges. 

Edited April 12, 2017 by 55Jay

[mommysboy]

2 hours ago, Rhys said:

 

   Well, interesting....clearly he does not comply, with the request, by the officer.    Also clearly, he indicates that he will make a spectacle of himself. 

 

Do we have an arrogant Dr. Mode going here....and he got schooled... 

 

It will be interesting what security experts advise as the proper physical removal procedure.

 

He was going to removed by force, do they cuff him first?  

 

Additionally, interesting is the character background on the impaired MD.  The spin is going to bring this profiles to sway public opinion.

 

The Trump White America  supporters are having a field day with this issue and the He is not my president supporters, bring in 45's new immigration policy.

 

Anyway, just sad it played out this way. Could have been handled better of course.

 

 

I don't see that he is being arrogant, disruptive, belligerent, irrational, or anything else that might be spuriously levelled against him.

 

I missed the bit where he indicates he will make a spectacle of himself.

 

Are you suggesting he was a known terrorist?  If not, then why is his background of any significance?

 

Why "impaired"?

 

"Could have been handled better"..... I'll say!!!

[55Jay]

3 hours ago, eldragon said:

Whether you agree with a rule or not, you can't disobey one and expect to avoid the use of force. I mean, in case you haven't noticed, airports and airplanes are highly secure environments. You're not understanding how security and law enforcement work if you think they're gonna sit there and negotiate with a guy over a seat on an airplane. Once they've made a decision to do something, they follow through with the plan.

 

I maintain the only issues here are with the airlines decision to bump the guy and their timing in doing so.

There was no rule.  The Dr. broke no rule, law or security regulation.  

 

Agree with that.  The CDA security officers were called in by UA under false pretense, misleading at best, and acted upon it.  After the videos began coming out, they realized they were A) in the wrong  and their #3 officer who initiated the use of force against the Dr., was in the wrong. 

 

Agreed again.  The airline's decision to randomly bump customers for crew, wasn't the best one at that time.  Their decision to press the issue with this passenger who clearly wasn't willing to give up his seat for this reason, was wrong.  Deciding to abandon airline policy they hadn't yet exhausted, and involve law enforcement/security in a situation that did not involve any criminal or security violations, was wrong.  Misrepresenting the situation to the CDA, was wrong.

Edited April 12, 2017 by 55Jay

[55Jay]

2 hours ago, Andrew Dwyer said:

Just to add to the confusion, another video has appeared filmed from the seat right behind him , make of this what you will !

http://www.ladbible.com/news/viral-new-footage-shows-united-airlines-man-20170412

Thanks for that.  Very useful.  Dr. Dao's lawyer is loving this gift. 

[eldragon]

2 hours ago, mommysboy said:

 

I would have left without fuss!  And then gone to town after I'd left the plane.  But at 55 my argumentative days are largely behind me, and I know human rights are Jack Sxxx.

 

Yes, as I stated he was obliged to comply.  But what you are not understanding is the bigger picture.

 

And you are failing to call in to question the competence of the officers, who appeared to use a heavy hand.  It was disgraceful behaviour.  In fact the treatment the man got was disgraceful start to finish.  The airline is most at fault though.

 

You're right. The officers could've executed better. But forcibly removing a passenger from an airplane is not an exact science. I choose to believe they did not want to hurt the passenger. The focus should be on the airlines policy here. It seems while they made a very unpopular decision, they were entitled to make it.

[55Jay]

Some in Chicago's govt apparatus have opined, as have I, these Chicago Aviation Dept. security guys had NO BUSINESS being on that plane too begin with.  Dealing with passengers is UA's responsibility. 

Quote

Zalewski said the aviation officer who is now on a leave of absence had no business getting involved in the incident, let alone boarding the flight from Chicago to Louisville.

It should have been handled by United, O’Hare’s flagship carrier, in the boarding area, before passengers ever boarded the flight, the alderman said. And if the airline needed backup to handle a recalcitrant or unruly passenger, that should have been provided by Chicago Police officers, who were just minutes away when the viral video was taken, Zalewski said.

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/viral-video-kills-chance-aviation-security-officers-will-be-armed/

 

A properly trained LE officer would know they had no legal justification to get involved, much less use force.  They would have turned to UA cew/staff and said something along the lines of, "Sorry guys, he's not breaking any laws or creating a security threat, there's nothing we can do at this time".  In other words, we're not your personal United Airlines bouncer service, so you need to figure something else out... This is an internal UA problem in the first instance, and a service provider/customer relations issue.

[eldragon]

1 hour ago, 55Jay said:

There was no rule.  The Dr. broke no rule, law or security regulation.  

 

Agree with that.  The CDA security officers were called in by UA under false pretense, misleading at best, and acted upon it.  After the videos began coming out, they realized they were A) in the wrong  and their #3 officer who initiated the use of force against the Dr., was in the wrong. 

 

Agreed again.  The airline's decision to randomly bump customers for crew, wasn't the best one at that time.  Their decision to press the issue with this passenger who clearly wasn't willing to give up his seat for this reason, was wrong.  Deciding to abandon airline policy they hadn't yet exhausted, and involve law enforcement/security in a situation that did not involve any criminal or security violations, was wrong.  Misrepresenting the situation to the CDA, was wrong.

Facts seem all over the place on this story, but I'm not hearing anyone say the airline wasn't entitled to any of the decisions they made. He refused to leave the plane. He was removed. Any apologies that are made at this point are strictly a PR move.

[55Jay]

3 minutes ago, eldragon said:

Facts seem all over the place on this story, but I'm not hearing anyone say the airline wasn't entitled to any of the decisions they made. He refused to leave the plane. He was removed. Any apologies that are made at this point are strictly a PR move.

IMV, it's rather clear cut and becoming moreso as the days flip by.

 

I agree with you, UA is entitled to make decisions.  That doesn't mean those decisions are always right, nor are they backed by government security/LE officers, and the use of force at all times by default.

 

The decision to remove Dr. Dao (and the others) was for purely operational, business and revenue  self-interests - duty of care and customer relations nowhere in sight on this one.  Jimmy Kimmel's UA satire/spoof video a page of two back, was spot on.  LOL.

 

Anyway, involving government security or LE under what looks to be false/misleading pretense in order to enforce their internal, corporate decision in this case, is wrong.  And, as we're likely to see in the fall out from this, will involve criminal and civil repercussions for CDA and UA, respectively.

 

I think CDA's acknowledgement was not just about PR. I think they "got it", because it is so clear cut. 

 

UA's stubborn, arrogant response is problematic on a few levels.

[55Jay]

10 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Was it just the man that dragged the victim down the aisle, or were the other two officers also suspended. They were actually in uniform and obviously complicit in what went on.

From all I've read (quite a bit yesterday), just the #3 officer (in jeans) has been put on leave, no mention of the 2 uniforms that I've seen, or noticed. 

 

Other accounts and by watching the video of the altercation, the 2 younger uniformed CDA security officers were said to be the first ones to show up.   When Dao rebuffed their efforts, they called for, I presume, their supervisor - the third guy in jeans.  Listening to the latest vid posted here, you can hear #3 escalating, bluffing with a veiled threat of jail, to which Doa says fine, I'll go to jail (words to that effect).    I got the impression from his posture and tone of voice that #3 had enough dicking around with this geeky passenger, and went hands on to make an impression.

[F4UCorsair]

16 hours ago, orchidlady said:

 

Of course they have no concern for passengers. United has many flights departing from China, will be interesting to see how reservations are effected by this. Earlier, social media comments about this incident were viewed by 98.5 million Chinese. 

 

 

United will discount tickets on routes that have the potential to be affected, and in a few months, or even less, this incident will be forgotten.   Chinese, and most people, can't resist a bargain!!

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, Rhys said:

 

   Well, interesting....clearly he does not comply, with the request, by the officer.    Also clearly, he indicates that he will make a spectacle of himself. 

 

Do we have an arrogant Dr. Mode going here....and he got schooled... 

 

It will be interesting what security experts advise as the proper physical removal procedure.

 

He was going to removed by force, do they cuff him first?  

 

Additionally, interesting is the character background on the impaired MD.  The spin is going to bring this profiles to sway public opinion.

 

The Trump White America  supporters are having a field day with this issue and the He is not my president supporters, bring in 45's new immigration policy.

 

Anyway, just sad it played out this way. Could have been handled better of course.

 

Could have been handled better of course.

LOL. That is the only issue here. While the "law" may have had the "right" to remove him, the way it was done was amazingly incompetent, and if it looks bad for the airline, they really, really deserve it. Management have been shown up to be a bunch of bumbling buffoons.

Brings to mind that saying about managers rising to their level of incompetence!

[eldragon]

1 hour ago, 55Jay said:

IMV, it's rather clear cut and becoming moreso as the days flip by.

 

I agree with you, UA is entitled to make decisions.  That doesn't mean those decisions are always right, nor are they backed by government security/LE officers, and the use of force at all times by default.

 

The decision to remove Dr. Dao (and the others) was for purely operational, business and revenue  self-interests - duty of care and customer relations nowhere in sight on this one.  Jimmy Kimmel's UA satire/spoof video a page of two back, was spot on.  LOL.

 

Anyway, involving government security or LE under what looks to be false/misleading pretense in order to enforce their internal, corporate decision in this case, is wrong.  And, as we're likely to see in the fall out from this, will involve criminal and civil repercussions for CDA and UA, respectively.

 

I think CDA's acknowledgement was not just about PR. I think they "got it", because it is so clear cut. 

 

UA's stubborn, arrogant response is problematic on a few levels.

What is an "internal, corporate decision"? When I say the airline was entitled to their decisions, I mean they were within the terms of the agreement they make with passengers when they sell them a ticket. It's covered in the contract of carriage. The fine print. I could be wrong, or it could eventually be determined that I'm wrong, but at the moment everything I'm reading on the issue says UA had the right to remove Mr. Dao.