Officer on leave after dragging United Airlines passenger off plane

[eldragon]

5 hours ago, 55Jay said:

Meaning that the air crew/UA staff have been emboldened and reinforced to play fast and loose with the authority and recourse they DO have under the law.  In other words, boot strapping the law for trivial and/or non-criminal/ security/safety/threat related situations, which the law was intended for.

 

 

49 U.S. Code § 46504 - Interference with flight crew members and attendants: 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.

 

14 CFR 135.120: No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crew member in the performance of the crew member's duties aboard an aircraft being operated under this part.

 

Confronting this is uncomfortable and as you've said in a later post, you are now fatigued by this conversation.  I know, makes my head hurt, thoughts are scrambled by mental interference from a lifetime of programming, bias and reflexive thinking - mind the cops, pay your taxes, be a Patriot, etc.   You seem to be balanced though, but when you got tired, you check binned and went with your initial reflex.  

 

Anyway, have a good one, happy Songkran.   

 

I think this is one of those polarizing issues where you're either gonna feel like the authorities didn't need to do what they did and could've found another way OR they were entitled to do what they did and there was no reason they shouldn't have. I lean more towards the latter. I just feel like it's a slippery slope when people start saying, "They didn't have to..." about law enforcement agencies. It's easier if we all follow the rules, or challenge them at the appropriate time and place.

[eldragon]

4 hours ago, harrry said:

When asked if the passenger, David Dao, was at fault for the actions that led to his removal from his Louisville, Kentucky-bound flight at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, Munoz said, simply: "No, he cannot be. He was a paying passenger sitting in his seat on our aircraft. No one should be treated that way."
 straight from the CEO

http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/united-ceo-felt-shame-watching-video-of-deplaned-man-accepts-responsibility-1680722

 

Damage control. 

[Basil B]

28 minutes ago, Mosha said:

How hard is it, you sort it at check in.

Sent from my iris 505 using Tapatalk
 

Probably they had boarded the plane before the got a last minute instruction to find 4 seats...

 

Even if passengers were all checked in it could have been sorted at the gate before boarding, could have told 4 people they were going to up grade them, told them to take a seat near the gate while the load the rest of the passengers, lock the doors then say sorry we have no seats for you...

[mommysboy]

2 hours ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

Dr Dao was in the wrong. You see a few seconds of a video and think you know everything. 

 

 Captain decides who stays and who goes.  By the time the THIRD security person came on the plane to deal with Dao, his mission was simple - get him off. 

 

Happens sometimes but this guy is a convicted felon fraudster and you fell for it. 

 

163 million passengers flew United in 2016. How many fell out of the sky?

 

Correction: Dr Dao was probably in the wrong in this particular part of the story.  That does not vindicate either the airline or security staff who were wrong throughout.

[sandrabbit]

I found this commentary about the situation but this morning I had read from an article by a legal professor in the US giving his reasons why Dr Dao should not have been ejected from the aircraft but I can't find the article again, it was on a link from USA Today and basically agreed with the below article but in correct legal terms.

 

http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2017/04/11/united-denied-boarding-illegal/

[mommysboy]

2 hours ago, 55Jay said:

Have another think about that.  "but clearly the enforcement officer was charged with freeing the seat."

 

Charged by who?  A United Airlines employee?  For what reason?  Folks tend to embellish a bit to get the cops there and involved. You can see how that worked out after the post-event analysis.  Ooops.  We screwed up.

 

Properly trained LE officers don't follow orders from civilians or private company employees.  They have to remain objective, weigh up the situation and see if there's a legal justification for them to get involved.  Sometimes there isn't, may be a civil matter or a disagreement but no crime has been committed.  They may remain on the scene and try to mediate between the 2 parties and keep the peace, but until there's a crime or a threat of one, they don't get involved and certainly don't take sides because they work around/closely with airlines, and start laying hands on people to do the airline's bidding for them. 

 

Yes part of the confusion comes from my not knowing exactly what an LE Officer is.  We all understand what a policeman is and have a fair idea what his job entails, and what power he has.

 

If he is basically employed by the airline company, then he is in no position to give orders, and no law has been broken at all.

[Basil B]

6 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

Correction: Dr Dao was probably in the wrong in this particular part of the story.  That does not vindicate either the airline or security staff who were wrong throughout.

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.  

[Panda13]

[Jingthing]

OK, perhaps this is a tad over the top, but still interesting --

Quote

You are not mad at United Airlines; you are mad at America.

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/04/youre-not-mad-at-united-airlines-youre-mad-at-amer.html

[Flustered]

30 minutes ago, 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...

 

The reason given to him to get off the plane was a lie and United were in the wrong.

 

There was no overbooking. There was no random computer selection of the 4 passengers. All lies told to the passengers of the plane by United Airlines.

 

The CEO of United, Oscar Munoz, has publicly stated  "We are not going to put a law enforcement official onto a plane to take them off … to remove a booked, paid, seated passenger; we can’t do that."

 

Simple, all the passengers had been allocated seats and issued boarding cards. All passengers had taken their seats. The reason given to the passengers for the removal of four of them was a bare faced lie as was the way they were selected. Up until he was forcibly dragged from his seat, Mr Dao was fully within his rights. he was not disruptive, he was a legal fare paid, seat allocated and boarded passenger. A fact that Mr Munoz has accepted.

 

If United wanted to deny boarding, it should have been done at the gate, not on the aircraft.

 

End of.

 

 

Edited April 13, 2017 by Flustered

[rockingrobin]

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 ?. 

Edited April 13, 2017 by rockingrobin

[billd766]

3 hours ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

Who paid the least. Dao no doubt!

 

cheap bastard!

 

Yet another victim blamer.

 

Obviously you were there when Dr Dao booked and paid for his ticket and you carefully checked that he bought the cheapest ticket.

 

Naturally you have the proof of that.

 

Of course if you don't, and cannot prove it, would that then make you a lying bastard (just to use your word when describing the victim).

 

So if you prove it I will apologise.

 

If you cannot, will you apologise to everybody here for lying?

Edited April 13, 2017 by billd766
Added extra text

[thaihome]

1 minute ago, rockingrobin said:

' 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. 

I disagree. It is immaterial if the 69 year old doctor was within in rights to refuse to leave. The issue is how that order, legal or not, was enforced and if the action taken to remove him was a legal and appropriate use of force. I think the answer to that is an obvious no.

 

Law Enforcement can only use force within fairly strict guidelines,  which they are supposed to be well trained in. You cannot just attack someone for failing to follow an order.

 

Note below, the doctor was not doing any of three items that decide if the force used is reasonable.  There were countless ways to get him to move after verbally telling him to do so had failed. None were even considered much less tried,  just grab him and jerk. A 69 year old man. Sitting in his window seat on a full airplane. Simply saying "I'm not going to move".  Think about it.

 

This was as clear a case of somebody taking it personally that their orders to get up was refused and deciding the affront was too much to take as you will ever find. I don't care if he has 8 kids, a sick wife, and an elderly mother to support, he is a danger to the public in his current law enforcement position. Think about him as a real armed cop and what he would likely do.

TH

Reasonable Force

Courts decide whether an officer’s use of force was unreasonable on a case-by-case basis, taking into account:

• the severity of the crime
• whether the suspect posed a threat, and
• whether the suspect was resisting or attempting to flee. (Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).)
• http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-much-force-can-officers-during-arrest.html#

[thaihome]

14 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Yet another victim blamer.

 

Obviously you were there when Dr Dao booked and paid for his ticket and you carefully checked that he bought the cheapest ticket.

 

Naturally you have the proof of that.

 

Of course if you don't, and cannot prove it, would that then make you a lying bastard (just to use your word when describing the victim).

 

So if you prove it I will apologise.

 

If you cannot, will you apologise to everybody here for lying?

Just to add to this Dr. Dao had started his day some 8 hours earlier in LAX after a likely 3 hours drive from Orange county and check in and security check.

 

Don't know about you, but I'm only 65 and that would quite possibly make me a bit irritable when confronted by a typical airline staff telling me I have to get off the airplane and wait until tomorrow afternoon to get home. 

TH

[Basil B]

42 minutes ago, Flustered said:

The reason given to him to get off the plane was a lie and United were in the wrong.

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.    

Edited April 13, 2017 by Basil B

[mommysboy]

7 minutes ago, thaihome said:

I disagree. It is immaterial if the 69 year old doctor was within in rights to refuse to leave. The issue is how that order, legal or not, was enforced and if the action taken to remove him was a legal and appropriate use of force. I think the answer to that is an obvious no.

 

Law Enforcement can only use force within fairly strict guidelines,  which they are supposed to be well trained in. You cannot just attack someone for failing to follow an order.

 

Note below, the doctor was not doing any of three items that decide if the force used is reasonable.  There were countless ways to get him to move after verbally telling him to do so had failed. None were even considered much less tried,  just grab him and jerk. A 69 year old man. Sitting in his window seat on a full airplane. Simply saying "I'm not going to move".  Think about it.

 

This was as clear a case of somebody taking it personally that their orders to get up was refused and deciding the affront was too much to take as you will ever find. I don't care if he has 8 kids, a sick wife, and an elderly mother to support, he is a danger to the public in his current law enforcement position. Think about him as a real armed cop and what he would likely do.

TH

Reasonable Force

Courts decide whether an officer’s use of force was unreasonable on a case-by-case basis, taking into account:

• the severity of the crime
• whether the suspect posed a threat, and
• whether the suspect was resisting or attempting to flee. (Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).)
• http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-much-force-can-officers-during-arrest.html#

The first one is easy : there was no crime.  He posed no threat whatsoever.  The third issue is not applicable.

 

[rockingrobin]

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. 

[thaihome]

8 minutes ago, 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 Airline approached this waswell 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.    

I agree with everything you say, but in this specfic case, every police guideline on dealing with a passive resistor was violated. You cannot just reach across an occupied seat and drag him out into the aisle, hitting his face on an armrest,  of a fully occupied airplane. It just ain't done that way unless you are a complete <deleted>.

TH 

 

[Flustered]

5 minutes ago, thaihome said:

I agree with everything you say, but in this specfic case, every police guideline on dealing with a passive resistor was violated. You cannot just reach across an occupied seat and drag him out into the aisle, hitting his face on an armrest,  of a fully occupied airplane. It just ain't done that way unless you are a complete <deleted>.

TH 

 

This is the nub of it.

 

By doing as you describe, the law enforcement officers crossed the boundary of what was required to get him to leave the plane. United's CEO himself has stated it was wrong and he further has stated publicly it was a mistake. So what else do all of these people who keep on calling Mr Dao  "disruptive" want and why do they know better than the CEO of United himself?

Edited April 13, 2017 by Flustered

[mommysboy]

16 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

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. 

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.

[Andrew Dwyer]

[Rhys]

The comments are almost as active as the impeach 45 posts.  The final outcome will be interesting.

[55Jay]

2 hours ago, eldragon said:

 

I think this is one of those polarizing issues where you're either gonna feel like the authorities didn't need to do what they did and could've found another way OR they were entitled to do what they did and there was no reason they shouldn't have. I lean more towards the latter. I just feel like it's a slippery slope when people start saying, "They didn't have to..." about law enforcement agencies. It's easier if we all follow the rules, or challenge them at the appropriate time and place.

You have to focus one step back. 

 

United should have found another way to get it done and never involved the airport police/security in the first place; they had no role in this type of scenario.  Which is why the CDA rogered up to their mistakes early on. 

[kkerry]

Dr. Dao wasn't a problem passenger until United made him one. I don't make a habit of getting on the wrong side of law enforcement but they would have had to drag me off as well. If he didn't want to leave the plane voluntarily then it was up to United to find another way of getting their crew to their destination that didn't involve assaulting a fare paying passenger. 

 

The cost of compensating him will run in to millions because there is no way United can ever let this go before a jury. To do so will cost them ten times the amount McDonalds had to pay out over hot coffee years ago. If his legal team aren't starting negotiations at a minimum ten million then he should re-accommodate them 

 

 

[kkerry]

His lawyer (he reminds me of Chuck McGill in Better Call Saul) just held a press conference...

 

Dr. Dao has suffered severe concussion, lost two teeth, had his nose broken and will require reconstructive surgery...

 

Better start the negotiations at twenty million...

[55Jay]

2 hours ago, mommysboy said:

 

Yes part of the confusion comes from my not knowing exactly what an LE Officer is.  We all understand what a policeman is and have a fair idea what his job entails, and what power he has.

 

If he is basically employed by the airline company, then he is in no position to give orders, and no law has been broken at all.

Sorry, LE is Law Enforcement. 

 

The security guys who went on the plane are employed by the City of Chicago, although I've read they are a cost neutral service to the city.  To me, that means they are funded by fees and taxes from airline tickets, airport concessions and operating fees - essentially a limited, unarmed security service inside the sterile/security area of the airport, instead of using private/contract guards.  A lot of guy would use this as a stepping stone to a "real" police job in Chicago PD.

 

At any rate, these chaps shouldn't have been involved in this kind of scenario in the first place, taking orders from United employees without proper due diligence, and acting as United's personal security/bouncer service.  I can see how familiar relationships between UA gate staff, and the CDA guards, could have been a factor in this event. 

 

Now, had Dr. Dao committed a crime, or was a safety issue or a security threat, that would have been different.  But he wasn't any of that, this was strictly a United Airlines operational desire, and they got these CDA security guys to do their dirty work instead of sorting it out on their own.  

 

City of Chicago is NOT happy about this.

Edited April 13, 2017 by 55Jay

[Kadilo]

His lawyer (he reminds me of Chuck McGill in Better Call Saul) just held a press conference...

 

Dr. Dao has suffered severe concussion, lost two teeth, had his nose broken and will require reconstructive surgery...

 

Better start the negotiations at twenty million...

Blimey that was one violent arm rest. Best add another zero to that claim.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[55Jay]

14 minutes ago, kkerry said:

His lawyer (he reminds me of Chuck McGill in Better Call Saul) just held a press conference...

 

Dr. Dao has suffered severe concussion, lost two teeth, had his nose broken and will require reconstructive surgery...

 

Better start the negotiations at twenty million...

Dr. Dao was, apparently, on the phone with his lawyer in that latest video.  No doubt his lawyer told him he didn't have to get off the plane.  I could hear Dao on the phone saying they are threatening to use force. 

 

That lawyer was on the other end of the line doing High 5's and hand stands over this one.  United and Chicago Aviation Department..... good job guys!  Duh!

 

[kkerry]

Attorneys for Dr David Dao, who lost two front teeth and suffered a broken nose and "significant" concussion in the incident, say they will sue.

Dr Dao was released on Wednesday night from a Chicago hospital, his lawyer said, adding that he planned to have reconstructive surgery.

 

Lawyer Thomas Demetrio told journalists on Thursday: "He [Dr Dao] said that he left Vietnam in 1975 when Saigon fell and he was on a boat and he said he was terrified.

"He said that being dragged down the aisle was more horrifying and harrowing than what he experienced when leaving Vietnam."

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39586391

 

 

[mommysboy]

23 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

Sorry, LE is Law Enforcement. 

 

The security guys who went on the plane are employed by the City of Chicago, although I've read they are a cost neutral service to the city.  To me, that means they are funded by fees and taxes from airline tickets, airport concessions and operating fees - essentially a limited, unarmed security service inside the sterile/security area of the airport, instead of using private/contract guards.  A lot of guy would use this as a stepping stone to a "real" police job in Chicago PD.

 

At any rate, these chaps shouldn't have been involved in this kind of scenario in the first place, taking orders from United employees without proper due diligence, and acting as United's personal security/bouncer service.  I can see how familiar relationships between UA gate staff, and the CDA guards, could have been a factor in this event. 

 

Now, had Dr. Dao committed a crime, or was a safety issue or a security threat, that would have been different.  But he wasn't any of that, this was strictly a United Airlines operational desire, and they got these CDA security guys to do their dirty work instead of sorting it out on their own.  

 

City of Chicago is NOT happy about this.

Thanks for clearing up this very grey area.