United passenger launches legal action over forceful removal

[anon4546543]

8 minutes ago, oldcarguy said:

in my younger days I asked to be put on the "bump" list since it did not matter when I got somewhere ,

 

United could have said $2500 cash and there would have been a rush to give up their seat m United just got cheap,

 

But that being said United has screwed all its Frequent flyer passangers the last 5 years ,  I had 300,000 FF plus miles that I just used up and have not flown United since ,

 

This is just how you get treated anymore flying , maybe not beat up , but not treated as a valued customer that they want to keep,

You are almost there. United could have used all sorts on incentives to get some to leave the plane. Although the planning by United should never have lead to this brutal farce and force. I hope there are multiple litigations, where the US has shown once and for all that litigation rules need to be applied to stop outright bullying by US companies. Democracy has hit an all time low in the US. 

[scorecard]

1 hour ago, ddavidovsky said:

Since you ask, I'm from Yorkshire, which has been democratic for a good deal longer than the land of Dr Dao's origin.

 

Life is unfair sometimes. Boo hoo. Mature, socially responsible people know how to deal with it. This idiot opted for the childish, petulant, selfish approach - and got what he deserved. I was going to say he got what he asked for, but he actually asked to be killed, so he got off lightly. Now he's going to be set for life on account of his ill-gotten gains. This kind of behaviour shouldn't be condoned. It will only encourage tantrums and other disruptive behaviour on planes (and in society generally). No, that isn't a good thing. There are many situations where self-discipline is appropriate.

 

You say '...Life is unfair sometimes. ...'

 

Sorry but that isn't appropriate to this situation, not at all.

 

I can't see that he threw a tantrum. He did mildly react after being violently grabbed and violently pulled out of his seat, who wouldn't. He didn't throw a tantrum at all. 

 

Disruptive. How was he disruptive? He was siting thee minding his own business then suddenly grabbed  and violently pulled from his seat. How is he being disruptive.

 

Bottom line oft of this.  IMHO the law should provide that airlines simply cannot remove people for their own staff or for any other reason after seated. 

[stevenl]

6 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

The movie 'The Fortune Cookie' comes to mind.

 

From what I have seen, his injuries were inadvertently received as he was being lawfully removed from the plane, and were a direct result of his deliberate and unrelenting refusal to comply first with instructions from flight staff, then with instructions from security personnel. He should have got off like a responsible adult rather than selfishly disrupting the flight, and taken up any grievance legally thereafter.

 

He really doesn't have any leg to stand on but his lawyers know he will get a settlement from the airline as they are being crucified by rabid social media activists.

Besides the moral aspects, there are more and more doubts raised that the removal was lawful.

 

Your other comments, about him being disruptive, throwing a tantrum etc., are clearly not correct.

Edited April 16, 2017 by stevenl

[mommysboy]

6 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

The movie 'The Fortune Cookie' comes to mind.

 

From what I have seen, his injuries were inadvertently received as he was being lawfully removed from the plane, and were a direct result of his deliberate and unrelenting refusal to comply first with instructions from flight staff, then with instructions from security personnel. He should have got off like a responsible adult rather than selfishly disrupting the flight, and taken up any grievance legally thereafter.

 

He really doesn't have any leg to stand on but his lawyers know he will get a settlement from the airline as they are being crucified by rabid social media activists.

Although I agree that his injuries were very likely inadvertant, there is no way that you can justify them as a direct result of his failure to comply with instructions imo.  Yes they would not have happened if he'd alighted,  but they were very obviously the result of clumsy, incompetence on behalf of the third officer.  And the ejection may not be lawful.  In order to be so the officer has to have the authority to perform the ejection, and must follow procedures.  I think the fact that all 3 officers appear now to have been suspended indicates that something was wrong in the manner in which they behaved. 

 

I do agree he should have walked.  For me it's rather like when you are shown the red card in a match.  The time for arguing the toss is afterwards.  Had the order been made by a real policeman then there would have been an obstruction of police duties.  But then again had it been a policeman with any competence he may have decided that ejection was not appropriate since no offence had been commited.

[mommysboy]

6 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

Since you ask, I'm from Yorkshire, which has been democratic for a good deal longer than the land of Dr Dao's origin.

 

Life is unfair sometimes. Boo hoo. Mature, socially responsible people know how to deal with it. This idiot opted for the childish, petulant, selfish approach - and got what he deserved. I was going to say he got what he asked for, but he actually asked to be killed, so he got off lightly. Now he's going to be set for life on account of his ill-gotten gains. This kind of behaviour shouldn't be condoned. It will only encourage tantrums and other disruptive behaviour on planes (and in society generally). No, that isn't a good thing. There are many situations where self-discipline is appropriate.

 

Again the valid points that you make are destroyed by some sweeping assumptions, and to suggest that he got what he deserved is utter nonsense.

 

Up until the point of removal he was quite rational, and was not at all disruptive.  After receiving the injuries he was obviously in a state of shock.  Quite how he was able to get back on the plane is a mystery, but it somehow makes the ejection process even more flawed and quite pathetic.  One can only assume that at this point the guards were informed that they'd made an almighty blunder.

 

I do agree that allowing a person to defy orders sets a dangerous precedent.  And in my opinion damages should be limited to reasonable amounts in order not to encourage 'fortune cookies'.  Any gains he makes will in fact be compensation.  They will only be made if the parties involved feel it's likely they will be prosecuted if they don't come to an out of court settlement.

[Rob13]

26 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

I do agree he should have walked

 

UA asking passenger's to leave after being seated is out of line and is representative of how they view their customers. Him leaving would have saved him a broken nose, OTOH, UA would still feel justified to continue bullying their passengers. At some point somebody needs to stand up. 

 

What UA did here is the equivalent of a restaurant telling you to leave while you're waiting for your food to arrive because someone else needs your table. Asking is OK, but telling you 'times up, you gotta go now' and then dragging you out,it doesn't work. There's no defense for doing business like that. But UA  has been doing it on a regular basis. 

 

Edited April 16, 2017 by Rob13

[mommysboy]

6 hours ago, spiderorchid said:

So you, as a Yorkie (ooh eyye) are totally saying that it is normal for someone who has purchased an airline ticket, received a seat allocation, received a boarding pass, too be then thrown off the aircraft. Am I missing something here, or did you agree with water boarding. The bloke had paid for his seat, do you not see the rules of purchase and delivery, as being the basis of all commercial rules. See basic commerce101. There was something about a sweet company circa 1911 (in Britain) that is quoted in all law courts as to the right of the purchaser. The company used a false security threat and obnoxious behaviour reason which was later proven to be a lie. The man is going to sue and I hope it brings down all those that lied, bullied and inflicted injuries on him

There are three strands that are being argued by most posters which is leading people to confuse concepts: legality- civil and criminal, commercial competence, and moral duty.  That the airline screwed up on the latter two is surely beyond debate, way beyond.  The only points where there may be some contention is about legality.

 

For me, there is very little that is not cut and dried, but I do respect other poster's rights to argue differently.  Indeed, if there is a moral to this story it is respect other people's rights.

[mommysboy]

4 minutes ago, Rob13 said:

 

UA asking passenger's to leave after being seated is out of line and is representative of how they view their customers. Him leaving would have saved him a broken nose, OTOH, UA would still feel justified to continue bullying their passengers. At some point somebody needs to stand up. 

 

What UA did here is the equivalent of a restaurant telling you to leave while you're waiting for your food to arrive because someone else needs your table. Asking is OK, but telling you 'times up, you gotta go now', it doesn't work.  There's no defense for doing business like that. But UA  has been doing it on a regular basis. 

 

I'm not saying UA and law enforcement were right, quite the opposite.  But I am saying he should have obeyed the order to disembark, and then sued the butt off the airline because they are quite clearly utterly in the wrong.

[Rob13]

3 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

, and then sued the butt off the airline because they are quite clearly utterly in the wrong.

 

That would be the adult thing to do. Making a scene was more effective though. Lawsuits are page 5  news and don't get much coverage. A geezer getting abused by three cops is headline stuff and let's the world see how UA goes about it's business. When dealing with a***eholes sometimes you have to be one yourself. Sounds like Dr Dao probably is a certified a**hole anyway. Everybody's getting what they deserve.

[billd766]

4 hours ago, Rob13 said:

 

UA asking passenger's to leave after being seated is out of line and is representative of how they view their customers. Him leaving would have saved him a broken nose, OTOH, UA would still feel justified to continue bullying their passengers. At some point somebody needs to stand up. 

 

What UA did here is the equivalent of a restaurant telling you to leave while you're waiting for your food to arrive because someone else needs your table. Asking is OK, but telling you 'times up, you gotta go now' and then dragging you out,it doesn't work. There's no defense for doing business like that. But UA  has been doing it on a regular basis. 

 

 

Especially if you have already paid the bill, been seated but not yet given what you had paid for.

[SiamBeast]

Everyone saw the lawsuit coming - let's hope he gets a good settlement.

[thaihome]

11 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

The movie 'The Fortune Cookie' comes to mind.

 

From what I have seen, his injuries were inadvertently received as he was being lawfully removed from the plane, and were a direct result of his deliberate and unrelenting refusal to comply first with instructions from flight staff, then with instructions from security personnel. He should have got off like a responsible adult rather than selfishly disrupting the flight, and taken up any grievance legally thereafter.

 

He really doesn't have any leg to stand on but his lawyers know he will get a settlement from the airline as they are being crucified by rabid social media activists.

So following your line reasoning, police should just shoot drivers that exceed posted speed limits as they are deliberately and unrelenting refusing to comply with legal speed limits and therefore deserve whatever happens as a result.

?

TH 

 

[ddavidovsky]

15 minutes ago, thaihome said:

So following your line reasoning, police should just shoot drivers that exceed posted speed limits as they are deliberately and unrelenting refusing to comply with legal speed limits and therefore deserve whatever happens as a result.

?

TH 

 

Come up with something comparable and I'll reply. If that's your only argument, you've lost this debate completely.

 

You are basically defending the right of people to pull tantrums when they don't get what they want. Your agenda is mainly to to stick it to big corporations, presumably due to feelings of personal insecurity. But the poor man vs capitalism days are over. As mature adults we should be promoting responsible social behaviour. I don't advocate meek, blind submission to authority; there is always scope for litigation but it should be pursued in the proper manner.

[ddavidovsky]

5 hours ago, mommysboy said:

Although I agree that his injuries were very likely inadvertant, there is no way that you can justify them as a direct result of his failure to comply with instructions imo.  Yes they would not have happened if he'd alighted,  but they were very obviously the result of clumsy, incompetence on behalf of the third officer.  And the ejection may not be lawful.  In order to be so the officer has to have the authority to perform the ejection, and must follow procedures.  I think the fact that all 3 officers appear now to have been suspended indicates that something was wrong in the manner in which they behaved. 

 

I do agree he should have walked.  For me it's rather like when you are shown the red card in a match.  The time for arguing the toss is afterwards.  Had the order been made by a real policeman then there would have been an obstruction of police duties.  But then again had it been a policeman with any competence he may have decided that ejection was not appropriate since no offence had been commited.

 

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.

[thaihome]

1 minute 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.

So you refuse to accept my traffic analogy then turn around and use one yourself. If a cop had shot the person running the red light would that be an acceptable result for you since it would prevent anarchy?

 

I have said many times the doctor should have accepted his fate, but his refusal to do so does not in anyway justify the injuries he received.  

TH 

[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

 

[stevenl]

56 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

Come up with something comparable and I'll reply. If that's your only argument, you've lost this debate completely.

 

You are basically defending the right of people to pull tantrums when they don't get what they want. Your agenda is mainly to to stick it to big corporations, presumably due to feelings of personal insecurity. But the poor man vs capitalism days are over. As mature adults we should be promoting responsible social behaviour. I don't advocate meek, blind submission to authority; there is always scope for litigation but it should be pursued in the proper manner.

What debate?

 

There is only a debate if people are reacting to arguments presented, and you're not doing that. You're only posting the same opinion time and time again and are not reacting to arguments and reasoning of others.

[mommysboy]

33 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.

 

It's a much better presentation than previously, but I would say the only party preventing it from taking off was UA.  They created the whole situation needlessly, and quite possibly unlawfully.  There was no good reason why he should have been ejected, and in fact UA was possibly in breach of aviation rules; they are certainly being investigated in this respect.  I can't compare this situation with a drunken yob behaving foolishly for instance.  The situation is trivial as you say, yet UA and Law Enforcement turned it in to a nightmare.

 

"Some rules just need to be adhered to, or it invites anarchy"-  Agreed.  I think the only reason why most posters aren't agreeing with us here is that the argument is being made in order to excuse everything that happened;  It really doesn't.

 

[scorecard]

1 hour ago, ddavidovsky said:

Come up with something comparable and I'll reply. If that's your only argument, you've lost this debate completely.

 

You are basically defending the right of people to pull tantrums when they don't get what they want. Your agenda is mainly to to stick it to big corporations, presumably due to feelings of personal insecurity. But the poor man vs capitalism days are over. As mature adults we should be promoting responsible social behaviour. I don't advocate meek, blind submission to authority; there is always scope for litigation but it should be pursued in the proper manner.

 

"You are basically defending the right of people to pull tantrums when they don't get what they want."

 

I ask again - what did the man do that could be described as a tantrum?

 

From what I see there was just a few words of discussion, he said without and drama / tantrum that he didn't want to leave the aircraft and was promptly and forcably yanked from his seat and injured in the process, and without further ado dragged down the aisle. 

 

And please note that their is no suggestion that the old man was seen as a security or any other threat. . 

 

This just can't be right, the airlines just should not be allowed to do such things. I hope he takes United and the airport security to the cleaners and I also that this prompts a complete rethink and rewrite of the laws on this subject. 

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

On whos authority and why did he have to get off

 

Quite.  This is a crucial issue.

 

As far as I know (not that far), pilots are granted a wide range of powers that are normally only accorded to emergency services.  This is because of the peculiar environment where much of their work is conducted, ie, 30,000 feet up in the air, where no emergency services are accessible. 

 

Nobody seems sure when that power ceases.  In this case, the plane was docked, and ground services were demonstrably available. So I think it likely the captain issued no order.

 

The only people legally encharged with effecting removal is a police officer or equivalent.  Not all airport security staff reach that equivalent.  It may be the third officer had no authority whatsover.  If he did have such powers, he was perfectly entitled to exercise them, but would of course have to do this according to guidelines, and would be answerable for his decisions and actions.

 

 

[dick dasterdly]

2 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

Come up with something comparable and I'll reply. If that's your only argument, you've lost this debate completely.

 

You are basically defending the right of people to pull tantrums when they don't get what they want. Your agenda is mainly to to stick it to big corporations, presumably due to feelings of personal insecurity. But the poor man vs capitalism days are over. As mature adults we should be promoting responsible social behaviour. I don't advocate meek, blind submission to authority; there is always scope for litigation but it should be pursued in the proper manner.

You're coming up with strawman arguments.

 

In this case UA were trying to save money by offering a small incentive for passengers to voluntarily wait for the next flight.  When not enough passengers (I gather three accepted) accepted their small incentive, they decided to call in security officers and force someone off the flight.

 

It would/will be interesting to find out the reasons given by UA to the security staff to remove a passenger.

 

It would/will also be interesting to find out how the passenger was "randomly selected".

 

I doubt we'll ever find out the answer to either question - but will be happy if proven wrong.

 

The local UA staff should have had the business sense to realise that making a generous offer was the best solution, but they didn't and their bad manpower planning turned into something far worse in every way.  Then the CEO decided it was a good idea to blame the passenger, rather than the staff involved in the decision making !

 

As a result of the bad decisions by local UA staff/local security staff (those who sent in security staff as well as the officer who dragged the passenger off the 'plane, injuring him in the process) and UA CEO - they're going to have to pay out a lot of money and are in a world of trouble PR wise.

 

Many of those responsible will hopefully lose their jobs, but the added bonus is that any law on which the airline relied to bring in security staff to physically remove paying passengers from a flight to save them money, will (again hopefully) be amended to ensure that this cannot happen in the future .

Edited April 16, 2017 by dick dasterdly

[oldcarguy]

I often worry about "Security" guards , want-to-be Police

 

if you give a Badge to someone they think they are Special ,  and even worse is give them a gun !

 

Most of these guys have very little training  , many are on a "Power Trip"  and would never be considered for the real Police Academy,

 

I try to stay away from them when possible ,  its not going to be fun to get beat up and fight it afterwards ,

 

As far as this guy , he can be within his rights but  money is not going to help a 69 year old guy recover quicker !

 

Did he ask for the Captain  ?

[canthai55]

17 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

 Some rules just need to be adhered to, or it invites anarchy.

On the contrary -

In this case, we have a medical doctor who refused to de-plane, and security was called. He acted immature, for sure, and in the process of forcibly removing him from his seat, his head was slammed against an armrest.

So why is this case different?

Because the man had a legal right to keep his seat.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/04/why-united-is-in-legal-trouble-over-removing-a-passenger/

[canthai55]

4 hours ago, oldcarguy said:

if you give a Badge to someone they think they are Special ,  and even worse is give them a gun !

This has served me well my whole life -

 

 

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, canthai55 said:

On the contrary -

In this case, we have a medical doctor who refused to de-plane, and security was called. He acted immature, for sure, and in the process of forcibly removing him from his seat, his head was slammed against an armrest.

So why is this case different?

Because the man had a legal right to keep his seat.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/04/why-united-is-in-legal-trouble-over-removing-a-passenger/

Valid point. Still a dodgy game.  Could have blown up in his face.  Perhaps he was well briefed.  I think it was suggested he was on his phone to his attorney.  It needs to be pointed out that ordinarily ignoring an order from law enforcement (a police officer anyway) could get you in to hot water.

 

I don't agree when you say on the contrary.  The point is everyone with a grievence thinks they are in the right.  If they also think they are the sole arbiter then that is a recipe for disaster.  To go back to my football pitch example, imagine if players stopped deciding they were going to play to the whistle.  And anyway, look what happened to him.

 

He is 100% in the right of course.

 

 

Edited April 17, 2017 by mommysboy

[canthai55]

I quoted -

 

18 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

 Some rules just need to be adhered to, or it invites anarchy.

 

My point - passenger was obeying the Rules.

 

 

[Rob13]

21 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

To go back to my football pitch example, imagine if players stopped deciding they were going to play to the whistle.  And anyway, look what happened to him

 

I missed your football pitch example so I may be off base here; but if it's about players following the officials calls, then the official has the responsibility to officiate fairly and within the rules, otherwise the players will quit following his calls. Authority is rarely unconditional to the point where the people have to follow orders without question. Authority figures can initiate anarchy with rules and behavior that are unreasonable .

Edited April 17, 2017 by Rob13

[mommysboy]

7 minutes ago, Rob13 said:

 

I missed your football pitch example so I may be off base here; but if it's about players following the officials calls, then the official has the responsibility to officiate fairly and within the rules, otherwise the players will quit following his calls. Authority is rarely unconditional to the point where the people have to follow orders without question. Authority figures can initiate anarchy with rules and behavior that are unreasonable .

I should have restated it.  I think I may have made it on a similar thread.

 

Absolutely agree.  But the trouble is there's a time and a place to challenge that authority.

 

I think part of the problem here is using 'fake police'.  We all recognise the word police on a uniform.  And at the point the badge is flashed, most normal people would realise the seriousness of the situation.

 

But of course a real policeman would likely never have issued the order, since there was no justification.  Airline and LA completely at fault.

[stevenl]

36 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Valid point. Still a dodgy game.  Could have blown up in his face.  Perhaps he was well briefed.  I think it was suggested he was on his phone to his attorney.  It needs to be pointed out that ordinarily ignoring an order from law enforcement (a police officer anyway) could get you in to hot water.

 

I don't agree when you say on the contrary.  The point is everyone with a grievence thinks they are in the right.  If they also think they are the sole arbiter then that is a recipe for disaster.  To go back to my football pitch example, imagine if players stopped deciding they were going to play to the whistle.  And anyway, look what happened to him.

 

He is 100% in the right of course.

 

 

A football match where one of the involved parties has hired the referee?

[mommysboy]

5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

A football match where one of the involved parties has hired the referee?

Again a very good point.  It's a totally unacceptable situation and it comes from necessary absolute powers being granted in flight. UA has capitalised on those to apply them to situations and circumstances where they should never be applied.

 

But that was the lie of the land.  It's also not a good idea to argue with someone half your age and more, who is handy with his fists.

 

Overall though there is a time (afterwards) and a place (certainly not on a packed aircraft).  This notwithstanding there are instances where it is ok to defy even a legally made order, for instance where you believe it will imperil your life, or someone elses.

 

If any cases come to court, and personally I hope there are because UA and LA deserve to be hauled over the coals, then I imagine as much will be stated somewhere along the line.