Don't fly United

[Anonymous]

Nothing in either video appears to suggest that the man's head hitting the armrest across the aisle was an intentional act by the officers, but merely incidental to the man's removal from the seat and his subsequent toppling over across the aisle.

As has been said earlier in the thread, noncompliance with an officer's request, then order, will lead to use of force. If, in the course of a struggle against lawful use of force the resisting party sustains injuries, even serious/potentially life-threatening injuries merely incidental to the lawful use of force (such as a head incidentally hitting an armrest during the course of detainment), then that liability is on the resisting party...NOT the detaining officer in the course of his/her official duties.

It's no different than if, in the course of the use of lawful and non-lethal self-defense during a street encounter using a hand-to-hand technique, the offending party happens to be tripped over by the defending party and incidentally smacks his/her head on a curb, causing death by severe head injury...Courts (at least in the U.S.) generally hold that death or great bodily harm resulting incidentally to the use of non-lethal defensive methods against an offending party is not the liability of the defending party, as the defending party generally would not have reasonably known that the use of a defensive method established by law and precedent to be "non-lethal" would have resulted in death or great bodily harm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothing in either video appears to suggest that the man's head hitting the armrest across the aisle was an intentional act by the officers, but merely incidental to the man's removal from the seat and his subsequent toppling over across the aisle.

As has been said earlier in the thread, noncompliance with an officer's request, then order, will lead to use of force. If, in the course of a struggle against lawful use of force the resisting party sustains injuries, even serious/potentially life-threatening injuries merely incidental to the lawful use of force (such as a head incidentally hitting an armrest during the course of detainment), then that liability is on the resisting party...NOT the detaining officer in the course of his/her official duties.

It's no different than if, in the course of the use of lawful and non-lethal self-defense during a street encounter using a hand-to-hand technique, the offending party happens to be tripped over by the defending party and incidentally smacks his/her head on a curb, causing death by severe head injury...Courts (at least in the U.S.) generally hold that death or great bodily harm resulting incidentally to the use of non-lethal defensive methods against an offending party is not the liability of the defending party, as the defending party generally would not have reasonably known that the use of a defensive method established by law and precedent to be "non-lethal" would have resulted in death or great bodily harm.

You do realize that this man did nothing wrong? WHY should he have to be removed anyways? If he had already boarded and sat in a seat, the person not in a seat should be denied. Or the last person to check in. There is no reason that a lawful use of force should need to be applied to a man sitting in a seat that he paid for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing in either video appears to suggest that the man's head hitting the armrest across the aisle was an intentional act by the officers, but merely incidental to the man's removal from the seat and his subsequent toppling over across the aisle.

As has been said earlier in the thread, noncompliance with an officer's request, then order, will lead to use of force. If, in the course of a struggle against lawful use of force the resisting party sustains injuries, even serious/potentially life-threatening injuries merely incidental to the lawful use of force (such as a head incidentally hitting an armrest during the course of detainment), then that liability is on the resisting party...NOT the detaining officer in the course of his/her official duties.

It's no different than if, in the course of the use of lawful and non-lethal self-defense during a street encounter using a hand-to-hand technique, the offending party happens to be tripped over by the defending party and incidentally smacks his/her head on a curb, causing death by severe head injury...Courts (at least in the U.S.) generally hold that death or great bodily harm resulting incidentally to the use of non-lethal defensive methods against an offending party is not the liability of the defending party, as the defending party generally would not have reasonably known that the use of a defensive method established by law and precedent to be "non-lethal" would have resulted in death or great bodily harm.

You do realize that this man did nothing wrong? WHY should he have to be removed anyways? If he had already boarded and sat in a seat, the person not in a seat should be denied. Or the last person to check in. There is no reason that a lawful use of force should need to be applied to a man sitting in a seat that he paid for.

"Computer said he has to leave"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The passenger is welcome to take United and the police to court on this and seek compensation, but my guess is they won't win.

Dear United Shill, there's no way in hell that your airline lets this one go to court. The passenger will get a nice payoff to compensate for being abused and a non-disclosure agreement on top. Whatever legalities you think may entitle an airline to treat a paying customer in this fashion, you lose much more in the court of public opinion.

Not a United shill, just someone who flies a lot, and usually not on United.

The people who dragged him off were plainclothes members of Chicago Department of Aviation Police. United isn't at fault for their behavior. United followed procedures for a involuntary denied boarding, and the passenger refused to comply, so they called police.

If a police officer asks me to do X, I'm going go to do it. We can hash out in court later if the order was legal, but not complying is breaking the law, and I don't want that charge.

Why wouldn't the passenger comply with a legal order? They can complain to the airline or police later.

It'll be interesting to see if his identity comes out later. If he's a specialist, he could have patients who waited months to see him.

I hope you realize why you are the lone person defending the airline here. What occurred was horrific and never should have happenned. I guaruntee you there's an incentive they could have offered that would have gotten someone to volunteer to leave the plane. I know on DCUM there are hall monitor types who strongly believe in following all rules all the time, but both United and the police were way in the wrong here. Disagree all you want, but no jury of his peers will ever convict the good doctor for his actions here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing in either video appears to suggest that the man's head hitting the armrest across the aisle was an intentional act by the officers, but merely incidental to the man's removal from the seat and his subsequent toppling over across the aisle.

As has been said earlier in the thread, noncompliance with an officer's request, then order, will lead to use of force. If, in the course of a struggle against lawful use of force the resisting party sustains injuries, even serious/potentially life-threatening injuries merely incidental to the lawful use of force (such as a head incidentally hitting an armrest during the course of detainment), then that liability is on the resisting party...NOT the detaining officer in the course of his/her official duties.

It's no different than if, in the course of the use of lawful and non-lethal self-defense during a street encounter using a hand-to-hand technique, the offending party happens to be tripped over by the defending party and incidentally smacks his/her head on a curb, causing death by severe head injury...Courts (at least in the U.S.) generally hold that death or great bodily harm resulting incidentally to the use of non-lethal defensive methods against an offending party is not the liability of the defending party, as the defending party generally would not have reasonably known that the use of a defensive method established by law and precedent to be "non-lethal" would have resulted in death or great bodily harm.

You do realize that this man did nothing wrong? WHY should he have to be removed anyways? If he had already boarded and sat in a seat, the person not in a seat should be denied. Or the last person to check in. There is no reason that a lawful use of force should need to be applied to a man sitting in a seat that he paid for.

"Computer said he has to leave"

+1, you don't argue with Watson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothing in either video appears to suggest that the man's head hitting the armrest across the aisle was an intentional act by the officers, but merely incidental to the man's removal from the seat and his subsequent toppling over across the aisle.

As has been said earlier in the thread, noncompliance with an officer's request, then order, will lead to use of force. If, in the course of a struggle against lawful use of force the resisting party sustains injuries, even serious/potentially life-threatening injuries merely incidental to the lawful use of force (such as a head incidentally hitting an armrest during the course of detainment), then that liability is on the resisting party...NOT the detaining officer in the course of his/her official duties.

It's no different than if, in the course of the use of lawful and non-lethal self-defense during a street encounter using a hand-to-hand technique, the offending party happens to be tripped over by the defending party and incidentally smacks his/her head on a curb, causing death by severe head injury...Courts (at least in the U.S.) generally hold that death or great bodily harm resulting incidentally to the use of non-lethal defensive methods against an offending party is not the liability of the defending party, as the defending party generally would not have reasonably known that the use of a defensive method established by law and precedent to be "non-lethal" would have resulted in death or great bodily harm.

Are you a lawyer? Ever wonder why people don't like lawyers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothing in either video appears to suggest that the man's head hitting the armrest across the aisle was an intentional act by the officers, but merely incidental to the man's removal from the seat and his subsequent toppling over across the aisle.

As has been said earlier in the thread, noncompliance with an officer's request, then order, will lead to use of force. If, in the course of a struggle against lawful use of force the resisting party sustains injuries, even serious/potentially life-threatening injuries merely incidental to the lawful use of force (such as a head incidentally hitting an armrest during the course of detainment), then that liability is on the resisting party...NOT the detaining officer in the course of his/her official duties.

It's no different than if, in the course of the use of lawful and non-lethal self-defense during a street encounter using a hand-to-hand technique, the offending party happens to be tripped over by the defending party and incidentally smacks his/her head on a curb, causing death by severe head injury...Courts (at least in the U.S.) generally hold that death or great bodily harm resulting incidentally to the use of non-lethal defensive methods against an offending party is not the liability of the defending party, as the defending party generally would not have reasonably known that the use of a defensive method established by law and precedent to be "non-lethal" would have resulted in death or great bodily harm.

Aw, go to hell. Seriously. There's no way that use of force - lawful or otherwise - was the right move here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothing in either video appears to suggest that the man's head hitting the armrest across the aisle was an intentional act by the officers, but merely incidental to the man's removal from the seat and his subsequent toppling over across the aisle.

As has been said earlier in the thread, noncompliance with an officer's request, then order, will lead to use of force. If, in the course of a struggle against lawful use of force the resisting party sustains injuries, even serious/potentially life-threatening injuries merely incidental to the lawful use of force (such as a head incidentally hitting an armrest during the course of detainment), then that liability is on the resisting party...NOT the detaining officer in the course of his/her official duties.

It's no different than if, in the course of the use of lawful and non-lethal self-defense during a street encounter using a hand-to-hand technique, the offending party happens to be tripped over by the defending party and incidentally smacks his/her head on a curb, causing death by severe head injury...Courts (at least in the U.S.) generally hold that death or great bodily harm resulting incidentally to the use of non-lethal defensive methods against an offending party is not the liability of the defending party, as the defending party generally would not have reasonably known that the use of a defensive method established by law and precedent to be "non-lethal" would have resulted in death or great bodily harm.

You can use whatever overblown language you'd like to use, it doesn't change the fact that this was not an appropriate use of force and the entire situation was a complete fail on the part of the police and the airline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'll be the first to call BS on this guy needing to see patients. Unless he's traveling home and has appointments, I think folks are under the false impression that he's so special that he flies to see his patients.

I'd like to be proven wrong. Just kidding, nobody like's being proven wrong.

His bio should be out shortly I'd imagine.

Um, the whole point was that he was flying home and had patients scheduled for today.

[Anonymous]

Go away United shill!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll be the first to call BS on this guy needing to see patients. Unless he's traveling home and has appointments, I think folks are under the false impression that he's so special that he flies to see his patients.

I'd like to be proven wrong. Just kidding, nobody like's being proven wrong.

His bio should be out shortly I'd imagine.

Um, the whole point was that he was flying home and had patients scheduled for today.

He shouldn't have been flying home on the same day he had appointments, that's really not that responsible. Especially flying during the spring months which can have hell-storm weather leading to delays.

Book smart, but maybe not too street smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing in either video appears to suggest that the man's head hitting the armrest across the aisle was an intentional act by the officers, but merely incidental to the man's removal from the seat and his subsequent toppling over across the aisle.

As has been said earlier in the thread, noncompliance with an officer's request, then order, will lead to use of force. If, in the course of a struggle against lawful use of force the resisting party sustains injuries, even serious/potentially life-threatening injuries merely incidental to the lawful use of force (such as a head incidentally hitting an armrest during the course of detainment), then that liability is on the resisting party...NOT the detaining officer in the course of his/her official duties.

It's no different than if, in the course of the use of lawful and non-lethal self-defense during a street encounter using a hand-to-hand technique, the offending party happens to be tripped over by the defending party and incidentally smacks his/her head on a curb, causing death by severe head injury...Courts (at least in the U.S.) generally hold that death or great bodily harm resulting incidentally to the use of non-lethal defensive methods against an offending party is not the liability of the defending party, as the defending party generally would not have reasonably known that the use of a defensive method established by law and precedent to be "non-lethal" would have resulted in death or great bodily harm.

Are you a lawyer? Ever wonder why people don't like lawyers?

Until you need one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Go away United shill!

I wonder if it's a rep for another airline because they're being quite effective at getting everyone here even more pissed off at United. Maybe some good ol' guerilla anti-marketing from Delta or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go away United shill!

I wonder if it's a rep for another airline because they're being quite effective at getting everyone here even more pissed off at United. Maybe some good ol' guerilla anti-marketing from Delta or something.

Look at you thinking there's just one person defending United.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll be the first to call BS on this guy needing to see patients. Unless he's traveling home and has appointments, I think folks are under the false impression that he's so special that he flies to see his patients.

I'd like to be proven wrong. Just kidding, nobody like's being proven wrong.

His bio should be out shortly I'd imagine.

Um, the whole point was that he was flying home and had patients scheduled for today.

He shouldn't have been flying home on the same day he had appointments, that's really not that responsible. Especially flying during the spring months which can have hell-storm weather leading to delays.

Book smart, but maybe not too street smart.

Yes! Down with the little people who fly home from vacations on Sundays in order to go to work on Monday. Oh wait, that was 99% of the plane's passengers...