Doctor Dragged From United Plane After Computer "Solves" Overbooking Problem

[Emn1ty]

1 minute ago, Jim K said:

He still had patients scheduled...digging up his past, and irrelevant dirt, is a bit low.  But I get it ... you feel the actions of United and security was warranted.  I disagree however ... as no passenger should be sent to the hospital for, what is ultimately, the airlines MISTAKE. 

I am not saying that he should have been beaten up, however it was not United that did that. It was Airport Security. This guy had numerous chances to go peacefully, but instead he chose the hardest way out and literally taunted them.

So let me present the same terrible reasoning you've used right back at you. Because you're on the passenger's side, you obviously condone being completely uncooperative with airport security and flight staff. So uncooperative you basically dare them to forcibly remove you from the plane. Doesn't matter what problems a person is causing, who they are inconveniencing, or what steps authority figures go through. If someone ever gets hurt, they are completely justified in being stubborn to a fault.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

13 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

I am not saying that he should have been beaten up, however it was not United that did that. It was Airport Security. This guy had numerous chances to go peacefully, but instead he chose the hardest way out and literally taunted them.

So let me present the same terrible reasoning you've used right back at you. Because you're on the passenger's side, you obviously condone being completely uncooperative with airport security and flight staff. So uncooperative you basically dare them to forcibly remove you from the plane. Doesn't matter what problems a person is causing, who they are inconveniencing, or what steps authority figures go through. If someone ever gets hurt, they are completely justified in being stubborn to a fault.

....and I'm done.  

 

Though, if I was giving up my seat so United employees could fly ... yea ... I would put up a stink.  It is their problem ... and shouldn't be my problem or my inconvenience because they couldn't plan accordingly.  They need to fix their problem...sending customers to hospitals isn't the fix.

[Mockingbird]

16 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

I am not saying that he should have been beaten up, however it was not United that did that. It was Airport Security. This guy had numerous chances to go peacefully, but instead he chose the hardest way out and literally taunted them.

So let me present the same terrible reasoning you've used right back at you. Because you're on the passenger's side, you obviously condone being completely uncooperative with airport security and flight staff. So uncooperative you basically dare them to forcibly remove you from the plane. Doesn't matter what problems a person is causing, who they are inconveniencing, or what steps authority figures go through. If someone ever gets hurt, they are completely justified in being stubborn to a fault.

Has someone noticed that right-wing solutions always involve authorities using violence again non-threats (peaceful protestors, plane passengers, students)?

 

The first thing they would do is blame the victim(s).

[Emn1ty]

10 minutes ago, Mockingbird said:

Has someone noticed that right-wing solutions always involve authorities using violence again non-threats (peaceful protestors, plane passengers, students)?

 

The first thing they would do is blame the victim(s).

Have you ever noticed that left-wing solutions involve people exercising rights they don't actually have?

 

13 minutes ago, Jim K said:

Though, if I was giving up my seat so United employees could fly ... yea ... I would put up a stink.  It is their problem ... and shouldn't be my problem or my inconvenience because they couldn't plan accordingly.  They need to fix their problem...sending customers to hospitals isn't the fix.

If I was offered $800 I'd be off the plane. If someone else was being harassed about not leaving the plane, I'd give my seat up for the $800 in their place. Regardless I'd not confront security and make it an issue of force in the first place. But that's just me. Would I complain about it? Yes, of course. But I wouldn't force security to rip me off the plane because I know that me being on that plane is of their discretion to begin with.

[DevTech]

24 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

So let me present the same terrible reasoning you've used right back at you. Because you're on the passenger's side, you obviously condone being completely uncooperative with airport security and flight staff. So uncooperative you basically dare them to forcibly remove you from the plane. Doesn't matter what problems a person is causing, who they are inconveniencing, or what steps authority figures go through. If someone ever gets hurt, they are completely justified in being stubborn to a fault.

 

1 hour ago, Emn1ty said:

Everyone is very willing to be on his side, but the more information we get on the circumstances of this encounter the more it appears to be the passenger's own fault than anything to do with United Airlines. This guy was asking for it, baiting it even. Reminds me of the "sovereign citizen" morons who don't comply with cops because they think they don't have the authority to make them comply.

Ad hominem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) is the lowest form of argument and can't be a factor in the right and wrong of things. It is used as a smokescreen to defer attention when one's line of reasoning is not holding up.

 

In a Civil Society, there is a huge weight upon citizens to engage in a dialog and however profound the disagreement, violence is simply not on the table as a bully option. This would even extend to Civil Disobedience which the passenger might have engaged in provided you can stomach/believe the trumped up fine print of United to portray dumping a paying passenger who has already been seated for the minor convenience of United employees too lazy to find alternate transport as "Breaking the Law"

 

He has every right to speak his mind, start a "sit in", strum a guitar and sing "Give Peace a Chance" in the face of incredible wrongness and school yard bully behavior.

 

It doesn't matter who he is. if he is a whiny trouble maker or an OCD repetitive speaker boring everyone around him. He was NOT violent. He WAS peaceful. Do we really want to rewrite the DNA of a free society to portray determined and repeated resistance to an unfair situation as warranting the use of dangerous force?

 

[Mockingbird]

47 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

Have you ever noticed that left-wing solutions involve people exercising rights they don't actually have?

Does matter.

 

The appropriate situation is to defuse the situation, not use brutality.

 

The later is a totalitarian regime (aka Putin's Russia), but I guess you like that don't you?

[Emn1ty]

23 minutes ago, DevTech said:

Ad hominem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) is the lowest form of argument and can't be a factor in the right and wrong of things. It is used as a smokescreen to defer attention when one's line of reasoning is not holding up.

Indeed it is, perhaps you should address the person I was demonstrating that point to (thus why I prefaced it with "terrible reasoning"). The idea that because I don't side with the passenger I am somehow entirely ok with how United (and the security guard) handled this is just incorrect. I think that the practice of overbooking is crap and needs to be fixed and I think the security officials were far too rough with him. However, this guy was also being an idiot. So there's fault on all sides.

 

24 minutes ago, DevTech said:

In a Civil Society, there is a huge weight upon citizens to engage in a dialog and however profound the disagreement, violence is simply not on the table as a bully option. This would even extend to Civil Disobedience which the passenger might have engaged in provided you can stomach/believe the trumped up fine print of United to portray dumping a paying passenger who has already been seated for the minor convenience of United employees too lazy to find alternate transport as "Breaking the Law"

The minor inconvenience of United employees could have become a major inconvenience if it delayed one to several other flights (and inconvenienced hundreds of other passengers). Again, I pose the question of why this single passenger's time and seat are more important than everyone else's on that plane or other planes potentially affected by the delayed transport of flight personnel? Or did you not think about that?

 

29 minutes ago, DevTech said:

He has every right to speak his mind, start a "sit in", strum a guitar and sing "Give Peace a Chance" in the face of incredible wrongness and school yard bully behavior.

 

He has every right to do those things, but the Airline also has every right to remove him from the plane. He, however, did not take the "give peace a chance" route and instead threatened them and dared them to remove him from the aircraft. He cited convenience, not protest. This also wasn't "incredible wrongness". It's not like they just came in and tore him out of his seat with no pretense. He volunteered, changed his mind (citing he had to see patients which likely could have been cared for without him as he's only working one day a week), they told him that he was required to leave, he refused, they warned him they would have to forcibly remove him and that his lack of compliance constitutes an arrest (which they didn't do) and then he resisted federal security officers despite all that.

It's fun to omit the details to make it sound bad, isn't it? Your version makes it sound like he did absolutely nothing wrong, and that anyone should be allowed to just stage a protest on private property without any consequences (in fact, that is illegal without the proper paperwork and even then in protest you cannot prevent normal operation of what you are protesting which he was doing).

 

34 minutes ago, DevTech said:

It doesn't matter who he is. if he is a whiny trouble maker or an OCD repetitive speaker boring everyone around him. He was NOT violent. He WAS peaceful. Do we really want to rewrite the DNA of a free society to portray determined and repeated resistance to an unfair situation as warranting the use of dangerous force?

He was uncooperative, he refused to comply with a federal agent (which, again, is a federal offence). So it doesn't matter if he was "peaceful" in breaking the law, he was breaking the law. The moment airport security boarded that plane, it was a Federal issue. This has nothing to do with "free society", you are perfectly free to break the law. However, you are not free of that law being enforced or authority being enforced.

 

Next time a cop pulls you over and asks for license and registration try saying no and see how that goes. Hell, try not pulling over because it's obviously your "right" not to cooperate with law enforcement, right? That's how a "free" society works, right?

[FloatingFatMan]

3 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

• He's had his doctor's license suspended and later surrendered after trading drugs for sex.
• He's only authorized to work as a doctor for one day a week with another doctor supervising.

This has nothing to do with the incident and you're only posting it to deride the man.

 

 

3 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

• He wasn't just removed from the flight, he initially volunteered.
• He then reboarded, was given every chance to leave peacefully and chose not to. He was even told that security would be federally obligated to remove him from the plane by force and he said "drag me out, I'll sue" (paraphrasing).

Please could you link me to an article proving either of these happened?  I've seen nothing on the press sources I visit.

 

 

3 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

• He then resisted a federal security officer, which is illegal and constitutes grounds for arrest (which the officer also made known to the man before he was forcibly removed).

Everyone is very willing to be on his side, but the more information we get on the circumstances of this encounter the more it appears to be the passenger's own fault than anything to do with United Airlines. This guy was asking for it, baiting it even. Reminds me of the "sovereign citizen" morons who don't comply with cops because they think they don't have the authority to make them comply.

 

Since when is it illegal to resist an assault?  Federal security officers might have a right to detain you, but they don't have a right to assault you.

 

Again, please could you link me to to some proof that he reboarded?  If he did that, then yes he caused the incident to escalate, but he still did not deserve to be assaulted unless he became violent first.

[theyarecomingforyou]

5 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

• He's had his doctor's license suspended and later surrendered after trading drugs for sex.
• He's only authorized to work as a doctor for one day a week with another doctor supervising.
• He wasn't just removed from the flight, he initially volunteered.
• He then reboarded, was given every chance to leave peacefully and chose not to. He was even told that security would be federally obligated to remove him from the plane by force and he said "drag me out, I'll sue" (paraphrasing).
• He then resisted a federal security officer, which is illegal and constitutes grounds for arrest (which the officer also made known to the man before he was forcibly removed).

Everyone is very willing to be on his side, but the more information we get on the circumstances of this encounter the more it appears to be the passenger's own fault than anything to do with United Airlines. This guy was asking for it, baiting it even. Reminds me of the "sovereign citizen" morons who don't comply with cops because they think they don't have the authority to make them comply.

None of that matters. He paid for a seat on a plane and was allowed to board. He was then offered compensation to relinquish his seat after the airline knowingly overbooked the flight, which he declined. The airline then called in security and had him forcibly removed just so it could save money transporting its own staff around.

 

The reason incidents like this happen in the US and seemingly nowhere else is exactly because of attitudes like yours, where people look for any dirt on the victim in order to justify oppressive actions. United Airlines was completely out of order in the way they handled this situation. Stop supporting abusive and immoral business practices. None of this would have happened if UA hadn't deliberately overbooked the flight to maximise profits at the detriment of its customers.

[Memphis]

45 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

None of that matters. He paid for a seat on a plane and was allowed to board. He was then offered compensation to relinquish his seat after the airline knowingly overbooked the flight, which he declined. The airline then called in security and had him forcibly removed just so it could save money transporting its own staff around.

 

The reason incidents like this happen in the US and seemingly nowhere else is exactly because of attitudes like yours, where people look for any dirt on the victim in order to justify oppressive actions. United Airlines was completely out of order in the way they handled this situation. Stop supporting abusive and immoral business practices. None of this would have happened if UA hadn't deliberately overbooked the flight to maximise profits at the detriment of its customers.

Its even worse, the flight was not overbooked, they just needed to get some crew home. On a 300 mile trip, they could of got the crew home by the next day in a rental for far cheaper. Funny enough, this wasn't even the cheaper solution for United.

[theyarecomingforyou]

1 hour ago, sidroc said:

Its even worse, the flight was not overbooked, they just needed to get some crew home. On a 300 mile trip, they could of got the crew home by the next day in a rental for far cheaper. Funny enough, this wasn't even the cheaper solution for United.

It astonishes me that they'd rather physically remove a paying passenger from a flight than simply make alternative arrangements for their staff. I really hope this hurts them as a business.

[Emn1ty]

8 hours ago, FloatingFatMan said:

This has nothing to do with the incident and you're only posting it to deride the man.

No, it demonstrates that the urgency of him having patients is a bit less extreme. He was only working for one week with another doctor, his patients could likely get along without him.

 

8 hours ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Please could you link me to an article proving either of these happened?  I've seen nothing on the press sources I visit.

http://abc7chicago.com/news/united-airlines-doctor-video-moment-by-moment-timeline-of-flight-3411/1864536/
 

Quote

5:21 p.m.: Passenger Tyler Bridges, husband of Audra D. Bridges, posts a video on Twitter showing a removed passenger who somehow managed to get back on the plane. He is seen with blood on his face, running up the center aisle of the plane.

 

Quote

7:01 p.m.: Now an hour and a half past the scheduled time of departure, passenger Jayse D. Anspach, of Louisville, posts a video on Twitter showing the unknown passenger in Tyler Bridges' video being dragged off the plane by a Chicago Department of Aviation officer.

The unidentified passenger's face is bloodied in the incident, and other passengers can be heard protesting his violent removal from the plane.

This order of events may be off, I'm not sure.

 

8 hours ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Since when is it illegal to resist an assault?  Federal security officers might have a right to detain you, but they don't have a right to assault you.

It is illegal to resist a federal law enforcement officer. He was warned of what he was doing, told he'd have to be forcibly removed and he resisted removal. That is in and of itself illegal, just as not pulling over at the request of a Police Officer is also illegal.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/business/united-flight-passenger-dragged.html?_r=0

 

Quote

The United employee then told the man that if he did not get off the plane, she would call security. As she turned to leave, the man shouted after her, Mr. Bridges said. Specifically, he said, the passenger complained that he had been singled out because he was Chinese.

This I did not know, apparently he was accusing the flight crew of racism (why?!?). This makes me feel even more he was just trying to cause a problem.

 

http://www.tmz.com/2017/04/12/united-airlines-doctor-passenger-dragged-plane-video/

 

Quote

The United passenger who was bloodied and dragged off a jet by cops dared the officers to drag him off the plane and take him to jail.

David Dao was confronted by officers at O'Hare Airport when he refused to get off the plane. You hear him say, "I won't go. I'm physician, have to work tomorrow, 8 o'clock."

 

He threatens to sue United and even says to the cops, if they take him to jail, so be it.

More showing his unwillingness to be civil about this.

[wakjak]

1 hour ago, Emn1ty said:

No, it demonstrates that the urgency of him having patients is a bit less extreme. He was only working for one week with another doctor, his patients could likely get along without him.

 

http://abc7chicago.com/news/united-airlines-doctor-video-moment-by-moment-timeline-of-flight-3411/1864536/
 

 

This order of events may be off, I'm not sure.

 

It is illegal to resist a federal law enforcement officer. He was warned of what he was doing, told he'd have to be forcibly removed and he resisted removal. That is in and of itself illegal, just as not pulling over at the request of a Police Officer is also illegal.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/business/united-flight-passenger-dragged.html?_r=0

 

This I did not know, apparently he was accusing the flight crew of racism (why?!?). This makes me feel even more he was just trying to cause a problem.

 

http://www.tmz.com/2017/04/12/united-airlines-doctor-passenger-dragged-plane-video/

 

More showing his unwillingness to be civil about this.

Why the hell should be civil about this? The plane wasn't overbooked. United employees were only a 4 hour drive from where they had to go, but instead they waste everyone's time by removing paying customers from a flight that was not, I repeat, WAS Not overbooked. Why should anyone have to "just deal with it?" 

[Emn1ty]

3 hours ago, wakjak said:

Why the hell should be civil about this?

So you agree with how he handled it? He should have dared them to remove him from the plane?

 

3 hours ago, wakjak said:

The plane wasn't overbooked. United employees were only a 4 hour drive from where they had to go, but instead they waste everyone's time by removing paying customers from a flight that was not, I repeat, WAS Not overbooked. Why should anyone have to "just deal with it?" 

The fact that the plane was or was not overbooked isn't even an issue (since regardless overbooking isn't required to initiate the process they were using). The plane could have a single passenger and United could deny boarding and offer compensation while being well within their terms outlined. That four hours could be several delayed flights. Flight crew don't have 4 hours to spare anymore between flights, you delay flight crew then you delay other flights and schedules. This could throw of hundreds of people's schedules, make many miss transfers between flights, etc.

Is one passenger's seat/time really worth more than an entire service working as scheduled?

 

Again, I'll repeat, a ticket for a flight is not a guarantee. You buy a ticket, you should be prepared for flights to be delayed, canceled, etc. Anyone who frequently travels on planes is aware these things can happen, and to me all I see here is a guy fishing for a law suit. Especially after first blaming it on racism, then daring them to remove him from the plane. He caused that flight to be delayed by two hours likely delaying other flights and wasting the other passenger's time.

I like how everyone automatically assumes that United had absolutely no reason to want them on that flight as opposed to taking a 4 hour drive or waiting 24 hours to take a different flight. It couldn't possibly be that that was their best option, could it? No... couldn't possibly be that.

 

And if the plane was supposed to have spare seating for that crew, then yes. It was overbooked. However it didn't need to be overbooked for them to prevent people from flying.

[Emn1ty]

11 hours ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

None of this would have happened if UA hadn't deliberately overbooked the flight to maximise profits at the detriment of its customers.

I completely agree with this, however this doesn't justify the passenger being provocative and uncooperative towards airport security.

[DevTech]

4 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

I completely agree with this, however this doesn't justify the passenger being provocative and uncooperative towards airport security.

I think you are presenting many reasonable points as a sort of "Public Defender" for United Airlines and your various posts might very well be having a moderating effect on what might just be a Witch Hunt, yet there seems to be some sort of underlying premise on your part that Freedom is a two-way street. In order to defend Freedom, it has to be absolute.

 

The passenger can be provocative and uncooperative and anything else that would seem completely disrespectful toward authority and as long as he is non-violent, then violence should be light years away from happening. Civil Society means that the rights of an individual are respected, it doesn't mean a polite British Tea Time chat with the Queen!

 

 

[Defcon]

5 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

I completely agree with this, however this doesn't justify the passenger being provocative and uncooperative towards airport security.

Provocative? Uncooperative? Are you crazy?

 

Are you saying we're all just slaves and must immediately comply with any authority figure or risk violence/incarceration/death? That is exactly what a police state is.

 

There is ZERO justification for beating up a non violent citizen who has done nothing wrong. Zero. If you are trying to spin this in favor of the authorities, that is disgusting. That's why we stand by and don't even care about all the abuses and violation of rights going on.

[Emn1ty]

2 hours ago, DevTech said:

I think you are presenting many reasonable points as a sort of "Public Defender" for United Airlines and your various posts might very well be having a moderating effect on what might just be a Witch Hunt, yet there seems to be some sort of underlying premise on your part that Freedom is a two-way street. In order to defend Freedom, it has to be absolute.

Freedom has never been nor ever will be absolute. Freedom is a scale, and if you want absolute freedom what you're asking for is total anarchy.

 

2 hours ago, DevTech said:

The passenger can be provocative and uncooperative and anything else that would seem completely disrespectful toward authority and as long as he is non-violent, then violence should be light years away from happening. Civil Society means that the rights of an individual are respected, it doesn't mean a polite British Tea Time chat with the Queen!

Then please enlighten me as to how you forcibly remove a passenger without being violent. A passenger who is being completely uncooperative. And seeing as you think that people shouldn't have to obey authorities, while you're at it explain to me how a police officer should enforce pulling someone over if they apparently don't have to pull over cause they're not being "violent" in their driving.

 

The problem with your reasoning here is that you're effectively stating a law enforcement officer can only enforce the law if those disobeying the law and their requests are being violent. That's simply not how reality works. Just as police can forcibly remove protesters who are breaking protest law despite doing so nonviolently, this passenger was refusing to comply and was subject to any force deemed necessary to get compliance. 

The moment he resisted that officer was the moment he broke federal law by resisting arrest. He also broke law with a verbal assault by threatening to sue the officer and provoking them. Both are misdemeanors or worse that can carry jail time.

To reiterate, I don't think this should have happened this way. I think United should have upped the offered money to get people off the plane. Or even just randomly selected another seat. But he got what was coming to him for his behavior. He was disrespectful to the security officers, accused the flight crew of being racists.

 

2 hours ago, Defcon said:

Provocative? Uncooperative? Are you crazy?

Accusing the flight crew of being racists. Threatening to sue the police officers. Daring them to drag him off the plane (and resisting). Yes, that qualifies to me as provocative and uncooperative. Not sure what your definition of those terms are.

 

2 hours ago, Defcon said:

Are you saying we're all just slaves and must immediately comply with any authority figure or risk violence/incarceration/death? That is exactly what a police state is.

No, I'm saying that not complying with an authority figure is typically illegal and thus why most people don't do that. Have people forgotten that police and law enforcement has every right to stop and question you (so long as it's not based on the protected groups such as race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc). And if you decide to not listen to them they are then justified in using force to get your cooperation.

People don't seem to be addressing my example of being pulled over. You must pull over when a cop asks you to, so I'm not sure why when a airport security officer requests you get off the plane that's any different. Especially when he warns you that failure to comply means they'll need to use force (which is exactly how the law spells it out). Should he have been harmed in the process? No, but resisting does make that a bit harder to prevent.

 

2 hours ago, Defcon said:

There is ZERO justification for beating up a non violent citizen who has done nothing wrong. Zero. If you are trying to spin this in favor of the authorities, that is disgusting. That's why we stand by and don't even care about all the abuses and violation of rights going on.

He was doing something wrong, he wasn't cooperating with flight crew or airport security. He was delaying the flight, wasting other people's time and delaying the operation of the flight. If you really think this guy is 100% innocent, you're ignoring the fact that he made up excuses (such as it being about race) and that he dared the cops to remove him.
 

To me it just sounds like you guys have a problem with authority in general.

"All the abuses and violation of rights going on" - there really isn't anymore than there always has been, we just have more ways for people to hear about it. And still, this event is so rare that it happens on less than 0.004% of United's flights. "All the abuse and violations of rights" my ass.

[DevTech]

3 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

Freedom has never been nor ever will be absolute. Freedom is a scale, and if you want absolute freedom what you're asking for is total anarchy.

 

Then please enlighten me as to how you forcibly remove a passenger without being violent. A passenger who is being completely uncooperative. And seeing as you think that people shouldn't have to obey authorities, while you're at it explain to me how a police officer should enforce pulling someone over if they apparently don't have to pull over cause they're not being "violent" in their driving.

 

The problem with your reasoning here is that you're effectively stating a law enforcement officer can only enforce the law if those disobeying the law and their requests are being violent. That's simply not how reality works. Just as police can forcibly remove protesters who are breaking protest law despite doing so nonviolently, this passenger was refusing to comply and was subject to any force deemed necessary to get compliance. 

The moment he resisted that officer was the moment he broke federal law by resisting arrest. He also broke law with a verbal assault by threatening to sue the officer and provoking them. Both are misdemeanors or worse that can carry jail time.

To reiterate, I don't think this should have happened this way. I think United should have upped the offered money to get people off the plane. Or even just randomly selected another seat. But he got what was coming to him for his behavior. He was disrespectful to the security officers, accused the flight crew of being racists.

 

Accusing the flight crew of being racists. Threatening to sue the police officers. Daring them to drag him off the plane (and resisting). Yes, that qualifies to me as provocative and uncooperative. Not sure what your definition of those terms are.

 

No, I'm saying that not complying with an authority figure is typically illegal and thus why most people don't do that. Have people forgotten that police and law enforcement has every right to stop and question you (so long as it's not based on the protected groups such as race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc). And if you decide to not listen to them they are then justified in using force to get your cooperation.

People don't seem to be addressing my example of being pulled over. You must pull over when a cop asks you to, so I'm not sure why when a airport security officer requests you get off the plane that's any different. Especially when he warns you that failure to comply means they'll need to use force (which is exactly how the law spells it out). Should he have been harmed in the process? No, but resisting does make that a bit harder to prevent.

 

He was doing something wrong, he wasn't cooperating with flight crew or airport security. He was delaying the flight, wasting other people's time and delaying the operation of the flight. If you really think this guy is 100% innocent, you're ignoring the fact that he made up excuses (such as it being about race) and that he dared the cops to remove him.
 

To me it just sounds like you guys have a problem with authority in general.

"All the abuses and violation of rights going on" - there really isn't anymore than there always has been, we just have more ways for people to hear about it. And still, this event is so rare that it happens on less than 0.004% of United's flights. "All the abuse and violations of rights" my ass.

I have been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by imagining you playing devil's advocate for United Airlines as a sort of balanced example of debate to perhaps illustrate some sort of metaphor around the sort of balanced debate that should have taken place on that plane.

 

However, it appears more that you have some sort of problem around authority figures that defies the logic and history of the United States which was founded by a complete disrespect to the authority that lawfully governed it and the very founders of the country broke all sorts of laws to create a document and a country that attempted to be "by the people and for the people"

 

Since we have already conformed to Godwin's Law, the kind of blind obedience to authority that you bring up over and over is much more part of a different country's history.

 

It simply does not matter what he said. There is no moral way to justify beating that guy up.  

[DevTech]

3 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

Then please enlighten me as to how you forcibly remove a passenger without being violent. A passenger who is being completely uncooperative. And seeing as you think that people shouldn't have to obey authorities, while you're at it explain to me how a police officer should enforce pulling someone over if they apparently don't have to pull over cause they're not being "violent" in their driving.

People don't seem to be addressing my example of being pulled over. You must pull over when a cop asks you to, so I'm not sure why when a airport security officer requests you get off the plane that's any different. Especially when he warns you that failure to comply means they'll need to use force (which is exactly how the law spells it out). Should he have been harmed in the process? No, but resisting does make that a bit harder to prevent.

 

I get a feeling I'm wasting my time but there is a reason nobody is addressing your motor vehicle example. It is simply a straw man argument that has no bearing on the situation.

 

Police cannot randomly pull over people walking down the street because of that pesky document known as "The Constitution"

 

Now I'm not sure if the case of people on horses was adequately covered but certainly the founders of the United States had no ability to foresee the invention of the motor car and add it to the Constitution. So police everywhere found it rather convenient to spout the line that "driving a car is not a right but a privilege we grant" and there it has stood for far too long. When you enter your family sedan, you give up the constitutional rights you would have by walking to your destination.

 

Clearly, the founders did not intend this and I wish I had a billion dollars or so to take this travesty of freedom to the supreme court. To bring out this sneaky erosion of rights as a justification for beating up an airline passenger is both wrong and misleading. That's why everyone ignored it.

 

[Emn1ty]

6 hours ago, DevTech said:

I have been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by imagining you playing devil's advocate for United Airlines as a sort of balanced example of debate to perhaps illustrate some sort of metaphor around the sort of balanced debate that should have taken place on that plane.

 

However, it appears more that you have some sort of problem around authority figures that defies the logic and history of the United States which was founded by a complete disrespect to the authority that lawfully governed it and the very founders of the country broke all sorts of laws to create a document and a country that attempted to be "by the people and for the people"

 

Since we have already conformed to Godwin's Law, the kind of blind obedience to authority that you bring up over and over is much more part of a different country's history.

 

It simply does not matter what he said. There is no moral way to justify beating that guy up.  

Speaking of logical fallacies, I like how I've jumped on you own ad hominem by trying to attack an assumed notice or history of mine with law enforcement. You're entire post effectively assets that law enforcement is irrelevant because our country was founded by people who broke laws.

 

However the contexts are drastically different. First, the reason we rebelled was because of being disarmed, private property being stored without warrant, etc. It was not merely because we don't like authority.

 

Our country is built on laws just sat any country. This isn't about blind obedience, but picking your battles and not being unreasonable.

 

For example if a police officer asks you if you've been drinking and then asks for sobriety tests, you don't have to answer or comply with them. However how you refuse to comply matters. Sight wanting to talk to your lawyer first and that's reasonable. Telling them off however isn't going to fly.

 

6 hours ago, DevTech said:

I get a feeling I'm wasting my time but there is a reason nobody is addressing your motor vehicle example. It is simply a straw man argument that has no bearing on the situation.

 

Police cannot randomly pull over people walking down the street because of that pesky document known as "The Constitution"

 

Now I'm not sure if the case of people on horses was adequately covered but certainly the founders of the United States had no ability to foresee the invention of the motor car and add it to the Constitution. So police everywhere found it rather convenient to spout the line that "driving a car is not a right but a privilege we grant" and there it has stood for far too long. When you enter your family sedan, you give up the constitutional rights you would have by walking to your destination.

 

Clearly, the founders did not intend this and I wish I had a billion dollars or so to take this travesty of freedom to the supreme court. To bring out this sneaky erosion of rights as a justification for beating up an airline passenger is both wrong and misleading. That's why everyone ignored it.

 

The SCOTUS had upheld that officer can stop you for any reason, they however need a reason to search you. So no, the Constitution does not protect you from being stopped by an officer.

 

In regards to vehicles, police need a reason, however because you cannot converse with that officer without stopping you are still required to stop.

 

Perhaps instead of pulling this stuff out of thin air you should go read the laws regarding this.

[DevTech]

3 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

Speaking of logical fallacies, I like how I've jumped on you own ad hominem by trying to attack an assumed notice or history of mine with law enforcement. You're entire post effectively assets that law enforcement is irrelevant because our country was founded by people who broke laws.

 

However the contexts are drastically different. First, the reason we rebelled was because of being disarmed, private property being stored without warrant, etc. It was not merely because we don't like authority.

 

Our country is built on laws just sat any country. This isn't about blind obedience, but picking your battles and not being unreasonable.

 

For example if a police officer asks you if you've been drinking and then asks for sobriety tests, you don't have to answer or comply with them. However how you refuse to comply matters. Sight wanting to talk to your lawyer first and that's reasonable. Telling them off however isn't going to fly.

 

The SCOTUS had upheld that officer can stop you for any reason, they however need a reason to search you. So no, the Constitution does not protect you from being stopped by an officer.

 

In regards to vehicles, police need a reason, however because you cannot converse with that officer without stopping you are still required to stop.

 

Perhaps instead of pulling this stuff out of thin air you should go read the laws regarding this.

That was not Ad Hominem, it was a reply to your assertion that people on this forum have some sort of problem with authority figures when the opposite case should be true. Citizens should NEVER be comfortable with authority figures and they grant those figures a temporary service (as in they are the servants of the people) via democratic elections, but should maintain a watchful and skeptical eye on them at all times.

 

Basic Civics 101 to maintain an actual free democracy, a concept that is foreign to United Airlines and many large international mega-corps that hold that their corporate interests take precedence over governments and all the little unimportant people.

 

You may have your wish soon enough as dictators gain power by embracing the common man with the need for change and then once in power look to accumulate wealth and privilege at the expense of the people. What is the first safe refuge for all dictators? Get the military to attack another country as many times as needed to end up in a state of war which never fails to distract the common people despite the endless repeat of history that it represents. Maybe it is time indeed for citizens to practice extreme respect to authority figures, learn how to shut up and how to cower in fear as the winds of change sweep through the land.

 

Winter is Coming!

 

 

[Emn1ty]

2 hours ago, DevTech said:

That was not Ad Hominem, it was a reply to your assertion that people on this forum have some sort of problem with authority figures when the opposite case should be true. Citizens should NEVER be comfortable with authority figures and they grant those figures a temporary service (as in they are the servants of the people) via democratic elections, but should maintain a watchful and skeptical eye on them at all times.

 

Basic Civics 101 to maintain an actual free democracy, a concept that is foreign to United Airlines and many large international mega-corps that hold that their corporate interests take precedence over governments and all the little unimportant people.

 

You may have your wish soon enough as dictators gain power by embracing the common man with the need for change and then once in power look to accumulate wealth and privilege at the expense of the people. What is the first safe refuge for all dictators? Get the military to attack another country as many times as needed to end up in a state of war which never fails to distract the common people despite the endless repeat of history that it represents. Maybe it is time indeed for citizens to practice extreme respect to authority figures, learn how to shut up and how to cower in fear as the winds of change sweep through the land.

 

Winter is Coming!

 

 

None of this has anything to do with what we talking about. You've managed to turn am exceedingly rate incident into a representation of dictators and corporations taking advantage of the people to justify him not cooperating with a security officer.

 

Your post is just one giant red herring turned slippery slope. I'm not debating that authority figures should automatic be trusted at all times. However in this case the guy had very little reason to be uncooperative to the point of daring them to take him off the plane.

[+Warwagon MVC]

Moral of the story is, comply with security. Some people think that when security says let's go, saying no will result in security saying "You don't want to come with us? That's alright, we will leave you alone now, have a nice day!". Or they will patiently wait for you to change your mind.

 

One more thing, don't yell and scream like a pansy. On second thought, if you think you can get lots of money out of it because it's being recorded, then yes go ahead and scream.

 

v1.55

[DevTech]

2 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

None of this has anything to do with what we talking about. You've managed to turn am exceedingly rate incident into a representation of dictators and corporations taking advantage of the people to justify him not cooperating with a security officer.

 

Your post is just one giant red herring turned slippery slope. I'm not debating that authority figures should automatic be trusted at all times. However in this case the guy had very little reason to be uncooperative to the point of daring them to take him off the plane.

Nope. Was trying to inject some light humor into what has become abject OCD silliness. Perhaps my references were too subtle.

 

Mr Authority himself, the "Buffoon President" has his nutcase adviser Stephen K. Bannon who gets his playbook from a looney-tunes book "The Fourth Turning" which uses the "Game of Thrones" saying "Winter is coming" and he actually wants to use the power of the President to actively create the authoritarian nightmare proposed by the book.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-bannon-apocalypse_us_5898f02ee4b040613138a951

 

 

 

So the number of posts in this thread has died out in conformance with the newspaper maxim "Old News Is No News" so I will end my contribution with this link:

 

The Deeper Scandal of That Brutal United Video

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/united-video-scandal-law/522552/

 

"Domestic airlines are now enjoying record profits, having flown more passengers each year since 2010. This is in part because the airline industry is sheltered from both antitrust regulation and litigation. Four carriers—United, Delta, American, and Southwest—earn more than $20 billion in profits annually and own 80 percent of seats on domestic flights. "

 

"In this way, the United video serves as a stark metaphor, one where the quiet brutalization of consumers is rendered in shocking, literal form. The first thought that I had watching the outrageous footage of a passenger being dragged through an aisle like a bag of trash was that this should never happen. But fundamentally, this is an old story: Companies in concentrated industries, like the airlines, have legal cover to break the most basic promise to consumers without legally breaking their contracts. The video is a scandal. But so is the law."