> Why would they lock him up after that? What's with the extremes and what does that have to do with any of this?
The point is that you don't see beating and dragging a man as 'extreme', so I am postulating other extremes like indefinite incarceration or execution which it would then likewise stand to reason are warranted because what if this man, a known troublemaker now, ever tries to get on a plane again? Incarceration and execution would preempt that problem.
I disagree that he was outright "beaten" but yes, he was physically removed and the force required caused injuries.
If he left voluntarily then there would be no force. If he started attacking others then there would be more force and more injuries. The response was proportionate and even lax considering he was allowed to run back on to the aircraft.
How would you remove him? What is your actual issue here?
You must be joking if you think it takes knocking an unarmed passenger unconscious, giving them a concussion, and breaking their nose to get them off a plane.
This isn't just my hearsay. The Chicago City Inspector's Office ruled that the action violated the City's personnel rules, 2 of the officers were discharged, the other 2 disciplined.
When did I say I think that? I also disagree with the degree of force and overall strategy, but that's orthogonal to the issue that force was ultimately necessary and applied.
The airline staff shouldn't have removed him. They should have given up and made increasing large offers of travel vouchers until someone accepted, or they should have found an alternative way to get their staff to Louisville.
At no point should the airline ever have even considered forcibly removing someone so that their staff could fly instead. No matter what happened, the paying customer should have been the priority.
Defending the actions of the airline makes me think you should never run a business.
The staff didn't. They called the police. It doesn't matter how poorly the decision was made, but once decided to remove a passenger than that passenger needs to comply or be removed.
It's no different than you deciding that you no longer want a guest in your house (for whatever reason) and calling the police when they refuse to leave.
"but once decided to remove a passenger than that passenger needs to comply or be removed"
I do not get this type of argument at all. "once decided to take the victim's money then the victim needs to either comply or have the money physically removed from their possession" uses the same logic.
You seem to be assuming that what the airline did was lawful and what he did was unlawful. There is plenty of evidence that shows that this was not the case. Regardless though, something being lawful or unlawful does not imply that it is also moral or immoral. What is an authority for someone is a criminal for another (see certain regimes). Regardless, I am sure that we can agree that the airline is not an authority under the law.
Anyway, you have made 25 flamewar comments in this thread. Posters that do that are usually banned so I would advice you to stop. (just a friendly advice)
It was lawful. The case is already resolved and it was the degree of force and how it was used that became the problem. Morality was never part of this discussion.
> "What is an authority for someone is a criminal for another (see certain regimes)"
What does this have to do with air travel? This person isn't fighting tyranny, they're being asked to leave a plane. The authority is the same for everyone that participates in that state, airport and aircraft.
> "the airline is not an authority under the law"
No, but it can call authorities just like you can call the police when required. Also airports and aircraft do operate under different rules for security.
> "you have made 25 flamewar comments in this thread"
My comments are not "flamewar" because you disagree with them. I've always posted civilly in the face of very harsh and rude replies and will continue the discussion as long as I want. I advise you leave the moderation to the admins here.
Generally, I think a plane, bus, or hotel are private property, like your house. Regardless of existing business arrangements, you should be able to deny service and ask patrons to leave your property at any time for any reason. Failure to comply with such a request is trespassing, and justifies forced removal. This action may well be a breach of contract, and that matter should be resolved in civil court, but that doesn't mean a business shouldn't be entitled to take it.
> you should be able to deny service and ask patrons to leave your property at any time for any reason
Nope, not "at any time" or for "any reason". Air companies are subject to several regulations, and another person posted it here: after boarding there are pretty specific reasons for why you can expel someone, and "because I say so" is not one. Not to mention that planes fly so you obviously can't "surprise deny" service at "any time".
At hotels you also can't throw people out on the street in the middle of the night, unless they did something wrong. Which is clearly not the case.
You also cannot throw out tenants without reason and without proper proceedings, for example.
Airlines are granted licenses to use of public property (airport gates and airspace itself). Therefore their allowable actions should be limited to those in the public interest.
Again... People seem to be making their own rules for a stitation that the DOT already calls out
>Generally, no. If you have met the following conditions, airlines are not allowed to deny you permission to board, or remove you from the flight if you have already boarded the flight:
You have checked-in for your flight before the check-in deadline set by the airlines; and
A gate agent has accepted your paper boarding pass or electronically scanned your boarding pass and let you know that you may proceed to board
> "On January 13, 2021, the United States Department of Transportation amended its rules, forbidding involuntarily bumping from an overbooked flight after boarding starting on April 21."
I think the crux of the issue is that "force" isn't binary. People think you can "force" someone off your premises without injuring them to such an extent.
Is your position that it would not have been possible to remove him (even without his cooperation) without injuring him to this extent?
I don't know. It's easy to criticize after the fact on an online forum, especially by many who have never been in physical confrontations and seem to have an expectation that they'll never be harmed no matter how they behave.
The security staff is charged with removing someone from an aircraft, without knowing their intentions, who's already acting strange by refusing to leave in the first place, and acting in limited space with lots of other people around. They could've done a better job, but it also could've been much worse.
It's easy to criticize, because it was a bullshit response by both the airline staff and the security staff.
They needed the seats to move their staff operationally. To do that, they needed some passengers to volunteer to not fly. To do so, they needed to offer incentives, not demands.
The airline's problem is that they didn't want to pay enough. So they used force, not only that, they used public security (police) to enforce a private contractual matter (not providing travel, even though the passenger was in complete contractual compliance).
The security staff were briefed, and if not, should have waited until they were. He wasn't "acting strange", he was upset at not travelling as he had paid for, and wasn't been offered a reasonable alternative.
Excusing this behavior is allowing it to continue.
The airline should be able to ask any passenger to vacate its property at any time for any reason, just like any other business. Passengers should not have to volunteer. Refusing to comply with this request is trespassing and justifies removal by force. This may well be a breach of contract, and that should be resolved post factum, in civil court, like every other business dispute.
You don't have to guess or use your imagination. You can find videos of even more unruly people getting forcibly removed from premises without such severe injuries. Here's one of a passenger getting forcibly removed (and I'm not even claiming it was all that great): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2CR_zuzNwg
I would also suggest considering that e.g. bus drivers face noncompliant passengers (non-paying, even!) far more frequently, and they have pretty good peaceful means of dealing with them.
Sure, like I said sometimes it goes better, and sometimes it's worse.
Clearly it was adjudicated that it was excessive in this United instance by people qualified and knowledgeable of all the factors but that doesn't override that fundamental point that when force is used then injuries are possible and probable.
> but that doesn't override that fundamental point that when force is used then injuries are possible and probable.
Sure it does. Because force isn't binary, which circles us back directly to where I made this point above. Your logic only makes sense if you treat "force" as binary.
I already answered your question about the degree of force in that I don't know, and that "people qualified and knowledgeable of all the factors" have already decided for this particular instance that it was excessive.
> It's easy to criticize after the fact on an online forum, especially by many who have never been in physical confrontations and seem to have an expectation that they'll never be harmed no matter how they behave.
Now you're just using ad hominem to make your point.
> "On January 13, 2021, the United States Department of Transportation amended its rules, forbidding involuntarily bumping from an overbooked flight after boarding starting on April 21."
The point is that you don't see beating and dragging a man as 'extreme', so I am postulating other extremes like indefinite incarceration or execution which it would then likewise stand to reason are warranted because what if this man, a known troublemaker now, ever tries to get on a plane again? Incarceration and execution would preempt that problem.