Should United Airlines Officers Be Charged for Assault?

Post Reply New Topic

The police are the ones who "escorted" him off the plane.

Why would "united airline officers" be charged with assault?

Also, A police spokesman told reporters, " the man 'fell' on his face and injured himself".
https://patch.com/illinois/chicago/unit ... re-airport

Here's this from a leading aviation magazine that is over 50 years old.
(and they are associated with Aviation Week which turned 100 last year)
http://atwonline.com/blog/united-bumped ... l-airlines
The wrap up of the article,

You didn't read your own source.

I think you are misinterpreting something.

The "aviation police" , not United employees were the ones who kicked the passenger off the plane.

Okay, drop the work United from the topic title and you'll get the idea.

I'm struck that this is the issue that concerns you.

The police are our law enforcers.

This passenger refused to obey them. At that point, he likely committed a crime.

His criminal action, empowered the police to use force.

Okay, I get what you're saying now.

The airline officers are federal officers, so they are empowered to use force when deemed necessary.

I also get what you mean by police being the hands of the law; and law is what keeps us civilized.

My concern arises when the power of forceful removal is misused, which I think is what happened in this case.

You mention that the passenger likely committed a crime. This is likely what the officer thought too. But if this is the case then we are calling it a crime to not give up your seat for an airline employee. Technically, it would be said that the crime was failure to obey an order.

But ... there is such a thing as an unlawful order.

I agree with Raptor's sentiment that the airlines are abusing the authority given to them after 9/11.

Anything can be written down as a rule, what matters is that it is a lawful rule.

Here's an interesting wrinkle to the case:

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/united- ... passenger/

Basically, United did not deny Daniel Dao boarding, because they already permited him to board. They ejected him from the aircraft. Therefore, the rule saying that they may deny boarding in cases of overbooking does not apply here.

Interesting indeed. Thanks.

I thnk you know what I meant but whatev...

The trains currently in use arent that fast or cheap. Airport TSA screenings are a hassle but usually don't involve being felt up. The biggest issues have to do with the airports themselves more than anything. Some of them are poorly laid out, have sh***y amenities, poor traffic control, and other irritating factors that make the experience more mentally tiring than it need be.
About the only good thing about flying is that it is fast.

We need antitrust laws to be applied to airlines:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/uni ... 64d919ae1d

I'd have to look up the exact details to be sure of the numbers but it has been studied and planes are the more efficient mode of transportation for trips longer than 300 to 600 miles, 482 to 965 km.

it is common practice for airlines to overbook their flights to account for "failures to turn up" to whom they have to refund the fare.

on this occasion the algorithm was not entirely predictive, and so someone had to be removed.

i thought they needed seats for 4 employees, so in that case, they must have also ejected 3 other people and that went uneventfully

the way i saw the video is that the man started squealing like a stuck pig as soon as a hand was lain upon him.
he was non compliant and reacted in a manner which any fool could see would invite reinforcements and intensification of urgency.

it remains a mystery as to how they chose the people to remove from the plane.

but it's not a serious incident in the scheme of things.

When United CEO said "No one should ever be mistreated this way" ...
"this way" ... hmm ...
does that mean it would have been okay to mistreat the guy a different way?

Really?) Seems to me if it's not serious they won't loose 800 mil bucks)