Should United Airlines Officers Be Charged for Assault?

Post Reply New Topic

The officers were not "suspended".

They were placed on paid leave while the investigation is being conducted.

Likely, the police will conclude that they acted legally, since it's likely a crime to refuse to follow their directions.

Failure to obey a police order ... is a crime in many jurisdictions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_t ... lice_order

Likely, the police will fault the passenger for causing his own injuries, since he resisted their directions, and acted child-like.

They were placed on paid leave while the investigation is being conducted.
Likely, the police will conclude that they acted legally, since it's likely a crime to refuse to follow their directions.

Is that part of the "capitalism" that gives you a raging boner? Also, why do you always defend the powerful and the bully in every damn situation. Do you have no emotions or sense of justice whatsoever?

Why is it in your world a company is allowed to not deliver a service AFTER someone already PAID for said service?

...and you ask, why someone approaches topics from a logic perspective, and not an emotional one?

His contractual dispute with United, doesn't somehow entitle him to disobey the police.

His contractual dispute with United, doesn't somehow entitle him to disobey the police.

But, who do they work for:
corporations or people.

I don't find your stance logical at all. I read your argument as police having unlimited authority. It is not their employment that gives them their rights (in this case of forcible removal,) but rather, it is that they act within the limits of the agreed upon moral code.
The airline officers used their authority without just cause. To let them get away with it is to give up freedom to authority for authority's sake.

Here is the Illinois law ...

§ 9-40-030
Obedience to police, traffic control aide and fire department orders
No person shall wilfully fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of a police officer, traffic control aide, fire department official or other authorized officer.
https://chicagocode.org/9-40-030/

The passenger violated this law.

The police will likely conclude that force was justified , because he violated this law.

I thought the officers were under federal jurisdiction because of them being on a plane, but either way your own quote contains the flaw in your argument ... "any lawful order." The order given to the passenger by the officers was not a lawful order. That is why he is going to successfully sue everyone involved.

Well, you seemed to have glossed over "or direction".

However, it was a lawful order.

The property owner told police he wanted this passenger off his property.

As far as we know now ... it's legal for the airlines to assert their property rights, and kick people off the plane.

They do it often, for various reasons. I have seen loud people being threatened with being kicked off.

However, it was a lawful order.

Since the flight was not actually overbooked, but instead only fully booked, with the exact number of passengers as seats available, United Airlines had no legal right to force any passengers to give up their seats to prioritize others. What United did was give preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a. Since Dr. Dao was already seated, it was clear that his seat had already been "reserved" and "confirmed" to accommodate him specifically.
https://www.inc.com/cynthia-than/the-co ... tters.html

Rule 21 “Refusal of Transport” gives United to the right to remove from the aircraft a passenger who violates any of the stated reasons. Based on the facts as they have been presented to date it appears that Dr. Dao was not removed for any of the stated reasons in Rule 21: 1) Dr. Dao did not breach the contract of carriage; 2) He was not asked to leave because of a government request, regulation or security directive; 3) There was no force majeure or other unforeseeable condition; 4) There was no necessity to search Dr. Dao or his property; 5) There was no issue with his identification; 6) Dr. Dao had paid for his ticket; 7) He was not travelling across international boundaries and finally; None of the 19 safety issues stated in Rule 21 applied.
--> NOTE: that's not a smiley in original text it is an 8 parenthesis as in following 7)

The problem that United faces is that, it appears, they breached their own Carriage Contract. Dr. Dao was not denied boarding. United should have, as most carriers do, taken care of the oversold situation before boarding passengers. Once boarded, UA’s own contract controls with respect to why a passenger can be removed from a plane and being oversold is not a stated reason.

It has been argued that ‘boarding’ includes being seated on the plane while the plane is still at the gate. As boarding is not defined in the contract, and when read in conjunction with Rule 21 which uses the language ‘remove from the aircraft’, there is at best ambiguity and as anyone who has studied contracts knows – ambiguity is construed against the drafter.

It would appear after analyzing the Contract of Carriage that United was not within their right to have Dr. Dao forcibly removed.

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/uni ... t-carriage

I figured you could infer it as included. It's the same argument.


This is an assertion.


I'm not sure if property rights are applicable. The airplane is a place of business, but businesses are not allowed to kick people out for no good reason (except in I think Virginia, where gay people can be kicked out of restaurant.)

You are mistaking rules for reason.

The CEO of United Airlines apologized again Tuesday amid a global uproar sparked when a passenger was dragged screaming from his seat on a flight that, it turns out, wasn't even overbooked.
...
United spokesman Jonathan Guerin said Tuesday that all 70 seats on United Express Flight 3411 were filled, but the plane was not overbooked as the airline previously reported.

(Police) who do they work for:
corporations or people.

legally, for the people.

That kinda depends.

I don't see where you cited any law regarding kicking off boarded passengers.

You cited 14 CFR 250.2a that discussed pre-boarded passengers. This passenger was already boarded so this does not seem to be applicable.

You cited United's Rule 21 private contract language.

However, we don't expect cops to dig through legal agreements, and make judgment calls on contract disputes.

I think a reasonable person will say the officers acted lawfully here in enforcing the owner's property rights.