What definition of “force” are you using?
The first definition that comes up on google says
Can you explain your definition of force that does not have the option to use violence?
Option, yes.
Necessity, no.
They are two difference words that are not interchangeable.
He did not comply with the Captain’s instructions, and he did not comply with the instructions of a duly authorized representative of the law. Once in custody, he broke free and ran back onto the airplane to hide in the back.
Then I really don’t understand this
So, do you agree that if force is employed, then violence is an option?
I consider force to be any time you are using physical actions to ensure compliance, and violence to be using “physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy”.
You can use force without violence, but it takes a steady hand and quite a bit of discipline.
In this case, force escalated very quickly into violence.
And you know, violence is not always not the answer. If there is an active shooter in front of my house, I want the police to use all the violence they have at their disposal to stop him. I don’t want them to offer vouchers, I don’t want them to use minimal force, I want him blown away, as that is the fastest and safest way of protecting the community.
But, when safety is not a concern, and non-compliance results in at most inconveniences for a corporation, violence is not acceptable, and as the use of force creates the option of violence, the use or force should be highly discouraged as well.
Okay, now we are getting somewhere.
He did not comply with the illegal instructions of the flight crew, nor did he comply with the instructions of the representatives of the law who were not authorized to make the demands that they were making. I will agree that he did not do this. I will agree that it was inconvenient. But I will not agree that he was wrong to ignore their illegal demands, and meekly give up his rights as a human being.
As far as breaking out of custody and running back onto the plane, that is so far after they made many mistakes in abusing his rights and his body that I certainly cannot put a sanction on that action, and that is assuming that he was not disoriented from the concussion and neurological damage inflicted upon him by the use of violence to make him comply with an illegal order. The only thing that can be inferred from that action is the further incompetence of the arresting officers.
Cite That he broke free, it is quite possible that the guards just walked away from the gate.
Also Cite that he had a direct order from the Captain, are you privy to information that is not public?
Do you have evidence that the Security guards had full police power and can you provide a cite on what the penally is for failure to obey a police order when you do not pose a danger to anyone?
Or are you claiming that it is some unwritten “Contempt of cop” transgression that the doctor committed?
If those are true, from the doctors perspective, knowing now that this is not covered under the overbooked flights rules how would he know what is a lawful order. Can you provide a cite where the Doctor committed any crime or any allegation was made against him to make this a lawful order? Or are you arguing that a citizens right to disobey a lawful order is trumped by contract law? If it is trumped by contract law, with no recourse how is this not contract unconscionable, and thus unenforceable.
I am under the impression that you would take any steps to dispute any action by law enforcement as unacceptable. If I am incorrect in that assessment please clarify.
I agree with you. Even the ACLU says, in its guide to interacting with the police, that you should comply even if you feel your rights are being violated:
The problem, as others have noted, is that it’s often only through some sort of resistance that these types of injustices are brought to light.
Imagine if Dao had complied immediately with the flight crew, and then complained, to United and/or on social media and/or to the news media. Do you think this ever would have become a story? Do you think that the whole country would now be talking about what airlines should and should not be allowed to do in order to maximize their own convenience?
Sometimes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. In this case, he got a smashed face, but he also became the center of a national conversation about airline regulation, passenger rights, and the limits of corporate authority. I’m not sure that happens if he just bends over and takes his shafting like a good consumer.
I did not make any comment about what the cops did or were authorized to do, because when when I was asked what I thought Dao had done wrong, I that was actually what was meant to be asked. My mistake-sorry.
What it comes down to is whether you believe that civil disobedience is a valid method for opposing views injustice. I believe it is.
Wow, maybe the most wrong prediction I’ve ever seen on this board. Congrats on that.
No.
No to your absolutely one-sided demands for cites and proofs.
No to your “assumptions” and “impressions”.
Just…no.
I know you didn’t ask me, but this is an interesting question. I think what Dao did wrong that day was not to know and express his rights correctly. If you look at this example the person here is an attorney being instructed by a LEO to comply with instructions that violate his rights. He refuses with full knowledge of the law and explains why he is not complying. I think we can all agree that there was no need for him to comply and seek redress later- he was well within his rights to continue doing what he was doing. Dao also was well within his rights to refuse the orders being given him, again I think we all agree there? But in his case rather than knowing the law he just knew the situation didn’t seem right. He was correct.
Ah…so you will not provide cites for baseless claims nor clarify questions that you asked.
OK I guess I did want a reason to quit engaging but after multiple pages of back and forth where you obviously have a very different idea on what the terms mean compared to some other posters I will assume you are conceding and move on.
(Note you could have said use Webster’s definition and that would have worked, and it would have moved the debate forward)
It gets even more bizarre as news stories are now saying that his wife was with him on the plane. It’s confusing on where she was during the altercation, Dao being dragged down the aisle, when Dao was running back on the plane, etc.
She definitely stayed behind and didn’t leave with the flight (now that would have been crazy).
But yes to your assumptions, right? Other assumptions are bad. But your assumptions are just fine, it seems.
I see what you are saying, and I know that you are not trying to suggest it, but I do not consider it to be wrong to not be fully aware of exactly what your rights are, and the best ways to express them.\
Now, it is asbolutly true that if you want to avoid a headache, a hassle, possible violence and trumped up charges, then you should coperate with the police
I keep seeing this, and I didn’t see the answer in this thread (might not have looked well enough) but what law was being broken by the flight crews’ instructions? I mean, if the instructions were illegal, they must be breaking some law, right? Which law exactly?
I’m going to chime in on this.
When I first read this story, my initial reaction was “Those bastards - I’m never flying United again!” But then details started coming out that completely changed my point of view.
-
United was flying a crew to Louisville to staff a scheduled flight. They were required by FAA to do this; they are not allowed to cancel flights on a whim. So it was a given that some folks were going to lose their seats.
-
Having a ticket and a boarding pass is no guarantee that you will be be on the plane when it takes off. This is true of every airline. It’s in the fine print on the ticket and clearly stated in their Contract of Carriage. Here is United’s.
-
Once the passenger in question was selected, that was it. His ONLY recourse was to follow the lawful instructions of the flight crew. When he failed to do so, the flight crew quite correctly involved the police and then got out of the picture. United did not remove him from the plane - law enforcement did.
Bottom line - we can all toss the outrage back in the closet. The only person responsible was Dr. Dao. He chose to act like a jerk and he paid a price for doing so.
As has been pointed out, there are many regulations and restrictions on the actions of a common carrier.
So, a combination of laws and regulations being broken…
Off the top of my head, and IANAL, so this is kinda approximate
-
They cannot involuntarily bump a passenger, unless the flight is overbooked. This flight was not overbooked.
-
Being removed from the plane is different than being denied boarding in the first place. The only legal reasons to remove a seated passenger is if they are being disruptive (which actually can cover a host of things like dress code…) or causing a safety concern, involuntarily deboarding a passenger for an overbooked flight does not seem to be a legal activity for them to partake upon.
-
The did not give him a copy of the common carrier contract, and explain to him what provisions in it that he was violating. (If they had done that, they may have realized that they were the ones in the wrong.)
-
The chicago airport security are specifically not supposed to get involved in commercial disputes between airline and passengers, but only to get involved to deal with safety or security.
I think there were a few other things that the airline got wrong in this, but I am not sure that they were necessarily illegal, and they were minor compared to these 4 points.
Unsurprisingly, Clothy, the chance to spend some time reading and understanding the issues does not prevent you from making a simplistic and ill-informed argument.
And yet, as others in this very thread have already pointed out, actual lawyers and law professors, with actual law degrees and actual experience in contract law and other legal issues related to flying, have made a pretty good argument for why United might, in fact, have violated its own Contract of Carriage. Here’s the relevant section, from a discussion by a Cornell University Law Professor:
So, Law Professor Clothahump, how would you respond to Law Professor Ohlin? Which particular part of his legal analysis do you take issue with?