And that’s how long it takes for something to turn from a lawyer’s public statement to an established fact.
As opposed to the “fact” that the lawyer is exaggerating?
You are correct, those incidents shouldn’t have happened either.
It is good that the airlines are getting as much exposure as they are about how they are treating their paying customers.
Thank you for bringing those to our attention. (even though some of them are more than a decade old.) I don’t know that we need a pit thread for each of them, and there may very well be a pit thread for some of them, but if you would like to start one for these abuses of airline authority, I would be more than happy to participate.
The video appears to show that he was bloodied in the process of being removed from the plane. There’s no reason he should have suffered any injury. Whether or not the lawyer is exaggerating, excessive force was used. As I said, he’s going to get paid. The only question is how much.
Were did I say that it was a fact that the lawyer was exaggerating? What is a fact is that is is the lawyer’s statement to the press, nothing more and nothing less, and unless he was sworn in when he said it, legally it doesn’t mean jack shit.
There is no reason to report anything as fact but what really happened to the best of our knowledge, either…unless one is trying to manufacture outrage for some reason.
No need to “manufacture outrage”; there was plenty of it from the beginning, well before the attorney spoke.
Apparently not, if people don’t give a shit whether he is exaggerating or not.
This seems to be a weird reaction to what has been said in this thread. Which post specifically seems to say that the lawyer’s statement is the word of god and damn if anyone contradicts it? As of now there’s no reason to believe that the lawyer is outright lying about the extent of injuries, and we here are not in the position of a jury. So there’s Not really anything wrong with saying “It seems like the injuries are serious enough that United will have to pay a large settlement.” There’s no “regardless of whether he turns out to be lying” implied.
The airline and police seemed to momentarily forget this is the age of cell phone cameras. The airline tried to say he was abusive and combative, and the police tried to say he fell and bumped his head.
From the videos alone with no further evidence it is clear how forcefully his face was propelled into an armrest by 3 of Chicago’s finest. It is also clear he wasn’t combative except in defending his right to remain in his seat. It appears that United was violating federal regulations in trying to remove him in the first place.
You can bet there is going to be a big settlement.
Are you disputing that there was outrage (lots of it) before the lawyer opened his mouth? Are you disputing that the CEO accepted full responsibility for the events? Are you disputing that the cops involved were suspended for their actions?
You did say “Lawyer Wildly Exaggerates In Effort to Gain Sympathy With Potential Jurors-News At 11!”
I take it then that this was not meant as an assertion that the lawyer was exaggerating, but rather… something else. What exactly, I’m not sure.
As far as the officers being suspended for their actions. Considering that this is Chicago it’s probably more accurate to say they’re getting a paid vacation pending being cleared of all wrongdoing and culpability.
Jeez, for some reason you seem to really hate this guy. Did he beat you at poker, or remove the wrong organ?
The fucking lawer and his client are about to get fucking paid.
i dont know what this little tidbit of info adds to the convo:
apparently the “officers” were not Chicago PO, they are private airport security. they have been told in the past by CPD to not wear signs that identify them as “police” and yet they continue to do so and can be seen doing so in the video.
mc
and CPD never released a statement
mc
Or just raising the offer to give up your seat (and/or changing it to cash money rather than a voucher for a future flight that everyone knows is nearly impossible to use). For the price of about 2 rows (and probably less), this wouldn’t have been a problem.
That report you linked there does not support some parts of your post.
Supported: They are not Chicago Police Department
Supported: That CPD wants the Aviation Officers to stay in their lane and not try to do CPD work
NOT supported: That they are “private security”; the report says they are part of the City Department of Aviation. This article from the Tribune also indicates they are unionized Department employees, as does theCity hiring pagewhere it indicates they must be certified by the State of Illinois as law enforcement officers.
NOT referenced: That CPD told them not to be called or addressed as police
yes, thats why i said i’m not sure how this revelation fits in
must have picked that up from tv news, and yes, so far i cannot corroborate.
mc