UAL was not using safety as a pretext for removing someone from a flight. That is just a business thing where they screw a passenger and bury their being allowed to do that in the wording of the contract. Let’s be clear on that.
The passenger still should have left the plane because the law says you must obey the commands of aircrew. It doesn’t matter WHY they tell you to get off the plane. It could be a commercial reason, a safety reason, you appear to be really ill, you’re disruptive, your bags are on another plane, you should be on another plane, your wife called and she’s in labor, you’re in labor, whatever; the reasons are many. The rule stating you must obey crew orders still holds, though. The reason that law exists is primarily for safety reasons. But he wasn’t told to get off for a safety reason; it was because of overbooking, or they had to fly their crew to Kentucky or whatever.
This is absolutely the correct move. I’d have done the same thing. If the aircrew tells me to get off the plane and are making no bones about it, I’m getting off the plane. That is how the world works… but I’m going to make one hell of a fuss after I’m out. Damn right I’ll use everything at my disposal, including social media, to extract every pound of flesh I can from the airline.
The guy was an idiot not to do this.
It would be nice if a cop could do this, and let’s be clear; 99.9% of all situations like this in airports and outside airports and everywhere do get handled like this. But I think you may be being unfair here. The police did not just rush in and beat the guy up; by all accounts they tried to talk through the situation.
And look, if you’re an airport cop, bow many degrees of separation are you away from someone who can make this decision?
I never thought about it that way and don’t care to explain it to you.
Since we agree in 2…but I don’t really see how my point you responded to in 1 ‘confused’ anything. It’s a problem that the airline is effectively using safety regs to enlist govt power in settling its contract disputes. This isn’t a one dimensional issue of whether the guy was right. It can be the guy was wrong, UAL was wrong and the police were wrong. I believe all three to varying degrees, but the largest issue is UAL. One guy is one guy. And cops are not as a rule very bright*, and a fairly big % of them are not particularly looking to avoid dragging people from places unless it’s going to bounce back on them. That’s not being ‘unfair’ IMO but just stating a fact of life.
So I wouldn’t emphasize the stupidity of the cops. But if I were a concentrated investor in UAL (as opposed to it being in some index fund I have which I assume it is) I’d have a big problem with the stupidity of UAL, and one aspect of that is stretching safety regs to address contract disputes in a way that might alienate a huge number of potential customers.
*interactive with a system which doesn’t give them much room to make decisions, in part because of the human resource material in question, then that’s the material the job attracts, along with what society is willing to pay of course.
“Fair” is at least a subjective term, and so one expects some level of disagreement between reasonable people. But dayum, Pantastic and I can’t even agree on what constitutes violence, a beating, or intent.
Every definition of “so as to” that I’ve looked up so far says that it’s used to describe intended rather than accidental effects.
the phrase “police violence” or “police beating” to me means that pain or injury is being deliberately inflicted. Simply pulling a guy out of his seat isn’t violence, even if his head does get accidentally smacked on an armrest. If the officer intentionally smacks the guy’s head on an armrest, well, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
You know, you’re sounding a lot like Bricker in this thread. The law also said that Rosa Parks had to sit in the back of the bus. Are you saying that because the airlines behavior was probably legal, it is moral as well?
If you get off the plane without a ruckus, no one in the media is going to give a shit about your shitty treatment by an airline. You might get a gram of flesh at best. This guy is going to get a lot more than that. Furthermore, this situation might actually cause the company to change their policies, which benefits us all. So given the circumstances, I’m going for crazy like a fox instead of being an idiot.
As for the intensity of the debate, I think Sleestak nailed it hard in post 58.
It is fair to say, at least, that intent matters. It’s impossible to forcibly remove someone from a place without using force. It’s a tautology. Force is generally a last option because bad things tend to happen. Consider that maybe movies give people a mistaken understanding of the ability for one person to use mystical, Tibetan-monk taught techniques to perfectly match all movements of a lesser opponent and control their every action. Consider, also, that maybe movies give a mistaken impression of the human body’s ability to course through the air, bounce off a hard object, get up, and keep running.
It just ain’t so. You could get a Jet Lee, in his prime and at his most zen, in there trying to wrangle a resisting man out of a confined space with lots of hard objects in close proximity, and the odds are probably pretty good that something unfortunate will happen.
Even if we accept that the officer went overboard, it would still be unreasonable to expect that the man will end up leaving in a noble and dignified manner, or even to come out of it unbruised and unbattered. That’s simply an unreasonable expectation outside of a fictional universe, once forceful expulsion from a plane seat comes into the equation.
Again, even if we accept that the officer went overboard, it was still ultimately the passenger’s choice to continue to the point where force was necessary. For what purpose? In protest that the a private company can eject you from their property as they want? Is that really a reasonable thing to protest? If someone comes and parks themselves in my living room and they decline to remove themselves through any peaceable means, does that mean I now have to accept a new occupant in my home?
Ultimately, it’s stupid to blame United for any of this. They have a lawful procedure for how to handle the smooth functioning of their business, which is no different from any other airline now nor which has been any different for the last 50 years. They requested that the man leave, and he forced them to call the police. Requesting the police to remove a man by force who refuses to leave is not a bad thing to do, it is in fact the recommended procedure for any location that doesn’t have a full time bouncer. They have no control over how the answering officer behaves nor any expectation that it will be anything less than professional. If it is not, I don’t see how any blame should fall on them.
Depending on the intent and abilities of the policeman in question, we can blame him for (possibly) using more force than was absolutely necessary and/or failing to engage with the man in a reasonable attempt to talk him off the edge of stupidity and self-destructive behavior. But it’s unreasonable to rest full blame on him. And, certainly, if the officer had no intent to cause damage and was doing his best to simply remove the man in as gentle a manner as one can - given that it is being done forcibly - then there’s not much you really can blame him for. That would require a jury to determine.
There is no requirement that, in any situation, one person be the good guy and another be the bad guy. It is fully possible for the officer to be a dick and the passenger to be a petulant man-baby. Racist cops can shoot murderous criminals. Scumbag lawyers can sue corrupt politicians. You don’t have to choose a side to be the hero.
I got this 4th-hand via Facebook from someone named - no wait, I don’t want to give him any more publicity for this idiocy. His position is that this event is another manifestation of what happens when someone who is not a rich white male is
So the social media hysteria devolves this far. I think we need a new internet law, to the effect that any controversial event where one party is not a white male and the other party is either a white male or a corporation or government entity, and when that is discussed long enough someone will accuse the “white” side of being racially (or possibly gender) motivated.
By the way, I am grateful we got some meta discussion on before the thread started being exclusively about the merits of the event itself. Thanks.
Why do you think the officer didn’t? Tactically speaking, it would be a smart move. Carrying someone who doesn’t want to be carried is hard, and a flailing arms and legs could be dangerous to the other passengers in tight quarters. A quick blow to the head would minimize the risk to other passengers, and likely leave the subject disoriented and easier to handle. So why are you so sure that it was an accident?
Personally, I leave such a determination up to an impartial inquest. But it seems worth noting that an officer would likely be aware that he was being recorded by a half-dozen different people as he walked down the middle of the plane. It seems like an unwise career move.
In case anyone hasn’t noticed, this has become major international news, United’s stock has taken a hit, and with news that the passenger in question was Asian there is speculation that United’s presence in the all-important market in China has been jeopardized. As others have said, there was stupidity on all sides here – passenger, aviation police, and United – but from an institutional standpoint this is corporate stupidity at its finest.
And while this is amplified on a plane for a lot of reasons, it’s true pretty much everywhere. If the manager of Walmart tells you to get out of the store because they believe you’re attempting to make a fraudulent return, you have to leave and the police will be called if you fail to comply, even if you were actually making a legitimate return.
So no. There does not need to be an “intent” in order to use the word.
As always, feel free to limit yourself to certain definitions of a word, but that doesn’t allow you to dictate how others will use the word.
On the original thread, you are the one who uses the term “man-child” to describe the doctor, correct? So should utilizing inflammatory rhetoric be off limits for only the other side?
Judging just from this forum (I’ve also looked at article comment threads, I don’t do ‘social media’ per se directly) I think that aspect has been pretty subdued. It is per press reports a big thing on Chinese social media, the reason the incident is a big deal there at all. And it has its root in the guy’s own apparent claim he believed this to be the case, part of his mindset apparently.
I think the excesses of the tendency you mention are pretty deleterious to US society, though at some level it’s unavoidable. I think it very unlikely UAL’s choice of passengers to kick off was other than random, or racially motivated anyway. As to the police’s reaction who knows, but who knows, more plausible but still pointless IMO to speculate about.
On the surface it would appear that we (Pantastic and I) are both cherry-picking our definitions, but if we did a man-on-the-street survey, I wonder how many would opine that “resorting to violence” or “using violence” is defined as the use of force with intent to injure, as opposed to the use of force to obtain compliance (with injury as an unintended but possible side effect). I suspect most people would say the former.
If you feel that “man-child” is an inaccurate descriptor for an adult who steadfastly refuses to accept the inevitable - much as a child might refuse to go to bed even when his parent credibly threatens to drag him there kicking and screaming - I’m open to alternatives.
I think you would be very wrong on that. I seriously doubt that anyone on the street is going to agree that internet is required to define violence. People describe car accidents as violent, where is the intent there?
I think you have chosen that definition, and you want to use that definition, but you are mistaken if you believe that that is the only definition, or even the common definition.
In the cases where authority figures treat the citizens as if they are children, and will drag them away kicking and screaming if they do not comply, I suppose you could make the argument that anyone who does not immediately fall in line with authoritarian demands is a man-child. Here’s a bunch of man-child’s for you.
But, it is more an attempt to insult the victim here, and to remove any chance of empathy, as you aren’t a man child, so you would never be treated that way. He wasn’t throwing a tantrum, he wasn’t even creating a scene. He was just refusing to give up the seat that he paid for. It was the actions of the crew and the police that created a scene.
And if you showed the video to people and did a man-on-the-street survey to see if the police officers were violent toward the doctor, I suspect that most people would say yes.
According to witnesses, there were two officers who were discussing the situation with the doctor when the third officer quickly escalated it, then suddenly – and violently – grabbed the doctor.
There is a need for officers to use whatever force is necessary in certain circumstances.
However, this wasn’t one of those, at least not yet. A 69-year-old man who had no weapons. He was not a threat to anyone. Apparently this did not meet the established procedures for the police department.
Yes, using that from the get-go, well before any real facts have emerged demonstrate more about the author of the term than the recipient.
Have you listened to any of the interviews with the passengers? People on that fight were pissed at United and their heavy handed approach, and this was even before the police showed up.
The guy was getting screwed and United was attempting to avoid their legal requirements. The latest news may show that they were even on shakier ground.
This wasn’t a little boy throwing a temper tantrum. He had a real beef and United wasn’t listening to him.
Unless you’re aware of something that I am not, how popular a decision is has no bearing on how correct or just it is. You can gather a crowd to cheer on a public flogging, or another crowd to call President Obama a fascist. Popular vote is a good method for bad results.
Given that people were annoyed and calling out insults 20 rows away, where they probably had no idea what was going on, I think it’s safe to assume that a bunch of people packed into a tin can, blocked from being able to leave for their destination for a long time, are going to be a bunch of cranky gits that are going to be angry no matter what you do. Anything short of, “We’re leaving now!”, and they’re not going to be your friend.
And yes, the man was throwing a tantrum. If you’ve been asked to leave by the owners of an establishment and you force them to call the cops to remove you, it’s pretty fair to say that you are not behaving appropriately.
And if the police show up and beat you up without making any attempt to give you a warning, then that’s also improper behavior.
It is possible for both sides to have been in the wrong. You do not have to defend one side because you hate the other side.
Ultimately, this is the position that makes most sense to me.
Why United did not simply offer a big enough incentive to get genuine volunteers, I can’t fathom - surely no matter what they had to pay, it would be a pittance compared with the damages this incident has inflicted on them.
No authority or freedom given to the on-site personnel to act or to commit the company beyond a specific set of offers. The gate agents for all we know may have wished they could up the ante to whatever it took rather than go to involuntary unboarding, but not have been allowed to make that call.
It dies not make sense that the low-level “on site gate agents” had the authority to call the police to remove a passenger without consulting anyone senior enough to make such a call.
If that is truly the case, once again the company’s procedures are certainly to blame. They created whatever protocol that allowed low-level agents to bind the company to actions that they reasonably ought to have known could create a massive incident leading to millions of dollars in lost goodwill in this age of cellphone cameras - namely, calling the police to drag a passenger off the plane for trespass - without requiring those agents to consult management, who could have said “wait, before we get there, let’s do something a little more creative”.
The actual regulatory requirements are here:
This is the interesting part:
[Emphasis]
In short, the regulations make specific allowance for the airline to first seek “volunteers” by offering “compensation of the airline’s choosing”. There is no limit on exactly what the airline may “choose” - that is left entirely to the discretion of the airline.
The airline may well put some sort of limits by policy on what their low-level gate agents can offer - though I’ve seen no evidence of this. If so, and if they further authorize the same low-level personnel to contact the police (rather than their own management) where an issue arises, then the company’s polices are to blame.