5 ms·

I think you're wrong. They should have upped their monetary incentive until someone left voluntarily. It was their business fuckup, not the passenger's, and the

I think you're wrong. They should have upped their monetary incentive until someone left voluntarily. It was their business fuckup, not the passenger's, and they should pay for it.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
Yeah, the mistake was United's. But the passenger also acted unreasonably. If you act like a two-year-old - even in a situation that, initially, totally isn't your fault - then you may get treated like a two-year-old. And if you act like a two-year-old after the cops start telling you to leave, they're typically going to make you leave - using whatever level of force is required to do so. So, yes, the initial fault is United's. But there's blame enough to go around.
- denom 10y ago
  But if he had the right to his seat, then why should he leave?
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    Once the cops show up and tell him to? Because the cops told him to, that's why. Note well: I am not saying that the cops are always right. I am not saying that we should all be good little citizens and obey whatever the authority figures tell us to do. I am saying that, in the actual world we live in, disobeying police orders will often involve painful physical consequences, almost immediately. You can argue about whether that should be. Fine. I'm saying that it is that way, though, and you'd better plan on it being that way in your situation before you decide to ignore what the cops tell you to do.
    - FireBeyond 10y ago
      > I am not saying that we should all be good little citizens and obey whatever the authority figures tell us to do. I am saying that, in the actual world we live in, disobeying police orders will often involve painful physical consequences, almost immediately. > Because the cops told him to, that's why. "I am not saying obey authority figures whenever they tell us to do something. Even though I said in the previous sentence, 'because the cops told him to, that's why'." Your note completely and utterly contradicts your previous statement. There is no way to reconcile them.
      - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        OK, let's try this again. I'm not saying that you should obey the police because they're authority figures, even if they're wrong. I'm saying that you should obey the police because they're going to physically hurt you (at least) if you don't. That is, when the authority figures are morally in the wrong, you can make a case that the moral thing to do is to disobey them. But just in terms of the actual way things work in this less than perfect world, you'd better think seriously about the price you're going to pay for doing so. You can say "they shouldn't use force". Fine. But in the real world, they're going to use force. So, no, I'm not contradicting myself. I'm speaking in two different senses. There's the ideal world, and there's the practical way things actually work. In the real world, if you disobey an order from the cops, it's going to hurt you, no matter how morally right you are.
    - truth_sentinell 10y ago
      You have what's called a cognitive dissonance.
  - rhino369 10y ago
    He didn't have the right to his seat. He had a carriage contract. Even if United breached the contract that doesn't allow you to trespass. Trying to solve business disputes by force, which is what the passenger did by refusing to leaves, is bad policy.
    - denom 10y ago
      I completely disagree. It was United and the police who tried to solve this with force. As I saw the video, there is no violent act from him and he should have been left alone. It's amazing how Americans can justify the most extreme violence for the most petty of reasons. This incident was absolutely meaningless _until_ this man had his face bloodied. There were a thousand different options, besides force. Do that instead!
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  Since when is it acceptable to knock out a two-year old?
- whitepoplar 10y ago
  I don't think the passenger acted unreasonably. It's human nature to tell someone to "fuck off" when treated unethically, and it's fine to do so.
- LoSboccacc 10y ago
  but still, in the face of a passenger trespassing, you call cops and have it removed, not a burly man and have him beaten.
  - Gracana 10y ago
    They could have gotten someone who looked more like a cop to do the beating, but that would be the only difference. Cops are often poorly trained, out of practice, and in bad health. It's easiest for them to fall back on beating you with whatever tools they have available until they are satisfied that you will comply (or that the question of compliance is no longer relevant.)
- ajhurliman 10y ago
  I'm glad he did act out, though. Ultimately, he's doing so on our behalf as passengers. When United freaks out about negative PR they're conditioned to be more wary about pushing customers around. If I were in his position I'd quietly fume about it and United would get more comfortable about booting people who have boarded without repercussions. It's pretty rare that passengers' cases get brought to light so it's kind of refreshing.
  - SamBam 10y ago
    Exactly. 100% this. If he had just left when the police arrived, as commenters above you are suggesting, then that would mean that the threat of violence was a successful solution to United's mistake, and we'd never have heard about it.
    - cmurf 10y ago
      I agree. Someone who has committed no crime, and no breach of the contract of carriage, has the right if not the responsibility to resist police power. It's a misuse of power. United should not have requested police presence and the police should have refused to intervene. Otherwise this becomes might makes right.
username223 10y ago
This. Chicago to Louisville is a 300-mile drive. Someone would surely have been willing to get off the plane in exchange for $1k and either a rental car, or a hotel for the night. I still enjoy flying itself, but everything around it, from "security" rent-a-cops fondling you and stealing your toothepaste, to airline employees treating you like cattle, makes me dread having to fly somewhere.
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
Book the employees you forgot to reserve seats for on another airline. This wasn't a situation of one person leaving or an entire flight, down the line, being delayed for want of crew. It was between a paying passenger leaving or the airline having to pay more to ship their crew around.
rhino369 10y ago
The passenger fucked up by refusing to leave. That is forcing a physical confrontation when it isn't needed.
- whitepoplar 10y ago
  I can't believe you're defending United's actions. In short, you're saying that the passenger asked for it. He maintained his dignity as a human being by not acquiescing to unethical actions taken against him. United may have the legal right to do this, but they are certainly unethical in doing so. I fully support this man's behavior.
  - rhino369 10y ago
    He did ask for it when he refused to get off the plane. His motivation was richetous but his tactics weren't. And by I mean getting dragged off the plane. Some are spectulating he was beat off camera. Nothing would justify that. But if you force someone to drag you off a plan, you are asking for the natural consequences.
    - whitepoplar 10y ago
      You're free to hold your own views. I think yours are unethical.
cmurf 10y ago
It's hilarious to me people engage in blaming the victim over this. At a particular moment it's $800 and voluntary. At the very next moment passenger is subject to forced removal. This makes no sense. And I also see nothing in the contract of carriage that permits it. The airline can deny boarding, but this person is physically inside the airplane having used his boarding pass for the purpose for which it exists: to facilitate boarding the plane. He is boarded. He was not in any way denied boarding. Rescinding that status is not listed at all in the contract of service. Second, this is deeply uncivilized. The airline invited violence for a civil, non-criminal dispute resulting from their own planning negligence, and their own unwillingness to provide monetary compensation that anyone on board thought was reasonable. And the police have liability here as well for agreeing to become violently involved in what is ultimately a monetary dispute. Shame, shame, shame.

I think you're wrong. They should have upped their monetary incentive until someone left voluntarily. It was their business fuckup, not the passenger's, and they should pay for it.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

Yeah, the mistake was United's. But the passenger also acted unreasonably. If you act like a two-year-old - even in a situation that, initially, totally isn't your fault - then you may get treated like a two-year-old. And if you act like a two-year-old after the cops start telling you to leave, they're typically going to make you leave - using whatever level of force is required to do so. So, yes, the initial fault is United's. But there's blame enough to go around.

denom 10y ago
But if he had the right to his seat, then why should he leave?
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Once the cops show up and tell him to? Because the cops told him to, that's why. Note well: I am not saying that the cops are always right. I am not saying that we should all be good little citizens and obey whatever the authority figures tell us to do. I am saying that, in the actual world we live in, disobeying police orders will often involve painful physical consequences, almost immediately. You can argue about whether that should be. Fine. I'm saying that it is that way, though, and you'd better plan on it being that way in your situation before you decide to ignore what the cops tell you to do.
  - FireBeyond 10y ago
    > I am not saying that we should all be good little citizens and obey whatever the authority figures tell us to do. I am saying that, in the actual world we live in, disobeying police orders will often involve painful physical consequences, almost immediately. > Because the cops told him to, that's why. "I am not saying obey authority figures whenever they tell us to do something. Even though I said in the previous sentence, 'because the cops told him to, that's why'." Your note completely and utterly contradicts your previous statement. There is no way to reconcile them.
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      OK, let's try this again. I'm not saying that you should obey the police because they're authority figures, even if they're wrong. I'm saying that you should obey the police because they're going to physically hurt you (at least) if you don't. That is, when the authority figures are morally in the wrong, you can make a case that the moral thing to do is to disobey them. But just in terms of the actual way things work in this less than perfect world, you'd better think seriously about the price you're going to pay for doing so. You can say "they shouldn't use force". Fine. But in the real world, they're going to use force. So, no, I'm not contradicting myself. I'm speaking in two different senses. There's the ideal world, and there's the practical way things actually work. In the real world, if you disobey an order from the cops, it's going to hurt you, no matter how morally right you are.
  - truth_sentinell 10y ago
    You have what's called a cognitive dissonance.
- rhino369 10y ago
  He didn't have the right to his seat. He had a carriage contract. Even if United breached the contract that doesn't allow you to trespass. Trying to solve business disputes by force, which is what the passenger did by refusing to leaves, is bad policy.
  - denom 10y ago
    I completely disagree. It was United and the police who tried to solve this with force. As I saw the video, there is no violent act from him and he should have been left alone. It's amazing how Americans can justify the most extreme violence for the most petty of reasons. This incident was absolutely meaningless _until_ this man had his face bloodied. There were a thousand different options, besides force. Do that instead!
CaptSpify 10y ago
Since when is it acceptable to knock out a two-year old?
whitepoplar 10y ago
I don't think the passenger acted unreasonably. It's human nature to tell someone to "fuck off" when treated unethically, and it's fine to do so.
LoSboccacc 10y ago
but still, in the face of a passenger trespassing, you call cops and have it removed, not a burly man and have him beaten.
- Gracana 10y ago
  They could have gotten someone who looked more like a cop to do the beating, but that would be the only difference. Cops are often poorly trained, out of practice, and in bad health. It's easiest for them to fall back on beating you with whatever tools they have available until they are satisfied that you will comply (or that the question of compliance is no longer relevant.)
ajhurliman 10y ago
I'm glad he did act out, though. Ultimately, he's doing so on our behalf as passengers. When United freaks out about negative PR they're conditioned to be more wary about pushing customers around. If I were in his position I'd quietly fume about it and United would get more comfortable about booting people who have boarded without repercussions. It's pretty rare that passengers' cases get brought to light so it's kind of refreshing.
- SamBam 10y ago
  Exactly. 100% this. If he had just left when the police arrived, as commenters above you are suggesting, then that would mean that the threat of violence was a successful solution to United's mistake, and we'd never have heard about it.
  - cmurf 10y ago
    I agree. Someone who has committed no crime, and no breach of the contract of carriage, has the right if not the responsibility to resist police power. It's a misuse of power. United should not have requested police presence and the police should have refused to intervene. Otherwise this becomes might makes right.

username223 10y ago

This. Chicago to Louisville is a 300-mile drive. Someone would surely have been willing to get off the plane in exchange for $1k and either a rental car, or a hotel for the night. I still enjoy flying itself, but everything around it, from "security" rent-a-cops fondling you and stealing your toothepaste, to airline employees treating you like cattle, makes me dread having to fly somewhere.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

Book the employees you forgot to reserve seats for on another airline. This wasn't a situation of one person leaving or an entire flight, down the line, being delayed for want of crew. It was between a paying passenger leaving or the airline having to pay more to ship their crew around.

rhino369 10y ago

The passenger fucked up by refusing to leave. That is forcing a physical confrontation when it isn't needed.

whitepoplar 10y ago
I can't believe you're defending United's actions. In short, you're saying that the passenger asked for it. He maintained his dignity as a human being by not acquiescing to unethical actions taken against him. United may have the legal right to do this, but they are certainly unethical in doing so. I fully support this man's behavior.
- rhino369 10y ago
  He did ask for it when he refused to get off the plane. His motivation was richetous but his tactics weren't. And by I mean getting dragged off the plane. Some are spectulating he was beat off camera. Nothing would justify that. But if you force someone to drag you off a plan, you are asking for the natural consequences.
  - whitepoplar 10y ago
    You're free to hold your own views. I think yours are unethical.

cmurf 10y ago

It's hilarious to me people engage in blaming the victim over this. At a particular moment it's $800 and voluntary. At the very next moment passenger is subject to forced removal. This makes no sense. And I also see nothing in the contract of carriage that permits it. The airline can deny boarding, but this person is physically inside the airplane having used his boarding pass for the purpose for which it exists: to facilitate boarding the plane. He is boarded. He was not in any way denied boarding. Rescinding that status is not listed at all in the contract of service. Second, this is deeply uncivilized. The airline invited violence for a civil, non-criminal dispute resulting from their own planning negligence, and their own unwillingness to provide monetary compensation that anyone on board thought was reasonable. And the police have liability here as well for agreeing to become violently involved in what is ultimately a monetary dispute. Shame, shame, shame.