19 ms·

When you ask the police to intervene, you are explicitly requesting a violent resolution. You're asking the police, a third-party representing the state and it

by grzm 10y ago

When you ask the police to intervene, you are explicitly requesting a violent resolution. You're asking the police, a third-party representing the state and its acknowledged monopoly on legitimate use of force, to become involved. That doesn't necessarily mean that the resolution will or must be violent.

ryandrake 10y ago
What thing can the police do that United employees cannot? By requesting them, you are expecting them to do that thing.
- grzm 10y ago
  There are a number of things the police can do besides resort to violence (which they are authorized to do if necessary). While news reports highlight violence, the vast majority of police interactions in the USA are non-violent. Just having the police present as representatives of law enforcement will change the tone of the interaction. The police can also act as mediators. Yes, there is the possibility that the police may have to resort to force, but that's not the only possible—or likely desired—result.
Mithaldu 10y ago
Application of force is violence, by default. Even if it's just a tiny bit of force. Much more useful would be deescalation and mediation, but that is not the training given to US police.
- grzm 10y ago
  Yes, application of force is a type of violence. As you point out (as did I), that's not the only option available to police, and is not necessarily the expected result of asking for police assistance. And deescalation and mediation are part of the training given to US police. That said, law enforcement training is not consistent across jurisdictions in the US. Some likely have more training in mediation and deescalation than others.
  - tracker1 10y ago
    What other options do the police have beyond violence that the airline does not?
    - ajmurmann 10y ago
      They could explain legal consequences of non compliance. Maybe they could even fine you. Knowing that not acting as you are supposed to might result in legal hassle, fines, potential detention and if necessary physical violence to make it happen should usually be enough. Applying physical violence should be the very last resort. It seems like large portions of the police force in the US and the perception of it has degenerated to be some brutish muscle. It's concerning how much that is accepted.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> You're asking the police, a third-party representing the state and its acknowledged monopoly on legitimate use of force, to become involved. That doesn't necessarily mean that the resolution will or must be violent. The only thing the police have that United lacks in this circumstance is the monopoly on violence; by asking the police to become involved, United is asking for violence, by force or it's explicit or implied threat, to be deployed to resolve this situation. It's true that police can use mechanisms other than force or explicit threat, but so can United without involving the police. The only reason to involve the police is because they are violence, at least in the form of implied threat of force.
- grzm 10y ago
  'ryandrake expressed that by asking for the police, United was explicitly requesting a violent resolution. My initial comment is a reaction to the expectation that the resolution must be violent, which I don't believe is a foregone conclusion just by asking for the police to become involved. The only thing the police have that United lacks in this circumstance is the monopoly on violence United can't act as a third-party moderator, which can be useful in confrontations like this. The police can act in this role. Yes, part of their authority in this role is that they represent law enforcement, and the potential for use of force. One point that perhaps has been made elsewhere in the submission comments but not in this thread is that simply arresting the man is a use of force, regardless of whether the man allows himself to be arrested peacefully or otherwise. In my mind that's significantly different from dragging someone off of a plane or beating them, though those, too, are uses of force. Is arresting someone peaceably violence? I'd argue not, though I'm open to hearing other thoughts on this. I've been trying to express that just asking for the police is not requesting that the resolution would necessarily be violent, that there are other options available by having the police there, while clearly acknowledging that the police, as law enforcement, are an extension of the monopoly on legitimate use of force (which is a type of violence). Reading the responses I've received, it seems that I haven't been particularly effective in making that point. In the interest of learning how to better express myself, would you point out to me how I could have done a better job? In particular, what phrases or statements did I make that prompted your response? I believe the only meaningful difference between what you've written and what I've tried to express is that the only purpose of the police in the situation is the use of force (or the potential use of force). Is that a correct assessment in your eyes?
criddell 10y ago
The police can also talk to the guy, determine he has a ticket and apparently has the right to be there, then leave and tell United to not call back until they've exhausted all their options.
- talmand 10y ago
  Just because you have a ticket doesn't mean you can refuse to leave the plane when asked by the owner of said plane. Many people with tickets have been booted from planes for many reasons.
  - criddell 10y ago
    That's true. I don't think it would take long for the police to figure out what's going on though. Asking United to explore all of their options before applying force isn't unreasonable. United can ask the police for help and the police can say since it's not an emergency, we'll get there when we get there.

by grzm 10y ago

ryandrake 10y ago

What thing can the police do that United employees cannot? By requesting them, you are expecting them to do that thing.

grzm 10y ago
There are a number of things the police can do besides resort to violence (which they are authorized to do if necessary). While news reports highlight violence, the vast majority of police interactions in the USA are non-violent. Just having the police present as representatives of law enforcement will change the tone of the interaction. The police can also act as mediators. Yes, there is the possibility that the police may have to resort to force, but that's not the only possible—or likely desired—result.

Mithaldu 10y ago

Application of force is violence, by default. Even if it's just a tiny bit of force. Much more useful would be deescalation and mediation, but that is not the training given to US police.

grzm 10y ago
Yes, application of force is a type of violence. As you point out (as did I), that's not the only option available to police, and is not necessarily the expected result of asking for police assistance. And deescalation and mediation are part of the training given to US police. That said, law enforcement training is not consistent across jurisdictions in the US. Some likely have more training in mediation and deescalation than others.
- tracker1 10y ago
  What other options do the police have beyond violence that the airline does not?
  - ajmurmann 10y ago
    They could explain legal consequences of non compliance. Maybe they could even fine you. Knowing that not acting as you are supposed to might result in legal hassle, fines, potential detention and if necessary physical violence to make it happen should usually be enough. Applying physical violence should be the very last resort. It seems like large portions of the police force in the US and the perception of it has degenerated to be some brutish muscle. It's concerning how much that is accepted.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> You're asking the police, a third-party representing the state and its acknowledged monopoly on legitimate use of force, to become involved. That doesn't necessarily mean that the resolution will or must be violent. The only thing the police have that United lacks in this circumstance is the monopoly on violence; by asking the police to become involved, United is asking for violence, by force or it's explicit or implied threat, to be deployed to resolve this situation. It's true that police can use mechanisms other than force or explicit threat, but so can United without involving the police. The only reason to involve the police is because they are violence, at least in the form of implied threat of force.

grzm 10y ago
'ryandrake expressed that by asking for the police, United was explicitly requesting a violent resolution. My initial comment is a reaction to the expectation that the resolution must be violent, which I don't believe is a foregone conclusion just by asking for the police to become involved. The only thing the police have that United lacks in this circumstance is the monopoly on violence United can't act as a third-party moderator, which can be useful in confrontations like this. The police can act in this role. Yes, part of their authority in this role is that they represent law enforcement, and the potential for use of force. One point that perhaps has been made elsewhere in the submission comments but not in this thread is that simply arresting the man is a use of force, regardless of whether the man allows himself to be arrested peacefully or otherwise. In my mind that's significantly different from dragging someone off of a plane or beating them, though those, too, are uses of force. Is arresting someone peaceably violence? I'd argue not, though I'm open to hearing other thoughts on this. I've been trying to express that just asking for the police is not requesting that the resolution would necessarily be violent, that there are other options available by having the police there, while clearly acknowledging that the police, as law enforcement, are an extension of the monopoly on legitimate use of force (which is a type of violence). Reading the responses I've received, it seems that I haven't been particularly effective in making that point. In the interest of learning how to better express myself, would you point out to me how I could have done a better job? In particular, what phrases or statements did I make that prompted your response? I believe the only meaningful difference between what you've written and what I've tried to express is that the only purpose of the police in the situation is the use of force (or the potential use of force). Is that a correct assessment in your eyes?

criddell 10y ago

The police can also talk to the guy, determine he has a ticket and apparently has the right to be there, then leave and tell United to not call back until they've exhausted all their options.

talmand 10y ago
Just because you have a ticket doesn't mean you can refuse to leave the plane when asked by the owner of said plane. Many people with tickets have been booted from planes for many reasons.
- criddell 10y ago
  That's true. I don't think it would take long for the police to figure out what's going on though. Asking United to explore all of their options before applying force isn't unreasonable. United can ask the police for help and the police can say since it's not an emergency, we'll get there when we get there.