6 ms·

The problem with your logic is giving private companies complete rights over your physical person once you enter their plane will (and does as shown by the inci

The problem with your logic is giving private companies complete rights over your physical person once you enter their plane will (and does as shown by the incident) lead to abuse for profit. There was no security issue, there was no emergency, there was no legitimate reason to remove this person from the plane. The abuse and physical harm of a passenger was done entirely in the name of saving a few dollars by not sending their staff on another flight. This was wrong and it was an abuse of the security personal to enforce their monetary needs. Separately, the security personal should be fired -- for also being utterly unprofessional, unable to read the scenario, and reacting with unnecessary force.

M_Grey 10y ago
That entire way of policing has been normalized and legalized over the decades now. For example, originally "Less Lethal" options were intended to be used in a situation an officer would otherwise have to use their firearm. Now, they're just used as compliance "come-alongs"; these kinds of things start in our prisons and then come to our streets. Now you have police tasering streakers just to stop them, or swabbing students' eyes with pepper spray to get them to submit. Is it any wonder that "failure to comply" has become legalese for, "You've given us the right to do anything to you, up to killing you on camera." This isn't the airlines, although obviously their customer service is appalling; this is an issue with our police.
- Natsu 10y ago
  Well, the only response police have to non-compliance has always been violence. It's always been against the law not to comply with their orders. And it seems obvious that they will choose the sort that's less risky to the officer (taser, pepper spray), because each and every one of them knows the stories of the officers who got hurt. So yeah, if the police tell you to do something, you should expect to do it. It's neither the place nor the time for a debate and if you think they're wrong, you need to argue that in court. And that will be a lot easier if you don't resist arrest in the first place.
  - tsunamifury 10y ago
    Again, an absurd and grandiose interpretation. You do not need to comply with the police in "Whatever they say." If a Police officer violates the law, you cannot comply with them. If they use physical intimidation, they are not acting as an officer of the law. You are a citizen with an obligation to comply to the legal extent, not a slave to the whims of officers.
    - Natsu 10y ago
      > You do not need to comply with the police in "Whatever they say." In what sense? You can say that you only have to comply with lawful orders, but unless the cop believes their own order to be unlawful, which is unlikely, they're going to force you to comply. And if you're wrong about the order being lawful, you will get hit with resisting arrest, which will only make life harder for you in fighting it. If you want to put a stop to it, do so in the courtroom. Do it on the streets and you'll be tasered and accomplish nothing.
  - soVeryTired 10y ago
    The difference is in the rate of escalation. In the US, non-compliance can lead to violence really, really quickly.
    - Natsu 10y ago
      On average, the people being arrested are more likely to attack the cops. If, on average, people went quietly with the police and fought this in the court system, things would change for the better.
      - M_Grey 10y ago
        >On average, the people being arrested are more likely to attack the cops. Compared to... people with no contact with the police? You cant actually be saying that the average arrest is resisted, can you?
mvdwoord 10y ago
What I mean is, that if that is the proposition on the table, don't take it.
- soVeryTired 10y ago
  I think what surprises people is that that proposition was on the table in the first place. Maybe it's specified in the fine print of the contract, but it violates most people's sense of fairness and decency.
valuearb 10y ago
The plane couldn't leave until this person left. So there was a plane full of people who couldn't leave because of this jerk. And he wasn't abused. He was told to leave multiple times by airline crew as well as security. He refused every time and forced security to drag him out. Whereupon he accidentally hit his face on an arm rest. It's not abuse for profit. We all benefit from cheaper refundable fares from the overbooking system. We also benefit from having our flights not be canceled when the air crew isn't able to show up on time.
- tsunamifury 10y ago
  The plane absolutely could have left, entirely full of ticketed passengers. United held the plane to force this scenario -- since they wanted to replace ticketed paid passengers with their own staff to fly for free.
  - _fizz_buzz_ 10y ago
    A pilot will not leave if they have a passenger on board who refuses to follow instructions by the crew. If you feel like you are treated unjustly (which might very well be the case here), take the fight off the plane.
    - tsunamifury 10y ago
      Really? Would a plane not leave if the crew requested you remove your clothes and fly naked? Would it not leave if they forced you to fight another passenger? There was no safety issue, and the crew only has power over you in the event of an issue of safety. There was no such issue.
  - valuearb 10y ago
    Their "staff" was a flight crew that needed to get to Louisville or another plane full of 200 passengers would be stuck on the tarmac unable to fly.
    - Oletros 10y ago
_fizz_buzz_ 10y ago
The thing is, on a plane the crew is king and you have to follow their orders. If they decide that you have to leave the plane, you must leave the plane. Now, their reasons might be questionable. You have every right to fight the airline once you are off the plane. But there is no room for this while on board. Basically, as soon as he started to refuse to follow the crew's orders, it was a lost case for him.
- hedora 10y ago
  s/plane/bus/g s/leave/sit in the back of/g
  - _fizz_buzz_ 10y ago
    Well, one of the differences is that it's easier to kick someone off a bus mid-travel. That's why the rules are different. Also, racial discrimination ist still illegal on a plane. Just don't fight this fight while on the plane.
  - soVeryTired 10y ago
    Please don't compare this to the civil rights movement. Police brutality is not a good thing, but the injustices that started that movement were orders of magnitude greater.
    - hedora 10y ago
      Have you been paying attention to how muslims (including US citizens) are being treated on planes and in airports? What about the security apparatus that underpins the no fly list and is feeding this comment into your "is this a terrorist" machine learning profile? What about the idea that corporations (like private prisons) sometimes have the right to completely ignore due process? Please stop acting like everything is OK and this is not about civil rights.
      - soVeryTired 10y ago
        This isn't a case of a man being refused the right to fly because he is muslim. The guy was chosen at random. There are plenty of recent incidents that could reasonably be compared to rosa parks refusing to move from the front of the bus, but this isn't one of them.

M_Grey 10y ago

That entire way of policing has been normalized and legalized over the decades now. For example, originally "Less Lethal" options were intended to be used in a situation an officer would otherwise have to use their firearm. Now, they're just used as compliance "come-alongs"; these kinds of things start in our prisons and then come to our streets. Now you have police tasering streakers just to stop them, or swabbing students' eyes with pepper spray to get them to submit. Is it any wonder that "failure to comply" has become legalese for, "You've given us the right to do anything to you, up to killing you on camera." This isn't the airlines, although obviously their customer service is appalling; this is an issue with our police.

Natsu 10y ago
Well, the only response police have to non-compliance has always been violence. It's always been against the law not to comply with their orders. And it seems obvious that they will choose the sort that's less risky to the officer (taser, pepper spray), because each and every one of them knows the stories of the officers who got hurt. So yeah, if the police tell you to do something, you should expect to do it. It's neither the place nor the time for a debate and if you think they're wrong, you need to argue that in court. And that will be a lot easier if you don't resist arrest in the first place.
- tsunamifury 10y ago
  Again, an absurd and grandiose interpretation. You do not need to comply with the police in "Whatever they say." If a Police officer violates the law, you cannot comply with them. If they use physical intimidation, they are not acting as an officer of the law. You are a citizen with an obligation to comply to the legal extent, not a slave to the whims of officers.
  - Natsu 10y ago
    > You do not need to comply with the police in "Whatever they say." In what sense? You can say that you only have to comply with lawful orders, but unless the cop believes their own order to be unlawful, which is unlikely, they're going to force you to comply. And if you're wrong about the order being lawful, you will get hit with resisting arrest, which will only make life harder for you in fighting it. If you want to put a stop to it, do so in the courtroom. Do it on the streets and you'll be tasered and accomplish nothing.
- soVeryTired 10y ago
  The difference is in the rate of escalation. In the US, non-compliance can lead to violence really, really quickly.
  - Natsu 10y ago
    On average, the people being arrested are more likely to attack the cops. If, on average, people went quietly with the police and fought this in the court system, things would change for the better.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      >On average, the people being arrested are more likely to attack the cops. Compared to... people with no contact with the police? You cant actually be saying that the average arrest is resisted, can you?

mvdwoord 10y ago

What I mean is, that if that is the proposition on the table, don't take it.

soVeryTired 10y ago
I think what surprises people is that that proposition was on the table in the first place. Maybe it's specified in the fine print of the contract, but it violates most people's sense of fairness and decency.

valuearb 10y ago

The plane couldn't leave until this person left. So there was a plane full of people who couldn't leave because of this jerk. And he wasn't abused. He was told to leave multiple times by airline crew as well as security. He refused every time and forced security to drag him out. Whereupon he accidentally hit his face on an arm rest. It's not abuse for profit. We all benefit from cheaper refundable fares from the overbooking system. We also benefit from having our flights not be canceled when the air crew isn't able to show up on time.

tsunamifury 10y ago
The plane absolutely could have left, entirely full of ticketed passengers. United held the plane to force this scenario -- since they wanted to replace ticketed paid passengers with their own staff to fly for free.
- _fizz_buzz_ 10y ago
  A pilot will not leave if they have a passenger on board who refuses to follow instructions by the crew. If you feel like you are treated unjustly (which might very well be the case here), take the fight off the plane.
  - tsunamifury 10y ago
    Really? Would a plane not leave if the crew requested you remove your clothes and fly naked? Would it not leave if they forced you to fight another passenger? There was no safety issue, and the crew only has power over you in the event of an issue of safety. There was no such issue.
- valuearb 10y ago
  Their "staff" was a flight crew that needed to get to Louisville or another plane full of 200 passengers would be stuck on the tarmac unable to fly.
  - Oletros 10y ago

_fizz_buzz_ 10y ago

The thing is, on a plane the crew is king and you have to follow their orders. If they decide that you have to leave the plane, you must leave the plane. Now, their reasons might be questionable. You have every right to fight the airline once you are off the plane. But there is no room for this while on board. Basically, as soon as he started to refuse to follow the crew's orders, it was a lost case for him.

hedora 10y ago
s/plane/bus/g s/leave/sit in the back of/g
- _fizz_buzz_ 10y ago
  Well, one of the differences is that it's easier to kick someone off a bus mid-travel. That's why the rules are different. Also, racial discrimination ist still illegal on a plane. Just don't fight this fight while on the plane.
- soVeryTired 10y ago
  Please don't compare this to the civil rights movement. Police brutality is not a good thing, but the injustices that started that movement were orders of magnitude greater.
  - hedora 10y ago
    Have you been paying attention to how muslims (including US citizens) are being treated on planes and in airports? What about the security apparatus that underpins the no fly list and is feeding this comment into your "is this a terrorist" machine learning profile? What about the idea that corporations (like private prisons) sometimes have the right to completely ignore due process? Please stop acting like everything is OK and this is not about civil rights.
    - soVeryTired 10y ago
      This isn't a case of a man being refused the right to fly because he is muslim. The guy was chosen at random. There are plenty of recent incidents that could reasonably be compared to rosa parks refusing to move from the front of the bus, but this isn't one of them.