5 ms·

Even if that is the case, there are much better methods of dealing with a situation like this than calling a police officer. It seems, like usual for American p

Even if that is the case, there are much better methods of dealing with a situation like this than calling a police officer. It seems, like usual for American police, officers are insensitive to anything but violence; no logic, just apply force. The man is lucky they didn't taze him. The crew should have known that. It's good that this policy is about to change, but it is too little too late.

LeifCarrotson 10y ago
I assume you meant "taze", as in incapacitated him with a Taser electroshock weapon. It's an unfortunate typo, because he seemed quite thorougly distressed, disheveled and without composure - fazed.
- LeoNatan25 10y ago
  Yes, thank you for the correction!
dionidium 10y ago
It seems, like usual for American police, officers are insensitive to anything but violence; no logic, just apply force My understanding is that there was a lengthy conversation that took place before the outrage-inducing video starts. They did attempt to resolve the situation peacefully. At some point there is an impasse. Police are making a request and he's ignoring it. There are two ways that can go: 1) Police shrug their shoulders, leave, and let the man have his way; 2) He's going to be forcefully removed. That is, as far as I can tell, the actual reality of the situation. And anybody advocating for outcome #1 probably has some thinking to do about what it actually means to have a police force at all.
- daenney 10y ago
  > 2) He's going to be forcefully removed. Yet why does the forceful removal of that passenger justify knocking him down and dragging him off the plane? There's plenty of ways to forcefully remove someone from something without doing what they did. Police is allowed to apply force, but that doesn't immediately give them the right to go loco.
  - dionidium 10y ago
    This, like the notion that police should aim for the knees when shooting at suspects, is one of those perennial concerns that doesn't survive contact with reality. Once force is applied, you shouldn't be surprised when things go wrong. Force is messy. Which is why, yes, it should be viewed as a last resort. Maybe there are better ways to resolve this situation wrt to the police and the airline. But I think basic common sense says that there are much better ways this passenger could have handled it, too. At some point it must have been obvious to any reasonable person that 1) the cops weren't going to change their minds; and that 2) force would eventually and inevitably be applied to resolve the situation in their favor.
    - LeoNatan25 10y ago
      Once the police were there, he resolved it the best possible way for him; he stood his ground, got a little banged up, and will not be quite rich for the idiocy of everyone involved.
      - grasshopperpurp 10y ago
        Exactly this. It's not hard to understand. If you know you're right, and you're not afraid of being assaulted, stand up for yourself; or in his case, stay seated (for the wise guys). If someone told you that you'd be entitled to millions for going through what this guy did, you'd take it 100 times out of 100. That's not to downplay how horrendously the situation was handled. The airline deserves to pay damages, and he deserves the money. But, to suggest that he didn't help by not cooperating is one of the silliest ideas swirling around.
- LeoNatan25 10y ago
  I expect the police to police, as in, maintain law and order. As I understand it, neither were broken at said impasse. Again, I have come to expect very little of American police. The crew should have known better than calling the police. I blame more the crew and probably their textbook for unleashing the dogs, rather than the dogs biting.
  - hsod 10y ago
    Edit: seems this doesn't apply because the doors hadn't been closed yet. See below I found this law which, from a layman's perspective and based on my understanding of the sequence of events, the passenger violated: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46504 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46504 "An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life." If a flight attendant asked him to get off the plane and he belligerently refused, that would seem to be a violation of this law. Note that I'm not arguing that the original request was justified OR that the police response was justified.
    - cmurf 10y ago
      Your reading is flawed. 49 U.S. Code § 46501 - Definitions (1) “aircraft in flight” means an aircraft from the moment all external doors are closed following boarding— (2) “special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States” includes any of the following aircraft in flight: And to preempt more of this nonsense, FAR 91.3 and 91.11 don't apply either, those are for operational safety purposes. This is a contract of carriage issue, and what the airline tried to do is not in that contract. The passenger was within his right to peacefully refuse to cooperate, in this instance, as reported.
      - 10y ago
- andmarios 10y ago
  The article suggests that the airline was the one breaking the law and not the passenger. So in this case the police helped the airline commit a crime. Is this nowadays what means to have a police force?
  - narrowrail 10y ago
    There are currently 18 mentions of 'police' on this page, but they were security, not police. That's a crucial detail.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      They were sworn law enforcement officers working for the city of Chicago. There's room for them to have different authority than other Chicago police, I haven't found anything in a couple minutes of looking, but they aren't private security or anything like that.
  - dionidium 10y ago
    The central thesis of my argument is that the ins and outs of each side's claims can be litigated later on. At that moment, the cops probably don't (and likely in principle can't) know exactly who is right and who is wrong and in fact this isn't at all the role we expect the police to fill.
    - andmarios 10y ago
      If the police didn't know who was wrong then maybe instead of using force, they could asked the airline to cancel the flight and seek damages in a court. Then, and only then, they could remove anyone from the plane as it wasn't part of a contract anymore but just the airline's property. Instead they chose a side to favor by force.
      - ambulancechaser 10y ago
        > If the police didn't know who was wrong The police won't arbitrate a civil matter. > they could asked the airline to cancel the flight and seek damages in a court. Then, and only then, they could remove anyone from the plane as it wasn't part of a contract anymore but just the airline's property. If they asked the airplane to cancel the flight they could then remove the man from the plane? You're arguing that if United cancelled the flight for everyone that would render the contract of carriage moot for all and then the person would no longer have a claim to a seat?
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  Given that the man was not handcuffed and indeed made his way back on to the plane, there are perhaps assumptions that can be made about how happy the officers were with the situation in general too (without resorting to any Nuremberg analogy).
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
jjtheblunt 10y ago
Those weren't even police officers. I wonder why this can't be considered "assault", accordinly.
- Vivtek 10y ago
  It will be.
- refurb 10y ago
  My understanding is that they were police officers. Not Chicago city police officers, but rather the airport authority police officers.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  They seem to hire people with law enforcement qualifications: https://chicago.taleo.net/careersection/100/jobdetail.ftl?job=99860 https://chicago.taleo.net/careersection/100/jobdetail.ftl?jo... And I imagine they must have some sort of law enforcement authority. Doesn't mean it wasn't illegal to do what they did though.
LordKano 10y ago
It seems, like usual for American police, officers are insensitive to anything but violence; no logic, just apply force. This is correct and I believe it's by design. Law enforcement officers are selected for high aggression and high intelligence is often/usually penalized in the screening process. In a lawsuit against New London CT, the courts found it legal to disqualify a candidate for being too smart.
- LeoNatan25 10y ago
  I don't doubt it. It's not for nothing that the USA police is by large mocked around the world. Land of the free and home of the brave is quite ironic when it comes to USA police.

LeifCarrotson 10y ago

I assume you meant "taze", as in incapacitated him with a Taser electroshock weapon. It's an unfortunate typo, because he seemed quite thorougly distressed, disheveled and without composure - fazed.

LeoNatan25 10y ago
Yes, thank you for the correction!

dionidium 10y ago

It seems, like usual for American police, officers are insensitive to anything but violence; no logic, just apply force My understanding is that there was a lengthy conversation that took place before the outrage-inducing video starts. They did attempt to resolve the situation peacefully. At some point there is an impasse. Police are making a request and he's ignoring it. There are two ways that can go: 1) Police shrug their shoulders, leave, and let the man have his way; 2) He's going to be forcefully removed. That is, as far as I can tell, the actual reality of the situation. And anybody advocating for outcome #1 probably has some thinking to do about what it actually means to have a police force at all.

daenney 10y ago
> 2) He's going to be forcefully removed. Yet why does the forceful removal of that passenger justify knocking him down and dragging him off the plane? There's plenty of ways to forcefully remove someone from something without doing what they did. Police is allowed to apply force, but that doesn't immediately give them the right to go loco.
- dionidium 10y ago
  This, like the notion that police should aim for the knees when shooting at suspects, is one of those perennial concerns that doesn't survive contact with reality. Once force is applied, you shouldn't be surprised when things go wrong. Force is messy. Which is why, yes, it should be viewed as a last resort. Maybe there are better ways to resolve this situation wrt to the police and the airline. But I think basic common sense says that there are much better ways this passenger could have handled it, too. At some point it must have been obvious to any reasonable person that 1) the cops weren't going to change their minds; and that 2) force would eventually and inevitably be applied to resolve the situation in their favor.
  - LeoNatan25 10y ago
    Once the police were there, he resolved it the best possible way for him; he stood his ground, got a little banged up, and will not be quite rich for the idiocy of everyone involved.
    - grasshopperpurp 10y ago
      Exactly this. It's not hard to understand. If you know you're right, and you're not afraid of being assaulted, stand up for yourself; or in his case, stay seated (for the wise guys). If someone told you that you'd be entitled to millions for going through what this guy did, you'd take it 100 times out of 100. That's not to downplay how horrendously the situation was handled. The airline deserves to pay damages, and he deserves the money. But, to suggest that he didn't help by not cooperating is one of the silliest ideas swirling around.
LeoNatan25 10y ago
I expect the police to police, as in, maintain law and order. As I understand it, neither were broken at said impasse. Again, I have come to expect very little of American police. The crew should have known better than calling the police. I blame more the crew and probably their textbook for unleashing the dogs, rather than the dogs biting.
- hsod 10y ago
  Edit: seems this doesn't apply because the doors hadn't been closed yet. See below I found this law which, from a layman's perspective and based on my understanding of the sequence of events, the passenger violated: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46504 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46504 "An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life." If a flight attendant asked him to get off the plane and he belligerently refused, that would seem to be a violation of this law. Note that I'm not arguing that the original request was justified OR that the police response was justified.
  - cmurf 10y ago
    Your reading is flawed. 49 U.S. Code § 46501 - Definitions (1) “aircraft in flight” means an aircraft from the moment all external doors are closed following boarding— (2) “special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States” includes any of the following aircraft in flight: And to preempt more of this nonsense, FAR 91.3 and 91.11 don't apply either, those are for operational safety purposes. This is a contract of carriage issue, and what the airline tried to do is not in that contract. The passenger was within his right to peacefully refuse to cooperate, in this instance, as reported.
    - 10y ago
andmarios 10y ago
The article suggests that the airline was the one breaking the law and not the passenger. So in this case the police helped the airline commit a crime. Is this nowadays what means to have a police force?
- narrowrail 10y ago
  There are currently 18 mentions of 'police' on this page, but they were security, not police. That's a crucial detail.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    They were sworn law enforcement officers working for the city of Chicago. There's room for them to have different authority than other Chicago police, I haven't found anything in a couple minutes of looking, but they aren't private security or anything like that.
- dionidium 10y ago
  The central thesis of my argument is that the ins and outs of each side's claims can be litigated later on. At that moment, the cops probably don't (and likely in principle can't) know exactly who is right and who is wrong and in fact this isn't at all the role we expect the police to fill.
  - andmarios 10y ago
    If the police didn't know who was wrong then maybe instead of using force, they could asked the airline to cancel the flight and seek damages in a court. Then, and only then, they could remove anyone from the plane as it wasn't part of a contract anymore but just the airline's property. Instead they chose a side to favor by force.
    - ambulancechaser 10y ago
      > If the police didn't know who was wrong The police won't arbitrate a civil matter. > they could asked the airline to cancel the flight and seek damages in a court. Then, and only then, they could remove anyone from the plane as it wasn't part of a contract anymore but just the airline's property. If they asked the airplane to cancel the flight they could then remove the man from the plane? You're arguing that if United cancelled the flight for everyone that would render the contract of carriage moot for all and then the person would no longer have a claim to a seat?
FireBeyond 10y ago
Given that the man was not handcuffed and indeed made his way back on to the plane, there are perhaps assumptions that can be made about how happy the officers were with the situation in general too (without resorting to any Nuremberg analogy).
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

jjtheblunt 10y ago

Those weren't even police officers. I wonder why this can't be considered "assault", accordinly.

Vivtek 10y ago
It will be.
refurb 10y ago
My understanding is that they were police officers. Not Chicago city police officers, but rather the airport authority police officers.
maxerickson 10y ago
They seem to hire people with law enforcement qualifications: https://chicago.taleo.net/careersection/100/jobdetail.ftl?job=99860 https://chicago.taleo.net/careersection/100/jobdetail.ftl?jo... And I imagine they must have some sort of law enforcement authority. Doesn't mean it wasn't illegal to do what they did though.

LordKano 10y ago

It seems, like usual for American police, officers are insensitive to anything but violence; no logic, just apply force. This is correct and I believe it's by design. Law enforcement officers are selected for high aggression and high intelligence is often/usually penalized in the screening process. In a lawsuit against New London CT, the courts found it legal to disqualify a candidate for being too smart.

LeoNatan25 10y ago
I don't doubt it. It's not for nothing that the USA police is by large mocked around the world. Land of the free and home of the brave is quite ironic when it comes to USA police.