3 ms·

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

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?
    - andmarios 10y ago
      Yes. If they removed the passenger and the flight went on, then they would favor one party. If the flight was canceled, they would favor neither party, a much more just approach if you can't know which party is in the wrong. If the flight was canceled, the contract wouldn't be moot but the case would need to be resolved outside the plane anyway. As the plane wouldn't be anymore part of the problem, the airline could ask for the passenger to be removed on the ground that he was trespassing. The passenger could also ask the police make sure that the plane stays grounded.
- cmurf 10y ago
  This is deeply naive. They are civil servants, an arm of the executive branch of government, and we expect they will do lawful things, not unlawful things to be figured out later, and only if you can afford a good attorney to do this litigation you seem to think is the appropriate default scenario. Your position strikes me as compatible with an authoritarian police state. And that is not the system of government we have in the U.S. It is part of the job description for police to, at all times evaluate the legality of what they're doing. Otherwise, they are just hired thugs, might makes right, let a judge sort it out. And if they are merely hired thugs, that makes them untrustworthy by default as civil servants, and will even be viewed as capricious. What's the standard of the moment? And in fact, that's why Black Lives Matter is even a thing. The police aren't trusted in some communities, because they have so often simply reacted with force. That's what the politics requires, and is a betrayal in those communities. Use force now, sort out the injustices later (maybe). That's a recipe for loss of trust, other than, do what they say or they will beat your ass. That's not justice in any possible sense of a civil society.
- ambulancechaser 10y ago
  I believe this is correct. If there is a civil argument, it can be heard in an appropriate venue. But once the owner/operator of an FAA regulated aircraft has asked you to leave you no longer have any recourse and the word of the airplane crew carries quite a bit of weight. I'm seeing the suggestion that United broke the law which doesn't quite seem to be what this article is saying. The article is saying they breached their own contract of carriage. This would allow for damages afterwards in civil procedures but i can't imagine how it gives the man the right to ignore the order of crew and airport police to get off the plane.
  - dionidium 10y ago
    I wouldn't even get too hung up on the "FAA regulated aircraft" portion of this, just in a general sense. You and I may have a contract that says you can use my property for a day, but then I might prevent you from doing so. This could be wildly inconvenient for you for various reasons. If I told you to leave, I wouldn't expect the cops to figure out who was right. I would expect the cops to err on the side of the property owner and make the obvious and expedient decision to evict you from my property. The contract wouldn't even enter into it. If there's a grievance, then it should be handled later. The police aren't there to litigate that issue. They're there to resolve the immediate conflict. Crucially, it doesn't matter that the contract is 100% in your favor. That's not what the police are there to discern. Everybody is trying to play amateur aviation attorney, but this is really about understanding the role of police in resolving disputes like this one.
    - notacoward 10y ago
      > Everybody is trying to play amateur ... attorney Including you. You're right that it's not the responsibility of police to determine all details of who's right and who's wrong, especially considering contracts that can take days for a trained contract lawyer to understand. They do have a responsibility to ensure that the person requesting removal is the owner of the property, and the person being removed is not a co-owner, but that's about as far as it goes. However, that's not the only issue being discussed here. Just as we should get too hung up on the "FAA regulated aircraft" portion, we shouldn't get hung up on the "police role" portion either. The more important question is United/Republic's role. Were they in a position to require this passenger's removal, or was that breach of contract? What about the issues of crew logistics and voluntary-deboarding incentives? If you want to broaden the focus, let's broaden it all the way.
- EliRivers 10y ago
  Well then you worded it really badly. It reads as if you're a cheerleader for the police being corporate bully boys.

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?
  - andmarios 10y ago
    Yes. If they removed the passenger and the flight went on, then they would favor one party. If the flight was canceled, they would favor neither party, a much more just approach if you can't know which party is in the wrong. If the flight was canceled, the contract wouldn't be moot but the case would need to be resolved outside the plane anyway. As the plane wouldn't be anymore part of the problem, the airline could ask for the passenger to be removed on the ground that he was trespassing. The passenger could also ask the police make sure that the plane stays grounded.
cmurf 10y ago
This is deeply naive. They are civil servants, an arm of the executive branch of government, and we expect they will do lawful things, not unlawful things to be figured out later, and only if you can afford a good attorney to do this litigation you seem to think is the appropriate default scenario. Your position strikes me as compatible with an authoritarian police state. And that is not the system of government we have in the U.S. It is part of the job description for police to, at all times evaluate the legality of what they're doing. Otherwise, they are just hired thugs, might makes right, let a judge sort it out. And if they are merely hired thugs, that makes them untrustworthy by default as civil servants, and will even be viewed as capricious. What's the standard of the moment? And in fact, that's why Black Lives Matter is even a thing. The police aren't trusted in some communities, because they have so often simply reacted with force. That's what the politics requires, and is a betrayal in those communities. Use force now, sort out the injustices later (maybe). That's a recipe for loss of trust, other than, do what they say or they will beat your ass. That's not justice in any possible sense of a civil society.
ambulancechaser 10y ago
I believe this is correct. If there is a civil argument, it can be heard in an appropriate venue. But once the owner/operator of an FAA regulated aircraft has asked you to leave you no longer have any recourse and the word of the airplane crew carries quite a bit of weight. I'm seeing the suggestion that United broke the law which doesn't quite seem to be what this article is saying. The article is saying they breached their own contract of carriage. This would allow for damages afterwards in civil procedures but i can't imagine how it gives the man the right to ignore the order of crew and airport police to get off the plane.
- dionidium 10y ago
  I wouldn't even get too hung up on the "FAA regulated aircraft" portion of this, just in a general sense. You and I may have a contract that says you can use my property for a day, but then I might prevent you from doing so. This could be wildly inconvenient for you for various reasons. If I told you to leave, I wouldn't expect the cops to figure out who was right. I would expect the cops to err on the side of the property owner and make the obvious and expedient decision to evict you from my property. The contract wouldn't even enter into it. If there's a grievance, then it should be handled later. The police aren't there to litigate that issue. They're there to resolve the immediate conflict. Crucially, it doesn't matter that the contract is 100% in your favor. That's not what the police are there to discern. Everybody is trying to play amateur aviation attorney, but this is really about understanding the role of police in resolving disputes like this one.
  - notacoward 10y ago
    > Everybody is trying to play amateur ... attorney Including you. You're right that it's not the responsibility of police to determine all details of who's right and who's wrong, especially considering contracts that can take days for a trained contract lawyer to understand. They do have a responsibility to ensure that the person requesting removal is the owner of the property, and the person being removed is not a co-owner, but that's about as far as it goes. However, that's not the only issue being discussed here. Just as we should get too hung up on the "FAA regulated aircraft" portion, we shouldn't get hung up on the "police role" portion either. The more important question is United/Republic's role. Were they in a position to require this passenger's removal, or was that breach of contract? What about the issues of crew logistics and voluntary-deboarding incentives? If you want to broaden the focus, let's broaden it all the way.
EliRivers 10y ago
Well then you worded it really badly. It reads as if you're a cheerleader for the police being corporate bully boys.