I definitely agree with the criticism that the media has focused on the video, as "shockertainment" rather than educating their viewers. The awareness of the la

I definitely agree with the criticism that the media has focused on the video, as "shockertainment" rather than educating their viewers. The awareness of the law and skepticism in media is lacking, they pretty much disseminated incorrect relevant details. Many would decry a 46 page contract of carriage, but then also not aid the viewer in navigating that complex document. At the very least, a journalist should ask the airline and the police: -has a crime been committed? -has a civil contract been committed? -what breach of law or contract has been committed and can you cite this exactly? -do you often threaten passengers with removal? -how often are you asked to do non-criminal passenger extractions on behalf of the airline? which airlines? Either the passenger committed a crime to cause forced removal, and it seems clear he didn't commit a crime (nor was in breach of the contract of carriage); or the police committed the crime of assault, an unlawful use of force. There's a crime here either way, and that outcome I think is interesting. But no less interesting is that United appears to have a track record of using threats of violence to get passengers to do things that are not at all required by law, regulations, or their own contract of carriage. http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-united-low-priority-passenger-20170412-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-united... That passenger decided to acquiesce to the threats, and ended up having no real meaningful recourse, i.e. even for this reasonably affluent person, it wasn't worth it to sue. Basically the contract is next to meaningless. This is might makes right. And if you won't stand your ground, aren't willing to get wrongfully arrested, and then sue at your own expense, the airline's threats will work and they'll get what they want.