3 ms·

I've been wondering this myself. Yes, it sucked that 4 people were required by United to deplane. This was awful planning on United's part. But 3 passengers dep

I've been wondering this myself. Yes, it sucked that 4 people were required by United to deplane. This was awful planning on United's part. But 3 passengers deplaned without the situation escalating to this catastrophe. Then we have the 4th passenger who decides he wants to potentially add resisting arrest to his trespassing and interfering with a crewmember, and a set of sworn police officers who couldn't properly deescalate the situation. But somehow, it's the airline's fault? If United truly is to blame, how far does it go? How much could the passenger and officers have gotten away with and assigned the blame to the airline?

petermcnister25 10y ago
> "Resisting arrest" What? They were not arresting him as far as it has been shown. Resisting arrest is a grave crime AFAIK, so don't mix terms (or don't complain of other people mixing things!). > "trespassing" Again, read more about it, he was not trespassing at all. He was legally allowed to stay in the flight (even though the crew members said otherwise).
- btgeekboy 10y ago
  Resisting arrest is a misdemeanor (albeit a Class A) in IL. The law states: "A person who knowingly resists or obstructs the performance by one known to the person to be a peace officer, firefighter, or correctional institution employee of any authorized act within his or her official capacity commits a Class A misdemeanor." By refusing to leave, he was obstructing the performance of a known peace officer. Whether that fits your definition of "grave crime" is unknown to me. Also under IL law, trespassing: "A person commits criminal trespass to real property when he or she: (3) remains upon the land of another, after receiving notice from the owner or occupant to depart" In the reading I've done on this, I've not found anything to support your claim that he was permitted to remain on board. Do you have a source?
  - gpderetta 10y ago
    Is the airplane 'land of another'?

petermcnister25 10y ago

> "Resisting arrest" What? They were not arresting him as far as it has been shown. Resisting arrest is a grave crime AFAIK, so don't mix terms (or don't complain of other people mixing things!). > "trespassing" Again, read more about it, he was not trespassing at all. He was legally allowed to stay in the flight (even though the crew members said otherwise).

btgeekboy 10y ago
Resisting arrest is a misdemeanor (albeit a Class A) in IL. The law states: "A person who knowingly resists or obstructs the performance by one known to the person to be a peace officer, firefighter, or correctional institution employee of any authorized act within his or her official capacity commits a Class A misdemeanor." By refusing to leave, he was obstructing the performance of a known peace officer. Whether that fits your definition of "grave crime" is unknown to me. Also under IL law, trespassing: "A person commits criminal trespass to real property when he or she: (3) remains upon the land of another, after receiving notice from the owner or occupant to depart" In the reading I've done on this, I've not found anything to support your claim that he was permitted to remain on board. Do you have a source?
- gpderetta 10y ago
  Is the airplane 'land of another'?