4 ms·

That's pretty far off on basically every point. There's no such thing as "using false pretenses to assault and batter someone by proxy". If you have authority

by ufmace 10y ago

That's pretty far off on basically every point. There's no such thing as "using false pretenses to assault and batter someone by proxy". If you have authority to ask someone to leave, and call the police to enforce that, you have no control or responsibility over how they go about doing that. Regarding "lying to police" and "filing false police reports", all the police need to be concerned about is that he was asked to leave by someone with authority to do so, and refuses to leave. Airline pilots and other such proprietors generally have broad discretion to require people to leave. If he has a contract that requires him to be transported, then he has a civil claim against the airline, but the order to leave by the captain is still entirely legitimate. It is also not the responsibility of the police to investigate the reasons behind a request to leave and determine if they are legitimate or not according to contracts. The law recognizes that the courts are for making real determinations of facts, officers on a scene have broad discretion to do what appears to be the law based on the information they have at the time. And in this case, they were entirely right - the crew does have the authority to demand that someone leave and does not need to justify that to anyone. Failure to provide the service under contract is a civil claim to be addressed in court later. Or, the short version, this classic applies - you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride. I really don't get the need in these media sensation cases to burn everyone involved at the stake. Isn't it bad enough what United actually did wrong, which is to have a dumb policy for how to handle overbookings and crew transport? For nobody to look at the situation there and step back and try to find someone else more willing to take another flight? There's a reason why we have due process instead of lynch mobs - the next person to make a mistake and be the target of the internet frenzy could be you. If you make a mistake someday and it gets blown up on the internet, wouldn't you rather face a reasoned punishment for the actual laws it can be proven that you actually broke, instead of having your life completely destroyed because everyone's really pissed off?

onli 10y ago
> If you have authority to ask someone to leave, and call the police to enforce that, you have no control or responsibility over how they go about doing that. It's actually highly questionable whether United had that authority. They are bound by contract, they are bound by regulations. They did not have the right to remove him or prevent boarding via overbooking regulations, as the passenger was already seated, and the plane was not overbooked. Also, they were not in the air, meaning the pilot does not have unlimited rights to control who is on the plane. Frankly, I see no legal means for United at all to remove him from the plane. They certainly did not have the authority via their own contract, the article goes into that. It's corporate propaganda to claim consumers have no rights. Consumers do have rights, there are contracts, laws and regulations. It is also not at all evident why the cops should follow the orders of United. Since United was in the wrong and did not have the authority, it was just wrong for the cops to follow their orders. They already got punished, and it is absolutely possible this will have more legal consequences for them. And for United.
- ufmace 10y ago
  > It's actually highly questionable whether United had that authority. I was thinking about this some more, and I would think that they do. Consider what would happen if, instead of the actual situation, the passenger was being removed for being highly obnoxious. Maybe if he was sexually harassing flight attendants or intentionally making a mess or something. In that case, the commander of the aircraft might also demand that he leave, without needing to cite an exact law that he broke and prove that he broke it. I'm not saying that the actual removal in this case was right. I am saying that the ability of bad actors to behave in ways that are obnoxious and interfere with normal operations yet technically do not break any specific laws is the reason why property owners, vehicle commanders, etc generally have broad authority, recognized and enforced by law, to demand that anyone leave at any time without needing a reason. The law only specifies a few minor exceptions to this based on certain very specific types of discrimination. I would consider United to have abused that right in this case, but that's why the system is that if the commander says that you're off, then you're off, and the police don't hold some mini-trial on board the plane to figure out what if any laws were broken. > It's corporate propaganda to claim consumers have no rights. I don't think anybody is arguing that. It's a matter of exactly what rights do they have, and how those rights are to be enforced. He does have the right to either be transported or refunded his fare, but that is to be enforced by a civil court of law at a later date, not by a snap decision by whatever cop happens to show up.
  - tomsthumb 10y ago
    the authority to remove bad-actors and the authority to remove non-bad-actors is not the same thing.
  - fredophile 10y ago
    The case you're describing is specifically listed as a valid reason passengers can be kicked off of flights in the relevant regulations. There is no evidence that Dr Dao was being disruptive or causing a problem.
mnm1 10y ago
I think it's quite clear United had no such authority from the article. Here's one that goes into more detail: https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-united-legally-wrong-deplane-134223391.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-united-legally-wrong-deplane-...
- ufmace 10y ago
  You're still seeing civil contracts and missing the criminal aspect. The ticket is a civil contract. It was violated, and the penalty for violating a civil contract is generally monetary, i.e. they owe him the price of his ticket, or can be sued for it. The conditions on it are the conditions under which he is not entitled to a refund if he does get kicked off. Criminally, they do have the authority to remove anyone from the aircraft at any time, for any reason or for no reason at all. They can call on law enforcement to enforce that decision, and law enforcement has the right to use the necessary level of force to carry out that decision. They missed several good opportunities to de-escalate the situation have have a PR nightmare on their hands, but their legal liability for anything involved with this is quite low.
srtjstjsj 10y ago
Did a captain order him to leave, or did a booking agent? Why shouldn't United let Dao stay in is seat (as required by law) and then sue him afterward? Why should Dao be the one to cave in?

by ufmace 10y ago

onli 10y ago

> If you have authority to ask someone to leave, and call the police to enforce that, you have no control or responsibility over how they go about doing that. It's actually highly questionable whether United had that authority. They are bound by contract, they are bound by regulations. They did not have the right to remove him or prevent boarding via overbooking regulations, as the passenger was already seated, and the plane was not overbooked. Also, they were not in the air, meaning the pilot does not have unlimited rights to control who is on the plane. Frankly, I see no legal means for United at all to remove him from the plane. They certainly did not have the authority via their own contract, the article goes into that. It's corporate propaganda to claim consumers have no rights. Consumers do have rights, there are contracts, laws and regulations. It is also not at all evident why the cops should follow the orders of United. Since United was in the wrong and did not have the authority, it was just wrong for the cops to follow their orders. They already got punished, and it is absolutely possible this will have more legal consequences for them. And for United.

ufmace 10y ago
> It's actually highly questionable whether United had that authority. I was thinking about this some more, and I would think that they do. Consider what would happen if, instead of the actual situation, the passenger was being removed for being highly obnoxious. Maybe if he was sexually harassing flight attendants or intentionally making a mess or something. In that case, the commander of the aircraft might also demand that he leave, without needing to cite an exact law that he broke and prove that he broke it. I'm not saying that the actual removal in this case was right. I am saying that the ability of bad actors to behave in ways that are obnoxious and interfere with normal operations yet technically do not break any specific laws is the reason why property owners, vehicle commanders, etc generally have broad authority, recognized and enforced by law, to demand that anyone leave at any time without needing a reason. The law only specifies a few minor exceptions to this based on certain very specific types of discrimination. I would consider United to have abused that right in this case, but that's why the system is that if the commander says that you're off, then you're off, and the police don't hold some mini-trial on board the plane to figure out what if any laws were broken. > It's corporate propaganda to claim consumers have no rights. I don't think anybody is arguing that. It's a matter of exactly what rights do they have, and how those rights are to be enforced. He does have the right to either be transported or refunded his fare, but that is to be enforced by a civil court of law at a later date, not by a snap decision by whatever cop happens to show up.
- tomsthumb 10y ago
  the authority to remove bad-actors and the authority to remove non-bad-actors is not the same thing.
- fredophile 10y ago
  The case you're describing is specifically listed as a valid reason passengers can be kicked off of flights in the relevant regulations. There is no evidence that Dr Dao was being disruptive or causing a problem.

mnm1 10y ago

I think it's quite clear United had no such authority from the article. Here's one that goes into more detail: https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-united-legally-wrong-deplane-134223391.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-united-legally-wrong-deplane-...

ufmace 10y ago
You're still seeing civil contracts and missing the criminal aspect. The ticket is a civil contract. It was violated, and the penalty for violating a civil contract is generally monetary, i.e. they owe him the price of his ticket, or can be sued for it. The conditions on it are the conditions under which he is not entitled to a refund if he does get kicked off. Criminally, they do have the authority to remove anyone from the aircraft at any time, for any reason or for no reason at all. They can call on law enforcement to enforce that decision, and law enforcement has the right to use the necessary level of force to carry out that decision. They missed several good opportunities to de-escalate the situation have have a PR nightmare on their hands, but their legal liability for anything involved with this is quite low.

srtjstjsj 10y ago

Did a captain order him to leave, or did a booking agent? Why shouldn't United let Dao stay in is seat (as required by law) and then sue him afterward? Why should Dao be the one to cave in?