3 ms·

>Sorry, but that's hyperbole. I respectfully disagree. As soon as United requested LEO intervention; use of force was an implied outcome. >the dispute became

>Sorry, but that's hyperbole. I respectfully disagree. As soon as United requested LEO intervention; use of force was an implied outcome. >the dispute became more than a civil dispute once he refused flight crew instructions to leave the aircraft. The dispute became more than a civil dispute the moment that LEO intervention was requested, and not before. >There was [a safety or security justification] once a passenger demonstrated they're not willing to comply with the flight crew. Is that really true? It insinuates that all flight crew instructions considered safety and security instructions. >Contrary to popular belief, commercial aircraft are not glorified busses. Commercial Aircraft of the type being discussed are flying buses, by definition. bus : a large motor vehicle designed to carry passengers usually along a fixed routed according to a schedule. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bus https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bus >Then argue that to your heart's content after deplaning. The aircraft you're being told to leave isn't the proper forum for legal and contractual disputes. The assertion here being that a person should allow their contractual or legal rights to be violated for the convenience of others?

rl3 9y ago
>As soon as United requested LEO intervention; use of force was by definition put on the table. It was put on the table, but not with intent to harm him. That's the hyperbole part. It's reasonable to presume that in the vast majority of cases, people tend to comply with LEO instructions without force coming into play. If it must come into play, it shouldn't take the form of an utter disaster as with what happened to that gentleman. That's precisely why this whole situation is an edge case. >Is that really true? It insinuates that all flight crew instructions considered safety and security instructions. Yes. Once a passenger demonstrates they're not obeying the flight crew, chances are they're not going to listen to safety or security instructions either. >Commercial Aircraft of the type being discussed are flying buses, by definition. We can argue semantics all day long, but I think it's fairly obvious that operating a commercial aircraft is hardly analogous to the operation of a city bus once you move past the fact they both carry passengers. >The assertion here being that a person should allow their contractual or legal rights to be violated for the convenience of others? Yes, actually. That's why other avenues exist to settle such matters beyond holding up a flight until an individual dispute is resolved. If there's critical cargo such as organs on the flight the deadheading crew is slated to operate, it's more than just a matter of convenience.

rl3 9y ago

>As soon as United requested LEO intervention; use of force was by definition put on the table. It was put on the table, but not with intent to harm him. That's the hyperbole part. It's reasonable to presume that in the vast majority of cases, people tend to comply with LEO instructions without force coming into play. If it must come into play, it shouldn't take the form of an utter disaster as with what happened to that gentleman. That's precisely why this whole situation is an edge case. >Is that really true? It insinuates that all flight crew instructions considered safety and security instructions. Yes. Once a passenger demonstrates they're not obeying the flight crew, chances are they're not going to listen to safety or security instructions either. >Commercial Aircraft of the type being discussed are flying buses, by definition. We can argue semantics all day long, but I think it's fairly obvious that operating a commercial aircraft is hardly analogous to the operation of a city bus once you move past the fact they both carry passengers. >The assertion here being that a person should allow their contractual or legal rights to be violated for the convenience of others? Yes, actually. That's why other avenues exist to settle such matters beyond holding up a flight until an individual dispute is resolved. If there's critical cargo such as organs on the flight the deadheading crew is slated to operate, it's more than just a matter of convenience.