8 ms·

> What else would you expect them to do? How about...to not physically attack a paying customer who had done nothing wrong (and had medical patients to see, to

• manigandham 5y ago
  Whatever the reason for the request, once it's issued you do need to follow it. Your personal appointments aren't relevant and don't grant you rights to remain on the plane.
  • 4oh9do 5y ago
    Why stop at just savagely beating the man then? Stands to reason he should be locked up indefinitely in an ASO holding cell so that he can't cause any more trouble at a later time, yeah? That'll cost a lot of money though, why not just a bullet in his head?
    • manigandham 5y ago
      His injuries are unfortunate but it's bound to happen when force is applied. This is a highly regulated and security sensitive mode of transport so there's even less leeway in case of someone refusing to move. Once he's off the plane, then the issue is resolved. Why would they lock him up after that? What's with the extremes and what does it have to do with any of this?
      • jdminhbg 5y ago
        > His injuries are unfortunate Maybe reconsider when you have to start the post this way.
        • manigandham 5y ago
          Reconsider what? Follow the rules and orders given. If you don't then force will be applied. When force is applied, injuries may be sustained. What is this strange refusal to accept consequences? You are responsible for your actions.
          • sieabahlpark 5y ago
            Just get on the train sir.
            • salawat 5y ago
              Just go to the back of the bus, sir.
              • rixed 5y ago
                Just pay your taxes to the King of England, sir
          • jdminhbg 5y ago
            Reconsider whether your mindless deference to authority has any limiting principle. If someone sells lemonade on the street without a license, should force be applied and injuries sustained? What is this strange refusal to accept consequences?
            • toomuchtodo 5y ago
              Not your plane, not your rules. Comply with the authority or get off the flight. You’re projecting rights that don’t exist in the situation.
              • jdminhbg 5y ago
                Not your airport, not your plane. Comply with the public’s will or give up your flight slot.
      • 4oh9do 5y ago
        > Why would they lock him up after that? What's with the extremes and what does that have to do with any of this? The point is that you don't see beating and dragging a man as 'extreme', so I am postulating other extremes like indefinite incarceration or execution which it would then likewise stand to reason are warranted because what if this man, a known troublemaker now, ever tries to get on a plane again? Incarceration and execution would preempt that problem.
        • manigandham 5y ago
          I disagree that he was outright "beaten" but yes, he was physically removed and the force required caused injuries. If he left voluntarily then there would be no force. If he started attacking others then there would be more force and more injuries. The response was proportionate and even lax considering he was allowed to run back on to the aircraft. How would you remove him? What is your actual issue here?
          • dataflow 5y ago
            I think the crux of the issue is that "force" isn't binary. People think you can "force" someone off your premises without injuring them to such an extent. Is your position that it would not have been possible to remove him (even without his cooperation) without injuring him to this extent?
            • manigandham 5y ago
              I don't know. It's easy to criticize after the fact on an online forum, especially by many who have never been in physical confrontations and seem to have an expectation that they'll never be harmed no matter how they behave. The security staff is charged with removing someone from an aircraft, without knowing their intentions, who's already acting strange by refusing to leave in the first place, and acting in limited space with lots of other people around. They could've done a better job, but it also could've been much worse.
              • 5y ago
      • voldacar 5y ago
        >when force is applied >the issue is resolved love how the passive voice always pops up whenever someone tries to justify obvious bullshit
      • JCharante 5y ago
        Force is fine but people should never be hurt. You don't have to throw someone into an armrest. You could have tickled him until he stood up.
      • rswail 5y ago
        It's highly regulated because the airlines like it that way. For example, the whole "only the person named on the ticket may fly on it and you can't sell it to someone else yourself". That came in after 9/11 because the airlines loved that they could charge fees and not allow people to sell their tickets. The stated "requirement" was so that they could know who was travelling, but for international travel, that's covered by your passport, and for local travel, by your local ID (driver license etc). Having your "name" on your ticket is just bullshit. As for the "security sensitive" it's actually "security theatre" that has been in place since 9/11. Excusing the behavior of the airline is ridiculous. They didn't need to drag this person off the plane, they needed to offer enough to the passengers until enough had accepted their offer so that they could deadhead their staff. That is what is supposed to happen when they need to offload passengers. Don't excuse their behavior.
        • manigandham 5y ago
          I'm not talking about how regulations happened; only that they increase the tension in the environment and procedures involved. I'm not talking about how effective the security practices are; only that they exist and result in much faster and more forceful action. I didn't excuse their behavior; I agree that it was poorly chosen and should be criticized. What I'm explaining is that they can lawfully (at that time ) cancel a ticket and remove a passenger at their will; regardless of how they were chosen or whether it was a good idea. What happened after is a series of escalations that is standard procedure with countless other examples where force was proportional and effective without ending in a scandal.
    • msrenee 5y ago
      Was he beaten? The video clip I saw didn't really leave time for that.
  • alasdair_ 5y ago
    > Whatever the reason for the request, once it's issued you do need to follow it It is categorically NOT a “request” if you “do need to follow it”
    • missedthecue 5y ago
      I don't think that changes his point
      • nikitaga 5y ago
        Right, it doesn't, if their point was to doublespeak "why didn't he just comply".
    • manigandham 5y ago
      Sure, it's not a "request". You don't need to follow it. Then it gets escalated from a civil contract matter to private property and state security matter, at which point you'll start getting orders.
  • soraminazuki 5y ago
    "Whatever the reason for the request" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here because that reason refers to United charging money for seats that they had no intention to sell. That is fraud. What the victim actually got instead of a seat was severe beatings, a broken nose, and lost teeth.
    • manigandham 5y ago
      Fine, however that does not entitle you to remain on the aircraft against all orders. Get off and deal with the issue separately without creating a new incident. Being in the right (if that is the case) does not mean you can behave however you want. If a hotel denies your booking for whatever reason, would you just stay in the lobby anyway?
      • FredPret 5y ago
        Who the hell has the authority to issue “orders” to a civilian? What is this, medieval Europe? To make it worse, he paid to be there. If they didn’t want him in the seat, they shouldn’t have sold him a ticket. He already paid, already received the ticket, and already had his ass in the seat.
        • deleted 5y ago
          [deleted]
        • manigandham 5y ago
          Airport security and the police are explicitly granted with that authority and can issue those orders. Why would you call this medieval?
        • Bud 5y ago
          You seem deeply confused. A lot of people have the right to issue orders to a civilian under various circumstances.
          • hattori_hanzo 5y ago
  • 908B64B197 5y ago
  • ratww 5y ago
    All this happened because they were trying to avoid a mild inconvenience for the airline staff. Whatever rights an airline has in this specific situation, it does not entitle or justify that they inflict any violence on others. Even if this violence is done by airline staff, airport security or even the police, it's still not justified. Instead of picking on specific passengers and escalating it to violence, they should have kept asking other people. Maybe even give up boarding four staff. Even giving up would still be a mild inconvenience. Violence should never be a way to solve mild inconveniences. The airline was completely in the wrong for allowing it to escalate, even if law allows them to do it.
• stjohnswarts 5y ago
  The plane is private property if the company tells you to get off, you have to get off and settle it in court later, there is nothing else you can reasonably do. I do hope he got a nice settlement out of the overreaction, though. However, if you're in my house, my private residence, and I tell you to GTFO out then you have to comply, it's the law, just like on the planes.
  • FredPret 5y ago
    I don’t think it’s that simple though. Airlines are almost a public conveyance; they sold him a ticket and he would have gone to some lengths based on that reasonable expectation. People coming to your house don’t have that expectation.
    • threeseed 5y ago
      It is that simple. You do not have the right to fly on a private service. Especially if you have wilfully ignored the terms of service and caused disruption to other passengers.
      • 4oh9do 5y ago
        > and caused disruption to other passengers. That is precisely what United did.
      • mackmgg 5y ago
        Actually, you do have a right to fly on a private service once they've let you board. This wasn't the case yet in 2017, but the TICKETS Act clearly states: > if the gate agent accepts a passenger for boarding after collecting or scanning the passenger’s boarding pass, the carrier is prohibited from removing the passenger from the flight thereafter.
      • FredPret 5y ago
        You most definitely do have the right to fly on a private service... if they voluntarily offered you a ticket, you accepted the offer, paid them, and were even allowed aboard to boot. If United rented out their house to two tenants, they can't just drag one of them out by the ears? It's on them for being two-timing fraudsters.
• hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  If I was Dr. Dao, I would have been pissed as hell. But I also would have gotten off the plane. Because this HAS happened to me before - previous flight was cancelled, then got on standby on the next flight, there was a no show, so I was sitting in my seat for at least 5 minutes before the no show showed up and they made me get off the plane. The Dr. refused a lawful (if highly fucking annoying) request, and then when they tried to force ably remove him, he started screaming. He was not "beaten" or "physically attacked".
  • 4oh9do 5y ago
    > He was not "beaten" or "physically attacked". > Dao was taken to the hospital with non-life-threatening injuries including a broken nose, loss of two front teeth, sinus injuries and "a significant concussion" What phrasing would you prefer be used instead to describe the sustaining of said injuries?
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  • dylan604 5y ago
    >"physically attacked". So I guess his injuries were self-inflicted? How does one sustain injuries if not physcially attacked? If someone places their hands on another, that's assault which according to dictionaries means physical attack.
  • sk5t 5y ago
    A "lawful [...] request" can be denied. Otherwise it's not a request.
  • irrational 5y ago
    The request was not lawful according to the rules. You shouldn’t have gotten off. Once you are in the seat you have a right to stay there, according to the department of transportation. You got taken advantage of. https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/bumping-oversales https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer...
• kelnos 5y ago
  > and had medical patients to see, to boot What does that have to do with it? We all have important reasons we just absolutely have to be on that particular flight, but we're not entitled to be there. I would have been incredibly annoyed had I been in his position... but I would have sucked it up and gotten off the plane, not acted like an entitled child, clinging to my seat. Should he have been hurt the way he was? No, of course not. But, c'mon, it's ridiculous to suggest that he wasn't in the wrong at all here. He was given a lawful order to vacate the plane, and refused. That's not "had done nothing wrong". Quite the opposite.
• greenbcj 5y ago
  “airline staff could fly for free” It’s not that simple. This was a crew being sent to operate another plane. If they can’t move the crew, that could potentially cancel several other flights, and affect hundreds of other passengers.