9 ms·

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 trou

• 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.
            • toomuchtodo 5y ago
              No one is losing their flight slot over unruly passenger treatment. The unruly passengers are a vocal minority.
              • jdminhbg 5y ago
                They’re just begging the government for power they won’t be granted. If they were actually independent like Greyhound or Uber, this wouldn’t be a story, the passengers would already be banned.
            • salawat 5y ago
              Funny thing that public. Everyone thinks everyone else sees it their way. You can always pick out the authoritarians in the room, because they are usually the only ones without doubt "the public" will be on their side.
              • jdminhbg 5y ago
                I’m an extremely laissez-faire person, but we’re talking about publicly-bailed out airlines operating out of publicly-funded airports begging for publicly-maintained law enforcement. I think you might misunderstand who’s trying and failing to invoke “the public” here.
      • wowokay 5y ago
        Just like the German soldiers running concentration camps during WW2 right? Rules are rules, doesn’t matter if the majority of people disagree with them.
      • rswail 5y ago
        Is the airline staff that caused this in the first place due to their lack of professionalism required to accept consequences? Are they responsible for their actions that caused an innocent person to suffer both the physical and other injuries for something that he was not responsible? Stop excusing this nonsense. The force applied was unnecessary, excessive, and unjustified.
      • irrational 5y ago
        Follow the rules? The airline was the one not following the rules. https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/bumping-oversales https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer...
        • manigandham 5y ago
          You keep posting this, but the rules were changed after this incident: > "On January 13, 2021, the United States Department of Transportation amended its rules, forbidding involuntarily bumping from an overbooked flight after boarding starting on April 21."
  • 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.