3 ms·

> 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 d

by 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.
    - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
      > 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. Now you're just using ad hominem to make your point.
    - dataflow 5y ago
      You don't have to guess or use your imagination. You can find videos of even more unruly people getting forcibly removed from premises without such severe injuries. Here's one of a passenger getting forcibly removed (and I'm not even claiming it was all that great): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2CR_zuzNwg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2CR_zuzNwg I would also suggest considering that e.g. bus drivers face noncompliant passengers (non-paying, even!) far more frequently, and they have pretty good peaceful means of dealing with them.
      - manigandham 5y ago
        Sure, like I said sometimes it goes better, and sometimes it's worse. Clearly it was adjudicated that it was excessive in this United instance by people qualified and knowledgeable of all the factors but that doesn't override that fundamental point that when force is used then injuries are possible and probable.
        dataflow 5y ago
        > but that doesn't override that fundamental point that when force is used then injuries are possible and probable. Sure it does. Because force isn't binary, which circles us back directly to where I made this point above. Your logic only makes sense if you treat "force" as binary.
        manigandham 5y ago
        Force is binary as a resolution. I already answered your question about the degree of force in that I don't know, and that "people qualified and knowledgeable of all the factors" have already decided for this particular instance that it was excessive.
- Karrot_Kream 5y ago
  You must be joking if you think it takes knocking an unarmed passenger unconscious, giving them a concussion, and breaking their nose to get them off a plane. This isn't just my hearsay. The Chicago City Inspector's Office ruled that the action violated the City's personnel rules, 2 of the officers were discharged, the other 2 disciplined.
  - manigandham 5y ago
    When did I say I think that? I also disagree with the degree of force and overall strategy, but that's orthogonal to the issue that force was ultimately necessary and applied.
- onion2k 5y ago
  How would you remove him? The airline staff shouldn't have removed him. They should have given up and made increasing large offers of travel vouchers until someone accepted, or they should have found an alternative way to get their staff to Louisville. At no point should the airline ever have even considered forcibly removing someone so that their staff could fly instead. No matter what happened, the paying customer should have been the priority. Defending the actions of the airline makes me think you should never run a business.
  - manigandham 5y ago
    The staff didn't. They called the police. It doesn't matter how poorly the decision was made, but once decided to remove a passenger than that passenger needs to comply or be removed. It's no different than you deciding that you no longer want a guest in your house (for whatever reason) and calling the police when they refuse to leave.
    - ttybird2 5y ago
      It was not the police that removed him. "but once decided to remove a passenger than that passenger needs to comply or be removed" I do not get this type of argument at all. "once decided to take the victim's money then the victim needs to either comply or have the money physically removed from their possession" uses the same logic.
      - manigandham 5y ago
        You don't see the difference between lawful contracts, rights, authorities... and criminals?
        ttybird2 5y ago
        You seem to be assuming that what the airline did was lawful and what he did was unlawful. There is plenty of evidence that shows that this was not the case. Regardless though, something being lawful or unlawful does not imply that it is also moral or immoral. What is an authority for someone is a criminal for another (see certain regimes). Regardless, I am sure that we can agree that the airline is not an authority under the law. Anyway, you have made 25 flamewar comments in this thread. Posters that do that are usually banned so I would advice you to stop. (just a friendly advice)
- irrational 5y ago
  The issue is that according to the department of transportation they were in the wrong to ask him to leave in the first place. https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/bumping-oversales https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer...
  - manigandham 5y ago
    These 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."

by 4oh9do 5y ago

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.
  - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
    > 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. Now you're just using ad hominem to make your point.
  - dataflow 5y ago
    You don't have to guess or use your imagination. You can find videos of even more unruly people getting forcibly removed from premises without such severe injuries. Here's one of a passenger getting forcibly removed (and I'm not even claiming it was all that great): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2CR_zuzNwg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2CR_zuzNwg I would also suggest considering that e.g. bus drivers face noncompliant passengers (non-paying, even!) far more frequently, and they have pretty good peaceful means of dealing with them.
    - manigandham 5y ago
      Sure, like I said sometimes it goes better, and sometimes it's worse. Clearly it was adjudicated that it was excessive in this United instance by people qualified and knowledgeable of all the factors but that doesn't override that fundamental point that when force is used then injuries are possible and probable.
      - dataflow 5y ago
        > but that doesn't override that fundamental point that when force is used then injuries are possible and probable. Sure it does. Because force isn't binary, which circles us back directly to where I made this point above. Your logic only makes sense if you treat "force" as binary.
        manigandham 5y ago
        Force is binary as a resolution. I already answered your question about the degree of force in that I don't know, and that "people qualified and knowledgeable of all the factors" have already decided for this particular instance that it was excessive.
Karrot_Kream 5y ago
You must be joking if you think it takes knocking an unarmed passenger unconscious, giving them a concussion, and breaking their nose to get them off a plane. This isn't just my hearsay. The Chicago City Inspector's Office ruled that the action violated the City's personnel rules, 2 of the officers were discharged, the other 2 disciplined.
- manigandham 5y ago
  When did I say I think that? I also disagree with the degree of force and overall strategy, but that's orthogonal to the issue that force was ultimately necessary and applied.
onion2k 5y ago
How would you remove him? The airline staff shouldn't have removed him. They should have given up and made increasing large offers of travel vouchers until someone accepted, or they should have found an alternative way to get their staff to Louisville. At no point should the airline ever have even considered forcibly removing someone so that their staff could fly instead. No matter what happened, the paying customer should have been the priority. Defending the actions of the airline makes me think you should never run a business.
- manigandham 5y ago
  The staff didn't. They called the police. It doesn't matter how poorly the decision was made, but once decided to remove a passenger than that passenger needs to comply or be removed. It's no different than you deciding that you no longer want a guest in your house (for whatever reason) and calling the police when they refuse to leave.
  - ttybird2 5y ago
    It was not the police that removed him. "but once decided to remove a passenger than that passenger needs to comply or be removed" I do not get this type of argument at all. "once decided to take the victim's money then the victim needs to either comply or have the money physically removed from their possession" uses the same logic.
    - manigandham 5y ago
      You don't see the difference between lawful contracts, rights, authorities... and criminals?
      - ttybird2 5y ago
        You seem to be assuming that what the airline did was lawful and what he did was unlawful. There is plenty of evidence that shows that this was not the case. Regardless though, something being lawful or unlawful does not imply that it is also moral or immoral. What is an authority for someone is a criminal for another (see certain regimes). Regardless, I am sure that we can agree that the airline is not an authority under the law. Anyway, you have made 25 flamewar comments in this thread. Posters that do that are usually banned so I would advice you to stop. (just a friendly advice)
irrational 5y ago
The issue is that according to the department of transportation they were in the wrong to ask him to leave in the first place. https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/bumping-oversales https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer...
- manigandham 5y ago
  These 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."