United Airlines Roughed Up Passenger to Give Up His Seat

[Just_Steve]

I know. It's a good thing I didn't say that or imply that or say anything to make someone who read what I wrote inferr that.

But as someone said earlier: the airline "pushed the button" on him

Funny how people see things totally opposite.
I see it as he "pushed the button" by violating federal law.

 

[easysurfer]

We don't see in the videos exactly how he was injured. The "hit head on the headrest" I believe is the police account. But an injury definitely occurred during seat-extraction.

....

Not the headrest. His head hit the armrest of a seat across the aisle.

 

[redduck]

...-- Someone on the phone talking to an attorney, while the event is happening, just smells bad.

Why does it smell bad if someone was on the phone talking to an attorney while the event was happening?

 

[Aerides]

yes armrest>headrest. Still.

IDK about you all, but I would not expect everyone to be aware that you can be forcibly removed by law enforcement if asked to give up your seat. I was not aware that was Federal Law until this incident. Even if I had, I don't think I'd have anticipated that resisting would wind up as horribly as it did.

 

[bUU]

When a police officer gives you an instruction you should expect some consequence for refusing to comply. Anyone who doesn't is deluding themselves.

 

[CardsFan]

Why does it smell bad if someone was on the phone talking to an attorney while the event was happening?

If he happened to be on the phone with his attorney, for some other reason, and then this happened, then I agree, it has no bearing. If he called his attorney, while this was happening, it smells bad. Who calls a lawyer as they are getting bumped from an airplane?

 

[travelover]

When a police officer gives you an instruction you should expect some consequence for refusing to comply. Anyone who doesn't is deluding themselves.

Yep and before video cameras became ubiquitous, we were lead to believe that people just got what they had coming.

 

[bUU]

Which is non-sequitur.

Especially in this case where the video makes it clear that the Violator was not complying with police instructions.

 

[Just_Steve]

When a police officer gives you an instruction you should expect some consequence for refusing to comply. Anyone who doesn't is deluding themselves.

As the saying goes "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes".

 

[scrabbler1]

If he happened to be on the phone with his attorney, for some other reason, and then this happened, then I agree, it has no bearing. If he called his attorney, while this was happening, it smells bad. Who calls a lawyer as they are getting bumped from an airplane?

I'm with Redduck. I think it is a good idea for him to call a lawyer in that situation so he would know what his rights and options are. The airline could be depending on him to not know his rights in order to put one over on him, from his point of view.

I hope UA doesn't try to use any pending criminal charges as leverage against a possible civil suit, such as "we'll drop the criminal charges if you drop the civil suit or accept a lowball offer for settlement."

 

[bUU]

I'm with Redduck. I think it is a good idea for him to call a lawyer in that situation so he would know what his rights and options are. The airline could be depending on him to not know his rights in order to put one over on him, from his point of view.

There is nothing a lawyer can do while you're getting removed from an airplane to assert your rights.

I hope UA doesn't try to use any pending criminal charges as leverage against a possible civil suit, such as "we'll drop the criminal charges if you drop the civil suit or accept a lowball offer for settlement."

The airline has nothing to do with the criminal lawsuit. They reported the crime and the police officer witnessed it. At that point the criminal charges are effectively out of their hands.

 

[bUU]

Have you always been this servile?

That's remarkably insulting and uncalled for. You owe me an apology.

 

[CaliKid]

When a police officer gives you an instruction you should expect some consequence for refusing to comply. Anyone who doesn't is deluding themselves.

Yup.

 

[Bestwifeever]

An interesting take from an updated LA Times column this evening re CEO Oscar Munoz http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-united-video-20170410-story.html :

[UPDATE: According to CNBC, Munoz followed up Monday evening with a letter to employees defending the airline’s ground staff and describing the still-unidentified passenger as “disruptive and belligerent.” He said the airline agents “were left with no choice but to call Chicago Aviation Security Officers to assist in removing the customer from the flight.”

[But Munoz, whose version of the episode appears to come from the playbook of how to make a PR disaster even worse, also undermined the argument that the flight was overbooked. He related that “after the flight was fully boarded,” gate agents “were approached by crewmembers that were told they needed to board the flight.” The implication is that the crewmembers heading to Louisville were late in arriving, that every passenger held a paid ticket and had been properly boarded, and only that only belatedly did United decide to pull passengers off the plane to make room.

[It’s unclear from United’s contract of carriage how either its rule regarding “refusal of transport” (Rule 21) or “denied boarding compensation” (Rule 25) applies to a passenger already seated and instructed to deplane to make room for a company employee rather than another paying passenger.

[Whether United had “no choice” but to forcibly eject the passenger also is questionable, as presumably the airline could have transported its crewmembers to Louisville either by road (a five-hour drive) or by chartering another aircraft. In any event, Munoz in his letter asserts that “treating our customers and each other with respect and dignity is at the core of who we are.”]

 

[samclem]

IDK about you all, but I would not expect everyone to be aware that you can be forcibly removed by law enforcement if asked to give up your seat. I was not aware that was Federal Law until this incident.

Anyone who has ever flown has heard the announcement that passengers required by law to comply with crewmember instructions. And even if they haven't, do we think a person can plant his tush in the seat and then refuse to leave? Can he lock himself to the armrest? Who is in charge of that plane? It is private property and if the owner doesn't want a person there, he can tell the person to leave. After all, you can have the police come remove someone who is failing to leave your home or car, right?

Even if I had, I don't think I'd have anticipated that resisting would wind up as horribly as it did.

It is too bad he got hurt, and he may recover some damages if the police are shown to have not executed due care in removing him. But I'd guess the bar is fairly high.

 

[CardsFan]

I'm with Redduck. I think it is a good idea for him to call a lawyer in that situation so he would know what his rights and options are. The airline could be depending on him to not know his rights in order to put one over on him, from his point of view.

I hope UA doesn't try to use any pending criminal charges as leverage against a possible civil suit, such as "we'll drop the criminal charges if you drop the civil suit or accept a lowball offer for settlement."

First, if you have your lawyer on speed dial, and he will take your call immediately, at around 5:40 pm ON A SUNDAY, well.... even for a Doctor, this sounds unusual.

Second, IF there was an actionable offense AGAINST him (BIG IF), it was the Chicago PD, not UA he should be suing civilly. If I report a crime, and you are some how assaulted by the police, am I civilly liable? If so, we are more screwed up than I thought.

Rant over.

 

[travelover]

Which is non-sequitur.

Especially in this case where the video makes it clear that the Violator was not complying with police instructions.

Refusal to comply does not justify excessive force.

 

[bUU]

Refusal to comply does not justify excessive force.

But it does justify force, and more importantly it does justify consequences rather than reward.

 

[travelover]

But it does justify force, and more importantly it does justify consequences rather than reward.

But not the thuggery in the video.

 

[Just_Steve]

But not the thuggery in the video.

How would you remove a belligerent?

 

[scrabbler1]

First, if you have your lawyer on speed dial, and he will take your call immediately, at around 5:40 pm ON A SUNDAY, well.... even for a Doctor, this sounds unusual.

Second, IF there was an actionable offense AGAINST him (BIG IF), it was the Chicago PD, not UA he should be suing civilly. If I report a crime, and you are some how assaulted by the police, am I civilly liable? If so, we are more screwed up than I thought.

Rant over.

Why can't the man have a friend who happens to be a lawyer and be able to call him at 5:40 PM on a Sunday?

UA was doing more than simply "reporting a crime" when they called the police for assistance. They were claiming a crime was being committed against them when it was their action which caused the problem to begin with IMHO.

The man's lawyer will probably sue both parties, UA and the Chicago PD. I hope he wins or settles, but not for a huge amount. This is how bad behavior by UA and the CPD is kept in check.

Rant probably not over yet.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

United may have been within their legal rights, but partly that is because the U.S. tends to have weak consumer protection laws compared to countries like those in the E.U. So what is technically legal is not always what most people find socially or morally acceptable. Obviously a lot of people do not find what happened to the doctor socially acceptable or the video would not have gone viral, and guess who makes up civil suit jury pools.

Plus just from a PR standpoint the whole thing seems like millions of dollars of free advertising for United's competitors.

 

[bUU]

But not the thuggery in the video.

There was no thuggery. There was at worst a need for better resources and training. Misrepresenting the reality underscores that you realize your point doesn't have merit without exaggeration and distortion.

 

[bUU]

United may have been within their legal rights, but partly that is because the U.S. tends to have weak consumer protection laws compared to countries like those in the E.U. So what is technically legal is not always what most people find socially or morally acceptable. Obviously a lot of people do not find what happened to the doctor socially acceptable or the video would not have gone viral, and guess who makes up civil suit jury pools.

So what you're saying is that Americans say they want one thing but won't put their money where their mouth is. If anyone thinks such society-wide duplicitousness doesn't have consequences that we all pay, then they're deluding themselves.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

So what you're saying is that Americans say they want one thing but won't put their money where their mouth is. If anyone thinks such society-wide duplicitousness doesn't have consequences that we all pay, then they're deluding themselves.

I don't really even know what your post means. But to clarify, I'm saying a lot of our laws originate in one way or another by industry lobbyists. So what is legal is not always what most people think would be fair from a consumer point of view.