United Airlines

[Gunny]

Hepcat, I couldn't agree with you more on most of what you type. It would be a good discussion while sitting drinking a couple of cold ones. There is no easy answer.

I mean no disrespect to anyone who is or was a cop, I just wish everyone would just lighten up.

Rob

 

[Cheli]

How can ANY of us think that it's OKAY for an airline to drag anyone off a plane AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN SEATED and for no other reason than they wanted the seat for an employee of theirs?  It boggles my mind.  It really does.

I don't think anyone thinks it's ok. It's wrong, very wrong.

 

[bonvanroulez]

     But United didn't put a finger on this guy, it was federal law enforcement that dragged him off.

This is not what has been reported in the media. It was Chicago Aviation Police, a division of the Chicago Dept of Aviation. They are not part of Chicago Police Dept, and they are NOT Federal law enforcement.
And from what I've read the Aviation Police were acting on instructions or request by United Airlines' gate attendant.

 

[DannyB1954]

Interesting artical explaining the difference between over booked and an airline kicking passengers off for their own convenience.
https://www.inc.com/cynthia-than/th...-was-not-overbooked-and-why-that-matters.html

 

[John61CT]

Better pay offered, combined with MUCH better vetting to weed out those who see weapons and opportunities for violence as a side benefit of a LE/security career, encouraging applicants with ideals of public service and protection.

Longer & MUCH better training, some revisions I'm sure of standing procedure/manuals.

Real enforcement with public transparency and industry-wide career-ending and even jail-time for repeated violations. Right up the chain of command.

All sorely needed.

 

[bonvanroulez]

I find it terribly sad that people repeatedly bring up Dr Dao's past as if anything in his past could somehow excuse what happened to him.

I don't recall a single person in the thread bringing up the fact that he is 69 years old. The brutal treatment he received would be terrible for anyone but for officers to inflict that on a senior citizen is unimaginable.

I've just read that he is reported to have suffered a concussion, broken teeth, a broken nose, and damage to his facial bone structure. He will reportedly be facing reconstructive surgery.

Whether he should have surrendered his seat or not was no justification for the excessive force used, especially against a person of his age. I hope the officers involved face criminal charges, and I believe in most states assaulting a senior citizen elevates misdemeanor assault to a felony.

 

[bonvanroulez]

Interesting artical explaining the difference between over booked and an airline kicking passengers off for their own convenience.

I've read of a number of legal experts saying that since he was allowed to board the plane and was seated that the situation was no longer an involuntary denial of boarding, but it became a "refusal to transport" which comes under a completely different set of guidelines according to United's "Contract of Carriage".

 

[hepcat]

Better pay offered, combined with MUCH better vetting to weed out those who see weapons and opportunities for violence as a side benefit of a LE/security career, encouraging applicants with ideals of public service and protection.

Longer & MUCH better training, some revisions I'm sure of standing procedure/manuals.

Real enforcement with public transparency and industry-wide career-ending and even jail-time for repeated violations. Right up the chain of command.

All sorely needed.

What department are you talking about?  The Chicago Aviation Police, or "the police" in general?  How each agency handles hiring is different, and people aren't exactly standing in line to be cops any more for ANY amount of pay.  What "vetting" are you proposing, exactly, that isn't already being done?   

How long do you propose is "longer and MUCH better training?"  How long is long enough, and what constitutes "better" training?  Do you know what officers' training is currently?

And what, exactly, does "real enforcement with public transparency" mean?  "Industry-wide?"  What industry are you talking about?  Law enforcement is NOT an industry... it's a part of the executive branch of government.

All those things sound wonderful.  NONE of them mean anything in real-world terms, and show a significant ignorance of how law enforcement agencies are organized and what hiring and training procedures are employed.  They also illustrate a lack of understanding of how general fund tax dollars are allocated for law enforcement at the County and Municipal levels.  How exactly do you propose all of your suggestions should be funded and by whom?

I don't mean to sound confrontational, but I think you need to do some homework.   These are exactly the sort of well-meaning, yet woefully uninformed comments that inflame people about how they think things "should be" without really understanding how they are first.

 

[DannyB1954]

Another good article http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/united-cites-wrong-rule-for-illegally-de-boarding-passenger/
It talks about the difference between refusal to transport and denied boarding.

 

[Dgorila1]

Better pay offered, combined with MUCH better vetting to weed out those who see weapons and opportunities for violence as a side benefit of a LE/security career, encouraging applicants with ideals of public service and protection.

Longer & MUCH better training, some revisions I'm sure of standing procedure/manuals.

Real enforcement with public transparency and industry-wide career-ending and even jail-time for repeated violations. Right up the chain of command.

All sorely needed.

It's just not that simple as Hepcat said.

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

BTW, it turns out that the Chicago Airport Police are UNARMED.  (Can you say not REAL cops, boys and girls?)

They've been told that in the event of a terrorist attack or something similar, to "run and hide".

http://www.ire.org/blog/extra-extra/2017/01/26/chicagos-unarmed-airport-police-told-stay-away-tro/

 

[hepcat]

BTW, it turns out that the Chicago Airport Police are UNARMED.  (Can you say not REAL cops, boys and girls?)

They are fully-qualified, sworn peace officers in Illinois just like any other cops with the same rights and responsibilities as any other peace officer in the state.  Whether or not their agency authorizes them to carry firearms doesn't diminish their standing under law.

University Police in Iowa weren't authorized by their employer to carry weapons either, until that policy really began to look stupid a few years ago.  Personally I can't understand why ANY agency employing sworn officers wouldn't give them all the tools necessary... but I'm not a politician.  And frankly, without firearms at their disposal, the "run and hide" instructions sound pretty reasonable to me.   That's what any OTHER sane person who couldn't address the issue directly would do.

 

[Gunny]

Interesting read from a Cornell Univ. Law Professor.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-united-legally-wrong-deplane-134223391.html

 

[Blanch]

Interesting read from a Cornell Univ. Law Professor.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-united-legally-wrong-deplane-134223391.html

And there you have it. A well reasoned legal opinion by an attorney after viewing the contract in question.

I see United having another page of fine print in its contracts in the near future. I also anticipate a new rule that once bumped passengers are de-planed employees will secure the doors so no one gets back on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hepcat]

The interesting thing about attorneys' opinions is that, in court, they're right exactly half the time.

Having just re-read the rules for removal of a person from a flight, a sharp United corporate attorney will make an equally compelling argument for United's position.

Of course, as the PR disaster that this has become, it'll never go to court... United will settle out of court and the doc's attorney will be able to retire.

I don't think that whether the customer is denied boarding or is removed once boarded makes as much difference as attorneys are assigning it... if you don't fly, you don't fly and it doesn't make any difference where you're told that. I think what's going to sink United on the whole deal is THEIR definition of "Oversold flight" from their "Contract of Carriage:" "Oversold Flight means a flight where there are more Passengers holding valid confirmed Tickets that check-in for the flight within the prescribed check-in time than there are available seats." I think that they're going to have a tough sell trying to claim crew from another flight as "Passengers holding valid confirmed Tickets that check-in within the prescribed check-in time."

Actually I kind of hope this does all go to trial as I'd love to read the trial transcripts of how the case is presented by both sides.

 

[DannyB1954]

Personally I can't understand why ANY agency employing sworn officers wouldn't give them all the tools necessary... 

More times than not the Police do not hit their target. Often it is 22 shots fired suspect unharmed. Do this in a crowded airport. Where are the 22 bullets going to go? 
Especially in this case the LEO involved showed very little ability to judge the level of force necessary. 3 officers against an unarmed 69 year old man and they had to break is nose, and give him a concussion.  I do not want this LEO to ever have a gun. I really don't want him to be a LEO.

The law is more than opinion. It states exactly when a boarded passenger can be removed. None of those conditions existed. I don't understand why you are so adamant about making the victim the villain.

 

[Blanch]

The interesting thing about attorneys' opinions is that, in court, they're right exactly half the time.

Having just re-read the rules for removal of a person from a flight, a sharp United corporate attorney will make an equally compelling argument for United's position.

Of course, as the PR disaster that this has become, it'll never go to court... United will settle out of court and the doc's attorney will be able to retire.

You are completely correct. But all the talk here and most of what was written on the internet has been spoken by those with no experience in contract law. So now we are getting information from people who write and defend contracts for a living ( or teach law ). They are professionals on this subject and what they see as the legal issue is a far better representation of what is true or correct.

Ultimately I believe this will be settled out of court and United will rewrite their contracts with the flying public. I am sure United is willing to write a large check to make it all go away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hepcat]

More times than not the Police do not hit their target. Often it is 22 shots fired suspect unharmed. Do this in a crowded airport. Where are the 22 bullets going to go? 
Especially in this case the LEO involved showed very little ability to judge the level of force necessary. 3 officers against an unarmed 69 year old man and they had to break is nose, and give him a concussion.  I do not want this LEO to ever have a gun. I really don't want him to be a LEO.

The law is more than opinion. It states exactly when a boarded passenger can be removed. None of those conditions existed. I don't understand why you are so adamant about making the victim the villain.

For the same reason you're so adamant about making the cops villains.    This is not a binary situation where one is right and the other wrong.  Likely both share culpability.  This situation has lots of issues you're not recognizing.  

And I tell you what...  since you think that cops are so poorly trained and perform so poorly so often, next time you're near an armed confrontation, rather than calling a cop how about you run toward the gunfire yourself and do what you think is right to ensure the public safety?  That way the cops won't harm anyone.  Whaddya say?

I'm amazed that you're so well versed in the officer's Department's use of force policy, and that you've interviewed as many witnesses as possible to actually determine what happened and how culpable the cops were.  Great job!  Me?  I say we wait for the results of the internal affairs investigation and see what conclusions the investigators reach before we give them a fair trial and hang them.   They may have over-reacted.  They may not.  Give the department an opportunity to figure out what to do next.  It'll all come out in the wash.

 

[Ballenxj]

For the same reason you're so adamant about making the cops villains.    This is not a binary situation where one is right and the other wrong.  
<-------->
  I say we wait for the results of the internal affairs investigation and see what conclusions the investigators reach before we give them a fair trial and hang them.   They may have over-reacted.  They may not.  Give the department an opportunity to figure out what to do next.  It'll all come out in the wash.

I have noticed an awful lot of judgement going on around here without having actual fact. Do I feel badly that a 69 year old man was roughed up? Of course I do. Do we really have all the facts in front of us to make these judgements? I doubt the investigators are allowing that just yet.
There are always 2 sides to a coin, but three sides to this kind of story. There will be the defendants story, the prosecutors story, and then there will be the truth.
I'm with hepcat on this, let's try not to be judgemental until we are sure we have all the facts. The question being, will we ever get the truth?

 

[BradKW]

[img=600x450]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9EsHWDXgAEymuR.jpg[/img]