United Airlines: Passenger violently removed due to overbooking

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Truly shocking injuries!

Effectively self-inflicted. Others left the plane perfectly peacefully and without injury. That option was available to him. He CHOSE not to take that option.

[Julian]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Effectively self-inflicted. Others left the plane perfectly peacefully and without injury. That option was available to him. He CHOSE not to take that option.

If that's the case then any compensation claim is doomed to fail.

Let's see.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Effectively self-inflicted. Others left the plane perfectly peacefully and without injury. That option was available to him. He CHOSE not to take that option.

Effectively airline inflicted.
United airlines CHOSE to evect him after he had boarded with a valid ticket.
That event came first.
He had every right to make as much fuss about it as possible.
No one had the right to inflict those injuries on him.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Julian

If that's the case then any compensation claim is doomed to fail.

Let's see.

3 others left without incident in this case, including his wife. The ONLY people who get injured or even killed, in these sorts cases are where the people themselves are being aggressively obstructive or violent.

People are removed from flights, all the time.

United Airlines is the sixth most likely major airline to kick involuntary passengers off planes, a March report shows

One out of every 10,000 Southwest passengers were denied boarding involuntary in 2016, according to the government funded report.
...
However, the airline had 88,628 passengers voluntary turn down hopping on a flight because it was overbooked and made 14,979 customers sit out a flight against their will last year.

Originally Posted by nomadking

3 others left without incident in this case, including his wife. The ONLY people who get injured or even killed, in these sorts cases are where the people themselves are being aggressively obstructive or violent.

People are removed from flights, all the time.

[/COLOR]

[/LEFT]

His wife left after he was dragged down the aisle, it's a misconception to say she left voluntarily, looks like she stuck by her husband.

In any case, you cannot justify in any form, any injury sustained if someone is removed with force.

Dragging someone by the arms, where one could suffer a dislocation, is illegal.

United Airlines was in the wrong.

The Chicago State Police / Security are in the wrong.

This should not have happened. Pure and simple.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Mick

His wife left after he was dragged down the aisle, it's a misconception to say she left voluntarily, looks like she stuck by her husband.

In any case, you cannot justify in any form, any injury sustained if someone is removed with force.

Dragging someone by the arms, where one could suffer a dislocation, is illegal.

United Airlines was in the wrong.

The Chicago State Police / Security are in the wrong.

This should not have happened. Pure and simple.

Yes, it shouldn't have happened. He should have left of his own accord as MANY others do. He wasn't unexpectedly hauled from his seat, he had plenty of notice and opportunity to leave without injury.

If people are required to move from somewhere, for whatever reason, should they simply be allowed to stay? Recipe for chaos.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Yes, it shouldn't have happened. He should have left of his own accord as MANY others do.

Wrong, he had every right to resist as he had done nothing wrong. He should NOT have been injured in any way, you do not injure people when you try to move them. Stop justifying something that was illegal.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Effectively self-inflicted. Others left the plane perfectly peacefully and without injury. That option was available to him. He CHOSE not to take that option.

So in your book the choices available to him were:
a) Stay and hope the airline doesn't move him.
b) Leave the plane of his own accord.
c) Stay and understand that he will be violently injured when he stood his ground.

I'm sure no one would expect choice c)!

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

c) Stay and understand that he will be violently injured when he stood his ground.

I'm sure no one would expect choice c)!

Notwithstanding given the options, choice C being enacted on a 69 year old man, it's wrong to do it on any age, but I would say very bad to carry out an assault in this manner on someone of that age.

[adzii_nufc]

Very bad is putting it lightly. What they did was illegal. It was completely unjust. They turned a legal physical removal into plain assault.

It's simple understanding really. Given the situation, facts and video evidence, there is absolutely nothing to suggest it warranted that response. It doesnt matter what laws were broken by the passenger. Reasonable justifiable force. Do you shoot an unarmed shoplifter that's not going anywhere? No because it's not justifiable. Do you use ridiculous force to remove a passenger from a flight because he won't move? No. You use proper techniques to avoid both danger and injury. They failed at this miserably and the plain clothes officer showed pure aggression and little patience. Like earlier that has absolutely no use in security or law enforcement and should be assertiveness.

That case along in court is just open and shut. It's undefendable, unless you're OJ Simpson.

There's no debate here really, whatever people believe is morally wrong and right is irrelevant. Just what's legal and what's illegal. So bringing it on himself as it was put just doesn't matter at all. It doesnt matter what options were available. Assault was committed that wasn't justifiable to the crime committed.

[Julian]

Originally Posted by nomadking

3 others left without incident in this case, including his wife. The ONLY people who get injured or even killed, in these sorts cases are where the people themselves are being aggressively obstructive or violent.

People are removed from flights, all the time.

[/COLOR]

[/LEFT]

Not after they have boarded.

Your quote references Southwest and categorically states DENIED BOARDING.

That is where the monumental cockup took place here.

[adzii_nufc]

Originally Posted by Julian

Not after they have boarded.

Your quote references Southwest and categorically states DENIED BOARDING.

That is where the monumental cockup took place here.

He's right, they are removed after boarding all the time, they're not really meant to be but as I explained a few pages back, the rules or guidelines are extremely relaxed in favour of the actual airline. This may once again change back to before boarding after an incident like this. It's exactly like I put it, if removal after boarding guidelines aren't enforced they just keep getting bent until you end up with an incident like this.

Essentially, you're not meant to do it, but they do it anyway and if no one raises that much of a complaint, nothing changes. I have a feeling this time it may not favour the airline.

His quote however is indeed pre-boarding and actually has nothing to add here.

[1andrew1]

More cost for Continental!
United Airlines offer refunds to all Flight 3411 passengers after Dr David Dao was dragged off plane

[nomadking]

More than 20 members of two different stag parties were escorted off a flight to Prague following reports of drink-fuelled rowdy behaviour.
The Jet2 service from Manchester Airport was taxiing to the runway when the captain decided to return to the terminal and call police.

Drunk and rowdy, but still left the plane peacefully, because they made the CHOICE to do it that way. If they had refused to leave, what then?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Drunk and rowdy, but still left the plane peacefully, because they made the CHOICE to do it that way. If they had refused to leave, what then?

Presumably they would be removed in a professional manner that would not cause them harm. Such a thing is entirely possible. The choice should never be to leave the plane of your own accord or we'll remove you and two of your front teeth instead! There is a happy median.