User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 7:30:48 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your subjective label is not dispositive. I don't see any determination that removing him from the plane was either illegal, nor an assault, although it may have been both. He resisted being removed. That's force. Passive resistance is force. he refused to leave. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you have done nothing that violates their rules and if there are no other outside factors then they have no "power" to force you off the plane. They have entered into a contract and must honor the terms of the contract (e.g. Contract of Carriage). You can't move a renter out of your house while they are at work. You can't take merchandise back from a customer after a sale has been completed. Contracts are breached every single day. You aren't permitted to try to use force to make someone else carry through their obligations. Specific performance is almost unheard of in contract remedies. Renters are different because of landlord tenant law, which is well defined but confined to tenants. Meaning you cannot force them to perform on the contract, you can pursue damages as a remedy. Specific performance is when a court forces a party to perform what they agreed to Do, but it is very rare. If you sign a contract to buy a car, and at the end of it, after it's all signed and you made out a check to pay for it, the manager tears up the contract and says, we can't make money off this, no deal, you DONT get to pry the keys out of his hand and leave in the vehicle because "contract". It doesn't work that way. Making up examples that you think are grand theft doesn't change how the law works. You show up at a hotel with a pre paid reservation, and they say we are full, sorry, the law doesn't let you kick in a door and move in, it let's you sue for damages. The point is solid. You go to a dealership and find a car. You find one you like. You sign the contract to lease it. You take it home. Can the dealership come and pickup the car because they decided that they wanted one of their employees to have it? The passenger in the United case went to the airline's sales location, found a product, agreed to the contract, and took possession of the item. Sitting in a seat isn't "possession of the item." You're buying travel, not a specific seat. Travel is the item you're paying for. A parallel would be you lease a parking spot and paid for it, and they change their mind and don't let you park there any more. You sue for damages, you don't get to cut the chain and park there, and prohibit them from having you towed, because "contract". Contracts are breached EVERY DAY. You're allowed to breach a contract, the penalty is damages. It's not some sacred thing where you get to use force to make someone honor a contract. It's breached, so it's over. Sue for damages. You lease a parking spot. Then the parking lot owner decides that he wants his kid to park there. Can he have you towed out of the spot that you lease? Then you sue him. The law doesn't let you use force to try to make him perform the contract. The remedy will be a refund of your money. Not an order that he let you park there. United arguably breached the contract. That's it. Sue for breach. You don't have some right to fight your way back on the plane because "contract". If they broke the law by having you assaulted, sue for that, too. Once the contract is breached (generally) its over. Parties have an obligation to mitigate their damages, but a breached contract is simply a breached contract. You don't get to jump the counter at hertz and grab some keys if you prepaid for a car and they tell you they are out of cars. He resisted being removed. That's force. Passive resistance is force. he refused to leave. And calling doing nothing force is a real stretch. While passive resistance may be the cause for a use of force by police that doesn't change the common definition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 7:32:57 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, UAL seems to be owning it as their own - certainly in the court of public opinion, if not in probitive fact, so your summary may in the end turn out to be the one which is adjudicated, though it was not what actually occurred. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yeah, I didn't miss that. I just didn't want to type a dozen technicalities. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 7:40:19 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If it wasn't UAL it was one of their contractors. Something like oil and gas? Superior is generally fully indemnified against claims against their subs. I don't know how the contractor/subcontractor language involved in the Republic/UAL contract will affect the outcome of this case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 7:44:19 PM EDT
[#4]
A good business KNOWS the customer is always right
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 8:28:51 PM EDT
[#5]
I have made a point of staying out of these threads but I feel compelled to post today for some reason. I have worked at the same airline since I got out of the Air Force in the summer of 1991. Almost 26 years now and I have been a Captain for the past 14. During that time I have had more people than I would have ever thought removed from the aircraft. My airline has a very cookie cutter system for you to follow as Captain. You follow the protocol and then as Pilot In Command you make a decision to have the person removed and it's DONE. End of discussion. Our company lawyers gave us a class on what they want you to do and why. It makes good sense actually. If you follow it the FAR's and all federal laws are complied with and it's a done deal.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 9:26:40 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have made a point of staying out of these threads but I feel compelled to post today for some reason. I have worked at the same airline since I got out of the Air Force in the summer of 1991. Almost 26 years now and I have been a Captain for the past 14. During that time I have had more people than I would have ever thought removed from the aircraft. My airline has a very cookie cutter system for you to follow as Captain. You follow the protocol and then as Pilot In Command you make a decision to have the person removed and it's DONE. End of discussion. Our company lawyers gave us a class on what they want you to do and why. It makes good sense actually. If you follow it the FAR's and all federal laws are complied with and it's a done deal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 9:31:54 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did the United CEO state they were wrong in revoking boarding? And in the original thread we were told that the Chicago Airport Police (which may likely not be police) had no authority on the jetway side of the airport which would put their use of force in question even if the removal was legal. And calling doing nothing force is a real stretch. While passive resistance may be the cause for a use of force by police that doesn't change the common definition. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you have done nothing that violates their rules and if there are no other outside factors then they have no "power" to force you off the plane. They have entered into a contract and must honor the terms of the contract (e.g. Contract of Carriage). You can't move a renter out of your house while they are at work. You can't take merchandise back from a customer after a sale has been completed. Contracts are breached every single day. You aren't permitted to try to use force to make someone else carry through their obligations. Specific performance is almost unheard of in contract remedies. Renters are different because of landlord tenant law, which is well defined but confined to tenants. Meaning you cannot force them to perform on the contract, you can pursue damages as a remedy. Specific performance is when a court forces a party to perform what they agreed to Do, but it is very rare. If you sign a contract to buy a car, and at the end of it, after it's all signed and you made out a check to pay for it, the manager tears up the contract and says, we can't make money off this, no deal, you DONT get to pry the keys out of his hand and leave in the vehicle because "contract". It doesn't work that way. Making up examples that you think are grand theft doesn't change how the law works. You show up at a hotel with a pre paid reservation, and they say we are full, sorry, the law doesn't let you kick in a door and move in, it let's you sue for damages. The point is solid. You go to a dealership and find a car. You find one you like. You sign the contract to lease it. You take it home. Can the dealership come and pickup the car because they decided that they wanted one of their employees to have it? The passenger in the United case went to the airline's sales location, found a product, agreed to the contract, and took possession of the item. Sitting in a seat isn't "possession of the item." You're buying travel, not a specific seat. Travel is the item you're paying for. A parallel would be you lease a parking spot and paid for it, and they change their mind and don't let you park there any more. You sue for damages, you don't get to cut the chain and park there, and prohibit them from having you towed, because "contract". Contracts are breached EVERY DAY. You're allowed to breach a contract, the penalty is damages. It's not some sacred thing where you get to use force to make someone honor a contract. It's breached, so it's over. Sue for damages. You lease a parking spot. Then the parking lot owner decides that he wants his kid to park there. Can he have you towed out of the spot that you lease? Then you sue him. The law doesn't let you use force to try to make him perform the contract. The remedy will be a refund of your money. Not an order that he let you park there. United arguably breached the contract. That's it. Sue for breach. You don't have some right to fight your way back on the plane because "contract". If they broke the law by having you assaulted, sue for that, too. Once the contract is breached (generally) its over. Parties have an obligation to mitigate their damages, but a breached contract is simply a breached contract. You don't get to jump the counter at hertz and grab some keys if you prepaid for a car and they tell you they are out of cars. He resisted being removed. That's force. Passive resistance is force. he refused to leave. And calling doing nothing force is a real stretch. While passive resistance may be the cause for a use of force by police that doesn't change the common definition. And it's not a stretch. Go trespass and simply lat down when you are asked to leave, see what happens. There's nothing common about your subjective claims. Weak. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 9:37:14 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Wrong" does not mean illegal. Also, the statements of a CEO OF AN embattled company are not determinative. Damage control doesn't make it so. And it's not a stretch. Go trespass and simply lat down when you are asked to leave, see what happens. There's nothing common about your subjective claims. Weak. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you have done nothing that violates their rules and if there are no other outside factors then they have no "power" to force you off the plane. They have entered into a contract and must honor the terms of the contract (e.g. Contract of Carriage). You can't move a renter out of your house while they are at work. You can't take merchandise back from a customer after a sale has been completed. Contracts are breached every single day. You aren't permitted to try to use force to make someone else carry through their obligations. Specific performance is almost unheard of in contract remedies. Renters are different because of landlord tenant law, which is well defined but confined to tenants. Meaning you cannot force them to perform on the contract, you can pursue damages as a remedy. Specific performance is when a court forces a party to perform what they agreed to Do, but it is very rare. If you sign a contract to buy a car, and at the end of it, after it's all signed and you made out a check to pay for it, the manager tears up the contract and says, we can't make money off this, no deal, you DONT get to pry the keys out of his hand and leave in the vehicle because "contract". It doesn't work that way. Making up examples that you think are grand theft doesn't change how the law works. You show up at a hotel with a pre paid reservation, and they say we are full, sorry, the law doesn't let you kick in a door and move in, it let's you sue for damages. The point is solid. You go to a dealership and find a car. You find one you like. You sign the contract to lease it. You take it home. Can the dealership come and pickup the car because they decided that they wanted one of their employees to have it? The passenger in the United case went to the airline's sales location, found a product, agreed to the contract, and took possession of the item. Sitting in a seat isn't "possession of the item." You're buying travel, not a specific seat. Travel is the item you're paying for. A parallel would be you lease a parking spot and paid for it, and they change their mind and don't let you park there any more. You sue for damages, you don't get to cut the chain and park there, and prohibit them from having you towed, because "contract". Contracts are breached EVERY DAY. You're allowed to breach a contract, the penalty is damages. It's not some sacred thing where you get to use force to make someone honor a contract. It's breached, so it's over. Sue for damages. You lease a parking spot. Then the parking lot owner decides that he wants his kid to park there. Can he have you towed out of the spot that you lease? Then you sue him. The law doesn't let you use force to try to make him perform the contract. The remedy will be a refund of your money. Not an order that he let you park there. United arguably breached the contract. That's it. Sue for breach. You don't have some right to fight your way back on the plane because "contract". If they broke the law by having you assaulted, sue for that, too. Once the contract is breached (generally) its over. Parties have an obligation to mitigate their damages, but a breached contract is simply a breached contract. You don't get to jump the counter at hertz and grab some keys if you prepaid for a car and they tell you they are out of cars. He resisted being removed. That's force. Passive resistance is force. he refused to leave. And calling doing nothing force is a real stretch. While passive resistance may be the cause for a use of force by police that doesn't change the common definition. And it's not a stretch. Go trespass and simply lat down when you are asked to leave, see what happens. There's nothing common about your subjective claims. Weak. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 9:48:44 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As a general rule. You're wrong. We don't enforce contracts via force, we do so with damages. The other side breaches, and it's over. Go to court and try to prove breach and damages. Contracts are breached every single day. You aren't permitted to try to use force to make someone else carry through their obligations. Specific performance is almost unheard of in contract remedies. Renters are different because of landlord tenant law, which is well defined but confined to tenants. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If you have done nothing that violates their rules and if there are no other outside factors then they have no "power" to force you off the plane. They have entered into a contract and must honor the terms of the contract (e.g. Contract of Carriage). You can't move a renter out of your house while they are at work. You can't take merchandise back from a customer after a sale has been completed. Contracts are breached every single day. You aren't permitted to try to use force to make someone else carry through their obligations. Specific performance is almost unheard of in contract remedies. Renters are different because of landlord tenant law, which is well defined but confined to tenants. They have no LEGAL authority to force you off. They entered into a legal contract and are bound by law to honor that contract. I am not talking about a general rule but a very specific question from the OP. The airline, in the OP's question, is the first to violate the terms of the contract. I don't recommend that anybody do what the good Dr. did in the actual case. Second, contract terms ARE enforced by courts and they routinely issue injunctions. One of the features of coercive remedies such as specific performance and injunctions, is that the failure of the defendant to comply, results in a form of contempt of a court order and gives the plaintiff access to public enforcement weapons such as fine or imprisonment. If the airline exec refuses and is found in contempt of court a man with a gun will come by and escort him to jail. If that person resists then FORCE WILL BE USED. Problem with all this is that most people are reasonable and it never gets this far. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 9:51:06 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you have done nothing wrong 99.99% of the time, you aren't going anywhere. Why would they kick you off for no reason? They want the business, and don't want bad PR. The point is that if they want you off the plane, it will be justified under the CoC, or some other legal justification. And manufactured or not, there won't be anything you can do about it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If you have done nothing that violates their rules and if there are no other outside factors then they have no "power" to force you off the plane. They have entered into a contract and must honor the terms of the contract (e.g. Contract of Carriage). The point is that if they want you off the plane, it will be justified under the CoC, or some other legal justification. And manufactured or not, there won't be anything you can do about it. More of a theory question than real world application. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 9:56:59 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
At the aircraft, guess who decides if you have violated the contract. The airline does. If you have done something that appeared genuinely suspicious, after the Captain consults with Corporate Security, you are getting off the aircraft. You will likely not be told why, or you will be given an excuse. You may think you have done nothing wrong, maybe it was a naive thing you did and you didn't realize you did it, but you are getting off or the jet isn't going anywhere. And you can talk about it with the cops and corporate security coordinator while the aircraft leaves. If you refuse or become combative, you will be met with force to be removed. I am not justifying what United did for a bumped passenger. Not at all, although I can see why it got to that point. They should have had a policy to offer more money. But you may think you are abiding by that contract, and the airline may disagree and be able to articulate why, even though they may not tell you right away. The airline wants to make money and make people happy so they come back. The employees want ( or should want ) the same thing. United incident not withstanding, the vast majority of the time, there are valid and carefully considered reasons that you nay not be aware of, and every once in a while idiots collide like at United. Read that contract and understand what it says, as it applies to the real world. Your analogies are not analogous. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If you have done nothing that violates their rules and if there are no other outside factors then they have no "power" to force you off the plane. They have entered into a contract and must honor the terms of the contract (e.g. Contract of Carriage). You can't move a renter out of your house while they are at work. You can't take merchandise back from a customer after a sale has been completed. If you have done something that appeared genuinely suspicious, after the Captain consults with Corporate Security, you are getting off the aircraft. You will likely not be told why, or you will be given an excuse. You may think you have done nothing wrong, maybe it was a naive thing you did and you didn't realize you did it, but you are getting off or the jet isn't going anywhere. And you can talk about it with the cops and corporate security coordinator while the aircraft leaves. If you refuse or become combative, you will be met with force to be removed. I am not justifying what United did for a bumped passenger. Not at all, although I can see why it got to that point. They should have had a policy to offer more money. But you may think you are abiding by that contract, and the airline may disagree and be able to articulate why, even though they may not tell you right away. The airline wants to make money and make people happy so they come back. The employees want ( or should want ) the same thing. United incident not withstanding, the vast majority of the time, there are valid and carefully considered reasons that you nay not be aware of, and every once in a while idiots collide like at United. Read that contract and understand what it says, as it applies to the real world. Your analogies are not analogous. He's basically asking if an airline can kick you off just because they want to. Don't tell me... oh nobody would ever do that !!! Yes, I get that. This was a theory question not a real world question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 10:10:58 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can you remove a passenger that is sitting in his seat and not being disruptive? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 10:13:29 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We have a formal system for priority of passage. It is approved by the FAA and follows federal law. If we ask you to get off the plane we have a very good reason to do that. We will try to buy you off first. If you won't take the money then we will ask you to leave. If you don't then you have now placed yourself in jeopardy. You have been given a command from a crew member that you must follow. If you don't you are now interfering with a crew members duty and are in conflict with federal law. I will declare you a safety and security threat and you will go to jail. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Can you remove a passenger that is sitting in his seat and not being disruptive? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 10:19:26 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He's not going to accept the truth of this statement in 3, 2, 1
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 10:20:57 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He's not going to accept the truth of this statement in 3, 2, 1 Just because they don't like reality, doesn't make it so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 10:27:25 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't understand how these guys can be told the way it is, by the people who do it for a living, and still not believe it. Just because they don't like reality, doesn't make it so. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
He's not going to accept the truth of this statement in 3, 2, 1 Just because they don't like reality, doesn't make it so. The few people that insist on rejecting reality in favor of their own fantasies have no experience in these matters to begin with. But suddenly they're legal experts on the subject. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 10:33:08 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's been totally consistent too. Every person in this thread that is in the industry understands how and why these things turn out the way they do. The few people that insist on rejecting reality in favor of their own fantasies have no experience in these matters to begin with. But suddenly they're legal experts on the subject. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 10:33:40 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's been totally consistent too. Every person in this thread that is in the industry understands how and why these things turn out the way they do. The few people that insist on rejecting reality in favor of their own fantasies have no experience in these matters to begin with. But suddenly they're legal experts on the subject. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 11:00:57 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So they issued him a trespass notice? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you have done nothing that violates their rules and if there are no other outside factors then they have no "power" to force you off the plane. They have entered into a contract and must honor the terms of the contract (e.g. Contract of Carriage). You can't move a renter out of your house while they are at work. You can't take merchandise back from a customer after a sale has been completed. Contracts are breached every single day. You aren't permitted to try to use force to make someone else carry through their obligations. Specific performance is almost unheard of in contract remedies. Renters are different because of landlord tenant law, which is well defined but confined to tenants. Meaning you cannot force them to perform on the contract, you can pursue damages as a remedy. Specific performance is when a court forces a party to perform what they agreed to Do, but it is very rare. If you sign a contract to buy a car, and at the end of it, after it's all signed and you made out a check to pay for it, the manager tears up the contract and says, we can't make money off this, no deal, you DONT get to pry the keys out of his hand and leave in the vehicle because "contract". It doesn't work that way. Making up examples that you think are grand theft doesn't change how the law works. You show up at a hotel with a pre paid reservation, and they say we are full, sorry, the law doesn't let you kick in a door and move in, it let's you sue for damages. The point is solid. You go to a dealership and find a car. You find one you like. You sign the contract to lease it. You take it home. Can the dealership come and pickup the car because they decided that they wanted one of their employees to have it? The passenger in the United case went to the airline's sales location, found a product, agreed to the contract, and took possession of the item. Sitting in a seat isn't "possession of the item." You're buying travel, not a specific seat. Travel is the item you're paying for. A parallel would be you lease a parking spot and paid for it, and they change their mind and don't let you park there any more. You sue for damages, you don't get to cut the chain and park there, and prohibit them from having you towed, because "contract". Contracts are breached EVERY DAY. You're allowed to breach a contract, the penalty is damages. It's not some sacred thing where you get to use force to make someone honor a contract. It's breached, so it's over. Sue for damages. You lease a parking spot. Then the parking lot owner decides that he wants his kid to park there. Can he have you towed out of the spot that you lease? Then you sue him. The law doesn't let you use force to try to make him perform the contract. The remedy will be a refund of your money. Not an order that he let you park there. United arguably breached the contract. That's it. Sue for breach. You don't have some right to fight your way back on the plane because "contract". If they broke the law by having you assaulted, sue for that, too. Once the contract is breached (generally) its over. Parties have an obligation to mitigate their damages, but a breached contract is simply a breached contract. You don't get to jump the counter at hertz and grab some keys if you prepaid for a car and they tell you they are out of cars. He resisted being removed. That's force. Passive resistance is force. he refused to leave. And calling doing nothing force is a real stretch. While passive resistance may be the cause for a use of force by police that doesn't change the common definition. And it's not a stretch. Go trespass and simply lat down when you are asked to leave, see what happens. There's nothing common about your subjective claims. Weak. A clue. You desperately need one. Its not clever. I didn't say he was tresspassing, you know we were discussing whether or not refusing to leave can be force. Go circle jerk elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 11:04:35 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Should have been more clear. They have no LEGAL authority to force you off. They entered into a legal contract and are bound by law to honor that contract. I am not talking about a general rule but a very specific question from the OP. The airline, in the OP's question, is the first to violate the terms of the contract. I don't recommend that anybody do what the good Dr. did in the actual case. Second, contract terms ARE enforced by courts and they routinely issue injunctions. One of the features of coercive remedies such as specific performance and injunctions, is that the failure of the defendant to comply, results in a form of contempt of a court order and gives the plaintiff access to public enforcement weapons such as fine or imprisonment. If the airline exec refuses and is found in contempt of court a man with a gun will come by and escort him to jail. If that person resists then FORCE WILL BE USED. Problem with all this is that most people are reasonable and it never gets this far. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you have done nothing that violates their rules and if there are no other outside factors then they have no "power" to force you off the plane. They have entered into a contract and must honor the terms of the contract (e.g. Contract of Carriage). You can't move a renter out of your house while they are at work. You can't take merchandise back from a customer after a sale has been completed. Contracts are breached every single day. You aren't permitted to try to use force to make someone else carry through their obligations. Specific performance is almost unheard of in contract remedies. Renters are different because of landlord tenant law, which is well defined but confined to tenants. They have no LEGAL authority to force you off. They entered into a legal contract and are bound by law to honor that contract. I am not talking about a general rule but a very specific question from the OP. The airline, in the OP's question, is the first to violate the terms of the contract. I don't recommend that anybody do what the good Dr. did in the actual case. Second, contract terms ARE enforced by courts and they routinely issue injunctions. One of the features of coercive remedies such as specific performance and injunctions, is that the failure of the defendant to comply, results in a form of contempt of a court order and gives the plaintiff access to public enforcement weapons such as fine or imprisonment. If the airline exec refuses and is found in contempt of court a man with a gun will come by and escort him to jail. If that person resists then FORCE WILL BE USED. Problem with all this is that most people are reasonable and it never gets this far. Despite including injunctive relief in every cross complaint i have filed, ive never seen it ordered on a case i was directly involved in. In the airline arena, once the flight pulls away, thats it. No injunction is going to fix it, its a monetary damage case. In most circumstances, this is the case. Eta, I want to be clear here. I know there are injunctions directing specific performance. My point is they are exceedingly rare. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 11:59:46 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its clear you think you're clever. This is at least the third time youve seized upon an unrelated example of some concept and sputtered "so they did that?" Except reality. I didnt say he trespassed OR that they cited him. A clue. You desperately need one. Its not clever. I didn't say he was tresspassing, you know we were discussing whether or not refusing to leave can be force. Go circle jerk elsewhere. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you have done nothing that violates their rules and if there are no other outside factors then they have no "power" to force you off the plane. They have entered into a contract and must honor the terms of the contract (e.g. Contract of Carriage). You can't move a renter out of your house while they are at work. You can't take merchandise back from a customer after a sale has been completed. Contracts are breached every single day. You aren't permitted to try to use force to make someone else carry through their obligations. Specific performance is almost unheard of in contract remedies. Renters are different because of landlord tenant law, which is well defined but confined to tenants. Meaning you cannot force them to perform on the contract, you can pursue damages as a remedy. Specific performance is when a court forces a party to perform what they agreed to Do, but it is very rare. If you sign a contract to buy a car, and at the end of it, after it's all signed and you made out a check to pay for it, the manager tears up the contract and says, we can't make money off this, no deal, you DONT get to pry the keys out of his hand and leave in the vehicle because "contract". It doesn't work that way. Making up examples that you think are grand theft doesn't change how the law works. You show up at a hotel with a pre paid reservation, and they say we are full, sorry, the law doesn't let you kick in a door and move in, it let's you sue for damages. The point is solid. You go to a dealership and find a car. You find one you like. You sign the contract to lease it. You take it home. Can the dealership come and pickup the car because they decided that they wanted one of their employees to have it? The passenger in the United case went to the airline's sales location, found a product, agreed to the contract, and took possession of the item. Sitting in a seat isn't "possession of the item." You're buying travel, not a specific seat. Travel is the item you're paying for. A parallel would be you lease a parking spot and paid for it, and they change their mind and don't let you park there any more. You sue for damages, you don't get to cut the chain and park there, and prohibit them from having you towed, because "contract". Contracts are breached EVERY DAY. You're allowed to breach a contract, the penalty is damages. It's not some sacred thing where you get to use force to make someone honor a contract. It's breached, so it's over. Sue for damages. You lease a parking spot. Then the parking lot owner decides that he wants his kid to park there. Can he have you towed out of the spot that you lease? Then you sue him. The law doesn't let you use force to try to make him perform the contract. The remedy will be a refund of your money. Not an order that he let you park there. United arguably breached the contract. That's it. Sue for breach. You don't have some right to fight your way back on the plane because "contract". If they broke the law by having you assaulted, sue for that, too. Once the contract is breached (generally) its over. Parties have an obligation to mitigate their damages, but a breached contract is simply a breached contract. You don't get to jump the counter at hertz and grab some keys if you prepaid for a car and they tell you they are out of cars. He resisted being removed. That's force. Passive resistance is force. he refused to leave. And calling doing nothing force is a real stretch. While passive resistance may be the cause for a use of force by police that doesn't change the common definition. And it's not a stretch. Go trespass and simply lat down when you are asked to leave, see what happens. There's nothing common about your subjective claims. Weak. A clue. You desperately need one. Its not clever. I didn't say he was tresspassing, you know we were discussing whether or not refusing to leave can be force. Go circle jerk elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 12:31:58 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm just trying to understand exactly what he did that was illegal, as in what specific law was being broken. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you have done nothing that violates their rules and if there are no other outside factors then they have no "power" to force you off the plane. They have entered into a contract and must honor the terms of the contract (e.g. Contract of Carriage). You can't move a renter out of your house while they are at work. You can't take merchandise back from a customer after a sale has been completed. Contracts are breached every single day. You aren't permitted to try to use force to make someone else carry through their obligations. Specific performance is almost unheard of in contract remedies. Renters are different because of landlord tenant law, which is well defined but confined to tenants. Meaning you cannot force them to perform on the contract, you can pursue damages as a remedy. Specific performance is when a court forces a party to perform what they agreed to Do, but it is very rare. If you sign a contract to buy a car, and at the end of it, after it's all signed and you made out a check to pay for it, the manager tears up the contract and says, we can't make money off this, no deal, you DONT get to pry the keys out of his hand and leave in the vehicle because "contract". It doesn't work that way. Making up examples that you think are grand theft doesn't change how the law works. You show up at a hotel with a pre paid reservation, and they say we are full, sorry, the law doesn't let you kick in a door and move in, it let's you sue for damages. The point is solid. You go to a dealership and find a car. You find one you like. You sign the contract to lease it. You take it home. Can the dealership come and pickup the car because they decided that they wanted one of their employees to have it? The passenger in the United case went to the airline's sales location, found a product, agreed to the contract, and took possession of the item. Sitting in a seat isn't "possession of the item." You're buying travel, not a specific seat. Travel is the item you're paying for. A parallel would be you lease a parking spot and paid for it, and they change their mind and don't let you park there any more. You sue for damages, you don't get to cut the chain and park there, and prohibit them from having you towed, because "contract". Contracts are breached EVERY DAY. You're allowed to breach a contract, the penalty is damages. It's not some sacred thing where you get to use force to make someone honor a contract. It's breached, so it's over. Sue for damages. You lease a parking spot. Then the parking lot owner decides that he wants his kid to park there. Can he have you towed out of the spot that you lease? Then you sue him. The law doesn't let you use force to try to make him perform the contract. The remedy will be a refund of your money. Not an order that he let you park there. United arguably breached the contract. That's it. Sue for breach. You don't have some right to fight your way back on the plane because "contract". If they broke the law by having you assaulted, sue for that, too. Once the contract is breached (generally) its over. Parties have an obligation to mitigate their damages, but a breached contract is simply a breached contract. You don't get to jump the counter at hertz and grab some keys if you prepaid for a car and they tell you they are out of cars. He resisted being removed. That's force. Passive resistance is force. he refused to leave. And calling doing nothing force is a real stretch. While passive resistance may be the cause for a use of force by police that doesn't change the common definition. And it's not a stretch. Go trespass and simply lat down when you are asked to leave, see what happens. There's nothing common about your subjective claims. Weak. A clue. You desperately need one. Its not clever. I didn't say he was tresspassing, you know we were discussing whether or not refusing to leave can be force. Go circle jerk elsewhere. But i see the real problem. I never said he did anything illegal or broke any law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 12:40:54 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm just trying to understand exactly what he did that was illegal, as in what specific law was being broken. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm just trying to understand exactly what he did that was illegal, as in what specific law was being broken. An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(Pub. L. 103–272, §?1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1244; Pub. L. 107–56, title VIII, §?811(i), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 382.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 12:41:14 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, thats false, you cannot deny trying to play gotcha repeatedly, using unrelated examples, as i pointed out. But i see the real problem. I never said he did anything illegal or broke any law. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you have done nothing that violates their rules and if there are no other outside factors then they have no "power" to force you off the plane. They have entered into a contract and must honor the terms of the contract (e.g. Contract of Carriage). You can't move a renter out of your house while they are at work. You can't take merchandise back from a customer after a sale has been completed. Contracts are breached every single day. You aren't permitted to try to use force to make someone else carry through their obligations. Specific performance is almost unheard of in contract remedies. Renters are different because of landlord tenant law, which is well defined but confined to tenants. Meaning you cannot force them to perform on the contract, you can pursue damages as a remedy. Specific performance is when a court forces a party to perform what they agreed to Do, but it is very rare. If you sign a contract to buy a car, and at the end of it, after it's all signed and you made out a check to pay for it, the manager tears up the contract and says, we can't make money off this, no deal, you DONT get to pry the keys out of his hand and leave in the vehicle because "contract". It doesn't work that way. Making up examples that you think are grand theft doesn't change how the law works. You show up at a hotel with a pre paid reservation, and they say we are full, sorry, the law doesn't let you kick in a door and move in, it let's you sue for damages. The point is solid. You go to a dealership and find a car. You find one you like. You sign the contract to lease it. You take it home. Can the dealership come and pickup the car because they decided that they wanted one of their employees to have it? The passenger in the United case went to the airline's sales location, found a product, agreed to the contract, and took possession of the item. Sitting in a seat isn't "possession of the item." You're buying travel, not a specific seat. Travel is the item you're paying for. A parallel would be you lease a parking spot and paid for it, and they change their mind and don't let you park there any more. You sue for damages, you don't get to cut the chain and park there, and prohibit them from having you towed, because "contract". Contracts are breached EVERY DAY. You're allowed to breach a contract, the penalty is damages. It's not some sacred thing where you get to use force to make someone honor a contract. It's breached, so it's over. Sue for damages. You lease a parking spot. Then the parking lot owner decides that he wants his kid to park there. Can he have you towed out of the spot that you lease? Then you sue him. The law doesn't let you use force to try to make him perform the contract. The remedy will be a refund of your money. Not an order that he let you park there. United arguably breached the contract. That's it. Sue for breach. You don't have some right to fight your way back on the plane because "contract". If they broke the law by having you assaulted, sue for that, too. Once the contract is breached (generally) its over. Parties have an obligation to mitigate their damages, but a breached contract is simply a breached contract. You don't get to jump the counter at hertz and grab some keys if you prepaid for a car and they tell you they are out of cars. He resisted being removed. That's force. Passive resistance is force. he refused to leave. And calling doing nothing force is a real stretch. While passive resistance may be the cause for a use of force by police that doesn't change the common definition. And it's not a stretch. Go trespass and simply lat down when you are asked to leave, see what happens. There's nothing common about your subjective claims. Weak. A clue. You desperately need one. Its not clever. I didn't say he was tresspassing, you know we were discussing whether or not refusing to leave can be force. Go circle jerk elsewhere. But i see the real problem. I never said he did anything illegal or broke any law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 12:43:36 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46504 See the part about interfering with the performance of the duties? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm just trying to understand exactly what he did that was illegal, as in what specific law was being broken. An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(Pub. L. 103–272, §?1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1244; Pub. L. 107–56, title VIII, §?811(i), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 382.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 12:46:42 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Doesn't that sill require the ",by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft,"? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm just trying to understand exactly what he did that was illegal, as in what specific law was being broken. An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(Pub. L. 103–272, §?1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1244; Pub. L. 107–56, title VIII, §?811(i), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 382.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 12:53:22 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If an FA tells you to deboard the aircraft and you tell him "fuck you", in whatever language you choose, that's pretty much intimidating and interfering. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm just trying to understand exactly what he did that was illegal, as in what specific law was being broken. An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(Pub. L. 103–272, §?1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1244; Pub. L. 107–56, title VIII, §?811(i), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 382.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 12:57:44 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did he say that to a crew member? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm just trying to understand exactly what he did that was illegal, as in what specific law was being broken. An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(Pub. L. 103–272, §?1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1244; Pub. L. 107–56, title VIII, §?811(i), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 382.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 1:05:50 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You think he simply sat there ignoring all instructions from the flight crew? I doubt that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm just trying to understand exactly what he did that was illegal, as in what specific law was being broken. An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(Pub. L. 103–272, §?1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1244; Pub. L. 107–56, title VIII, §?811(i), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 382.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 1:10:15 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. However I was looking for answers not imagination. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm just trying to understand exactly what he did that was illegal, as in what specific law was being broken. An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(Pub. L. 103–272, §?1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1244; Pub. L. 107–56, title VIII, §?811(i), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 382.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 1:13:09 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. However I was looking for answers not imagination. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm just trying to understand exactly what he did that was illegal, as in what specific law was being broken. An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(Pub. L. 103–272, §?1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1244; Pub. L. 107–56, title VIII, §?811(i), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 382.) Apparently he refused, and told them to "drag him down", there is your "fuck you". |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 7:52:02 AM EDT
[#32]
Good thing the old guy didn't say "if you want to physically force me out of my seat you'll have to shoot me" which clearly would have provided the airline personnel with cause and license to have him shot.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 8:09:10 AM EDT
[#33]
Onboard an aircraft (even sitting on the ground) YOU are required by law to follow Crewmember instructions. The Captain has ultimate authority onboard, which he/she delegates to the rest of the crew. If they tell you to get off the plane, you leave. There are very good reasons for this authority. Your opportunity to object, argue, throw a tantrum or seek legal recourse, is someplace OFF the plane.
Is it fair? Is it right? Doesn't matter. The real problem is that the airline industry just doesn't give a shit about you as an individual passenger. Now, if a million passengers boycott a particular airline, you will have their attention. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 8:23:35 AM EDT
[#34]
AFAIK the captain had nothing to do with the incident and it was handled by cabin crew and gate staff.
The United Airlines Captains Association issued a state statement to the effect that they were "furious" at the manner in which this was handled and are laying the blame for the old guy's beating at the hands of the "Aviation Police" solely on those Police. The passenger who was beaten has not been charged with any crime, federal or otherwise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 8:29:53 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://nypost.com/2017/04/12/united-passenger-tells-security-to-drag-me-down-after-refusing-to-deplane/ Apparently he refused, and told them to "drag him down", there is your "fuck you". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm just trying to understand exactly what he did that was illegal, as in what specific law was being broken. An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(Pub. L. 103–272, §?1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1244; Pub. L. 107–56, title VIII, §?811(i), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 382.) Apparently he refused, and told them to "drag him down", there is your "fuck you". |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 9:03:45 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We have a formal system for priority of passage. It is approved by the FAA and follows federal law. If we ask you to get off the plane we have a very good reason to do that. We will try to buy you off first. If you won't take the money then we will ask you to leave. If you don't then you have now placed yourself in jeopardy. You have been given a command from a crew member that you must follow. If you don't you are now interfering with a crew members duty and are in conflict with federal law. I will declare you a safety and security threat and you will go to jail. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Can you remove a passenger that is sitting in his seat and not being disruptive? If he hadn't been on the plane in his seat this would have been a nonissue to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 9:06:03 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't understand how these guys can be told the way it is, by the people who do it for a living, and still not believe it. Just because they don't like reality, doesn't make it so. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
He's not going to accept the truth of this statement in 3, 2, 1 Just because they don't like reality, doesn't make it so. Why does United's contract of carriage have a list of reasons you can be denied boarding that includes being oversold, and a second list of reasons you can be removed that is much smaller? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 9:23:23 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let's take it a little different. You go to a dealership and find a car. You find one you like. You sign the contract to lease it. You take it home. Can the dealership come and pickup the car because they decided that they wanted one of their employees to have it? The passenger in the United case went to the airline's sales location, found a product, agreed to the contract, and took possession of the item. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you have done nothing that violates their rules and if there are no other outside factors then they have no "power" to force you off the plane. They have entered into a contract and must honor the terms of the contract (e.g. Contract of Carriage). You can't move a renter out of your house while they are at work. You can't take merchandise back from a customer after a sale has been completed. Contracts are breached every single day. You aren't permitted to try to use force to make someone else carry through their obligations. Specific performance is almost unheard of in contract remedies. Renters are different because of landlord tenant law, which is well defined but confined to tenants. Meaning you cannot force them to perform on the contract, you can pursue damages as a remedy. Specific performance is when a court forces a party to perform what they agreed to Do, but it is very rare. If you sign a contract to buy a car, and at the end of it, after it's all signed and you made out a check to pay for it, the manager tears up the contract and says, we can't make money off this, no deal, you DONT get to pry the keys out of his hand and leave in the vehicle because "contract". It doesn't work that way. Making up examples that you think are grand theft doesn't change how the law works. You show up at a hotel with a pre paid reservation, and they say we are full, sorry, the law doesn't let you kick in a door and move in, it let's you sue for damages. The point is solid. You go to a dealership and find a car. You find one you like. You sign the contract to lease it. You take it home. Can the dealership come and pickup the car because they decided that they wanted one of their employees to have it? The passenger in the United case went to the airline's sales location, found a product, agreed to the contract, and took possession of the item. You are wrong, and sound retarded. Outside of the Internet, someone like Mach wouldn't even bother to talking to you. I'm curious, What do you do for a living? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 9:41:07 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good thing the old guy didn't say "if you want to physically force me out of my seat you'll have to shoot me" which clearly would have provided the airline personnel with cause and license to have him shot. What does that statement hsve to do with...anything? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 9:42:08 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm sure airline procedures intentionally escalate actions on their part until the passenger is clearly intimidating and interfering. I'm not a lawyer or crew member, but I understand from the undergrad and grad level aviation law classes I took that the captain and his subordinate crew have nearly 100% authority on board, also 100% of responsibility. It dates back to centuries of martitime law. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm just trying to understand exactly what he did that was illegal, as in what specific law was being broken. An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(Pub. L. 103–272, §?1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1244; Pub. L. 107–56, title VIII, §?811(i), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 382.) You suggest here that airline policy is to "[I'm sure airline procedures] intentionally escalate actions on their part until the passenger is clearly intimidating and interfering." In the words of GD then you suggest "poking the bear." That is the airlines policy to to prod you to provoke a reaction that justifies their overreaction. It would be outrageous if is wasn't so patently juvenile and clearly incorrect. As others have noted he was "boarded," he was sitting in his seat quietly waiting to be transported to Louisville. ARF is interesting. If someone asks for Bankruptcy advice then people immediately pile on about people "honoring their agreements." That is all the United passenger wanted United to do - honor their agreement to fly him from Chicago to Louisville. That contract was a contract of adhesion, it was a "take it or leave it" offer. That sort of contract, with a common carrier has all sorts of regulatory and common law that will be used in it's interpretation. There were plenty of reasons he could have been denied boarding, but none of them come into play here - he was boarded, seated, and ready to go. Nothing had occurred to give the airline the contractual or regulatory right to remove him from the aircraft. It's straight up breach of contract. What's really humorous is the people who always accuse lawyers of playing fancy word games trying to weasel about words like "boarded" or arguing that provoking an action somehow obviates contractual requirements. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 9:44:32 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
AFAIK the captain had nothing to do with the incident and it was handled by cabin crew and gate staff. The United Airlines Captains Association issued a state statement to the effect that they were "furious" at the manner in which this was handled and are laying the blame for the old guy's beating at the hands of the "Aviation Police" solely on those Police. The passenger who was beaten has not been charged with any crime, federal or otherwise. Please lay off the hyperbolic nonsense. And has ANYONE been charged with any crime? Just curious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 10:43:08 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He wasnt "beaten". He was pulling away and hit his own head on the armrest. Please lay off the hyperbolic nonsense. And has ANYONE been charged with any crime? Just curious. But yeah, " he was pulling away and hit his own head on the armrest" since the aviation police who used force to resolve the matter on behalf of the airline bear no responsibly for man handling the passenger, and because you were there and saw exactly what transpired. Others who were there said the 69 year old man was beaten. At least we've gotten past the "he was a faggot felon fake doctor" narrative and the falsehood that "he had previously accepted the deal offered by the airline personnel and then changed his mind and reentered the aircraft and reclaimed his seat". We're still at " he broke federal law" and "he got what he deserved" as well as the obscene "he's totally responsible for his own injuries". Those will crumble like rotten melons as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 10:52:51 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Right, but when someone smarter than I am on a specific subject tells me I am wrong, and why I am wrong, I apologize, STFU, and move on. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's been totally consistent too. Every person in this thread that is in the industry understands how and why these things turn out the way they do. The few people that insist on rejecting reality in favor of their own fantasies have no experience in these matters to begin with. But suddenly they're legal experts on the subject.  You can't have it both ways.
I believe any business is well within their right to discriminate based on anything. Race, body weight, smell, religion, anything. The BOR is restrictions on the government. Nobody is guaranteed anything inside a business or private area. You choose to be there and accept their policy or you don't. I am a firm believer of a free market business. Unfortunately we haven't lived in one in decades if not centuries and likely will never again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 10:54:08 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You keep thinking of "his Seat" as if it's a physical thing that he bought. It isn't. He bought transportation A-B. Not specifically in that Seat. Not on that plane. You are wrong, and sound retarded. Outside of the Internet, someone like Mach wouldn't even bother to talking to you. I'm curious, What do you do for a living? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you have done nothing that violates their rules and if there are no other outside factors then they have no "power" to force you off the plane. They have entered into a contract and must honor the terms of the contract (e.g. Contract of Carriage). You can't move a renter out of your house while they are at work. You can't take merchandise back from a customer after a sale has been completed. Contracts are breached every single day. You aren't permitted to try to use force to make someone else carry through their obligations. Specific performance is almost unheard of in contract remedies. Renters are different because of landlord tenant law, which is well defined but confined to tenants. Meaning you cannot force them to perform on the contract, you can pursue damages as a remedy. Specific performance is when a court forces a party to perform what they agreed to Do, but it is very rare. If you sign a contract to buy a car, and at the end of it, after it's all signed and you made out a check to pay for it, the manager tears up the contract and says, we can't make money off this, no deal, you DONT get to pry the keys out of his hand and leave in the vehicle because "contract". It doesn't work that way. Making up examples that you think are grand theft doesn't change how the law works. You show up at a hotel with a pre paid reservation, and they say we are full, sorry, the law doesn't let you kick in a door and move in, it let's you sue for damages. The point is solid. You go to a dealership and find a car. You find one you like. You sign the contract to lease it. You take it home. Can the dealership come and pickup the car because they decided that they wanted one of their employees to have it? The passenger in the United case went to the airline's sales location, found a product, agreed to the contract, and took possession of the item. You are wrong, and sound retarded. Outside of the Internet, someone like Mach wouldn't even bother to talking to you. I'm curious, What do you do for a living? And if what you say is true "He bought transportation A-B. Not specifically in that Seat. Not on that plane." why do you select a specific flight when you buy a ticket? Why do you request a specific seat on that specific flight? Why do you have a specific time to show by where if you miss that time then you are shit out of luck? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 11:04:01 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The customer was forcibly dragged face forward into an arm rest across the aisle from where he was seated, and as a result was bloodied and loss a tooth or two. But yeah, " he was pulling away and hit his own head on the armrest" since the aviation police who used force to resolve the matter on behalf of the airline bear no responsibly for man handling the passenger, and because you were there and saw exactly what transpired. Others who were there said the 69 year old man was beaten. At least we've gotten past the "he was a faggot felon fake doctor" narrative and the falsehood that "he had previously accepted the deal offered by the airline personnel and then changed his mind and reentered the aircraft and reclaimed his seat". We're still at " he broke federal law" and "he got what he deserved" as well as the obscene "he's totally responsible for his own injuries". Those will crumble like rotten melons as well. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
He wasnt "beaten". He was pulling away and hit his own head on the armrest. Please lay off the hyperbolic nonsense. And has ANYONE been charged with any crime? Just curious. But yeah, " he was pulling away and hit his own head on the armrest" since the aviation police who used force to resolve the matter on behalf of the airline bear no responsibly for man handling the passenger, and because you were there and saw exactly what transpired. Others who were there said the 69 year old man was beaten. At least we've gotten past the "he was a faggot felon fake doctor" narrative and the falsehood that "he had previously accepted the deal offered by the airline personnel and then changed his mind and reentered the aircraft and reclaimed his seat". We're still at " he broke federal law" and "he got what he deserved" as well as the obscene "he's totally responsible for his own injuries". Those will crumble like rotten melons as well. I also never said he violated federal law, so theres a trifecta of fail from you. Par for the course. The incident was videotaped, he was carried out like a sack of potatoes, and hit his head resisting. Show me video of him being beaten, or statements from someone in a position to have seen it. ASSuming he was beaten because he ran back on, like a mental patient, with some blood on his face doesnt cut it. And, yes, if you are told you are going to be removed, and say you will have to drag me off, if you hit your head in the process, thats entirely on you. I guess you were raised to sit on the floor and blame others, which is fine. It doesnt change reality, though. Actions have consequences. He was told what would happen, he told them to drag him off, and he got exactly what he asked for. Literally, he told them to drag him off. Looks like his attorney way overplayed his hand, too. He should have asked for 5-10 and settled for 1-2 million on day one, promise them a press conference at noon and this would have gone away. Theres only one reason hes still flapping his gums, amd thats because he wants too much money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 11:07:28 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nothing is crumbling, cupcake. Find a reference by me to he was a fake doctor or his sexual orientation, and i will quit posting. It didnt happen. I also never said he violated federal law, so theres a trifecta of fail from you. Par for the course. The incident was videotaped, he was carried out like a sack of potatoes, and hit his head resisting. Show me video of him being beaten, or statements from someone in a position to have seen it. ASSuming he was beaten because he ran back on, like a mental patient, with some blood on his face doesnt cut it. And, yes, re told you are going to be removed, and say you will have to drag me off, if you hit your head in the process, thats entirely on you. I guess you were raised to sit on the floor and blame others, which is fine. It doesnt change reality, though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 11:13:37 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I say it's when the towbar flexes or at smaller airports I have seen a/c use thrust reversers to back up, yes at that point when the door is closed, the jetway is gone and he has to maneuver an a/c thru a maze of taxiways to sequence at the active runway http://code7700.com/images/kdfw_airport_diagram.png Anyone know for sure? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 11:14:33 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The funny thing is, a lot of the people bitching in this thread about the airlines removing people will be the first ones to say "their business their rules" in another thread. You can't have it both ways.
I believe any business is well within their right to discriminate based on anything. Race, body weight, smell, religion, anything. The BOR is restrictions on the government. Nobody is guaranteed anything inside a business or private area. You choose to be there and accept their policy or you don't. I am a firm believer of a free market business. Unfortunately we haven't lived in one in decades if not centuries and likely will never again. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's been totally consistent too. Every person in this thread that is in the industry understands how and why these things turn out the way they do. The few people that insist on rejecting reality in favor of their own fantasies have no experience in these matters to begin with. But suddenly they're legal experts on the subject. You can't have it both ways.
I believe any business is well within their right to discriminate based on anything. Race, body weight, smell, religion, anything. The BOR is restrictions on the government. Nobody is guaranteed anything inside a business or private area. You choose to be there and accept their policy or you don't. I am a firm believer of a free market business. Unfortunately we haven't lived in one in decades if not centuries and likely will never again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 11:20:59 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's odd that there is disagreement on this, but that shows what a tricky point it is. The Captain has complete authority when the aircraft is "in flight". You would think that would be when it leaves the ground, but it seems the "flight" begins from the government's point of view when the airplane starts moving with the intent to become airborne. Anyone know for sure? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I say it's when the towbar flexes or at smaller airports I have seen a/c use thrust reversers to back up, yes at that point when the door is closed, the jetway is gone and he has to maneuver an a/c thru a maze of taxiways to sequence at the active runway http://code7700.com/images/kdfw_airport_diagram.png Anyone know for sure? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 11:22:05 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If he didn't break any laws, then under what authority did government agents use force to remove him from the aircraft? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
