# Self Defence AGAINST an officer



## Midnight-shadow (Apr 13, 2017)

I'm sure we've all heard of the fiasco regarding the passenger who was forcibly removed from a United Airlines plane, to the point where he was knocked nearly unconscious and dragged down the plane by airport security. For those who don't know about this yet, here's the video of the event:






Now this brings up an interesting question. If you believe you are being treated unfairly by any kind of law enforcement, or experience violence from an officer, are you allowed to physically defend yourself? For example, let's say for example that when the security guards grabbed that passenger, and the passenger lashed out against them, stopping their advance, what would happen? If it went to court would the passenger have had reasonable grounds to defend themselves? Of course I know it depends on the situation, but if a law enforcement officer or security guard attacked you, could you legally defend yourself from them?

EDIT: As a side note, I have a friend who is ex-military and suffers from PTSD, to the point where if someone lays a hand on him in a threatening way he will instinctively strike them without warning. It's a completely reflexive action that he has very little control over. I can imagine him being that passenger, and the moment the security guards touched him he would knock them down. How would the courts treat that kind of scenario?


----------



## Paul_D (Apr 13, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> If it went to court would the passenger have had reasonable grounds to defend themselves?


I would assume you would need to provide strong evidence to support why you did not follow the officers instructions, in the first place.  Which, assuming they were reasonable, would be extremely difficult I imagine.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 13, 2017)

If they have probable cause to arrest you....then you have added the charge of battery on an officer...which is a felony plus resisting.

In that situation, the passenger could have been arrested for remaining after forbidden.

In my opinion, the officers should have instructed him that he was under arrest and if he failed to comply then forcibly removed him and added the charge of resisting.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 13, 2017)

If you feel you are being wronged the best thing to do is comply and handle it through filing complaints and civil court.

That way if you are wrong you are not adding charges or more problems for yourself.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Apr 13, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> If they have probable cause to arrest you....then you have added the charge of battery on an officer...which is a felony plus resisting.
> 
> In that situation, the passenger could have been arrested for remaining after forbidden.
> 
> In my opinion, the officers should have instructed him that he was under arrest and if he failed to comply then forcibly removed him and added the charge of resisting.


And in a situation where they either don't have probable cause to arrest you, or you are not resisting, then they starting beating you anyway? Are you still not allowed to defend yourself?


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 13, 2017)

2 separate things

1st



kempodisciple said:


> And in a situation where they either don't have probable cause to arrest you,



It's is possible they do have probable cause and you are incorrect.  Better to comply and handle it by complaints and court.



kempodisciple said:


> or you are not resisting, then they starting beating you anyway?



If you are compliant, and they just begin beating on you then yes you can defend yourself...but that is a little extreme...for officers to all of a sudden without provocation to just begin beating on you.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Apr 13, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> If they have probable cause to arrest you....then you have added the charge of battery on an officer...which is a felony plus resisting.
> 
> In that situation, the passenger could have been arrested for remaining after forbidden.
> 
> In my opinion, the officers should have instructed him that he was under arrest and if he failed to comply then forcibly removed him and added the charge of resisting.



Are airport security allowed to make arrests, or is that right reserved for actual police officers. And unfortunately we live in a world of extremes where the impossible is likely to happen.


----------



## Buka (Apr 13, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> Are airport security allowed to make arrests, or is that right reserved for actual police officers. And unfortunately we live in a world of extremes where the impossible is likely to happen.



Airport Security cannot make arrests. Airport Police Officers can.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 13, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> Are airport security allowed to make arrests, or is that right reserved for actual police officers. And unfortunately we live in a world of extremes where the impossible is likely to happen.


 Most large airports have commisioned police with arrest powers


----------



## hoshin1600 (Apr 13, 2017)

one word
....RAMBO....


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 13, 2017)

The answer to that question is difficult.  Mainly because anyone is allowed to defend themselves against an unlawful attack, but the question of whether or not the violence being applied is 'unlawful' is a question generally answered in retrospect by a judge and jury.

I am not a lawyer.  This is not legal advice.  My opinion would be that the best path is to comply and leave when asked.  You can always seek legal remedy later.

If you defend yourself against what you believe is an illegal assault by a police officer or security guard and you later find in court that you were mistaken, it can be costly.

But there's always this...

The Gracies Break Down How to Defend Yourself from United Airlines


----------



## JR 137 (Apr 13, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> I would assume you would need to provide strong evidence to support why you did not follow the officers instructions, in the first place.  Which, assuming they were reasonable, would be extremely difficult I imagine.



Exactly what I was going to say.

I didn't watch the video, but in general if you follow the verbal directions you're given, it most likely won't come down to a physical altercation.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 13, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> And in a situation where they either don't have probable cause to arrest you, or you are not resisting, then they starting beating you anyway? Are you still not allowed to defend yourself?


They asked him to deplane and he refused.  I don't think anyone got hit until after that happened.

And it's really not a question about 'allowed to defend yourself'.  You can defend yourself whenever you think it's right to do so.  The question is what happens afterwards.  The question about probable cause and whether or not you are resisting, etc, will be settled in court AFTER the beatdown.

When I was in law enforcement, you would not believe the number of people I arrested who insisted that I had no probable cause, etc.  They demanded this, they demanded that.  OK, fine, if I don't have PC or you are illegally arrested, then we'll figure it out in court.  But no, they were all TV talk show attorneys and they knew everything; they would order me to do this and do that.  Read me my rights!  I get a phone call!  Take these cuffs off!  I order you!  Yeah, no.

If I put the habeus grabbus on someone, they came along with me.  Like it or not.  Right or wrong.  If they fought back, they got apprehended anyway.  If it took more than one of us to secure that person, then that's what happened.   There was never a situation where someone put their hand up to me when I was arresting them and I went "Oh, dude, my bad, off you go."  Never happens.

People are funny.  They have all kinds of notions about what they can and cannot do or what I can or cannot do.  Bottom line; if I decide to put the cuffs on, they're going on.  One way or another.  There is not going to be a discussion about it.  Discussion is for courts.

I always recommend people do a citizen ride-along with their local cops.  Changes notions quickly.


----------



## JR 137 (Apr 13, 2017)

Buka said:


> Airport Security cannot make arrests. Airport Police Officers can.



Is TSA police or security?  By TSA, I'm (hopefully correctly) referring to the people at the metal detectors, bag x-ray machines, etc.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 13, 2017)

legally its tresspass. Their property. you leave.

Same as if I drag a guy out of a pub. Or you kick someone out of your house. even if you have paid. You don't get a tresspass exemption.


----------



## Buka (Apr 13, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Is TSA police or security?  By TSA, I'm (hopefully correctly) referring to the people at the metal detectors, bag x-ray machines, etc.



Neither, actually. They do not have a security team, nor any police officers as part of their agency.
My guess is, eventually, TSA will have it's own law enforcement unit. I hope so anyway, sure would make my life easier. Especially with folks who show up too drunk to fly. Too drunk to walk in some instances.

I do not like drunks.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 13, 2017)

Buka said:


> Airport Security cannot make arrests. Airport Police Officers can.



Total forcable restraints though?


----------



## Buka (Apr 13, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Total forcable restraints though?



Not where I am, security can't touch you.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 13, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Is TSA police or security?  By TSA, I'm (hopefully correctly) referring to the people at the metal detectors, bag x-ray machines, etc.



The TSA do not have arrest authority.

The TSA Blog: TSA Myth Busters: Do TSA Officers Arrest Passengers?


----------



## drop bear (Apr 13, 2017)

Buka said:


> Not where I am, security can't touch you.



Wow. here the cleaner could arrest you.


----------



## Buka (Apr 13, 2017)

Our airport also has FBI, DEA, ICE and DNLR officers. (Department of Land and Natural Resources) You just won't see them. If you're lucky.


----------



## Steve (Apr 13, 2017)

Only people arguing that the guy in the united flight was in the wrong are cops and former cops.

Am I the only one who finds that odd?


----------



## Buka (Apr 13, 2017)

Steve said:


> Only people arguing that the guy in the united flight was in the wrong are cops and former cops.
> 
> Am I the only one who finds that odd?



Human nature, I guess.

Or you could state it this way -

The only people arguing that the guy in the United flight was in the wrong are people who have had to forcibly remove people as part of their occupation.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 13, 2017)

Steve said:


> Only people arguing that the guy in the united flight was in the wrong are cops and former cops.
> 
> Am I the only one who finds that odd?



Depends on why you find it odd, I guess.  Cops and former cops probably have a little bit better understanding of the law than most who have never worked in that field.

However, former law enforcement here; I don't argue that the guy was 'in the wrong'.  What I argue is that it wasn't a good idea for him to resist when he was asked to deplane (and then ordered to deplane, and then dragged off the plane).  Was United wrong to ask him to leave?  That's for the courts to decide.  I don't know, I honestly do not.

However, I know what happens if a cop asks you to do something and you don't do it.  You can moralize, make assumptions, generalize, and decide what you think is right or wrong - all good, everybody is entitled to an opinion, etc.  But when you are ordered to deplane and you do not deplane, my experience tells me I know what happens next.  And sure enough, it did.

Now, had it been me in charge of that fiasco, I might have handled it differently.  Rather than have security guards (I assume they were guards and not cops), I'd have simply called the police, who are in every airport, and waited until they arrived.  Police approach and ask the man to deplane.  He refuses.  They arrest him for trespass (the plane belongs to the airline, the terms and conditions of the ticket he bought says they have the right to deny him travel).  He refuses and has to be dragged out.  Same end result perhaps.  But all nice and legal.

Cop asks you to get off the plane, get off the plane.  Or don't.  But understand that the cops don't shrug and give up and walk away.  That happens in no world.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Apr 13, 2017)

drop bear said:


> legally its tresspass. Their property. you leave.
> 
> Same as if I drag a guy out of a pub. Or you kick someone out of your house. even if you have paid. You don't get a tresspass exemption.



This is going off topic a bit but UA's contract of carriage clearly states the conditions where a passenger can be removed from the plane, and this incident doesn't come under any of those. In other words, the airline had no legal right to ask that passenger to leave, and therefore shouldn't have forcibly removed him from the plane. That is why I asked the question regarding using self-defence against law enforcement. The passenger resisted being removed from his seat and got injured because of it, but what would have happened if he had successfully fended off the security guards?


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 13, 2017)

Steve said:


> Only people arguing that the guy in the united flight was in the wrong are cops and former cops.
> 
> Am I the only one who finds that odd?



Because cops actually know the law instead of their arguments being based on emotions.


----------



## Buka (Apr 13, 2017)

Actually, it does. Kind of. They have several clauses that allow them to modify things on the fly. I'm not saying that's right or just. It just IS.

(I meant to quote Midnight Shadow's last post. Which I was commenting on)


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 13, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> This is going off topic a bit but UA's contract of carriage clearly states the conditions where a passenger can be removed from the plane, and this incident doesn't come under any of those. In other words, the airline had no legal right to ask that passenger to leave, and therefore shouldn't have forcibly removed him from the plane. That is why I asked the question regarding using self-defence against law enforcement. The passenger resisted being removed from his seat and got injured because of it, but what would have happened if he had successfully fended off the security guards?



Here is the contract of carriage:

Contract of Carriage Document | United Airlines

Now, I looked it over briefly and I also did not see any language about being removed from the plane because of overbooking.  That is why I said I do not know if United was wrong to try to have him removed or not.

What I said was that as far as being dragged out kicking and screaming, once United said the passenger had to leave, he was going to leave.  Period.  If United was wrong to have done so, lawsuit time.  Under no circumstances I can think of would the passenger have been permitted to demonstrate where the Contract of Carriage did not permit United to remove him, fight off the security guards attempting to remove him, and then be permitted to keep his seat and have the flight go on as planned.  That was NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

Given the reality of the situation and not a non-lawyer's attempt to understand the CoC, I'd still suggest that deplaning and then seeking legal redress would have been a far better solution for the passenger.

I have never, ever, seen a person stand up and explain that such-and-such CLEARLY STATES that umpty-ump and thus-and-so and end up getting their way in such situations.  Never happens.

As I've said, I've had my share of people I was arresting try to explain to me how they were innocent, how the rules didn't apply to them, how I wasn't allowed to arrest them and on and on and on.  Hugely entertaining, but in the end, the cuffs went on.  The cuffs always go on.

Opinion:  Comply and get a lawyer later.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 13, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> This is going off topic a bit but UA's contract of carriage clearly states the conditions where a passenger can be removed from the plane, and this incident doesn't come under any of those. In other words, the airline had no legal right to ask that passenger to leave, and therefore shouldn't have forcibly removed him from the plane. That is why I asked the question regarding using self-defence against law enforcement. The passenger resisted being removed from his seat and got injured because of it, but what would have happened if he had successfully fended off the security guards?



It falls under the overbooking clause in the carriage contract per DOT regulations...at least that was what was explained to me.

DOT mandates they do this to maintain flight schedules and lessen affecting passengers.

Lesser of two evils.  Affect one passenger or the passengers of multiple flights.


----------



## Buka (Apr 13, 2017)

I know if I was a passenger on that flight, and the good doctor was delaying it, I would have probably been shaken up to the point that I would have inadvertently spilled my tomato juice on him as he was dragged by. I always drink tomato juice prior to take off. (God, sometimes I so amuse myself)


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 13, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Here is the contract of carriage:
> 
> Contract of Carriage Document | United Airlines
> 
> ...



Rule 25 of contract


----------



## jobo (Apr 13, 2017)

in the uk, yes in principal , if the officer isn't acting with in his powers then you can defend yourself. If the arrest or the amount of forced used was judged unlawful then you fighting back would be law full. Security in my this country have exactly the same powers as an ordinary person.  that is they have a power of arrest if you have committed a indictable offence. So not for low level crime and if it turns out you hadn't committed a crime their arrest would be unlawfully. And therefore if you had fought back you would be in the clear. God only knows with airports, but if you are judged a trespassers and refuse to leave, then force can be used to make you


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 13, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Rule 25 of contract



Sure looks like it, thanks.


----------



## Steve (Apr 13, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Because cops actually know the law instead of their arguments being based on emotions.


once again, the law I is only one lens through which to look at an encounter.   The guy on the united flight will not be prosecuted.   He will, in fact, get a good deal of money.   

Also, cops can be very dangerous, but thoughtless obedience can get you killed.   Depends on who you are and where.

Sure.  You guus know better.  Except that what youre saying is in direct contrast to what actually happened and will happen in this case.    That is cognitive dissonance at its finest.


----------



## Buka (Apr 13, 2017)

One must embrace cognitive dissonance when one can, especially when it's at it's finest.
Also, I'm at an age where F off, F that, and F U answers just about every difference of opinion I could possibly encounter.

I must go to work now, and mull all I've read today. God, please don't give me any calls to take people off of planes today.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 13, 2017)

Also realize there can be probable cause to arrest you...even though you are innocent.  It is possible to be found innocent of the initial charge but found guilty of resisting arrest and battery upon an officer.


----------



## Steve (Apr 13, 2017)

Its also technically possible to be guilty of a crime and still be in the right.  And sometimes making things easy for a cop ruins any hope you have for justice.   In this case had the guy meekly complied he would have lost any chance at compensation.  It would also have proyect3d the status quo and kept this issue from coming  to light.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 13, 2017)

There are some basic presumptions which I think many people make without fully understanding how the law works.

Being innocent of a crime does not mean you cannot be arrested.  It does not mean you cannot be detained.  It does not mean you cannot face trial.

Being innocent - hopefully - means you don't get arrested in the first place.  But there is no guarantee.  Innocent people get arrested.  It's a fact of life.  It would be great if cops were 100% correct in their decisions all the time, but they are not.  Guilty people are not arrested, and innocent people are.  Not always, not even often, but it happens.  It will continue to happen.  There's no cure for it.

But in the USA, unlike many other countries, there is a presumption of innocence.  So just because a person is arrested, that does not mean they are guilty.  It does mean that the police can investigate, the courts can choose whether or not to grant bail, or to prosecute, and a judge or jury can ultimately decide on guilt or not.  In addition, a person charged with a crime does not have to prove their innocence; the jurisdiction must prove them guilty.  And our system also means that to be found guilty of a crime, a jury or judge must find the defendant guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt', which is a pretty high standard.

So there are lots of correct times and places for an actually innocent person to protest, to put forth their evidence, make their arguments, and so on.

The point of arrest is not that time or place.  The fact that many people think it is the right time and place changes nothing.  Glad you feel that way, still not true.  And frankly should not be true.  The system works pretty well overall.  Yes, there are flaws, and some systemic problems that must be addressed.  Still better than any other system of justice found in most places in the world.  It is a good system we have.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 13, 2017)

Steve, instead of arguing politics and we agree to disagree on whether he was wrong or right.

And simply agree that if you choose not to comply you run the risk of additional charges and/or problems.  And that is a decision each must make for themselves.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 13, 2017)




----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Apr 13, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> They asked him to deplane and he refused.  I don't think anyone got hit until after that happened.
> 
> And it's really not a question about 'allowed to defend yourself'.  You can defend yourself whenever you think it's right to do so.  The question is what happens afterwards.  The question about probable cause and whether or not you are resisting, etc, will be settled in court AFTER the beatdown.
> 
> ...



I'm not suggesting that in the video the person was defending himself/there was no cause. I'm just speaking in generalities. 

As for the rest, I know full well that probably 99% of the time the person was resisting/there was probable cause/etc. But, LEOs are people too, and there are some real a*holes that are people. If someone is beating the **** out of you, and they aren't wearing a uniform, they have the opportunity to defend themself. According to what you're saying, if someone is beating the **** out of you, and they are wearing a uniform, you have no opportunity to defend yourself, and just have to get hurt/hospitalized/killed (which does happen), then go to courts later. And chances are the courts will go along with the LEO. That's what I have an issue with. 


As for the "Bottom line; if I decide to put the cuffs on, they're going on.  One way or another.  There is not going to be a discussion about it.  Discussion is for courts." I agree with that. But if you come up to me and punch me in the face, throw me on the ground, taze me, etc. that's when I'm going to defend myself.

Regarding "I always recommend people do a citizen ride-along with their local cops.  Changes notions quickly." My dad was a police officer for over 20 years. He's had me go on ride alongs in the past. I never witnessed my dad, or his fellow LEO do what I'm referring to. But if one of them did, that's when there would be an issue.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 13, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> According to what you're saying, if someone is beating the **** out of you, and they are wearing a uniform, you have no opportunity to defend yourself, and just have to get hurt/hospitalized/killed (which does happen), then go to courts later.



I don't think anyone has said that.

Of course, if Cops just attack you for no reason you can defend yourself.  I think most us thought that goes without saying.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 13, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> If someone is beating the **** out of you, and they aren't wearing a uniform, they have the opportunity to defend themself. According to what you're saying, if someone is beating the **** out of you, and they are wearing a uniform, you have no opportunity to defend yourself, and just have to get hurt/hospitalized/killed (which does happen), then go to courts later. And chances are the courts will go along with the LEO. That's what I have an issue with.



Actually I did not say that and I hope I did not imply that.  I have never said I would take a beating just because the person beating me was a police officer.

What I said was that if I was asked to deplane and refused, something like this might happen to me.  If I resisted or defended myself, on the grounds that I felt the officer's actions were illegal, then it would be up to the courts to decide who was right and who was wrong.  If the courts found against me, I'd be facing some mighty poor choices for my future.  Now, I didn't say don't defend yourself.  I said consider the outcome and make your decision.

Under no circumstances in the above scenario are you going to defend yourself and then walk away without being arrested.  Do you think so?  Do you think the cops will understand that you only beat them up because you were defending yourself against an unlawful arrest?  This is the real world, that will not happen.  You will be arrested.  Whether it takes one cop or twenty, if it is decided that you are coming off the plane, you're coming off the plane.  



> As for the "Bottom line; if I decide to put the cuffs on, they're going on.  One way or another.  There is not going to be a discussion about it.  Discussion is for courts." I agree with that. But if you come up to me and punch me in the face, throw me on the ground, taze me, etc. that's when I'm going to defend myself.



That is for you to decide, and I understand your feeling.  I am stating facts - if you defend yourself, right or wrong, you're going to lose.



> Regarding "I always recommend people do a citizen ride-along with their local cops.  Changes notions quickly." My dad was a police officer for over 20 years. He's had me go on ride alongs in the past. I never witnessed my dad, or his fellow LEO do what I'm referring to. But if one of them did, that's when there would be an issue.



So maybe it doesn't happen that cops just take it into their heads to start beating people up for no reason very often.  That seems like a possibility.


----------



## Steve (Apr 13, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Steve, instead of arguing politics and we agree to disagree on whether he was wrong or right.
> 
> And simply agree that if you choose not to comply you run the risk of additional charges and/or problems.  And that is a decision each must make for themselves.


I'm not arguing politics.   I am trying to point out that complying with the cops isn't always in ones best interest.   Usually?   Maybe.  But always?    Nope.

It seems to me that this thfead isn't well served by recommending blind compliance.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 13, 2017)

"I recommend blind obedience to authority."

Words not spoken by myself or anyone in this thread that I've seen.

My opinion - and it is just an opinion - is this.  Based on the escalation of the incident, the doctor would have been better served by getting off the plane when asked.  Note that this is before any beating was administered.  He would not be national news, the 'problem' assuming there is one in United's CoC would not have been highlighted, and he certainly would not have a high-powered lawyer offering to sue everyone on his behalf.  But he'd have been compensated and would have gotten another flight.  The fact that he's a doctor and needed to be on the flight is certainly an issue.  But lots of things can affect airline travel.  Weather, traffic on the way to the airport, a forgotten nail clipper in a carry on bag, bad directions, a failed alarm clock, you name it.  Stuff happens.  One does what one can.

What did NOT happen in this incident is that the police or security guards simply boarded the plane, picked out an asian dude, and started whupping up on him.  HAD THAT HAPPENED, I would be the first to suggest he should have defended himself.

As far as I can tell, some people are intentionally conflating the notion of deplaning PRIOR to the beatdown with some kind of generic submission to authority which includes simply putting up with random strangers whupping up on a person, which NOBODY has said anyone should do.

Escalation:
1) We're overbooked, looking for volunteers, here's some money.  Nope, not taking it.
2) Still overbooked, still looking for volunteers, here's even more money.  Nope, not taking it.
3) Still overbooked, if we don't get any volunteers, we're going to pick some people at random.
4) Still overbooked, we've picked out four people, please get off the plane.  3 people get off the plane, one guy refuses.
5) Security guards tell guy to get off plane. Guy refuses. <--- THIS IS WHERE HE SHOULD HAVE CHOSEN TO EXIT
6) Security guards drag him off the plane, hurting him along the way.  <--- THIS DID NOT HAPPEN IN A VACUUM, SEE ABOVE ESCALATION

If Joe Schmoe walks up to me and starts swinging, badge or not, I'm going to defend myself.  I think anyone with a brain should do so.  If Joe Schmoe with a badge walks up to me and tells me to absquatulate, I may refuse, at least at first, but if he tells me I'm going to go squat elsewhere, whether or not I like it, and three other dudes with badges join in telling me that, perhaps it is time to reevaluate my machismo versus my very expensive new teeth and decide that discretion is the better part of valor.

Just a thought.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Apr 13, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> I don't think anyone has said that.
> 
> Of course, if Cops just attack you for no reason you can defend yourself.  I think most us thought that goes without saying.





Bill Mattocks said:


> Actually I did not say that and I hope I did not imply that.  I have never said I would take a beating just because the person beating me was a police officer.



I didn't assume either of you were saying that. That's what i was suggesting in my initial post...that in the particular situation of a police officer attacking me for no reason I think you should be able to defend myself. I gathered from the responses that I didn't make that clear, so I tried to clarify it.



> So maybe it doesn't happen that cops just take it into their heads to start beating people up for no reason very often. That seems like a possibility.



I absolutely agree with this. But the very often means that it does happen, no matter how rarely. Most cops wouldn't, but suggesting no cop would is making a blind generalization about cops.  In the situation were the cop is the type of person that would/is doing that is the situation in which I would be defending myself. I highly doubt I will ever be in that situation, luckily.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 13, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> I don't think anyone has said that.
> 
> Of course, if Cops just attack you for no reason you can defend yourself.  I think most us thought that goes without saying.



Yeah.  But even then. They have guns.  It is a big risk.

Even if you are justifiably restraining a cop and another one comes around the corner.  You are going to get bashed.

I would still feotal up and ride it out.


----------



## Steve (Apr 13, 2017)

And now it is revealed that the flight was overbooked.


----------



## jobo (Apr 13, 2017)

Steve said:


> And now it is revealed that the flight was overbooked.


well that's debatable, it was overbooked, but they got rid of some passengers at the gate, so there were enough seat for all the passengers, but then more passengers who worked for the air line arrived, and they wanted room for them, as they didn't have tickets, its hard to say it was over booked


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 13, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Yeah.  But even then. They have guns.  It is a big risk.
> 
> Even if you are justifiably restraining a cop and another one comes around the corner.  You are going to get bashed.
> 
> I would still feotal up and ride it out.



You have a point.

Its kinda like what Ron White said, "I didn't know how many it would take to whoop my a**, but I knew how many they would use."


----------



## Steve (Apr 13, 2017)

jobo said:


> well that's debatable, it was overbooked, but they got rid of some passengers at the gate, so there were enough seat for all the passengers, but then more passengers who worked for the air line arrived, and they wanted room for them, as they didn't have tickets, its hard to say it was over booked


Err...  no.  Not debatable.   United now admits that the flight was neither oversold nor overbooked.  It was full.  full is not overbooked or oversold.   

United says Flight 3411 wasn't overbooked. It just had no open seats left


----------



## Steve (Apr 13, 2017)

To the point of the thread, the best self defense when you're on the wrong side of a cop is a camera and hopefully some witnesses.  That's about your only protection against abuse of authority, if that is occurring.


----------



## Buka (Apr 14, 2017)

I have a couple of thoughts. I'm a person first, a Martial Artist second, and a cop after that. I do not let what I do for a living define who I am. I wasn't there (Chicago, was it?) I only saw and read what everyone else did. As I said, it's not how I would have handled it. Speaking from experience, I've escorted people off of planes before. Never had a problem. Probably because I have good verbal skills and can be incredibly charming. 

Also, where I work, we don't take orders from airlines. But as anyone who has been in the military, or law enforcement, know, they are  rank and file systems. Your superior officer gives you an order, you go do that task in the lawful manner in which you are trained (within reason, I hope that goes without saying, nobody if going to slaughter villages because you were ordered to) HOW you do that task might depend on your level of skill regarding that particular task.

As for police, hard to generalize, at least for me. I've spent a lot of time in L.A over the years. But I stopped going, despite having a great gig. I won't go there any more. Not because of the gangs, like the Crips, who I've done some work with, but because of the LAPD. I don't ever want to be around any of them. Yes, I know, there's good people on that force, good, honest, hard working public servants.(there must be) And my heart goes out to them. But I will never again be in that city with that force policing it. I went there last July, on my way here, but it was to say good bye to my good friend, Dorothy, who is 94 years old. I knew I'd never see her again if I didn't stop that time. And the whole time there, I kept looking over my shoulder for you know who - LAPD. (I know too many people in L.A, professional people, who feel the same way.) I nearly got shot there in 94 for committing a crime I didn't know I was committing. I jaywalked. (yes, shot) Look, I'm a cop, I don't exaggerate about things like this. And I have witnessed other incidents, far too many of them to dismiss.

Back to the United flight thing. They didn't handle that well. (gee, ya think?) But the gut feeling I have is - Doctor Douche is just that. And the guys that took him off that plane are also the exact same thing. Doesn't make it right, just saying.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 14, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> I'm sure we've all heard of the fiasco regarding the passenger who was forcibly removed from a United Airlines plane, to the point where he was knocked nearly unconscious and dragged down the plane by airport security. For those who don't know about this yet, here's the video of the event:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I haven't read many of the other posts yet. but "Defending yourself" is more than just attacking.   A person can defend themselves against police by doing what you can to prevent your head from hitting objects, by using words to help diffuse or calm the situation, or even by making a scene "yelling" to attract the attention to others.  People who are near become witnesses.

I wold never recommend to physically attack a police officer as a for of self-defense.  It'll not only weaken your court case, but it will also decrease your safety.  Keep in mind that police carry guns and other equipment. So the best defense that you'll have are the ones that will minimize your risks for injury.  As for the guy on the plane, he did a good job in acting "the screaming part" and he'll get a big payday for having 2 front teeth, a broken nose, and a concussion.  The other day I heard on the news that he agreed to be kicked off the flight and then changed his mind.  Does that warrant the abuse, nope.  But it will set up the reason for why the airline was trying to get him off the plan.  It's unknown if the guy communicated with the airport that he changed his mind.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Apr 14, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> "I recommend blind obedience to authority."
> 
> Words not spoken by myself or anyone in this thread that I've seen.
> 
> ...



You know, reading all this I'd be very interested to know exactly what was said to the passenger prior to the guards grabbing him. For example, did the guards tell the passenger that they would remove him by force if he didn't comply, or did they just grab him the first time he refused. I guess we'll never know, but hearing the conversation leading up to the incident might explain a few things.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 14, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> You know, reading all this I'd be very interested to know exactly what was said to the passenger prior to the guards grabbing him. For example, did the guards tell the passenger that they would remove him by force if he didn't comply, or did they just grab him the first time he refused. I guess we'll never know, but hearing the conversation leading up to the incident might explain a few things.



Initial news reports said two officers instructed him nicely to get up and leave a couple times and he refused.  Then the third grabbed him and the tussle began.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 14, 2017)

In my day, we followed these simple rules:
1 Ask 'em.
2 Tell 'em.
3 Take 'em.

There's no room for endless argument and bickering. Be nice, be professional. Ask them to please leave. If they refuse, tell them they must leave and explain that they will be taken by force if they refuse. Then lay hands on them and compel them to exit.

If you let them egage you in explaining and arguments and etc, it will never end. Ever.

I pulled a Marine lieutenant out the broken window of his Corvette once. Asked him to get out, he refused. Told him to get out, he rolled up his window. Busted his window with my mag lite, hauled his sorry *** out through the window, and applied the hand irons after a short wrestling match. Yes, he got mussed up some.

When I say get out of the car, you are getting out of the car. Your choice how that happens, but it's going to happen.

Ah, memories.


----------



## Steve (Apr 14, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> In my day, we followed these simple rules:
> 1 Ask 'em.
> 2 Tell 'em.
> 3 Take 'em.
> ...


In the civilian world, this sounds like a very short sighted and ill conceived rule.  We don't live in a police state and most people in this country don't want to.   This is an example of the kind of policing most cities are trying to move away from.   

But yeah, there are cops who will escalate situations like this, and this thread is supposed to be about what to do when you're the victim.  

 We can all presume that the cops on this forum are exemplary.  But not all are.  Just as we can presume, I hope, that the people on this forum are not violent criminals.   If we can have a discussion about the extremely unlikely possibility that we will be mugged, I think we should be able to have a discussion about the unlikely possibility that we will be victims of a frightened, incompetent, or dishonest cop who is abusing or misusing his or her authority.

In the real world, the only thing I can think of is presence of witnesses who hopefully have their phones out.police cameras work sometimes, too, such as dash cams or body cameras.  But that's after the fact.   You might already be a news story..


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 14, 2017)

Steve said:


> In the civilian world, this sounds like a very short sighted and ill conceived rule.  We don't live in a police state and most people in this country don't want to.   This is an example of the kind of policing most cities are trying to move away from.
> 
> But yeah, there are cops who will escalate situations like this, and this thread is supposed to be about what to do when you're the victim.
> 
> ...



Actually....in the real world how Bill described is correct.

Spending too much time explaining or arguing is how people (officers and civilians) get hurt.

Ask...tell...and then restrain and force.  The longer you explain and argue....the more chance the guy decides to fight or worse pull a weapon.

At swiftly and you minimize fighting and lethal force actions.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 14, 2017)

Steve said:


> Only people arguing that the guy in the united flight was in the wrong are cops and former cops.
> 
> Am I the only one who finds that odd?


If the doctor volunteered to get off the flight and then decided not to then he was wrong.  The people who had to take him off the plane were poorly trained for that scenario.  The good news is that new training is going to be on the horizon.  At the moment there isn't enough information to say who WA in the wrong.  I do however think that there is a better option than having 2 front teeth knocked out, a broken nose, a concussion, reconstructive surgery, a lawsuit, and bad PR. It would have been cheaper to just ask if someone else could take another flight. In return the airline could have sweeten the deal by giving the new volunteer a free flight by refunding the cost of the ticket and maybe adding some coupons that don't expire.  Or even giving a $200 inconvenience check would have been cheaper.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 14, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> In return the airline could have sweeten the deal by giving the new volunteer a free flight by refunding the cost of the ticket and maybe adding some coupons that don't expire. Or even giving a $200 inconvenience check would have been cheaper.



Actually I think the offer they gave him was 2 times his ticket price.

That is a big part of choosing who is voluntold is how much their ticket cost because DOT requires you to reimburse them double their ticket price.


----------



## Steve (Apr 14, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Actually....in the real world how Bill described is correct.
> 
> Spending too much time explaining or arguing is how people (officers and civilians) get hurt.
> 
> ...


That is from the perspective of the cop, not the victim.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 14, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> If the doctor volunteered to get off the flight and then decided not to then he was wrong.  The people who had to take him off the plane were poorly trained for that scenario.  The good news is that new training is going to be on the horizon.  At the moment there isn't enough information to say who WA in the wrong.  I do however think that there is a better option than having 2 front teeth knocked out, a broken nose, a concussion, reconstructive surgery, a lawsuit, and bad PR. It would have been cheaper to just ask if someone else could take another flight. In return the airline could have sweeten the deal by giving the new volunteer a free flight by refunding the cost of the ticket and maybe adding some coupons that don't expire.  Or even giving a $200 inconvenience check would have been cheaper.



I'm not sure what kind of damage the doctor suffered, but it seems to be getting worse and worse with each retelling.  

And while I agree with the "bad PR" and "lawsuit" problems United is now facing, as I read the stories, United DID ask for volunteers.  Repeatedly.  With cash incentives.  Starting at $400, a hotel and a rebooking, to $800, hotel and rebooking.  No one bit.  Not one person.

Now, some could argue that United should have just kept raising the ante until someone grabbed it - OK.  Maybe they should have.  But they did not just start out by ordering people off the plane.


----------



## Steve (Apr 14, 2017)

The lawyer for the man dragged off a United flight says his client needs reconstructive surgery for his injuries

Just to be clear here, as a private business, united can establish terms of service.   Asking for volunteers is common, and happens often without incident.   This isn't that.   This is what happens when you call in the troops to forcibly drag an old guy out of his seat.

And this thread is bizarre.  It's like asking a bunch of muggers how best to defend against mugging.   Of course, they would say, "best thing to do is give us your wallet, and comply with our every request."


----------



## Buka (Apr 14, 2017)

This thread is like listening to someone who has never done BJJ......tell someone how to do BJJ.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 14, 2017)

Steve said:


> The lawyer for the man dragged off a United flight says his client needs reconstructive surgery for his injuries
> 
> Just to be clear here, as a private business, united can establish terms of service.   Asking for volunteers is common, and happens often without incident.   This isn't that.   This is what happens when you call in the troops to forcibly drag an old guy out of his seat.
> 
> And this thread is bizarre.  It's like asking a bunch of muggers how best to defend against mugging.   Of course, they would say, "best thing to do is give us your wallet, and comply with our every request."



United is not a private business.  Once a company becomes public business once it sells its IPO and loses many of the rights that a private business would have.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Apr 14, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Now, some could argue that United should have just kept raising the ante until someone grabbed it - OK.  Maybe they should have.  But they did not just start out by ordering people off the plane.



Or not screw up their scheduling to the point where they had to force 4 paying customers off the flight to make room for extra flight crew.....


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Apr 14, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Initial news reports said two officers instructed him nicely to get up and leave a couple times and he refused.  Then the third grabbed him and the tussle began.



But did they make it clear to the passenger that they would remove him by force if he didn't comply, or was the conversation more like this:

"Please leave the airplane"
"No"
"Leave the airplane now"
"No"
*passenger grabbed and muscled out*

If the guards had made it clear that if the passenger didn't comply, they would remove him by force, would he have still refused. If so then I would call him out on his stupidity for not believing they would do it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 14, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> But did they make it clear to the passenger that they would remove him by force if he didn't comply, or was the conversation more like this:
> 
> "Please leave the airplane"
> "No"
> ...



"Leave the airplane now, or we are instructed to remove you by force."

"No."

...


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 14, 2017)

Buka said:


> This thread is like listening to someone who has never done BJJ......tell someone how to do BJJ.


Yes, if you are talking about how to defend against police.  In terms of the United problem, this issue is a company problem and not a law enforcement problem.  The company handled it incorrectly.  The security (or police) involved becomes a training issue.  

I would never recommend a blanket "How to defend yourself against police" statement simply because each case is different and defense isn't always a physical effort.  Where BJJ requires that a person have the skill sets, the United situation can be used to highlight opportunities and rights as a civilian and for most part none of them have anything to do with defending against an officer.  This situation is more of a legal issue where a civilian is better off understanding their rights as citizen vs trying to "defend against an officer."   In situations like this, the defense part is going to play out in the courts.


----------



## Buka (Apr 14, 2017)

Here's a stat from the Department of Transportation -

In 2015, 46,000 travelers were involuntarily bumped from flights.

That's just nuts.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Apr 14, 2017)

Buka said:


> Here's a stat from the Department of Transportation -
> 
> In 2015, 46,000 travelers were involuntarily bumped from flights.
> 
> That's just nuts.



Yeah, and as long as airlines are allowed to oversell their flights it will keep on happening.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 14, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> If the guards had made it clear that if the passenger didn't comply, they would remove him by force, would he have still refused. If so then I would call him out on his stupidity for not believing they would do it.


 There was nothing wrong with removing the guy by force.  Just understand that officers mean it when they say it.  It's a calculated risk for the passenger that could result in a big payday financially with the expense of getting his/her butt kicked.   If you pay for a plane ticket and have not negotiated an agreement for giving up your purchase, then you would most likely be in good standing legally for staying on the plane (I'm not a lawyer).  It would be no different than you buying a T.V. at the store, only to have the store employ take your T.V. away, bash you up and give it to the customer standing behind you.  Then tell you that you'll get your T.V. tomorrow.   There are 2 parts to what happened on the plane.  The first part is the Business Side of providing a service to a customer who has purchased the service (the police have nothing to do with this).  The second side is the Law Enforcement side where the security or the police have to follow the rules and do their job, this is a training issue (the company has nothing to do with this).  My guess is that the passenger's lawyer will have 2 law suits.  One against united and the other against the company / city that removed the person from the plane.  I double checked and found this.

From CNN "_The lawsuit will be filed in Cook County Circuit Court in Illinois, the lawyer said, indicating it would target both the airline and the city of Chicago, whose Department of Aviation was involved in removing Dao from the plane_."

United will say that they can't be sued for causing the injuries because they are not responsible for training the officer. They will probably highlight that in none of the United training instructs that passengers should be treated in that manner.   The lawyer will probably file a law suit against United for not providing a service that was paid for which ultimately ended up with the harm of the passenger on United's property.  The City or company that hired and train the police or security (not sure which was involved) well get sued for the actions of the security of officer involved.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 14, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> Yeah, and as long as airlines are allowed to oversell their flights it will keep on happening.



And when airlines aren't allowed to oversell their tickets all tickets will be non-refundable and the cost will be higher.

That is the cost of being allowed to cancel tickets or change flights.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 14, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> And when airlines aren't allowed to oversell their tickets all tickets will be non-refundable and the cost will be higher.
> 
> That is the cost of being allowed to cancel tickets or change flights.


from a legal perspective (again I'm not a lawyer) the passengers can probably sue each time the airline tries to bump a passenger.  If you have paid for a service to occur on a specific day, at a specific time.  Then the company owes you that service.  This is a business thing and not specifically an airline only thing.  Airlines aren't going to tell you about your your legal rights because it works against their favor, which is why the negotiate in hopes that you agree to something that is less expensive to the airline than a lawsuit.  "You are always free to decline the check (e.g., not cash it) and take the airline to court to try to obtain more compensation," according to the DOT." Source CNN link below.

For example, no airline is going to volunteer this information: "_Passengers have the right to insist on a check instead of a free flight or a voucher when they're involuntarily kicked off a flight, according to the DOT. And they always get to keep their original ticket, which retains its value._" By the way the check is a negotiated price so you can negotiate the best offer for yourself.  I would personally go for the check because everything else has an expiration date.

Read #4 in the CNN link below.

CNN has some information on what you can do if your flight is bumped.
Know your rights: What to do if your flight is overbooked

Much of the stuff I know is because I had about 3 years worth of business law studies as part of my major in college.  The most important thing to understand second to citizen's rights is your right as a consumer.  That way you don't have to have your 2 front teeth knocked out, nose broken, a concussion, and reconstructive surgery.   Yeah you'll get money but those injuries really suck


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 14, 2017)

Buka said:


> Here's a stat from the Department of Transportation -
> 
> In 2015, 46,000 travelers were involuntarily bumped from flights.
> 
> That's just nuts.



Out of how many travelers?


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 14, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> from a legal perspective (again I'm not a lawyer) the passengers can probably sue each time the airline tries to bump a passenger.



Sure, but the fact that the contract they signed upon buying their ticket allows for the airline to bump them and only pay them 2 times their ticket poses a problem for the suit.



JowGaWolf said:


> "_Passengers have the right to insist on a check instead of a free flight or a voucher when they're involuntarily kicked off a flight, according to the DOT. And they always get to keep their original ticket, which retains its value._"



Absolutely....you do not have to accept a voucher and can ask for a check.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 14, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> And when airlines aren't allowed to oversell their tickets all tickets will be non-refundable and the cost will be higher.
> 
> That is the cost of being allowed to cancel tickets or change flights.



Bingo.  Some percentage of passengers will not show, for a large variety of reasons.  Some percentage of those tickets are therefore transferable or refundable.  The airline does not earn any revenue on empty seats.  So they do math and figure out the odds and sell tickets accordingly.  Sometimes the odds are not in their favor; more show up than they planned for.  So they give refunds in those cases.

Eliminate oversold tickets and the prices per ticket go up.  Simple.  If everyone's OK with that, then fine.

For most tickets events, there is no refund if a person cannot make it.  Bad weather, illness, bad traffic, woke up late, boss would not let you leave on time, etc.  If you miss the prizefight you had tickets for, too bad, so sad.  Non-refundable for the most part.  You can complain and ***** and moan all you like, you're just out the money.

Airline seats are the same way.  Once the plane pushes back, that seat is useless to them.  Yet if the passenger misses the flight for a large number of reasons, they can get back their money or get another flight later, etc.  Only a few tickets are absolutely non-refundable no matter the reason.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 14, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Sure, but the fact that the contract they signed upon buying their ticket allows for the airline to bump them and only pay them 2 times their ticket poses a problem for the suit.


*Edit.*  I just read your second statement so ignore my response below.
Below is just useful information to help anyone else to learn about their consumer rights as an airline passenger. 

A company's contract or policy does not trump business laws.  There are some loopholes available Straight from the DOT's website.  Highlighted in read is your right as a consumer in the U.S.

"Airlines may offer free tickets or dollar-amount vouchers for future flights in place of a check for denied boarding compensation. However, if you are bumped involuntarily you have the right to insist on a check if that is your preference. Once you cash the check (or accept the free flight), you will probably lose the ability to pursue more money from the airline later on. However, if being bumped costs you more money than the airline will pay you at the airport, you can try to negotiate a higher settlement with their complaint department. If this doesn't work, you usually have 30 days from the date on the check to decide if you want to accept the amount of the check. *You are always free to decline the check (e.g., not cash it) and take the airline to court to try to obtain more compensation. DOT's denied boarding regulation spells out the airlines' minimum obligation to people they bump involuntarily.* Finally, don't be a "no-show." If you are holding confirmed reservations you don't plan to use, notify the airline. If you don't, they will cancel all onward or return reservations on your trip."


This guy sued and won for being bumped.  See how it played out.
From the link "_The rules provide that a passenger who has a reservation and who is asked to give up their seat because the flight is overbooked is entitled to a lot of money and the airline is required to fill them in on their rights right away. In writing_."
"_It also does not look like they told him about his compensation rights.

Unfortunately, this is a typical game all of the airlines play. They start offering compensation and travel that is less than what is required under the FAA rule hoping that people who haven't been properly informed about their rights will take the cheap offer. When this doesn't work they slowly raise the offers._"

Some more information about your rights as an airline passenger.

The key thing is to know your rights as a consumer.  In the case of the Dao and United, news has come out that they flight wasn't overbooked, which puts a new twist on everything. (source).   The good news is that we will probably see new regulations involving this practice


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 14, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Bingo. Some percentage of passengers will not show, for a large variety of reasons.


At the point of filling the seats, as long as airlines inform the customer that they may be bumped. Then no harm is done.  The passenger has significant notice that they may be bumped.  It's one thing to buy a ticket with the understanding that you have purchased a ticket in hopes that another passenger won't show.  But to purchase a ticket thinking that the plane isn't full is something totally different.  By creating the assumption that there is enough space on the plane when the ticket is purchased creates the issue of deceptive practices.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 14, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> At the point of filling the seats, as long as airlines inform the customer that they may be bumped. Then no harm is done.  The passenger has significant notice that they may be bumped.  It's one thing to buy a ticket with the understanding that you have purchased a ticket in hopes that another passenger won't show.  But to purchase a ticket thinking that the plane isn't full is something totally different.  By creating the assumption that there is enough space on the plane when the ticket is purchased creates the issue of deceptive practices.



Have no problem with that...but we also have to also realize that the Airlines are in the business of making money.  And as we require changes in SOP, those changes could cause price increases or stricter requirements for ticket refunds.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 14, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> But did they make it clear to the passenger that they would remove him by force if he didn't comply, or was the conversation more like this:
> 
> "Please leave the airplane"
> "No"
> ...



What do people think no means in that situation?

Maby that explains the suprised looks I got from time to time.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 14, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> At the point of filling the seats, as long as airlines inform the customer that they may be bumped. Then no harm is done.  The passenger has significant notice that they may be bumped.  It's one thing to buy a ticket with the understanding that you have purchased a ticket in hopes that another passenger won't show.  But to purchase a ticket thinking that the plane isn't full is something totally different.  By creating the assumption that there is enough space on the plane when the ticket is purchased creates the issue of deceptive practices.



I guess I would suggest people read their tickets and the conditions of carriage to see what they agree to when they buy a ticket.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 14, 2017)

Buka said:


> Neither, actually. They do not have a security team, nor any police officers as part of their agency.
> My guess is, eventually, TSA will have it's own law enforcement unit. I hope so anyway, sure would make my life easier. Especially with folks who show up too drunk to fly. Too drunk to walk in some instances.
> 
> I do not like drunks.


There are sworn TSA personnel.  I'm not sure how many or their exact grade/classification.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 14, 2017)

Not fighting through five pages (and counting) for the moment.  I see some drift into TSA and such, not surprising with the original question.

So... Can you resist an unlawful arrest?  Sure.  Maybe.  In some states.  Because they don't all have the same laws.  Or, let me rephrase...  Can you resist unlawful arrest?  Of course.  But should you?  Probably not.  Not at the scene.

There's a time and a place to fight.  (I think some Chinese guy said something to that effect...)  In the heat of the moment, when both you and the cop are keyed up, is not it.  The only exception I'll make to that is if you believe that rather than arrest, they're going to murder or seriously injure you.  (Not something that happens very often.)

See, even if it turns out that you were 100% innocent of the original charge supporting the arrest, if the cop was justified in his decision to arrest by probable cause -- you might still find yourself convicted of resisting.  As long as the cop was reasonable in his beliefs, based on the information and circumstances known to him, the resisting charge will stand.  That means that, so long as he can articulate facts and circumstances that would lead a similarly situated cop to reasonably believe that you more likely than not committed the alleged offense.  He can be wrong --  but so long as he had probable cause, the arrest is legal.  So, you get off the original offense... but eat the felony resisting charge whole.  Not a good plan...  And the odds are damn good that the cop's going to win the fight, too -- because he's paid to do so, and he'll have lots of friends coming to help him.

Go with the program.  Fight it later -- with an attorney.  File a complaint with the agency.  Sue. 

In short -- know the time, place, and manner to resist.  And pay someone who knows that stuff well enough to help you win it...


----------



## Steve (Apr 14, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Actually....in the real world how Bill described is correct.
> 
> Spending too much time explaining or arguing is how people (officers and civilians) get hurt.
> 
> ...


This presumes the guy is a bad guy who wants to argue, and is doing something wrong, other than being on the wrong side of a cop who's having a bad day.  As I said, you're approaching this from the perspective of someone on your wrong side.   What if it were you, as a civilian, on the wrong side of a bad cop?

Even if the guy is a bad guy, there is a real problem in some areas with a petty thief being shot by overzealous or frightened police officers, for example.  Cops in some areas seem pretty good at escalating, and Seem pretty bad at de-escalating.  

And before anyone goes overboard and starts pulling red herrings out, I'm not talking about the heroin addicted gang members.  Context matters.   No one can reasonably say that this AARP member was a danger to anyone.  Truly, he'd already been through all the screening, so if there were anyplace we could reasonably guarantee he's not a threat is in an airport or in a plane.   He just didn't want to give up his seat.   The escalation by the guys on the united flight was not okay and completely unnecessary.  The only people I've run across arguing that the cops did the right thing are other cops.


----------



## Steve (Apr 14, 2017)

jks9199 said:


> There are sworn TSA personnel.  I'm not sure how many or their exact grade/classification.


I don't know about sworn personnel.    Maybe, but I couldn't find any information on it.    Looked several places, and did run across this summary of the various positions.  This is from the TSA website:


*TSA PAY BANDS EXPLAINED*
Although the TSA is a Federal agency, it does not use the General Scale (GS) like most other arms of the Federal Government. The TSA uses a graded ‘Pay Band’ system. The full chart is pretty confusing, so here are the pay bands and base salary ranges for some of the most common jobs.

*TSA PAY BAND SALARY RANGE BY JOB*
*TSA Job* *Minimum Starting Salary* *Maximum Salary* *Pay Band Range*
TSA Security Officer (Agent) $22,613.00 $92,540.00 C – I
TSA Security Manager $40,150.00 $92,540.00 G – I
TSA Clerical Support $22,613.00 $44,891.00 C – E
TSA Administrative Support $26,031.00 $51,509.00 D – F
TSA Technical Support $29,891.00 $62,208.00 E – G
TSA Professional $34,303.00 $158,700.00 F – L (L is expert)
TSA Engineering $40,150.00 $158,700.00 G – L (L is expert)
TSA Specialized Tech Positions $34,303.00 $112,835.00 F – J
TSA Attorney $40,150.00 $158,700.00 F – M (L & M,are expert)
TSA Medical Officer $40,150.00


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 14, 2017)

Steve said:


> This presumes the guy is a bad guy who wants to argue, and is doing something wrong, other than being on the wrong side of a cop who's having a bad day.  As I said, you're approaching this from the perspective of someone on your wrong side.   What if it were you, as a civilian, on the wrong side of a bad cop?
> 
> Even if the guy is a bad guy, there is a real problem in some areas with a petty thief being shot by overzealous or frightened police officers, for example.  Cops in some areas seem pretty good at escalating, and Seem pretty bad at de-escalating.
> 
> And before anyone goes overboard and starts pulling red herrings out, I'm not talking about the heroin addicted gang members.  Context matters.   No one can reasonably say that this AARP member was a danger to anyone.  Truly, he'd already been through all the screening, so if there were anyplace we could reasonably guarantee he's not a threat is in an airport or in a plane.   He just didn't want to give up his seat.   The escalation by the guys on the united flight was not okay and completely unnecessary.  The only people I've run across arguing that the cops did the right thing are other cops.



At this point Steve....I really don't care.

You are entitled to your opinion and perspective.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 14, 2017)

jks9199 said:


> Not fighting through five pages (and counting) for the moment.  I see some drift into TSA and such, not surprising with the original question.
> 
> So... Can you resist an unlawful arrest?  Sure.  Maybe.  In some states.  Because they don't all have the same laws.  Or, let me rephrase...  Can you resist unlawful arrest?  Of course.  But should you?  Probably not.  Not at the scene.
> 
> ...



QFT

Do not surprise cops.
I've carried a gun since the 1990's. I've had numerous police encounters during that time (traffic offenses... go figure...). The fact that I was legally armed has only been an issue one time. And that was because I was outside the car when the officer contacted me, and I forgot to tell him that there was a gun in my car. His partner saw it. The surprise was an issue. Not being a complete idiot, I froze, didn't move, kept my hands visible, and answered their questions honestly. Ultimately, since everything was legal, everything was ok. But there's the lesson.
Do not surprise cops.

Do not argue with cops.
Again, thanks to those pesky speed limits. Polite, respectful, honest, and more often than not I get a warning.

Best self defense against a cop?
Don't be a **********.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 14, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Have no problem with that...but we also have to also realize that the Airlines are in the business of making money.  And as we require changes in SOP, those changes could cause price increases or stricter requirements for ticket refunds.


 Making money doesn't always mean higher prices.  Walmart has already proven that by showing the value of doing volume.  Higher prices without added value is a good formula for failure. 

The practice of overbooking by itself isn't a bad thing, but like everything else in this world, how you do it does matter.  If customers know ahead of time that their flight will be overbooked then it gives the customer a heads up.  For example, if a plane has 150 seats then passenger 151 should be made aware that they are booking an over booked flight and that there's a possibility that that they can fly that day because not everyone shows up.  However, there is also a possibility that they will be bumped in the event that everyone does show up, or in the event that an emergency requires another passenger to board.  The passenger should explain that the company will ask for volunteers first, then if no one volunteers then he/she will be e involuntarily bumped to another flight.   People are willing to pay for something like this as long as they understand what they are getting into and the chances that it will happen.  I can guarantee that the problem is that customers feel cheated because they go to the airport with the expectation that they will leave for their destination that day.

Here's an example of someone who doesn't mind "_Last week I was flying to Chicago on Southwest, and as always, I looked up the seat availability that morning. I noticed that the flight was sold out and got really excited. It was a perfect opportunity to volunteer for a bump. I had plenty of time before my work dinner that evening and was in no rush to get to Chicago. Essentially, it was between spending more time in the airport doing work or sitting in my hotel room completing the same work, no difference to me._" Source

I don't like overbooked flights because the companies try to be slick about it.  Better communication is needed.  If the plane is full then let people know as well as the likely hood of being bumped.  Policy needs to change to where if a person is late to check out, then they fall in the category for being bumped.   In addition notes can be made in the system about which passengers to choose from for involuntary bumping, instead of bumping randomly.  

If passengers also communicate with the Airlines and tell the airlines that it's urgent that they be at their destination then it's possible to avoid the involuntary bump.  People in general are willing to help if you communicate a specific need or urgency.  But let the airline know that up front before the ticket is purchased.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 14, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> Do not argue with cops.
> Again, thanks to those pesky speed limits. Polite, respectful, honest, and more often than not I get a warning.
> 
> Best self defense against a cop?
> Don't be a **********.



You can argue with cops, just don't be disrespectful.  I've done it when a police officer tried to tell me that the address on my license wasn't fake. He kept telling me that there wasn't a house at that location and I kept telling him that there was.  It's possible to argue your point without making the officer look stupid.  In the end, I ended up with a "community contact receipt" now ain't that a B***h. lol. After I was harassed for 10 minutes lol.  about where I was going and where I lived.  I got harassed about driving through a drug neighborhood, on my way to my home from work, which at that time was located in the hood.

Speeding tickets are totally something different.  When it comes to quota times,  some traffic police will pull you over even if you aren't speeding.  I've had that happen to me, when to court still got a ticket even though the police officer couldn't tell me if he clocked me coming or going. Even though he claimed to have known which position my car was located among 6 other cars.   He claimed that I was in the front of the other cars, but being in front doesn't = speeding.  In reality there was another car in front of me.  Even though his story didn't hold up and he couldn't answer the questions that I had, the judge still made me pay for the ticket.   Three years later I became friends with the county police and he hip me to the quota crap.  Then he told me about the other stuff that some police do in relation to generating money via tickets.  Burns me up.

Sometimes you just have to take a minor loss, go to court and hope the officer doesn't show up and only have to pay the court fee.  The best thing when dealing with the police is to understand your rights as a citizen and understand the laws of your state, city, and county.  Also drop the attitude when speaking to them.  No one likes attitude.


----------



## Steve (Apr 14, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> At this point Steve....I really don't care.
> 
> You are entitled to your opinion and perspective.


Okay.  No problem.  I would be interested in your answer to the question, as I believe it's a lot closer to the original question posed.  but I'm never going to convince a priest god doesn't exist, and wouldn't expect to.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 15, 2017)

Steve said:


> Okay.  No problem.  I would be interested in your answer to the question, as I believe it's a lot closer to the original question posed.  but I'm never going to convince a priest god doesn't exist, and wouldn't expect to.



The post was about normal everyday procedure.

Typically you ask, tell, then force....are there some exceptions sure.  But typically that is how you handle it.

You don't take chances with your safety.  

Typically, if you allow a suspect to continue to argue they build confidence in that they can oppose your authority which often times causes the situation to escalate.  That's why its better to shut it down quickly and get control of the suspect swiftly once the suspect proves he isn't willing to comply.  In doing so not only can you limit injury to yourself but also the suspect as well.  The idea is you gain control before he escalates into actual fighting.

In 17 years, I have seen numerous times officers try to convince someone to comply only to end up fighting the guy when they could have gained physical control much earlier and ended it before it escalated to an attack.  

I'm not arguing that the force they used on the plane was justified...I don't have enough info on what exactly they did.  But I do support the decision to forcibly remove him once he refused their authority.  I myself thought they should have advised him he was under arrest and instructed him to get up and place his hands behind his back that often times will de-escalate it in itself.  If he refused that command then go hands on.

At some point, arguing over authority becomes beating a dead horse and its a waste of time and energy.

And you don't have to beat them down...often times just simple restraint and escort position lets them know that their refusal is starting to escalate into possible charges and they will immediately de-escalate.  But steadily arguing with a suspect over authority is a pointless exercise.


----------



## Steve (Apr 15, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> The post was about normal everyday procedure.
> 
> Typically you ask, tell, then force....are there some exceptions sure.  But typically that is how you handle it.
> 
> ...


There's the disconnect.   You're talking about what is typically done.   I see this as an opportunity to talk about what isn't typical, but still happens.   And this guy isn't a suspect.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 15, 2017)

Steve said:


> There's the disconnect.   You're talking about what is typically done.   I see this as an opportunity to talk about what isn't typical, but still happens.   And this guy isn't a suspect.



What isn't typical is hard to discuss without specifics.  Police are put into position where you often times you have to make decisions on the spot and sometimes you might not make the perfect decision.  The only thing you can try and do is to stay within the confines of the law.

In this situation, the airline has asked him to de-board....he refused.

The airline ordered him to de-board...he refused.

Police asked him to de-board...he refused.

Police ordered him to de-board...he refused.

As an officer, you have to enforce the law...and in this situation it is reasonable to believe the airline had the right to force him off the airplane...refusal by him constitutes trespassing or remaining after forbidden.  So how would you have enforced this?


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 15, 2017)

Steve said:


> And this guy isn't a suspect.



To answer this....when the airline contacted the police and complained that he would not de-board at that time he is a suspect of trespassing or remaining after forbidden.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 15, 2017)

Steve said:


> This presumes the guy is a bad guy who wants to argue, and is doing something wrong, other than being on the wrong side of a cop who's having a bad day.  As I said, you're approaching this from the perspective of someone on your wrong side.   What if it were you, as a civilian, on the wrong side of a bad cop?
> 
> Even if the guy is a bad guy, there is a real problem in some areas with a petty thief being shot by overzealous or frightened police officers, for example.  Cops in some areas seem pretty good at escalating, and Seem pretty bad at de-escalating.
> 
> And before anyone goes overboard and starts pulling red herrings out, I'm not talking about the heroin addicted gang members.  Context matters.   No one can reasonably say that this AARP member was a danger to anyone.  Truly, he'd already been through all the screening, so if there were anyplace we could reasonably guarantee he's not a threat is in an airport or in a plane.   He just didn't want to give up his seat.   The escalation by the guys on the united flight was not okay and completely unnecessary.  The only people I've run across arguing that the cops did the right thing are other cops.



Ok.  Two issues.
You can use force to remove people from private property. Remember how we were having all these discussions about only using force in self defence.  And I kept saying it is not the whole picture. This is one example. You absolutely can drag a guy off a plane for no reason. Pretty much anywhere.
Now you can suggest it is right or wrong.  And in the court case.  That will absolutely be debated. And there is no guarantee it will work out either way. So just this issue will be interesting to look at to see how the law actually addresses an assault charge. 


But. 
There is also what is vs what should be.  Yes if a cop just goes straight off the deep end.  You should be able to fight back.  But he has a gun and can shoot you.

So aside from the morality of the situation how do you address that?


----------



## Buka (Apr 15, 2017)

jks9199 said:


> There are sworn TSA personnel.  I'm not sure how many or their exact grade/classification.



_Every_ TSA worker is "sworn in" when they get the job. _Every single one of them_. But that is as an employee. (typical U.S government b.s when starting a new agency) There are no security, no police, no nothing. Honest. There are some that are designated as "_whatever_" (not sure of the term, I forget) but that is for internal watchdoggidness of their own employees, not for the public passing through TSA checkpoints.


----------



## Steve (Apr 15, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> What isn't typical is hard to discuss without specifics.  Police are put into position where you often times you have to make decisions on the spot and sometimes you might not make the perfect decision.  The only thing you can try and do is to stay within the confines of the law.
> 
> In this situation, the airline has asked him to de-board....he refused.
> 
> ...


How I would have handled it would be to prevent it from happening in the first place by handling it at the gate.   If I screwed that up, I would have sweetened the deal until someone takes me up on the offer.

What wouldn't I do?   Call the cops to forcibly remove a senior citizen from his chair.  It will absolutely cost them far more than my suggestion above, guaranteed.

Now, what would you do if you were dealing with a bad cop who, as buka said, seems like he's escalating to violence because you jaywalked?   That, in my opinion, is much closer to self defense against a cop than saying, "gee, the guy was technically trespassing at that point.  So, anything goes."


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 15, 2017)

Steve,

You failed to say what you would do as the police officer in that situation though?


----------



## Steve (Apr 15, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Steve,
> 
> You failed to say what you would do as the police officer in that situation though?


thats a different conversation entirely.   You keep trying to flip the narrative so that the cops are the victims and the victim is a criminal.   I'm not interested in indulging you in that.   This thread is about self defense against an officer.

So, to the actual topic of the thread, you're a senior citizen, you're sitting unarmed in a chair, or perhaps are jaywalking, and a cop starts escalating to the point you think he's going to tase  you, strike you or shoot you.   Those are the two scenarios proposed so far in this thread.   What would you do.  How does one defend oneself from this cop or these cops?  So far, meekly comply and hope for the best is what we've been advised by the cops.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 15, 2017)

Steve said:


> You keep trying to flip the narrative so that the cops are the victims and the victim is a criminal.



Not trying to victimize anyone....just pointing out the different perspective.  You keep bringing up cops opinions so I'm pointing out their perspective.



Steve said:


> So, to the actual topic of the thread, you're a senior citizen, you're sitting unarmed in a chair, or perhaps are jaywalking, and a cop starts escalating to the point you think he's going to tase you, strike you or shoot you.



You comply and de-escalate.

What do you want that senior citizen to do.....fight? pull a weapon?  Escape through a dimensional portal?

Best option is to comply and handle wrongs through complaints, and court.

Again if you think you are right and the officer has no PC, authority, or the orders are unlawful then by all means fight....just be willing to accept the consequences of those actions.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 15, 2017)

Steve said:


> What would you do. How does one defend oneself from this cop or these cops?



Sorry I failed to answer your question.

I would:

1). When they ask me....I'm gonna to calmly explain why I disagree with them.  And will continue while they are asking me for compliance.

2)  Once they begin ordering me to comply....I would comply but while doing so I'm going to tell them they are making a mistake and that I plan to take legal action.

3)  afterwards go through proper channels in filing a complaint and or taking legal action against them.



This way nothing escalates and no one gets hurt.  I also minimize the trouble I am in in case I am in the wrong.


----------



## JP3 (Apr 15, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> I also minimize the trouble I am in in case I am in the wrong.



I have a sneaky feeling that you'd be found to be "in the wrong," down the road if you, in the example only, continued to escalate with a perhaps irrational officer. Officers are human beings, too, and can be wrong, but the legal structure has a way of defending the officer's position, even if not his/her actions, later on.

I totally agree with the "how" you'd handle it. I'd do the same.


----------



## Buka (Apr 15, 2017)

I need a hug.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 15, 2017)

Delta increased the payout for bumping passengers.  Their new policy is that the will pay up to $9,990 in compensation for a passenger that has to give voluntarily give up their seat this is their new cap.  It was a good call on them.  The fact is that it will probably never get up that high.  Someone will probably give up their seat before it even reaches $2000.  With the new policy I'm pretty sure delta passengers won't mind giving up that seat.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 15, 2017)

Steve said:


> thats a different conversation entirely.   You keep trying to flip the narrative so that the cops are the victims and the victim is a criminal.   I'm not interested in indulging you in that.   This thread is about self defense against an officer.
> 
> So, to the actual topic of the thread, you're a senior citizen, you're sitting unarmed in a chair, or perhaps are jaywalking, and a cop starts escalating to the point you think he's going to tase  you, strike you or shoot you.   Those are the two scenarios proposed so far in this thread.   What would you do.  How does one defend oneself from this cop or these cops?  So far, meekly comply and hope for the best is what we've been advised by the cops.



Ok. say it was a gang of hells angels. What do you think people will suggest?


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 15, 2017)

Steve said:


> There's the disconnect.   You're talking about what is typically done.   I see this as an opportunity to talk about what isn't typical, but still happens.   And this guy isn't a suspect.


Steve, 
The problem is he BECAME a suspect when he refused to exit the plane.  He became of suspect of at least 2 offenses -- trespass, and being disorderly conduct on a plane.  He was offered enticements to leave the plane, and refused them.  The officers warned him that if he didn't leave voluntarily, he would be removed forcibly.  How long were they supposed to talk to him and try to wheedle him into leaving voluntarily?  It appears the air crew members that he was losing his seat to were being moved to maintain schedules; delaying that particular plane would have disrupted the schedule of every plane along it's flight line, as well as the ones similarly impacted by the flight crew.  And the planes coming into that terminal, and at each terminal along the way...  Huge ripples.  How long were they supposed to take?  

Were there better ways to handle that incident?  Hell, yes. Way before he was yanked off the plane, United had options.  Even once boarded, they had other options.  But he contributed to the situation, too, with his behavior.  But, once the cops are involved, at some point -- he IS going to be removed from the plane.  And real world use of force is not pretty.

Dirty cops are pretty rare in US, despite the press and noise from groups like BLM.  And the majority of those who are don't deliver unwarranted beat downs; they're on the take in some form or another.  The odds of  you being in a situation with a cop who is going to deliberately harm you are very low.  The best way to avoid that small risk as well as the risk of dealing with the more likely "everyday corruption?"  DON'T BREAK THE LAW.  Amazing how few potentially hostile encounters you'll have with the cops if you don't break the law.  And avoid places where other people routinely break the law.  Throw in "don't be an *******" and you'll prevent most problems, whether dealing with cops or rude clerks...


----------



## Steve (Apr 15, 2017)

jks9199 said:


> Steve,
> The problem is he BECAME a suspect when he refused to exit the plane.  He became of suspect of at least 2 offenses -- trespass, and being disorderly conduct on a plane.  He was offered enticements to leave the plane, and refused them.  The officers warned him that if he didn't leave voluntarily, he would be removed forcibly.  How long were they supposed to talk to him and try to wheedle him into leaving voluntarily?  It appears the air crew members that he was losing his seat to were being moved to maintain schedules; delaying that particular plane would have disrupted the schedule of every plane along it's flight line, as well as the ones similarly impacted by the flight crew.  And the planes coming into that terminal, and at each terminal along the way...  Huge ripples.  How long were they supposed to take?
> 
> Were there better ways to handle that incident?  Hell, yes. Way before he was yanked off the plane, United had options.  Even once boarded, they had other options.  But he contributed to the situation, too, with his behavior.  But, once the cops are involved, at some point -- he IS going to be removed from the plane.  And real world use of force is not pretty.
> ...


All of that is understood.  I think, if we live in a country where you can purchase a seat on a plane, receive a boarding pass, board with this pass and, while sitting in your assigned seat, be told you are trespassing just because, and then have that trespassing lead to having the crap beat out of you by the cops, there's a problem with our relationship with cops.  it could literally happen to anyone.

So, once again, let's say you're like buka, who says he was almost shot by a cop in la for jaywalking.  What would you do if you jaywalked and a cop escalates to the point you're getting the crap beat out of you?  Would you just go fetal and take your licks, hoping someone has a camera?  Because, that's really about all I can think of.  

To be clear, this continues to be about cops defending the actions of other cops, which isn't the intent of the thread.   I get that you guys think these cops were just poor guys doing their jobs beating up old people.   But this thread isn't about these poor guys, helpless really, as sympathetic as their story is.   I know they really didn't want to have to physically manhandle this 69 year old dude.   I know it probably caused them to feel really bad.  I get it.

But his thread isn't about those guys.


----------



## Steve (Apr 15, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Ok. say it was a gang of hells angels. What do you think people will suggest?


Truly, I wonder what the cops here would say in answer to this question.


----------



## Steve (Apr 15, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Sorry I failed to answer your question.
> 
> I would:
> 
> ...


Wait, so when the cop starts beating on you, you'd calmly ask him to stop?  Lol.  The thing is, cops can be erratic, and while they escalate well, they don't deescalate very well at all.  

Of course, de ograohics and locality matter, and will have a huge impact on the likelihood that an interaction will go south.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 15, 2017)

Steve said:


> Truly, I wonder what the cops here would say in answer to this question.


If you know what you're doing, a biker gang is quite easy to deal with.  Kind of like diving with sharks...  Dangerous, but handled properly, manageable.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve (Apr 15, 2017)

jks9199 said:


> If you know what you're doing, a biker gang is quite easy to deal with.  Kind of like diving with sharks...  Dangerous, but handled properly, manageable.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


Is it a secret?  Would similar tactics work with cops?


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 15, 2017)

Steve said:


> Wait, so when the cop starts beating on you, you'd calmly ask him to stop?  Lol.  The thing is, cops can be erratic, and while they escalate well, they don't deescalate very well at all.



No I wouldn't give him a reason to start beating on me.

But to answer your question if it is a rogue cop making an illegal attack:

I dunno....maybe the smart thing to do is like another poster said...maybe fetal position up and hope they stop....  Because you are being illegally attacked by someone who is much more armed than you....do you want to take the chance of this rogue cop resorting to lethal force?


Remove the fact that its a cop.....if an attacker armed with a gun starts beating on you what do you do?  Same thing if that officer is not working under the color of the law.

Also, its harder for me to give advice in this because I am always armed so I am never at as much of a disadvantage as others.  Truthfully, an illegal attack on me that threatens my life...I'm going to handle with force, but I'm going to do so along my force continuum training.  I understand that alot of people do not have that at their disposal.


----------



## Steve (Apr 15, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> No I wouldn't give him a reason to start beating on you.
> 
> But to answer your question if it is a rogue cop making an illegal attack:
> 
> ...


The recommendation to go fetal, and hope someone has a camera running, was me.   Maybe other people, too, if I missed it.  Great minds, and all that.

Okay.  you guys are having trouble considering this from a non-cop perspective.   Try this.  Do you think that beating up a senior citizen is an appropriate response to any non-violent situation?  As cops, do you think escalating a non-violent situation and making it violent is good policing?  To be clear, I'm not talking about where a guy has a weapon in hand or is threatening people.   I'm talking about jaywalkers (which you guys don't seem to want to address as I've asked several times what you would do in buka's situation), people trespassing on a plane in the chairs they purchased... things like that.   This may be the crux of the problem here. I think that's bad juju.  It may be legal, but it's a bad sign, and people know it.  I think on some level, you guys have to know it, too, or you wouldn't have worked so hard to control the narrative in this thread.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 16, 2017)

Steve said:


> The recommendation to go fetal, and hope someone has a camera running, was me.   Maybe other people, too, if I missed it.  Great minds, and all that.
> 
> Okay.  you guys are having trouble considering this from a non-cop perspective.   Try this.  Do you think that beating up a senior citizen is an appropriate response to any non-violent situation?  As cops, do you think escalating a non-violent situation and making it violent is good policing?  To be clear, I'm not talking about where a guy has a weapon in hand or is threatening people.   I'm talking about jaywalkers (which you guys don't seem to want to address as I've asked several times what you would do in buka's situation), people trespassing on a plane in the chairs they purchased... things like that.   This may be the crux of the problem here. I think that's bad juju.  It may be legal, but it's a bad sign, and people know it.  I think on some level, you guys have to know it, too, or you wouldn't have worked so hard to control the narrative in this thread.



I would have dragged him. Not sure what the issue is. I got paid to get people out of places. Guys,girls,old people, young people,people I liked.

I don't drag people as a first response. But I do drag them. If they say they are not going to leave. Of course I escalate a non fight into a fight.

Precisely people who have paid to enter. Precisely people who are tresspassing. 

That is what these jobs entail.

As far as the narrative there is nobody controling it really. if a bunch of guys who can kill you want to beat you up. Then they beat you up. There really isnt much wriggle room. 

You seem to be trying to find  a nice work around I dont think there is one. If you have a nice work around come up with one. Balls kind of in your corner.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 16, 2017)

Ok. so lets turn this around and suggest that the authority is on the wrong side of the power struggle. 

Security working at Maccas out manned. 





Same problem same solution really. Feotal up ride out the beating.


----------



## Juany118 (Apr 16, 2017)

In terms of defending yourself against a police officer it is complicated.  First keep in mind I am going to base this on the assumption that the officer had some reason to retain or arrest.

The physical force would start if you decided to resist detention/arrest.  Whether or not it is legal to do so if you THINK the detention is unlawful is actually a State by State kinda thing however resisting arrest and/or defending yourself, imo, is perhaps the stupidest thing to do, even if you think you are right, here's why.

First you could very well be in error.  The number of times someone has screamed "false arrest" when I had only lawfully detained them is almost without count, even after I said "You are only being detained, you are not under arrest." If you match the description of a suspect you may get detained, and released when shown not to be the bad guy, as one example.  Thing is the officer isn't under a legal obligation to tell you what's going on right out of the gate.   He could be trying to detain you because a gun point robbery occurred around the corner BUT he plans on keeping his mouth shut about why until you are detained because IF you were the robber you may run or pull that gun so the officer may come up with a pretext statement to detain you, yep we can lie and BS suspects.

Second if you are right BUT the Officer in question is acting in "good faith" his actions are still technically legal and your actions illegal, that is why most resisting arrest statues contain language like "resisting a lawful arrest or discharging any lawful duty.  

The use of force the officer can use is directly tied to your level of resistance.  So you are passively resisting I can joint lock you or OC Spray you.  You start pulling away or trying to break my lock I can start kneeing the heck out you or case you.  You start swinging and I can pull my baton to block your strikes and apply locks.  If you evidence martial arts skill, superior strength I can then start actively sacking you with the baton.  If that doesn't work and you persist in the "defense"/assault I can likely justify shooting you.

It's just overall a bad idea, better to just go with the program and avoid having to "defend" yourself and then, if the officer was in the wrong file an Act 1983 law suit.


----------



## Buka (Apr 16, 2017)

I still need a hug.

Ugly thread.


----------



## JP3 (Apr 16, 2017)

jks9199 said:


> Throw in "don't be an *******" and you'll prevent most problems, whether dealing with cops or rude clerks...



It is amazing to me how many people forget that simple truth.


----------



## JP3 (Apr 16, 2017)

On the old guy in the plane... I'm actually sort of surprised that some other person on the plane, once it became evident that Everyone's flight was going to be way delayed if the old guy didn't get off the plane didn't just reach over the seat, pick up the old guy and hand him over.

I am partially serious. I'm sure we all know at least one guy who gets wound up enough in weird situations who would do something like that.


----------



## Steve (Apr 16, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I would have dragged him. Not sure what the issue is. I got paid to get people out of places. Guys,girls,old people, young people,people I liked.
> 
> I don't drag people as a first response. But I do drag them. If they say they are not going to leave. Of course I escalate a non fight into a fight.
> 
> ...


sorry.   I'm not being clear.   I don't think there's much to do.   As I've said before, the only defense I can think of is fetal and hope someone is recording.  Doesn't sound like anyone else has a better idea, either.  

Regarding the cop issue, When I was a younger person, playing dungeons and dragons, one of my friends loved playing paladins.   The thing about them is they have to be lawful good alignment.  Used to give my friend a hard time because, we'd say, he didn't play them lawful good, he played them lawful stupid.  I'm sure most cops are just fine.   But some aren't.   Some are lawful stupid.  They do things that may be lawful, but aren't good.  

one thing you might not know, drop bear, is that there's a real divide in the USA right now.  A lot of folks don't trust the police, and that's not good.  And a lot of police do things that erode trust, which is also not good.   As a result, many areas are training cops differently and returning to the idea of community policing.   Some areas do better than others, I believe.   Seattle seems to be doing better. 

Ultimately, if cops are beating up on harmless senior citizens, that's like a canary in the mine.  It's a symptom of bad juju.


----------



## Steve (Apr 16, 2017)

JP3 said:


> On the old guy in the plane... I'm actually sort of surprised that some other person on the plane, once it became evident that Everyone's flight was going to be way delayed if the old guy didn't get off the plane didn't just reach over the seat, pick up the old guy and hand him over.
> 
> I am partially serious. I'm sure we all know at least one guy who gets wound up enough in weird situations who would do something like that.


This is a tangent, but you're right.   On a plane, if another passenger is perceived to be holding things up, temperatures rise quickly.  But if the airline holds things up, regardless of the cause, people know to just hunker down and behave, because if the flight attendant even imagines you're looking at him or her wrong, your *** is grass.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 17, 2017)

Steve said:


> sorry.   I'm not being clear.   I don't think there's much to do.   As I've said before, the only defense I can think of is fetal and hope someone is recording.  Doesn't sound like anyone else has a better idea, either.
> 
> Regarding the cop issue, When I was a younger person, playing dungeons and dragons, one of my friends loved playing paladins.   The thing about them is they have to be lawful good alignment.  Used to give my friend a hard time because, we'd say, he didn't play them lawful good, he played them lawful stupid.  I'm sure most cops are just fine.   But some aren't.   Some are lawful stupid.  They do things that may be lawful, but aren't good.
> 
> ...



I grew up in an era of community policing. It still wasn't a system of do whatever you want.


----------



## wingerjim (Apr 17, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> I'm sure we've all heard of the fiasco regarding the passenger who was forcibly removed from a United Airlines plane, to the point where he was knocked nearly unconscious and dragged down the plane by airport security. For those who don't know about this yet, here's the video of the event:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fight the cops in court and not in-person. Look this guys was wrong for not following the commands of the police. Regardless if you think you are in the right or not, there is no point in fighting against the police in my humble opinion. First this man could not win a fight under those circumstances or maybe in any circumstance. Second it was likely explained to him long before the police were called and likely by a number of people. Third if he felt he was wronged it would be better to comply and address this situation in court vs trying to fight the police and airlines. Now having said that, I hope this may change the airlines policy of overbooking. I understand why they do it as they calculate the likelihood that people will simply not show up for a flight and sell that many more tickets as this must be a very lucrative practice that virtually no other industry does, such as selling tickets for sporting events, concerts, moving tickets, etc.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> in the uk, yes in principal , if the officer isn't acting with in his powers then you can defend yourself. If the arrest or the amount of forced used was judged unlawful then you fighting back would be law full. Security in my this country have exactly the same powers as an ordinary person.  that is they have a power of arrest if you have committed a indictable offence. So not for low level crime and if it turns out you hadn't committed a crime their arrest would be unlawfully. And therefore if you had fought back you would be in the clear. God only knows with airports, but if you are judged a trespassers and refuse to leave, then force can be used to make you




Ah 'security' in this country, well they wouldn't have been on the plane to start with nor would have police officers ( you want me to send police officers to remove a gentlemen who is causing no problems just because you want his seat for a staff member? yeah right that is going to happen...not).
As for 'officers not acting on their powers' well police officers here know their powers and they won't being acting outside them because of the bother, paperwork and sheer fuss that happens, you needs that sort of pain? 'Citizens' arrest is no longer the term used here. A police officer will always arrest that person anyway whether or not you arrest them as a 'citizens' arrest. Security officers should know the conditions under which they can 'arrest'.
apart from 'indictable 'offences, a civilian can also arrest someone under common law ( this is English and Welsh law btw, I'm not up on Scottish law having never worked there) if they are
(a) causing physical injury to himself or any other person; (b) suffering physical injury; (c) causing loss of or damage to property; or (d) making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him. As well as (a) a breach of the peace is committed in his presence, (b) the person effecting the arrest reasonably believes that such a breach will be committed in the immediate future by the person arrested, or (c) a breach of the peace has been committed or the person effecting the arrest reasonably believes that a breach of the peace has occurred and that a further breach is threatened.



The Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984:
24A Arrest without warrant: other persons
(1) A person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—
(a) anyone who is in the act of committing an indictable offence;
(b) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence.
(2) Where an indictable offence has been committed, a person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—
(a) anyone who is guilty of the offence;
(b) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it.
(3) But the power of summary arrest conferred by subsection (1) or (2) is exercisable only if—
(a) the person making the arrest has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (4) it is necessary to arrest the person in question; and
(b ) it appears to the person making the arrest that it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make it instead.
(4) The reasons are to prevent the person in question—
(a) causing physical injury to himself or any other person;
(b) suffering physical injury;
(c) causing loss of or damage to property; or
(d) making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him.”
In relation to England and Wales, the expression "indictable offence" means an offence which, if committed by an adult, is triable on indictment, whether it is exclusively so triable or triable “either way”; and the term "indictable", in its application to offences, is to be construed accordingly. There is no simple definition. 
An either way offence allows the defendant to elect between trial by jury on indictment in the Crown Court and summary trial in the Magistrates' Court. However, the election may be overruled by the Magistrates' Court if the facts suggest that the sentencing powers of a Magistrates' Court would be inadequate to reflect the seriousness of the offence. These offences can be the subject of an  arrest.


as for trespass that is more complicated, in England you can't just chuck someone off your land forcibly, there has to be reasons to do it.
Section 61 CJPOA (Stones: 8-24900) enables a police officer to direct trespassers on land (who are there with the common purpose of residing there for any period) to leave the land where the occupier has taken steps to ask them to do so, and either:


they have damaged the land; or
they have used threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour to the occupier, the occupier's family, employees or agents; or
between them they have 6 or more vehicles on the land.
Failure to obey a direction to leave or returning to the land as a trespasser within 3 months is an offence.

Section 62 provides a power for the police to seize vehicles of persons failing to comply with a direction under s6 1.

The senior officer present at the scene has to believe that the conditions set out in s 62(1) have been fulfilled. Evidence that they were fulfilled in fact will be relevant only in an inquiry into the questions whether the senior officer held the belief and whether, if he or she did, the belief was reasonably held. A defendant charged with an offence under the section (or, for example, charged with assaulting a police office in the execution of her or his duty) will be entitled to raise these questions. Although a successful defence along these lines is likely to be rare, the senior police officer will need to provide evidence in all cases justifying his or her giving of a direction.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 17, 2017)

This is the video of the doctor BEFORE he was taken off.
United Dragging Disaster: New Video Surfaces of Doctor Moments Before He’s Brutally Forced Off Plane


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 17, 2017)

jks9199 said:


> trespass, and being disorderly conduct on a plane



In the UK he couldn't be taken off for trespass unless he was also committing a crime/ was on military property/ the aircraft was someone's residential property..

The video released showing him before he was dragged off shows he wasn't being disorderly, though of course it's in the airlines interest to say he was so I imagine the police were told he was to get them on the aircraft and remove him.
I look forward with interest to the court case. I have popcorn.


----------



## Steve (Apr 17, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> This is the video of the doctor BEFORE he was taken off.
> United Dragging Disaster: New Video Surfaces of Doctor Moments Before He’s Brutally Forced Off Plane


It appears that the CEO of United is now saying exactly what I've been saying for days.  It also appears that the guy was actually more calm while on the phone with United than I would have expected. 



Tez3 said:


> In the UK he couldn't be taken off for trespass unless he was also committing a crime/ was on military property/ the aircraft was someone's residential property..
> 
> The video released showing him before he was dragged off shows he wasn't being disorderly, though of course it's in the airlines interest to say he was so I imagine the police were told he was to get them on the aircraft and remove him.
> I look forward with interest to the court case. I have popcorn.


It will probably never get to court, Tez3, unless United fails to offer enough money, or Dao is so pissed off about this entire thing that he refuses to settle and wants to run United through the ringer. 

Also, seeing this new video, I have to hand it to the guy for warning everyone.  He was very clear about what was going to happen. 

Related to the topic of the thread, it seems we can glean one more thing you should probably do.  When you are in a situation like this, remain as calm as possible, but be loud enough so that others around you are aware there is something going on.  This will hopefully encourage someone to start recording the situation so that you have tangible evidence of your actual behavior.  In the video Tez3 shared above, the guy was clearly being assertive, but I don't think many people would characterize his behavior as disruptive or belligerent.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 17, 2017)

In the US, most states allow commercial property owners to revoke permission to be on or use property.  Failure to leave or returning afterwards constitutes simple trespassing or remaining after forbidden.

My state's law:

_Entry on or remaining in places or on land after being forbidden 

A. No person shall without authority go into or upon or remain in or upon or attempt to go into or upon or remain in or upon any structure, watercraft, or any other movable, or immovable property, which belongs to another, including public buildings and structures, ferries, and bridges, or any part, portion, or area thereof, after having been forbidden to do so, either orally or in writing, including by means of any sign hereinafter described, by any owner, lessee, or custodian of the property or by any other authorized person. _



Question for you Tez:

My family owns roughly 1500 acres of timber land and we lease another 800 acres connected to it that we hunt on.

And my inlaws own 500 acres of pasture land that we run cows on.

In England, would we be able to ban someone from being on that property if they weren't committing a crime?


----------



## Steve (Apr 17, 2017)

Central to the narrative that the cops were just doing their job, and that the passenger was entirely in the wrong is the foundational belief that United was acting in good faith and within their legal rights. 

Why United Airlines was legally wrong to deplane David Dao

Newsweek article on the legality of the situation, written by dean for academic affairs and professor of law at  Cornell Law School_. _This article explains the legal implications on this topic that most people intuitively understand is wrong:

The article explains that denying boarding is not the same thing as refusal to transport:





> In truth, airlines do indeed “bump” passengers from oversold flights, but the process by which they do so is to “deny boarding” to ticketed passengers who have otherwise complied with the boarding requirements. However, Dao was _ not _ denied boarding. Dao was _ granted_ boarding, and then subsequently involuntarily deplaned, which is not the same thing.


I think it was @Bill Mattocks who suggested that people read the provisions on their tickets.  The article explains this, and goes through the Refusal to Transport provision. 





> Like all airlines, United has a very specific (and lengthy!)  contract for carriage outlining the contractual relationship between the airline and the passenger. It includes a familiar set of provisions for when a passenger may be denied boarding (Rule 25: “Denied Boarding Compensation”).


In the following section, it's clear now why the CEO was interested in characterizing the behavior of the passenger as disruptive and belligerent.  





> It turns out that the contract has a specific rule regarding “Refusal of Transport” (Rule 21), which lays out the conditions under which a passenger can be removed and refused transport on the aircraft. This includes situations where passengers act in a “disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent” manner, refuse to comply with the smoking policy, are barefoot or “not properly clothed,” as well as many other situations.
> 
> There is absolutely no provision for deplaning a seated passenger because the flight is oversold.


The article goes into what I've already shared, which is that the flight actually wasn't oversold, which means that the provisions related to oversold flights don't apply.

This following passage outlines another point I've been saying:  





> Might the airline argue that it had the right to refuse transport because Dao was “disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent” (Rule 21H1) or causing a “disturbance” (Rule 21H4)?
> 
> Although this depends on the facts, news reports suggest that Dao was not upset, and was minding his own business until he was told that he was being involuntarily removed and he was dragged kicking and screaming from the aircraft.
> 
> *His being upset was caused by the breach by United Airlines of its contractual duties towards him as a passenger, rather than the reverse*.


Emphasis is mine and not from the article.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 17, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> This is the video of the doctor BEFORE he was taken off.
> United Dragging Disaster: New Video Surfaces of Doctor Moments Before He’s Brutally Forced Off Plane


he did the right thing.
- Communicated with Airline (for court purposes)
- Communicated with the police (told them that he wasn't going to get off)
- When force was used by police draw attention to the situation  (he did it by screaming. Speaking louder gets other people to pay attention to what is going on).  Always make sure there are witnesses watching your situation.  We most likely wouldn't have the video that we have had he been quiet and reserve.  People are attracted to drama so they won't film unless it looks like something is about to happen.

He knew from the start that he would be making a lawsuit. So he had a game plan.  

The police were calm which is good.  The officer actually lets him talk to the Airline about his situation without interruption.

I'm not sure if it happened, but the DOT states that it's federal law, that the Airline has to give you a written statement when they remove you from the flight for the purpose of making room for someone else.  If they didn't do that then United will lose that right away. Keep in mind that this has to be done before you get on the plane.  Like many things in life, it's not what we do, but how we do it. 

United is going to pay big for this for a wide range of reasons.  Had the other passengers that were on the plan not accepted the compensation then they would have a legal case as well.  After reading the Newsweek article it's clear that United understood that they were in the wrong from the beginning which is why they made an effort to smear Dao. If the other passengers will still have a legal case provided that they didn't cash the checks or accept the vouchers.  They would also have a legal right if they also didn't get the written statement.

Had Dao gotten off the plane like the other passengers did then none of this would have come to light and United would have continued to advantage of the customers.


----------



## Steve (Apr 17, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> he did the right thing.
> - Communicated with Airline (for court purposes)
> - Communicated with the police (told them that he wasn't going to get off)
> - When force was used by police draw attention to the situation  (he did it by screaming. Speaking louder gets other people to pay attention to what is going on).  Always make sure there are witnesses watching your situation.  We most likely wouldn't have the video that we have had he been quiet and reserve.  People are attracted to drama so they won't film unless it looks like something is about to happen.
> ...


Totally agree. 

One further point of clarification is that it appears that the guys might not be police.  I'm not sure exactly what they were, but it doesn't appear that they are actual cops.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 17, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> My family owns roughly 1500 acres of timber land and we lease another 800 acres connected to it that we hunt on.
> 
> And my inlaws own 500 acres of pasture land that we run cows on.
> 
> In England, would we be able to ban someone from being on that property if they weren't committing a crime?



In England and Wales this would be a civil case, trespass is a tort law. You would have to get an injunction to stop someone entering onto your land. However, if you have public rights of way, bridle paths etc you cannot stop anyone using this, though they shouldn't go onto the rest of the land. Your neighbours have the right to enter if they need to do repair work etc. You can refuse but they can apply for a court order to make you let them on for a specific purpose. However, an owner or occupier of property has a duty not to leave property in a dangerous condition, and in some circumstances a trespasser may successfully sue for damages if they are injured on the property.
If the trespassers are poachers, squatters, hunt saboteurs or setting up a rave then it becomes a criminal case.
In Scotland the law is a little different but it's still a civil case if no criminal act is committed.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 17, 2017)

I saw the latest video. Cop says leave or you'll be dragged out. He says fine, drag me out.

Case closed. I'm done with this thread. Doc got what he asked for.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 17, 2017)

Steve said:


> Totally agree.
> 
> One further point of clarification is that it appears that the guys might not be police.  I'm not sure exactly what they were, but it doesn't appear that they are actual cops.


Yeah the news is messing that one up to.  The city made it clear that they weren't city police and news is calling them, "Airport Police."  My understanding of police is Campus, City, County, State, Campus.  Beyond that I'm not sure what an "Airport Police" is as I have never thought of them as only having authority on airport grounds.  I wish they would be more clear with that as well.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I saw the latest video. Cop says leave or you'll be dragged out. He says fine, drag me out.
> Case closed. I'm done with this thread. Doc got what he asked for.


 Wow.  You know that's not going to hold up in court lol.  If the officer stated that he intentional busted this guys face, then he's going to get nailed.  His lawyer is going to position the argument that he was doing his job (removing the passenger), and that the injuries occurred during this process but were in no way intentional. The lawyer may even try to note that the officer didn't strike the guy (if in reality that he didn't) and it'll just be chalked up as a retraining issue.  The officer won't get caught in the legality of if he had the right to take the guy off the plane or not, because that's the airline's responsibility.  It's not the responsibility off the officer to determine if the guy has a legality of the airline policy.  The officer's response is only based on what the airline told him.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 17, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Yeah the news is messing that one up to.  The city made it clear that they weren't city police and news is calling them, "Airport Police."  My understanding of police is Campus, City, County, State, Campus.  Beyond that I'm not sure what an "Airport Police" is as I have never thought of them as only having authority on airport grounds.  I wish they would be more clear with that as well.
> 
> Wow.  You know that's not going to hold up in court lol.  If the officer stated that he intentional busted this guys face, then he's going to get nailed.  His lawyer is going to position the argument that he was doing his job (removing the passenger), and that the injuries occurred during this process but were in no way intentional. The lawyer may even try to note that the officer didn't strike the guy (if in reality that he didn't) and it'll just be chalked up as a retraining issue.  The officer won't get caught in the legality of if he had the right to take the guy off the plane or not, because that's the airline's responsibility.  It's not the responsibility off the officer to determine if the guy has a legality of the airline policy.  The officer's response is only based on what the airline told him.



Video captures the argument moments before David Dao dragged off United Airlines flight

Watch the video.  Transcript:

“I won’t go. I’m physician, have to work tomorrow, eight o’clock,” you can hear Dao saying to the officers in the first clip.

“Well, we have to drag you,” one of the officers responds after a few other words were exchanged.

“Well, you can then drag me. I don’t go. I’m not going,” Dao responds.​That's it as far as I'm concerned.  He was told what the consequences would be.  He actually stated he understood and insisted on the 'or else' consequences.  He got the 'or else'.

Sorry, no sympathy.


----------



## Buka (Apr 17, 2017)

Steve said:


> Totally agree.
> 
> One further point of clarification is that it appears that the guys might not be police.  I'm not sure exactly what they were, but it doesn't appear that they are actual cops.



What are the Chicago aviation police?


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 17, 2017)

So they don't have full arrest power. 

They can only detain but sounds like they still are covered under the color of law.


----------



## Buka (Apr 17, 2017)

There's also this -

Guidance to aviation police: Run and hide - CNN.com

Of course that could also have to do with one's wife, should one's wife ever get angry.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 17, 2017)

Buka said:


> There's also this -
> 
> Guidance to aviation police: Run and hide - CNN.com
> 
> Of course that could also have to do with one's wife, should one's wife ever get angry.



That's crazy.  

I sit at my house watching TV armed....


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 17, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I saw the latest video. Cop says leave or you'll be dragged out. He says fine, drag me out.
> 
> Case closed. I'm done with this thread. Doc got what he asked for.






Bill Mattocks said:


> Video captures the argument moments before David Dao dragged off United Airlines flight
> 
> Watch the video.  Transcript:
> 
> ...



Well no. He was a paying customer, and nobody actually imagined that a 69 year old man is actually going to be dragged off an aircraft because the company wanted to give his seat to an employee, who in their right mind would think that would happen? That's why the rest of the world is so appalled, it's Gestapo tactics. Who does that outside of dictatorships?
Are you telling us that if you had been told to get off a flight you'd paid for, that your luggage was on board already (there would have been a delay taking it off or it would have gone on ahead without him so basically lost) you would just go 'yes sir' and gone off tugging your forelock?
Oh and what if he'd your doctor and you were his eight o'clock URGENT appointment?


----------



## Steve (Apr 17, 2017)

So, where are we at here?

I've just gone back and read through the first several pages of the thread again to remind myself of where we've started.  Through page three, at least, there are some mistaken presumption being made by @CB Jones and @Bill Mattocks, among others.  The presumptions we know now are incorrect:

First presumption is that these guys are cops.  The term "cops" is used liberally, along with police, officers and security.  Along with this is the presumption that these guys can arrest people.  We all know now that this isn't the case.  So, the extensive explanations regarding probable cause and all that don't seem to be relevant. 

Second presumption is that the flight was overbooked.  We know now that this is factually incorrect, and so the rules pertaining to overbooked or oversold flights are not applicable.

Third presumption is that United acted within their rights according to their contract of carriage.  We now know that this is, at least, open to interpretation.  Even within the provision quoted by CB Jones and referenced by Bill Mattocks, there appears to be nothing in Rule 21 that speaks to this situation.  No one has suggested that he failed to comply with the Contract of Carriage up until they tried to remove him, there was no security concern, no acts of god.  He didn't refuse to be searched.  His ID was confirmed by TSA, and he paid for his ticket.  The only provision under this rule would be to suggest that his conduct was "disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent."  Which we know now wasn't, but explains the early characterization of his behavior.

Fourth presumption is that the guy was being belligerent.  We now have video evidence that he was not.

Where does that leave us?   I can't imagine anyone thinks this was dealt with properly by United or by the airport security.  That there are people still blaming him is unexplainable.  Baffling.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 17, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Video captures the argument moments before David Dao dragged off United Airlines flight
> 
> Watch the video.  Transcript:
> 
> ...


If Dao is found to be in the right, the officer will get what he deserves and charged with assault.  If Dao was in the right then the officer has no legal authority to remove him.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 17, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Well no. He was a paying customer, and nobody actually imagined that a 69 year old man is actually going to be dragged off an aircraft because the company wanted to give his seat to an employee, who in their right mind would think that would happen? That's why the rest of the world is so appalled, it's Gestapo tactics. Who does that outside of dictatorships?
> Are you telling us that if you had been told to get off a flight you'd paid for, that your luggage was on board already (there would have been a delay taking it off or it would have gone on ahead without him so basically lost) you would just go 'yes sir' and gone off tugging your forelock?
> Oh and what if he'd your doctor and you were his eight o'clock URGENT appointment?


Alot of this is covered by laws which restricts policing power.  This case will be interesting. I wonder if united lied about the situation when calling the airport police.  I wonder what the responses would be if it was a woman of the same age , or pregnant woman.  I wonder how far force would have gone.  

In the U.S. laws are set up where we don't have to blindly follow ALL police commands.  An officer can't remove a person from a plane without legal Authority.  That authority is limited to specific requirements that have to be met.  Police can't randomly search private property or make arrests unless certain requirements are met.  It is the same in this situation, if Dao didn't meet the requirements that would give the Airline the Authority to remove him, then they legally couldn't remove him.


----------



## Buka (Apr 17, 2017)

Steve said:


> So, where are we at here?
> 
> I've just gone back and read through the first several pages of the thread again to remind myself of where we've started.  Through page three, at least, there are some mistaken presumption being made by @CB Jones and @Bill Mattocks, among others.  The presumptions we know now are incorrect:
> 
> ...



I don't know where we are at, either, Steve. But one fact remains indisputable - nobody handled that situation correctly.

I think I'm staying out of the rest of it. You know why? Not because I'm a cop......because I never got that hug I asked for. Twice!


----------



## drop bear (Apr 17, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Well no. He was a paying customer, and nobody actually imagined that a 69 year old man is actually going to be dragged off an aircraft because the company wanted to give his seat to an employee, who in their right mind would think that would happen? That's why the rest of the world is so appalled, it's Gestapo tactics. Who does that outside of dictatorships?
> Are you telling us that if you had been told to get off a flight you'd paid for, that your luggage was on board already (there would have been a delay taking it off or it would have gone on ahead without him so basically lost) you would just go 'yes sir' and gone off tugging your forelock?
> Oh and what if he'd your doctor and you were his eight o'clock URGENT appointment?



Corporations are dictatorships. Well probably oligarchys. But its kind of the same thing.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 17, 2017)

Steve said:


> So, where are we at here?
> 
> I've just gone back and read through the first several pages of the thread again to remind myself of where we've started.  Through page three, at least, there are some mistaken presumption being made by @CB Jones and @Bill Mattocks, among others.  The presumptions we know now are incorrect:
> 
> ...



You can arrest people if you want.

And the crime of trespass?


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 17, 2017)

Well, you have the 'law' and you have civilised behaviour, one hopes the two are compatible.
I was visiting the Imperial War Museum at Duxford on Saturday, among other things (there is a large American section as it was a USAF base during the war) there were vintage civilian aircraft one could go on, including a Comet which we did. In those days flying was civilised, bone chine plates, silver cutlery, proper food and most of all *courtesy*. This last would have saved everyone a huge amount of trouble, problems money and teeth. Treating people properly in the first place is something worth remembering. We talk about de-escalation in self defence, about not making situation worse but here we see what happens  when people don't matter anymore. Right from the very beginning, long before the doctor was removed from the aircraft, it had gone wrong, perhaps it has been wrong for years, this lack of courtesy, this thoughtlessness and the uncaring lack of humanity. Perhaps it would be good to remember why so many died fighting for freedom.

All the way around the American section at Duxford are glass panels marked to show each airman that died, it's humbling and makes you think about the price of freedom and what we should be doing with that freedom.
http://www.iwm.org.uk/exhibitions/iwm-duxford/american-air-museum

(We are going back in September for the Battle of Britain air show so if anyone has connections to there, I can take specific photos for them. The Cambridge American War Cemetery is also close, we can visit that if anyone wants a grave visited or photographed. Cambridge American Cemetery & Memorial - Cemetery / Mausoleum in Cambridge, Cambridgeshire - Visit Cambridge)


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Apr 17, 2017)

*Yeah, this situation was one major cluster...*

I don't think anyone will argue that United handled this correctly.  They have made their moniker of "fly the friendly skies" a laughingstock.  If any of us had a choice would we pick United if all things are equal. (fair, time, etc.)  I wouldn't!  They are going to have to work to get my business back.  First order their CEO should be fired.  His response is unacceptable in my book.  We already know that every passenger has been refunded their fair.  That is acceptable to all passengers accept those removed.  They need to be reimbursed the maximum and probably more now that the facts are coming in about it not being overbooked.  The doctor.  Well we all know he won't need to work the rest of his life.  United will easily settle out for twenty to thirty or forty million plus.  They will pay this guy whatever it takes to make this go away.  Whatever it takes!


----------



## JP3 (Apr 17, 2017)

Steve said:


> This is a tangent, but you're right.   On a plane, if another passenger is perceived to be holding things up, temperatures rise quickly.  But if the airline holds things up, regardless of the cause, people know to just hunker down and behave, because if the flight attendant even imagines you're looking at him or her wrong, your *** is grass.


I think that's completely right. My wife has a friend who is a flight attendant, and she's said that she tries not to get worked up when passengers start being a-holes because if she makes the call it is automatic - that person is no longer going on that flight. Sort of draconian, but it seems to work.


----------



## Steve (Apr 17, 2017)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *Yeah, this situation was one major cluster...*
> 
> I don't think anyone will argue that United handled this correctly.  They have made their moniker of "fly the friendly skies" a laughingstock.  If any of us had a choice would we pick United if all things are equal. (fair, time, etc.)  I wouldn't!  They are going to have to work to get my business back.  First order their CEO should be fired.  His response is unacceptable in my book.  We already know that every passenger has been refunded their fair.  That is acceptable to all passengers accept those removed.  They need to be reimbursed the maximum and probably more now that the facts are coming in about it not being overbooked.  The doctor.  Well we all know he won't need to work the rest of his life.  United will easily settle out for twenty to thirty or forty million plus.  They will pay this guy whatever it takes to make this go away.  Whatever it takes!


I think 20 to 40 mil is a little more than he will get, but I guess it remains to be seen.  But this is funny considering that a few weeks ago @CB Jones was telling me I was crazy to think he'll get $500k to $1million.  I still think that's about right, but we shall see.

Regarding the CEO, he should resign.  I don't think he should wait to be fired.  He'll land on his feet, I'm sure.


----------



## Steve (Apr 17, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You can arrest people if you want.
> 
> And the crime of trespass?


You need to add a few filler sentences in there.  I'm not tracking you, drop bear.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 17, 2017)

Steve said:


> You need to add a few filler sentences in there.  I'm not tracking you, drop bear.



Ok.  Anybody can make arrests.You can I can,anybody. Police can arrest on suspicion but if you see a crime you can grab the guy and force him to stop commiting a crime.

Now trespass is a crime.  And it becomes trespass if you say leave and I say no.

You can the use force to stop me trespassing. Or drag my bum of a plane if you want.

This is to a certain extent a power greater than the police but it only applies on private property. And it applies to the owner of that property. Or pretty much anybody who works for the owner.

The only issue that is in contention really is if the amount of force was disproportionate. Because the airline can kick anybody off their plane on their property for almost any or no reason.

The exception being discrimination.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 17, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> If Dao is found to be in the right, the officer will get what he deserves and charged with assault.  If Dao was in the right then the officer has no legal authority to remove him.



I don't think so.

I think the fact that the officer is working under the presumption that the Airline has the authority and the crime of trespassing is being committed protects him legally and shifts the liability to the Airline.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 17, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> I don't think so.
> 
> I think the fact that the officer is working under the presumption that the Airline has the authority and the crime of trespassing is being committed protects him legally and shifts the liability to the Airline.



The  officer will be dumped like a hot spud.

The airline will say he went rogue. and he will be disposed of. They employ a new guy and the beat goes on.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 17, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Yeah the news is messing that one up to.  The city made it clear that they weren't city police and news is calling them, "Airport Police."  My understanding of police is Campus, City, County, State, Campus.  Beyond that I'm not sure what an "Airport Police" is as I have never thought of them as only having authority on airport grounds.  I wish they would be more clear with that as well.
> 
> Wow.  You know that's not going to hold up in court lol.  If the officer stated that he intentional busted this guys face, then he's going to get nailed.  His lawyer is going to position the argument that he was doing his job (removing the passenger), and that the injuries occurred during this process but were in no way intentional. The lawyer may even try to note that the officer didn't strike the guy (if in reality that he didn't) and it'll just be chalked up as a retraining issue.  The officer won't get caught in the legality of if he had the right to take the guy off the plane or not, because that's the airline's responsibility.  It's not the responsibility off the officer to determine if the guy has a legality of the airline policy.  The officer's response is only based on what the airline told him.


Some airports have their own police departments.  For example, the Metropolitan Washington Area Airports Authority has its own PD and somewhat famously refused to be portrayed as the fools in one of the Die Hard movies.  Another example would be at Los Angeles. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 17, 2017)

drop bear said:


> The  officer will be dumped like a hot spud.
> 
> The airline will say he went rogue. and he will be disposed of. They employ a new guy and the beat goes on.



I don't think he works for United.  He works for Airport Police.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 17, 2017)

drop bear said:


> The  officer will be dumped like a hot spud.
> 
> The airline will say he went rogue. and he will be disposed of. They employ a new guy and the beat goes on.


I completely agree.  That's how business is.  It can be very cut throat and unforgiving.

This is the next stage of the scenario that will come up.  The stock is taking a hard hit so even the CEO is at risk of losing his job.  The only thing is that unlike the rest of us, CEOs usually have a fat payday and get more money for being fired than all of us make combined.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 17, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I completely agree. That's how business is. It can be very cut throat and unforgiving.
> 
> This is the next stage of the scenario that will come up. The stock is taking a hard hit so even the CEO is at risk of losing his job.



Again...even if the Airport Police is not controlled by United?

Wouldn't it be the United Airlines employee that called the police that would get the axe?


----------



## Steve (Apr 17, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Ok.  Anybody can make arrests.You can I can,anybody. Police can arrest on suspicion but if you see a crime you can grab the guy and force him to stop commiting a crime.
> 
> Now trespass is a crime.  And it becomes trespass if you say leave and I say no.
> 
> ...


I'm still not sure that this was trespassing.   i haven't seen anyone outside of the cops here suggesting it was.  And it seems that they really can't just arbitrarily kick people off.   That's what the whole contract is about.   They have stipulated when they can remove people from the plane, once boarded.  

all that said, you may be right.   I guess we are going to find out soon, though.


----------



## Steve (Apr 17, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Again...even if the Airport Police is not controlled by United?
> 
> Wouldn't it be the United Airlines employee that called the police that would get the axe?


Might not be either/or.   Could be both lose their jobs.   Personally, I don't fault the attendant on the plane for involving the airport police, unless they were the ones who empowered the police to forcibly remove the guy.  It really seems to me that the airport security guards overstepped.  And where united really screwed up was to  lie in order to justify it, mischaracterizing the behavior as disruptive and belligerent.  Whoever wrote that release should be fired with the CEO.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 17, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Again...even if the Airport Police is not controlled by United?
> 
> Wouldn't it be the United Airlines employee that called the police that would get the axe?


The only ways, that I know of, is that  the employee who called the Airport police would be fired is if he or she made false report.  Or if it wasn't his/her responsibility to call the police. Or if this entire situation was low key enough that the employee would probably be used as a scapegoat who exaggerated the reality of the situation, which caused the chaos.  You would be surprised at how many people get fired for calling the police.
Employee fired because she called the police.  Corporate office said that it should have been the manager that called the police.  If a similar policy exist in united then yes that employee will most likely "get the axe."  

I'm curious what is going on with the other 3 passengers that left when asked to leave.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 17, 2017)

Steve said:


> I'm still not sure that this was trespassing.   i haven't seen anyone outside of the cops here suggesting it was.  And it seems that they really can't just arbitrarily kick people off.   That's what the whole contract is about.   They have stipulated when they can remove people from the plane, once boarded.
> 
> all that said, you may be right.   I guess we are going to find out soon, though.



Here me out Steve,

As an officer I respond to a call of service to an airline.  The airline (complainant) advises me they have bumped a passenger from a flight and he refuses to leave.  As the owner of the movable they have the authority to order the person to vacate their property...refusal to vacate constitutes trespassing or remaining after forbidden.---a criminal matter

So the police have probable cause to arrest based on the airlines complaint and criminal statutes.

Now lets say the airline without a doubt is wrong or doesn't follow the guidelines (or whatever), they are in breach of contract---a civil matter.  And that will be handled in civil court.



Police address the criminal statues.....the civil side has to be handled by lawyers and court proceedings in civil court.

Without court rulings, agency policy, or an opinion from their legal section police typically don't make decisions on civil matters....we address and enforce criminal statutes, which says a property owner has the right to make you leave their property.



So even if the courts rule that the airline was wrong.....the arrest is still lawful because the police are working in good faith and have probable cause to believe the crime of trespassing was committed.  And even though you could be found innocent of trespassing....any crimes committed during said arrests (resisting or battery) you could still be found guilty of.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 17, 2017)

Steve said:


> unless *they were the ones who empowered the police* *to forcibly remove the guy.* It really seems to me that the airport security guards overstepped.



Isn't that what happened.  You don't call security/police to make rulings on contracts....you call them to enforce rules/laws.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 17, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Isn't that what happened.  You don't call security.police to make rulings on contracts....you call them to enforce rules/laws.


 It's how the law is enforce that becomes the issue.  For example, a police officer can stop me for speeding, but is not allowed to assault me as part of that process, unless my action are of such where you will have the authority to respond harshly.

The question in Dao's case is that the officers had a right to remove Dao, but not with force that would cause the injuries that Dao is reported to have received.  Out of all the people who have been removed from an airplane by force, how many have received a broken nose, damaged teeth, and a concussion?  Think of the Civil Right movements when dogs were let loose on people.   People didn't disagree with the police trying to keep order,  they disagree with letting loose attack dogs on the people to do it.

There are limits to how laws are enforce.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 17, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> It's how the law is enforce that becomes the issue.  For example, a police officer can stop me for speeding, but is not allowed to assault me as part of that process, unless my action are of such where you will have the authority to respond harshly.
> 
> The question in Dao's case is that the officers had a right to remove Dao, but not with force that would cause the injuries that Dao is reported to have received.  Out of all the people who have been removed from an airplane by force, how many have received a broken nose, damaged teeth, and a concussion?  Think of the Civil Right movements when dogs were let loose on people.   People didn't disagree with the police trying to keep order,  they disagree with letting loose attack dogs on the people to do it.
> 
> There are limits to how laws are enforce.



I understand that.....but do we know how the injuries occurred?  I haven't heard that...were they caused by strikes, or did he fall as they were trying to get him out of the seat, while dragging him out, or when he broke a way and ran back inside?

Shouldn't we know what force was used before we decide if it was a civil rights offense?


----------



## Steve (Apr 17, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Here me out Steve,
> 
> As an officer I respond to a call of service to an airline.  The airline (complainant) advises me they have bumped a passenger from a flight and he refuses to leave.  As the owner of the movable they have the authority to order the person to vacate their property...refusal to vacate constitutes trespassing or remaining after forbidden.---a criminal matter
> 
> ...


i get it.  Now, here me out.   that isn't what happened in this case.   I get where you're coming from.   But these weren't actual cops.  The airline wasn't, as far as I've seen, asserting that the guy was trespassing.   I think the issue is you're speaking in general terms, and I'm looking at what actually happened, as best we can tell.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 17, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> I understand that.....but do we know how the injuries occurred?  I haven't heard that...were they caused by strikes, or did he fall as they were trying to get him out of the seat, while dragging him out, or when he broke a way and ran back inside?
> 
> Shouldn't we know what force was used before we decide if it was a civil rights offense?


Nope that still is to be determined.  When it first happened I was surprised at the extent of the injury and my first thoughts went to Dao intentionally not trying to protect himself as he was falling and being pulled.  By this I mean if he saw that his head was going to hit the arm rest then he would just allow it to hit the arm rest without trying to avoid it.  The only reason I think like this is because it is what I would do if I was going to take the lawsuit route with the goal of suing for millions.

I didn't see any strikes thrown, so I'm guessing he "ragged doll" as he was being pulled.  I'm not sure if I remember correctly but it didn't look as if he had blood coming out of his nose until he rain back in.  I could be wrong but all of that will come out in court.  From what I saw in the the video clips it didn't look as he struck his face on anything.  As a kid, I struck my 2 front teeth on the head of the bed, so I can tell you from personal experience that it's difficult to knock your teeth out and break your nose in the same fall or from multiple falls caused by someone pulling you.  Self inflicted injury would be an unforeseen twist to this situation.  One would need to see as much of the video as possible in an effort to see when the injury occurred.

I wish this Thread was titled "How to defend against unlawful enforcement actions"   There is just something uneasy about "How to defend against police."  I personally don't go out thinking that I need to defend against police.  I do however keep in mind unlawful enforcement actions which aren't only related to police, but to businesses as well.


----------



## Steve (Apr 17, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Isn't that what happened.  You don't call security/police to make rulings on contracts....you call them to enforce rules/laws.


Sometimes, you call them just in case things go south.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 17, 2017)

Steve said:


> But these weren't actual cops.



Thats were it gets muddy.  Originally they were reported as police.  And this thread poses the question as that they were police and we gave you our opinion as if they were the police.

Even now....its confusing....what authority do they have and what are they mandated to do?



Steve said:


> The airline wasn't, as far as I've seen, asserting that the guy was trespassing.



I think they did or at least insinuated he was......now they are in complete spin mode trying to fix the public's perception of them....and they will throw the officers under the bus in a heart beat.

The way the officer explained that if he didn't leave he would be arrested....That falls right in line with trespassing statutes like he was prepping the arrest....if not why did the airline not step in and say....no we don't want him arrested before it became physical.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 17, 2017)

Steve said:


> Sometimes, you call them just in case things go south.




Sure and in those cases the officers stand in the background and waits for it to go south....but in this case they took the lead as if they were responding to a complaint.


----------



## Buka (Apr 18, 2017)

Steve said:


> I'm still not sure that this was trespassing.   i haven't seen anyone outside of the cops here suggesting it was.  And it seems that they really can't just arbitrarily kick people off.   That's what the whole contract is about.   They have stipulated when they can remove people from the plane, once boarded.
> 
> all that said, you may be right.   I guess we are going to find out soon, though.



I know all airports are different, all police departments in airports are different, all security officers duties in airports are different.

But there isn't any trespass here. Not in any law I ever studied.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 18, 2017)

Here's how I see trespass occurring:
You have a person in care, custody, and control of private property, to wit, an airplane.  They tell a person (passenger) to leave said airplane, and they don't do so.  That person is remaining on private property after being told to leave. They're trespassing.  There may well be differences in state law, or relevant to the situation involving an airplane.  I don't know; no airport within my jurisdiction, and haven't spoken with any airport cops around here to get their take.  With nothing that I see as contradicting -- trespass is there.  A judge or magistrate may well disagree.

For those saying "it's civil."  Yep, it is.  But that doesn't mean it can't also be criminal.  Simplest case to look at -- the crime of murder vs the tort of wrongful death.  Both arise from the same circumstances -- but one is criminal and the other is civil.


----------



## Buka (Apr 18, 2017)

Here's how I see the trespass issue. You (United) rented him that space. He didn't do anything (that I know of) to nullify that contract. You can't suddenly say he's there illegally, that's he's trespassing. Well, you can say it, but I don't think it's going to fly in court.


----------



## Steve (Apr 18, 2017)

It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out, precisely because there is a contract in play.   

If you're at Mcdonalds, they can decide to kick you out for any reason other than as a member of a protected base.   And if you don't go, they can call the cops who can forcibly remove you.   Which is what I'm hearing from many of the LEO here.

In this case, though, there is a contract in place, which stipulates conditions where they can kick you off the plane.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 18, 2017)

Buka said:


> Here's how I see the trespass issue. You (United) rented him that space. He didn't do anything (that I know of) to nullify that contract. You can't suddenly say he's there illegally, that's he's trespassing. Well, you can say it, but I don't think it's going to fly in court.



My reasoning:

It is not considered a rented space because you sign a contract of carriage, not a rental agreement or property lease. 

The contract is a contract of service so I wouldn't think it would supersede the Airline's property rights.

I would say the airline is in breach of contract for the agreed upon service and is liable civilly for that breach but probable cause still exists for trespassing.  To eliminate, the Airline's property rights you first need a civil ruling on the contract.  Until then you have to go by criminal statutes.


Not only that but for you to deny the Airline's property rights, you are in essence making a civil ruling on the breach of contract in favor of the passenger.  As an officer, my opinion is to strictly enforce criminal statutes and allow the parties to handle the civil aspect of the breach of contract in civil court. 

Also, we don't have authority to make a civil ruling and by doing so we take the chance of taking on some civil liability if we are wrong. Whereas we do have the authority to enforce criminal law.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 18, 2017)

Steve said:


> It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out, precisely because there is a contract in play.
> 
> If you're at Mcdonalds, they can decide to kick you out for any reason other than as a member of a protected base.   And if you don't go, they can call the cops who can forcibly remove you.   Which is what I'm hearing from many of the LEO here.
> 
> In this case, though, there is a contract in place, which stipulates conditions where they can kick you off the plane.



But the contract is a civil matter.  We aren't trained in civil matters or have authority to make decisions on civil matters.  For us to get involved in civil matters typically we require a ruling from a civil court or an opinion from our legal department.

Thats the problem that this falls into.


----------



## Buka (Apr 19, 2017)

What I'm curious about is who told the officers to remove the guy from the plane.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 19, 2017)

Buka said:


> What I'm curious about is who told the officers to remove the guy from the plane.



and did the other three passengers who would have also been asked to leave their seats do so very quickly after that 'demonstration'? I would also like to know the basis for choosing which passengers were to be asked to get off the aircraft.


----------



## Buka (Apr 19, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> and did the other three passengers who would have also been asked to leave their seats do so very quickly after that 'demonstration'? I would also like to know the basis for choosing which passengers were to be asked to get off the aircraft.



I wonder if they left before, or after?  I'm also asking myself what I would do if I was ordered off a plane.


----------



## Steve (Apr 19, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> But the contract is a civil matter.  We aren't trained in civil matters or have authority to make decisions on civil matters.  For us to get involved in civil matters typically we require a ruling from a civil court or an opinion from our legal department.
> 
> Thats the problem that this falls into.


But these weren't cops.   You guys keep mixing up general matters with the facts of this case.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 19, 2017)

Steve said:


> But these weren't cops.   You guys keep mixing up general matters with the facts of this case.




We got that just...just discussing the law on this in theory as if police did respond.

When it comes to the Airport Police/Security....Just another thing that makes this confusing.

They are Post-certified...they can detain passengers and release them to police...some of them are actual police working a side job....and they don't work directly for United.

Are they a gov't agency or private entity?


----------



## drop bear (Apr 19, 2017)

Steve said:


> But these weren't cops.   You guys keep mixing up general matters with the facts of this case.



Even if they are not cops. there is a difference between civil and criminal. the airport staff were addressing the criminal issue of tresspass not the civil issue of breach of contract.

So if you don't pay me. There is a long drawn out process where I will probably get screwed. 

civil.

If I steal your stuff to compensate. I am in jail that day.

criminal.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 19, 2017)

And I found this one which is quite fun.





The back story is the male police wanted to remove the females hijab. Which is of course quite the social fopaux


----------



## Sami Ibrahim (Apr 19, 2017)

I believe you should defend yourself if anyone is trying to bully and beat on you. I believe that you should defend the honor and dignity of a defenseless person you witness being bullied or beaten on by someone else. The police are usually well-trained, well-equipped and work in teams, you have to be prepared to protect yourself at any moment, this includes during the arrest process, if your being taken in I suggest you cooperate but be ready for anything, if they are clearly attempting to harm you unjustly while you are doing nothing more than cooperating respectfully, of course have to protect yourself or be harmed possibly killed. That said if your going to do something it better be good, because your going to get shark attacked and if they can't control you physically they will keep escalating force, blinding you with mace or beating you with a club and when that fails they may shoot you or run you over so if your going to tangle with police you should understand they deal in the language of violence every day they are likely more experienced at it than you and they will all testify on each others behalf and you will be painted as the aggressor. It is like being surrounded by enemy Soldiers in a war, its all or nothing and the odds are it won't end well for you.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 20, 2017)

Sami Ibrahim said:


> mace or beating you with a club and when that fails they may shoot you or run you over so if your going to tangle with police you should understand they deal in the language of violence every day they are likely more experienced at it than you and they will all testify on each others behalf and you will be painted as the aggressor. It is like being surrounded by enemy Soldiers in a war, its all or nothing and the odds are it won't end well for you.



I'm not sure whether that says a lot about you or about the police you are used to. British police officers don't carry clubs, I doubt many police forces anywhere give their officers clubs. You are also unlikely to be shot by our officers. In the UK we have a well rehearsed procedure to control a violent person, it does take a few officers which non trained people find a waste of manpower but it's one that works with the minimum of violence and danger to *everyone.* You don't go in gungho beating people up, for one thing you don't know why the person is being violent, it may be something they have no control over.
'Being surrounded by enemy soldiers', good grief, that's ridiculous. what on earth have you been up to that you think this would ever be normal?


----------



## Sami Ibrahim (Apr 20, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> I'm not sure whether that says a lot about you or about the police you are used to. British police officers don't carry clubs, I doubt many police forces anywhere give their officers clubs. You are also unlikely to be shot by our officers. In the UK we have a well rehearsed procedure to control a violent person, it does take a few officers which non trained people find a waste of manpower but it's one that works with the minimum of violence and danger to *everyone.* You don't go in gungho beating people up, for one thing you don't know why the person is being violent, it may be something they have no control over.
> 'Being surrounded by enemy soldiers', good grief, that's ridiculous. what on earth have you been up to that you think this would ever be normal?



Well, lets just say that my experiences with law enforcement have been a mixed bag, I have traveled a lot and in many what you may consider 3rd world countries the Police are generally like a well-organized and well-equipped gang, territorial and on the take, very much into preying on the disarmed populous. I believe that you just never know with them, treat them like you would a big crocodile, very carefully, don't get to close to them unless you have to and if you have to get close to them, don't provoke them in any way, shape or form, even if it means swallowing your pride and humbling yourself to stroke their egos, do so because its not worth the trouble to get into a fight with them over ego.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 20, 2017)

Sami Ibrahim said:


> Well, lets just say that my experiences with law enforcement have been a mixed bag, I have traveled a lot and in many what you may consider 3rd world countries the Police are generally like a well-organized and well-equipped gang, territorial and on the take, very much into preying on the disarmed populous. I believe that you just never know with them, treat them like you would a big crocodile, very carefully, don't get to close to them unless you have to and if you have to get close to them, don't provoke them in any way, shape or form, even if it means swallowing your pride and humbling yourself to stroke their egos, do so because its not worth the trouble to get into a fight with them over ego.



Jumbling all police forces into the same basket and labelling them all the same is a big mistake. It's a clichés to label police as on the take because they aren't in your country, assuming that they are will get you into trouble. I don't think you can say what I consider a 'third world country' btw. I wouldn't consider the UK a third world country either.
A big thing to consider which many don't is that when you travel anywhere you should behave in a way that fits in with the local people and obey local laws not act as if you were at home. so many people think that because they are a 'foreigner' they can act as they wish, ignoring local customs and behaving in the local people's eyes badly. If you have to 'swallow your pride' I'd suggest you are probably one of these.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 20, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> You have a point.
> 
> Its kinda like what Ron White said, "I didn't know how many it would take to whoop my a**, but I knew how many they would use."


And, as he says, "That's a useful piece of information."


----------



## Sami Ibrahim (Apr 21, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Jumbling all police forces into the same basket and labelling them all the same is a big mistake. It's a clichés to label police as on the take because they aren't in your country, assuming that they are will get you into trouble. I don't think you can say what I consider a 'third world country' btw. I wouldn't consider the UK a third world country either.
> A big thing to consider which many don't is that when you travel anywhere you should behave in a way that fits in with the local people and obey local laws not act as if you were at home. so many people think that because they are a 'foreigner' they can act as they wish, ignoring local customs and behaving in the local people's eyes badly. If you have to 'swallow your pride' I'd suggest you are probably one of these.



Well, your making a bunch of incorrect assumptions about me and that is OK by sharing my opinion I have opened myself to your opinion of my opinion lol. I will stick to treating people who have the power to curtail my freedoms with the utmost caution, I will continue to advocate that people defend themselves from injustice when left with no other alternative but to let someone else injure or kill them. Have a blessed day!


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 21, 2017)

Sami Ibrahim said:


> Well, your making a bunch of incorrect assumptions about me and that is OK by sharing my opinion I have opened myself to your opinion of my opinion lol. I will stick to treating people who have the power to curtail my freedoms with the utmost caution, I will continue to advocate that people defend themselves from injustice when left with no other alternative but to let someone else injure or kill them. Have a blessed day!



Actually I'm not making assumptions, I'm reading your posts and reading between the lines as any good police intelligence officer would. Your defensiveness is what attracts the attention of police officers who have years of experience in sussing out people with something to hide. In other words you look shifty to police officers because you are so much on the defensive. It's a self fulfilling prophecy, you think they are going to attack you so you look lairy to them so they check you out and if they are the sort of police to do this 'strongly' then you get hurt. I would suggest that if in Europe you don't adopt this stance.


----------



## Sami Ibrahim (Apr 22, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Actually I'm not making assumptions, I'm reading your posts and reading between the lines as any good police intelligence officer would. Your defensiveness is what attracts the attention of police officers who have years of experience in sussing out people with something to hide. In other words you look shifty to police officers because you are so much on the defensive. It's a self fulfilling prophecy, you think they are going to attack you so you look lairy to them so they check you out and if they are the sort of police to do this 'strongly' then you get hurt. I would suggest that if in Europe you don't adopt this stance.



Your not incorrect, if someone comes off as overly defensive when Law Enforcement is sniffing around that would be suspicious, that is why I said they are like a crocodile, best avoided and if that is not possible certainly not provoked, provoked can mean being so defensive that you behave like their typical prey. Again the subject (unless I misunderstood it) is how one should defend him or herself if they are being unjustly abused, my advice is to not take them lightly, just because one or two of them are acting like ignorant bullies does not mean that they are not combatively capable or at least capable of calling for back-up and then your contending with an army determined to stop you, willing to escalate force as they see fit, all willing to testify on each others behalf, to protect their "brother and sisters" so if your going to do it which I highly discourage, you best treat it like your surrounded by enemy Soldiers in a hostile territory because that is exactly whats going to happen if you manage to defeat them.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 22, 2017)

Sami Ibrahim said:


> Your not incorrect, if someone comes off as overly defensive when Law Enforcement is sniffing around that would be suspicious,



Well of course I'm correct, all my training and experience tells me so.



Sami Ibrahim said:


> if they are being unjustly abused,




What is being abused justly then?


Instead of generalising and tarring all police forces with this brush please be specific and say which forces are likely to behave as you allege.


----------



## Headhunter (Apr 22, 2017)

Sami Ibrahim said:


> Well, your making a bunch of incorrect assumptions about me and that is OK by sharing my opinion I have opened myself to your opinion of my opinion lol. I will stick to treating people who have the power to curtail my freedoms with the utmost caution, I will continue to advocate that people defend themselves from injustice when left with no other alternative but to let someone else injure or kill them. Have a blessed day!


The only reason you should be cautious around law enforcement is if you're doing something stupid or something illegal


----------



## drop bear (Apr 22, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> The only reason you should be cautious around law enforcement is if you're doing something stupid or something illegal



Or if they are.


----------



## Buka (Apr 23, 2017)

if only we knew someone who was an airport cop,


----------



## Sami Ibrahim (Apr 23, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Well of course I'm correct, all my training and experience tells me so.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Mam, can you please quote for me the parts of any of my statements where I generalized all police forces as being corrupt, abusive bullies. What I did was give general advice to a general question, if the question was more specific, like how do I defend myself from airport police if one of them is choking me with an extended asp at the Dallas airport and the other is kneeling on my ankles to keep my feet pinned, after I was handcuffed, I'd have been more specific after asking for further details. I appreciate that your coming to the defense of Law Enforcement everywhere like a cyber-superhero, making sure that we all know that not all Police let power go to their heads and so on, that does speak to what I was saying earlier about how people in the LE community will usually cover for each other no matter what and down play any wrong on their part, so this actually helps make my point but you have definitely made your point that we should be careful not to generalize 100% of the police in a given department as being corrupt and who knows maybe their are departments that have no corruption and also never, ever make any mistakes when dealing with the heat of the moment, I don't know of any but perhaps you do.


----------



## Steve (Apr 23, 2017)

Sami Ibrahim said:


> Sir, can you please quote for me the parts of any of my statements where I generalized all police forces as being corrupt, abusive bullies. What I did was give general advice to a general question, if the question was more specific, like how do I defend myself from airport police if one of them is choking me with an extended asp at the Dallas airport and the other is kneeling on my ankles to keep my feet pinned, after I was handcuffed, I'd have been more specific after asking for further details. I appreciate that your coming to the defense of Law Enforcement everywhere like a cyber-superhero, making sure that we all know that not all Police let power go to their heads and so on, that does speak to what I was saying earlier about how people in the LE community will usually cover for each other no matter what and down play any wrong on their part, so this actually helps make my point but you have definitely made your point that we should be careful not to generalize 100% of the police in a given department as being corrupt and who knows maybe their are departments that have no corruption and also never, ever make any mistakes when dealing with the heat of the moment, I don't know of any but perhaps you do.


Quick aside.  Tez3 is a dame.


----------



## Sami Ibrahim (Apr 23, 2017)

Steve said:


> Quick aside.  Tez3 is a dame.



Thanks I adjusted, apologies for male assumption.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 24, 2017)

Sami Ibrahim said:


> I appreciate that your coming to the defense of Law Enforcement everywhere like a cyber-superhero, making sure that we all know that not all Police let power go to their heads and so on, that does speak to what I was saying earlier about how people in the LE community will usually cover for each other no matter what and down play any wrong on their part, so this actually helps make my point but you have definitely made your point that we should be careful not to generalize 100% of the police in a given department as being corrupt and who knows maybe their are departments that have no corruption and also never, ever make any mistakes when dealing with the heat of the moment, I don't know of any but perhaps you do.




Oh dear, that's quite the rant isn't it? I hope you feel better now having got all that off your chest. I'm sure all the police officers on here will feel suitably chastened after that. I shall contact the Civil Nuclear Constabulary at once to tell them they have corrupt and violent officers, then I'll move onto the Royal Parks Police, there's only 108 of them, they will be very surprised to know they are corrupt bless them. After that it will be onto the Royal and Diplomatic Protection Squad, you know the ones. One of their police constables went forward, unarmed, to stop a terrorist who had already killed people by ramming them with a car. The PC died bravely though.

Get off your soapbox and come down into the real world, your faux indignation is tiresome. You clearly have little idea of policing, that police officers hate corrupt police probably more than anyone, that not everyone is the same and conspiracy theorists should stay in their bedrooms and not bother decent people. You won't change your mind, that's fine, living in ignorance is a choice I'm sure that suits some. Perhaps though you may want to think about prejudice working both ways.


----------



## Sami Ibrahim (Apr 24, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Oh dear, that's quite the rant isn't it? I hope you feel better now having got all that off your chest. I'm sure all the police officers on here will feel suitably chastened after that. I shall contact the Civil Nuclear Constabulary at once to tell them they have corrupt and violent officers, then I'll move onto the Royal Parks Police, there's only 108 of them, they will be very surprised to know they are corrupt bless them. After that it will be onto the Royal and Diplomatic Protection Squad, you know the ones. One of their police constables went forward, unarmed, to stop a terrorist who had already killed people by ramming them with a car. The PC died bravely though.
> 
> Get off your soapbox and come down into the real world, your faux indignation is tiresome. You clearly have little idea of policing, that police officers hate corrupt police probably more than anyone, that not everyone is the same and conspiracy theorists should stay in their bedrooms and not bother decent people. You won't change your mind, that's fine, living in ignorance is a choice I'm sure that suits some. Perhaps though you may want to think about prejudice working both ways.



Seems like you still don't get what I am saying, not all cops are corrupt but many are and many that are not corrupt still make mistakes like getting carried away and using excessive force on a detained subject, if you think they are all saints your lying to yourself and by going back and forth with me your really derailing the original question which is how to defend yourself from them, a question that is being asked because of the increase in law enforcement abuses in recent years, don't shoot the messenger.


----------



## Steve (Apr 24, 2017)

I think cops make mistakes, as they are human.   And by virtue of the nature of their job, a cop's mistakes have a higher stake.  And, some cops are more competent than others. 

But there is an interest in never acknowledging cops' mistakes, I believe because there is concern that it would undermine credibility.   And the same goes for acknowledging incompetence.


----------



## Juany118 (Apr 25, 2017)

Steve said:


> I think cops make mistakes, as they are human.   And by virtue of the nature of their job, a cop's mistakes have a higher stake.  And, some cops are more competent than others.
> 
> But there is an interest in never acknowledging cops' mistakes, I believe because there is concern that it would undermine credibility.   And the same goes for acknowledging incompetence.




Actually the last is a clear misapprehension.  Let's start with the first part you mentioned though, that all cops are human.  Let's look at the consequences of that...

I start with actual systemic issues...

1. Like any human system, the larger the system (police force in this case) the harder it is to select/weed out the incompetent, if you notice the vast majority of issues actually come from the larger sized police Departments, hundreds if not thousands of officers. 
2. Human systems also often suffer from corruption created by nepotism, patronage etc., Essentially top down corruption.  This used to be a HUGE problem in Police departments, especially large ones.  In order to try and eliminate that issue Civil Service Systems were created.  The problem there is that it is a two edged sword.  It helped mitigate the top down corruption BUT it creates a series of procedural hurdles to discipline which the incompetent/corrupt officer can exploit.  Then you add in Federal Labor Laws which make the release of certain actions against employees Civily Liable and you may never know that the PD actually did address the issue at earlier points in a particular officer's career.  This last part I think is important.  In erms of labor protections of any employee and then add in additional protection from civil service rules that were created to address political corruption and then, in some cases, protections created by collective bargaining agreements and you have an issue that is not so much a "police officer" issue but one that can only be resolved by statute.
3.  Incompetence, is not always incompetence per se, it can be a training/hiring issue.  The public essentially wants high levels of protection for rock bottom prices.  A simple example, last week I did my annual firearms qualification.  Not only is this the only time the PD will have me shoot my weapon on "company time" for the entire year, it also is done on duty time so as not to cost OT.  Thing is that during that time the street was short multiple officers, creating higher stress and thus greater chances for mistakes of those officers covering the town for the 5 hours we were out of service.  We would not have been able to effectively respond to an emergency because the range is 30 minutes from town. 

Because of this lack of training you can tell who shoots on their own time.  I scored a 296 out of 300, I have seen other officers have to qualify twice just to get the minimum score (240).

4. A misunderstanding of the law.  I am not talking about her people who don't actually understand how the 4th amendment works, that I can detain you and have it legally not constitute a siezure, rather the difference between Criminal and Civil Liability and actual standards for the use of force.
   A. For liability there can be times when an officer violated a procedure that results in a bad out come BUT that violation of policy doesn't constitute a crime.  You sue them.
   B. Use of force.  The use of force is determined by using a legal construct of whether the use of force as seen as objectively reasonable given what the officer knew AT THE TIME and without the use of 20/20 hind sight.  So maybe afterwards they find out the gun was a novelty lighter or a BB gun... Their shooting was still legally justifiable.

What does all the above amount to?  The system I'm bears the most responsibility.  Police are one of the most visible symbols of the system.  People often think that you can't "fight the system", so they instinctively make the Police the goat for the system's short comings.

The individual officer element.  
1. I will be the first to admit that if an officer does not personally know if the officer is good or bad they may well initially defend an officer, barring compelling evidence.  Few ever ask "why" though.  It's not different than any other community.  How often do we see people reflexively defending a member of their circle (family, community, etc), especially if there is an "us against them" attitude, whether that attitude is justified or not?

The "us against them" dynamic is as much a part of LE culture as any other.  There are a great many circumstances where Officers were relexively accused of wrong doing based on some edited or editorialized video and then it turns out the officers were actually in the right.  As an example I remember a YouTube video where someone was narrating a video of an officer involved shooting saying "look they just threw a drop gun, look another what the hell!!!" Thing is they were actually flapping as they fell, guns don't flap.  What were they?  Nitrile gloves that the officer who pulled the trigger was struggling to put on to render first aid.  He was still dealing with the adrenaline and after shock of pulling the trigger and was shaking so bad he couldn't get the gloves on.  Then you have cases like this as well...




Yet all too often if the evidence does clear the officers the people who raged over a viral video never know this is the case.  They continue thinking it was unjustified because media coverage like the one in the video is fairly rare since the media has moved onto the next click bait headline.  For months, even years later they keep hearing a case that was truly justifiable raised as a rallying cry for injustice.  What effect do you think this has?

Rushes to judgement based on limited information and then that false judgement persisting regardless of the facts feeds an "us vs them" mentality.  Is this mentality "right"?  Of course it isn't, but if people would actually wait until everything investigated before marching, calling for arrests etc. Officers would be less apt to jump instinctively to the defense of another officer because they would not be able to point to the numerous rushes to judgement as a justification that certain segments of the population are "out to get them."

Again none of this is to say there are not incompetent, even out right racist and corrupt LEOs.  In the end though I think society needs to consider what this article explains better than I ever could if you really want police reform...

Is America ready for the true cost of police reform?

What everyone wants, even LEOs, to have happen is going to cost money.  How many Americans though do you think would say "sure" to their taxes being raised to pay for it.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 25, 2017)

Sami Ibrahim said:


> Seems like you still don't get what I am saying, not all cops are corrupt but many are and many that are not corrupt still make mistakes like getting carried away and using excessive force on a detained subject, if you think they are all saints your lying to yourself and by going back and forth with me your really derailing the original question which is how to defend yourself from them, a question that is being asked because of the increase in law enforcement abuses in recent years, don't shoot the messenger.



Oh I understand you very well, I'm sure we all do so don't get snotty with me.


----------



## Buka (Apr 25, 2017)

I sometimes envision a world without police. Everyone just getting along, without being hassled.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 25, 2017)

That is a very good post from Juany, the experience in the UK is somewhat different, we don't routinely arm police ( only two forces are armed all the time and only one of them carries weapons off duty as well) we have armed response units whose job is just to be armed so training is different and includes psychological testing and training.
I don't know how long police training is in the UK nor do I know how they choose the officers. Here you have to go through interviews and testing before you are selected to join a force then you go away training for at least three months then you are a probationary officer for two years.
We don't have a constitution to work from, the main focus for the police is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act which guides most things, for actually taking people to court  on criminal charges the Crown Prosecution Service leads.
Now it is taken for granted that when you have a group of people there will most likely be bad apples, it's human nature but rigorous selection and oversight does keep it down to a minimum, as far as is possible. 'corrupt' is a strange word, it means different things to different people, is a police officer corrupt because after years of dealing with scum they lose it when they have to deal with yet one more? After scraping young drivers off the road because they have been speeding and crashed, they lose it when dealing with yet another young speeder? Or most traffic officer's pet hate, drunk drivers.
I think one thing which some may think is semantics but isn't, is that in the US you call them law enforcement officers and we call ours police officers. I think it indicates how we see the job. Our police also do the work of many other professionals, ( I'm sure the ones in the US do as well but it may not be as evident to people) as part of their everyday job, enforcing laws is actually a far smaller part of the job than many think. for most of the people there isn't that them and us divide because they are part of the community, of course the criminal parts of our society regard them as very much 'not us' lol.

Before I get accused as I surely will by at least one person, this isn't that UK officers are 'better' than US ones but that because of historical differences, social differences, differences in laws and procedures etc they are obviously *different*. That difference is also apparent as you go around the world, some police forces are there primarily to back up the government, to squash any resistance. Some police forces like one I know (and we have tried to train up), being a police officer is a low paid menial job with no respect from the populace, they were mostly on drugs, and a couple of times actually killed their Allied trainers and soldiers. However many police forces are excellent and do a very good job, however and I don't know if this is the same in the US, when British citizens get arrested for something in foreign countries people are always appalled, it's 'how dare they' and 'the police are corrupt'! No, these people broke the law and were arrested the same as they would be here but always it's the foreign country that is wrong. it's an amazing attitude. Dubai is one of the places this happens a fair bit. A man and a woman having drunk a bit too much got in a taxi and started having sex, the driver reported it to the police and the couple were arrested, as they would be in many countries including the UK, but the outcry here was huge, how dare the Dubai police do this, they are corrupt, nasty and picking on Brits who of course were 'doing nothing wrong'. Of course the fact that these two weren't married made it more difficult in Dubai but that's a local thing, the couple would have been arrested for breaking decency laws here too, something overlooked by most people. Other people have been arrested for drink driving, having sex on the beach in public as well as other crimes, yet the perception is that it's the police who are corrupt, that ex pats never do anything wrong. (Just a quick note here...one I find wryly amusing. Brits when they move abroad are 'ex pats', never, heaven forbid, immigrants! this means they regard themselves as somewhat above the local laws at times. 'But I'm British! is heard in police stations all around the world) Drug smuggling is also a big bone of contention as they never understand that it is illegal in most countries if not all.
So, responsibility.... understanding the laws of where you are and how police view them is the most obviously thing, some police forces use physical force a lot more than others, however it doesn't mean you didn't break the law. It doesn't mean you are being beaten up because they just fancy it, many countries view violence as acceptable because they are societies that are a lot harsher than many of ours. By their lights they are doing the job properly, they aren't 'corrupt', know the laws and the police before you go there. Can you defend yourself, it's probably arrogant to think you can in these places so don't go there.
Police officers in the UK more and more are wearing body cams, many thought it would show 'police violence' and heavy handedness but have been instead shocked to see the *amount of violence* *directed against the police*. It's opened up a lot of people's eyes.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 25, 2017)

Buka said:


> I sometimes envision a world without police. Everyone just getting along, without being hassled.



So who would direct traffic, sort out accidents, find lost people, return dementia sufferers to their homes, wait with people on the motorway when they breakdown, give you directions when you're lost, round up animals and all the other jobs police officers do?


----------



## Buka (Apr 25, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> So who would direct traffic, sort out accidents, find lost people, return dementia sufferers to their homes, wait with people on the motorway when they breakdown, give you directions when you're lost, round up animals and all the other jobs police officers do?



I agree with you a hundred percent, sistah, I was being factitious. Figured you would know that, me being a cop and all. Geesh, smoke a joint or something, chill out


----------



## drop bear (Apr 25, 2017)

Steve said:


> I think cops make mistakes, as they are human.   And by virtue of the nature of their job, a cop's mistakes have a higher stake.  And, some cops are more competent than others.
> 
> But there is an interest in never acknowledging cops' mistakes, I believe because there is concern that it would undermine credibility.   And the same goes for acknowledging incompetence.



It think the opposite. 

Acknowledging cops mistakes lead to better credibility.






This is our local cop shop by the way.


----------



## Juany118 (Apr 25, 2017)

drop bear said:


> It think the opposite.
> 
> Acknowledging cops mistakes lead to better credibility.
> 
> ...



Exactly.  I noted in my wall of text that the main issue is an us vs them dynamic which is fed by both sides of the debate, as most such things are.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 25, 2017)

Buka said:


> I agree with you a hundred percent, sistah, I was being factitious. Figured you would know that, me being a cop and all. Geesh, smoke a joint or something, chill out



This isn't a conversation just between the two of us though is it? People reading don't know that your comment was facetious nor that you are a police officer, you need to see the wider picture dear. I wasn't replying with any amount of emotion, just replying with a rhetorical question so I'd suggest that you are the one who needs to chill. I'm retired, sat by a nice log fire drinking good coffee, cat on lap, I'm very chilled.


----------



## Steve (Apr 25, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Actually the last is a clear misapprehension.  Let's start with the first part you mentioned though, that all cops are human.  Let's look at the consequences of that...
> 
> I start with actual systemic issues...
> 
> ...


I think you misunderstood my intent.  I wasn't commenting on how things should be,but rather how they often are.   Cops protect their own.


----------



## Juany118 (Apr 25, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> That is a very good post from Juany, the experience in the UK is somewhat different, we don't routinely arm police ( only two forces are armed all the time and only one of them carries weapons off duty as well) we have armed response units whose job is just to be armed so training is different and includes psychological testing and training.
> I don't know how long police training is in the UK nor do I know how they choose the officers. Here you have to go through interviews and testing before you are selected to join a force then you go away training for at least three months then you are a probationary officer for two years.
> We don't have a constitution to work from, the main focus for the police is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act which guides most things, for actually taking people to court  on criminal charges the Crown Prosecution Service leads.
> Now it is taken for granted that when you have a group of people there will most likely be bad apples, it's human nature but rigorous selection and oversight does keep it down to a minimum, as far as is possible. 'corrupt' is a strange word, it means different things to different people, is a police officer corrupt because after years of dealing with scum they lose it when they have to deal with yet one more? After scraping young drivers off the road because they have been speeding and crashed, they lose it when dealing with yet another young speeder? Or most traffic officer's pet hate, drunk drivers.
> ...



Regarding your first point one of the issues, imo, with US LE is the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.  This results in all 50 States having different standards in terms of hiring and that can even drop down to the local level and THEN you get advocacy groups influencing there.  Examples, some PDs use polygraph testing at hiring others don't.  Some advocacy groups, in order to promote diversity actually lobby for what I see as detrimental changes as well.  Example Philadelphia in the 80's had a written test that was written at the Associates College Degree reading level, by the late 90's it was "dumbed down" to the 10th grade level.  Recently groups have been calling for Philadelphia to remove polygraph testing, only count felony arrests after a background check (which would eliminate crimes like simple assault, stalking, prohibiting an offensive weapon, and certain levels of Indecent  Assault [short form grabbing someone or having that person come in contact with bodily fluids for the purpose of sexual desire]) AND the driver's license requirement.  Our system s so Balkanized its ridiculous.

As for the duties of other professionals absolutely.  My town is a perfect example.  We have a department of ~50 Officers, a population of almost 30,000 and a per capita crime rate for everything but homicide equal too or higher than cities like Philadelphia and Chicago.  We are also one of two centers in the County for Social Services which means we have a disproportionate amount of mental health consumers living alone or in group homes.  Our resources do not permit us to have 24 hour access to people whose sole duty is assisting those with mental health issues so individual officers get trained and certified as "Crisis Intervention specialists" of which I am one.  What might happen if one of us isn't on duty though?  

As for body cameras and dash cams exactly.  The video I posted is a perfect example.  Most cops I know want body cameras, we just want to be able to eat and go to the latrine without it being recorded (some advocacy groups want them on for the entire duty shift).

As for knowing the laws?  Absolutely!!!!!  That is, imo, half the problem.  Everyone thinks they know the law when in reality it is so dang complex if you do not study the law in the way a legal professional does you likely have no clue.  This is even worse in the US because, as an example, in the US my Commonwealth used to be the only of the 50 to say you have an expectation of Privacy in the air surrounding your vehicle, ergo to have a drug dog sniff you needed a search warrant.  Forget calling the dog just get the warrant and tear the car apart.  It has since been lowered to just needing reasonable suspicion and so the dog can be part of your probable cause BUT there are other States where case law says you can run a drug dog on every car stop because there is no expectation of privacy outside the "walls" of the vehicle.  This difference is because the individual States can restrict the authority of the State itself more than Federal Law does, they just can't restrict the Rights of the people more.  

Gotta love the USA


----------



## Juany118 (Apr 25, 2017)

Steve said:


> I think you misunderstood my intent.  I wasn't commenting on how things should be,but rather how they often are.   Cops protect their own.




That's too simple a comment though.  To fix a problem one has to understand the causes.  If one does not address the causes and only the symptom, the illness persists.  Hence my wall of text explaining the dynamics/causes from my perspective.


----------



## Steve (Apr 25, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> That's too simple a comment though.  To fix a problem one has to understand the causes.  If one does not address the causes and only the symptom, the illness persists.  Hence my wall of text explaining the dynamics/causes from my perspective.


It's not a problem I'm trying to fix.  Maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet this morning to track where you're headed.   

It seems that issues are as likely to happen in rural areas, with smaller police forces as with larger.  Sure, a larger police force in an urban area will have more issues, but that's as much a function of context as it is systemic issues within the police force itself.  But to suggest that smaller departments are a nexus of enlightened policing seems to be a "too simple" comment. 

But regardless, there is a universal effort on the part of police forces to protect their own. 

I'll also add that there's a distinction to be drawn between discussing issues, learning about them, and trying to solve them.  I'm not trying to solve any issues.  The less interaction I have with police officers while on duty, the better.  I trust individual cops, but I don't trust the institution very much.  It's too insular and self protective.  And as I said before, even acknowledging that bad cops (bad because they're evil, incompetent, cowardly, bigoted or some other reason) are a rare minority, the power cops have to ruin a person's life is pretty significant.  As we discussed earlier in this thread, a person can be doing nothing wrong, and by virtue of a chance encounter with a douchebag cop, that person could be arrested.  And we have learned in this thread from cops exactly how you guys go about doing that, and why you're allowed to do that under the law.


----------



## Steve (Apr 25, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Actually the last is a clear misapprehension.  Let's start with the first part you mentioned though, that all cops are human.  Let's look at the consequences of that...
> 
> I start with actual systemic issues...
> 
> ...


I think this is a very interesting post.  Overall, it makes a lot of sense.  One thing stood out, and that's when you distinguish the system from the police.  I, and I believe most people, consider the police to be a major part of the system, not victims of it.

One other quick note is that it seems you distinguish between incompetence and other things.  If a person isn't performing or able to perform their job, they are incompetent.  Reasons for incompetence are unsuitability, lack of training, or whatever else.  There are a lot of possible reasons a person can be incompetent.  Some are fixable.  Others are not.  But on a micro level, if we get into a specific situation, why a person is incompetent is irrelevant.


----------



## Buka (Apr 28, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> I'm sure we've all heard of the fiasco regarding the passenger who was forcibly removed from a United Airlines plane, to the point where he was knocked nearly unconscious and dragged down the plane by airport security. For those who don't know about this yet, here's the video of the event:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Heard at work that United settled out of court yesterday. Haven't heard how much yet, but I'll bet it's pretty.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 28, 2017)

Buka said:


> Heard at work that United settled out of court yesterday. Haven't heard how much yet, but I'll bet it's pretty.



They are also supposed to be offering several thousand dollars now to give up your seat. perhaps looking at the overbooking and planning for staff seats would also be a good idea.


----------



## Juany118 (Apr 28, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> They are also supposed to be offering several thousand dollars now to give up your seat. perhaps looking at the overbooking and planning for staff seats would also be a good idea.



I think United has already changed their staff seating policy.  Overbooking may stop as a consequence of the $$$ need to pay someone off.  If I need to pay someone $1000+ to deal with a $200.00 seat?


----------



## Buka (Apr 28, 2017)

And on a related note....






Man, this is one crazy world.


----------



## FriedRice (May 4, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> EDIT: As a side note, I have a friend who is ex-military and suffers from PTSD, to the point where if someone lays a hand on him in a threatening way he will instinctively strike them without warning. It's a completely reflexive action that he has very little control over.



I trained a girl from scratch, into a fighter, who had severe PTSD like this. Damn she was a handful with all of her freaking out. Although she really enjoyed fighting and beating people down for sport.

She thought she was real tough until I put her through the ringer of real fight training. She said that my training for nearly a year, helped her more than her years and years of treatment and meds.

This condition should help your friend in court as part of his defense, but he can also get shot by a cop on the side of the road if he should land that punch(es) and the cop feels that his life is in danger....ie. he gets wobbly or dropped by the punch(es).  He should look into MMA to work out his demons.


----------



## jks9199 (May 4, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> I trained a girl from scratch, into a fighter, who had severe PTSD like this. Damn she was a handful with all of her freaking out. Although she really enjoyed fighting and beating people down for sport.
> 
> She thought she was real tough until I put her through the ringer of real fight training. She said that my training for nearly a year, helped her more than her years and years of treatment and meds.
> 
> This condition should help your friend in court as part of his defense, but he can also get shot by a cop on the side of the road if he should land that punch(es) and the cop feels that his life is in danger....ie. he gets wobbly or dropped by the punch(es).  He should look into MMA to work out his demons.



Treating PTSD is complicated.  One of the challenges of good martial arts training is to create a physically safe place to do emotionally dangerous things, and an emotionally safe space to do physically dangerous things, as Rory Miller puts it.

Training can certainly help with PTSD -- but, really, unless someone has the appropriate training and counseling background, it's way too simplistic.  That young lady benefited in the end -- but how much of the benefits she got from your training were possible only because of the prior treatment and meds?


----------



## FriedRice (May 4, 2017)

jks9199 said:


> Treating PTSD is complicated.  One of the challenges of good martial arts training is to create a physically safe place to do emotionally dangerous things, and an emotionally safe space to do physically dangerous things, as Rory Miller puts it.
> 
> Training can certainly help with PTSD -- but, really, unless someone has the appropriate training and counseling background, it's way too simplistic.  That young lady benefited in the end -- but how much of the benefits she got from your training were possible only because of the prior treatment and meds?



Good, logical questions. I was very proud of myself for helping this girl. It wasn't easy at all and quite trying at times. There were many weird, freakout episodes with her. Scared the hell out of the children and some adults in the other classes too....she'd scream and goes into rages and crap. She even warned me that if placed in certain breaking points, she'd do whatever to survive, including biting, eye gouging, nut kicking, etc. and may not stop. I told her not to worry, that may impress dudes at SD schools who can't fight, but she will never get pass my jabs to do any of that....and I wouldn't even need to hit her hard. She tried many times.

After about 2 months or so, I started talking more with her boyfriend. He said they've been together almost 10 years, and she's been much more easier to live with after having been trained by me. He's like a very calm, nerdy and wimpy-ish guy. I'd see moments when she'd go apecrap on him and he'd just take it. One time he  begged me to help calm her down so she'd let him get back into his own car and drive the 1.5 hour drive home, so he can go to work at his night shift. This was after he'd just drove her this 90 minutes through rush hour traffic (b/c she doesn't drive) to get to the gym....and she just sat in the car for an hour (locking the doors) due to some fight they had. After my class, I went out and told her to GTFO of the car and into the gym and train 1on1, and she became her regular self as the hour progressed and happy-face afterward. It was freaky, but I've dealt with these kind of damaged women before, mostly girlfriends, and have seen wild stuff. Her father, who also took turn driving her, told me how well this was working also....she would rage much less at home & work. Now before coming to me, her sport and passion was roller derby, so it wasn't like she's not used to induced violence, but this was real fight training and better. But probably it's b/c I'm awesome, thanks.


----------



## Brmty2002 (May 4, 2017)

Employing Martial arts against an officer, is, in fact wrong. But could it be justified?


----------



## FriedRice (May 5, 2017)

Brmty2002 said:


> Employing Martial arts against an officer, is, in fact wrong. But could it be justified?



Well if you're successful, then that's a great way to get shot to death.

I would think that the only way it could be justified is if the bodycam and/or dashcam showed that the cop  was beating the hell out of you, to possible death, or something....and then you had to defend your life. But if there was a chance that the cameras were off or the video gets "lost" or "accidentally damaged"....then you're screwed.  Then there are the witnesses, if any.

It's best to get arrested or even take the beating and then fight them in court for a payday + prosecution of the cop. Wrongful arrest can be a serious case against cops in many States. The side of the road is not a courtroom.


----------



## Steve (May 5, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> Well if you're successful, then that's a great way to get shot to death.
> 
> I would think that the only way it could be justified is if the bodycam and/or dashcam showed that the cop  was beating the hell out of you, to possible death, or something....and then you had to defend your life. But if there was a chance that the cameras were off or the video gets "lost" or "accidentally damaged"....then you're screwed.  Then there are the witnesses, if any.
> 
> It's best to get arrested or even take the beating and then fight them in court for a payday + prosecution of the cop. Wrongful arrest can be a serious case against cops in many States. The side of the road is not a courtroom.


Truly, there is no good outcome for you if a cop  chooses to beat the crap out of you.  Your only hope is to curl up, take the beating, and hope that someone with a phone recorded the event so that you might get justice.

Interacting with a random cop in the USA is like an encounter with a stray Rottweiler.  Chances are, it's going to leave you alone and vice versa.  But best to be wary, because if it decides to take an interest things can get scary quickly and with no warning.

Statistically, there is a real trust issue with the police in the USA and it's headed the wrong direction.  To be clear up front, I'm not talking about whether cops are honest or altruistic.  I'm observing whether the public believes they are or not. 

One in five people have either very little or no confidence in the police, according to Gallup:

In U.S., Confidence in Police Lowest in 22 Years

Even among white communities, confidence in the police is dropping.  But it's probably not a surprise that the demographic that has the highest confidence in cops are white, 50+ year old, conservative, Republicans. suburbanites.

What's concerning though, is that in every demographic (white, black, Hispanic, every education level, moderate, liberal, rural or urban, every income level and every age group) the confidence is going down.   The only two demographic breakouts where confidence in police has gone up is among conservative Republicans, and that's not by a lot.

Here's another article by Reuters on trust and the police. This one is interesting because they asked a question about whether people believe cops are liars.

Do Americans trust their cops to be fair and just? New poll contains surprises.

I think that our police need to figure out how to do a better job of connecting with the people whom they are hired to serve.


----------



## FriedRice (May 6, 2017)

Steve said:


> I think that our police need to figure out how to do a better job of connecting with the people whom they are hired to serve.



I agree with most of everything you said. It's a hobby of mine to watch a lot of Cops type shows and YouTube cop interactions to observe the way they interact with people, and what are the sure ways to go to jail. I also talk with lots of cops that I train with. I've also ran into some a-hole cops, but the thing was...after thinking about it later, it was myself who jacked up their adrenaline by blasting through the roads with my 500+ hp cars. One lady cop was screaming and yelling at me b/c it took her some serious catching up at high speed to get to me....and I was already slowing down and didn't even know she was behind me at that light. Funny as hell. But you wouldn't believe how much I've gotten away with, with just a warning, because I didn't mouth off to the cop, and apologized. And I deserve jail time on many occasions when I was younger, especially the one where we were doing burnouts in front of a mall at 2am, about to street race. The cop let me go after bragging about how he used to race his Chevelle and told us to go to the country roads to do this, not here. And it can't be about race, b/c I'm not White. I know cops who've stomped knuckleheads' faces in, but that's after they just plowed through a playground full of kids in a stolen car, trying to escape. This was before bodycams. There's a certain level of under-the-table brutality that need to exist, IMO. I don't think that even near-perfect, by the book policing will work as the criminals will easily skirt around it. Look at the inner cities now....better or worse?


----------



## drop bear (May 6, 2017)

Steve said:


> Truly, there is no good outcome for you if a cop  chooses to beat the crap out of you.  Your only hope is to curl up, take the beating, and hope that someone with a phone recorded the event so that you might get justice.
> 
> Interacting with a random cop in the USA is like an encounter with a stray Rottweiler.  Chances are, it's going to leave you alone and vice versa.  But best to be wary, because if it decides to take an interest things can get scary quickly and with no warning.
> 
> ...



Yeah but your police basically self police. 

We threw that idea out years ago.  Admittedely after a few epic corruption commissions.


----------



## Brmty2002 (May 7, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> Well if you're successful, then that's a great way to get shot to death.
> 
> I would think that the only way it could be justified is if the bodycam and/or dashcam showed that the cop  was beating the hell out of you, to possible death, or something....and then you had to defend your life. But if there was a chance that the cameras were off or the video gets "lost" or "accidentally damaged"....then you're screwed.  Then there are the witnesses, if any.
> 
> It's best to get arrested or even take the beating and then fight them in court for a payday + prosecution of the cop. Wrongful arrest can be a serious case against cops in many States. The side of the road is not a courtroom.


I agree with this statement. Moral of the story: don't try (or successfully) beat up cops. (Unless they beat you up first.)


----------



## Steve (May 11, 2017)

Brmty2002 said:


> I agree with this statement. Moral of the story: don't try (or successfully) beat up cops. (Unless they beat you up first.)


Even then, it's a bad idea to beat up a cop.   You can take your chances in standing up to a cop.   It will probably hurt, and may not work out very well at all.   But as the dr. On the united flight demonstrates, sometimes, if you can keep your cool, are in the "right" even if they are legally authorized to beat you up, and can get ahold of some video documentation of the event, things can work out.   He received an undisclosed amount, so can't say for sure, but I've seen estimates of somewhere around $1million.   Not too shabby, and also resulted in some much needed review of the airline policies regarding overbooking and bumping passengers.   That might not amount to anything, but the settlement worked for Dao.


----------



## drop bear (May 11, 2017)

Steve said:


> Even then, it's a bad idea to beat up a cop.   You can take your chances in standing up to a cop.   It will probably hurt, and may not work out very well at all.   But as the dr. On the united flight demonstrates, sometimes, if you can keep your cool, are in the "right" even if they are legally authorized to beat you up, and can get ahold of some video documentation of the event, things can work out.   He received an undisclosed amount, so can't say for sure, but I've seen estimates of somewhere around $1million.   Not too shabby, and also resulted in some much needed review of the airline policies regarding overbooking and bumping passengers.   That might not amount to anything, but the settlement worked for Dao.



So the best defence is have money.

Which was Ice T,s point in the song No Lives Matter.


----------



## Brmty2002 (May 11, 2017)

Steve said:


> Even then, it's a bad idea to beat up a cop.   You can take your chances in standing up to a cop.   It will probably hurt, and may not work out very well at all.   But as the dr. On the united flight demonstrates, sometimes, if you can keep your cool, are in the "right" even if they are legally authorized to beat you up, and can get ahold of some video documentation of the event, things can work out.   He received an undisclosed amount, so can't say for sure, but I've seen estimates of somewhere around $1million.   Not too shabby, and also resulted in some much needed review of the airline policies regarding overbooking and bumping passengers.   That might not amount to anything, but the settlement worked for Dao.


Good point...


----------



## stonewall1350 (May 13, 2017)

Defense against an officer is frequently ILLEGAL. Your BEST defense is in court. Especially if you have a camera going. Though I did hear a story once of a local cop who was an absolute scumbag of a human being. He harassed this one fellow and talked all kinds of smack to him. Had something to do with the officer's family a civil suit. The guy had tried making a formal complaint to no avail and then went and called this cop out in front of his friends at a bar. Gave him the address of his gym and told him they could go a few rounds.

Officer got his *** beat in short order. And he got fired less than a month later for some kind of road rage incident. It was nice to hear. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

