Self Defence AGAINST an officer

[JP3]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[wingerjim]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.