Self Defence AGAINST an officer

[CB Jones]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

You can arrest people if you want.

And the crime of trespass?

 

[Tez3]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?