Self Defence AGAINST an officer

[Steve]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Tez3]

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.