This remains a continual puzzle to me. (Behavior on DU.)

[LAS14]

I posted this question about how authorities are supposed to handle situations when they must remove someone from a place. In the first link below I tried over and over to emphasize that my question was isolating a little piece of the United flap.

But still someone responded to a question I was trying not to address. (Reply #131). This happens over and over in DU. And elsewhere, of course. I don't have hopes of trying to change it, but I do wonder if other DUers are as bothered by it as I am.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8918185

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8918285

[meadowlander]

1. You asked a question.

Someone responded with the argument that it was the wrong question to be asking.

That's how discussions work. You're setting yourself up for failure if you try to force people to only discuss what you want to discuss.

[LOL Lib]

2. Obfuscation

It's a fact of life. If you think arguing a point among fellow DUers is bad, I know some brain dead TrumpHumpers that will make smoke come out of your ears.

[Sanity Claws]

3. When they must remove someone....

I think that part of your question requires a lengthy discussion.

United caused the problem. It seated a full plane but then decided that it, United, needed to send personnel to another airplane. I have not heard the reason; have you? Did United screw up scheduling staff? Why was this not discovered before the plane was fully seated?

In any event, United had several ways to handle this problem, even if United itself had caused it. It could have put that staff on a different plane or even a different carrier or perhaps hire a van to drive them to their destination. It could have increased the amount of money offered to get volunteers.

Instead, United chose to force four paying customers already seated off the plane.

Accordingly, I don't agree with the premise of your question, that authorities had to remove someone from the plane.

[LAS14]

4. You're doing it again. I tried as hard as I could to extract an....

... abstract, theoretical question about the legitimate behavior of authorities. What part of &quot Reminder - we're ignoring the righteousness of United's policies for the purposes of this question.) " didn't you get?

If you wanted to talk about the wisdom, justification of United's policy, why not start another thread, or respond to one of the many addressing that question?

[Sanity Claws]

5. All parts of the question are intertwined

What might be justified in one situation is not justified in another.

[TNLib]

7. My understanding is the officer has been placed on leave and it's under review.

The Atlantic

The Chicago Department of Aviation said Monday the officer who dragged the man has been placed on leave pending a review of the situation, noting his actions were not in accordance with the department’s standards. Though United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz called the incident “upsetting” in a statement Monday, Munoz said in an internal memo to United employees that the airline “followed established procedures,” adding the passenger was “disruptive and belligerent.” He said the airline’s “agents were left with no choice but to call Chicago Aviation Security Officers to assist in removing the customer from the flight.”

I guess we'll know more once the review is conducted but it doesn't sound like the security officer was following standard procedures.

Though United feels it's employees where in accordance with their procedures.

[LAS14]

9. Thanks. This is to the point of my post in the other thread. But as for...

... this OP, do you have a thought about responses not to the point of the original question? Does it annoy you?

[LanternWaste]

12. you're directly referencing one incident, yet ignoring both the nuance and context

"I tried as hard as I could to extract an abstract, theoretical question about the legitimate behavior of authorities..."

Which looks to me as though you're directly referencing one incident as a base-line, yet ignoring both the nuance and context inherent in any specific scenario; instead looking for a generic, one-size-fits-all reaction (you call "an abstract&quot to all like-incidences, which given human nature is simply not practical.

[eniwetok]

6. I can't believe someone flagged your post for flaming

but then this is DU.

[cwydro]

11. Ridiculous. It is a meta post, but not flaming.

I think some spend a LOT of time alerting on posts they disagree with. Silly thing to do.

[JTFrog]

32. Actually it's one of the ways that admin say you can help enforce Community Standards.

I know there are people who abuse the system, but it's not silly to alert on posts that make DU suck.

[eniwetok]

46. where in the rules is there a ban on "sucky" posts?

Leaving aside that 30-50% of the posts here fluff, non political, or a rehash of what's already been rehashed... what "sucks" often says more about the reader than the post.

Where DU fails IMHO is that after 16 years there are no projects, no end products... just endless churn.

[obamanut2012]

44. This is a meta post, so if it was flagged, I am surprised it stood

[LAS14]

8. They did? How do you know?

This one, or the one I referenced here?

[eniwetok]

13. if you're asking me...

It was this thread. I was asked to do jury service.

[LAS14]

21. Oh! Thanks!

[Orsino]

10. Discussion boards gonna discuss.

We can't generally control where a thread is going to go, even if we start it.

[eniwetok]

15. but the thread starter does have some right to redirect the discussion back on topic

After all, no one is forcing others to join a thread.

[Orsino]

42. Um, sez who?

I have never heard of such a thing.

[obamanut2012]

45. ummm... no

[OriginalGeek]

62. well, the thread starter has a right to _try_

to get it back on course in that he or she has the right to post anything on DU.

But yeah, no right to expect it to remain on course.

[eniwetok]

69. so the thread starter has the right... but not the thread hijackers?

Do we agree on that?

[OriginalGeek]

70. ?

Everyone has the right to post anything within the tos here. Thread starters and thread highjackers. Thread starters can try to get the threads they post back on track and highjackers can ask whatever they want.


I'm not saying it's nice but there's nothing stopping them from doing it as long their posts follow the tos.

[LAS14]

36. Yeah, I don't mind seeing threads take off in different....

... directions, but it would be a good thing, in my opinion, if someone signaled that they're choosing to bring up something new instead of answering the OP question. That's what's annoying. The sense of not being heard, never mind understood.

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. Yes, but your post was not an OP question. It was, itself, taking discussion in a new direction

That OP was about the man dragged off the plane, with a comment about whether his fear stemmed partly from being Vietnamese. You introduced a new question (how should the police react when asked to force someone off a plane), and someone said they shouldn't be put in that situation. They weren't doing any more to change the topic than you had.

[kentuck]

14. "Who will swap their seat for $2000?

I bet they would have gotten a taker.

And they would not have had to drag anyone thru the aisle of the plane.

[FBaggins]

27. And it still would have saved United significantly over this alternative

[Alice11111]

35. Everyone has his or her price

[randome]

16. It's a visceral, not an analytical, reaction. Blood and a corporation equals racism, fascism...

...class warfare, authoritarianism, police thuggery, corporate overlords and everything else under the sun. I'm astonished by how widely meandering the DU reaction has been on this.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[duncang]

17. Doesn't look like topic drift from your question

Your question in post #119 was

"What is a policeman supposed to do when asked to remove a person from a place where they don't belong?"

And the answer they gave was essentially the police shouldn't have been involved at all enforcing a airlines terms of agreement. They should only come in when there is a actual threat, drunk, disorderly, etc.


BTW this may not be the answer you wanted to hear. But it was a valid answer.

[randome]

19. That is not an answer to the question. It's avoidance of an answer.

The answer is that they are obligated to remove any passenger the airline deems not valid -by force, if necessary. The way this guy reacted, screeching and flailing about, I bet if they had let him be, the other passengers would have been nervous around him because his reaction was not normal and not something one wants on a plane while in flight.

Once he went into 'screech mode', I'm betting there was no alternative but to haul him out. Which they did.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[duncang]

26. From what I saw

I am pretty sure the point being made was the police should not be obligated to enforce the airlines terms of agreement.

As to the screeching. The video only shows he was screeching after the attempt to physically remove him. I haven't seen any videos of him screeching while the UA employees talked to him. Or the beginning of the interaction with the police. I'll wait until more comes out on that before saying the passenger was the only one in fault.

[randome]

30. There is plenty of fault to go around. UA should never have been in this position in the 1st place.

I would think the police warned him they would use force and when he ignored them, they did as advertised. But that's more speculation. As you said, it would be nice to have the start of their interaction to view and listen to.

But they have to use force under certain circumstances. What if a passenger is yelling at people or behaving like a maniac and refusing to leave? Those are situations that require force. The police are probably obligated to assume the airline knows what it's doing when they ask someone to be removed. They aren't there to start an investigation.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[tazkcmo]

51. I would have been raising holy hell.

Quietly into the night I will not go. The passenger seated in front of the doctor had a conversation with him and said he was "nice". There was nothing about the doctor that caused anybody any concern as noted by the absence of such claims. Do you have information on the doctor's behavior prior to his being told he had to leave the plane? If so, please share.

My bet is that nobody would have even noticed this man if not for the abhorrent behavior of the airline personnel and cops.

[randome]

52. The airline was legally permitted to cancel his seat and offer him another.

That's the long and the short of it. I wish we had seen what occurred just before the police started pulling him free. Then we'd at least know if they tried to talk to him some more or even warned him they would have to use force if he didn't comply.

But we don't know. When they laid hands on him is apparently when he began screeching and flailing about. As I've posted elsewhere, that should have given the police pause to consider that perhaps he was mentally ill. Which is 'suggested' in another thread, although at this point with the misinformation being bandied about, we shouldn't assume much of anything about this man's identity or past.

I don't see that the airline personnel behaved badly. They offered vouchers then followed procedure when they couldn't get enough takers. 'Procedure' meaning randomly selecting a passenger to be off-boarded and then, when that didn't work, calling in the police.

The police could have handled things better, but they were justified in removing a passenger by force when he refused to leave. Airplanes are treated differently from other public spaces because of space constraints. There are entire sets of law dealing with public transportation issues.

The police, imo, did not use unnecessary force, they simply tried to pull the man free and then he apparently lost his grip on his seat and the momentum of the officers caused him to hit his head on the adjoining row of seats. Should they have NEVER tried to pull the man free? That's open to debate, obviously, but it does not appear to me as if anyone WANTED this man to be injured.

Sometimes it isn't so easy to lay blame on one side or the other. In this case, Dao's behavior in conjunction with the officers' attempt to use force resulted in his head-banging. At least, that's what I see in the video.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[tazkcmo]

54. "The airline was legally permitted to cancel his seat and offer him another."

No, they were not. They were not over booked, they were sold out.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/nation/united-airlines-now-says-flight-that-sparked-uproar-was-not-overbooked/430456020

So, the rules governing overbooked flights do not apply here. n addition, if it was overbooked, the rules clearly refer to a denial of boarding. In other words, before taking your reserved and paid for seats.

For those passengers already boarded, a different rule apples.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/united-cites-wrong-rule-for-illegally-de-boarding-passenger/

From the article:Rule 21, entitled “Refusal of Transport,” is very different because it clearly and expressly covers situations in which a passenger who has already boarded the plane can be removed. It states clearly: “Rule 21, Refusal of Transport, UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the RIGHT TO REMOVE FROM THE AIRCRAFT AT ANY POINT, any passenger for the following reasons.” [emphasis added]

The rule, which unlike the denied boarding rule does provide for removal “from the aircraft at any point,” lists some two dozen justifications including: unruly behavior, intoxication, inability to fit into one seat, medical problems or concerns, etc. But nowhere in the list of some two dozen reasons is there anything about over booking, the need to free up seats, the need for seats to accommodate crew members to be used on a different flight etc.

This is very important because, under accepted legal principles, a law or rule which lists in detail several different factors must be read not to include other factors which were deliberately not included or listed. So, for example, if a rule provides that a license to drive a car may be forfeited by violations of laws governing speeding, intoxication, reckless driving, or driving without a license, it cannot be read to also permit license revocation for parking violations, or for having a burned out license plate illumination light.

They had no right to forcibly remove this peaceful, law abiding, paid customer. None.

[randome]

57. I don't understand this focus on Rule 21.

There are other regulations that govern safety and other issues that UA could probably use as justification since they decided they HAD to have those 4 employees in Louisville. If they HAD to have those 4 employees in place (notice the 'if'), then making room for them could easily be a safety issue.

There are no regulations for forcing a passenger off for, say, deliberate making farting noises and refusing to stop, but I bet such a character could get tossed quite easily.

Does Rule 21 address plane weight limits? http://abc7chicago.com/news/passengers-kicked-off-airline-due-to-weight-limit/1220972/

40,000 passengers were bumped last year in America alone: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/United-Forcibly-Removed-Man-Highlights-Overbooking-Policy-419052804.html

Yeah, a carrier can pretty much book a passenger on the next flight if they decide it's best.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[tazkcmo]

58. Deflection.

This is about this one man, nobody else.

Not farting passengers. Not weight limits. Don't care about those as they do not apply.

Rule 21, as explained in the article that I linked to and copied 4 paragraphs for you, refers to passengers already boarded. It's an important distinction.

[randome]

60. Rule 4E.

UA may limit the number of Passengers carried at any fare level and certain fares will not necessarily be available on all flights. The number of seats which UA shall make available on a given flight will be determined by UA.

Doesn't that give them an out? They changed the number of seats available.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[tazkcmo]

61. no.

This is rule does not cover who, when or why removal occures.

My last sentence on this subject because now I'm repeating myself: Rule 21 is the rule that governs why (Per the article there's about 24) an airline may remove a paid, seated passenger. The airline can't add to the list as it sees fit.

Have a nice day and thanks for the discussion.

[treestar]

18. Maybe try a few tactics first

But then eventually they do have to drag the person out.

I remember my niece would not leave her kindergarten playground no matter how much I requested. Even the old "walk away" ploy did not work (where a kid doesn't really want to be left alone, and will walk after you). I called her father and he talked to her - no dice. Not going to leave. I think she finally came but I remember being about ready to drag her bodily to the car!

[TexasProgresive]

20. You OP had 265 replies and this on got your knickers in a knot?

Zambero (4,349 posts)
131. To begin with...

United or any other airline should never under any circumstances be sending in the cops to forcibly remove a paying customer causing no problem who was selected "at random" because of the airline's own screw-up. That airline should have a back-up policy in place for alternative transportation, such as a small private plane, if getting select crew members to their destination is all that important, if and when someone in the organization screws up. Law enforcement and law-abiding customers should be completely out of the picture.

a response to your post:

119. Let's ignore, for the moment, the wisdom....

... of United's policy of removing people from their seats if they are refusing to leave after a legal (remember.... ignore this part) order to do so.

A lot of the furor seems to be about the physicality of the process. So my question to those folks is, What is a policeman supposed to do when asked to remove a person from a place where they don't belong? (Reminder - we're ignoring the righteousness of United's policies for the purposes of this question.) Just pretend that it was a legal order to leave the plane.

I would think that you got enough answers to your question from all the other respondents. It's not a big deal and is hardly way off topic. As someone has suggested it is the nature of human discussion, one thing leads to another.

[LAS14]

22. I didn't post the OP. My reply got two responses, last I looked. nt

[TexasProgresive]

24. Sorry, by the time I waded through all those post to get to 131 I forgot OKNancy did the OP.

[Leith]

23. I'll Give It a Try

Basically, it seems you are asking how the passenger should have been removed - is that right? You want to leave aside the question of the justice in forcing a paying customer causing no trouble to leave?

If my assumptions are right, here is my suggestion:

raise the arm rests. I looked at a couple of the videos again and it's quick, but you can clearly see that all arm rests are down. It's hard enough to wiggle yourself into the window seat around the arm rests when you want to get there. It's nearly impossible to drag a person fighting and screaming out of there when they don't want to leave.

What the cops did was drag the passenger over and around the arm rests, even making his face hit one of them and causing his lip to bleed. I'd be willing to bet that his legs got bruised when they yanked on his body with no thought as to how the human body bends and doesn't bend.

The dirty deed could have been done by removing the physical obstacles first. It would then be a simple matter of pulling him across a couple of cushioned seats.

Does that answer your question?

[LAS14]

25. Yes, this is the sort of reply I was looking for. Thoughts about...

... the best way to deal with a situation that seems to require physical force. Thanks.

But I'd also be interested in your response to this OP, where I'm shifting the question to an abstract one about ignoring the point when replying to an OP. Thoughts?

[Leith]

29. Probably Because

your question was basically "how can we forcibly remove a person from a seat he has paid for when he causing no harm and has every legal and moral right to be there?"

And most people object to that question. Therefore the best way to force him out is a moot point. You may as well ask people's recommendations on the best way to kill the passenger without blowing a hole in the side of the airplane.

[janterry]

56. that's interesting

I'm surprised security isn't trained in this (they must be!). It's where they have to do 'extractions' (well, I guess they do a lot of work in the airport, proper, too. But they must do these extractions in drills............

Anyway, you are completely right. This should always be the first step.

[ExciteBike66]

28. Here's what I don't get about your problem

You complain that people are posting off-topic stuff under your OP, fine.

But you original OP (Post 119) was off-topic from the original #1 OP to begin with.

If you want to ask a theoretical question about police responses to certain situations, you probably should not post such questions under an OP that discusses a certain concrete situation, or you might get people who think you are talking about the concrete situation and not the theoretical one. You should probably just create a new topic.

[LAS14]

37. I don't mind going off topic, if that is signaled. What I mind...

... is a reply that purports to answer the OP, but doesn't address it. I don't think I pretended to be answering the OP. The thread had already taken many different paths. See my reply #36.

[ExciteBike66]

41. You still might want to start a new topic next time

you wish to ask a theoretical question. It makes complete sense to me that folks would respond to your hypothetical as if it were actually discussing the event at hand, since you put that hypothetical into a topic about the event itself.

[Iggo]

31. The answer is "Offer more money until someone gives up their seat." (n/t)

[athena]

34. Did you really miss this thread:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028918567

It answers your question in great detail. There is even a video demonstration in one of the responses.

[LAS14]

38. Thanks.

[rock]

39. It's a high priority rule

If you don't like the question you're asked, answer another one.

[hunter]

43. What's a person to do?

Raise the bounty and/or wait them out. Eventually someone on the plane is going to crack and vacate their seat. Refund those people's tickets, shower them with cash and comps, and be on your way. Or find another way to get your crew to where they need to be. No blood shed.

Most of all, don't screw up and put yourself in this position. There's a reason I always think twice before calling the cops. I've witnessed them responding with unnecessary violence.

I'm a pacifist because I must be. The berserker gene is strong in me. Violence is NEVER justified in civil disputes; it's not even justified in the vast majority of violent crimes.

When I was a young man I had a bit of a temper. I once came across a stranger in the act of breaking into my car. He was acting as if it was his car so he didn't look suspicious. I picked up a piece of broken brick and I threw it at him. It whizzed millimeters past his head (lucky for me) and he looked up in pure terror and ran away. But the instant I threw the brick I felt a similar level of terror knowing I'd resorted to deadly force for something so damned trivial. He may have been trying to steal the car for all I know, but so what? Having my car stolen wouldn't have killed me.

I've also got a knife scar on my arm. That was a violent crime against me, but once I'd got the guy to drop his knife I didn't hammer on him any further. He was another fellow who ran away.

I was a skinny squeaky highly reactive kid in middle and high school, a favorite target of bullies who would call me queerbait and beat me bloody. There were teachers and school administrators who'd tell me I should act more "like a man." Yeah, right. Blame the victim. The testosterone didn't kick in until after I'd quit high school. That made me at times more of a danger to myself than I'd ever been. I was stupid.

United Airlines and the airport cops are stupid.

[LAS14]

48. Here's another flavor of the question in this OP,

... that is, "How should I interpret this DU behavior, and does it annoy you, too?"

This is the difficulty of posting a question without it being interpreted as rhetorical. I got into a back and forth with someone who wanted facts in an OP where I was asking if anyone knew what had happened.

How can I make it clear when a question is really a question?

[Demsrule86]

50. By what right do you determine responses?

People can say what they choose within the rules of this website.

[LAS14]

53. It seems to me that "by what right" is an inappropriate...

.. take on this question. I'm talking about how to engage in meaningful dialogue, if not polite conversation. I'm asking if treating real questions as rhetorical is something that has annoyed other DUers. I'm not suggesting a rule or "rights."

[Demsrule86]

65. what you find meaningful and what I find meaningful may be different.

And respectfully...what makes you think you can control any discussion?

[LAS14]

67. I'm asking people's opinions. I'm not trying to control anything. nt

[Wounded Bear]

49. Trying to limit or contain a thread discussion is a bit like herding cats...

they don't like that.

[janterry]

55. I'm not seeing this as a place for that kind of discussion

Though I understand the question.

IMO if the security guard takes the fall for this, it's probably wrong. The pilot/crew/staff on the ground called them and told them to physically extract him from the plane. They did not call security to negotiate a higher stipend for the MD. As security, their job was to set a limit and then they were supposed to carry out the intervention.

If they physically retaliated against the Dr., then they were really wrong (and it's assault). Someone referred me to youtube, saying that people were calling it a beating, but I've not seen that evidence (not that it isn't there - just that I haven't seen it - I'm looking).

The space that they were managing him in was very small - and that makes it difficult (indeed, according to one passenger he hit is head on the armrest).

I guess I feel like there are several things going on. One is the policy is terrible and the staff should have continued to offer more money. Two, once boarded - leave the passengers alone. They are boarded. That's enough.

Third, security may have assaulted this man and it isn't (widely) reported yet. If they did, they need to be fired. But if this injury was the result of trying to get him off the plane, and they did the best they could - then those that wrote up the policy need to be held accountable.

Security just did what was in the policy (from what I can tell and - just for the record, I have experience doing physical management - but NONE in security and NONE in airports. So, I'm pretty ignorant after the physical management piece.

[MedusaX]

59. The Only Behavior One Can Control is Their Own...

And in many cases, that may be an overly optimistic assessment of reality.

Posting a question is often much like sending out party invitations....

No matter how much information you provide some will underdress, some will overdress, and a few proverbial Goldilocks' will dress "just right"....

You open the gifts (responses to post) and some you will love... others not so much...
but -- as the saying goes--
it is the thought/effort that counts.

[Demsrule86]

66. That is exactly right.

[titaniumsalute]

63. You post stuff on a blog page

You will get all kinds of answers. If it bothers you leave. Sometimes I read stuff on here that drives me nuts. If so, I go to the next thread, I shut it off, etc. Don't sweat it. Move on.

[kcr]

64. Why ask a question if you want to control the answer?

If you want absolute and direct control of everything people say instead of having a discussion, just tell people what you want them to say. You won't get a whole lot of people who want to discuss things with you. But at least you get what you want. And you won't be confused anymore.

[LAS14]

68. I want them to respond to the question. Do you not see a difference...

... between an answer which is a response to a question and an answer which is not a response to a question?