Thank God you didn't post this in P&R. There would have been 20 replies already on how this is Trumps fault.

(04-11-2017, 01:11 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Yeah, but the defense will argue just the opposite (and a disorder claim won't fly without treatment records).  I think the city/airport authority will be reluctant to write a blank check when they can leverage criminal charges.  Yeah, charges will be dropped as part of the settlement but that doesn't mean they don't factor into something much less than a blank check.

And a jury trial is hardly a slamdunk - looks like he's clinging to that chair like spiderman, and the city will argue his injuries resulted from his resistance of lawful action.


Let me ask you a different question...if he's awarded millions for his own unlawful conduct, then how much should the other 3 be entitled to for leaving the plane without incident?  That's the big problem here - you can't start writing blank checks to people for forcibly resisting leaving a plane.

Here is a fun quote from the Chicago Department of Aviation, the law enforcement body who employees the officers on site.

"The incident was not in accordance with our standard operating procedure and the actions of the aviation security officer are obviously not condoned by the Department."

So, the officer who from reports came up and yanked him out of the seat while two others were attempting to talk him out of the seat admittedly didn't follow procedure? Yep, sounds like a slam dunk to me.

The other 3 are entitled to 400% the cost of their ticket up to $1350. That is laid out by the department of transportation. Their problems have nothing to do with him, we all know that our legal system rewards stupidity even self inflicted harm.

(04-10-2017, 11:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm sure dude will never have to pay for a flight again; however, I doubt he has any grounds for a law suit. There's a lot of itty bitty writing on your ticket for a reason. He could easily be arrested for failure to comply.

As to folks leaving United; I doubt it will happen.

If I'm flying to LA tomorrow and United can give me a better deal than Delta. The last thing that will cross my mind is: They forced that one dude off the plane.

Pretty much this. 

Dude should have gotten out of his seat. The airline has rules and procedures, its not their problem that he didnt read the fine print. 

The force used was completely unnecessary, though. I dont think the people that did it worked for the airline though. They were general airport security. Im not really sure United is at fault for any of this. 

(04-10-2017, 06:55 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: It wouldn't be the same case.  The restitution is a civil suit, and refusing to leave and whatever other trumped up charges they could bring would be a criminal felony case.  It's not like he robbed a store, but barring jury nullifcation he's likely guilty of violating several laws (I can't really find what those laws would be searching).  They don't tolerate any kind of bullshit on flights.

The problem I see is that, while he likely deserves damages, if he seeks an excessive number then a big settlement might send the wrong message (except I'm sure a settlement would be sealed under gag order).

How did he get injured, anyway?  Looked to me like he may have hit his head when he was being wrestled out of the chair, which would make his injury a result of his own unlawful resistance.

What law did he break?

(04-11-2017, 01:11 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Yeah, but the defense will argue just the opposite (and a disorder claim won't fly without treatment records).  I think the city/airport authority will be reluctant to write a blank check when they can leverage criminal charges. Yeah, charges will be dropped as part of the settlement but that doesn't mean they don't factor into something much less than a blank check.

And a jury trial is hardly a slamdunk - looks like he's clinging to that chair like spiderman, and the city will argue his injuries resulted from his resistance of lawful action.


Let me ask you a different question...if he's awarded millions for his own unlawful conduct, then how much should the other 3 be entitled to for leaving the plane without incident?  That's the big problem here - you can't start writing blank checks to people for forcibly resisting leaving a plane.

You don't even know what law he broke and now youve declared he was "forcibly resisting? By holding onto his seat?

It's just too god damn bad United Airlines doesn't own any planes because otherwise they could have "re-accommodated" their employees and un****ed the mess they created by overbooking the flight in the first place with paying customers.

United would have lost a lot less money if they had just kept sweetening the deal until a fourth person caved. They went from 400 to 800, just keep on going up by 400s, I'm positive someone would have taken a deal before they got to the nigh 1 billion they've cost themselves.

winner winner chicken dinner

https://www.tmz.com/2017/04/11/united-airlines-doctor-convicted-drugs-sex/

He's not going to see even half a million in settlement.

(04-11-2017, 05:06 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: winner winner chicken dinner

https://www.tmz.com/2017/04/11/united-airlines-doctor-convicted-drugs-sex/

He's not going to see even half a million in settlement.

False, a guy did bad things in the past so he is free to have bad things done to him by a completely separate entity? That logic makes 0 sense.

You may want to read about how United's overbooking and removal policy actually doesn't meet with federal regulations in that they must provide written notice as to why you are being removed at the time of the removal. By all accounts this was never done in this case. Also fun to note their policy everyone points to that is in fine print that allows them to kick people off for over booking, as written, only applied to being refused boarding not being removed from the plane. Many legal experts are claiming now he may have a great lawsuit, that is even before getting into the excessive force by the airport police, who have already been suspended and reprimanded by the Chicago transportation authority.

You still can't refuse an order to get off the airplane. The injuries are a result of his own lawful behavior. United being wrong or whatever doesn't give you a get of jail free card - you're still responsible for your own lack of cooperation.

The guy is a loser. 3 other people got off the plane without incident, because they weren't losers. Maybe he was even on drugs. Jury trial is looking better and better.

(04-11-2017, 05:16 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: You still can't refuse an order to get off the airplane.  The injuries are a result of his own lawful behavior.  United being wrong or whatever doesn't give you a get of jail free card - you're still responsible for your own lack of cooperation.

The guy is a loser.  3 other people got off the plane without incident, because they weren't losers.   Maybe he was even on drugs.  Jury trial is looking better and better.

Now your simply resorting to conjecture, as I said Lawyers are citing United's possible illegal removal policy (Based on federal laws) and the fact they may not even have followed the policy he agreed to. As much of a "loser" that you think he may be, he has legal rights. You say United wrong doesn't give him a get out of jail free card, except it legally does if they didn't handle themselves in the legal manor that are established for these situations. Also, the comments form the law enforcement agency who remov3ed him show they were in the wrong in how the handled it.

You are letting your emotions get in the way of logic. There is no "jury trial" coming, he hasn't been charged with anything from what I can find.

(04-11-2017, 05:16 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: You still can't refuse an order to get off the airplane. The injuries are a result of his own lawful behavior. United being wrong or whatever doesn't give you a get of jail free card - you're still responsible for your own lack of cooperation.

The guy is a loser. 3 other people got off the plane without incident, because they weren't losers. Maybe he was even on drugs. Jury trial is looking better and better.

What makes the order to get off the plane lawful? What law did he break?

The CEO has apologized to the customer and stated no one should be "mistreated" in that manner. One security agent has been suspended because his behavior was "not in accordance with our standard operating procedure."

(04-11-2017, 05:32 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: What makes the order to get off the plane lawful?  What law did he break?

The CEO has apologized to the customer and stated no one should be "mistreated" in that manner. One security agent has been suspended because his behavior was "not in accordance with our standard operating procedure."

The one that prevents people from being jackasses!....Wait that's not a law as much a speople would like it to be.

(04-11-2017, 05:35 PM)Au165 Wrote: The one that prevents people from being jackasses!....Wait that's not a law as much a speople would like it to be.

If he was breaking the law he should have been arrested and charged with something. I'm curious to see what charges JustWinBaby can produce.  Oh, and let's not forget the guy is a "loser" and "probably on drugs." 

(04-11-2017, 06:18 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If he was breaking the law he should have been arrested and charged with something. I'm curious to see what charges JustWinBaby can produce.

Trespassing

(04-11-2017, 05:22 PM)Au165 Wrote: Now your simply resorting to conjecture, as I said Lawyers are citing United's possible illegal removal policy (Based on federal laws) and the fact they may not even have followed the policy he agreed to. As much of a "loser" that you think he may be, he has legal rights. You say United wrong doesn't give him a get out of jail free card, except it legally does if they didn't handle themselves in the legal manor that are established for these situations. Also, the comments form the law enforcement agency who remov3ed him show they were in the wrong in how the handled it.

You are letting your emotions get in the way of logic. There is no "jury trial" coming, he hasn't been charged with anything from what I can find.

Whether or not United's actions were illegal, they are not responsible for the incident with security because the security employees are not United employees.  Punitive damages would maybe run into the tens of thousands, not millions, if United did break the law.  But otherwise, the settlement amount for involuntary bumps is already clearly defined.   You need to separate the refusal of transport from the injury (if a jury agrees this is materially different than an involuntary bump), the latter was not foreseeable and therefore United won't be liable for injuries (airport security is a different defendant).

Jury trials also refer to civil trials, which is what would happen if he sues them.  So there's not any lack of logic on my end.

And I've never said he doesn't have legal rights.  What I've said is character and our own actions play a factor in determining damages in a civil case.  You would agree that cold-cocking a cooperative person with a baton for no reason is very different from a person forcing you to wrestle them out of their chair, and that the former is likely to get a significantly larger injury award?

(04-11-2017, 07:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Trespassing

He bought a ticket and had a valid boarding pass.  A search for "united airlines passenger arrested" didn't reveal an arrest or any charges stemming from this incident.  I'm not convinced tresspassing applies.

The doctor (who once lost his license for a decade for trading pills for sex http://nypost.com/2017/04/11/doctor-dragged-off-flight-convicted-of-trading-drugs-for-sex/) is in the wrong.

They can bump you, even once on the plane. You do not have the right to throw a tantrum and not get off. Once you interfere with the flight crew, it's a crime.

Cops tried to take him off the plane, he just screamed. They then had to carry him and he fell.

Boo hoo

(04-12-2017, 10:14 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The doctor (who once lost his license for a decade for trading pills for sex http://nypost.com/2017/04/11/doctor-dragged-off-flight-convicted-of-trading-drugs-for-sex/) is in the wrong.

They can bump you, even once on the plane. You do not have the right to throw a tantrum and not get off. Once you interfere with the flight crew, it's a crime.

Cops tried to take him off the plane, he just screamed. They then had to carry him and he fell.

Boo hoo

There is a lot of blame to go around including the passenger. His injuries weren't the result of a simple fall. I don't think he deserves a large settlement. But, I don't think Airlines should be allowed to overbook flights creating these types of problems.

(04-12-2017, 10:14 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The doctor (who once lost his license for a decade for trading pills for sex  http://nypost.com/2017/04/11/doctor-dragged-off-flight-convicted-of-trading-drugs-for-sex/) is in the wrong.

They can bump you, even once on the plane. You do not have the right to throw a tantrum and not get off. Once you interfere with the flight crew, it's a crime.

Cops tried to take him off the plane, he just screamed. They then had to carry him and he fell.

Boo hoo

What does his past offenses have to do with this specific issue? Seems like you think people with past transgressions are free to be assaulted.

Did they provide him with a written explanation for being removed form the flight at time of removal as required under government regulations?

Did they follow their own policy of not seating overbooked flights?

Is their a policy the passenger agreed to upon ticket purchase on, what the airline is now calling, downward line seating for which they remove passengers for flight crew after the boarding process has already begun?

Did he get charged with a crime?

Did he fall horizontally into an arm rest across from him?

Why would the Chicago Transportation Authority publicly state that it was handled wrong and suspend the officer who injured the passenger on leave if he just fell and they were in the right?


See it just doesn't seem so cut and dry like people like to pretend. There is a natural desire to hate the guy acting like an ass, but he still has rights. Also interesting to note he volunteered to give up his seat originally, but when they told him the next flight wasn't until 2:30 the next day he freaked out due to missing his rounds. I'd be pissed to if they didn't tell me the next flight wasn't until the next day, until after they got volunteers.