(04-29-2017, 03:52 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You'll start seeing more people pull the shit he did on planes hoping for the same payday that guy got.

(04-29-2017, 03:52 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You'll start seeing more people pull the shit he did on planes hoping for the same payday that guy got. It really is fascinating how the public views this completely differently from the cops on the street detaining someone. It must be something psycholgical where they feel the guy was entitled because he's wealthy enough to be on the plane and not a black man pulled over for a tail light. Dragging someone who refuses to leave a plane has become worse than killing a man for announcing he is legally carrying a gun while at a traffic stop.

(05-01-2017, 10:27 AM)Au165 Wrote: Not sure your going to see people get bumped from planes they are already on for being overcrowded going forward. Most the airlines have already updated their policies to avoid this. I don't think they side with him because he is "wealthy", they side with him because the experience is relatable. Many people fly, or have flown, and feel as if they are treated poorly in general during the experience. The idea that a customer was removed from his seat at no fault of his own after paying for it I believe bothers a lot of people.

(05-01-2017, 12:49 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's far more relatable to be entitled on a plane than a poor black man. More bothered about being bumped from seats than killed by the police. That's the sad mentality of the US. 

(05-01-2017, 02:01 PM)Au165 Wrote: Everyone is entitled to certain things every day as a paying customer entering into a contract. More people are involved in contracts than they are involved with racism, it doesn't make them bad people everyone tends to care about issues they have experience with or relate to. I pointed out very early the guy had a reasonable legal argument for various reasons against the airline itself as well as the officers who removed him. You stood by the stance that he was in the wrong and consumers have no rights when being removed from a plane, but that is in fact false considering how quickly the airline settled and the lack of charges from a criminal stand point.

Your trying to project a larger social issue on to something unrelated to feign outrage. You can not like that the guy is getting paid, In fact he was an asshole, but he still has consumer protections. There was outrage for the items you mentioned, then people moved on. There was outrage over this, then people moved on. We live in a 24 hour shock and awe news cycle things burn bright and fizzle out quickly, it's just the way these things work.

(05-02-2017, 08:10 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: They're not bad people, it's just a sad reality of this country. So many people are incapable of showing empathy for someone who is different from them.

Doctor defies police order to leave plane that he was no right to be on and busts a lip open. The public sides with the doctor.

Black man tells cops that he is legally carrying a gun during a traffic stop and is shot to death. The public says he should have listened to the police.

(05-02-2017, 09:03 AM)Au165 Wrote: Once again they aren't quite the same thing (he had a right to be on plane as has been spelled out multiple times), but your pretty set in your thoughts on this so I'll let this one just be done.

(05-02-2017, 09:51 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Not really, but if it makes you uncomfortable to think about this, maybe it is best to ignore it and retreat. 

(05-02-2017, 10:00 AM)Au165 Wrote: Not about retreating, you refuse to listen. I already explained that from a legal stand point he had a right to be on the plane (the contract he entered into). They did not follow the proper procedures to remove him (break contract). So your statement of "Doctor defies police order to leave plane that he was no right to be on " is false as he had a right to be there. As for what happened afterwards it obviously was enough to warrant suspensions and no charges being filed.

Quote:As to being uncomfortable, it's not about being uncomfortable, your trying to draw parallels that aren't there. You were wrong about the outcome of this case and you don't like the outcome. The false parallel into a race debate doesn't hold water, but we can have that debate on another thread where it isn't a red herring.

(05-02-2017, 10:57 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This is just demonstrably false. 

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/apr/14/andrew-napolitano/united-airlines-passenger-had-every-right-stay-pla/

Maybe you know more than an aviation law professor. I'm sorry if me ignoring some random dude over law professors makes you think that I won't listen. I just go to experts for my information, not the Bengals Board. 



Though I teach sociology, I won't paint myself as an expert. This is my opinion. The parallels are there. "Civilian is injured after an interaction with the cops". You can take issue with my suggestion that race is tied into this, and I will disagree since race and socioeconomics are forever tied in our culture, but don't be dishonest and say there are no parallels when one post ago you were trying to excuse the difference in attitudes of the general population. 

As for this topic, I just can't entertain upper middle class entitlement and ignore lower class strife. 

(05-02-2017, 11:19 AM)Au165 Wrote: And here is the Dean of Cornell's law school telling you he did have legal standing under basic contract law, which I am well versed in.

http://www.newsweek.com/why-united-were-legally-wrong-deplane-dr-dao-583535

Looks like they were worried enough about their legal exposure they went ahead and settled though.

(05-02-2017, 11:48 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I guess that's why we have people who are certified in aviation law. They have a different perspective than those who just look at basic contract law. 

Either way, PR, like in other cases involving the cops, determined the outcome. 

(05-02-2017, 11:57 AM)Au165 Wrote: Contract law overrides anything specific to aviation as UCC Article 2 governs basically everything we do in business life. Aviation Law encompasses a lot of international laws which is why you tend to get specialized lawyers doing it, but here at home UCC Article 2 reigns supreme. You can claim that PR caused the settlement but without some legal standing they aren't settling otherwise, as you mentioned earlier, it would set a bad precedent. Interesting to note that Dao didn't sue or settle with the law enforcement agency, which means he was probably planning to position United as the sole party responsible for the events and the ensuing damages.

(05-02-2017, 03:01 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm not trying to come off like an ass, which I can often do due to a lack of concern with my decorum on an internet forum, but if I see something that proves that everything I have read is false, I will not ignore it.

My social commentary remains, though. Just an opinion.

Quote:The department suspended four employees in the incident and said neither the Chicago Police Department nor airport security officers will go on aircraft to deal with customer service matters including overbooking.