Most of these posts I see are prejudiced against United Airlines but the fair and just view would've been this:

Under the code of federal regulations, title 14, chapter 1, subchapter F, part 91, rule 91.11 in subpart A, according to the Federal Aviation Administration it says, "No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated." 

Most of the people saying you can't deny service to a man after boarding are dead wrong as crewmember's can and WILL pick off and choose to remove people. The staff was well within their right to call security to remove the man. What is potentially wrong is security using excessive force but to his credit he got suspended.

For anyone else thinking this is going to be a fruitful lawsuit are mostly wrong too, the plaintiff would most likely lose in this case so the best he could hope for is a small settlement outside of court at best. 

The point is that United had ZERO right to ask him to exit the plane. When companies overbook, they can block people from boarding, but they can't remove the ones that already boarded. So, if the plane is full and an extra guy tries to board, they may deny it. They can't remove someone so he can board. Also, there was no extra paying passenger: they wanted to fly their workers. And they intended to remove a PAYING customer to do so.

You're also trying to defend them while they removed him with such brutality that he was knocked out. They can't do that. Do you see any of the security guys hurt? No, they are fine. The guy is a bloody mess. It's clear that they used disproportional force to remove an old dude when they had no right to do so. The guy is 69 year old and they could never, ever, hurt him like that. And they tried to argue that a 69-year old man posed such a threat to security guys that were significantly stronger and younger than him so they had to use blunt force. That's the kind of argument I expect from kindergarden childs trying to cover up an obvious mess.

So I really can't see why you're defending the company when they clearly acted wrongly when trying to enforce something they were wrong in the first place in different ways for doing so. 

Again... No idea where you got that. I never said United was right. Never... I said the dude was wrong to refuse to cooperate to authorities and got hurt... Simple as that. You and many others are mixing 2 things here and not even reading what I'm saying.

And as I said, this person can then sue whoever he wants including United if he believe he asked to de-plane wrongly :)

Again... No idea where you got that. I never said United was right. Never... I said the dude was wrong to refuse to cooperate to authorities and got hurt... Simple as that. You and many others are mixing 2 things here and not even reading what I'm saying.

And as I said, this person can then sue whoever he wants including United if he believe he asked to de-plane wrongly :)

If the guy was right, then he can't  be in the wrong by doing what's in the right.

Where did you get that? I did not say he was right. Anyway, I remember you comment about the police and all that. This is like talking to a wall. 

And even if you can say he is right (I'm assuming because I said he could sue if he believes so) you are again mixing 2 things... The choice United made which has nothing to do with the airport authorities or the police you hate so much and the actual airport authorities asking him to de-plane...

But this is a sterile conversation, you already told us that for you, the fact that you think you are right gives you the right to do not comply to the police.

Well, someone has to be right. If the United are wrong, then he is right. Also, United were complicit in the actions of the police/security. They knew that he didn't want to get off, and they knew that force would be needed to get him off. The CEO at first didn't even acknowledge anywrongdoing with the way he was taken out, so they were obviously fine with it. And yes, I think that being right means that you shouldn't have to cooperate with the police, because the police shouldn't have free reign to do whatever they want.

Man either you are doing this on purpose or you really don't get it... 

Right or not... Airport authorities != United Airline...
Finally, you comply to the authorities asking you to de-plane. Even if it is because they do like the color of your socks... You just do it and then you can fill a complain and win millions...

But you said it again, you do not think cooperating with authorities is a normal. I guess speed limits are just a recommendation for you and you feel in your right because you car speed meter goes up to 300 km/h after all, you have the right to.