By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Man violently removed from United Airlines plane. ~Update~ United may have broken the law.

Imaginedvl on 10 April 2017
Hiku said:
Imaginedvl said:

No, I'm sorry but there is no line to be drawn there;

Incorrect. If they had chainsawed him out of the seat, they'd be in jail for excessive force, manslaughter, etc.

the line stops when the person is 1) not comploying with authorities (wrongly or not) and then resisting, simple as that. There are only one way to remove him from the plane; pull him and drag him...

Two ways. Bash his skull in on an armrest.

And again they did not bash his skull, HE did but actively resisting and then hurting himself...

And again, they did as well. Cops can get convicted with excessive force, or gross negligence, even if that situation happened because a suspect resisted and they had a right to detain them. Going back to the line I'm talking about that you pretend doesn't exist. If this man was a danger to others, and there was a sense of urgency, then it's a different story. But this was just a guy who wouldn't get off his seat.
The way they handled this man was incompetent to say the least.

You ignored it but my analogy (somewhat extrem) with a dude pulling a gun on a cop and then being shot is the same...

Because it was a horribly bad analogy.

If the man had attempted to, or threatened to, put the cops in a situation where their heads would get bashed in on an armrest, then and only then would your analogy be valid about them "shooting because they were scared of getting shot". But that's not the case here. He didn't threaten to do to them what was done to him. They weren't "afraid of getting their heads bashed in on an armrest, so they did it to him first."

Horrible analogy.

The analogy is good :) You just do not like it because for you it seems that it is fine to do not respect authorities and follow rules when it does not put someone else in danger. Well, laws, rules are the same for everything, not just a selection of your choice.

At the end there is one thing that matters: if the dude would have complied... Nothing would have happpened... That's the reality here. No matter what are you position on those bad cops and how you decide clasify rules and laws by order of priority :)



Around the Network
Azuren on 10 April 2017
Hiku said:
Imaginedvl said:

No, I'm sorry but there is no line to be drawn there;

Incorrect. If they had chainsawed him out of the seat, they'd be in jail for excessive force, manslaughter, etc.

the line stops when the person is 1) not comploying with authorities (wrongly or not) and then resisting, simple as that. There are only one way to remove him from the plane; pull him and drag him...

Two ways. Bash his skull in on an armrest.

And again they did not bash his skull, HE did but actively resisting and then hurting himself...

And again, they did as well. Cops can get convicted with excessive force, or gross negligence, even if that situation happened because a suspect resisted and they had a right to detain them. Going back to the line I'm talking about that you pretend doesn't exist. If this man was a danger to others, and there was a sense of urgency, then it's a different story. But this was just a guy who wouldn't get off his seat.
The way they handled this man was incompetent to say the least.

You ignored it but my analogy (somewhat extrem) with a dude pulling a gun on a cop and then being shot is the same...

Because it was a horribly bad analogy.

If the man had attempted to, or threatened to, put the cops in a situation where their heads would get bashed in on an armrest, then and only then would your analogy be valid about them "shooting because they were scared of getting shot". But that's not the case here. He didn't threaten to do to them what was done to him. They weren't "afraid of getting their heads bashed in on an armrest, so they did it to him first."

Horrible analogy.

The cops aren't at fault. They were called in to deal with something flight related, which has serious implications. If you resist, you can expect force in return. 



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Soonerman on 10 April 2017

That's why I only fly JetBlue or Virgin America



Soundwave on 10 April 2017
Azuren said:
Hiku said:

Incorrect. If they had chainsawed him out of the seat, they'd be in jail for excessive force, manslaughter, etc.

the line stops when the person is 1) not comploying with authorities (wrongly or not) and then resisting, simple as that. There are only one way to remove him from the plane; pull him and drag him...

Two ways. Bash his skull in on an armrest.

And again they did not bash his skull, HE did but actively resisting and then hurting himself...

And again, they did as well. Cops can get convicted with excessive force, or gross negligence, even if that situation happened because a suspect resisted and they had a right to detain them. Going back to the line I'm talking about that you pretend doesn't exist. If this man was a danger to others, and there was a sense of urgency, then it's a different story. But this was just a guy who wouldn't get off his seat.
The way they handled this man was incompetent to say the least.

You ignored it but my analogy (somewhat extrem) with a dude pulling a gun on a cop and then being shot is the same...

Because it was a horribly bad analogy.

If the man had attempted to, or threatened to, put the cops in a situation where their heads would get bashed in on an armrest, then and only then would your analogy be valid about them "shooting because they were scared of getting shot". But that's not the case here. He didn't threaten to do to them what was done to him. They weren't "afraid of getting their heads bashed in on an armrest, so they did it to him first."

Horrible analogy.

The cops aren't at fault. They were called in to deal with something flight related, which has serious implications. If you resist, you can expect force in return. 

This is false. Police/security don't have carte blanche to do as they please just because of resistance. You damn well are right there's going to be a full investigation if you smash some 69-year-old's face in and you are going to have to answer for how you handled the situation. 



VGPolyglot on 10 April 2017
Soundwave said:
Azuren said:

The cops aren't at fault. They were called in to deal with something flight related, which has serious implications. If you resist, you can expect force in return. 

This is false. Police/security don't have carte blanche to do as they please just because of resistance. You damn well are right there's going to be a full investigation if you smash some 69-year-old's face in and you are going to have to answer for how you handled the situation. 

Well, maybe they shouldn't in theory, but in practice we all know that they overstep their boundaries.



Around the Network
m0ney on 10 April 2017

Sucks that he isn't strong badman.



My Etsy store

My Ebay store

Deus Ex (2000) - a game that pushes the boundaries of what the video game medium is capable of to a degree unmatched to this very day.

Soundwave on 10 April 2017

https://www.facebook.com/cnn/videos/10156405885621509/

lol, United is so fucked. This is a total PR disaster.



Jranation on 10 April 2017

Yep! Its all over facebook!

This is just fucking disgusting!



Pocky Lover Boy! 

hollabackenny on 10 April 2017
Imaginedvl said:
hollabackenny said:

The guidelines state they can deny people boarding the plane if overbooked, not that they can forcefully remove you after you've boarded because they overbooked.  This is entirely on the airline. 

This should have been settled well before they let passengers board the plane. 

 

Don't think you are following here. United being wrong or not is not why the dude got hurt... Not at all and nobody is even arguing with that.

He got hurt because the police unnecessarily used force to remove the man from the plane when they had no business being on there to remove him in the first place. As I said, whoever they were going to randomly deny entry on the plane should have been done before they scanned his ticket and sat in his assigned seat.  



FunFan on 10 April 2017

United is owned by American Airlines, isn't it?



“Simple minds have always confused great honesty with great rudeness.” - Sherlock Holmes, Elementary (2013).

"Did you guys expected some actual rational fact-based reasoning? ...you should already know I'm all about BS and fraudulence." - FunFan, VGchartz (2016)