Posted on 04/11/2017 12:32:28 PM PDT by LouAvul
Of course! Haven't you been watching all the posts here? Why, it's perfectly justifiable! If newspaper reports find that someone with the same name as you (even though that person is now much older than you) has a criminal record, it's perfectly OK to have airport rent-a-cops Taser you from inches and beat you to a pulp!
God forbid you or I get a bullseye on our back from some corporate lawyers out to destroy us like UAL lawyers are doing to this guy...
I have been reserving judgment, but note that this has been as dividing here as a discussion regarding Dresden and a couple other subjects that won’t come to mind at the moment.
Regardless of how we may wish to split hairs about this United Airlines is going to wish they hadn’t done this and Congress might be compelled to pass legislation prohibiting overbooking.
Sounds like good material to write a country/western song around.
They most likely will. I hope this guy gets a good lawyer; he'll need it. United's got a slew of amoral corporate attorneys and it will be a David vs. Goliath battle.
Looks like United Airlines has hired a firm that specializes in Reputation Repair. They seem to be using the old “Look over there how bad that guy is” play.
The dirtbag was uncooperative and resisted.
It wasn’t overbooking, it was poor planning.
Indeed it does.
CC
He paid for the seat. He had a reservation for the seat. He had a boarding pass for that seat. And he was sitting in that seat.
If they wanted someone to give up a seat they ought to have offered compensation sufficient to make them want to give it up. Or make other arrangements for their employee travel.
I don’t care what his other personal issues are. They could do the same thing to anyone.
Didn’t take long for the security people to defend themselves by attacking the victim. How does any of this man’s past excuse how he was treated?
Or, and I can't wait for this one: Heck, he's a fag, whatever happens to him is divine justice.
Let the sliming begin.
Maybe they knew his record.
They can dump them inflight if they want.
Rule 21 Refusal of TransportUnited Airlines Contract of Carriage
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: ...
Yes. The Pilot in Charge has the final say on who stays and who goes. Once the decision is made that you're off, you're off. If you won't leave you will be forcibly removed. If you resist with a weapon, even an improvised one, you're likely to end up dead.
It's akin to those people who say to the cops "Get your hands off me". You think the cops are just going to get in the cruiser and leave or do you think you'd be eating dirt in 10 seconds or less?
You surrender a bunch of rights when you step on that airplane and the pilot can kick you off for ANY reason. You'll have some recourse with the airline as far as payment goes, but the pilot's word is final.
Now he is going to be a guy with a fatter bank account and a criminal record
It will be an interesting case to follow.
A. You must follow the orders of a flight crew.
B. Does that give the flight crew the right to call in police thugs to kick your ass and drag you off the plane?
Different than at sea?
I’ve seen some theories that the occasional disappearing Carnival cruiser is a drunk unruly passenger dealt with as in B without the police thugs.
You haven't been here long? To many, here, his "indiscretions" will be used to smear him and justify any bad that comes his way.
In case you haven't detected the psychopathic glee with which some will reference his past, keep reading. The tingles up and down their legs will become evident.
In the end, they bumped the good doctor not because they overbooked, or they had to seat a United crew.
They booted him out because he disobeyed legal instructions from the flight crew and became disruptive.
IMO the good doctor was no better than an unruly drunk that creates a scene and is also removed.
The fact that he was beat up was on him.
You can bet the company is pushing this story. It's reminiscent of the "nuts and sluts" line the media used on the victims of the Clintons.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.