Posted on 04/12/2017 6:38:09 PM PDT by Sean_Anthony
The Snowflake generation now uses their rage as a vicious Marxist weapon with the intent to harm the reputation of anything they don't like, especially when it's a large corporation
Okay, I’ve just about had my fill with the news about the United Airlines passenger being dragged off the plane because the company overbooked, but the passenger refused to leave the flight.
Should they overbook? Probably not. There is an average number they have calculated of the number of people they believe will not even show up, so based on those numbers, they overbook a little bit to make sure the seats are full. There is not exactly a very big profit margin in the airline industry, as it is.
I just saw you are in Florida. So am I. I live in St. Lucie County. So here is a shout out from a fellow Floridian. Have a Blessed Easter.
They DIDN”T OVBERBOOK they were making room for their own employees clearly not the same thing.
Seems to me that you are attempting to apply your definitions onto someone else. Namely, you are trying to tell United what their definition of “overbooked” should be. They are a private company, regulated by the DOT. Those are the only two entities that get to define “overbooked”.
We know from other passengers that united offered $400 and then $800 and a booking on the next flight.
The selection was not arbitrary, it followed United’s rules for selection. Your assertion that the selection “must be based on safety or security concerns.” is false. The DOT regulations do not require carriers to follow your assertion for selecting who gets bummped.
DOT regulations: https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights#Overbooking
To quote from that source - “Airlines set their own “boarding priorities” — the order in which they will bump different categories of passengers in an oversale situation. When a flight is oversold and there are not enough volunteers, some airlines bump passengers with the lowest fares first. Others bump the last passengers to check in.”
That is such a convoluted thinking I can only assume that you are making a joke for which I thank for you for. I always appreciate a Good bit of jocularity that brightens my day.
I have decided to focus on the Easter Triduum. So my previous post was my last comment on the UA matter. I pray you and yours have a Blessed Easter.
I do hope you realize disagreeing with you implies no personal animosity on my part. If I have left you with any other impression I apologize.
Thanks.
Overbooking is dishonest and mean - thoughtless. It’s not worth the bucks to hurt your customers. That will cost you more bucks.
I see by your “logic” that you are not a lawyer, but I’ll try t5o help you understand.
“Wow! who knew that standing up for the rights of the individual citizen against arbitrary, over-bearing authority by state officials and employees of private corporations was defined as being a “snowflake” now? “
WHEN ONE IS TOLD BY LEOS THAT YOU ARE ARRESTED, YOU HAVE A LEGAL DUTY TO COMPLY. IF YOU DO NOT, YOU CAN BE CHARGED WITH FAILURE TO COMPLY, RESISTING ARREST, ETC, EVEN IF THE UNDERLING CHARGE IS LATER TO PROVED UNFOUNDED.
AN EXAMPLE, YOU ARE PULLED OVER BY AN LEO FOR 30 IN A 20 MPH ZONE. IN RUNNING YOUR DL, COMPUTER TELLS THE LEO YOU HAVE AN OUTSTANDING WARRANT FROM NEW YORK STATE.
LEO TELLS YOU YOU ARE UNDER ARREST FOR THAT WARRANT. YOU KNOW THE WARRANT IS BAD INFORMATION, BECAUSE YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN EAST OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER.
YOU STILL MUST COMPLY WITH THE ARREST. YOU HAVE A GREAT CIVIL CASE FOR FALSE ARREST LATER.
HOWEVER, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO RESIST THE ARREST IN THE STREET, IN YOUR CAR, ON AN AIRLINER, OR IF YOU DO, YOU WILL BE CHARGED WITH RESTING ARREST, AND SUFFER THE LEGAL, AND PERHAPS PHYSICAL PROBLEMS YOU BRING ON BY YOUR ARREST.
POINTS OF LAW ARE SETTLED IN COURT, NOT IN THE STREET.
DR. DAO MAY HAVE HAD A CIVIL CLAIM FOR BEING DENIED CARRIAGE, ($10,000?) BUT EVERYTHING SUBSEQUENT TO HIS FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE DEPLANEING ORDER IS ON HIM, NOT UNITED.
HE MAY HAVE AN EXCESSIVE FORCE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE CITY/AIRPORT, BUT THAT IS VERY TENUOUS AS THE LEOS ARE ON TAPE ASKING HIM TO LEAVE AND TELLING HIM IT MAY GET BAD IF HE DOES NOT.
“When did free-born Americans become such slavish jackboot lickers?”
PLEASE, THAT RHETORIC IS ABOUT AS OLD AS THE RACE CARD.
PLEASE ALSO HAVE SOME LEGAL TRAINING BEFORE YOU TRY TO DRAW A LEGAL COROLLARY. THAT MCDONALDS ONE IS A NON-STARTER.
Finally, I can get his prior convictions, medical licensing suspensions in a heartbeat
Me Dr, did you tell the LEOs why you thought you needed special consideration to remain on the flight?
W: Yes
Me: And what was that?
W: I said I was a doctor?
Me: And are you a doctor, a physician?
W: Yes
Me: And why did you say you had to be on that flight, and someone else would have to get off.
W; I said I was a doctor.
Me: A doctor, ok... we’ll get into that a bit more later. But didn’t you say there was a particular reason you had to be on THAT flight?
W: Yes
Me: And what was it you said, why did you falsely claim you had to be on that particular flight, put someone else off.
W: I don’t know what you mean.
ME; It’s really very simple, Dooooctor. Didn’t you tell everyone you had to perform surgery the first thing the next morning.
W: I guess I did.
Me: Did you have to perform surgery that next morning?
W: No
I’m sorry could you repeat tha,t please in a little louder voice.
W: No
Me; No, you didn’t have to perform surgery the next morning, is that correct?
W: Yes
Me. There isn’t any chance that you could have mixed up the dates is there?
W: I don’t know what you mean.
Me: There isn’t any chance you could have surgery set for, let’s say, Wednesday and confused it for Monday is it?
W: I’m not sure (he thinks I’m giving somewhere to run to, but that door is about to be slammed shut)
Me. Let me put it another way, there’s now way you could have thought you had surgery scheduled for Monday... no way at all, because YOUR NOT A SURGEON ARE YOU DOCTOR!!!!
W : that’s correct (dejectedly)
Me: Your a internal medicine doctor, one that generally prescribed medicines to see if the pills will cure the patient, aren’t you.
W: Yes
ME; So if a patient needed summery, you would never operate on them, you would refer them to a surgeon, am I right.
W: Yes
ME: So your false claim about having to surgery on Monday has to be a lie, doesn’t it?
W: yes
ME; A lie?
W: yes,
Me; Oh, one more “little” thing... Dooooctor. You couldn’t have been mistaken about which day of the week your phony surgery claim was about, could you?
W What do you mean?
ME; You couldn’t have mistaken Monday for another day, could you.
W: No
ME: Why is that?
W: I only practice one day a week
ME: Why is that?
W: That’s all my license allows
ME Why is that?
W; my license was suspended and reinstated on a limited basis
ME: Why is that?
W; i lost me medical license.
Me: Why was that?
We keep going deeper and deeper into the WHY questions until we get to the Who questions, who did you sell drugs too? and we keep boring down deeper until he is nothing more than a total perp who turned his medical education into a way to victimize patients and make money.
Me Sooooo, Do0000ctor, let’s me see if i can sum up your testimony on just this part of the case.
You lied about being a doctor who had to operate the next morning, you knew you were lying because you are not a surgeon, never were a surgeon, and you knew the date couldn’t be confused because you could only be at the clinic one day a week because you have a VERY limited medical license because you’re a convicted low down drug pusher... a drug pusher in a white coat... and some might think that’s the worst kind....
Do I have that about right, Dooooctor !!!!!!!!!!!!!
P Counsel objects, and I don’t care what the ruling is. because I got my question in, and the jury, in their minds, answered it for him!!!
Then we go on how how he planned it all, then.... When we get through every detail, it will be the worst 2 days of his life, and the jury won’t give him bubkas!
You as well.
Enjoy.
Goodness, where does one start with that meandering, garbled reply?
Ok let’s make a start on some of it. Some people believe they have the right to question authority, they believe that as free-born citizens they should not have to submit meekly to arbitrary authority, they believe that they should have the right to enjoy the liberty of their persons and property against the overweening power of the state and that they have the right to resist if they feel their rights are being infringed.
These people are traditionally, dating all the way back to Sam Adams and George Washington, defined as “Americans” and they have a piece of paper called the United States Constitution which supports them.
Other people do not agree, they feel that everyone should submit meekly to the forces of the state, they should never question authority, they must surrender to all and any demands made by policemen and state officials and if they dare to question the state’s authority they should expect to endure condign and violent punishment.
Such people are not Americans, I am not sure what contemptible label they deserve but “jack-boot lickers” will have to do for now.
Secondly your made-up conversation about the doctor is irrelevant because a) it’s made up and never happened and b) it doesn’t relate in any way to the passenger’s justification for refusing to leave his seat.
It doesn’t matter what reason he had, it doesn’t matter if he wanted to open his ice-cream stall on time tomorrow or attend a Star Wars convention, his time is his time, his time is more valuable to him than the time of a freeloading member of United staff. He paid for his seat at that time, if United are so incompetent that they can’t organise staff rotas without stealing the seats that have been paid for by their customers then they need to fire their management, it is not his problem.
And finally, although it has been pointed out numerous times and perhaps due to limited reading comprehension skills you haven’t understood it, the flight was NOT OVERBOOKED (see I can use caps too?).
You do not seem to understand that all that Sovereign Citizen claptrap is meaningless. If you have been damaged, you seek your remedy in court, not in the seat of an airplane where to remain, in and of itself, is a violation of federal law.
If you want to see how those Sovereign Citizens encounters play out, I suggest you review the numerous “Sovereign Citizens Owned” videos on youtube.
I especially love the woman who told the police dispatcher that the cops pursuing her for speeding had no right to stop her, and she would stop only if the State promised to pay her $3,000,000. She drove on recklessly for many minutes. She lost her vehicle and had 90 days as a guest of the county to review the wisdom of her choices.
The issue now is not whether or not United had legal grounds to order him to leave the a/c but his violation of federal law in not doing so.
Again, if he was damaged by a United’s improper DEMAND to vacate the a/c, he could have sought his remedy in court. By resisting, he has greatly diminished his chances to do so.
Secondly, regarding his early conversations, before he was arrested, which you claim do not exist? Please review the video at https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3323084/united-airlines-video-passenger-dragged-off-flight-dr-david-dao-latest/ and other links with even better views of Dao.
In it, you can hear Dao lie to LEOs that he has to do surgery the next day. When they tell him they will physically remove him from the flight, he dares them to do so, and when told he will end up in jail, says ok.
It’s very simple. He had a legal avenue to pursue possible damages for being improperly told to leave the a/c, which he has now thrown away and he had a chance to solve the problem multiple times, but he threw that away too.
Please do not bother to respond, as I ignore the Sovereign Citizen BS.
“Please do not bother to respond”
Bleieve me, I had no intention of doing so.
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.