I couldn't care less about what some laimstream media article says. You should know how ineffective reporters are, especially when it comes to aircraft incidents and accidents. The Captain was perfectly within his right to remove this or any other passenger if he thought they were in any way a threat to the aircraft or the other passengers. If he thought this guy was a threat, and he obviously did because, as Captain, he ordered this passenger to be removed from the aircraft. The Captain made no mistake and he should be applauded for his keen awareness of who is on board the aircraft. It's all part of having 4 stripes on your sleeve. So what if this guy gets detained while the authorities figure out whether or not he is a real threat. I would much prefer that airlines err on the side of safety as opposed to being politically correct and allowing a terrorist on board because they are worried about being accused of profiling or being slapped with some ridiculous jury award for acting in the best interests of all souls aboard. This is clearly a case of a runaway jury. Read Part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. I will bet hard cash this will be tossed out on appeal.
I have 4 stripes on my sleeve and I can assure you that if the Captain exercises his authority (which I don't dispute) he damn sure better be right (and in this case I do believe he screwed the pooch). I doubt seriously if the company will even censure the Captain in any way since that would constitute a breech of the Captain's authority but the company is still liable before a judge and jury. Like I said in an earlier post the award will likely get reduced on appeal. Whatever award the guy finally gets the company will have still been found liable for injuries.
Finally, I still don't understand how you or anyone else reading this article can suggest this guy was any kind of threat to anyone because he happened to accidentally be sitting next to 2 guys who were likewise innocent but just happened to look suspicious. As for the presses ability to muck up the report, the statement that the police interviewed the guy for 2 hours and released him seems like a pretty factual statement to me. Kinda hard to misstate that since it was brought up in the trial. Anyway, if you care to respond again I'll let you have the last word.