Police Undefeated Streak Continues After Inevitable Takedown Of United Airlines Passenger

Do we really want to live in a society where individuals get to choose whether or not they feel like complying with the police at any given time?

In the mid-1960’s, The Bobby Fuller Four fought the law, and the law won. Several years later, John Cougar Mellencamp reminded us that when he fights authority, authority always wins. And the same is true for nearly every American who tried to fight the law before, after and in-between.

When authorities confront an individual, either to place them under arrest, ask them to vacate an area or, whatever the situation may be, and the individual refuses to comply, there can be only two possible outcomes. The authorities can either say, “Okay, you win. Sorry to bother you. Carry on and have a nice day”. Or, they can physically force the individual to comply. And the former never, ever happens.

By now, all of America is familiar with the story of David Dao, the United Airlines passenger who police officers dragged off a flight from Chicago to Louisville this past Sunday after he refused to surrender his seat to members of a flight crew.

After overbooking a flight, United asked for volunteers to give up their seats to make room for crew members in exchange for $1,000. When no one volunteered, United randomly selected several passengers to leave the plane, including Dao. When he refused, he was forcibly removed from the flight by officers working for the Chicago Department of Aviation. Video of the incident ignited a social media frenzy with an overwhelming majority lending their support to Mr. Dao and condemning the airline and police.

Whether United Airlines, the Chicago Aviation Police officers or David Dao handled the situation properly is open for debate. What is not open for debate is that once a person refuses to comply with police, physical altercation, perhaps resulting in bodily injury is inevitable.

Nearly every incident that sparks national outrage, accusations of police brutality, protests, riots and the creation of organized groups like Black Lives Matter has one thing in common - someone initially refused to comply with the orders of law enforcement.

Mr. Dao may have been completely justified in his outrage. The police response may have been completely inappropriate. But we do not have the luxury of deciding that we do not wish to comply with orders from law enforcement, even if we are completely in the right. And the police do not have the luxury of neglecting to enforce their own orders because someone emphatically expresses their desire to be left alone. Your innocence, mistreatment, inconvenience or potential police misconduct is something to be dealt with at a later time. The subsequent legal process can vindicate the victim and punish the wrongdoers. But during the initial confrontation, you must comply. And if you choose to go a different route, you will lose every single time, at least for the moment.

Sometimes, the aesthetics of a police encounter caught on video do not shine the best light on law enforcement. There is the perception that excessive, perhaps completely unwarranted force was deployed. The proper handling of any physical encounter involving the police is subjective. And video doesn’t always tell the whole story.

Protecting citizens from unwarranted abuses by the state is one of the cornerstones of a free society. It is critical that we hold law enforcement accountable for any misconduct and demand the most fair and humane treatment from the police and the justice system. But before we rush to condemn the police every time they use what some perceive to be excessive force, we must ask ourselves what alternatives did they have? If they ask you to do something and you refuse, they will then tell you to do it. If you still refuse, they must make you do it by force or we cease to be a nation of laws.

Mr. Dao has won in the court of public opinion regarding his experience with United Airlines. There is a good chance that he will win in a court of law. There is also a good chance that some of the officers involved will be the ultimate losers in this ordeal. But in the brief few moments following the request for him to vacate his seat on the airplane, there was a zero percent chance that David Dao would come out the victor.

OK, CT, here’s the list - please point out which one applied here:

RULE 21 REFUSAL OF TRANSPORT
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:

Breach of Contract of Carriage – Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage.
Government Request, Regulations or Security Directives – Whenever such action is necessary to comply with any government regulation, Customs and Border Protection, government or airport security directive of any sort, or any governmental request for emergency transportation in connection with the national defense.
Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions – Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported.
Search of Passenger or Property – Whenever a Passenger refuses to submit to electronic surveillance or to permit search of his/her person or property.
Proof of Identity – Whenever a Passenger refuses on request to produce identification satisfactory to UA or who presents a Ticket to board and whose identification does not match the name on the Ticket. UA shall have the right, but shall not be obligated, to require identification of persons purchasing tickets and/or presenting a ticket(s) for the purpose of boarding the aircraft.
Failure to Pay – Whenever a Passenger has not paid the appropriate fare for a Ticket, Baggage, or applicable service charges for services required for travel, has not paid an outstanding debt or Court judgment, or has not produced satisfactory proof to UA that the Passenger is an authorized non-revenue Passenger or has engaged in a prohibited practice as specified in Rule 6.
Across International Boundaries – Whenever a Passenger is traveling across any international boundary if:
The government required travel documents of such Passenger appear not to be in order according to UA’s reasonable belief; or
Such Passenger’s embarkation from, transit through, or entry into any country from, through, or to which such Passenger desires transportation would be unlawful or denied for any reason.
Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to:
Passengers whose conduct is disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent;
Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;
Passengers who assault any employee of UA, including the gate agents and flight crew, or any UA Passenger;
Passengers who, through and as a result of their conduct, cause a disturbance such that the captain or member of the cockpit crew must leave the cockpit in order to attend to the disturbance;
Passengers who are barefoot or not properly clothed;
Passengers who appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs to a degree that the Passenger may endanger the Passenger or another Passenger or members of the crew (other than a qualified individual whose appearance or involuntary behavior may make them appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs);
Passengers wearing or possessing on or about their person concealed or unconcealed deadly or dangerous weapons; provided, however, that UA will carry law enforcement personnel who meet the qualifications and conditions established in 49 C.F.R. §1544.219;
Passengers who are unwilling or unable to follow UA’s policy on smoking or use of other smokeless materials;
Unless they comply with Rule 6 I), Passengers who are unable to sit in a single seat with the seat belt properly secured, and/or are unable to put the seat’s armrests down when seated and remain seated with the armrest down for the entirety of the flight, and/or passengers who significantly encroach upon the adjoining passenger’s seat;
Passengers who are manacled or in the custody of law enforcement personnel;
Passengers who have resisted or may reasonably be believed to be capable of resisting custodial supervision;
Pregnant Passengers in their ninth month, unless such Passenger provides a doctor’s certificate dated no more than 72 hours prior to departure stating that the doctor has examined and found the Passenger to be physically fit for air travel to and from the destination requested on the date of the flight, and that the estimated date of delivery is after the date of the last flight;
Passengers who are incapable of completing a flight safely, without requiring extraordinary medical assistance during the flight, as well as Passengers who appear to have symptoms of or have a communicable disease or condition that could pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others on the flight, or who refuse a screening for such disease or condition. (NOTE: UA requires a medical certificate for Passengers who wish to travel under such circumstances. Visit UA’s website, united.com, for more information regarding UA’s requirements for medical certificates);
Passengers who fail to travel with the required safety assistant(s), advance notice and/or other safety requirements pursuant to Rules 14 and 15;
Passengers who do not qualify as acceptable Non-Ambulatory Passengers (see Rule 14);
Passengers who have or cause a malodorous condition (other than individuals qualifying as disabled);
Passengers whose physical or mental condition is such that, in United’s sole opinion, they are rendered or likely to be rendered incapable of comprehending or complying with safety instructions without the assistance of an escort. The escort must accompany the escorted passenger at all times; and
Unaccompanied passengers who are both blind and deaf, unless such passenger is able to communicate with representatives of UA by either physical, mechanical, electronic, or other means. Such passenger must inform UA of the method of communication to be used; and
Passengers who are unwilling to follow UA’s policy that prohibits voice calls after the aircraft doors have closed, while taxiing in preparation for takeoff, or while airborne.
Any Passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, consents and acknowledges that he or she shall reimburse UA for any such loss, damage or expense. UA has the right to refuse transport, on a permanent basis, to any passenger who, by reason of engaging in the above activities in this Rule 21, causes UA any loss, damage or expense of any kind, or who has been disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent. In addition, the activities enumerated in H) 1) through 8) shall constitute a material breach of contract, for which UA shall be excused from performing its obligations under this contract.
UA is not liable for its refusal to transport any passenger or for its removal of any passenger in accordance with this Rule. A Passenger who is removed or refused transportation in accordance with this Rule may be eligible for a refund upon request. See Rule 27 A). As an express precondition to issuance of any refund, UA shall not be responsible for damages of any kind whatsoever. The passenger’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be Rule 27 A).

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.