Helen Keller -
Her Socialist Years. Writings and Speeches
|
Wednesday, 12 April 2017
quote [ It’s unclear who did that digging and whether serious mistakes in accuracy were made, but there’s one thing any decent human being should be able to agree on: it doesn’t matter what David Dao did or didn’t do in his past, because none of it is relevant to whether or not he should have been left in hospital after boarding a flight home. Acting like his history might make it “less bad” to beat him up is a dangerous position to take with serious consequences. Where, indeed, is the dirt-digging being done on the United staff who handled everything so badly, the security team who caused Dao serious damage, or the CEO who acted so dismissively about the entire episode? ]
But hey, they all look the same, right?
|
jsabin69 said @ 4:29am GMT on 13th April
I still have seen nothing of the nature saying they weren't lawful orders...could you provide a source. I still don't think the orders being unlawful changes things. I wouldn't be ignoring the repeated orders of airport security even if i thought they were unlawful.
jsabin69 said @ 4:41am GMT on 13th April
I think this is the source of what you are talking about...wish you would have provided it originally. http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/united-cites-wrong-rule-for-illegally-de-boarding-passenger/
It's a law professors read on it and i find it compelling but not convincing for at least the following reasons. What would an airline do if they had accidentally boarded more passengers than the plane could legally/safely travel with for whatever reason...obviously they could remove a passenger in that case even though that reason isn't provided in the law and 2nd. If I am stopped by a police officer under illegal circumstances/basis and ordered to stop/submit to a search etc and refuse to comply my refusal could serve the basis for legitimate police action. The illegality of the search doesn't provide me a legal basis to not comply with all police orders. The professor has some very good points, but it's not as cut and dry as he presents it.
I imagine at this point even if it turns out the airline was clearly acting legally the man is probably gonna get a hefty amount of go away money thrown his way in a settlement before or after a suit is filed.
I still don't think the orders being unlawful changes how the man should have acted or makes them reasonable. I wouldn't be ignoring the repeated orders of airport security even if i thought they were unlawful. (the orders in this case are a far cry from ordering passengers to fight for entertainment--clearly illegal orders shouldn't be followed, but thats just not the case here).
<-- Entry / Current Comment
jsabin69 said @ 4:29am GMT on 13th April
I think this is the source of what you are talking about...wish you would have provided it originally. http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/united-cites-wrong-rule-for-illegally-de-boarding-passenger/
It's a law professors read on it and i find it compelling but not convincing for at least the following reasons. What would an airline do if they had accidentally boarded more passengers than the plane could legally/safely travel with for whatever reason...obviously they could remove a passenger in that case even though that reason isn't provided in the law and 2nd. If I am stopped by a police officer under illegal circumstances/basis and ordered to stop/submit to a search etc and refuse to comply my refusal could serve the basis for legitimate police action. The illegality of the search doesn't provide me a legal basis to not comply with all police orders. The professor has some very good points, but it's not as cut and dry as he presents it.
I imagine at this point even if it turns out the airline was clearly acting legally the man is probably gonna get a hefty amount of go away money thrown his way in a settlement before or after a suit is filed.
I still don't think the orders being unlawful changes how the man should have acted or makes them reasonable. I wouldn't be ignoring the repeated orders of airport security even if i thought they were unlawful. (the orders in this case are a far cry from ordering passengers to fight for entertainment--clearly illegal orders shouldn't be followed, but thats just not the case here).
