The Just World fallacy. Clearly he did something to deserve it.

So they're citing an article in the Daily Mail?
Nothing written in the Daily Mail should matter.

The DM is citing an article in a local paper that got some attention online that claims he's a person they've reported on in the past.

Yeah I know the origin of this irrelevant sleaze. Getting amplified by DM just makes it sleazier and more irrelevant.

It matters to me because it helps to explain his irrational and belligerent behavior. His wife reportedly reported him to authorities because of erratic concerning behavior, which ultimately uncovered his felonious behavior. The history is useful for context for understanding why a doctor might act to me in such an inappropriate and unexpected manner.

It doesn't justify what happened which seems to me to not need justification.

TL;DR: A man refused to obey airport security on a boarded plane. He did something to deserve being forcibly removed when he ignored orders.

I disagree with the general​ dialogue on the matter. He's lucky he wasn't shot for refusing security directions. He certainly wasn't bumrushed and unexpectedly forcibly removed. He was asked repeatedly and refused. He even reboarded. I would be afraid of the alternative where people felt free to absolutely ignore security force directions.

"He's lucky he wasn't shot for refusing security directions."

I think you may have a warped sense of appropriate use of deadly force.

Not at all... Saying he was lucky he wasn't shot isn't saying i believe shooting him would be justified, just that it's not unimaginable that it could have escalated that way.

I certainly don't believe things went down optimally, but I do believe that the media's trying to create a shit storm by ignoring the fact that a criminal who had many chances to do the right thing instead decided to ignore lawful orders and was legally and justifiably removed.

If they hadn't removed him and instead just delayed the plane until he gave up etc there'd be a different media shit storm to deal with. After his actions (completely ignoring lawful directives) I certainly wouldn't feel safe traveling with him on flight and would want him removed if i was on the flight.

In viewing the video the only thing I think certainly should have been done is they should have evacuated the seats near the man so that they could get into a better position to forcibly remove him while minimizing the risk to the man, themselves and other passengers. I am also quite surprised that he wasn't prevented from immediately reboarding...that shows that perhaps they were trying to let him off easy rather than arrest him and all that entails, but they shoudl have at least had security present to prevent the reboarding.

It turns out those orders were not in fact lawful.

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).

It wasn't that one, but he makes substantially the same argument; Dr. Doa was already boarded and seated, but they people the airline considered more important were not.

Airport security shouldn't have even involved themselves, and should not be permitted to initiate force. They should have told United to work it out themselves, by offering more money.

You aren't under any obligation to submit to a search by police officers, legal or otherwise. You are entirely within your rights to shrug your shoulders, say "I do not consent" (or nothing at all), and let them take it to a judge.

While it's nice to live in the theory land of what are my rights when it comes to refusing a search by police officers, I would be careful about refusing police orders.

It's unlikely that an illegal search would ever be litigated and determined to be an illegal search if you are dead after an escalating altercation with police who insist on searching you and you persisting in refusing the orders. What's more, once you refuse to comply with their demands it's increasingly likely that they will then have justification for the escalation of the situation.

It's a shitty situation, but practically speaking (what i was getting at before), disobeying the orders of police is not something i would recommend people be in the habit of practicing. Thankfully i do believe that the move toward mandatory always on body cameras may be very useful in preventing a lot of these issues where your lack of consent and protestations of it being an illegal search will be well documented. Even then though, if they persist in ordering you to do something it's unlikely to be wise to refuse to comply.

There's a wide gulf, legally, between preventing a search and merely refusing to cooperate. Police don't need your active cooperation to search you, just lack of resistance.

That's probably going to make a big difference in this case; Dr. Dao didn't fight his removal, he simply didn't assist in it.

On the other hand, I fear a society where people just mindlessly comply with security force directions.

In 2017 when security tells you to get off the aircraft.
You get off the aircraft.
Fuck this twat and the airline he almost flew out on.