[jdcarr]

Do you have any evidence that the passenger was immature or belligerent beyond the United CEO initially claiming so?

And I don't see how you can wave away the incident just by claiming the actions were justified because of aviation law or how United runs.

[FabHK]

No, no evidence beyond what the United CEO said, plus the fact that he did not disembark when asked to.

(That in itself is some immaturity. I'm all for political action and power to the citizen and consumers and so forth, but I don't fight that fight while in some country's immigration and customs queue, or with the crew of an aircraft while in the aircraft.)

[doktrin]

immature != wrong

legal != right

Most people would not defy authority, but that doesn't mean that authority is in the right. Whether or not United technically acted in accordance with the law does also does not mean they are in the right. Where and when you personally would (or would not) choose to defy authority is also not a reliable barometer of whether that authority is worthy of defiance.

This was a logistical problem that resulted from United's own negligence. The personality traits that the passenger displayed after being lottery-selected for ejection are immaterial : the airline screwed up, the airline treated its customers like shit, the airline refused to provide suitable incentives, the airline refused to address the problem in a reasonable manner, and finally the airline went straight for the nuclear option. It was a colossal failure from start to finish, and the fault lies entirely with them.