[terrestrial]

A law would not "fix" this. It's a workaround. Which law was this guy breaking to begin with?

The problem is lack of scrutiny by the officers handling this. The process should have gone something like this:

United: "Hey, we have this guy refusing the leave the airplane. Can you help us remove him?"

Chicago PD: "Why won't he leave the airplane?"

United: "He says he needs to catch this flight for something work-related."

Chicago PD: "Is he threatening other passengers? Why do you need to remove him?"

United: "We need to fill the seat for some last-minute flight crew. Look, this is really important, can't you just come and take this guy for us? It's already becoming something of a scene."

Chicago PD: "So what you are saying is, you are asking a paying passenger who is already seated in a departing plane to leave. And he won't do so voluntarily. Can't you ask someone else to go instead?"

United: "We tried, but no one is willing to take less than $1600 worth of our $50 flight coupons. Ridiculous! We do no more than $1200 per FAA guidelines."

Chicago PD: "But did he break any laws?"

United: "Not sure, maybe there's something in the ToS."

Chicago PD: Click

[jakelazaroff]

Exactly. Law enforcement are supposed to do just that: enforce the law. Not provide muscle for multimillion dollar corporations.

[Turing_Machine]

It wasn't the Chicago PD in this case.

[selectodude]

Somehow the CPD is a sympathetic character in this story for the first time in human history.

[diminoten]

What actually happened:

United: "This man is trespassing on private property."

Chicago PD: "We'll be right over."

United breaking their agreement isn't illegal, but remaining on private property after you've been asked to leave by the people in charge is illegal.

[pookeh]

Bad example because in this case United and passenger entered an agreement for the passenger to be on United's property.

That's like saying you leased your house to a tenant for a year but then six months in you find another tenant that you want so you call the cops on the first tenant. Doesn't work like that (well at least where I live).

A contract is a contract and nobody is tresassing here.

[diminoten]

That's a civil matter, they're absolutely allowed to kick you off their plane if they want, regardless of what they told you before.

Sure, they're breaching contract, but that's a civil matter. It's completely unlike residency, as well, because that's got special protections, and as many times as people say this has special protections too, it doesn't.

[arcticbull]

Right, except, like, it does, because airlines are regulated too, by the DoT. Actions here likely constituted a breach of 14 CFR 250.2a

[unscaled]

Unless you paid to remain on said private property, and they are bound by contract to let you stay.

[diminoten]

That's literally not true.

To elaborate just a bit, breaking a contract isn't against the law, being "contractually obligated to let you stay on the plane" doesn't mean they can't kick you off the plane, at all.