[wapz]

So I don't know how much you know the law, but I worked at a public swimming pool (run by the city) and we had a patron that was screaming at everyone and refused to leave (she was in the water). We called the police and they told the lady if she didn't get out they'd jump in and remove her by force. She got out and left. Are the circumstances that different in this case if the lady refused to get out and was forced out by the police? (I'm not defending the police or United here but wondering the legality)

[beagle3]

I do not know Chicago Law, but he likely didn't violate it. He might have violated federal law, but that enforcement has to be done differently afaik. Chicago Police was almost surely in the wrong, and United was in the wrong for calling them.

While one (especially United) might expect this to make no difference, the letter of the law is what should have been followed in this case.

Police often tend to make up nonexistent laws as they go. Those imiganiry laws might even sometimes make sense. But "with great power comes great responsibility" and that responsibility is to only uphold the laws on the books.

[ams6110]

She was creating a public disturbance, which is most likely a violation of the law.

In the case of the United passenger, he was disturbing nobody until after they tried to force him to leave.

[dragontamer]

If its captain's orders however, then the captain of the airplane should have every right to remove a passenger.

[jackvalentine]

He has every right to remove a passenger who is causing a disturbance or presenting a threat.

He doesn't have the right to because the airline wanted them off in breach of the contract of sale and the guy said "yeah no".

Refusing peacefully to go along with the fiction the airline has created isn't causing a disturbance. You can't force someone in to a "disturbance" state if they're just sitting there。

[dragontamer]

Look, involuntary bumping happens on every airline every day. The fact is that you don't have a right to fly if the airline or captain doesn't like you for any reason (aside from protected discrimination classes, like race or gender)

[EliRivers]

Why should the captain have every right to remove a passenger? Should that include the right to remove a passenger because the passenger is Jewish? How about because the captain wants that seat for a set of golf clubs? That's what you said, and I disagree. The captain isn't God and aircrew are constrained by laws just like everyone else, no matter what the airlines would like us to think.

[beagle3]

The captain has every right to remove a passenger because, he is not supposed to fly unless he is feeling safe to fly, he mustn't, and it is assumed that letting 200 passengers fly safely is more important than letting one passenger remain "innocent until proven guilty".

That said, the captain's decision does not make him immune to lawsuits, disciplinary action, etc. but on his plane, especially while flying, temporarily he IS god.

[dragontamer]

Safety first yo. The captain is in charge of flying and keeping the plane safe.

If you want to sue afterwards you are allowed in America to do so. But the captain should be allowed to call police in to remove anybody. Period.

[wapz]

Ahh. I'm guessing he has complete rights to not fly, but I don't know if they have rights to physically remove a non-aggressive/dangerous passenger. I of course don't know the law.

[bigtimeidiot]

>We called the police and they told the lady if she didn't get out they'd jump in and remove her by force.

I bet if they knocked her unconscious and dragged her from the pool, they'd be in trouble too. At least I hope so.

Isn't the whole point of police training to learn to deal with these situations safely and as peacefully as possible? If you can just shoot or punch everyone who's causing a disturbance, what do you need any training for?