|
|
|
|
|
|
by geofft
3360 days ago
|
|
|
Without defending the actions of the LEO, I'd note that in all probability, they were called in with just "We have a passenger who's been told to leave and is refusing to leave," and the implicit context of an unruly passenger instead of just one who refused to volunteer. I wonder if that exposes United to the same vague class of liability as if they had SWATted him - they called the police in a way where they should have expected the police to use force, and they should have known that no force was required. It looks like the statute on disorderly conduct covers "reporting information when, at the time the call or transmission is made, the person knows there is no reasonable ground for making the call or transmission and further knows that the call or transmission could result in the emergency response of any public safety agency"; could a sufficiently clever lawyer argue that this happened? |
|
|