Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick
Option 3 would lead to where we are now : it's bad and it's wrong.
And yes I would grab what I can : They are inconveniencing me remember so they can pay up accordingly. And now that I know removal by force would damage them more than them moving me, they'd better make the offer worthwhile.
|
Option 3 If done correctly. They legally remove him from the plane on account of trespass and he has absolutely no case in court except for a punt at the airline for kicking him off. As soon as you've refused to leave you've also committed a separate offence relating to refusal to leave an aircraft when asked by law enforcement. People can record it and circulate it but by law these men and the airline would have nothing to answer for.
We know its morally wrong. I'm just trying to explain the legal way to remove someone in this scenario.
It's up to the airline to exhaust every available option before having to call for a verbal or physical removal, that's something i don't believe they did.
I'm absolutely certain scenarios like this unfold all the time and because we're not hearing about them it's because they're being dealt with properly and legally. Just in this case you've accidentally called Mr Angry to remove the passenger and Mr Angry isn't very good at his job. He can't remove a 69 year old man off a plane safely. So why is Mr Angry in law enforcement because he's evidendly unable to protect and serve. Even when physically removing someone, they're in your care and you have a duty of care. He failed. Not only did he assault him, he then lost this man.
Again this is all in relation to legal removal and not the practices of United Airlines which are morally wrong.