Self Defence AGAINST an officer
- Thread starter Midnight-shadow
- Start date
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Only people arguing that the guy in the united flight was in the wrong are cops and former cops.
Am I the only one who finds that odd?
Am I the only one who finds that odd?
Human nature, I guess.
Or you could state it this way -
The only people arguing that the guy in the United flight was in the wrong are people who have had to forcibly remove people as part of their occupation.
Depends on why you find it odd, I guess. Cops and former cops probably have a little bit better understanding of the law than most who have never worked in that field.
However, former law enforcement here; I don't argue that the guy was 'in the wrong'. What I argue is that it wasn't a good idea for him to resist when he was asked to deplane (and then ordered to deplane, and then dragged off the plane). Was United wrong to ask him to leave? That's for the courts to decide. I don't know, I honestly do not.
However, I know what happens if a cop asks you to do something and you don't do it. You can moralize, make assumptions, generalize, and decide what you think is right or wrong - all good, everybody is entitled to an opinion, etc. But when you are ordered to deplane and you do not deplane, my experience tells me I know what happens next. And sure enough, it did.
Now, had it been me in charge of that fiasco, I might have handled it differently. Rather than have security guards (I assume they were guards and not cops), I'd have simply called the police, who are in every airport, and waited until they arrived. Police approach and ask the man to deplane. He refuses. They arrest him for trespass (the plane belongs to the airline, the terms and conditions of the ticket he bought says they have the right to deny him travel). He refuses and has to be dragged out. Same end result perhaps. But all nice and legal.
Cop asks you to get off the plane, get off the plane. Or don't. But understand that the cops don't shrug and give up and walk away. That happens in no world.
OP
Midnight-shadow
3rd Black Belt
- Joined
- May 29, 2016
- Messages
- 928
- Reaction score
- 243
- Thread Starter
- #25
This is going off topic a bit but UA's contract of carriage clearly states the conditions where a passenger can be removed from the plane, and this incident doesn't come under any of those. In other words, the airline had no legal right to ask that passenger to leave, and therefore shouldn't have forcibly removed him from the plane. That is why I asked the question regarding using self-defence against law enforcement. The passenger resisted being removed from his seat and got injured because of it, but what would have happened if he had successfully fended off the security guards?
Because cops actually know the law instead of their arguments being based on emotions.
Actually, it does. Kind of. They have several clauses that allow them to modify things on the fly. I'm not saying that's right or just. It just IS.
(I meant to quote Midnight Shadow's last post. Which I was commenting on)
(I meant to quote Midnight Shadow's last post. Which I was commenting on)
Here is the contract of carriage:
Contract of Carriage Document | United Airlines
Now, I looked it over briefly and I also did not see any language about being removed from the plane because of overbooking. That is why I said I do not know if United was wrong to try to have him removed or not.
What I said was that as far as being dragged out kicking and screaming, once United said the passenger had to leave, he was going to leave. Period. If United was wrong to have done so, lawsuit time. Under no circumstances I can think of would the passenger have been permitted to demonstrate where the Contract of Carriage did not permit United to remove him, fight off the security guards attempting to remove him, and then be permitted to keep his seat and have the flight go on as planned. That was NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.
Given the reality of the situation and not a non-lawyer's attempt to understand the CoC, I'd still suggest that deplaning and then seeking legal redress would have been a far better solution for the passenger.
I have never, ever, seen a person stand up and explain that such-and-such CLEARLY STATES that umpty-ump and thus-and-so and end up getting their way in such situations. Never happens.
As I've said, I've had my share of people I was arresting try to explain to me how they were innocent, how the rules didn't apply to them, how I wasn't allowed to arrest them and on and on and on. Hugely entertaining, but in the end, the cuffs went on. The cuffs always go on.
Opinion: Comply and get a lawyer later.
It falls under the overbooking clause in the carriage contract per DOT regulations...at least that was what was explained to me.
DOT mandates they do this to maintain flight schedules and lessen affecting passengers.
Lesser of two evils. Affect one passenger or the passengers of multiple flights.
I know if I was a passenger on that flight, and the good doctor was delaying it, I would have probably been shaken up to the point that I would have inadvertently spilled my tomato juice on him as he was dragged by. I always drink tomato juice prior to take off. (God, sometimes I so amuse myself)
Rule 25 of contract
jobo
Grandmaster
in the uk, yes in principal , if the officer isn't acting with in his powers then you can defend yourself. If the arrest or the amount of forced used was judged unlawful then you fighting back would be law full. Security in my this country have exactly the same powers as an ordinary person. that is they have a power of arrest if you have committed a indictable offence. So not for low level crime and if it turns out you hadn't committed a crime their arrest would be unlawfully. And therefore if you had fought back you would be in the clear. God only knows with airports, but if you are judged a trespassers and refuse to leave, then force can be used to make you
Sure looks like it, thanks.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
once again, the law I is only one lens through which to look at an encounter. The guy on the united flight will not be prosecuted. He will, in fact, get a good deal of money.
Also, cops can be very dangerous, but thoughtless obedience can get you killed. Depends on who you are and where.
Sure. You guus know better. Except that what youre saying is in direct contrast to what actually happened and will happen in this case. That is cognitive dissonance at its finest.
One must embrace cognitive dissonance when one can, especially when it's at it's finest.
Also, I'm at an age where F off, F that, and F U answers just about every difference of opinion I could possibly encounter.
I must go to work now, and mull all I've read today. God, please don't give me any calls to take people off of planes today.
Also, I'm at an age where F off, F that, and F U answers just about every difference of opinion I could possibly encounter.
I must go to work now, and mull all I've read today. God, please don't give me any calls to take people off of planes today.
Also realize there can be probable cause to arrest you...even though you are innocent. It is possible to be found innocent of the initial charge but found guilty of resisting arrest and battery upon an officer.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Its also technically possible to be guilty of a crime and still be in the right. And sometimes making things easy for a cop ruins any hope you have for justice. In this case had the guy meekly complied he would have lost any chance at compensation. It would also have proyect3d the status quo and kept this issue from coming to light.
There are some basic presumptions which I think many people make without fully understanding how the law works.
Being innocent of a crime does not mean you cannot be arrested. It does not mean you cannot be detained. It does not mean you cannot face trial.
Being innocent - hopefully - means you don't get arrested in the first place. But there is no guarantee. Innocent people get arrested. It's a fact of life. It would be great if cops were 100% correct in their decisions all the time, but they are not. Guilty people are not arrested, and innocent people are. Not always, not even often, but it happens. It will continue to happen. There's no cure for it.
But in the USA, unlike many other countries, there is a presumption of innocence. So just because a person is arrested, that does not mean they are guilty. It does mean that the police can investigate, the courts can choose whether or not to grant bail, or to prosecute, and a judge or jury can ultimately decide on guilt or not. In addition, a person charged with a crime does not have to prove their innocence; the jurisdiction must prove them guilty. And our system also means that to be found guilty of a crime, a jury or judge must find the defendant guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt', which is a pretty high standard.
So there are lots of correct times and places for an actually innocent person to protest, to put forth their evidence, make their arguments, and so on.
The point of arrest is not that time or place. The fact that many people think it is the right time and place changes nothing. Glad you feel that way, still not true. And frankly should not be true. The system works pretty well overall. Yes, there are flaws, and some systemic problems that must be addressed. Still better than any other system of justice found in most places in the world. It is a good system we have.
Being innocent of a crime does not mean you cannot be arrested. It does not mean you cannot be detained. It does not mean you cannot face trial.
Being innocent - hopefully - means you don't get arrested in the first place. But there is no guarantee. Innocent people get arrested. It's a fact of life. It would be great if cops were 100% correct in their decisions all the time, but they are not. Guilty people are not arrested, and innocent people are. Not always, not even often, but it happens. It will continue to happen. There's no cure for it.
But in the USA, unlike many other countries, there is a presumption of innocence. So just because a person is arrested, that does not mean they are guilty. It does mean that the police can investigate, the courts can choose whether or not to grant bail, or to prosecute, and a judge or jury can ultimately decide on guilt or not. In addition, a person charged with a crime does not have to prove their innocence; the jurisdiction must prove them guilty. And our system also means that to be found guilty of a crime, a jury or judge must find the defendant guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt', which is a pretty high standard.
So there are lots of correct times and places for an actually innocent person to protest, to put forth their evidence, make their arguments, and so on.
The point of arrest is not that time or place. The fact that many people think it is the right time and place changes nothing. Glad you feel that way, still not true. And frankly should not be true. The system works pretty well overall. Yes, there are flaws, and some systemic problems that must be addressed. Still better than any other system of justice found in most places in the world. It is a good system we have.
Steve, instead of arguing politics and we agree to disagree on whether he was wrong or right.
And simply agree that if you choose not to comply you run the risk of additional charges and/or problems. And that is a decision each must make for themselves.
And simply agree that if you choose not to comply you run the risk of additional charges and/or problems. And that is a decision each must make for themselves.
