Self Defence AGAINST an officer

[CB Jones]

In return the airline could have sweeten the deal by giving the new volunteer a free flight by refunding the cost of the ticket and maybe adding some coupons that don't expire. Or even giving a $200 inconvenience check would have been cheaper.

Actually I think the offer they gave him was 2 times his ticket price.

That is a big part of choosing who is voluntold is how much their ticket cost because DOT requires you to reimburse them double their ticket price.

 

[Steve]

Actually....in the real world how Bill described is correct.

Spending too much time explaining or arguing is how people (officers and civilians) get hurt.

Ask...tell...and then restrain and force. The longer you explain and argue....the more chance the guy decides to fight or worse pull a weapon.

At swiftly and you minimize fighting and lethal force actions.

That is from the perspective of the cop, not the victim.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If the doctor volunteered to get off the flight and then decided not to then he was wrong. The people who had to take him off the plane were poorly trained for that scenario. The good news is that new training is going to be on the horizon. At the moment there isn't enough information to say who WA in the wrong. I do however think that there is a better option than having 2 front teeth knocked out, a broken nose, a concussion, reconstructive surgery, a lawsuit, and bad PR. It would have been cheaper to just ask if someone else could take another flight. In return the airline could have sweeten the deal by giving the new volunteer a free flight by refunding the cost of the ticket and maybe adding some coupons that don't expire. Or even giving a $200 inconvenience check would have been cheaper.

I'm not sure what kind of damage the doctor suffered, but it seems to be getting worse and worse with each retelling.

And while I agree with the "bad PR" and "lawsuit" problems United is now facing, as I read the stories, United DID ask for volunteers. Repeatedly. With cash incentives. Starting at $400, a hotel and a rebooking, to $800, hotel and rebooking. No one bit. Not one person.

Now, some could argue that United should have just kept raising the ante until someone grabbed it - OK. Maybe they should have. But they did not just start out by ordering people off the plane.

 

[Steve]

The lawyer for the man dragged off a United flight says his client needs reconstructive surgery for his injuries

Just to be clear here, as a private business, united can establish terms of service. Asking for volunteers is common, and happens often without incident. This isn't that. This is what happens when you call in the troops to forcibly drag an old guy out of his seat.

And this thread is bizarre. It's like asking a bunch of muggers how best to defend against mugging. Of course, they would say, "best thing to do is give us your wallet, and comply with our every request."

 

[Buka]

This thread is like listening to someone who has never done BJJ......tell someone how to do BJJ.

 

[JowGaWolf]

The lawyer for the man dragged off a United flight says his client needs reconstructive surgery for his injuries

Just to be clear here, as a private business, united can establish terms of service. Asking for volunteers is common, and happens often without incident. This isn't that. This is what happens when you call in the troops to forcibly drag an old guy out of his seat.

And this thread is bizarre. It's like asking a bunch of muggers how best to defend against mugging. Of course, they would say, "best thing to do is give us your wallet, and comply with our every request."

United is not a private business. Once a company becomes public business once it sells its IPO and loses many of the rights that a private business would have.

 

[Midnight-shadow]

Now, some could argue that United should have just kept raising the ante until someone grabbed it - OK. Maybe they should have. But they did not just start out by ordering people off the plane.

Or not screw up their scheduling to the point where they had to force 4 paying customers off the flight to make room for extra flight crew.....

 

[Midnight-shadow]

Initial news reports said two officers instructed him nicely to get up and leave a couple times and he refused. Then the third grabbed him and the tussle began.

But did they make it clear to the passenger that they would remove him by force if he didn't comply, or was the conversation more like this:

"Please leave the airplane"
"No"
"Leave the airplane now"
"No"
*passenger grabbed and muscled out*

If the guards had made it clear that if the passenger didn't comply, they would remove him by force, would he have still refused. If so then I would call him out on his stupidity for not believing they would do it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

But did they make it clear to the passenger that they would remove him by force if he didn't comply, or was the conversation more like this:

"Please leave the airplane"
"No"
"Leave the airplane now"
"No"
*passenger grabbed and muscled out*

If the guards had made it clear that if the passenger didn't comply, they would remove him by force, would he have still refused. If so then I would call him out on his stupidity for not believing they would do it.

"Leave the airplane now, or we are instructed to remove you by force."

"No."

...

 

[JowGaWolf]

This thread is like listening to someone who has never done BJJ......tell someone how to do BJJ.

Yes, if you are talking about how to defend against police. In terms of the United problem, this issue is a company problem and not a law enforcement problem. The company handled it incorrectly. The security (or police) involved becomes a training issue.

I would never recommend a blanket "How to defend yourself against police" statement simply because each case is different and defense isn't always a physical effort. Where BJJ requires that a person have the skill sets, the United situation can be used to highlight opportunities and rights as a civilian and for most part none of them have anything to do with defending against an officer. This situation is more of a legal issue where a civilian is better off understanding their rights as citizen vs trying to "defend against an officer." In situations like this, the defense part is going to play out in the courts.

 

[Buka]

Here's a stat from the Department of Transportation -

In 2015, 46,000 travelers were involuntarily bumped from flights.

That's just nuts.

 

[Midnight-shadow]

Here's a stat from the Department of Transportation -

In 2015, 46,000 travelers were involuntarily bumped from flights.

That's just nuts.

Yeah, and as long as airlines are allowed to oversell their flights it will keep on happening.

 

[JowGaWolf]

If the guards had made it clear that if the passenger didn't comply, they would remove him by force, would he have still refused. If so then I would call him out on his stupidity for not believing they would do it.

There was nothing wrong with removing the guy by force. Just understand that officers mean it when they say it. It's a calculated risk for the passenger that could result in a big payday financially with the expense of getting his/her butt kicked. If you pay for a plane ticket and have not negotiated an agreement for giving up your purchase, then you would most likely be in good standing legally for staying on the plane (I'm not a lawyer). It would be no different than you buying a T.V. at the store, only to have the store employ take your T.V. away, bash you up and give it to the customer standing behind you. Then tell you that you'll get your T.V. tomorrow. There are 2 parts to what happened on the plane. The first part is the Business Side of providing a service to a customer who has purchased the service (the police have nothing to do with this). The second side is the Law Enforcement side where the security or the police have to follow the rules and do their job, this is a training issue (the company has nothing to do with this). My guess is that the passenger's lawyer will have 2 law suits. One against united and the other against the company / city that removed the person from the plane. I double checked and found this.

From CNN "The lawsuit will be filed in Cook County Circuit Court in Illinois, the lawyer said, indicating it would target both the airline and the city of Chicago, whose Department of Aviation was involved in removing Dao from the plane."

United will say that they can't be sued for causing the injuries because they are not responsible for training the officer. They will probably highlight that in none of the United training instructs that passengers should be treated in that manner. The lawyer will probably file a law suit against United for not providing a service that was paid for which ultimately ended up with the harm of the passenger on United's property. The City or company that hired and train the police or security (not sure which was involved) well get sued for the actions of the security of officer involved.

 

[CB Jones]

Yeah, and as long as airlines are allowed to oversell their flights it will keep on happening.

And when airlines aren't allowed to oversell their tickets all tickets will be non-refundable and the cost will be higher.

That is the cost of being allowed to cancel tickets or change flights.

 

[JowGaWolf]

And when airlines aren't allowed to oversell their tickets all tickets will be non-refundable and the cost will be higher.

That is the cost of being allowed to cancel tickets or change flights.

from a legal perspective (again I'm not a lawyer) the passengers can probably sue each time the airline tries to bump a passenger. If you have paid for a service to occur on a specific day, at a specific time. Then the company owes you that service. This is a business thing and not specifically an airline only thing. Airlines aren't going to tell you about your your legal rights because it works against their favor, which is why the negotiate in hopes that you agree to something that is less expensive to the airline than a lawsuit. "You are always free to decline the check (e.g., not cash it) and take the airline to court to try to obtain more compensation," according to the DOT." Source CNN link below.

For example, no airline is going to volunteer this information: "Passengers have the right to insist on a check instead of a free flight or a voucher when they're involuntarily kicked off a flight, according to the DOT. And they always get to keep their original ticket, which retains its value." By the way the check is a negotiated price so you can negotiate the best offer for yourself. I would personally go for the check because everything else has an expiration date.

Read #4 in the CNN link below.

CNN has some information on what you can do if your flight is bumped.
Know your rights: What to do if your flight is overbooked

Much of the stuff I know is because I had about 3 years worth of business law studies as part of my major in college. The most important thing to understand second to citizen's rights is your right as a consumer. That way you don't have to have your 2 front teeth knocked out, nose broken, a concussion, and reconstructive surgery. Yeah you'll get money but those injuries really suck

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Here's a stat from the Department of Transportation -

In 2015, 46,000 travelers were involuntarily bumped from flights.

That's just nuts.

Out of how many travelers?

 

[CB Jones]

from a legal perspective (again I'm not a lawyer) the passengers can probably sue each time the airline tries to bump a passenger.

Sure, but the fact that the contract they signed upon buying their ticket allows for the airline to bump them and only pay them 2 times their ticket poses a problem for the suit.

"Passengers have the right to insist on a check instead of a free flight or a voucher when they're involuntarily kicked off a flight, according to the DOT. And they always get to keep their original ticket, which retains its value."

Absolutely....you do not have to accept a voucher and can ask for a check.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

And when airlines aren't allowed to oversell their tickets all tickets will be non-refundable and the cost will be higher.

That is the cost of being allowed to cancel tickets or change flights.

Bingo. Some percentage of passengers will not show, for a large variety of reasons. Some percentage of those tickets are therefore transferable or refundable. The airline does not earn any revenue on empty seats. So they do math and figure out the odds and sell tickets accordingly. Sometimes the odds are not in their favor; more show up than they planned for. So they give refunds in those cases.

Eliminate oversold tickets and the prices per ticket go up. Simple. If everyone's OK with that, then fine.

For most tickets events, there is no refund if a person cannot make it. Bad weather, illness, bad traffic, woke up late, boss would not let you leave on time, etc. If you miss the prizefight you had tickets for, too bad, so sad. Non-refundable for the most part. You can complain and ***** and moan all you like, you're just out the money.

Airline seats are the same way. Once the plane pushes back, that seat is useless to them. Yet if the passenger misses the flight for a large number of reasons, they can get back their money or get another flight later, etc. Only a few tickets are absolutely non-refundable no matter the reason.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Sure, but the fact that the contract they signed upon buying their ticket allows for the airline to bump them and only pay them 2 times their ticket poses a problem for the suit.

Edit. I just read your second statement so ignore my response below.
Below is just useful information to help anyone else to learn about their consumer rights as an airline passenger.

A company's contract or policy does not trump business laws. There are some loopholes available Straight from the DOT's website. Highlighted in read is your right as a consumer in the U.S.

"Airlines may offer free tickets or dollar-amount vouchers for future flights in place of a check for denied boarding compensation. However, if you are bumped involuntarily you have the right to insist on a check if that is your preference. Once you cash the check (or accept the free flight), you will probably lose the ability to pursue more money from the airline later on. However, if being bumped costs you more money than the airline will pay you at the airport, you can try to negotiate a higher settlement with their complaint department. If this doesn't work, you usually have 30 days from the date on the check to decide if you want to accept the amount of the check. You are always free to decline the check (e.g., not cash it) and take the airline to court to try to obtain more compensation. DOT's denied boarding regulation spells out the airlines' minimum obligation to people they bump involuntarily. Finally, don't be a "no-show." If you are holding confirmed reservations you don't plan to use, notify the airline. If you don't, they will cancel all onward or return reservations on your trip."


This guy sued and won for being bumped. See how it played out.
From the link "The rules provide that a passenger who has a reservation and who is asked to give up their seat because the flight is overbooked is entitled to a lot of money and the airline is required to fill them in on their rights right away. In writing."
"It also does not look like they told him about his compensation rights.

Unfortunately, this is a typical game all of the airlines play. They start offering compensation and travel that is less than what is required under the FAA rule hoping that people who haven't been properly informed about their rights will take the cheap offer. When this doesn't work they slowly raise the offers."

Some more information about your rights as an airline passenger.

The key thing is to know your rights as a consumer. In the case of the Dao and United, news has come out that they flight wasn't overbooked, which puts a new twist on everything. (source). The good news is that we will probably see new regulations involving this practice

 

[JowGaWolf]

Bingo. Some percentage of passengers will not show, for a large variety of reasons.

At the point of filling the seats, as long as airlines inform the customer that they may be bumped. Then no harm is done. The passenger has significant notice that they may be bumped. It's one thing to buy a ticket with the understanding that you have purchased a ticket in hopes that another passenger won't show. But to purchase a ticket thinking that the plane isn't full is something totally different. By creating the assumption that there is enough space on the plane when the ticket is purchased creates the issue of deceptive practices.