United airlines defences

A collection of links to internal martial arts videos. Serious martial arts videos ONLY. Joke videos go to Off the Topic.

Re: United airlines defences

Postby marvin8 on Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:11 am

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:You may be right about them being able to kick people off for no reason, but I doubt it will fly in civil court. They broke their own contract.

I agree. I think UA broke their own contract. Dao was already boarded and not belligerent. A jury whether right or wrong will have sympathy for Dao, as public opinion shows. My guess is this will be settled out of court. United Airlines has already loss. They should have offered Dao $1350 and see if he took the bait. It would have been a lot cheaper for UA, if Dao took it.

An Excerpt from a Newsweek article, WHY UNITED WAS LEGALLY WRONG TO DEPLANE DAVID DAO, http://www.newsweek.com/why-united-were ... dao-583535,
Jens David Ohlin, professor of law at Cornell Law wrote:In contrast, the object and purpose of the contract of carriage is, among other things, to require the airline to transport the passenger from location A to location B aboard aircraft C. Being on the aircraft is the whole point of the contract, and it specifically lists the situations when the airline may deny transport to a ticketed customer.

Since the airline did not comply with those requirements, it should be liable for the damages associated with their breach.

Jens David Ohlin is associate dean for academic affairs and professor of law at Cornell Law.
Last edited by marvin8 on Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
marvin8
Wuji
 
Posts: 730
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:30 pm

Re: United airlines defences

Postby grzegorz on Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:46 pm

windwalker wrote:
GrahamB wrote:So, it's legal to be assaulted if you're on a plane in the US by security staff.

GO USA! FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOMMMMMM!



"Police officers and court officials have a general power to use force for the purpose of performing an arrest or generally carrying out their official duties. Thus, a court officer taking possession of goods under a court order may use force if reasonably necessary"

I would be surprised if the man is not charged for resisting the officers, of course this probably won't make the news.

You do understand what the rule of law means versus the rule of man.


Actually that cop is on leave and in trouble because the doctor was not breaking any laws. I realize you quote that an airline can be bump but the bumping is supposed to occur at the point of check in. I wonder how the right would see this if the man had a Trump hat on.

Either way the fact that United vows that this will never happen is proof enough to me that their lawyers told them that they were in the wrong and needed to back track since they didn't have a let to stand on and just made a bad situation worse. Whereas if they were right then they would have stuck with that.
Last edited by grzegorz on Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Fascists rejected reason in the name of will, denying objective truth in favor of a glorious myth articulated by leaders who claimed to give voice to the people."

-Timothy Snyder
User avatar
grzegorz
Wuji
 
Posts: 4876
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 1:42 pm
Location: Divided States of America

Re: United airlines defences

Postby windwalker on Fri Apr 14, 2017 1:22 am

Actually that cop is on leave and in trouble because the doctor was not breaking any laws.


Until it goes to court if it goes to court it remains to be seen.
My point was that the man was requested by the flight crew to leave the plane, he refused feeling he was in the right, and challenged the flight crew
to do it and he would sue the airline.

At that point he became a threat "not following directions of the flight crew"

They requested an airport officer to remove the man, the man was injured in the process.

However regarding the officer..you wonder how the the "right" would see this man with a trump hat on..
maybe you can see how others look at it with out the hat. Your defending the man, the clip is defending
the offices who removed the man.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdmYrqNodD8&t=543s

I don't agree with the clips basic premise but do agree that the man
was resisting arrest and was removed. What if the officer had been "white" or the guy a "skin head"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp7OAYBgfDk&t=257s

The CEO of UA IMO should be canned for the way he's handled this.
Something I would expect to happen soon.

Whether the decision to remove the guy was lawful or not,
the guy choose not follow the directions of the flight crew and challenged them
with the threat of suing them.... He could have sued them anyway for breaking their contract
after he followed the direction to deplane...

As it was all that followed was caused by the guy feeling he had some "right" to remain on
the plane after the crew requested that he leave regardless of whether it was right or not.

To me at that point there was no way this guy was going to be allowed to stay on the plane, even if someone else
had volunteered to take his place. There are many examples of people being removed from planes with and with out force.

Once asked to deplane a plane for what ever reasons I've yet to see anyone allowed to remain on the flight because they
would not leave.
Last edited by windwalker on Fri Apr 14, 2017 6:03 am, edited 5 times in total.
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 6061
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: United airlines defences

Postby grzegorz on Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:58 am

I am not debating the issue as much as pointing out that the officer's superiors don't agree with the officer's actions. I doubt there will be a court case unless the officer is fired but I doubt that would happen either way unless there were new developments.

Anyway I think debating that a doctor did this so he could sue the company is a bit if a stretch (as is the officer taking CPD to court) and unprovable but then again like Joe Friday I just stick with the facts.

Saying that I am sure if you paid for your ticket, knew your rights, had to get somewhere, United decided to end negotitations and single you out (with 3 more) and the crew and police decided to try their newest MMA moves on you then you would sue them just the same.

I seem to remember you were ready to go ape shit a couple of lawyers who were discussing the election Mr. Upstanding Citizen. Point being confrontations happen which is something many arm chair warriors seem to forget.
Last edited by grzegorz on Sun Apr 16, 2017 8:29 am, edited 6 times in total.
"Fascists rejected reason in the name of will, denying objective truth in favor of a glorious myth articulated by leaders who claimed to give voice to the people."

-Timothy Snyder
User avatar
grzegorz
Wuji
 
Posts: 4876
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 1:42 pm
Location: Divided States of America

Re: United airlines defences

Postby Bao on Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:29 am

Windwalker wrote:Whether the decision to remove the guy was lawful or not,
the guy choose not follow the directions of the flight crew and challenged them
with the threat of suing them.... He could have sued them anyway for breaking their contract
after he followed the direction to deplane...

As it was all that followed was caused by the guy feeling he had some "right" to remain on
the plane after the crew requested that he leave regardless of whether it was right or not.


This I do agree with. 8-)

...though I don't know what went through his head... For his own safety he should not have resisted but followed them out when it got serious. That would be the ideal to take care of a lawsuit later and unharmed. But still, it's hard to understand what your rights are when you are in a situation that is new for you and are to know how to act the best way. It's easy for us to say how things should be when we are not in his shoes. :)

Gregorz wrote:Anyway I think debating that a doctor did this so he could sue the company is a bit if a stretch (as is the officer taking CPD to court) and unprovable but then again like Joe Friday I just stick with the facts.

Saying that I am sure if you paid for your ticket, knew your rights, had to get somewhere, United decided to end negotitations and single you out (with 3 more) and the crew and police decided to try their newest MMA moves on you then you would sue them just the same.


Of course he can sue them good. To stay with the facts: the only way to deny someone a seat due to overbooking is before boarding, not after.
Thoughts on Tai Chi (My Tai Chi blog)
- Storms make oaks take deeper root. -George Herbert
- To affect the quality of the day, is the highest of all arts! -Walden Thoreau
Bao
Great Old One
 
Posts: 5753
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 12:46 pm
Location: High up north

Re: United airlines defences

Postby Steve James on Fri Apr 14, 2017 1:03 pm

Well,
the only way to deny someone a seat due to overbooking is before boarding, not after.
, I think "only" is too strong. But, "overbooking" was probably not the reason for removing him. That means there are other reasons that the airline might use. For ex., his behavior after he was told to leave is not excused by the fact that the airline was wrong for selecting him. I doubt he cited airline policy when he was originally asked to move. Anyway, he'll sue for being removed, and he'll sue for the suffering it caused. In civil cases, there is often the issue of mitigation. I.e., did the plaintiff make things worse. If the case is tried before a jury, the (UA) defense attorney may argue that the man's actions were the primary cause of his injuries. The video is not like Rodney King's. I think that, even though most of us think that the situation and the man were mishandled, most of us here would say that the man had some fault too. Fortunately, it wasn't a city street, and he survived.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 16177
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: United airlines defences

Postby Bao on Fri Apr 14, 2017 2:01 pm

Steve James wrote:In civil cases, there is often the issue of mitigation. I.e., did the plaintiff make things worse. If the case is tried before a jury, the (UA) defense attorney may argue that the man's actions were the primary cause of his injuries.


Absolutely, and that will probably happen. I don't think he'll get anything for injuries if it doesn't become a case of unnecessary violence. But he could still get a whole lot of money for being dragged out without the airline having any legal basis for taking action against him.
Thoughts on Tai Chi (My Tai Chi blog)
- Storms make oaks take deeper root. -George Herbert
- To affect the quality of the day, is the highest of all arts! -Walden Thoreau
Bao
Great Old One
 
Posts: 5753
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 12:46 pm
Location: High up north

Re: United airlines defences

Postby Ian C. Kuzushi on Fri Apr 14, 2017 2:19 pm

I imagine there will be a hefty settlement. UA doesn't want anymore attention, and a trial will just bring more systemic abuses to light. In my mind, this is the best possible outcome. By shedding light on the system, we can address the widespread problems endemic throughout the American international carriers. Why is it that when citizens come back from abroad, we are greeted with crass rudeness, hostility, suspicion, and occasionally outright abuse? It's more of the us vs them mentality, and it has spread from the Customs to airport police to TSA and now seems to be a problem among the airlines themselves. A complete overhaul is in order.
Last edited by Ian C. Kuzushi on Fri Apr 14, 2017 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
文武両道。

Lord Li requires one hundred gold coins per day!
User avatar
Ian C. Kuzushi
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1640
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: United airlines defences

Postby everything on Fri Apr 14, 2017 9:21 pm

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote: Why is it that when citizens come back from abroad, we are greeted with crass rudeness, hostility, suspicion, and occasionally outright abuse?


It's really unclear. It seems to be something wrong with US culture.

Once I flew back to the USA from Japan. In Tokyo, there were these young ladies wearing white gloves keeping everyone in a really tidy single file line with incredible politeness. Everything was insanely orderly. Once we got to Detroit, it was just Wild West with no line, super rude airport employees trying to rustle the super unorganized crowd using rude, barked orders. What's weird is a lot of these people in the crowd were probably the SAME PEOPLE who lined up so nicely in Tokyo. So once you're in that bad culture, you conform to the unorganized, unruly, Wild West mode.

It's the same thing on USA highways. Everyone goes into any lane at any time in the stupidest possible fashion. Want to go 10 under the speed limit and cruise in the left lane and piss everyone off? Go right ahead. I drove in Europe and the left lane was ONLY for passing. White aired elderly couples would pass me in the left lane going about 130 mph (my Golf could only hit 100), then scoot over. Super orderly.

USA culture is kind of toddler tantrum mentality-based, it seems. Just look at the PRESIDENT. SAD.
amateur practices til gets right pro til can't get wrong
/ better approx answer to right q than exact answer to wrong q which can be made precise /
“most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. Source of all true art & science
User avatar
everything
Wuji
 
Posts: 3949
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 7:22 pm
Location: USA

Re: United airlines defences

Postby Overlord on Sat Apr 15, 2017 10:15 am

windwalker wrote:
Bao wrote:Oh, I thought it was a vid on how UA defended their actions.

I don't think they will do anything similar again as it was completely illegal. There is absolutely nothing that supports their action. But I think I'll study that vid properly if I am going to travel anywhere within the US. Just in case.... :P


can you explain the illegality of it and what does not support the actions.
yes all should make themselves aware of the "law" by reading the contract they agree to by buying the ticket.



Your view reflects your character, your actions also reflect your character ~
In the ethics of kungfu, 武德, we support the weak and challenge tyranny, regardless the "legality" of things,
In early Christianity, Yashua described people like that "hypocrites".
In my humble opinion, people like that does not fit to learn kungfu~
Because in both knighthood of the West and Samurai of the East, such opinion is just legal bs~

I remember if taught correctly, "booking" means "booking", the word is gold, you book, you pay, and it's yours.
There is no small print on the back of ticket saying otherwise.
White peopl used to do that to the American natives, contract/agreement signs, small letter pinch their lands, and still are today.

And if I remember correctly, the word "voluntarily " means to volunteer out of kindness, understanding and good will, not forcefully bumped and dragged against one's liberty and rights as "customer".

But let us focus on this case more carefully ~



Now check 4:05.
By witness accounts, United Airline had asked few other passengers before Dr Dao for voluntarily give up their seats and they all refused, nothing happened. It is only when came to Dr Dao, they asked the police went into the airplane feck his face up and drag him out.

How one view this incident, really reflects one's character, especially under the scope of racism.

So who the is Dr Dao?
He is a person not to be mess with.

Being a Vietnamese refugee, he had practice medicine for 20 years~
He won 8 times Poker competition with prize up more than 8 millions collectively.
He is currently senior lung cancer physician, and he was in a hurry to see his patient who will have surgery next day~
Four of his five children are also doctors, two of them work in MAYO.

His two family attorneys are top of their field, Thomas Demetrio was particularly famous.

United Airlines probably think he is an Asian tofu, but in the end likely call him a Sifu~

If I get any info wrong incorrectly, please let me know, I am sorry in advance and I am more than happy to change it~
PS the sexual charge was verified not the same person, another Dr Dao.
Sorry for the incorrect info~

Cheers,
Last edited by Overlord on Sat Apr 15, 2017 4:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-saber-

芳菲闌珊,夙緣鶗鴃,風駟雲軒,愁誓約。
夜蝶飛階,霎微雨闕,劍鋒無情,人葬月。
"Brother Suck"
"Be ware of your prostate gland"~ Yeung
User avatar
Overlord
Wuji
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 4:03 am

Re: United airlines defences

Postby grzegorz on Sun Apr 16, 2017 8:40 am

Boa wrote:Of course he can sue them good. To stay with the facts: the only way to deny someone a seat due to overbooking is before boarding, not after.


Yes, I stated that already that bumping is before boarding.

My point was that there is no way to prove that the Doc is doing this all for money in fact I seriously doubt it. It seems to me that the Doc probably disagreed on principle that he should have to forcibly surrender his seat.

As far as changing his attitude when the cops came it is an easy claim to make. I myself have gotten into it with the police because they came at me yelling for touching a motorcycle with a shopping cart in the rough part of town I yelled back and they backed off and I reported it to the owner as requested but things could easily escalated yet it is easy to say just comply when it isn't you in the midst of an injustice
Last edited by grzegorz on Sun Apr 16, 2017 1:04 pm, edited 4 times in total.
"Fascists rejected reason in the name of will, denying objective truth in favor of a glorious myth articulated by leaders who claimed to give voice to the people."

-Timothy Snyder
User avatar
grzegorz
Wuji
 
Posts: 4876
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 1:42 pm
Location: Divided States of America

Re: United airlines defences

Postby windwalker on Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:31 pm

https://www.aol.com/article/finance/201 ... /22049963/

Didn't think he would last long the way he handled the situation.
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 6061
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: United airlines defences

Postby GrahamB on Fri Apr 28, 2017 9:05 am

Yes, Dr Dao was clearly at fault... that's why he has won an out of court settlement....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39739737
"The killer in me is the killer in you"- The Smashing Pumpkins.
http://www.taichinotebook.wordpress.com
User avatar
GrahamB
Great Old One
 
Posts: 10916
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:30 pm

Previous

Return to Video Links

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ambulocetus and 1 guest