Fly the Friendly Skies of United

[SC-Texas]

Actually i think this is incorrect

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[zincwarrior]

Actually, a reasonable amount of force can be used by anyone to affect any lawful arrest.

And anyone can and will be sued for doing that too.

 

[Younggun]

Not always.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[zincwarrior]

Not always.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Enough to make it extremely hazardous to your wallets health. You have no protection and the default is you lose because you are admitting you committed battery upon them. Even defending yourself is a loser. I know how much lawyers cost.

 

[Kar98]

 

[Younggun]

Enough to make it extremely hazardous to your wallets health. You have no protection and the default is you lose because you are admitting you committed battery upon them. Even defending yourself is a loser. I know how much lawyers cost.

There are many felonies in which citizens intervene and attempt to arrest the perpetrator utilizing force. Most forms of assault for example. Especially when there is a likelihood of serious bodily injury or death.

Youre thinking inside a very small box.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[zincwarrior]

There are many felonies in which citizens intervene and attempt to arrest the perpetrator utilizing force. Most forms of assault for example. Especially when there is a likelihood of serious bodily injury or death.

Youre thinking inside a very small box.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And that sets you up for legal liability. You have ZERO protection and defending yourself costs money.
But thats your option, and if you choose to do so, thats fine.

 

[zincwarrior]

Now we just need Rowdy ROddy Piper in a United uniform...

 

[Younggun]

And that sets you up for legal liability. You have ZERO protection and defending yourself costs money.
But thats your option, and if you choose to do so, thats fine.

So you would feel stopping a rapist sets you up for too much legal liability?


I'm sure his next victim would understand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[zincwarrior]

So you would feel stopping a rapist sets you up for too much legal liability?


I'm sure his next victim would understand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Under the self defense laws of the great State of Texas, I'd shoot a rapist, not arrest him.

 

[sharkey]

I find it sad that this happened and sadder that we have LEO's that agree with this. My buddy is a fed LEO and stated the doctor had no recourse but to get off the plane. As a retired LEO of 20yrs, I disagree. What we have here is a trampling of consumer rights. I am well aware of the carriage legalese when purchasing a ticket but that sounds like a contract violation to me and just like uniform officers don't kick someone out of a house just because the home owner says so, Dept. of Aviation "Police" should not use force to remove a paying passenger that did what he was told to board and take his seat.

I do like the memes though. I hope United takes such a hit that they go out of business. I hope the "police" involved in this lose their jobs and get sued themselves. I hope new law comes out to protect passengers like the passenger bill of rights that came out to protect those kidnapped, I mean stuck on the Tarmac.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[txinvestigator]

So Sharky...had the paying customer spit on a crew member the airline should just have to suck it up and fly the man?

 

[AustinN4]

Interesting article on airline overbooking

The Airline Industry: Overpacking Planes Since the 1940s
APRIL 14, 2017 8:00 AM EDT ByStephen Mihm

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...e-industry-overpacking-planes-since-the-1940s

If Mihm is correct, the $1,350 is the maximum airlines are allowed to pay. His solution is a good one:

"If regulators want to solve this problem for good, they should consider the vexed history of overbooking and abolish this upper limit and then implement Simon’s proposal in its entirely. In other words, airlines should be permitted to overbook their flights, but when they need to bump passengers, they should only remove people who have voluntarily given up their seats for a voucher, with the price set by auction

"Perhaps that price will be $500; it may well be $5,000. But one imagines that after handing out some vouchers in the high four figures, the airlines may, after seventy years, finally curtail their reliance on overbooking."

 

[Kar98]

So Sharky...had the paying customer spit on a crew member the airline should just have to suck it up and fly the man?

But that's not what he did, is it? He bought a ticket, was allowed to board his flight, and then United said "psych! we're gonna need your seat, here's a coupon for a Happy Meal", and had him dragged off the plane, when there were plenty other options available to get their crew to their destination.

 

[Younggun]

Under the self defense laws of the great State of Texas, I'd shoot a rapist, not arrest him.

Not legal if he has ended the assault and is attempting to escape. The eminent risk is no longer applicable. Shooting him in the back would be murder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Darkpriest667]

Not legal if he has ended the assault and is attempting to escape. The eminent risk is no longer applicable. Shooting him in the back would be murder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree, but in Texas I'll take my trial by Jury so that the jerk doesn't have the chance to rape again EVER. I'd like Trial by Jury please.

 

[Jack Ryan]

No, once the flight crew told him to leave he was trespassing and interfering with a flight crew. If you invite someone to your house and then decide you want them to leave and they refuse, you just have to deal with it?

The money has nothing to do with the criminal aspect. He does not have to receive the refund before he is subject to the trespassing law, nor the interference with flight crew law.

He wasn't "invited". He was offered a chance to purchase their service. He completed ALL OF HIS OBLIGATIONS to receive the service. Then they reneged on the contract all parties are bound by.

 

[Jack Ryan]

So Sharky...had the paying customer spit on a crew member the airline should just have to suck it up and fly the man?

He did NOT spit on any one.

 

[zincwarrior]

Not legal if he has ended the assault and is attempting to escape. The eminent risk is no longer applicable. Shooting him in the back would be murder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You didn't say any of that. Adding facts after is cheating.

Attempted rape, empty mag. No arrest.

 

[karlac]

He did NOT spit on any one.

Hey, pigs don't need wings when they fly United.