United Air forcibly removes passenger on overbooked flight

[Fargo]

First, I freely acknowledge that I have my butt in the wind trying to interpret case law and quote same to an actual lawyer, but I did find this. Does this speak to the concerns you had about specific vs general intent?


From: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/131/1449/514305/

The distinction between general and specific intent can basically be distilled down to "did I intend to intimidate this particular person in this particular way to cause interference." Vs. " did I do something I knew or should have known would cause a person to be intimidated and it did in fact cause interference. "

The distinction in this case really only means that you don't have to prove that you meant to intimidate this particular crewmember in this particular way but rather that you intended to do something that would cause a reasonable person to be intimidated under those circumstances. They then don't have to prove that you intended to cause the interference they only have to prove that it happened.

Where the rubber meets the road, if the government can prove that you intended to intimidate or assault, and they can prove that it caused interference; They don't have to prove that you intended to cause the interference. The government is only required to prove intent as regards intimidation or assault, they only have to prove that the interference happened not that you meant for it to happen.

Either way, as the head notes I posted above point out, the interference has to be caused by the intimidation or assault. That is where you were misreading the statute. Look again at the headnote for Eid.

49 USCS § 46504 is violated only if interference with flight crew members and attendants is accomplished by assaulting or intimidating flight crew member or flight attendant; viewing plaintiff passengers' version of facts, they did absolutely nothing that anyone could reasonably have believed was criminal--none of passengers made threats or got physical with flight attendants--and captain of airplane had no ground to believe that § 46504 was violated, even accepting everything flight attendants told him; jury could have concluded that captain acted unreasonably in diverting plane, forcing plaintiffs to disembark, turning them over to authorities and then refusing to let them re-board flight after police had cleared them. Eid v Alaska Airlines, Inc. (2010, CA9 Nev) 621 F3d 858.

 

[Fizzerpilot]

Each airline has its own Contract of Carriage... which outlines all of this. It's actually available to you when you buy a ticket. However, people don't like reading contracts. I would suggest reading UALs.

 

[BugI02]

Here's another one for fun.

Holding in applicable judicial precedent interpreting 49 USCS § 46501(2) cannot be expanded to mean that interference with flight crew member occurs every time flight crew member becomes concerned or apprehensive about individual's behavior and conduct aboard flight. United States v Cafiero (2003, DC Mass) 292 F Supp 2d 242.

I'm getting a disconnect as to how 49 USC 46501 applies

49 U.S. Code § 46501 - Definitions


Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes
Authorities (CFR)
prev | next
In this chapter—
(1) “aircraft in flight” means an aircraft from the moment all external doors are closed following boarding—
(A) through the moment when one external door is opened to allow passengers to leave the aircraft; or
(B) until, if a forced landing, competent authorities take over responsibility for the aircraft and individuals and property on the aircraft.
(2) “special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States” includes any of the following aircraft in flight:
(A) a civil aircraft of the United States.
(B) an aircraft of the armed forces of the United States.
(C) another aircraft in the United States.
(D) another aircraft outside the United States—
(i) that has its next scheduled destination or last place of departure in the United States, if the aircraft next lands in the United States;
(ii) on which an individual commits an offense (as defined in the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft) if the aircraft lands in the United States with the individual still on the aircraft; or
(iii) against which an individual commits an offense (as defined in subsection (d) or (e) of article I, section I of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation) if the aircraft lands in the United States with the individual still on the aircraft.
(E) any other aircraft leased without crew to a lessee whose principal place of business is in the United States or, if the lessee does not have a principal place of business, whose permanent residence is in the United States.
(3) an individual commits an offense (as defined in the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft) when the individual, when on an aircraft in flight—
(A) by any form of intimidation, unlawfully seizes, exercises control of, or attempts to seize or exercise control of, the aircraft; or
(B) is an accomplice of an individual referred to in subclause (A) of this clause.
(Pub. L. 103–272, § 1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1240.)

46501(2) is colorized. Que?

 

[Fizzerpilot]

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx

Looks like they tell every customer what the policy is. Now, if the customer chooses not to read the contract they are signing...

 

[Fargo]

Coloring is different because there was a hyperlink there to a legal database.

I'm getting a disconnect as to how 49 USC 46501 applies




46501(2) is colorized. Que?

46501 doesn't apply directly, they are citing a prior case which interpreted 46501 and applying it's reasoning 46504. Coloring is different because there was a hyperlink there to a legal database. Basically, they are saying that the court rejected the governments argument based upon the prior 46501 case, and interpret 46504 independently.

 

[Fargo]

Going to bed have a good night gentlemen.

 

[Fizzerpilot]

Seems like the passengers who wore leggings, didn't read their contract either... shucks. So little reading and understanding, but so many feelings!

 

[BugI02]

My brain hurts. Thanks, Fargo for being a good sport about this but when it comes to the law, it is just difficult for the layman to wrap ones head completely around without the underlying baseline of specific knowledge

I must retire from the field in search of sleep


ETA: Thou'rt one step ahead of me

 

[BugI02]

Coloring is different because there was a hyperlink there to a legal database.

46501 doesn't apply directly, they are citing a prior case which interpreted 46501 and applying it's reasoning 46504. Coloring is different because there was a hyperlink there to a legal database. Basically, they are saying that the court rejected the governments argument based upon the prior 46501 case, and interpret 46504 independently.

View attachment 54797

 

[SMiller]

I'm just glad fizzerpilot is a pilot and not a lawyer...

 

[Vigilant]

After all 13 pages, and numerous cites of carriage contracts/policy, ALL OF WHICHrefernce being denied BOARDING, someone PLEASE define boarding? Is boarding or denial thereof at the gate, or, when you are firmly planted in a seat? Technically, to me, boarding means I walk that little tunnel, enter the plane, cram my oversized carry on above the first seat I. The cabin, then move to my seat 13 rows behind, and put all the rest of my "baggage" above me in the overhead compartment. Then, I sit in my assigned seat, tray table up, seat belt securely fastened, am I boarded?

 

[PistolBob]

It never takes long for the armchair internet lawyers to show up. Grab some popcorn and prepare to be amazed.

 

[cobber]

I think we have firmly established that myself and my crew will always have a seat on a full flight. But thanks for the offer

But you won't have to beat me or drag me from the plane, because I won't be on it to begin with. So you won't have to resort to lame and off-point legal citations.

Feel free to PM the company name...

 

[Fizzerpilot]

But you won't have to beat me or drag me from the plane, because I won't be on it to begin with. So you won't have to resort to lame and off-point legal citations.

Feel free to PM the company name...

Now where is the fun in that?

 

[Fizzerpilot]

It appears that the good doctor isn't a stranger to legal issues... or felonies. This apparently isn't his first rodeo.

 

[rob63]

I'm just glad fizzerpilot is a pilot and not a lawyer...

I'm glad he's not a police officer.

 

[cobber]

Now where is the fun in that?

Yes, it's great fun to get knocked unconscious and dragged off an airplane for sure. I'm amazed the other passengers didn't simply deplane after that spectacle.

 

[Fizzerpilot]

So, if the man has stood up and walked off when the police arrived, would the outcry be the same?

Or is it only because he fought the police and was injured in the act?

The passenger did have a choice in how this ended. Now I'm not excusing this aggressive behavior by the police... but cmon, you don't think the man had any culpability in what happened? It's like refusing arrest, and getting a bloody nose when they tackle you, and crying foul. Really? Are none of us responsible for our own actions?

Im sure UAL will pay dearly as the SJW take to Twitter in protest, and that's fair. We all have opinions.

 

[Fizzerpilot]

Yes, it's great fun to get knocked unconscious and dragged off an airplane for sure. I'm amazed the other passengers didn't simply deplane after that spectacle.

Because they don't care THAT much. They need to get to SDF

 

[churchmouse]

Yes, it's great fun to get knocked unconscious and dragged off an airplane for sure. I'm amazed the other passengers didn't simply deplane after that spectacle.

Seriously....????

If I am thousands of miles away from home and on a schedule I am not joining a protest. I might have even told the guy who lost the random lottery to get moving so we all could get home.
If I had lost and knowing the outcome of resistance would be LEO removing me I would save them the effort and left. Yes, I would be Pissed. Throwing hands with LEO in the aisle is never a good option regardless.