The Friendly Skies...

[gblowfish]

Just kicked some poor guys ass for refusing to give up his seat!
You never see this on the United Airlines commercials....

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...ompting-outcry

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief

The seat is not the cake. The cake is him arriving in Louisville. Louisville is the final terms of the contract.

That's just not correct. one contracts for a seat on the plane, as well as arrival at a destination. Nobody is getting SRO flight tickets.

Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief

In example 2, the police are definitely in the wrong,

End of analogy

Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief

however, it is best to litigate this infraction in the future, not compound the problem in the present.

Baby Lee and I agree this was wrong, however, we have civil and legal remedies for "justice".

In this analogy, what you're really arguing is that, for your own safety, you should put up with illegality and hope for the best, because of the special circumstances of it being out of control police. That's not applicable here.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

In this analogy, what you're really arguing is that, for your own safety, you should put up with illegality and hope for the best, because of the special circumstances of it being out of control police. That's not applicable here.

No, he's arguing that self-assessment in the moment of illegality by law enforcement is rarely if ever advisable.

Unless you have something like a drunk off-duty cop waving his gun around, or pulling his badge right in the middle of a bar fight he instigated, your assessment is hasty and likely to be second-guessed.

[ptlyon]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Do you get this mad when mechanics discuss automobile issues in technical terms?

If I strike you as arrogant, I apologize. But I do strive to speak as plainly as the issues permit.

Try putting it in jive

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

That's just not correct. one contracts for a seat on the plane, as well as arrival at a destination. Nobody is getting SRO flight tickets.

The contract for the cake involved planning of the cake, samples, decoration agreement, and a final product. An airline ticket is a flight from point a to point b, with arrival at point b being the final product... pretty simple. The contract was breached in both before completion, despite fulfillment of some aspects of the contract.




End of analogy- In repugnance and wrongdoing yes, legally no.



In this analogy, what you're really arguing is that, for your own safety, you should put up with illegality and hope for the best, because of the special circumstances of it being out of control police. That's not applicable here.

No, in the present there is no easy recourse for the wrongdoing. An individual has a choice to stop the business's operation and then refuse to leave when authorities, public authority not employed by the business, or comply. If he wouldn't have hit his head on the armrest due to the repugnant actions of the officer, this would not have been in his best interest.

See above in red

[Dartgod]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Do you get this mad when mechanics discuss automobile issues in technical terms?

If I strike you as arrogant, I apologize. But I do strive to speak as plainly as the issues permit.

Me mad? Not in the least.

And I would not have a problem with the auto mechanic analogy because I do have a background in this field. But if I did not, and the mechanic was telling me what was wrong with my car in terms that I did not understand, I would find another place to work on my car.

Maybe arrogant is too strong. I've had interactions here with you in the past and never had issues. It seems like in this thread, however, you seem to be "flexing your vocabularic muscles" a bit too much.

This sentence here is a perfect example:

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

What is so sacrosanct about a specific airline seat that, once you sit in it, you seem to imbue it with a special inviolability?

I have no idea what you are trying to say here without googling at least three words. And I consider myself a pretty smart guy with a good vocabulary.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Dartgod

I have no idea what you are trying to say here without googling at least three words. And I consider myself a pretty smart guy with a good vocabulary.

See, I read that and see me trying to be clear and succinct.

[that means, I put work into writing straightforward and brief ]

Maybe you're right. Maybe people don't answer my questions because they don't understand them. Not because they are persuaded.

Put yourself in my position, though. Every time I overdo it with plain speaking, people complain that my answers are incomplete.

Then you have sideswipes like 'well, what about negligence' in reference to a contract dispute, when it takes days of ACTUAL law school to hammer home why they are totally separate concepts, let alone a quck and dirty layman's explanation that strikes the perfect tone of informative without condescension.

[DaFace]

I'm a bit puzzled that this has devolved into some weird legalese shit-slinging party. I don't think there's much question that they're legally allowed to kick people off of a plane. But it's an enormous dick move to do so, and they deserve all the shit they're getting for it.

[Dartgod]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

See, I read that and see me trying to be clear and succinct.

[that means, I put work into writing straightforward and brief ]

Hey, there's nothing wrong with healthy vocabulary. And I understood every word of this post.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I'm a bit puzzled that this has devolved into some weird legalese shit-slinging party. I don't think there's much question that they're legally allowed to kick people off of a plane. But it's an enormous dick move to do so, and they deserve all the shit they're getting for it.

I agree, but the bolded was, to my reading very much in question early in the thread.

My posts were intended to illustrate the consequences of saying that neither the airline nor law enforcement had any legal right to effect removal.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

No, he's arguing that self-assessment in the moment of illegality by law enforcement is rarely if ever advisable.

And I'm noting that such is not an apt analogy.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief

See above in red

Neither of your analogies hold. I explained why. We'll have to just move on from there, apparently.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Dartgod

Hey, there's nothing wrong with healthy vocabulary. And I understood every word of this post.

I would add as well that, playing into my posting style, I have long and regularly asked people to;

ask me to clarify if my opinions are unclear
refute my opinions with specific arguments.

Yet I continually see a barrage of 'oh, this is all bullshit, and you're an asshole,' which true or not is not an argument.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I'm a bit puzzled that this has devolved into some weird legalese shit-slinging party. I don't think there's much question that they're legally allowed to kick people off of a plane. But it's an enormous dick move to do so, and they deserve all the shit they're getting for it.

It must be done for a valid reason under the particular circumstances.

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I'm a bit puzzled that this has devolved into some weird legalese shit-slinging party. I don't think there's much question that they're legally allowed to kick people off of a plane. But it's an enormous dick move to do so, and they deserve all the shit they're getting for it.

I agree, but many on here are arguing they did not believe they had a right to remove him from the plane. As I have said, a right to do something, does not make it less repugnant or smart or remove someone from liability.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

It must be done for a valid reason under the particular circumstances.

We still have the impasse in the moment. If the airline demands it, and calls up law enforcement to enact it, and the passenger refuses, . . . which position controls?