Dr. Dao has reached a settlement with United Airlines.

[blue]

Originally Posted by Nyghthawk

People deserve to be treated with dignity and respect regardless of who they are. When he was sitting in that airplane seat no one knew his history. It had nothing to do with how he was treated.

Again it is not what he did in the past. It's that what you did in the past is an indicator of who you are. Most people don't really change, contrary to popular belief. And who this guy is is someone with Anger issues, disruptive behavior (based on his work history), and a lack of respect for the rules and law.

What happened to him is due to how HE REACTED. That is due to WHO HE IS. The past actions are just proof that this isn't a "one off".

To clean up an old saying "If you are always getting into fights and think everyone is a jerk, I have bad news for you."

[Tele1111]

Originally Posted by blue

It has everything to do with who he is as a person.

His reaction led to what happened to him. .

I strongly disagree. That's tantamount to saying rape victims are asking for it.

Poor analogy perhaps, but seriously? However he acted does not justify the treatment he received. He is/was he a "shady character? Perhaps.

Remember, we all only know what "the media" has told us. Nothing more.

Mark

[frankmcr]

Originally Posted by blue

Again it is not what he did in the past. It's that what you did in the past is an indicator of who you are. Most people don't really change, contrary to popular belief. And who this guy is is someone with Anger issues, disruptive behavior (based on his work history), and a lack of respect for the rules and law.

What happened to him is due to how HE REACTED. That is due to WHO HE IS. The past actions are just proof that this isn't a "one off".

To clean up an old saying "If you are always getting into fights and think everyone is a jerk, I have bad news for you."

Yeah. Refusing to give up the set he paid for. Disruptive people like that should just be shot. Or sent to a gulag, that'll teach him to have some respect for Authority. This is the USSR, right?

[Tahitijack]

We'll all pay for this through increased ticket prices.

[blue]

Originally Posted by frankmcr

Yeah. Refusing to give up the set he paid for. Disruptive people like that should just be shot. Or sent to a gulag, that'll teach him to have some respect for Authority. This is the USSR, right?

To both you and Tele1111

I'll just ignore the "ad absurdum" rape and USSR stuff and just say that yes. Deciding to remove him from the plan was messed up. But a lot of kids are bullied and never shoot up a school. And lot of folks are cheated on and don't kill their partner. A lot of folks are bumped of planes and don't scream like an Isis beheading victim.

We only have control over one thing in this life. How we react. He chose his path. He has his entire life. Just like you and me. And his choices have been historically bad. This one was too.

Adam Carolla regularly says that we have given control of our lives over to minimum wage employees with windbreakers. Whether it's TSA agents, or parking lot attendants, or what have you. The trick is you have to recognize that, and if not take advantage of it, at least acknowledge it and know when to shut up and play along, because they can and will ruin your life, and it may just be the high point of their week or month.

So he chose the path. Did it go the way the way wanted? No. But thanks to similar attitudes as yours, it turned out "better". A disgraced Doctor who was down to working one Court Supervised day week is now a millionaire.

He can afford all the companionship he wants now.

[Nyghthawk]

Originally Posted by blue

But a lot of kids are bullied and never shoot up a school. And lot of folks are cheated on and don't kill their partner. A lot of folks are bumped of planes and don't scream like an Isis beheading victim.

We only have control over one thing in this life. How we react. He chose his path. He has his entire life. Just like you and me. And his choices have been historically bad. This one was too.

This was about a person in authority choosing to assault a passenger on an airplane. He had his glasses broken, his nose broken, and teeth knocked out. This was not about just getting bumped. This technique in argument is called minimalizing.

This was not about historic choices. This was about a single incident on an airplane. Past decision making doesn't change that.

[blue]

Originally Posted by Nyghthawk

This was not about historic choices. This was about a single incident on an airplane. Past decision making doesn't change that.

Yup. And he made the wrong choice on the airplane. What happened from there shouldn't have. I have no doubt he was as surprised as the women who were screaming. I myself wouldn't have been calling for them to let him go. But I wouldn't have inserted myself physically. Because I know exactly who was abusing him. We all went to highschool with those guys.

If you think historical actions don't matter prepare to have a rough life. You'll be constantly disappointed and used by people you shouldn't trust.

[Silurian]

Ok, the Doc has a shady past and the airline was extremely heavy handed, but If the settlement was in the multi millions, as rumoured. Well, its the legal framework that needs looking at.

[rokdog49]

Ok, the Doc's behavior was wrong and the response was wrong. No excuses either way.
I try to put myself in both pairs of shoes. I can't honestly say beyond a shadow of a doubt how I might have behaved. It's pretty easy to sit at a computer and take potshots and make judgements after the fact. It's also pretty easy to say "play nice" because that's your job.
This was real life, it was immediate and it was emotional. When human beings get overly emotional, sometimes irrational behavior follows and begets more irrational behavior. I can only hope the court factored in everything when deciding. I have to say I'm probably pretty cynical about that.

[cotten]

Originally Posted by blue

Look into the dude's past. Nothing "good" should come to this guy. Both in his work, and criminal history, he's nobody you want to be around.

The good that I mentioned was in reference to the flying public. I hope it works out that way, for everyone's sake. I don't know "the dude," but think that his past behavior should have no influence on how he is treated when aboard a passenger plane.

cotten

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Nyghthawk

This was about a person in authority choosing to assault a passenger on an airplane. He had his glasses broken, his nose broken, and teeth knocked out. This was not about just getting bumped. This technique in argument is called minimalizing.

This was not about historic choices. This was about a single incident on an airplane. Past decision making doesn't change that.

While I agree this incident is about this incident. And there is no question United should not have have "chosen to remove him" ......However " This was about a person in authority choosing to assault a passenger on an airplane." This technique in argument is called pure unsupported speculation. Which the limited angle of perspective in the video/s does not support. Unfortunately from the video/s it is not possible to determine if the officer threw Doa into the seat arm rest (which would rise to the level of assault ) or if Dao was struggling against being removed and his head hitting the seat arm rest was an unfortunate accidental result of Dao's actions .

[Nyghthawk]

No speculation involved. The officer initiated contact. The doctor was not threatening or hitting him. This is the very definition of assault.

If I walked up and grabbed you that way would it be assault? See, no speculation involved.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Nyghthawk

No speculation involved. The officer initiated contact. The doctor was not threatening or hitting him. This is the very definition of assault.

If I walked up and grabbed you that way would it be assault? See, no speculation involved.

Sorry but you are wrong, first you are not a police officer, you have no statutory authority to physically remove somebody that refuses to leave after being instructed to do so. Where as the officer does in fact have the statutory authority to physically remove someone refusing a lawful order to leave the premise.
In such a situation for the officer's actions would have rise to the level of unreasonable force, to even be considered an assault (which again is not supported by the video)

So yes either speculation or if not speculation then just ignorance of the law leading to argument from false equivalency .

Also .... from "Officer Mauricio Rodriguez, the first officer who responded to the April 9 incident, largely confirmed accounts by other passengers about how David Dao was taken off the plane, but said that when fellow officers tried to remove Dao, he "started swinging his arms up and down violently," according to his report.
Officer James Long gave a similar account.
"The subject started swinging his arms up and down with a closed fist," Long said in his report."

[Nyghthawk]

And yet, the officer has been disciplined and the doctor is getting a settlement.

If my argument was indeed specious that would hardly be likely.

Good job of trying to defend the officer. What he did was not even in alignment with his employer's policy much less the law.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Nyghthawk

And yet, the officer has been disciplined and the doctor is getting a settlement.

If my argument was indeed specious that would hardly be likely.

Good job of trying to defend the officer. What he did was not even in alignment with his employer's policy much less the law.

I am not trying to defend anyone or saying the officers did not in fact overreact or perhaps even actually commit an assault . I am saying you cannot determine that from the video.

But ... The fact they were placed on leave or Dao getting a settlement is a totally specious argument for proof of assault.

The fact that it gets dark at night is not proof the earth swallows the sun.

And as far as the settlement (and blowing my own horn) one thing that actually shows is that I hit the mark in the " Dr Dao gets a lawyer "thread

One does have to hand it to his lawyer for the brilliance of the announcement video press release though.

I am guessing the staging of that press conference was as more about getting UA to settle because I am willing to bet that if it goes to trial the results will be much less dramatic .

Actually Airlines do have a legal right to physically remove passengers for certain reasons as per the contract of carriage (which currently gives the airlines wide latitude for interpretation ) Now as to whether those reasons would actually apply in this case, is not only the subject of much debate and speculation, and might have been determined for legal precedent in an actual trial. But no doubt those conditions for forcible removal will surely change and arguably become more limited or at least more defined. going forward. All I am saying is statements like "choose to assault" are speculation given not being onboard we do not know the full context.
If that doesn't work for you then so be it ........... moving on now