Active Now

Slartibartfast
Discussion » Questions » Human Behavior » Why didn't anyone stand up for the passenger who was injured while being forcibly removed from the United flight?
Just Asking

Why didn't anyone stand up for the passenger who was injured while being forcibly removed from the United flight?

On the videos, you can hear outrage from other passengers. Why did they stand by and allow the man to get injured? Was it somehow more acceptable because the "attackers" were in uniform? Were they afraid? Did they simply accept it because of protocol?

Would you have stood up against the security guards on this man's behalf? O_o

Posted - April 11, 2017
Tags : None

Responses


  • I probably would have and gotten arrested because of the security on airliners now. But I wouldn't just stand there and let that go on! I would have let him have my seat so they would leave him alone at the very least!
      April 11, 2017 9:28 AM MDT
    7

  • 7939
    I was thinking that as well. If I was flying without my kids and accommodations for the night weren't an issue, I would have offered my seat. The thing is, I don't know if that would have helped at that point. In their mind, they were dealing with a "problem" person. They probably would have ousted him regardless, just to prove a point.
      April 11, 2017 9:38 AM MDT
    2

  • Highly likely! Just was reading an article about the CEO of United talking about it as if it were nothing.
      April 11, 2017 9:40 AM MDT
    2

  • 104
    I have often wondered what they would do if they told you to shut up and you replied back, "What are you going to do if I don't? Shoot me?
      April 11, 2017 9:41 AM MDT
    4

  • That sounds like something that would come out of my big mouth! LOL
      April 11, 2017 9:51 AM MDT
    4

  • 19937
    Know that you aren't alone.  I probably would have said the same thing.
      April 11, 2017 10:56 AM MDT
    1

  • 7939
    But what if there was more than one? Really, when one stands up, more often do as well. What would they have done if a whole group of passengers stood up and said they weren't going to allow it? Hm...
      April 11, 2017 9:51 AM MDT
    2

  • 104
    I have asked myself that question a lot of times and have envisioned it in my mind as well
      April 11, 2017 9:56 AM MDT
    3

  • 7280
    So the headline in the paper is "Plane seized by terrorists while preparing for takeoff.  Terrorists neutralized.  10 terrorists dead and 16 critically wounded.  Unspecified collateral damage to plane and other passengers."
      April 11, 2017 10:15 AM MDT
    3

  • 104
    They may have feared they would be arrested for obstruction of justice. I do not approve of what they did either. But if you stand up to the guards you may be in trouble too.
      April 11, 2017 9:29 AM MDT
    4

  • One would probably prefer not being arrested.
      April 11, 2017 9:30 AM MDT
    3

  • Cause everyone knows that if you don't bend over and take it in the rear on a plane or airport.   If you even hint at causing a disturbance these days.   You are gonna get arrested on terrorism charges,  tazed to hell, or shot.   If not one all three.   God bless the TSA and Patriot act and all that other Bush era BS.
      April 11, 2017 9:32 AM MDT
    4

  • 5614
    Sheep support anybody with a badge.
      April 11, 2017 9:35 AM MDT
    5

  • Or a .357sig , taser, and nearly unlimited power to use them.  Never know when you might tussle with an Air Marshal. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at April 13, 2017 2:55 PM MDT
      April 11, 2017 9:43 AM MDT
    5

  • BINGO
      April 11, 2017 10:24 AM MDT
    4

  • 2219
    Obviously, if anyone had dared, he should have been thrown off as well.

    Some did the right thing namely take photos as evidence.

    Hope the medical practice and the affected patients sue for megabucks. 
      April 11, 2017 10:05 AM MDT
    4

  • 7280
    No---unless I had a Star Trek phaser set to "stun," I would have achieved absolutely nothing had I intervened at my age.

    Beyond that, while the situation devolved in the the worst possible manner, they had the legal authority to have him removed.

    Interfering with the removal by the use of any physical force would probably result in assault and battery charges against the person who intervenes.

    From what I saw of the video on the news, a number of people apparently did voice their objections to what was going on.
      April 11, 2017 10:10 AM MDT
    2

  • Americans are being beaten down.  
    They were probably afraid of getting arrested and ending up on a "No fly" list.

    Fascism is winning...I'm saying that for real. 
      April 11, 2017 10:23 AM MDT
    8

  • I would hope that if you and I were  on a flight, you'd have my back, cause I'd have yours.
    Cat Fights can be nasty.  

    Maybe that is what needs to happen. Everyone needs to stand up
      April 11, 2017 10:28 AM MDT
    2

  • Would I have stood up for the harassed passenger?
    Possibly...I seem to be doing more of that at this stage of my life.

    But as a younger woman, I would have been numb, unmoving...convinced the people with the badge had valid reasons.

    * * *
    The people who DO stand up are often those trained to do so...the brave soldiers who alone take on airplane terrorists...seeing this happen, I am almost wondering if it might be well for us to mentally prepare ourselves for more eventualities like this, deciding beforehand how (or if) to react.
      April 11, 2017 10:45 AM MDT
    3

  • 7280
    At 6PM CDST some clarity is being achieved.

    The contract of carriage does apparently does give the carrier (United) the (absolute) right to bump someone from a flight.

    The CEO has finally admitted that they did a lousy job of handling the situation.

    And if the issue was drawn out, how many of those on the plane would have been effectively "bumped" from their connecting flights due to the plane being (unreasonably) delayed.

    In my opinion, nobody is coming for anybody yet.  I do not think we yet need to rise up as a people and say "past this point I will not go."

    (But remain anticipatory my friends.)
      April 11, 2017 5:23 PM MDT
    1

  • Dear Tom,
    If you are inclined to this avenue of thoughtfulness, then DO look again...because I really think we may need to relocate that historical (failed) point past which we will not go...

    In this particular situation, I would propose the contract of carriage might need to be renegotiated, more in favor of the consumer. And then, somehow to establish an understanding that these contracts do not imply the right of manhandling.

    I live my life now among the poor, the elderly, the disadvantaged...vulnerable people, unable to take a stand...it's not good, the points powerful people cannot cross are virtually non-existent.
      April 11, 2017 8:11 PM MDT
    0

  • 7280
    I agree with you in principle.

    The basic problem of "the distribution of scarce resources" (airline seats for rent) and the extant conditions which you are required to develop that distribution paradigm (FAA regulations) leads to another basic reality/(problem), namely---"You can't maximize everything."

    Once the police are brought it, they have a great deal of discretion in enforcing regulations; and, by definition, [since we do live in a society of law (and contracts)] you commit a criminal act if you interfere with that legitimate authority---no matter how good your intentions or how bad theirs are.

    If you want to prevent a group from "coming for you," your fight needs to be in the legislature---not with those who do not make the rules, but only enforce them.

    In your second paragraph, you are suggesting mixing things that don't dissolve.  That's like trying to serve a baked ice cube on a plate and still have it be frozen and cubic in shape.

    And here's a decent article on contract of carriage.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_of_carriage

    While I agree that the treatment of that man was horrendous, by interfering and perhaps making the police fear that they were being somehow threatened, that (reasonable) assumption on their part may well have caused a number of injuries to the person being removed as well as those who objected.
      April 13, 2017 8:45 AM MDT
    1

  • Hi Tom...yes I think I see your point, except I don't understand what you are saying about my second paragraph? Appears to me your analogy does not seem to pertain?

    However, overall I prolly still don't agree with your point; because we are losing individual courtesy and respect, in favour of the rights of the corporations...not a good trend, imo. Lots of procedures DO need to infringe on us for the sake of airport security, this Contract of Carriage is slanted expressly for the profit/benefit of the airline.

    Maybe you and I just come from different life experience!

    I copied the part from the article that helps support your point, this is what I think needs to balance-shift in favour of the passenger. 

    "According to aviation analyst Henry Harteveldt, the airline's Contract of Carriage favors the company, not the passenger. Involuntary denial of boarding is not uncommon, but removal after boarding because the seat is needed by others is "exceedingly rare". Nonetheless, an airline has a right to do so based on the contract, in his view."

    I think for a start, I would want to see that once a passenger is on board, then you cannot remove him/her involuntarily. UA offered $800, but should have sweetened the pot until they got voluntary takers.
    As always, your comments are well-considered and thought-provoking.
      April 13, 2017 9:35 AM MDT
    0