Originally Posted by Teacher49
I just have to comment that your last post also contains faulty logic.
Of course it is not OK for any functionary to exercise the full extent of whatever right might be vested in them in any old situation they like nor in any old way they like.
That's why we have protection against false arrest, the requirement for probable cause, etc. Can a judge sentence you to death for a littering? This is why we have the
concept of
abuse of authority in the first place in our society. This is why we separate the cops from the prosecutors from the judges.
Should an FA be allowed to call for ejection without question as to whether he or she is justified or is abusing that authority? Of course not. Should everyone who is trusted with authority be held accountable for how they use it? Absolutely yes!
It is not the American way - though it may be the AAmerican way
- to allow
anyone unlimited discretion in use of their authority.
The post by AAFA contained some reasonable safeguards: require a consensus among work mates before allowing a hot head - perhaps just having a bad day - to go off on someone. This was a serious punishment and had other potentially serious consequences for other people ... something you do not address.
All of the examples cited (false arrest, sentence death) involve somebody in a position of authority breaking the law. There are penalties associated with littering, and a judge sentencing a penalty beyond what the law allows is breaking the law.
That is not the case here. A fact not in dispute is that the ejected passenger did disobey the instructions of the FA when he sat down in 1A despite his request being denied.
Thus the entire analogy is false. The FA's authority was properly invoked, and he was not breaking the law to do so.
The continued mixup between the desire for what is "right" in someone's opinion to be the equivalent of "legal" is the problem. Your line of argument works backwards from the desired result, and then assigns blame based on whoever acted to create the "wrong" solution. Since the FA had the ability to avert the "wrong" solution, he must have been at fault for things not turning out "right".
Since everyone's view of "right" and "wrong" differs from other people, this line of thought creates an adversarial environment where someone is always wrong.
My perspective is that we have laws and procedures which allow everything to know what their rights and responsibilities are. When due process is followed, I respect the results even if I disagree with it. But if the process continues to produce the "wrong" results, I'd work to change the process. People who believe the process created the "right" results would oppose the change.
But we're not fighting about the immediate result, but are instead working on changing how things are done. There's a lot more chance for compromise solutions that a confrontation over specific situations.
That's why I really approve of Blumie's reaction. He thought it was the wrong result, and he's suggesting an alternative to the people who can help change the process to prevent a recurrence.