Rdenney

Edit: I wrote this after reading the first article, and apparently the author backpeddled on some of the things he said therein. But my point stands: A blog is just a guy with an opinion, like any of us, but in this case, he had not done much due diligence that would be expected of anyone claiming (even if by implication) journalistic integrity.

That article is filled with myth and lore. For one thing, the crew members were not on standby--they had positive space reservations. This has been widely reported, so the author of the blog didn't do very much homework, it seems to me.

He has also made several assumptions in his argument, which he depended on as being true without investigating their merits. One is that the order Dao received to deboard was "lawful". This is under extreme dispute, actually. The order to do so from the gate agent was unsupported by any plain reading of the CofC, and the officers did not have the authority to intervene in such as dispute in any case. They injured him, and then instead of treating his injuries, dragged him off the airplane while unconscious.

The author also used the word "specious" to describe Dao's claim that he is a doctor (he is) and had patients to see the next day (he did).

He said, "anyone with any sense knows that when things get tense, you comply with whatever the police officer is ordering you to do." Frankly, that is BS. It is not in the law. It might have prevented Dao from being injured in the way he was, but it would not have prevented other forms of injury, including injury to what he believed (correctly, as it turns out) was right. This is especially true when the cops 1.) don't act like cops, 2.) don't look like cops, and 3.) don't have the same authorities as cops (no matter what their state certifications). Dao didn't know that they lacked those authorities, but he did know that the guy who assaulted him was wearing jeans and a ball cap, looking much more like a bouncer than a bona fide police officer.

Fact is, most blogs are no more authoritative than a post in this thread from one of us.

Second Edit: Regarding the second article. He has now conflated "instructions from the flight crew" related to carrying out their duties, with "lawful orders from uniformed airline staff". Huh? What about orders from non-uniformed officers? He defined lawful as "any command to do any action which is not illegal." I'd love to see the legal citation on that one. So, he has elevated the gate agent to flight crew, and bestowed powers with an upside-down definition. An action cannot be both lawful and unlawful.

Let's stipulate that Dao, in at least some of his behavior, demonstrated some signs of DYKWIA. In the videos I saw, I didn't see much of that, but in the witness reports, there may have been a bit. The doctor part was true, but I really don't think that's much different than me stating I have to teach a class the next day and the students, who have paid to receive that teaching, will have their day ruined. Or someone stating that he works for himself and can't afford a day off, or the consequences of missed obligations. Surely there are four people on the plane who have that flexibility? Why pick me? The bit of DYKWIA might have been his claim that he has been traveling for 24 hours, although he had certainly been doing so for 10 or 12. But the question is this: Does demonstrating any hint of DYKWIA attitude warrant the application of physical force by police?

As the British would say, I think we have lost our sense of proportion.