mrow

+1 ^

chollie

I can't help but wonder what the UA personnel who summoned the cops told them. Did UA tell the cops that they needed an aggressive, belligerent pax removed? It's pretty clear that the cops didn't really take any time to assess the situation for themselves once they were on the scene.

Allan38103

Don't we WANT aggressive, belligerent, or disruptive, passengers who pose a threat to safety to be removed from our planes? (Or is that not PC enough?) Should it be before, or after takeoff? By force if necessary?

You honest opinion on this question will dictate which side of the issue you support.

Is it possible to be in favor of airline security (i.e., against passengers who pose a threat), and also to be against the excessive use of force by LEO's?

Andy Big Bear

Just FYI, a lot of police and sheriff's unions represent people in the category of "Community Service Officers" and getting them to carry firearms is less a question of their or other's safety, but more a question of increasing representation and increasing the pool higher paying union members. The fight to get firearms in their hands has less to do with safety, and more with the police unions trying to thwart management from inventing newer, less trained, lower paid classes of police as cost cutting measures.

ND Sol

The video that I have seen starts late in the process. From listening to a passenger who took the video, the cops went to him twice to ask him to deplane and neither time did he move. Only on the third occasion did the cops use force at which time the passenger began flailing his arms (though not trying in particular to strike the cops).

TWA884

There is a video linked on the Daily Mail's website showing Dr. Dao talking to someone on the phone about suing United before telling the cops that he'd have to be dragged off and that he'd rather go to jail than removed from the flight.
Edited to add:

According to CNN, Dao and his wife initially volunteered to give up their seats only to renege after vacating their seats:

chollie

This makes me even more surprised at Munoz's first two responses. He could have defended his own people and blamed it all on the airport police and their rough handling.

Flyer_Tuck

Actually, the Aviation Security Officers are NOT police but a security force.

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/aft...port-policies/

CDTraveler

I think you've asked the questions in the wrong order.

It is possible to be for airline security and against the use of excessive force. I want police to ask questions and listen to both the crew and pax before deciding whether the situation actually merits police involvement. Force should be the last resort, after all other options have been tried and failed. It's not acceptable to zip straight to force because you want the aircraft to get out on time. If the Chicago security had asked more questions, including maybe challenging the airline's claim the that passenger sitting quietly in his seat was belligerent, might have been a very different outcome.

But there is an area where it might be appropriate to involve LEO's more often.

Fly much and becomes crystal clear that many belligerent passengers are not only tolerated by the airlines but also fueled to further misbehavior - how many here have seen an FA keep serving booze to somebody obviously drunk already? Or seen GA's board pax reeking of booze and stumbling down the jetway? Anybody know the stats for diversions to deal with drunk and disorderly pax versus diversions for any other reason? Last time I saw the stats, drunks were the #1 category of air rage problems, too. I'd like to see the obviously drunk removed from the aircraft before take-off, and if the crew is scared to do it, that's a place where I see LEO as appropriate.

Bearcat06

If the LEO has a proper holster, that will never happen.....

You watch too many movies.....

That don't carry weapons and have a limited amount of authority.

Huge difference btwn them CPD.

LoganTSO

Sounds like they have more authority than the Massport Aviation Officers at least, who don't carry firearm but are required to be Special State Police Officers* (SSPOs, It's a Mass thing), even though their job is to sit at the Logan airfield gates, inspect the vehicles entering the AOA and make sure the airport ID is valid. Pretty nice paycheck, I might add.

But then again, Logan is weird microcosm of LEO jurisdictions. For example, the Mass State Police has a entire State Police troop (Troop F) dedicated to Logan (and Massport in general) by state law. Their current barracks (the old barracks were in Terminal C) are across the street from the Airport T station, where from time to time, you'll see an MBTA Transit Police cruiser parked. And on the other side of T station is the Bremen Street Park, which has a Massport Police Department (who are SSPOs but are allowed firearms) substation in the bathhouse. And once you exit that park on the sidewalk in East Boston, it's Boston Police jurisdiction, as Boston Police is not allowed by state law to exercise authority on Massport property. (Which has led to some turf warring between BPD and MSP over the Massport-owned Seaport District now that it's been built up)

*SSPOs are a unique class. The majority of them are campus police for any college or university (public or private) that has a police force. Plus, hospitals and soldiers' home. Plus, the Massport PD. And, the animal and child cruelty societies. Lastly, the state lottery commission among others.