Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > United Airlines | MileagePlus
Reload this Page >

Man pulled off of overbooked flight UA3411 (ORD-SDF) 9 Apr 2017 {Settlement reached}

Community
Wiki Posts
Search
Old Apr 10, 2017, 8:42 pm
FlyerTalk Forums Expert How-Tos and Guides
Last edit by: WineCountryUA
WELCOME, THREAD GUIDELINES and SUMMARY PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING

If you are new to us, welcome to FlyerTalk! Who we are: FlyerTalk features discussions and chat boards that cover the most up-to-date traveler information; an interactive community dedicated to the topic of travel (not politics or arguments about politics or religion, etc. – those discussion are best in the OMNI forum)

The incident discussed in this thread has touched a nerve for many, and many posters are passionate about their opinions and concerns. However we should still have a civil and respectful discussion of this topic. This is because FlyerTalk is meant to be a friendly, helpful, and collegial community. (Rule 12.)

1. The normal FlyerTalk Rules apply. (Including not discussing moderation actions in thread). Please be particularly attentive to "discussing the idea and not the poster" when you have a disagreement. Civility and mutual respect are still expected and are what we owe each other as a community.

2. You are expected to respect the FlyerTalk community's diversity, and therefore refrain from posting inflammatory comments about race, religion, culture, politics, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. Do not cite, copy, or report on such.

3. While you can disagree with an opinion, the holder of that opinion has the same right to their opinion as you have to yours. We request all to respect that and disagree or discuss their point of views without getting overly personal and without attacking the other poster(s). This is expected as a requirement in FT Rule 12.

4. Overly exaggerative posts as well as posts with information that has been posted several times previously may be summarily deleted.

5. In addition, those who repeatedly fail to comply with FlyerTalk Rules, may be subjected to FlyerTalk disciplinary actions and, e.g., have membership privileges suspended, or masked from this forum.

If you have questions about the Rules or concerns about what another has posted in this or other threads in this forum, please do not post about that. Rather, notify the moderators by using the alert symbol within each post or email or send a private message to us moderators.

Let’s have this discussion in a way that, when we look back on it, we can be proud of how we handled ourselves as a community.

The United Moderator team:
J.Edward
l'etoile
Ocn Vw 1K
Pat89339
WineCountryUA

N.B. PLEASE do not alter the contents of this moderator note
Statement from United Airlines Regarding Resolution with Dr. David Dao - released 27 April 2017
CHICAGO, April 27, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- We are pleased to report that United and Dr. Dao have reached an amicable resolution of the unfortunate incident that occurred aboard flight 3411. We look forward to implementing the improvements we have announced, which will put our customers at the center of everything we do.
DOT findings related to the UA3411 9 April 2017 IDB incident 12 May 2017

What facts do we know?
  • UA3411, operated by Republic Airways, ORD-SDF on Sunday, April 9, 2017. UA3411 was the second to last flight to SDF for United. AA3509 and UA4771 were the two remaining departures for the day. Also, AA and DL had connecting options providing for same-day arrival in SDF.
  • After the flight was fully boarded, United determined four seats were needed to accommodate crew to SDF for a flight on Monday.
  • United solicited volunteers for VDB. (BUT stopped at $800 in UA$s, not cash). Chose not to go to the levels such as 1350 that airlines have been known to go even in case of weather impacted disruption)
  • After receiving no volunteers for $800 vouchers, a passenger volunteered for $1,600 and was "laughed at" and refused, United determined four passengers to be removed from the flight.
  • One passenger refused and Chicago Aviation Security Officers were called to forcibly remove the passenger.
  • The passenger hit the armrest in the aisle and received a concussion, a broken nose, a bloodied lip, and the loss of two teeth.
  • After being removed from the plane, the passenger re-boarded saying "I need to go home" repeatedly, before being removed again.
  • United spokesman Jonathan Guerin said the flight was sold out — but not oversold. Instead, United and regional affiliate Republic Airlines – the unit that operated Flight 3411 – decided they had to remove four passengers from the flight to accommodate crewmembers who were needed in Louisville the next day for a “downline connection.”

United Express Flight 3411 Review and Action Report - released 27 April 2017

Videos

Internal Communication by Oscar Munoz
Oscar Munoz sent an internal communication to UA employees (sources: View From The Wing, Chicago Tribune):
Dear Team,

Like you, I was upset to see and hear about what happened last night aboard United Express Flight 3411 headed from Chicago to Louisville. While the facts and circumstances are still evolving, especially with respect to why this customer defied Chicago Aviation Security Officers the way he did, to give you a clearer picture of what transpired, I've included below a recap from the preliminary reports filed by our employees.

As you will read, this situation was unfortunately compounded when one of the passengers we politely asked to deplane refused and it became necessary to contact Chicago Aviation Security Officers to help. Our employees followed established procedures for dealing with situations like this. While I deeply regret this situation arose, I also emphatically stand behind all of you, and I want to commend you for continuing to go above and beyond to ensure we fly right.

I do, however, believe there are lessons we can learn from this experience, and we are taking a close look at the circumstances surrounding this incident. Treating our customers and each other with respect and dignity is at the core of who we are, and we must always remember this no matter how challenging the situation.

Oscar

Summary of Flight 3411
  • On Sunday, April 9, after United Express Flight 3411 was fully boarded, United's gate agents were approached by crewmembers that were told they needed to board the flight.
  • We sought volunteers and then followed our involuntary denial of boarding process (including offering up to $1,000 in compensation) and when we approached one of these passengers to explain apologetically that he was being denied boarding, he raised his voice and refused to comply with crew member instructions.
  • He was approached a few more times after that in order to gain his compliance to come off the aircraft, and each time he refused and became more and more disruptive and belligerent.
  • Our agents were left with no choice but to call Chicago Aviation Security Officers to assist in removing the customer from the flight. He repeatedly declined to leave.
  • Chicago Aviation Security Officers were unable to gain his cooperation and physically removed him from the flight as he continued to resist - running back onto the aircraft in defiance of both our crew and security officials.
Email sent to all employees at 2:08PM on Tuesday, April 11.
Dear Team,

The truly horrific event that occurred on this flight has elicited many responses from all of us: outrage, anger, disappointment. I share all of those sentiments, and one above all: my deepest apologies for what happened. Like you, I continue to be disturbed by what happened on this flight and I deeply apologize to the customer forcibly removed and to all the customers aboard. No one should ever be mistreated this way.

I want you to know that we take full responsibility and we will work to make it right.

It’s never too late to do the right thing. I have committed to our customers and our employees that we are going to fix what’s broken so this never happens again. This will include a thorough review of crew movement, our policies for incentivizing volunteers in these situations, how we handle oversold situations and an examination of how we partner with airport authorities and local law enforcement. We’ll communicate the results of our review by April 30th.

I promise you we will do better.

Sincerely,

Oscar
Statement to customers - 27 April 2017
Each flight you take with us represents an important promise we make to you, our customer. It's not simply that we make sure you reach your destination safely and on time, but also that you will be treated with the highest level of service and the deepest sense of dignity and respect.

Earlier this month, we broke that trust when a passenger was forcibly removed from one of our planes. We can never say we are sorry enough for what occurred, but we also know meaningful actions will speak louder than words.

For the past several weeks, we have been urgently working to answer two questions: How did this happen, and how can we do our best to ensure this never happens again?

It happened because our corporate policies were placed ahead of our shared values. Our procedures got in the way of our employees doing what they know is right.

Fixing that problem starts now with changing how we fly, serve and respect our customers. This is a turning point for all of us here at United – and as CEO, it's my responsibility to make sure that we learn from this experience and redouble our efforts to put our customers at the center of everything we do.

That’s why we announced that we will no longer ask law enforcement to remove customers from a flight and customers will not be required to give up their seat once on board – except in matters of safety or security.

We also know that despite our best efforts, when things don’t go the way they should, we need to be there for you to make things right. There are several new ways we’re going to do just that.

We will increase incentives for voluntary rebooking up to $10,000 and will be eliminating the red tape on permanently lost bags with a new "no-questions-asked" $1,500 reimbursement policy. We will also be rolling out a new app for our employees that will enable them to provide on-the-spot goodwill gestures in the form of miles, travel credit and other amenities when your experience with us misses the mark. You can learn more about these commitments and many other changes at hub.united.com.

While these actions are important, I have found myself reflecting more broadly on the role we play and the responsibilities we have to you and the communities we serve.

I believe we must go further in redefining what United's corporate citizenship looks like in our society. If our chief good as a company is only getting you to and from your destination, that would show a lack of moral imagination on our part. You can and ought to expect more from us, and we intend to live up to those higher expectations in the way we embody social responsibility and civic leadership everywhere we operate. I hope you will see that pledge express itself in our actions going forward, of which these initial, though important, changes are merely a first step.

Our goal should be nothing less than to make you truly proud to say, "I fly United."

Ultimately, the measure of our success is your satisfaction and the past several weeks have moved us to go further than ever before in elevating your experience with us. I know our 87,000 employees have taken this message to heart, and they are as energized as ever to fulfill our promise to serve you better with each flight and earn the trust you’ve given us.

We are working harder than ever for the privilege to serve you and I know we will be stronger, better and the customer-focused airline you expect and deserve.

With Great Gratitude,

Oscar Munoz
CEO
United Airlines
Aftermath
Poll: Your Opinion of United Airlines Reference Material

UA's Customer Commitment says:
Occasionally we may not be able to provide you with a seat on a specific flight, even if you hold a ticket, have checked in, are present to board on time, and comply with other requirements. This is called an oversale, and occurs when restrictions apply to operating a particular flight safely (such as aircraft weight limits); when we have to substitute a smaller aircraft in place of a larger aircraft that was originally scheduled; or if more customers have checked in and are prepared to board than we have available seats.

If your flight is in an oversale situation, you will not be denied a seat until we first ask for volunteers willing to give up their confirmed seats. If there are not enough volunteers, we will deny boarding to passengers in accordance with our written policy on boarding priority. If you are involuntarily denied boarding and have complied with our check-in and other applicable rules, we will give you a written statement that describes your rights and explains how we determine boarding priority for an oversold flight. You will generally be entitled to compensation and transportation on an alternate flight.

We make complete rules for the payment of compensation, as well as our policy about boarding priorities, available at airports we serve. We will follow these rules to ensure you are treated fairly. Please be aware that you may be denied boarding without compensation if you do not check in on time or do not meet certain other requirements, or if we offer you alternative transportation that is planned to arrive at your destination or first stopover no later than one hour after the planned arrival time of your original flight.
CoC is here: https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...-carriage.aspx
Print Wikipost

Man pulled off of overbooked flight UA3411 (ORD-SDF) 9 Apr 2017 {Settlement reached}

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 11, 2017, 6:36 am
  #2431  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: CO
Programs: UA OG-1K, Marriott Plat, Hertz PC
Posts: 1,360
Originally Posted by nikolastojsin
This is not IDB, is it? The guy boarded and was in his seat.
As for the rest, well, it is high time for passenger rights movement - the power equation between an airline and passengers in the US is way slanted in favor of the airlines. What United did - removing a paying customer involuntarily AFTER he is in his seat and for reasons of United's operational needs should be illegal.
I just wish people would punish these carriers in the market place. It is amazing how tone deaf United is on this, and let's see today how the stock market treats them. Plus the lies and double speak in their statements is making things worse.
-The flight wasn't overbooked- they removed paying passengers to move their own people. United's RJ ops are a complete cluster fudge that mated with a clown car. I can't think of another business where the employees come before the customers.
-They were offered a flight in 24 hours, when from what I have read there actually was an AM flight on UA and flights earlier on other carriers. This is like the the movie "A Few Good Men" and the flight out of Gitmo lie.
-He wasn't involuntarily denied boarding, now UA is trying to twist it by saying "Involuntarily de-boarded". What a crock.
-The passenger got louder and more belligerent? Really? At least Rosa Parks got to ride in the back of the bus. You are supposed to keep you calm during this and not raise your voice? To be clear, you have to raise your voice to be heard on an RJ with the air running.

If there actually was ever a jump-the-shark moment that solidifies that the airline market has become a non-functioning market, this is it. In a competitive market, your PR isn't run by "We followed the minimums of the law and put our workers above customers". Hell, even the Post Office isn't that tone deaf.

Munoz, you guys are still operating as two airlines or at least it wasn't that long ago that you still were. How'd you like to be 'Involuntarily denied merging'. I know you guys are already 'in your seats', but, you know, for the greater good. And don't raise your voice.

Originally Posted by ShutteLag
someone who used his position as a doctor for drug trafficking probably had less respect for the law, as well as the well-being of others(in which case, the other passengers), not to mention he could still be using something that caused his reaction to being removed.
It's early, do you have a link to this, a 'shift' key, or do you believe that slander is best served with out capital letters?
PushingTin is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 6:36 am
  #2432  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 776
Am I the only one who thinks its suspicious that supposedly no one volunteered for $800?
Whenever I witnessed these overbooking auctions, they had enough volunteers at much smaller amounts. Perhaps they didn't convey that offer clear enough to everybody (or didn't bother since it's easier to just remove random pax by force).
I know I would have taken that money. Worst case I'd have to take a rental for a mere 4h drive.
makrom is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 6:39 am
  #2433  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: LH SEN; BA Gold
Posts: 8,406
Originally Posted by alanslegal
Correct, if $800 is not enough ... the airline has discretion to raise it, everyone has a price.
They should start by offering cash. I hate vouchers. Especially if you run a [deleted per Rule 16] airline, the value of a voucher decreases rapidly.

Originally Posted by MCIUnitedGuy
I still won't fly Korean Air because of the "Nutrage" incident.... Wait, who am I kidding?
I may be wrong, but wasn't the Nutrage the result of a passenger misbehaving, that happened to be F&F of KAL management?

Last edited by Pat89339; Apr 11, 2017 at 2:43 pm Reason: TOS 16
WorldLux is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 6:41 am
  #2434  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 259
Originally Posted by makrom
Am I the only one who thinks its suspicious that supposedly no one volunteered for $800?
Whenever I witnessed these overbooking auctions, they had enough volunteers at much smaller amounts. Perhaps they didn't convey that offer clear enough to everybody (or didn't bother since it's easier to just remove random pax by force).
I know I would have taken that money. Worst case I'd have to take a rental for a mere 4h drive.
There were (unconfirmed?) reports that the solicitation for volunteers was done very rudely to the tune of "This plane will not leave until four passengers disembark". I can't imagine these words uttered from the precious lips of Korean Airlines and Singapore Airlines air stewardesses !

Who would compromise their dignity and take the $800 after that? There are simply some power-crazy folks out there who don't feel the need to speak politely to customers. If you offer me $10,000 but throw it on the floor and ask me to pick it up, I will not.

It could have been phrased in a better way: "Ladies and gentlemen, we do truly apologise but on this occassion we oversold our flight and we would be ever so grateful if we could have four volunteers .... If you choose to accept you will be offered ..... and the eternal gratitude of yours truly" and perhaps try to throw in some humor.

Remember; Never forget:
"We are here primarily for your safety".
simpletastes is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 6:41 am
  #2435  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 72
Originally Posted by halls120
The passenger was wrong to refuse the request/order to deplane. That isn't in serious debate. That he was wrong doesn't in the least bit excuse UA's subsequent actions, from the physical act of removal to their continued tone deaf PR response.
In the eyes of the world the passenger is the victim and United is the giant corporate ogre. Maybe this will sever as a turning point since the whole industry treats passengers as cargo not as valued customers. United is just the worst of a bad bunch and the customers are mostly to blame for putting up with it.
moreofless is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 6:44 am
  #2436  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: somewhere north of stateside...
Posts: 4,153
Its very possible they didn't do a good job selling the bump.

At the same time, this would be a harder deal to sell volunteers:

1) It was a Sunday night. Many passengers may have needed to work the next morning;
2) The flight offered for rebooking would result in a 22 hour delay. That's a long time.
3) Some passengers may not be frequent fliers, and had no need to travel within the next year, and thus no need for vouchers. Some business travellers may be prohibited by their companies from volunteering/keeping compensation.
4) Passengers have very little confidence that airlines aren't going to screw them over, so they may have viewed vouchers with suspicion, thinking that they would have a lot of terms and conditions associated with them.

Plus, it wasn't a massive aircraft, so you weren't dealing with hundreds of potential volunteers.
makin'miles is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 6:44 am
  #2437  
jbb
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Programs: SQ *Gold
Posts: 871
If I were United, I would not so quickly dismiss the outrage in China. Chinese 'netizens' and consumer actors have proven fierce over perceived and real discrimination by firms, especially foreign firms, and with real-world consequences. Many Japanese multi-nationals felt lost sales in China when Tokyo purchased disputed islands in 2012. Many western companies were forced to lower prices in China after complaints about pricing discrepancies. Whether its fair or not to UA, perceptions matter, especially when dealing with the social media behemoth in China. United's corporate comms response has been totally insufficient to address this.

"Was that doctor dragged off the United Airlines flight because he was Asian? Many in China think so."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...hina-think-so/

Last edited by jbb; Apr 11, 2017 at 6:45 am Reason: Added in WaPo Headline
jbb is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 6:44 am
  #2438  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 72
Originally Posted by alanslegal
I am pissed off, big time.

United Airlines can go crash and burn as far as I am concerned from now on.

To those who think the passenger didn't follow crew instructions, hope you never get dragged off a plane. If this premise is correct, then airlines do not have to offer any monetary compensation to get people off ... all they need to do is tell person A, B, C and so on, "you need to get off the plane now, no reason needed, because we told you so, we are the crew - DYKWIA, the crew!".

If I was the man involved, I would be finding a high profile plaintiff attorney immediately and taking this to court and seeking actual damages and more importantly punitive damages to the extreme. If any of my family members saw the video, the distress caused - again, a good plaintiff attorney will be helping seeking some form of actual damages plus lots of punitive amounts too.

This is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG on all levels.
Great post! United deserves to suffer greatly from this.
moreofless is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 6:44 am
  #2439  
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Programs: UA Gold, AA DL
Posts: 25
Originally Posted by NFH
You haven't quoted the legislation, but merely someone's commentary on it. I looked up the legislation mentioned in the above links, and nothing in it refers to obeying instructions of crew; only the commentary refers to it.

Part 121 OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS
Subpart T--Flight Operations

Sec. 121.580

[Prohibition on interference with crewmembers.]

[No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated under this part.]

Amdt. 121-270, Eff. 1/7/99


emphasis added above. Refusing to follow crewmember instruction is considered interference with the crew member's duties. As the US is a common law jurisdiction, the exact wording there does not need to be written the law as it might be within a civil law jurisdiction. this has been clarified over the decades via hundreds of legal cases.

here are some stats on the number of unruly passenger fines which are levied each year:

https://www.faa.gov/data_research/pa...ly_passengers/

some references to case law here:

https://www.justice.gov/usam/crimina...endants-49-usc

more plain english analysis:

http://blogs.findlaw.com/celebrity_j...-on-plane.html
jwh212 is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 6:44 am
  #2440  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: LH SEN; BA Gold
Posts: 8,406
Originally Posted by simpletastes
Remember; Never forget:
"We are here primarily for your safety".
Maybe they should change that to a more fitting
"Your presence is inconveniencing us"

Probably just a question of time before the competition at home and abroad (I'm looking at you, ME3) swoop down and use it for marketing.
WorldLux is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 6:45 am
  #2441  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: National Capitol Region
Programs: Delta Dirt Medallion,AA,USairways, WN Rapid Rewards, National Emerald Club
Posts: 3,912
Originally Posted by WorldLux
They should start by offering cash. I hate vouchers. Especially if you run a [deleted per Rule 16] airline, the value of a voucher decreases rapidly.
Exactly. I have to think that a large part of the offer is presentation- money talks BS walks. Of course this would actually have to empower the station manager. All the airlines hate cash compensation; they'd much rather give you a [deleted per Rule 16] voucher. If they'd offered 14 benjamins United would have had its volunteers.

Last edited by Pat89339; Apr 11, 2017 at 2:43 pm Reason: TOS 16
hazelrah is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 6:46 am
  #2442  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 72
[QUOTE=Artpen100;28160487]
Originally Posted by jp12687
My opinion on this? The cops over reached when they removed the guy. That said what were they supposed to do with a passenger refusing to leave a plane?

UA asked him to leave several times (also what did the other 3 passengers do). I have been IdB'ed before it sucks. I have also witnessed people asked off a plane (for double booked seats and for being ragingly drunk). I have seen it on pretty much every major airline.

end of day the guy didn't follow instructions and then repeatedly came back into the plane? Officers acted correctly at that point.

You can not like it all you want. You can file endless lawsuits about it AFTER. But in the moment comply with an offers orders or the officer acts and you lose.

The passanger made this this worse by failing to comply. He was in a non winning situation (UAs fault) and made it worse and caused escalation to that point.

that said I hope more people boycott united in tired of over filled clubs and maybe some more of my upgrades will clear.[/QUOTE]

Agree 100%. Unfortunately, I suspect most of this "boycott UA" talk is just that, by people who don't fly much anyway.
This indecent will end up costing United millions to its bottom line. United will try to buy off this passenger. I hope he holds out for all he can get. United will probably be willing to go very high to buy this guy off.

Last edited by moreofless; Apr 11, 2017 at 6:58 am
moreofless is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 6:47 am
  #2443  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 413
Originally Posted by Silver Fox
Tempered by the anger and disgust on the rest of the internet about China's human rights "efforts".
I've been to China many times for business. There is a big difference between China - the Chinese people and China - the Chinese Government

China - the Chinese government has no right to criticise anyone about anything, they are terrible

But China - the Chinese people are as kind, generous and hard working people as any other country on the planet
Peterpack is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 6:47 am
  #2444  
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 821
The airlines are usually quick to pull the trigger on canceling flights. That would have solved this issue. The flight crew should have come on the PA explain that we have a passenger than is effected by the flight being overbooked but he's refusing to move. We have no choice but to cancel this flight as a result. The passengers would've been mad but this would have been avoided.....After the plane clears out it quickly departs to Louisville with the 4 crew members.
sanfran8080 is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 6:47 am
  #2445  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: A metal nomad
Programs: Mucci des Delices Exotiques,Order of the Platinum Hairbrush,Her Royal Diamond
Posts: 23,735
Originally Posted by cerealmarketer
And we get another twist.

This news source identifies the pasenger as David Dao.

http://www.courier-journal.com/story...ion/100295216/

A search for David Dao MD in kentucky reveals medical review board papers (2016) noting he was convicted of a felony for prescribing pain killers in exchange for sexual favors to a former patient / employee and restricting him to one day a week of office-only, inpatient practice in internal medicine. No surgery, etc at least as of Feb 2016.

http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/kbml...ders/22439.pdf

No confirmation this is the same David Dao, but man this story keeps twisting and turning.

"the licensee had become sexually interested in a patient who had been referred to his practice, Patient A; during the initial evaluation, the licensee performed a complete physical examination, including a genital examination, for patient A who had been referred for collapsed lungs and chest pain. shortly after his first appointment, the licensee made Patient A his office manager, according to Patient A, he quit that job because of inappropriate remarks made by the licensee; after he quit, the licensee pursued him aggressively, finally arranging to provide controlled substance prescriptions to him in exchange for sexual acts."

The David Dao mentioned already served his sentence.
So does that mean he should be treated this way?

Now anyone with a record can be removed forcefully and ones without they can stay?
Yahillwe is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.