[quote=“Mister44, post:21, topic:99811”]
it isn’t an accurate depiction of what happened [/quote]
Are we quibbling about the word “unconscious” because we think that detail has not been proven?
Maybe we believe Dr. Dao injured himself by resisting arrest?
Or perhaps we’re inventing a pointless distinction between beating someone and battering them, just to excuse this abuse of power by the authorities?
Since the Chicago Department of Aviation has already said “the incident on United flight 3411 was not in accordance with our standard operating procedure and the actions of the aviation security officer are obviously not condoned” that means the officer won’t be able to raise a privilege defense, so I would think it’s a pretty cut and dry case, as far as civil assault and battery goes. But maybe there’s some other BS way out that I don’t know of.
That pedantry borders awfully close to victim blaming. An officer dragging an individual out of a seat and dropping them on a handrest so hard that 1) his head bounces off 2) it appears to knock him unconscious and 3) appears to have knocked out teeth is a beating in all but technicality.
“No, we didn’t beat him! We only curb-stomped him! It’s totally different!”
I believe the correct term these days, according to the completely fair and balanced journalists at Fox News is “liberal fascists”.
I’d love to see what you’d do in the same situation. I somehow doubt you’d live up to your own standards.
Even if we assume Dr. Dao was in the wrong, it’s clear that the cops’ reaction was disproportionate and that they are therefore also in the wrong. There’s no such thing as a law of conservation of moral culpability.
Really? I’d comply. Get off the plane. Book another flight with their $800. And call my lawyer.
Also, I never said the cops are right. I questioned whether they beat him. Which is what Cory said in his headline.
Your saying so doesn’t really impress me. You can’t really know what you’d do unless you’re in that situation, and based on your comments here, you seem a little more impulsive than someone who might behave as you describe.
Also, I doubt you have a lawyer. Or that you have patients to see tomorrow morning.
If they didn’t beat him, and if he was in the wrong, then why wouldn’t the cops be in the right? You’re contradicting yourself.
Please clarify – what is the precise basis of your skepticism that the man was beaten?
But, the officers were right. And followed their orders and procedures. The man had to be physically removed.
What do you mean by “had to be”?
Also, I already asked you to clarify the basis for your skepticism that “beaten” is a fair description of what the cops did to Dr. Dao. Could you please do so?
I’m on the verge of hoping the same thing for you.
So you think “restraint” is a fair description of an event in which two cops initiated physical action against a man that resulted in that man having a concussion and several missing teeth, and you don’t think “beaten” is a fair description of that event?
I’ve asked twice now for some rationale for why “beaten” is not a fair description – you’ve had plenty of opportunity to provide such a rationale. Can I take your refusal to respond as an admission that you don’t have a rational justification for your beliefs? I guess you just feel in your gut that the cops were in the right and that’s good enough for you?
No. You cannot take it as an admission of anything.
Sorry, buddy, if you can’t justify your beliefs then I kind of have to assume you don’t have any justification for your beliefs.
Of course, you’d be easier to take seriously if you could go two comments without contradicting yourself.
If he’s a victim then by definition he’s not the one who deserves your blame.
Except that A) that wouldn’t get him back home in time to help the patients who would be waiting for him, and B) you seem to believe he had no legal case for a complaint anyway.
“I’m not saying the officers were right, but oh never mind that’s exactly what I’m saying.”
Sir, I do believe that debate may not be your forté.
I never said the officers were wrong.
Yep. You’re right. Debate is not my forte.
No, you saved that judgement for the man whose teeth they knocked out for because he didn’t comply with an unreasonable request.
If that’s “showing restraint” then I wonder what you think would be inappropriate application of force. Summary execution?
Possibly even gummint Obamaphones! Since my outrage detector last checked telcom prices in ~1992, those are extra egregious.
I believe the key takeaway from your article is
There is no indication that anything in Dao’s personal or professional history factored into the onboard incident
