So many unknowns here.Bootstrap wrote:What they did to Mr. Dao is unacceptable enough that Chicago is reconsidering their approach to airport police, some jobs are on the line, United had to change their policy and make a public apology, and their stock price is down.RZehr wrote:So am I understanding this math right? These airlines have a policy must have worked most of the time.
A policy that garnered no public outcry in 40,999 times in just the last year, 99.997%. They had a policy that worked on all but .002% of the time and that is apparently completely unacceptable?
Suppose I asked you to explain to Mr. Dao why what happened to him is acceptable. What would you tell him?
What would you tell other passengers sitting near him who were horrified and filmed this because they thought the world should know, even though nobody was taking their seats?
These algorithms work very well in general. But a few flagrant exceptions is a big deal. After all, suppose 99% of women are not raped, but your wife is. Is that acceptable?
Why on earth wouldn't United rather give someone a check to free up the seat they paid for than let something like this happen? As of today, they have pretty much decided that's what they would rather do. Does anyone really think United is silly to change their policy?
I feel badly for Mr. Dao. And if I were to talk with him, I would show sympathy and be diplomatic since I have no relationship with him at all. At the same time, I wonder this: At the initial contact, did the police engage him in a manner consistent with 40,000 other times? If not, then the blame (in my mind) shifts significantly higher onto the police.
If the police engaged him in a polite, consistent manner, and he responded drastically different than 40,000 other people, then perhaps he does bare some of the blame. For example, if he refused to be removed and starts hitting people and the police, then I would consider him partially at fault. For all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Or all they that hit, shall be hit. Speaking speculatively here, admittedly, I can't see this being the case.
In this deal, both parties have the power to decelerate the situation and resolve it peacefully, which is what separates this deal from a rape scenario.
Here is where I am at:
If he was attacked, without the expected beseeching and warnings, then he has all my sympathy, and the police should be disciplined. I still don't see United at much fault.
If they spent time negotiating and warning him that they were going to use force, and then got angry and smashed his face, I have plenty of sympathy for him and the police should be disciplined.
If they spent time negotiating, pleading, warning, and he was belligerent, and in the process of removal he fell and was injured, I'm sorry for his pain, but I think he could have chosen to behave as the prior 40,000 people did. The police should at minimum be better trained not to drag him out the aisle, bleeding.
What would I tell the other passengers? Not sure I'd tell them anything unless I was asked. Then I would default into the Christian position, and tell the best thing to do as passengers is to take a wrong, and give up their seat.
This is a point of separation in the liberal Mennos and the Plain Mennos. Liberals are more inclined toward protesting injustices; We are inclined to exhort people to embrace suffering wrongfully.