I wonder if that’s Dr. Dao’s fountain of youth…prescription painkillers and gay sex. His wife literally looks like she could be his mother. Or maybe having a husband like him made her age prematurely. 
1 Like
So the solution to airline personnel having dictatorial powers over passengers post-911 is to put up the armrest next time a passenger is dragged off an aircraft.
[quote] The flight attendants point out the cops could have effortlessly lifted the armrest before forcibly removing Dao … who appeared to get hung up on the middle seat armrests before hitting the one on the aisle.
The employees we spoke to made it clear they believe Dao should’ve been removed, but they’re fuming at how it was handled.[/quote]
His sex life and conviction shouldn’t be relative to him being thrown into an armrest and knocked unconscious. I’m sure that United’s lawyers will use the anger management part against him and claim that he was unruly before the video started. Possibly he might settle out of court.
His sordid past may be admissible if the prosecution contends that Dr. Dao intentionally resisted his removal with a payout in mind. But this thing will never go to trial. Short of a class action, it’s usually cheaper for a big corporation to settle out of court.
Agree. UA wants this to go away as fast a possible right now. Both party would benefit with a quick settlement.
Is he being prosecuted?
UA can probably counter sue saying he is at fault and did everything for the purpose of suing for monetary gains. But that would be a really really bad look for UA regardless if they win that or not.
More video has come out showing he was calm before being roughed up.
Wonder if that helps or hurts his legal case. He is not being belligerent, just pissed off that he has to leave the plane. But he is shown refusing a police officer’s order in the plane and given several warnings. That part looks bad.
Though I don’t think any jury would rule against him.
But did he have to listen and obey the officers orders?
Of course. First flight attendants would have explained the situation to him, and he would have refused them. Then officers come on board and explain the situation again. He would have to refuse them, and the officers would have told him they would have to take him off before being dragged off. This would have had to escalate, it wouldn’t just happen like a flash out of the blue. The videos only show the dramatic part.
The media isn’t telling us everything. There’s more to this story and it will come out later, and put a totally different light on it. For now the narrative seems to be racism, violence, corporations, who knows what.
Just the fact that he gets back on after being dragged off is weird enough. How many people out of 100 are gonna do that? Clearly this unusual incident happened because the individual is unusual.
My understanding of the Patriot Act is that you can be removed for failing to obey orders from the flight crew (which happened when they asked him to leave). So there is probably some legal area that could be argued either way.
If this goes to trial, I could see it going to the Supreme Court.
In the United States, 49 U.S. Code § 46504 applies. “An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.”
So US law does not necessarily require you to obey a flight attendant. And I don’t think UA or the police had enough grounds based on this law to protect them of their actions.
Interfering with the duties of a flight attendant is the key here. The flight attendants’ duty was to remove him from the plane per their employer’s instructions. So since he resisted, you can interept that as a violation.
That phrase is a bit vague, which probably gives it a wide margin for interpretation.
A body of law–and that includes Federal law–is typically big and complicated, and may contain surprises. I’ve been wrong about lots of things in my life, even recently. However, based on what I’ve seen so far, I can hardly help but express some degree of uncertainty as to whether 49 USC § 46504 applies to this situation.
To quote that section again, with some boldface for emphasis:
An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46504
It seems to me that the first question to ask would be, “What is ‘the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States’?”
49 U.S. Code § 46501(2) says, in part:
(2) “special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States” includes any of the following aircraft in flight:
(A) a civil aircraft of the United States.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46501
I guess Dr. Dao’s situation meets part of that definition, because he was on board a civil aircraft.
But after that, at least for me, a second question arises, namely, “What is ‘an aircraft in flight’?”
The part of 49 U.S. Code § 46501(1) that I think is pertinent here says this (again I’ve added boldface):
(1) “aircraft in flight” means an aircraft from the moment all external doors are closed following boarding—
(A) through the moment when one external door is opened to allow passengers to leave the aircraft. . . .
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46501
The online magazine Market Watch recently interviewed a man named Joseph Lorusso, who it says is “a Colorado-based aviation attorney and airline-rated pilot.”
Edit 1: The paragraph below is in error:
I can’t find a Joseph Lorusso in the Colorado Bar Association online lawyer database, but from looking at ads, there appears to be a Florida lawyer by that name (the Florida Bar database won’t even give me access, I guess because of my foreign IP address, or else because my reputation precedes me).
Edit 2: I botched my Colorado Bar Association search for Joseph Lorusso. He is in fact in that database. You can just type “Lorusso” in the “Last Name” box and “Joseph” in the “First Name” box, and click the “Search” button. Here is the search page of the database:
http://www.cobar.org/Find-A-Lawyer
Edit 3: Here is the About page for the site of the law partnership of Lorusso & Lorusso:
http://www.lorussolegal.com/about-us/
Edit 4: This is a different Joseph Lorusso from the one in Florida. Apologies for any confusion I may have caused.
The article about the interview of Mr. Lorusso says the following, in part (boldface added by me):
Because the plane’s door was open, Lorusso said the crew followed proper federal protocol by calling local police, as they were still under state jurisdiction. Once the door is closed, the plane falls under federal jurisdiction, and passengers legally must comply with uniformed crew members — including flight attendants.
Mr. Lorusso seems to say about as much as what the law quoted above says.
I think it should be noted that Mr. Lorusso goes on to say that one should comply with instructions, and that one should get off the plane if asked to do so (but he does say so in the context of a discussion of whether the door is open or shut).
The third question that occurs to me would be, “Did Dr. Dao interfere with a crew member or attendant by ‘assaulting or intimidating’ them?”
I’ll let other people form their own conclusions about that question, but it seems to me that that question will lack relevance with regard to 49 USC § 46504 if it is shown that the plane was not in “the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States.”
3 Likes
Yes it is also my understanding that once the plane door closes and the plane is in motion with the intent to take off. And during flight until the door opens, the PIC or pilot in command/captain is in charge of crew and all passengers. Therefore passengers must comply with crew under the PIC during flight. But the doors were still open so this was not the case.
Also another thing," interferes with the duties of the crew" is also in question because is it the lawful duty of the crew to ask a paying passenger to leave without doing anything that violates what is previously said like assaulting the crew.
1 Like
Well this is much ado about nothing. He disobeyed the police or federal authorities who dragged him off the plane. They weren’t just a bunch of thugs. You wouldn’t want to disobey them.
[quote=“jotham, post:133, topic:159388, full:true”]
The media isn’t telling us everything. There’s more to this story and it will come out later, and put a totally different light on it.[/quote]
Sure, around the same time the ROC retakes the Motherland. 
Where you watching the video…dragging a person a the floor is pretty low. He was obviously out. Could have picked him up or do something that isn’t so ridiculous. And NO, you don’t have to follow and obey every instruction the police gives you. YOU HAVE RIGHTS! Many police barely know civilian constitutional rights.
1 Like