A new video has surfaced documenting the words exchanged between Dr. David Dao and Chicago Aviation Police prior to Dao’s removal from a United flight on Sunday.
Here is the video, which shows a belligerent yet paradoxically calm Dao speaking to police officers–
A key part of the exchange:
Dao: ‘I won’t go. I’m physician. I have to work tomorrow, eight o’clock.”
…
Dao: ‘I… I tell you… make a lawsuit against United Airlines.’
[the police officer again tells Dao he must get off flight]
Dao: No I am not going! I am not going!
Police: Well… I have to drag you…
Dao: Well, you can drag me. I don’t go. I’m not going. I’m staying right there.
Dao [to the person he’s speaking to on his cell phone]: They’re trying to use force.
Police: I’m just telling you, it’s going to be a lot harder for you.
Dao: Yeah…I’d rather go to jail…the jail.
Police: You’d rather go to jail than just getting off?
Dao: Yeah
He mentions he began his day in Los Angeles and doesn’t want to extend his travel day any further.
Why Did the Video Cut Off?
I’d still love to see if there was something that triggered the cops to act violently against him or if they simply became fed up with the back and forth. Thus, I label this video as inconclusive.
Two Counter-Narratives
In watching this video, like Gary, I see a calm passenger simply stating his position. Yes, he’s inherently acting belligerent (hostile and aggressive) in refusing police orders, but these may well have been unlawful or at least improper orders. More importantly, he does not appear threatening at all. He’s tired — we learn his day started in Los Angeles, he has patients to see in the morning, and I admire him for not just rolling over and acting docile to an unreasonable demand.
But clearly not everyone sees it that way. For example, the Daily Mail is running with this headline–
(yes, you don’t need to remind me it is the Daily Mail…)
But that tone — “HE disobeyed” — is making its way around. Just like the news of Dao’s past yesterday sought to discredit him, this new video is also being used for the same purpose.
But unlike his irrelevant past, this video is highly relevant. The new counter-narrative goes like this: police were calm and he became violent. The police tried to gently escort him out and his resistance led to his bleeding.
So I’ll ask you — do you see this video as helping or hurting his case?
Just a note, I’ve been covering this heavily because it an issue that highly interests me and having been thrown off a United flight myself, is also an issue I can somehow relate to. Nevertheless, we will soon be back to “regularly programming” on Live and Let’s Fly.
More coverage:
Doctor Dragged Off Oversold United Flight
United CEO Addresses Bloodied Passenger Incident
I’ll Defend Oscar’s Note to United Employees on Flight 3411
Royal Jordanian Trolls United Airlines
Is Oscar Munoz in Danger of Losing His Job?
Details Emerge on Identity of Doctor Dragged Off United Flight
What United CEO Left Out of Apology
Emirates Shames United With Powerful Ad
Must See: United CEO on Good Morning America
He already won. He doesn’t need to improve his case.
I see this video as helping United’s case. This character, some may call him a doctor, clearly refused to follow a command of a law enforcement officer and instead threatened legal action when very likely the law was not on his side. He clearly shouldn’t be allowed to fly. There are better ways to handle a situation then to say (1) I am not complying and clearly refute a command; (2) I will sue you [without a basis]; and (3) I am more important because I am a limited practicing doctor.
If threatening to sue makes one not “allowed to fly”, then threatening to call the cops should make an airline not “allowed to fly” as well.
Quite a low level attempt at shade though (“may call him a doctor”, “very likely the law”) and the same 1-2-3 count down applies to UA for a better way to handle the situation then (1) not giving a shit about a ticket they sold (2) will call the authorities [without a basis] (3) our crew is more important.
What makes someone not allowed to fly is refusing to comply with a command. I refuse to fly with someone who thinks that they can refuse to comply with a command, especially ones related to safety (even though not at issue here). You can argue all you want about whether that command was lawful [in my opinion, it clearly was within the DOT/CFR rules]. This guy is a douche you thinks that the rules don’t apply to him. If you don’t comply someone will force you to comply, whether that is the police or a court.
I’m very sad that United let this one go, but given the unnecessary and uneducated backlash they didn’t have a choice.
Passenger had a valid ticket, United not complying with his command to honor their part of the bargain is as much unfit to fly as you try to make someone who just happened to be on the wrong side of the corporate enforcement hammer.
If there were rules (United legal department output isn’t law) broken by the passenger then it doesn’t make him any more of douche then the guys who set those. Not much education needed to realize that, just some basic social skills.
A
cf Continuum of force
So give an example of a command that you wouldn’t expect him to follow.
I dont understand how this could possibly help united. Regardless of the whether he complied and got off or not, or his background selling drugs on the side, these have nothing to do with the cause of this situation. the cause and fault of the issue lies with United fucking up their own employee positioning. besides united already admitted guilt, along with no clause for such removal in their T&C. Dao is set to make heafty sum of money on this off United and possibly another lawsuit against Chicago PD.
Chicago Dept of Aviation != CPD
the more details that come out, the more he looks like a nut case
I think an important point of this narrative is being missed (but I actually think that the aviation police in Chicago are worried about it). Why were the cops even there? Was there intervention legitimate?
The cops should not have intervened here on the side of one party in what was just a civil dispute. It’s not a legitimate police role. Imagine the reverse of this situation. Dr. Dao calls the cops on United because they breached the contract with him and won’t let him board the plane. And let’s say that the breach is clear – for example, they didn’t ask for volunteers or they didn’t provide him a written statement about their denied boarding procedures (all of which are required). Do you think that the cops would have intervened on his behalf and forced United to put him on the plane? NO WAY. They would have told him to sue because the dispute is a civil one. How then did it become acceptable for the cops to intervene on behalf of United in cases like this one, order him off the plane, and then drag him off?
Dr. Dao will argue that United’s orders for him to leave the plane were not lawful ones (and he has some strong arguments that they weren’t). He’ll also argue that the police presence likewise was also unlawful and that he had no obligation to comply with their unlawful orders. These arguments will never be tested as everyone will settle. United, The Police. Dr. Dao. But bottom line, Dr. Dao wins because the actions of United here and the actions of the police were appalling.
That’s not how this works! That’s not how any of this works!
Sorry, had to.
Their intervention *was* legitimate. Airside law enforcement is responsible for … well, enforcing the laws inside the secure zone. Even where it involves international flights, local laws still apply as they do groundside.
They responded to a request by the flight crew to remove a passenger they were denying flight to. It’s trespass, essentially. The aircraft is private property of UA, and it can revoke access to its property like any business can. *Morally* or *ethically*, it is questionable, but legally, UA had the right to refuse admission, and to request LEO assistance in removing someone from their property.
Airside LEOs aren’t trained in civil law, or carriage contracts, they’re local LEOs (full-sworn or Special Police) with specific jurisdiction. It wasn’t their job to mediate the situation, or to decide if UA was in the right or wrong. It wasn’t for them to determine if there was a racial aspect, or if the Doctor was righteous in his refusal.
Their presence wasn’t illegal, and their demands he deplane weren’t illegal. Take away the environment, it was simply LEOs responding to a request from a business owner’s agents to remove someone from their property. It happens every day in businesses across the nation.
Which isn’t to say they didn’t bork doing it badly – but that’s a different topic. I forsee how they handled it is going to end up in someone’s training video on “How to not do this” some day soon.
I do however find it very interesting that this video cuts right before the whole thing goes pear shaped. Of all the videos, this one might give the best view of what initiated the event, yet it doesn’t? Has me wondering if someone’s holding on to “the smoking gun” to unveil at some point … for a nominal consideration, of course.
“”Airside LEOs aren’t trained in civil law, or carriage contracts, they’re local LEOs (full-sworn or Special Police) with specific jurisdiction. It wasn’t their job to mediate the situation, or to decide if UA was in the right or wrong. It wasn’t for them to determine if there was a racial aspect, or if the Doctor was righteous in his refusal. ”
Not trained in civil law?? Not up to them to determine if the doctor was righteous??
What are they, thugs used as bouncers? It’s really too bad they are not trained on mediating/de-escalating such situations and I sense they’ll pay the consequences
Kojak,
Yes, not trained in civil law. LEOs are responsible for handling matters of criminal law, not civil. Trespass is a criminal law violation, contract disputes are civil (if, uncivil).
Put it this way. If someone decided to camp on your front lawn, and refused to move, the police would re-allocate them on your request. They wouldn’t turn around and tell you “Nah, it’s a sunny day, let the guy just sit there, he’s not harming anyone” instead.
Someone should have de-escalated Ofc Grabby McFaceplanter, though. But that’s a separate subject.
Brian,
Thanks for the link, but again, it’s conflating the two (three?) issues at hand here.
There is the contract of carriage – under civil (contract & consumer) law.
There is the removal – under criminal (trespass) law
And possibly there is the issues surrounding events during the removal – criminal (assault/use of force) law
The only one I’ve commented on is the second – the decision to remove. And the laws regarding that are far simpler and clear cut than the first. Once the trigger is pulled on requesting someone be removed from an aircraft, that person *will* be removed.
Fighting that is on a level of sheer stupidity the likes of which you can see in every YouTube video of people screaming “I do not consent” when they’re being dragged from their cars because they don’t think traffic laws apply to them.
I am not a lawyer (and thank the Goddess every day for that) but the only thing you can do in that situation is comply, then sue. Because the LEOs have zero discretion in enforcing the decision to remove you. Period.
Even if the contract is proven broken, and it’s judged to be excessive force was used in the removal, the removal itself *isn’t* illegal. Possibly the only part of this whole mess that wasn’t, but that’s what lawyers get paid huge amounts of money to dance angels on the head of pins for.
And let’s be clear here – I am in no way agreeing with UA’s actions. I am just as furious at this latest example of PAX being considered cattle-class by an airline as everyone else here. Neither am I particularly impressed with the drills CDoA’s officers executed in enforcing UA’s decision to have the Dr removed.
I’m simply offering a perspective to try and help people understand better what was and wasn’t “illegal” in the incident.
Want to fix it? AAR it.
I’d argue that, as a minimum, one needs to know what civil law is and how to differentiate matters of civil versus criminal law.
If those guys had no clue then the only reference for them were the airline personnel (“zero discretion in enforcing the decision to remove you.”), becoming in fact brainless bouncers at their service.
You are just assuming it was trespassing, you may be right…or wrong, I think lawyers will have fun debating that. Surely I haven’t heard the magic words “you are under arrest”, miranda and all the rest (can those guys actually arrest someone?).
I do agree that correct option was to comply, then sue, but that is equally valid for United.
Is someone is camping on my lawn I certainly do not expect the police to come and beat them off the property. The line between a democratic state and a police state might be very thin…
Essentially, that’s exactly what they are, and bouncers for the Airport Authority airside.
They do have full powers of arrest, whether fully-sworn or just Specials. Usually, if airside security needs to arrest someone it’s handed off to groundside LEOs right afterwards (CPD in this case). This is back to the jurisdictional morass.
You don’t have to be arrested to be ejected from private property, and you only need to be read your rights if you’re actually detained or placed under arrest, too (and even then a recent SCOTUS decision has weakened that as a “requirement”).
I hate to put it like this, but as far as airside is concerned, essentially that line doesn’t exist any more – although even CDoA recognized the drills in this case were borked.
████████ like the guy who got suspended aside, the amount of discretion available is amazingly non-existent.
I just think you’re wrong on the law and we will see how the courts see it. For a good article laying out the argument that Dr. Dao will undoubtedly make, try reading this: https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-united-legally-wrong-deplane-134223391.html
I’ve seen passengers that were crabs but I have never seen a “clam” passenger. HINT: fix your typo.
That being said there are so many layers to this story you need a shovel to dig through them. I wonder if he was staying erything up for a lawsuit?
Fixed! Thanks.
I think this new video absolutely helps the passenger. You are using the words belligerent, aggressive, and hostile– I wouldn’t choose those same words, I actually think he is being quite calm, and calmly explaining why he is not going to go. But whatever, semantics.
The real question is… was he violent? Did he physically strike out at them? Did he threaten to physically harm either the FA or the security officers? That would be the only justification for the security officer to use violence towards him.
Violence is allowed on planes– if there is a violent, drunk person on the flight, or someone making terrorist threats, what happened here would probably have been allowed. And worse.. taser, use of force, whatever it takes.
But in this case, were the Chicago Aviation Police justified in using force w/someone who is verbally and passively resisting their seat? Probably not. I’m guessing the procedure in a situation like this is to keep asking him to leave, and if he won’t, you ask the Chicago Police to place him under arrest. Chicago Police has to first place him under arrest before trying to forcibly move him.
Think about any other situation where people don’t want to leave– homeless man in movie theater, sitting in restaurant too long, going into a store. You really think that Target or Applebee’s has a right to have their security guard or employee physically push the person out of their store, and have their head knocked on the doorway or wall on the way out? No. Even though it’s annoying, you wouldn’t lay a finger on this person, even if he is on your private property and you have a right to refuse service to him– you’d call the cops, and they would arrest him and move him if needed.
This man is not a terrorist threat, he didn’t threaten anyone, he is not drunk, he did not assault anyone– he is just telling them he is not moving from his seat, actually pretty calmly. In fact, he agreed to go to jail in the video! That really is the tactic that the airline should have taken if they wanted to take it that far.
I don’t actually see another narrative btw. I only have seen one so far. I see you wanting to leave doubt that he might have actually been assaultive to warrant this kind of violent response. Even if we don’t fully trust the passenger’s account or the flight staff or aviation authorities’ accounts of things due to their biases, we do trust the fellow passengers who were on the flight. There were ~70 witnesses, more or less initially impartial. Anyone who has spoken up about it was appalled by the airlines’/security officers’ behavior, and sided with the passenger. That is very telling. So far, I have not read a single report from a passenger on the flight who has said otherwise, or made the situation seem gray, like “oh he hit the flight attendant, so that’s why they had to forcibly remove him.” So far, the situation seems pretty black/white to me.
I actually think something a little more sinister might have happened. The violent response from the security officer might be because of what United Airlines told them. I wonder what exactly was said to Chicago Aviation Police. Did United Airlines misportray the situation to make it sound like this person was violent, when he actually wasn’t? Thus, security thought they could use force on him? There are 70 witnesses to what happened, and the truth about this will come out, I believe.
The video also helps the passenger because he is clearly lucid, logical, and talking w/his lawyer on the phone prior to being ‘removed.’ I see the folks who think he made all this up, because he knew he was going to be picked? He was carrying fake blood on him? He was faking being hurt by them? Nah. Much of the general public see Chicago Aviation Police, sent by United Airlines, violently removing this paying passenger, the assault was so severe that it caused a head injury, knocked him unconscious as they dragged his body down the aisle. Then there are several videos that show him terrified, traumatized, confused, fearing for his life– basically what you would expect after a head injury in an elderly person almost 70 yrs old.
Best comment on this event so far!!
– One does not have to obey police orders just because it’s the police giving them to you
– First you place a man under custody/arrest (with a valid reason) and THEN you can touch him
– Clearly what was said to security by the flight crew (I have doubts too) will make a huge difference on the security personnel part of the law suit
In my opinion, this video strenghten the passenger position. Whatever the security behaviour, UNITED comes out as the primary cause of the trauma and injuries.
1st point absolutely correct.
2nd point pretty incorrect
3rd point mostly correct
Conclusion is pretty good too 🙂
In the face of an arrogant company calling in the ORD pseudo-police he was just practicing the same principles as Gandhi, King and Mandela among others. This additional video changes nothing as more and more Americans who are not white get treated to the world of hyper-policing. Read Chris Haye’s new book…check out all the ex-military “toys” your local police have picked up over the decade. Not to mention just about every civil right we’ve lost once we cross the threshold of an airport today!
Can anyone clarify how the random choice of who to off-load was made? Were UA’s criteria followed (i.e. last to check-in?)?
I know my point is quite insignificant, but in the transcribed portion of the conversation we see “···” between the statement “I won’t go. I’m physician. I have to work tomorrow, eight o’clock.” ··· “I..I tell you..make a lawsuit against United Airlines.” The part of the conversation left out IS significant. Dr. Dao clearly says, “I am Daniel…” Then you hear someone prompt, “Hill”, and Dr. Dao repeats, “Hill.” It IS illegal to mis-identify yourself to LEO – even if you’ve done NOTHING else wrong OR illegal, it IS illegal to mis-identify yourself to LEO – and that holds ESPECIALLY true on an airline.
This DOES NOT condone or justify the maltreatment. But it DOES cause me to question if there isn’t more to this story than just what is being publicized.
I think this video helps United and law enforcement. The passenger was asked repeatedly to leave the plane but refused. He was warned that if he did not get off the plane, he would be taken to jail. He said that he would rather go to jail than just get off the plane. Had Dao exited the air craft without incident, I would be much more sympathetic toward his claims. United mishandled this situation badly and he had every right to be angry about it. He could have received his compensation, filed complaints with management and the DOT, taken to social media and even filed a lawsuit. However, unfair or not, once asked to leave (in an incredibly calm manner), he had to leave. How did he think this was going to end?
I think this annihilates United’s claim he was unruly or disruptive. He may be irritated, understandably. He does not raise his voice. I would describe him as adamant. It is an unreasonable demand so he is standing his ground.
Regardless, United breached its own contract when they dragged him off the plane. There’s nothing in the contract that gives United the right to assault a passenger. It’s not a denied boarding incident. He was already boarded. It’s not an oversold incident. The plane was not oversold. They needed 4 additional seats for their employees – that’s a whole different ballgame than oversold. Every passenger was ticketed and had a seat. United wanted to take 4 tickets back to use for their employees, for their convenience. The passenger was not unruly, did not commit any criminal act, did not interfere with the flight crew and did not yell or scream until he was assaulted and removed from the aircraft.
So, in my estimation, his irritation with those who were about to commit a criminal act is not even noteworthy. Especially if one were to consider those dragging him off the plane were exceeding their authority as well by removing him since they were employees of the Chicago Aviation Enforcement and are not even allowed to wear uniforms that display the designation of “police” because, essentially, they have no authority. The rent-a-cops without authority wanted to bully someone as rent-a-cops so often do. They can pay the price for that because, I think, there is the potential for criminal charges as well.
What’s an aggravated assault lawsuit on a plane amount to? In this case, looking at their exposure from a PR standpoint, I think hundreds of millions is not out of reach.
If I saw this and I was on the jury id side with United.
But this is so much in the news, its more about emotions over facts now.
I feel for police the most, people encouraging Diss Obediance is never a good thing he was always getting off the plane. Right or wrong, legal or not, surely he is smart enough to know that .
comply now, complain later
Well, it has now been reported that Dr. Dao and his family can probably live fairly comfortable lives. There has been an agreement reported between him and the airline, and while the amount of the settlement is confidential, it is assumed to be at LEAST MORE than ONE million. So these videos have REALLY paid off for him!
While I DON’T agree with the way he was manhandled – and I have personally experienced seating issues that were quite problematic – I am STILL having problems with this particular case. While people were diligent to video and post these two PORTIONS of Dr. Dao’s ill-treatment, there were things that happened before AND after that have been buried deeply behind all of the outrage. (And it was all of the public outrage that caused Dr. Dao to be rewarded so greatly – which, of course, will play into the increased prices the rest of us will have to pay to make up for his reward!)
I was VERY curious about the fact that Dr. Dao identified himself as “Daniel”…”Hill” in the now-deleted video. WHY was he PURPOSELY giving the WRONG NAME to the officers? I HAD TO search this story to figure out his reason.
It seems that ORIGINALLY, the airline made the LOWEST OFFER for FOUR VOLUNTEERS to take another flight. When they got NO takers, they raised the offer. At that point, Dr. Dao, his wife, and two other passengers VOLUNTEERED to accept the money and vacate their seats. The airline took the names of the VOLUNTEERS so that they could be remunerated – as they had AGREED to do.
After the airline TOOK THE NAMES of the VOLUNTEERS, so that they could receive the AGREED UPON payment, for some unknown reason, Dr. Dao decided he wasn’t going to leave after all. Reports vary, but it HAS BEEN reported that ALL FOUR left the plane, and Dr. Dao got back on. When the officers were sent to de-plane the passenger WHO HAD VOLUNTEERED and GIVEN HIS NAME so he could receive the agreed-upon payment, and then got back on, Dr. Dao said, “I am Daniel…” “Hill”. Why? Because the officers were looking for a “Dr. David Dao” – NOT “Daniel Hill”.
While people say his past has NO BEARING on this (and I wholeheartedly agree), his PRESENT (BEFORE this settlement) CIRCUMSTANCES quite probably DO! Due to his past, he NOW only has a LIMITED license, which allows him to practice medicine ONLY ONE day per week – and THAT ONLY under the observation of other physicians. Which means that, not only is his medical paycheck EXTREMELY limited (due to ONLY WORKING ONE DAY), but as “low man on the totem pole”, his RATE of pay would also be EXTREMELY LOW, when compared to what a Senior Physician could expect.
When you take THIS FACT into consideration, you can EASILY understand why someone would be willing to JUMP at the offer of what – to him – could have been the equivalent of THREE WEEKS PAY! WHY he changed his mind (it was NEVER reported that his wife -or the other two VOLUNTEERS – gave ANY trouble), is ONLY known to Dr. Dao! After he was removed from the plane THE FIRST TIME, he turned around and SNUCK BACK ON – having to, AGAIN, be physically removed!
While all of this went on, other passengers – not having FULL KNOWLEDGE of what was happening – were FORCED to watch the DEVASTATINGLY HORRIFYING – even PERMANENTLY TRAUMATIZING – drama that was playing out before their eyes! ALL of the passengers were then FURTHER INCONVENIENCED, when ALL of them had to get off of that plane – making them ALL LATE for any connecting flights they may have had to be on, and inconveniencing everyone else who was waiting at their destinations to pick them up! All for the sake of a man who just couldn’t seem to be able to make up his mind which he wanted most – the offered money, or just to get home!
Now, the airline has reportedly made changes in the way that these things will be handled. And they’ve increased the price they are willing to pay – if the need arises – so that people won’t be tempted to change their minds – and inconvenience EVERYONE ELSE on the flight, at the airport, at connecting airports, and awaiting them at home!
Yes, WE now have SOME new promises of less inconvenience for OUR OWN future flights – and we truly NEEDED to have more assurance of NOT losing our seat for the convenience of someone else. But, ALL of the costs incurred by the airline through ALL of this ONE event, will be passed on to the passengers in the future!
It seems that Dr. Dao has been GRANDLY REWARDED for all of the HORROR and INCONVENIENCE experienced by ALL OF US!