3 women escorted off flight insist they're victims

The airlines can refuse flight to whoever they want ... whenever they want .. for whatever reason they want.

However, if what the passengers say is true, then THEY also have a right to be very vocal about what happened and to encourge others not to use that airlines.

The rights people have go both ways.

Speak with your wallet. I used to fly several times per year, now I drive. It takes longer, but I get to enjoy the country and the people I encounter. I have driven from CA to VA, and back 3 times this year, and I'm leaving again next week. I drive to Vegas instead of flying as well, it takes longer, but I'm not feeding the corrupt and incompetent airline industry and that puts a smile on my face. I also don't have to worry about being assaulted by TSA...because make no mistake, one of these days a TSA employee is going to the hospital and I'm going to jail, so I try to avoid that scenario.

In this case, the airline is wrong and "k177ignorance" is as ignorant as they come. The sense of entitlement of these people comes directly from people like k177ignorance telling them that they enjoy being abused by people with a high school education and no ambition other than to pay back the people who made fun of them in school.

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Ex_CT2

 

The term color of law applies to individuals who are agents of the government (Police / Sheriff / FBI / etc). Depending on state, security personell could fall under that.

Private employees of a business do not. A priovate business does not have to have any reason to deny service to any person for any reason.

You either have no clue or mispoke. I reserve the right to refuse business to anyone I wish.

Uhm... ok..

The term color of law is a legal term that is used when a person is acting as an agent of the state. It means their actions are governed by local, state or federal law, while being bound by 42 USC 1983 - IE Law Enforcement.
private security, or a bar owner in your case, can do whatever you guys want because your on your private property and are in control of that property.

Law Enforcement is not.

The reason I brought it is because the op that used it, used the term incorrectly. As I stated in my post, which you apparently did not bother reading, you would see I stated a private business can choose who they want to do business with and who they dont.

Respectfully, you and the op should learn what the term means before correcting others.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Respectfully, you and the op should learn what the term means before correcting others.

edit on 17-12-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

A term I never used, referred to, nor corrected you on?
I would love to know how you could ascertain my understanding of something I have not brought up once but I do not care to read your response.
Perhaps you should see if I ever corrected you on something before getting upset about me doing it.

reply to post by Algernonsmouse


No problem, see my response just above your post, where you stated I dont know what im talking about and that you have a right to refuse business to whomever.

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Ex_CT2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The term color of law applies to individuals who are agents of the government (Police / Sheriff / FBI / etc). Depending on state, security personell could fall under that.

Private employees of a business do not. A priovate business does not have to have any reason to deny service to any person for any reason.

You either have no clue or mispoke. I reserve the right to refuse business to anyone I wish.

Wow, some of you attacked me like rabid dogs and insulted me over such a stupid topic. Get a life.

Of course I read the article, it's hardly even 3 paragraphs. The article mentions NOTHING about the attitude of the people, nor do the witnesses mention anything. Some of you accused me of assuming too much when I in fact didn't assume anything, I just asked questions about their attitude, completely devoid of assumptions. YOU people were the ones that were assuming that the witnesses would mention the attitude, and then assumed since they didn't mention it they must have had no attitude. Hypocrites.

Another member claimed it was unlikely that 3 passengers were kicked off for all having attitude, and supported the idea that it was more likely that the flight attendants just randomly wanted to kick off 3 people. That is idiotic.

It's much more likely the 3 passengers that were kicked off were some how related to each other, maybe just friends. One person gives attitude and gets kicked, and that causes their relative or friend to give attitude and get kicked also, like a chain reaction. I've seen this plenty of times in many places.

Or maybe, just maybe, one person gave attitude and got kicked, then like the rabid dogs of ATS, two witnesses got angry and started to attack the attendants with attitude as well because of some serious mental issue with authority.

See, what I am doing, and have been doing since I first commented on this topic, is thinking of ALL the possibilities because we don't have enough information to make an informed opinion on the subject. That is why I was asking questions about their attitude. What most of you did was assumed multiple things, and instantly jumped to a conclusion based on limited information..... Good job denying ignorance (sarcasm).

-edit-
Oh and one more thing... They probably didn't press charges because it wasn't serious. And they probably refunded the flight to avoid having to deal with legal issues.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Ex_CT2

 

The term color of law applies to individuals who are agents of the government (Police / Sheriff / FBI / etc). Depending on state, security personell could fall under that.

Private employees of a business do not. A priovate business does not have to have any reason to deny service to any person for any reason.

Here: Let me find that for you.

Flight Attendants: Bartenders or Bad Cops?

...Must they formally remind passengers of who is in charge in the cabin, and that it’s a federal crime, now punishable by a $25,000 fine, to disobey or interfere with flight attendants?

I don't think there is enough info to really draw any conclusions. I've seen it go both ways.

reply to post by Ex_CT2


Let me help you -

A Flight attendant nor a pilot can enforce that law. It must be done by commissioned law enforcement and the federal prosecutor must agree with the findings and go forward with the charges.

The term color of law applies to law enforcement / agents of the state.

As for the article you linked they dont know the terminology either let alone how the law works. The flight crew are the company reps, which means they can act on behalf of the company (within policy) when passengers do certain actions. Private security for a Hospital are in the same boat. They are not capable of enforcing laws (will vary state to state but it works for this) however it does not stop them from being able to detain the person who broke the law.

Law enforcement arrives, speaks to all parties, and goes from there. The same standard applies to the flight crew as well.