Abuse of Authority: Undeniable Proof

[TeeVee]

several steps in the process of getting pics or vids admitted into evidence and each state has different rules. the good thing is, most editing software if not all, leaves detectable traces.

i'm not an expert on the topic since most of the litigation i've done for the past 15 years involves contracts and statutes, and most of the evidence was documents (paper). there are entire treatises devoted to digital/electronic evidence and i'm certainly not an authority on the subject. i have twice successfully challenged the admission of digital pics in two cases where the parties promulgating the pics refused or were unable to produce the original digital file which of course has meta-data

[3WE]

I just kinda doubt that’s the whole story.

Body cams for all.

Film or it didn’t happen.

Question: how is the legal community responding to “photographic” evidence since editing is such a powerful tool?

[TeeVee]

Well, most restaurants and other shops reserve the right to refuse admission and to kick your butt off if you become disruptive, even if that attitude doesn't entail a security concern. Go to a nice restaurant with soft lights, candles and soft ambient music and start singing "cielito lindo" from the bottom of your lungs. Or go to a cinema and stand in front of the screen.

most, nay, all restaurants are not subject to special laws as airlines are. there is no law that makes it a crime to "interfere" with a waiter's duties. and just in case you missed it, the point is abuse. if you went to a fine dining restaurant and refused to hang your coat the way you were told because you were too short to reach the hanger, i'd bet just about any amount you would not be thrown out.

[Gabriel]

we never do have the "facts" since airlines rarely if ever disclose the facts as they see them. they rely on ridiculously overreaching contracts and even more ridiculously worded laws--laws that were never meant to address a passenger's failure to adjust the position of their effin suitcase!

seriously folks--ATL"crew" included--do you really think any legislature anywhere in the world intended for pax to be kicked off a flight and or charged with a violation of law for refusing to move a bloody bag??????

Well, most restaurants and other shops reserve the right to refuse admission and to kick your butt off if you become disruptive, even if that attitude doesn't entail a security concern. Go to a nice restaurant with soft lights, candles and soft ambient music and start singing "cielito lindo" from the bottom of your lungs. Or go to a cinema and stand in front of the screen.

[TeeVee]

Been fun to watch this- should have made some popcorn.

I think TeeVee has an interesting point...it smells a little bit funny off to kick someone off for safety and then let them go on the next flight...

"Undeniable"...well, let's start with absolute statements and then move to a possibly overly-self-important-celebrity, and maybe there is another side to the story.

Bring in the media who sometimes seem to care nothing about facts...

Would be fun to take this to court where facts and a good, strong argument (which aren't quite the same thing) and human jury bias will come into play.

we never do have the "facts" since airlines rarely if ever disclose the facts as they see them. they rely on ridiculously overreaching contracts and even more ridiculously worded laws--laws that were never meant to address a passenger's failure to adjust the position of their effin suitcase!

seriously folks--ATL"crew" included--do you really think any legislature anywhere in the world intended for pax to be kicked off a flight and or charged with a violation of law for refusing to move a bloody bag??????

[TeeVee]

Says the supposed lawyer who won't use caps.

neither did e.e. cummings and no one held it against him. it's an interwebz forum. i'm not getting graded on, well, anything.

[vaztr]

These 'celebs' have a their first TV show coming out in a month or so - free publicity anyone????

[3WE]

Been fun to watch this- should have made some popcorn.

I think TeeVee has an interesting point...it smells a little bit funny off to kick someone off for safety and then let them go on the next flight...

"Undeniable"...well, let's start with absolute statements and then move to a possibly overly-self-important-celebrity, and maybe there is another side to the story.

Bring in the media who sometimes seem to care nothing about facts...

Would be fun to take this to court where facts and a good, strong argument (which aren't quite the same thing) and human jury bias will come into play.

[Gabriel]

Children, behave.

[ATLcrew]

says the supposed commercial pilot who won't answer the question posed to him....it's ok, we all know the truth behind all of these horsecrap events is the overreaction (way too late) by govts around the world empowering essentially uneducated, untrained, overworked, overstressed, and likley underpaid crews to deal with overstressed, uneducated, abused pax.

power corrupts.

Says the supposed lawyer who won't use caps.

[TeeVee]

Ya think?

says the supposed commercial pilot who won't answer the question posed to him....it's ok, we all know the truth behind all of these horsecrap events is the overreaction (way too late) by govts around the world empowering essentially uneducated, untrained, overworked, overstressed, and likley underpaid crews to deal with overstressed, uneducated, abused pax.

power corrupts.

[ATLcrew]

...in my opinion, you are jumping to conclusions too quickly.

Ya think?

[Gabriel]

right. ok.

the only basis IN LAW for airlines to have such illusory contracts is in the name of safety. once you peel away the horseshit frosting, what's left is pure nonsense that has led to abuse.

you cannot legally charge someone for a service and retain the arbitrary right to deny that service based on crap. unless of course you are an airline and have convinced the various legislatures around the world that what you are doing (arbitrarily) is in the name of safety.

want proof of this? we have decades and decades and decades of pax air transport and likely in all that time pre-9/11, and the subsequent, rabid, "securitization" of air travel, no one was offloaded from a commercial flight for refusing to turn the direction of the carry on.

I don't disagree with your diagnostics of the abuse of authority in the airline industry at great. Just saying that, in this particular case, we don't know what happened and, in my opinion, you are jumping to conclusions too quickly.

Again, in this particular case, I don't know what happened, but I can imagine a situation where the passengers was disruptive and was properly off-loaded and, after a conversation, they were allowed in the next flight. OR, maybe the flight crew were total jerks, which of course could be the case too (I can imagine that situation too).

[TeeVee]

right. ok.

the only basis IN LAW for airlines to have such illusory contracts is in the name of safety. once you peel away the horseshit frosting, what's left is pure nonsense that has led to abuse.

you cannot legally charge someone for a service and retain the arbitrary right to deny that service based on crap. unless of course you are an airline and have convinced the various legislatures around the world that what you are doing (arbitrarily) is in the name of safety.

want proof of this? we have decades and decades and decades of pax air transport and likely in all that time pre-9/11, and the subsequent, rabid, "securitization" of air travel, no one was offloaded from a commercial flight for refusing to turn the direction of the carry on.

[Gabriel]

article cites "did not follow crew instructions" as the reason. what's behind the requirement to follow crew instructions? a simple contractual requirement in to contract of carriage? no, my friend. it's there allegedly for security reasons, though almost never is it being enforced for real security reasons. rather, it's a power play.

10.1 Refusal of Carriage
Even if you have a Ticket and a confirmed reservation, we may refuse to carry you and your Baggage if any of the following circumstances have occurred or we reasonably believe will occur:

if you have used insulting words towards our staff
if carrying you may materially affect the comfort of any person in the aircraft
because you have not obeyed the instructions of our ground staff or a member of the crew of the aircraft relating to safety or security [misplaced carry-on baggage can be a safety concern]
if you have deliberately interfered with the crew of the aircraft carrying out their duties

In any of the situations in this 10.1, we may remove you from a flight, even after you have boarded, without any liability on our part, and cancel any subsequent flights on the Ticket.

so not only is what is alleged in the article NOT listed in their COC, qantas clearly did not cancel the subsequent flight since they placed them on a later flight.

Really? Do you know what happened there other than the version of the Veronicas in that article?

as for the cellphone thingie, that too is a bunch of crap. i fly about 8 segments every month, and without fail, there are multiple cellphones left on for the duration. not once has there been an issue. there's actually a movement to legalize it which i assume is backed by some science showing that cellphones do not really interfere with flight.

That's not the point. First of all it is just an hypothetical situation. But if my company has a policy that cellphones must be turned off before leaving the gate (regardless of how reasonable that policy is), if you don't turn your phone off after being requested to do so you are not allowing the plane to leave the gate. Off you go as per 10.1 above. That doesn't mean that we will not let you on-board the next flight after we have a conversation and you commit not to do the same thing again.

Again, I don't know what happened there. But for example:
- Your carry-on doesn't fit there and we cannot close the bin, please move it further back where there is more room.
- You move it, I am to short to reach there.
- Sorry, but company policy doesn't allow us to handle passenger baggage.
- Ok, then it will stay there. #*%@~ you and your ^&*%#$ing policy.
And off they go as per 10.1. And it doesn't mean that they will not be allowed in the next flight.