« Pop Quiz: When is a gun NOT loaded? Bueller? Bueller? | Main | In reality, it lies in desiring another to kiss your a– for having just before threatened to kick his; »

April 12, 2017

A people who will not rule themselves – who will not defend themselves, or one another – are nothing but serfs, and so they shall be treated.

The part which most stood out to me about this video was how nobody came to Dao’s defense.

A small, 69 year old Asian man is being beaten by uniformed thugs, and the only response was mewling; a people who cannot defend themselves, who rely upon the police to moderate every conflict in their personal lives, will be at an utter loss when those same police turn on them. If there’s one take-away from this situation, it is this: submit or bleed from the forehead. A people who will not rule themselves – who will not defend themselves, or one another – are nothing but serfs, and so they shall be treated. The current reaction is not a principled protest (the few who are principled were already protesting); it is nothing but the bleating whines of agitated rabbits, failing to comprehend that this was the system they’ve been asking for all along.Corporations, United Airlines, and the Open-Air Prison Planet - Stares at the World

Posted by gerardvanderleun at April 12, 2017 5:28 PM. This is an entry on the sideblog of American Digest: Check it out.

Your Say

"...nobody came to Dao’s defense..."

Against whom, the jack boots?
What, are people bored with living?
If I was there I wouldn't have jumped in either.

But I might have made note of some name tags for future reference.

The Night Stalker

Posted by: ghostsniper at April 12, 2017 6:14 PM

Police are the enforcers of the will of their paycheck signers, be they government or private. They are anything but 'law enforcement' when they themselves break laws at will. Who wrote the laws? Did you? I sure as hell did not.

Welcome to the NAZI style police state friends.

Posted by: Terry at April 13, 2017 8:03 AM

The law of trespass, which is common throughout the civilised world is at the basis of this hoo-hah. The owner of any property or the owner's agent can refuse to allow any person to remain on that property if he chooses, or withdraw consent at any time having previously invited the other person to be there. If the other person refuses to leave, the owner or his agent may eject the visitor using no more force than necessary. If the owner requires the assistance of a peace officer the peace officer in the first instance stands by to prevent a breach of the peace, but can assist physically only as an invited agent of the owner.

That is the basic principal of common trespass;
Whatever the gripe, the owner has absolute right
to eject an unwanted intruder. If the removal breaches some contract or prior agreement, then that is a separate matter, which can be pursued through appropriate civil court action.

When you think about it, without the law of trespass, there is no such thing as private property.

Hard cases make bad law. The law of trespass is an essential safeguard for us all. The doctor had no right to refuse to leave and the ejection was lawful. If more force than necessary was applied, then that is a case for assault and battery, causing actual or grievous bodily harm. But the court will have to take into account the resistance of the doctor during the ejection, as he had no right of refusal to leave.

Having said all that, the damage to the reputation of the airline in provoking this incident through crass management practices will be costly and it serves them right.

But don't knock the law of trespass if you own a dwelling or a cabbage patch. Some asshole might decide to occupy it and then you need the law to undecide him.

Posted by: Frank P at April 13, 2017 10:10 AM

Frank, not only are you 100% wrong, you reflect the increasing statification of things - the loss of individual right and sovereignty - the increasingly Orwellian right loves.

Trespass doesn't even begin to apply here.

The left is socialist statism. The right is corporate statism. A distinction without a difference.

Posted by: Ten at April 13, 2017 10:46 AM

"When you think about it, without the law of trespass, there is no such thing as private property."

Who knows why this sentence is wrong?

Posted by: ghostsniper at April 13, 2017 12:57 PM

This is a stupid comment. Would you go to the aid of rapist and bank robbers too? If the police ask you to get up and leave the plane then you must get up and leave the plane. Simple as that. There is no defense no attacking the police. You go and fight your case in court. It is probable that this man wouldn't have been encouraged to do this stupid thing if all of the whiners and commiserators had kept their mouth shut.

Posted by: GoneWithTheWind at April 13, 2017 2:29 PM

"That is the basic principal of common trespass;
Whatever the gripe, the owner has absolute right
to eject an unwanted intruder."

Ah, so we do have the right to eject unwanted immigrants, eh?

Posted by: Nunnya Bidnez , jr. at April 13, 2017 2:47 PM

Yes, you have the right to control your property.
You do NOT have the right to control other people's property.
See the diff?

Dood goes on your neighbors property, maybe an illegal alien, maybe not. YOU have NO say about it.

Posted by: ghostsniper at April 13, 2017 5:54 PM

Aaand GoneWindy proves he's a statist.

Couple points, Windy. (Try talking to an officer first next time). First, they weren't cops. Second it's a civil matter. Entirely. Third "the police" cannot ask you to do something they're not legally able to ask you (all the capitulating rightists notwithstanding). And last, nobody "attacked the police".

The guy is said to have suffered serious injury for which there is no evident legal justification. You're still as clueless as always, Windy.

Posted by: Ten at April 13, 2017 6:10 PM

With an absolute given that United's procedure here was appallingly, company-threateningly stupid, agree with others that this post is pretty lame.

Remember that little incident called 9/11? If not, ask a friend. One universal agreement that followed that little accident is that YOU DO NOT #$%& AROUND ON AIRPLANES. Period and full stop.

So when the cops arrived here, they don't know the deal, they just know that the pilot (and airline) have directed them to remove this person, and that is what they have to do.

NOW, the pilot and airline have to answer for that, and it was an appallingly stupid call, for which they will pay... "dearly" doesn't even begin to cover it.

But to say that the passengers should rise up against obviously duly constituted and uniformed authority in such a situation is an embarrassingly dumb thing to say.

And I do fear that airlines will now be very gunshy about dealing with the next out of control drunk or snakes-in-the-head idiot trying to open the door mid-flight.

Posted by: Andrew X at April 14, 2017 8:39 AM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)