Re: United Airlines violently manhandles passenger
Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2017 1:35 am
I still don't get this part and what it means to the picture. "I am only giving this statement at this time because I know that I could lose my job if I refuse the direct order given to me," Does that mean they weren't ready to make a statement at that time? Does that mean they made up everything and none of their story is true? In the article the only thing I see some discrepancies about is how belligerent Dao was leading up to the removal. Was he calm or screaming? None of that matters to me. He can be calm as he wants but, there is no discrepancy that he boarded the plane and was asked to leave several times by employees and the Police. They didn't punch him, shoot him or taze him that I see evidence of. They grabbed him and tried to lift him out. They said Dao fell forward and hit his mouth on the opposite seat's armrest when the cop lost his grip. Maybe the cop did it on purpose. Maybe he was just weak. Maybe the cop was telling the truth and Dao was flailing his arms and that caused the cop to lose his grip. Maybe Dao will say they punched him in the face. I haven't heard that said anywhere yet but, I wouldn't rule it out.Indy wrote:Here you go Nodack.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/25/us/united ... rs-report/
Rodriguez's statement to his watch commander, along with another officer's statement which CNN has seen, was submitted "under duress," according to the report. "I am only giving this statement at this time because I know that I could lose my job if I refuse the direct order given to me," the statement reads.
The four officers named in the report -- Rodriguez, Long, Steve Smith and John T. Moore -- were all placed on leave within 10 days of the incident, documents show.
The Chicago Department of Aviation said at the time that the incident "was not in accordance with our standard operating procedure, and the actions of the aviation security officer are obviously not condoned by the Department," referring to Long.
CNN has attempted to reach representatives for the officers named in the report, but did not receive responses immediately.
They giving the statement under duress part is very vague as to what it means. I don't think you can read too much into it. If you have them saying later that they hate Asians and decided to beat this guy up for fun I will change my opinion on how the police handled the situation. Right now I see no evidence that the police acted out of malice.