You're asking the police, a third-party representing the state and its acknowledged monopoly on legitimate use of force, to become involved. That doesn't necessarily mean that the resolution will or must be violent.
The only thing the police have that United lacks in this circumstance is the monopoly on violence; by asking the police to become involved, United is asking for violence, by force or it's explicit or implied threat, to be deployed to resolve this situation.
It's true that police can use mechanisms other than force or explicit threat, but so can United without involving the police. The only reason to involve the police is because they are violence, at least in the form of implied threat of force.
The only thing the police have that United lacks in this circumstance is the monopoly on violence
United can't act as a third-party moderator, which can be useful in confrontations like this. The police can act in this role. Yes, part of their authority in this role is that they represent law enforcement, and the potential for use of force.
One point that perhaps has been made elsewhere in the submission comments but not in this thread is that simply arresting the man is a use of force, regardless of whether the man allows himself to be arrested peacefully or otherwise. In my mind that's significantly different from dragging someone off of a plane or beating them, though those, too, are uses of force. Is arresting someone peaceably violence? I'd argue not, though I'm open to hearing other thoughts on this.
I've been trying to express that just asking for the police is not requesting that the resolution would necessarily be violent, that there are other options available by having the police there, while clearly acknowledging that the police, as law enforcement, are an extension of the monopoly on legitimate use of force (which is a type of violence). Reading the responses I've received, it seems that I haven't been particularly effective in making that point.
In the interest of learning how to better express myself, would you point out to me how I could have done a better job? In particular, what phrases or statements did I make that prompted your response? I believe the only meaningful difference between what you've written and what I've tried to express is that the only purpose of the police in the situation is the use of force (or the potential use of force). Is that a correct assessment in your eyes?
Much more useful would be deescalation and mediation, but that is not the training given to US police.
It seems like large portions of the police force in the US and the perception of it has degenerated to be some brutish muscle. It's concerning how much that is accepted.
I hate to sound like an old guy but I do remember when police used to try to resolve issues. Much like many police interactions I've witnessed in Europe and elsewhere in the world.
Police used to try to get everyone to calm down and figure out a solution that did not involve the need to get violent or anyone going to jail.
For instance, in this case, the police could have asked the doctor why he didn't want to deplane. With that knowledge they could have approached the United crew and informed them that this was a doctor who had to be at work tomorrow and imply that getting their four staff to another location seemed to be less important, so maybe they could find another passenger or find another solution.
If United persisted, the police should have gone back to the doctor and said, "Listen, we're on your side. They're being a-holes. But, it's their plane and they're asking you to leave which means you're trespassing and failing to follow the orders of a flight crew. We don't not want to arrest you or have to remove you by force, but we're boxed in a corner here. Just come with us and we'll help you file a complaint."