It's like the whole blaming the gun manufacturer vs the person who shot someone. United is the one that pulled the trigger here. The cops are just goons for hire.

The Chicago PD wasn't involved with this at all.

It was "aviation police". No connection.

Whoever they are it is a sad state of affairs. Obviously United is primarily to blame for all of this - the CEO is so disingenuous - but who are these goon like people who just follow orders without asking a single question. They could have asked, what has he done? Is he a murder suspect, has he done something awful? If the answer back was just, 'we've overbooked' then the trivial nature of it all should have made them think.

"but who are these goon like people who just follow orders without asking a single question. "

To a first approximation, everybody. Unfortunately.

http://www.spsp.org/news-center/press-releases/milgram-polan...

Their name was on the aircraft.

And, they're the ones who created a situation where PD had to come in to remove a noncomplying passenger in the first place. It wasn't until they decided to revoke a seated passenger's right to fly (in favor of their own employee, on a flight that we've since learned was not actually overbooked as United tried to claim) that that passenger became a trespasser and thus were police even required to be involved.

I don't think it was the Chicago PD who did the removal of the man, but there's so much bad reporting about this story that I can't tell...

You can't blame a tiger for biting you.

I've been wondering this myself. Yes, it sucked that 4 people were required by United to deplane. This was awful planning on United's part. But 3 passengers deplaned without the situation escalating to this catastrophe. Then we have the 4th passenger who decides he wants to potentially add resisting arrest to his trespassing and interfering with a crewmember, and a set of sworn police officers who couldn't properly deescalate the situation. But somehow, it's the airline's fault? If United truly is to blame, how far does it go? How much could the passenger and officers have gotten away with and assigned the blame to the airline?

> "Resisting arrest"

What? They were not arresting him as far as it has been shown. Resisting arrest is a grave crime AFAIK, so don't mix terms (or don't complain of other people mixing things!).

> "trespassing"

Again, read more about it, he was not trespassing at all. He was legally allowed to stay in the flight (even though the crew members said otherwise).

Resisting arrest is a misdemeanor (albeit a Class A) in IL. The law states: "A person who knowingly resists or obstructs the performance by one known to the person to be a peace officer, firefighter, or correctional institution employee of any authorized act within his or her official capacity commits a Class A misdemeanor." By refusing to leave, he was obstructing the performance of a known peace officer. Whether that fits your definition of "grave crime" is unknown to me.

Also under IL law, trespassing: "A person commits criminal trespass to real property when he or she: (3) remains upon the land of another, after receiving notice from the owner or occupant to depart" In the reading I've done on this, I've not found anything to support your claim that he was permitted to remain on board. Do you have a source?

Is the airplane 'land of another'?