United Airlines has come under fire in the past few weeks after videos spread showing footage of an Asian passenger’s forcible removal from one of their aircraft. The interaction between Dr. David Dao and officers upset other passengers who recorded multiple videos of the incident. The response from the airline has shifted drastically from denial of any wrongdoing to changing numerous policies, and more radically to pledging up to $10,000 compensation in future to those who might forfeit their seats. In public opinion, the dominant stream of thought blaming United for their mismanagement overshadowed defensive stances on airline policies rooted in safety. With eye-catching and headlines ranging anywhere from “Doctor dragged from United Airlines flight claims it was worse than the Vietnam war” to “I I Know You’re Mad at United but…(Thoughts from a Pilot Wife about Flight 3411)” it is safe to say that public discourse has been widespread and may have lead to the subsequent response by United. But behind the justification of Dao’s forcible removal is distractive rhetoric we frequently see in cases of police brutality and corporate responsibility to mute the severity of actions.The first polarization of public opinion surrounded whether the airline was at fault or whether the incident was merely the result of an accepted practice. As the rules were written, United Airlines staff actions were within purview. But the general outcry was regarding the airline’s prior knowledge of the overbooked flight. United is second only to Delta in incidences of overbooking. Why couldn’t paying customers be notified before boarding the flight that some seats were to be set aside for staff? The thoughts from a “pilot wife,” walk through a multitude of airline policies, explaining why it was so important to seat those four crew members. While she describes the incident as “unfortunate” her ultimate message is that passengers acknowledge and utterly accept all the fine print of the ticket once we walk through the aircraft door. Of course, this also includes the well-known: if you refuse to abide by an arbitrary algorithm we will call law enforcement to handle you whilst we stand byclause, and the if you’re angry you should really just get over it addendum. Though clarifying of airline practices, her statements lend nothing more than a feeling of utter disempowerment. With so many people outraged and with passengers on the flight visibly shaken, in the end, her argument fell completely on deaf ears. The general understanding and fear that this event may have happened to any slightly miffed customer outweighed the reported need to prioritize airline employees over ticketed passengers, regardless of air-traffic complexity. Facing a potential lawsuit, loss of patronage, and dip in stock prices, United’s only reasonable course of action in order to gain back public favor was one of corporate accountability. And United bent over backward to do this. CEO Oscar Munoz, who initially denied wrongdoing completely, actually admitted flaws in the system and apologized for having to displace passengers. The company has since implemented ten policy changes related to this event that specifically limit the use of law enforcement, ensure crews are booked on the flight an hour before departure, increase customer compensation incentives, and reduce the amount of overbooking.While this is certainly a triumph for United Airlines customers, the most worrisome response to Dao’s removal was the immediate investigation into his past. The question very quickly shifted from “who is the injured passenger” to “who is Dr. David Dao?” The answer as reported by the New York Post is as follows: “[...]a lung doctor with a taste for gambling, a history of angry outbursts -- and a conviction for trading narcotics prescriptions and cash for gay sex in motels.” This is all true. But it ignores the basic fact that omnipotence is not an inherent feature granted to officers upon being sworn in. Problematically, it closely mimics similar narratives surrounding controversial cases of police brutality such as the Michael Brown case. In the Brown case, untrue rumors of his police record busted later by Snopes, allowed a forum for people to believe the story that Brown had been retaliatory prior to being shot. Though in Dao’s case his past is verified, the David Dao of the video could only be concluded in the moment to be an elderly man of Asian origin, who is at first sitting, and then attacked, pulled out of his seat, and then dragged limply down the hallway off of the aircraft. As Brian Dickerson of the Detroit Free Press aptly puts it: “[...] every one of us has a ‘troubled past,’ and it shouldn’t become headline news just because some overzealous airline security thugs decided to give your seat to someone else.” In the moment of action, how could his past possibly have mattered? Like in the Brown case, there were false reports made that Dao was violent prior to being removed. Those who made these claims were placed on administrative leave for this falsification of the events. Should we always justify violent action with the assumption that any victim could potentially have a criminal record? When will we stop believing false narratives of the “justified violence” of law enforcement? This article was written by Jazz Pitts. Please send an email to [email protected] to get in touch. Photo Credit: OzarksFirst