I'd definitely sue if this was me.If the FBI clears you...end of story.......the Airline was out of line .Cheers http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/01/family.grounded/index.html
muslims on a plane......
- Thread starter Scarey
- Start date
I'd just take another plane and move on with life. Suing just to get a meaningless apology isn't how I'd want to spend my time and money.
The airline was in the wrong, but do you really need something official from a judge that 'proves' it to make your life better? Nobody got hurt; I'd say let it go.
The airline was in the wrong, but do you really need something official from a judge that 'proves' it to make your life better? Nobody got hurt; I'd say let it go.
C
crystalpalace
For an apology and free tickets for life.elmo said:
A dickhead move from a dickhead Airline. All this paranoia...
You would sue for an apology? Free tickets are a non-issue, if the airline wouldn't let them on as paying customers they're sure a shit not going to let them on for free LOL.
The point of a lawsuit...
...in fact the (theoretical) point of any lawsuit, is to punish bad behavior and to effect organizational change so that no one else suffer the same fate you do.
I mean, money doesn't bring back loved ones, right? But people sue when accidents occur all the time if negligence is found.
In this case, you would sue in order to punish Airtran for their actions, and to send a message both to other airlines and to the general population that this sort of behavior, and obsessive over the top xenophobia in general is wrong.
Oh...and for free tickets.
elmo said:
...in fact the (theoretical) point of any lawsuit, is to punish bad behavior and to effect organizational change so that no one else suffer the same fate you do.
I mean, money doesn't bring back loved ones, right? But people sue when accidents occur all the time if negligence is found.
In this case, you would sue in order to punish Airtran for their actions, and to send a message both to other airlines and to the general population that this sort of behavior, and obsessive over the top xenophobia in general is wrong.
Oh...and for free tickets.
It's too bad if you are as pure as the newly fallen snow and someone overhears and misinterprets your conversation.
Then again the “Sons of Italy” haven't conducted many aircraft bombings/ highjackings of late.
Then again the “Sons of Italy” haven't conducted many aircraft bombings/ highjackings of late.
On one hand we can't expect airlines to guarantee our safety if lawsuits tie their hands when they see something alarming. One the other hand, the arbitrary profiling that occurred in this incident will only get worse if people don't retaliate.
Muslim or not (and for the record there are millions of WHITE muslims) you have to be careful what you say on airplanes and it has always been this way.Aardvark154 said:It's too bad if you are as pure as the newly fallen snow and someone overhears and misinterprets your conversation.
Then again the “Sons of Italy” haven't conducted many aircraft bombings/ highjackings of late.
As for the FBI clearing them, that wouldn't impress me either as they have missed known terrorists in the past. And hell, if this was Canada our sercurity forces would have passed them even if they were photographed committing a terrorist act.
If the family in question has anyone to blame, they should be looking at the extremists who have created this air of suspicion......
Yeah but...
...what about those Irish Catholics...you can't trust them either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh
http://terrorism.about.com/od/groupsleader1/p/IRA.htm
Aardvark154 said:It's too bad if you are as pure as the newly fallen snow and someone overhears and misinterprets your conversation.
Then again the “Sons of Italy” haven't conducted many aircraft bombings/ highjackings of late.
...what about those Irish Catholics...you can't trust them either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh
http://terrorism.about.com/od/groupsleader1/p/IRA.htm
Um - not really. The point of a civil lawsuit is to determine who is responsible for damages that may have arisen by the actions of one party against another party. It is necessary to determine whether a tort or contract has been breeched. Once this is determined, then damages are awarded. You are speaking of punitive damages, which are damages that are least likely to be awarded. Most damage awards put the plaintiff back in the situation they would be in should the defendant not have taken those actions. I will grant you in the US, punitive damages are more likely to be awarded and may be higher than in Canada.MLAM said:
You speak of negligence. Negligence is only one kind of tort, and it's not applicable here. How is anyone being negligent - which basically means to act without due care or responsibility? You can't sue for the tort of obsessive xenophobia - it doesn't exist.
The relationship between the passengers and the airline is governed by the terms of the ticket, and it more than likely says that the airline can boot anyone off the plane for any reason. I know in Canada there are provincial Human Rights Tribunals which would preside over a case like this, and I don't know if there are US equivalents.
Let's ask the question differently: if you got on one of those "nudist" airlines, could you sue because you were offended by the nudity?
I'm not endorsing xenophobia, but what, in your mind, demarcates private companies from publicly-funded and publicly-run enterprises (which are subject to additional non-discrimination laws)?
I'm not endorsing xenophobia, but what, in your mind, demarcates private companies from publicly-funded and publicly-run enterprises (which are subject to additional non-discrimination laws)?
I believe you will find that neither McVeigh nor the IRA were driven by either Christianity or by the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. That doesn't seem to be the case with Islamic Terrorists - that they are not driven by Islam or that they don't have "mainstream" clerics supporting them.MLAM said:
Response(s)....
The airlines right to toss you off the plane "for any reason" could be easily scrutinized under these circumstances as a violation of human rights, along with a "mental anguish" cases.
"Any reason" and "no reason" are not the same thing. In a lawsuit (should it get that far), the airline would have to give the reasons for their actions...and if those reasons were found wanting by the judge, a lawsuit would be permitted.
For what it is worth, cases of this ilk HAVE come up before in the U.S....typically they never reach the courts because the airline realizes the bad publicity is more costly than any legal damages awarded....
And this took place in the U.S., and I doubt that when everyday people file a lawsuit, they have all of this in mind. They file a lawsuit to A) Punish those who have down wrong and b) secure compensation. Since in this case there was no mention of any extraordinary dollar amounts, I presume the family here simply wants to go with A), along with setting the precedent int he minds of relevant parties that this behavior is unacceptable.3Tees said:
I am fully aware of that - I was speaking of lawsuits in general, not this case in particular.3Tees said:
It isn't a contract law issue...it is a "suffering and pain" and whatever mumbo jumbo issue.3Tees said:
The airlines right to toss you off the plane "for any reason" could be easily scrutinized under these circumstances as a violation of human rights, along with a "mental anguish" cases.
"Any reason" and "no reason" are not the same thing. In a lawsuit (should it get that far), the airline would have to give the reasons for their actions...and if those reasons were found wanting by the judge, a lawsuit would be permitted.
For what it is worth, cases of this ilk HAVE come up before in the U.S....typically they never reach the courts because the airline realizes the bad publicity is more costly than any legal damages awarded....
So??
My point is that if you are going to find people "guilty" of something they didn't do because they share appearance / race / religion with someone who DID do something, the list of those eligible is really damn long.
And, BTW...I don't think you'll find many of those "mainstream clerics" in the U.S....nor will you find many U.S. citizens supporting them. Also, I doubt you will have many instances of said supporters being vetted and cleared by the FBI.
And your point is??Aardvark154 said:
My point is that if you are going to find people "guilty" of something they didn't do because they share appearance / race / religion with someone who DID do something, the list of those eligible is really damn long.
And, BTW...I don't think you'll find many of those "mainstream clerics" in the U.S....nor will you find many U.S. citizens supporting them. Also, I doubt you will have many instances of said supporters being vetted and cleared by the FBI.
If I heard that conversation between 2 muslims on a plane I'd also be scared, you never know when these people will wage another jihad and blow themselves up. There are countless examples of muslims trying to commit terrorism on airplanes. If these muslims were innocent they should have been more sensitive to the fears of the other passengers, they deserved to be kicked off since they were a potential security risk to everyone onboard the plane.
That's the point exactly. Yes it's racial profiling but who the fuck is doing the bombing these days??MLAM said:
