you seem to be the one suffering a delusion about who the police work for. this is a clear example, they work for the property owners. in this case the airport.
At the same time.. The core mission of the police in the USA is to protect and serve the general public. This is the oath they take in the process of being sworn in as a public servant.
Not to serve the whims of Southwest Airlines. Things often play out more like this, though, where they serve whatever entity appears to be the most powerful.
>The core mission of the police is to protect and serve the general public. Not to serve the whims of Southwest Airlines.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of American/capitalist society and of history. The police exist explicitly to protect businesses and have no obligation to the public. They were founded explicitly to protect businesses and the wealthy.
Not sure where you're getting this from. Police have no duty to protect or serve, this was just a slogan on squad cars in some departments and became a TV trope. If they take some sort of oath, it's not really legally binding.
"with liberty and justice for all" was written by a socialist minister in a youth magazine as part of a campaign to get columbus day recognized as a holiday in the 1890s. It was meant to be a universal pledge for anyone in any country, not specific to the US. It is not part of any jurisprudence or caselaw. So yes, technically its a toothless slogan.
I have a problem with the law enforcement hammer being used for anything regardless of it resembles a nail, but the problem with this situation is not policing/enforcement, it is the fact that this was allowed to get to this point. This officer and the security guards were given orders as per their job to remove people for trespassing. If the officer simply asks them to leave, 99.999% of the time this encounter will not lead to an arrest.
Trespassing laws are used to keep privately owned space free if people who interfere with conducting business operations. People mindlessly crowding the gate without a ticket, expecting some magic plane to show up and take them to their destination, are doing just that.
There are desks inside the secure area to rebook or find flights, and something tells me if these passengers simply queued up there to figure out next steps, the airline would not have called security/law enforcement. There is the argument that people won’t interfere with business operations if you didn’t cancel their flights, too. This whole
situation was totally avoidable but I think we’re getting in to Captain Hindsight territory here.
I’m confused by Southwest’s FAQ[0] on this. They’s making a distinction between selling more seats than the plans has and merely confirming more customers than the plan has seats. How is that different? If I get to the airport and they’re asking for volunteers to take a later flight, should I care why?
It sounds like they're saying "we don't overbook on purpose, but sometimes we need to change what plane we use on a flight and we've already sold more tickets than the new plane can accommodate"
Sure, but 103% overbooking is EVERY flight. Having reduced carrying capacity because of high temps, high winds, mechanical problems or switching planes is the exception not the rule.
They don’t overbook. If a plane change or performance limit (temperature/wind related) means they’re not able to transport as many people as the original equipment is normally able to carry, that’s different than “we sell 103% of available seats and just count on it all working out…”
If you're bumped, it's the same disruption either way, but booking the capacity of the scheduled equipment within predicted conditions is not unreasonable and it's hard to see what they could do to avoid the situation where some passengers aren't going to be able to fly on their scheduled flight.
If the weather changes such that the maximum weight is reduced, or the plane needs to be replaced and only a smaller plane is available (Southwest flies three 737 variants, one which has quite a few less seats), or a seat is broken and can't be fixed without a greater disruption, they don't really have another option than bumping passengers or always leaving many seats unsold.
Airlines are not a cartel (controlling supply to keep prices high). If anything they're the opposite: high competition on a substitutable service has dropped prices. It is however a capital-intensive, highly regulated industry that provides daily miracles of flight.
We the people could push for laws preventing overbooking or providing better redress for missed transportation. However expect availability to decrease and prices to increase in response.
Yes, the police aren’t really the problem here. The problem is the fact that the airline decided that its own customers were trespassing. This is legal but extremely shitty behavior on the airline’s part. It’s as if you went to a restaurant and they seated you at a table and said “welcome, now please leave” and then called the cops to have you removed because you were so confused that you started asking questions rather than comply.
When people talk about defunding the police, they don't mean not having officers investigate crime, or pull over speeders and drunk drivers. They mean taking away money from police who use force and threat of arrest against people described in this article.
This was an issue of communication and how to work with people of your own community. There were no criminals here. There was no threat of violence. There was just an airport gate which was being severely inconvenienced by Southwest's major screwup.
If the police can't see the difference, what's the point of paying them to do their jobs.
Yes. More generally “defund the police” means “de-scope the police” to get them out of jobs they are not trained for or good at, and especially those which require the exact opposite of typical police skills.
Absolutely not: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the congresswoman, clarified in an interview that “Defund the police” meant precisely “DEFUND the police” and should NOT be reinterpreted to suit one’s imagination.
OK but why would we continue to pay the police to do things they aren't doing.
>“In many cases,” she added, “it means redirecting funds from police departments to other parts of society that help people like housing, education, and communities.”
Nah, I'm talking about taking away all their funding. If an organization is a criminal racketeering organization, you don't get to pretend like you're just funding the good half.
In theory that sounds good, but I think in practice it would fail. The vacuum would just be filled by some other nefarious and violent group.
I like the idea of police having to have personal insurance. If they screw up enough, they lose their insurance and thus cannot afford to still engage in policing. Add to that outside oversight to their affairs (internal affair investigation is just prone to corruption) and let their unions only fight for working conditions, wages and benefits instead of being a lobby to keep bad cops.
Another example of how the marketing is lousy. Some people strenuously say "No, it doesn't mean remove all funding entirely, that would be insane, how dare you interpret it that way?" and others say, "That's exactly what we mean."
> When people talk about defunding the police, they don't mean not having officers investigate crime, or pull over speeders and drunk drivers. They mean taking away money from police who use force and threat of arrest against people described in this article.
False. Some people literally want to abolish the police.
I've been hard pressed to find anyone who honestly believes there should be zero consequences for violating laws or generally acting in an anti-social manner.
What I find a lot is folks who believe the entire judicial system, police, prison, courts, and laws, is basically broken and the whole thing should be torn down, to be replaced with something that has the same core mission (that is, enforce adherence to a set of rules/mores that generate a stable, safe, productive society), but doesn't have the centuries of problematic culture baked in.
It is an abolition movement, not because folks don't want consequences for their actions, but because the police state does not appear to have a stable, safe, and productive society as its core goal.
> It is an abolition movement, not because folks don't want consequences for their actions, but because the police state does not appear to have a stable, safe, and productive society as its core goal.
Have you spoken to any minorities? As an Asian immigrant, I feel much safer with more police and will support more funding for police.
As a democracy, we should listen to what people want (acting otherwise is fascist).
> The share of adults who say spending on policing in their area should be increased now stands at 47%, up from 31% in June 2020. That includes 21% who say funding for their local police should be increased a lot, up from 11% who said this last summer.
The police are not perfect but the hard data and critical thinking doesn't support the assertion that we have a police state.
As someone who emigrated from an actual police state to the US, please travel to a real police state and then compare it to the system we have here.
> I've been hard pressed to find anyone who honestly believes there should be zero consequences for violating laws or generally acting in an anti-social manner.
Really? There are huge swathes of population that thinks that way.
“I don’t care, I’m not leaving until you get me on my flight.”
Now what?
You’re making the flawed assumption that you’re dealing with reasonable people who will simply obey whatever someone without legal authority says (and even then, they’ll argue with the cops).
But why should the passengers leave? If southwest accepts your money and says board at gate #3, shouldn't they have a staff at gate #3 to handle those passengers?
Being a pain in the ass for the airline seems fair. You wan't the airline to have a same interest in getting you to your destination as you do. Instead of saying "leave the secure area, walk for half an hour, get in line with everyone else that's flying today, and then have fun going through security for the 2nd time".
The idea the gate staff shouldn't manage the the customers sent to the gate seems insane to me.
Because having a huge traffic jam of people crammed into the limited capacity of the secure side cannot possibly improve the situation, and is in fact likely to make it worse (e.g., when the overflow starts interfering with passengers for other airlines)?
> Being a pain in the ass for the airline seems fair.
Southwest is far from the only airline flying out of that airport. Even if you look at their terminal alone, there are three outer airlines flying out of there.
Southwest told the people to leave, and then called the (airport) police to clear them out.
I mean, there were no options here for the officers. They asked people to leave. They said "No", so they offered them the next option which was arrest for trespassing. The one officer even followed up to clarify with the passenger that her ticket was canceled and that she needed to leave.
It was a lousy situation all around, and it mostly falls upon Southwest.
agree, not a police problem. not really a southwest problem either. "Go to the main ticket counter for information" is a reasonable request. Nobody was losing anything by leaving the secure gate area - no planes, no chance of flying that day. why not just do what was requested? You're not magically getting a flight because you bully some gate agent who didn't cause this mess.
If you really feel like SWA, or the police, did you wrong, get an attorney and take it up with them in court. an airport gate is not the place make your stand.
> The statement said that Southwest personnel had contacted the airport’s operations center and asked that a police officer be dispatched to “escort passengers” to those ticket counters.
Doesn't southwest have their own personnel for this? Is asking the police to do your job an abuse of public resources?
No, Southwest does not have personnel to escort passengers through the airport. Certainly not passengers who don't want to be escorted (as is strongly implied by the headline, or the brief snippet of article before the paywall). Even for unattended minors, Southwest only escorts on and off the plane, not through airports to connecting flights.
So people should be allowed to stay on the secured side of airport? And not be escorted out from there? At least this was by police so state actor and not by private security.
To me this seems pretty reasonable way to avoid any unwanted trouble.
1. don't work for you or your interests. They work for and to protect the interests of the owners of capital, in this case the airlines;
2. have no obligation to know the law they're enforcing; and
3. have no obligation to protect you.
US police are incredibly overpaid, under-educated, largely unaccountable (thanks to qualified immunity), are more interested in seizing assets than solving any crime and are armed like a military without being trained like one.
Not knowing, not caring about and lying about the laws they are enforcing is routine. Excessive violence is routine. Selective enforcement is routine.
"Defund hte police" is a bad name for stopping the police being an unaccountable paramilitary group of thugs for moneyed interests.
59 comments
[ 5.7 ms ] story [ 122 ms ] threadHe has clearly lost sight of who he works for.
Oh, and what a surprise, all of the people he is threatening are people of color.
Not to serve the whims of Southwest Airlines. Things often play out more like this, though, where they serve whatever entity appears to be the most powerful.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of American/capitalist society and of history. The police exist explicitly to protect businesses and have no obligation to the public. They were founded explicitly to protect businesses and the wealthy.
https://sites.uab.edu/humanrights/2021/12/08/the-history-of-...
https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-y...
See: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-po...
You are right, what a bummer. I appreciate the correction, though.
Justice, liberty, and freedom for all.. also just a toothless slogan?
Trespassing laws are used to keep privately owned space free if people who interfere with conducting business operations. People mindlessly crowding the gate without a ticket, expecting some magic plane to show up and take them to their destination, are doing just that.
There are desks inside the secure area to rebook or find flights, and something tells me if these passengers simply queued up there to figure out next steps, the airline would not have called security/law enforcement. There is the argument that people won’t interfere with business operations if you didn’t cancel their flights, too. This whole situation was totally avoidable but I think we’re getting in to Captain Hindsight territory here.
0. https://www.southwest.com/help/changes-and-cancellations/ove...
If the weather changes such that the maximum weight is reduced, or the plane needs to be replaced and only a smaller plane is available (Southwest flies three 737 variants, one which has quite a few less seats), or a seat is broken and can't be fixed without a greater disruption, they don't really have another option than bumping passengers or always leaving many seats unsold.
We the people could push for laws preventing overbooking or providing better redress for missed transportation. However expect availability to decrease and prices to increase in response.
This was an issue of communication and how to work with people of your own community. There were no criminals here. There was no threat of violence. There was just an airport gate which was being severely inconvenienced by Southwest's major screwup.
If the police can't see the difference, what's the point of paying them to do their jobs.
Source: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/aoc-defund-the-po...
>“In many cases,” she added, “it means redirecting funds from police departments to other parts of society that help people like housing, education, and communities.”
Just like the person you're responding to said.
I like the idea of police having to have personal insurance. If they screw up enough, they lose their insurance and thus cannot afford to still engage in policing. Add to that outside oversight to their affairs (internal affair investigation is just prone to corruption) and let their unions only fight for working conditions, wages and benefits instead of being a lobby to keep bad cops.
2. Fire all or most police officers and administrators and rehire based on different criteria
3. De-escalation training and zero tolerance for escalation
4. Stop protecting killer cops. Get rid of qualified immunity and every cop needs insurance coverage.
False. Some people literally want to abolish the police.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...
What I find a lot is folks who believe the entire judicial system, police, prison, courts, and laws, is basically broken and the whole thing should be torn down, to be replaced with something that has the same core mission (that is, enforce adherence to a set of rules/mores that generate a stable, safe, productive society), but doesn't have the centuries of problematic culture baked in.
It is an abolition movement, not because folks don't want consequences for their actions, but because the police state does not appear to have a stable, safe, and productive society as its core goal.
Have you spoken to any minorities? As an Asian immigrant, I feel much safer with more police and will support more funding for police.
As a democracy, we should listen to what people want (acting otherwise is fascist).
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/10/26/growing-sha...
> The share of adults who say spending on policing in their area should be increased now stands at 47%, up from 31% in June 2020. That includes 21% who say funding for their local police should be increased a lot, up from 11% who said this last summer.
The police are not perfect but the hard data and critical thinking doesn't support the assertion that we have a police state.
As someone who emigrated from an actual police state to the US, please travel to a real police state and then compare it to the system we have here.
> I've been hard pressed to find anyone who honestly believes there should be zero consequences for violating laws or generally acting in an anti-social manner.
Really? There are huge swathes of population that thinks that way.
“You need to leave.”
“No.”
Now what?
Sure things happen, but shouldn't the airline figure out what to do with you before saying "get out of the secure area"
Now what?
You’re making the flawed assumption that you’re dealing with reasonable people who will simply obey whatever someone without legal authority says (and even then, they’ll argue with the cops).
Being a pain in the ass for the airline seems fair. You wan't the airline to have a same interest in getting you to your destination as you do. Instead of saying "leave the secure area, walk for half an hour, get in line with everyone else that's flying today, and then have fun going through security for the 2nd time".
The idea the gate staff shouldn't manage the the customers sent to the gate seems insane to me.
Because having a huge traffic jam of people crammed into the limited capacity of the secure side cannot possibly improve the situation, and is in fact likely to make it worse (e.g., when the overflow starts interfering with passengers for other airlines)?
> Being a pain in the ass for the airline seems fair.
Southwest is far from the only airline flying out of that airport. Even if you look at their terminal alone, there are three outer airlines flying out of there.
Southwest told the people to leave, and then called the (airport) police to clear them out.
I mean, there were no options here for the officers. They asked people to leave. They said "No", so they offered them the next option which was arrest for trespassing. The one officer even followed up to clarify with the passenger that her ticket was canceled and that she needed to leave.
It was a lousy situation all around, and it mostly falls upon Southwest.
The police were not the "bad guys" here.
If you really feel like SWA, or the police, did you wrong, get an attorney and take it up with them in court. an airport gate is not the place make your stand.
Some airports have significantly different services airside vs landside - food, seating, etc.
Standby might be significantly easier from the airside - you can wander over to the gate vs getting a new boarding pass.
Doesn't southwest have their own personnel for this? Is asking the police to do your job an abuse of public resources?
To me this seems pretty reasonable way to avoid any unwanted trouble.
1. don't work for you or your interests. They work for and to protect the interests of the owners of capital, in this case the airlines;
2. have no obligation to know the law they're enforcing; and
3. have no obligation to protect you.
US police are incredibly overpaid, under-educated, largely unaccountable (thanks to qualified immunity), are more interested in seizing assets than solving any crime and are armed like a military without being trained like one.
Not knowing, not caring about and lying about the laws they are enforcing is routine. Excessive violence is routine. Selective enforcement is routine.
"Defund hte police" is a bad name for stopping the police being an unaccountable paramilitary group of thugs for moneyed interests.
This article about police abuse of power works equally well without telling me anybody’s skin color