jkhirsch

Basic Member
  • Content count

    394
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

jkhirsch last won the day on April 12

jkhirsch had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

161 Excellent

About jkhirsch

  • Rank
    Lives Here

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Reg #
    N9664M
  • Model
    M20F

Recent Profile Visitors

972 profile views
  1. I'll say it...Andrew's paint scheme is better
  2. Hypocrisy sure is a shame. For those of you Clint Eastwood fans--my favorite summation of current society is contained herein:http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/a46893/double-trouble-clint-and-scott-eastwood/
  3. I truly hope some part of that is sarcasm.
  4. I happened upon the Rants and Raves topics (poll and original) last night, somewhat oblivious to the existence of them due to the waxing and waning of my participation in the site. I notice that many people's words and actions are not in congruence, which is disappointing to see. However it is easy to empathize with based on my own internet participation. I have long advocated for a private section of the site that is completely invisible to public or unregistered users, whose search indexing is disabled so that google does not cache it, and requires an extra effort for registered users who want to participate in to be a part of. The technical term for this in the past was "sub-forum" and it's own permissions could be designated. I will restate the same point that I made before: when you bring people together with a common interest it is simply an extension of human nature for them to explore other similarities or differences that they may have. I do my best to avoid any mudslinging and only share different perspectives, or factual information. I cannot say that my nose is completely clean but I have always followed this rule in corporate and personal communications, 'Imagine anything you say being read in front of everyone you know, and also being published in the newspaper.' While I have the utmost disregard to individual sensitivities commonplace in today's society it would be completely reckless to ignore "the optics" of every situation we encounter in this day and age. I was always taught that being nice will get you much further than being nasty and try my best to follow that doctrine, but sometimes we do come to the end of our ropes and all of us being human I choose and actively try not to condemn people for it. We have a common bond that brings us together, and in some ways binds us to each other, and I don't believe that occasional misgivings should drive us apart.
  5. It's a fine line that we trace, we cannot assume that each of us share our own intentions.
  6. There are multiple legal issues in play here, but the possibly 'first in the timeline' issue of United's breach of contract seems to be pretty straightforward to me. I would argue that United had no right under their contract to ask him to leave the plane in the first place, whether it was nicely or not is purely related to the optics. That opens the big door of: We have an impasse. What is the resolution and who is tasked with resolving it and how will they handle it? I'm not on any type of factual high horse about the way he was removed, but I think the people engaged in his removal had to be pretty dense to not understand the optics of what it looks like to see a passenger literally dragged off of an airplane. The end of the legal essay by Jens David Ohlin speaks well to your point: "Say you hire a painter to paint the inside of your house. You refuse to pay and so the painter says, ā€œIā€™m not leaving until you pay me.ā€ When the painter refuses to leave, you call the police and ask them to remove him because he is trespassing. The proper resolution is that the painter must leave but can sue you for breach of contract." It may be possible that the passenger in question was attempting to create additional legal issues (torts) by forcing someone to remove him from the airplane with force. That is where the grey area and discussion really begins!
  7. It's not a news article, it's a legal essay discussing the issues of the case originally posted here http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/04/united-airlines-own-contract-denied-it.html written by Jens David Ohlin is associate dean for academic affairs and professor of law at Cornell Law School. Reposted by newsweek.
  8. This is very much different than your original post: "This pax was disruptive and belligerent. They didn't want him on their airplane." That statement implies that they were invoking some right to remove him because he was disruptive and belligerent, which is simply wrong and the real reason has been substantiated by many different source, including the CEO of United himself. Fact: He was removed from the plane because United wanted 4 of their employees to ride on that plane to Louisville. Lie: United wanted to remove him from the plane because he was "disruptive and belligerent."
  9. Here is an excellent article written by Jens David Ohlin is associate dean for academic affairs and professor of law at Cornell Law School. http://www.newsweek.com/why-united-were-legally-wrong-deplane-dr-dao-583535
  10. Jens David Ohlin is associate dean for academic affairs and professor of law at Cornell Law School. Author of this newsweek article: http://www.newsweek.com/why-united-were-legally-wrong-deplane-dr-dao-583535: I'll quote my own post for you: From http://www.newsweek.com/why-united-were-legally-wrong-deplane-dr-dao-583535: "Although this depends on the facts, news reports suggest that Dao was not upset, and was minding his own business until he was told that he was being involuntarily removed and he was dragged kicking and screaming from the aircraft. His being upset was caused by the breach by United Airlines of its contractual duties towards him as a passenger, rather than the reverse." The information contained within your post only further supports the notion that he acted undesirably towards the United employees only after United notified him of their intent to improperly breach their contract.
  11. I'm about halfway through this article and it seems to be worth reading: http://www.newsweek.com/why-united-were-legally-wrong-deplane-dr-dao-583535 Cite a valid source for this accusation? From http://www.newsweek.com/why-united-were-legally-wrong-deplane-dr-dao-583535: Although this depends on the facts, news reports suggest that Dao was not upset, and was minding his own business until he was told that he was being involuntarily removed and he was dragged kicking and screaming from the aircraft. His being upset was caused by the breach by United Airlines of its contractual duties towards him as a passenger, rather than the reverse.
  12. That's an incredibly vast oversimplification to the point of not being relevant to this discussion, two parties mutually assented to a contract which entitled the party to be on-board the aircraft during the time at which he was on-board the aircraft. That interaction is therefore governed by the rules spelled out in that contract, any breach of the contract is governed the the statutes in which the contract is founded.
  13. To be clear, Sean Spicer did not compare a Mooney Rocket to Hitler and the prices continue to rise.
  14. I do not envy police officers' duties in today's society. I think as a society we need an entirely new philosophy on policing. I think "Americans" have lost their sense of community, vis-a-vis the internet "look at me" revolution, and it hurts all of society.