He is evidently of the opinion he did!
If the captain had been "cool" and simply flown on to Chicago wouldn't that have forestalled such a situation?
So
if there was virtual mutiny or complete disregard for the authority of the Captain, you are suggesting henceforth the Captain shuts up and just carries on, in all situations?
He was the one on the ground, so to speak, and felt that dealing strongly with the situation was the best option.
Airlines have been turning a blind eye to this sort of situation developing amongst certain characters, and the captain's authority being significantly diminished. They had a responsibility to deal with it and they left it to the crews to handle as best they could. As a result, the CRM situation has at times developed into an ugly situation. This guy was left with the result. You can't make him captain, leave him totally responsible for everything to do with the flight, then start taking his authority away, brick by brick. He was well experienced, knew what he was doing, and presumably handling the situation the way he felt it needed handling. He got no patience from most of you here! But I assume there is a point to be made- the captain is responsible for the flight, only the captain is boss. When someone else starts disrespecting that authority, then it's time to hand the keys back and say 'you fly it then'. I suspect ALPA will be giving him full support. But how this has gone from being the actions of someone 'mental' (to some of you) to possibly having a justifiable basis. Nobody was exposed to any danger, the delay was insignificant. The situation was handled. It's up to United.