Originally Posted by
grizzled
West Coast,
Your posts neatly summarize what is so problematic with the concept of "acceptable behavior" in the USA today. For police, and perhaps other agents of government, it means violence is an accepted and even expected response to a citizen exercising his / her rights. This person wasn't simply on the premises of the business, he paid for that very specific right at the specific time and was then provided a specific seat -- in return for the money he paid. To suggest that any action by the carrier to rescind that agreement is lawful simply because it's their property is incorrect. Imagine if you will a World Series baseball game, or perhaps a football championship game, where you are told to get out of your seat and out of the stadium because "we sold too many tickets". According to your reasoning, the people involved should simply say "OK, I'll go." You are wrong to suggest that a business that has charged for a service has unfettered rights to use whatever method or tactic available - including police -- to resolve a problem that is entirely of their own making.
More importantly, for you to suggest that quiet acquiescence is the proper response to unfair action by authorities shows how far the USA has drifted from its core founding principles. I wonder what the Founding Fathers, or the folks in Boston Harbor in 1773, would think. Perhaps you should find a quiet spot and read some Thoreau...