He's partially responsible for that outcome. To absolve him of all personal responsibility for those actions is insane.
I'm not really clear on what you think he's responsible
for, and in what sense.
First, it's worth looking at how this all worked out. He was eventually let back onto the plane, and it's not clear if he would have been allowed on the flight if he had gotten off when asked. It seems unlikely. I don't have a great idea of how this is going to unfold legally but you've got to figure that he's likely to get a big settlement. And of course United comes out of this looking
awful. So I find it pretty plausible that he made a reasonable and rational choice - this was quite possibly the best outcome he could have hoped for given his options.
Further, it doesn't appear that anybody else was hurt, except for the flight being delayed. It is not clear that a significant number of people
blame him for the delay, and if all that's being claimed is that the doctor is part of what caused the flight to be delayed, well, who gives a shit? I mean, yes, if he had acted differently probably the flight would not have been (as) delayed. But unless he's to
blame for the flight being delayed this just isn't interesting. There are lots of ways that people's lives would be better if other people acted differently, but it doesn't follow that those other people have a duty to act differently.
And I'm not sure what the argument is that he's partly to blame for this. I've seen you say that the airline has a (legal) right to kick him off, but of course that doesn't get you to moral blame. You've expressed the sentiment that it would be bad if everyone acted like this so that United had to change its policy, but... why? You've also seemed to grant that United's policy is bad and should be changed, so this seems like a clear win. Why is he a bad example for the children? Concretely.
Ultimately I really have no idea who you think this guy has wrongfully harmed, if it's not United who you claim to not be defending, because at every step you seem to be granting that everyone except United probably comes out of this a winner
unless we do what you want and try to shield United from moral and legal blame as a result of this.
Well if its a private business and they ask me to leave for now, so they wouldn't have to shut down the restaurant for being in violation of the fire code for example, and they offered to pay for a movie while I wait and gave me a voucher for 3 free meals. That they were sorry but a mistake had been made and there was no other choice.
I would leave.
If I refused and they called security to remove me..that would be on me.
i probably wouldn't support their business anymore and I would tell everyone I know how horrible the experience was.. hell if they chose me in such away as to seem bigoted or racially motivated I might even try to press charges or sue, but I wouldn't refuse to leave.
This analogy doesn't help. The reasonableness of the request that the person leave and the value of the compensation offered are absolutely central to how justified refusing to leave is. Most people would be pretty happy to show up to a restaurant and then get told to go eat elsewhere tonight but here's a voucher for three free meals later. It is hard to conceive of the restaurant actually needing to forcibly remove someone in this situation because they can't find volunteers, and it is hard to conceive of the restaurant then actually forcibly removing someone instead of just increasing the offer. You can't ignore that it is immediately obvious to everyone else that United could have just tried offering more compensation until someone bit. Maybe there is an amount of compensation where if nobody's taking it you can say that United can't reasonably be expected to offer more and is justified in resorting to kicking people off by lottery, but surely this is well above $800. Edit: And, I mean, in real life of course the restaurant is more likely to go straight to the most recently-seated table and ask them to wait five minutes longer but get a free appetizer - they're not going to let it get to the point where they have to go find someone in the middle of eating their meal to eject.
Also you're still really unclear on exactly what it means that it's "on you" that security got called.
