I see it as a mix of a lack protection of the state against unfair contract terms and private organisations enforcing their contracts rather than using public servants.
I’m assuming the captain believed the potential passenger would be disruptive (which he clearly was).
It looks like private security who were masquerading as police were physically removing a peaceful protester. That puts the blame on them for how it happened, but the airline was within its rights to refuse to fly the passenger who broke their contract.
A better option would have been for the captain to refuse to fly (claim a technical issue or out of hours) thus deplane the entire plane, and sue the passenger for the disruption as he breached the contract.
The entire flow was terrible - they should have deplaned the entire plane then reboarded, denying passengers boarding at that point - just like they would if it turned out the seats were dangerous for example. After the peaceful protest began they should have cancelled the flight. They went this way because of operational convenience (save 30 minutes), and thus risked a peaceful protest that they couldn’t handle without costing them even more (cancelling the flight). At that point they chose to ask private security to remove the protesters and that security failed to do so safely, and there’s the potential lawsuit (not that US police are much better at conflict resolution)
I don’t see any way that passenger was going to fly that day though, if the pilot decides he doesn’t want you on the plane, you’re not going anywhere, at best you can sue for breach of contract and then argue the contract terms that presumably restrict damages are unlawful, but that doesn’t happen on the plane.
While in the plane, the rules change (and CHANGE A LOT). Refusing to fly is actually possible... On condition of removal of the passenger involved (if you claim false reason, that's perjuring yourself for no good reason). And the captain has full right to deny flight to specific passenger.
I’m assuming the captain believed the potential passenger would be disruptive (which he clearly was).
It looks like private security who were masquerading as police were physically removing a peaceful protester. That puts the blame on them for how it happened, but the airline was within its rights to refuse to fly the passenger who broke their contract.
A better option would have been for the captain to refuse to fly (claim a technical issue or out of hours) thus deplane the entire plane, and sue the passenger for the disruption as he breached the contract.
The entire flow was terrible - they should have deplaned the entire plane then reboarded, denying passengers boarding at that point - just like they would if it turned out the seats were dangerous for example. After the peaceful protest began they should have cancelled the flight. They went this way because of operational convenience (save 30 minutes), and thus risked a peaceful protest that they couldn’t handle without costing them even more (cancelling the flight). At that point they chose to ask private security to remove the protesters and that security failed to do so safely, and there’s the potential lawsuit (not that US police are much better at conflict resolution)
I don’t see any way that passenger was going to fly that day though, if the pilot decides he doesn’t want you on the plane, you’re not going anywhere, at best you can sue for breach of contract and then argue the contract terms that presumably restrict damages are unlawful, but that doesn’t happen on the plane.