I understand where you are coming from, and normally I take the side of defending someone's personal rights. But the airline is a business, with a dress code. I didn't see what the guy was wearing, so my judgement of his attire that day is irrelevant (just like yours). But the employee who spotted him did make a judgment call. This situation however was not limited to that, as it ended in him 'resisting arrest', so clearly more than one person agreed the situation needed to be addressed. In other words, it wasn't just one guy who decided he didnt like the way this guy looks so he decided to pick on him.
2nd, in the wake of all the controversy over the underwear bomber and shoe bomber, everyone knows airport security is on high alert in terms of what people are wearing. Yet another cue the defendant should have considered, and simply complied with security's wishes.
No where in the constitution does it say 'no shirt, no shoes, no service'... yet that's a legally and morally acceptable law in our society.
I just reread the article, I agree both sides probably could have handled the situation better, but ultimately the airline and security have the authority there, not some guy who thinks he's being picked on. I do feel bad for the defendant though, considering he was apparently in an upset mood because he'd just attended the funeral of a friend. Sad, but still not justification for causing such a ruckus over his choice to dress a certain way.
The part of this story that really bothers me is, look at the defendant's mother's comment. She claims he was singled out "because of the way he looks - young black man with dreads and baggy pants". When a parent teaches their child that ANY infringement on their personal rights is a sign of racial prejudice, you are simply setting your child up for a lifetime of feeling he is being racially targetted whenever things dont go his way. Its no wonder the guy had the non-compliance attitude that landed him in jail. To suggest this would not have happened if the defendant would have been white is to completely remove all responsibility from the defendant, which I think we both agree is blatantly wrong.
The man was arrested. So if any unfair prejudice DID occur, he will have his day in court to explain that, and ample opportunity to sue.
