I'm not really clear on what you think he's responsible for, and in what sense.
he's partially responsible for what happened after he refused to leave even under the threat of physical removal from the police.
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.
I believe someone gave up their seat so he could get back on the flight. I agree it looks horrible for UNITED from a PR perspective and I'm sure he can get a large settlement but I doubt it would be due to any legal precedent it would be hush money
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.
He's partially to blame for the physical act of him being removed because he refused to leave unless he was physically removed.. he forced that confrontation.
I think it would be bad if anyone and everyone on a plane took the attitude" I don't have to listen to you and your directives unless I want to." Its an insane position to take..to try and massage it down to well ,"only ignore the commands that I don't like but I'll listen to the ones I do like"..no ..just no.
IF they say turn off your iPad and stow it till the cabin says you can use it, its an order not a discussion, if you refuse they will stop the take off and kick you off the flight and rightly so. Do what your told on a plane by the crew. To me this falls under the same thing..object, state your case,but when they've made their decision you must comply.
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.
I don't think he harmed anyone else..i think he's partially to blame for the fact he got harmed resisting the officers.I think he obviously wasn't concerned for anyone else's urgancy other then his own. I'm not defending United for creating this shit show of a situation , just their right to have passengers removed when its deemed necessary within their legal operating procedures.
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 have shown up to a restaurant and then told to go eat elsewhere tonight but here's a voucher for three free meals later. 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.
Well they offered everyone a free night at a hotel and 800 bucks and no one bit. I agree it would be better if they offered more till someone did agree,but in that situation I"m not sure anyone was authorized to offer more and they needed to resolve the issue.
Also you're still really unclear on exactly what it means that it's "on you" that security got called.
He was told he had to leave and that if he didn't security would escort him off the plane.
Its on him that he chose to say I don't care you'll have to physically remove me.. so they did.