WRT to the United situation, it was entirely United's fault. United failed to follow the law, which doesn't give them the right to remove passengers on a flight that isn't overbooked(and that flight was not actually overbooked), even if they need to get crew to a different location. Even if the flight was overbooked, United stopped offering compensation at a level below the legally required amounts for overbooking, simply because the gate agent didn't have the authority to offer more, and apparently didn't feel like bothering management for more authority for that specific flight. United called police to resolve a civil dispute. The passenger was not breaking any law by refusing to leave(according to multiple attorneys who have commented and made reference to the relevant laws). The police should have said "this is a civil dispute, work it out", and left.

In our environment, we say no when necessary, and refer whoever is asking to the relevant governance group that controls the purse strings for that sort of thing. Anyone who implements unauthorized applications is subject to termination. That's made clear to everyone. If a business case can be made for an app, it will be acquired, tested, and a support plan developed. In large organizations, you cannot allow rogue users to buy and implement whatever they choose. The pitfalls can be huge, especially when a user does something with "open source" software that has a license that makes everything done with the application open source, including the proprietary stuff. If more companies made their policies clear, there would be less conflict and more productivity.