Lets put it another way:
(Q) Would the passenger's injuries have occurred had the passenger elected to comply with the request of the airline (whether or not lawful)?
(A) No. (Accordingly, If the passenger wanted to avoid injury, the passenger should have walked off the plane - this is logically consistent)
(Q) Once the airline called for the uniformed personnel, was there anything that could have been done by the passenger to prevent that use of force (whether or not lawful)?
(A) Yes. (Accordingly, if the passenger wanted to avoid being the subject of force, the passenger should have walked off the plane).
Neither of these state whether the passenger deserved the consequences - only that there are things that the passenger would be well advised to do to avoid that outcome (whether or not the outcome is justified).
As someone who writes for a living, I would suggest that the between could and should is that should is advice about conduct whereas could refers to capacity or ability. You "should" apply pressure and compression bandages to the snake bite. That does not, in any way, mean that you deserve to die if you do not apply the pressure or that you deserved to be bitten in the first place. It expresses a preferred cause of action in the opinion of the speaker, without the judgement any contrary decision is wrong. Choosing to die rather than apply pressure to the snake bite is not "wrong", it's just not the course of action that I would choose. It does not involve blame, as it does not impose a duty to behave in a certain way, where the actor has falls short of that duty.
The underlying issue appears to be if I says you "should" do a thing (because it's what I think is best) then failure to do that means you deserve a negative consequence. Failure to follow advice does not mean that you deserve a penalty or negative consequence. I would suggest blame requires a breach of duty, which is well beyond acting contrary to advice
I've not, at this time, heard anyone one suggest that the deserved
the injuries that he suffered, but that appears to be the strawman that is being argued against (saying it was deserved would be a fallacy). Equally, it was within the passenger's power to prevent the injury (whether or not he had any duty to do so).
To keep it on the original topic, the question is whether "blaming the victim" is a logical fallacy. I would again suggest that 'blame' requires a duty, and should does not impose a duty (as it is advisory), "must" imposes a duty. Further, demanding that one must not consider the conduct of the victim is falling foul of the just-world fallacy (i.e that it only happened because it was justified).
It is simply not logically fallacious so say that a person who refuses to comply with a lawful instruction of a flight crew is responsible for his forcible removal. It might be more complete to add "but of course he is not responsible for any excessive force used against him," and it might seem unnecessary or even unkind to say it at all to this man in light of the injuries he received and the excessive force that was used. But those things do not affect the logical validity of the statement.
I think that's well-said, we're more off into non-logical-fallacy victim blaming territory (which you avoid by the caveat you included).
Victim blaming which falls into logical fallacy might be something like:
Man is shot by cops while running away after committing a crime.
Response: "Well he shouldn't have committed that crime," or "he got what was coming to him." <---being shot while running away is not a legal nor ethical consequence for committing a crime, so these type responses fall into the logical fallacy realm of victim blaming?
While they may not be legal or ethical consequences, they are certainly foreseeable and related consequences. I suppose the issue relates to the major, unstated assumption that "foreseeable" means "deserved" (whereas I would consider it a known risk). In particular, would the shooting have occurred if they had not committed the crime? Whether or not justified, it is reasonable to foresee the risk and logical to advise (see above about could v should) against a cause of action that would expose an individual to that risk.
"He got what was coming to him" - is perhaps closer to the fallacy, as it ceases to be advisory. However, it could simply attest to the foreseeable nature of that outcome, which does not apportion blame.