Air Marshal shoots and kills suspect

Page 2 of 4 [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Ladysmokeater
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,048
Location: North of Atlanta, South of Boston, East of the Mississippi, and West of the Atlantic

08 Dec 2005, 6:41 am

in a situation where a person is in a populated public area and they appear to be a threat (pointing a gun at people, screaming they have a bomb, swinging a bat at peoples heads, etc) they have to be stopped. If that means shooting ot kill. So be it. Did you know that ALL over the airports there are signs that state that if you attempt to interfere with air travel, air traffic control, tresspass on sensitive areas, etc they can take action that"can result in the loss of human life"? Those signs are there people. I pass them every day into work. They are there. If you ran screaming that in a courthouse, you'd get capped there too, and rightly so.

And lets say, for the sake of argument, that the guy DID have a bomb and DID detonate it in the terminal..... Oh then it would have been "Where are the air marshals? Why didnt SOMEONE do SOMETHING?!?!"

What if it had been an off duty officer in a school yard that capped an idiot claiming to have a bomb and showing out? Would we still be crying foul?

People have to understand that IN this post 9/11 world, the rules have changed. Not especally for the good, mind you, but they have changed. we can not go back to being the nieive evertrusting society that we were. Running through the airport yelling that you have an explosive device is the same as pointing a gun at an officer: It it looks real they shoot, they arent going to take any chances that the device is real or fake. When a weapon is brandished about, (and screaming that you have a bomb is the same thing as the "gun in the jacket pocket") especally one that could have the potential to kill and maim hundreds of people, Law enforcement officals do not have the time to think "is it or is it not real....hummmmmm" they have to act on the training they have and the information they have at hand. if the guy was THAT mentally unstable, then he shouldnt have been on the plane. If you have showing signs of instibility in flight, the aircraft has the legal right to divert to another airport and have you removed and arrested. That includes obnoxious behavior, disordly conduct, assault, drunkenness, etc. THAT was in place BEFORE 9-11.

As far as a dart gun goes. As nice as that sounds, those are impossible to use in such situations. First, in the time it would take to swap weapons, the potential act of violence would have already been comitted. (try switching guns some time, not easy) Second the liability nightmare would rival the tazer guns (which were supposed to replace bullets...uh huh.....right). Drug interactions, allergies, and injuries due to falling in a drug induced stupor are just hte tip of that iceberg. Although, in theroy, a good alternitive, on the street, its not plausible. Ask any officer.

We can sit in our safe little places, what ever they may be, and say how wrong it seems. but the fact is, we can not, CAN NOT adopt a "wait and see if its real" attidude with things of that nature. Folks, its not just terrorists. its the average everyday nut that decides to take out a city block when they off them selves too that we have to protect against.



Remnant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2005
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,750

08 Dec 2005, 7:16 am

I do not accept "post-911 rules" for more than one reason. One single incident that caused less loss of life than three days of tobacco in the US is being used as an excuse to turn our law enforcement people into mentally unstable and unreliable killing machines. Much worse things have been done to us in the past and we haven't acted like that. Oh, did they get to us on our soil? Us poor babies. About the only people we haven't done that to ourselves is Canada. This garbage I see now has a lot more to do with protecting an illusion of invulnerability than with doing anything practical. I flat reject the statement that the man killed himself. A federal marshall held the gun and pulled the trigger. If the federal marshal did that, it is as good as if he held the gun and pulled the trigger.

And the excuse that they "do not have time to think" is just horrible.

I will not use an airplane under such circumstances. No citizen should. Either demand that they stop this garbage or stop using the airlines.



Ladysmokeater
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,048
Location: North of Atlanta, South of Boston, East of the Mississippi, and West of the Atlantic

08 Dec 2005, 7:44 am

One day as an peace officer, firefighter, or EMT and you might change your story. I have been shot at. I have been threated with a gun, and I DONT CARRY ONE! IM A FIREFIGHER, yet I have been in places where we had to have POLICE back up because people were shooting at us. Man we're the good guys. But here is the deal, Diving under the firetruck to keep from being shot, or taking shrapnel from a possible bomb isnt always an option. A bullet travles at something like 2000 feet per second. Can you move out of the way quick enough? I can empty a full clip in a 9mm in less time than it takes for you to see what I have and say "OH S*&T! Its a GUN!!". Your brain might not even have time to recognise a bomb before a person detonates it. Yea its that fast.
All I have to say is "Lock and Load". They ought to give that Air Marshal a medal for reacting so swiftly. She could not have known the man did not have a bomb. He said he had one, was running into a populated public area... She acted on the information she had at hand, and on the training she had recieved.



Larval
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,037

08 Dec 2005, 7:20 pm

Ladysmokeater wrote:
in a situation where a person is in a populated public area and they appear to be a threat (pointing a gun at people, screaming they have a bomb, swinging a bat at peoples heads, etc) they have to be stopped. If that means shooting ot kill. So be it. Did you know that ALL over the airports there are signs that state that if you attempt to interfere with air travel, air traffic control, tresspass on sensitive areas, etc they can take action that"can result in the loss of human life"? Those signs are there people. I pass them every day into work. They are there. If you ran screaming that in a courthouse, you'd get capped there too, and rightly so.


I agree, though I don't see anything inherently special about those places (except air, but thats only due to higher risk)

Quote:
People have to understand that IN this post 9/11 world, the rules have changed. Not especally for the good, mind you, but they have changed. we can not go back to being the nieive evertrusting society that we were. Running through the airport yelling that you have an explosive device is the same as pointing a gun at an officer: It it looks real they shoot, they arent going to take any chances that the device is real or fake. When a weapon is brandished about, (and screaming that you have a bomb is the same thing as the "gun in the jacket pocket") especally one that could have the potential to kill and maim hundreds of people, Law enforcement officals do not have the time to think "is it or is it not real....hummmmmm" they have to act on the training they have and the information they have at hand. if the guy was THAT mentally unstable, then he shouldnt have been on the plane. If you have showing signs of instibility in flight, the aircraft has the legal right to divert to another airport and have you removed and arrested. That includes obnoxious behavior, disordly conduct, assault, drunkenness, etc. THAT was in place BEFORE 9-11.


This was always true. 9/11 just woke people up to the need.

I also agree that not all the changes have been for the good.

Quote:
As far as a dart gun goes. As nice as that sounds, those are impossible to use in such situations. First, in the time it would take to swap weapons, the potential act of violence would have already been comitted. (try switching guns some time, not easy) Second the liability nightmare would rival the tazer guns (which were supposed to replace bullets...uh huh.....right). Drug interactions, allergies, and injuries due to falling in a drug induced stupor are just hte tip of that iceberg. Although, in theroy, a good alternitive, on the street, its not plausible. Ask any officer.


Not familiar with tasers, so no comment there.

Liability issues from wrongful death will cost a great deal more than falls, though. So would injuries from gun shot wounds.

Switching from darts to bullets need not be hard or slow. There are ways to handle this.

As for allergies and etc: I admit that the solution is not perfect. But it is a hell of a lot safer for everybody than guns.

It's the 21st century, and the cops are still using metal slugs? We have nothing better? Give me a break....

Quote:
We can sit in our safe little places, what ever they may be, and say how wrong it seems. but the fact is, we can not, CAN NOT adopt a "wait and see if its real" attidude with things of that nature. Folks, its not just terrorists. its the average everyday nut that decides to take out a city block when they off them selves too that we have to protect against.


Agreed. But we also must not forget our principles.



Sean
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,505

09 Dec 2005, 2:21 am

Larval wrote:
Not familiar with tasers, so no comment there.

Liability issues from wrongful death will cost a great deal more than falls, though. So would injuries from gun shot wounds.

Switching from darts to bullets need not be hard or slow. There are ways to handle this.

As for allergies and etc: I admit that the solution is not perfect. But it is a hell of a lot safer for everybody than guns.

It's the 21st century, and the cops are still using metal slugs? We have nothing better? Give me a break....

1) Learn thechnical specifications before you start bitching about guns, which are the reliable time tested method of stopping someone in a hurry.

2) Liability from wrongful death was legislated away years ago for a clean shoot, because there is nothing wrongful about killing someone like that.

3) Switching from guns to darts may not be slow, but darts are risky because they woud be easier to dodge, lack the penetrating power, and whatever is in it might not work fast enough to stop a terrorist from carrying out their mission.

4) Exactly who would a tazer or dart gun be safer for? Would you really want that much electricity around the high explosives a suicide bomber would be carrying? If you were at an airport and security had to stop a suicide bomber with a dart, would you rather security shot him and be done with it or use some gay little dart thing and risk giving him the time to detonate his vest?

5) There is a better option than metal slugs. FN Arms now makes an armor piercing nylon one that breaks apart and takes out multiple organs, but rarely leaves an exit wound so some counterterrorist teams use it for hostage situations and urban assault to avoid taking anyone out anyone they weren't aiming for. The Air Marshalls have thorough training in place that has just been proven to work, so all of this is trivial.



Laz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,540
Location: Dave's Toilet

09 Dec 2005, 5:39 am

Should of waited till april 1st to pull that joke off.

Price you pay for being an impatient comedian



eyeenteepee
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 488
Location: x

09 Dec 2005, 7:01 am

Sean wrote:
When someone is running towards a crowd screaming that they have a bomb, that is as good of probable cause to shoot somene as you can get.


You could equally argue that anyone shouting they have a bomb and running off almost certainly doesn't have a bomb. The whole point of suicide bombing is to take out as many people as possible, as dramatically as possible. Therefore there is no warning given. Otherwise you'd cause people to scatter and increase the chances of being caught or shot. Neither possibility is desirable for the bomber.

However, it is clear more people have lost their lives to terrorism than being shot under false suspicion.

On the other hand, we're all familar with the argument that starts with the line "try telling the victims of terrorism that" and the same emotive appeal could be made from the family of this guy and many others. Just phrased as "how many innocent people must die and we still seem unable to stop real attacks"...


_________________
-~ God-damn the day that I was born ~
The night that forced me from the womb ~-


Remnant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2005
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,750

09 Dec 2005, 7:24 am

A lot of people seem to have made a good case here for the dangers of thinking something through instead of responding with deadly force just in case something bad is going down.



Larval
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,037

09 Dec 2005, 9:23 am

Sean wrote:
Larval wrote:
Not familiar with tasers, so no comment there.

Liability issues from wrongful death will cost a great deal more than falls, though. So would injuries from gun shot wounds.

Switching from darts to bullets need not be hard or slow. There are ways to handle this.

As for allergies and etc: I admit that the solution is not perfect. But it is a hell of a lot safer for everybody than guns.

It's the 21st century, and the cops are still using metal slugs? We have nothing better? Give me a break....

1) Learn thechnical specifications before you start bitching about guns, which are the reliable time tested method of stopping someone in a hurry.


Killing is a time tested method of stopping someone in a hurry. But it is kinda permanent.

Quote:
2) Liability from wrongful death was legislated away years ago for a clean shoot, because there is nothing wrongful about killing someone like that.


Has it? A cop could just walk up to me and shoot me, and he wouldn't be liable for that at all? :roll:

I can believe that wrongful death liability goes away if the cop had reason to suspect danger and did it for the public safety. I don't see why this works for guns but not for other weapons.

Quote:
3) Switching from guns to darts may not be slow, but darts are risky because they woud be easier to dodge, lack the penetrating power, and whatever is in it might not work fast enough to stop a terrorist from carrying out their mission.


They may lack the penetration power, but the rest is not true. (I'm not thinking about a traditional dart gun here. I guess you could say I'm advocating the use of nonlethal bullets.)

What if the guy was wearing armor? Including a bulletproof helmet? Few bullets would have been able to penetrate that.

I concede that guns work better that darts in some situations (not that I was ever saying otherwise) but in this situation darts would have worked just as well.

Quote:
4) Exactly who would a tazer or dart gun be safer for? Would you really want that much electricity around the high explosives a suicide bomber would be carrying? If you were at an airport and security had to stop a suicide bomber with a dart, would you rather security shot him and be done with it or use some [censored] little dart thing and risk giving him the time to detonate his vest?


I'm not advocating tazers.

Dart guns would be safer for everyone involved.

Quote:
5) There is a better option than metal slugs. FN Arms now makes an armor piercing nylon one that breaks apart and takes out multiple organs, but rarely leaves an exit wound so some counterterrorist teams use it for hostage situations and urban assault to avoid taking anyone out anyone they weren't aiming for. The Air Marshalls have thorough training in place that has just been proven to work, so all of this is trivial.


That is a lot better than a metal slug, but it is still lethal. Should teams be authorized to use such weapons in a hostage situation? Yes! But against an unarmed and unarmored man yelling and screaming in an airport?



Sorce
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2005
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 567

09 Dec 2005, 3:17 pm

Remnant wrote:
I do not accept "post-911 rules" for more than one reason. One single incident that caused less loss of life than three days of tobacco in the US is being used as an excuse to turn our law enforcement people into mentally unstable and unreliable killing machines. Much worse things have been done to us in the past and we haven't acted like that. Oh, did they get to us on our soil? Us poor babies. About the only people we haven't done that to ourselves is Canada. This garbage I see now has a lot more to do with protecting an illusion of invulnerability than with doing anything practical. I flat reject the statement that the man killed himself. A federal marshall held the gun and pulled the trigger. If the federal marshal did that, it is as good as if he held the gun and pulled the trigger.

And the excuse that they "do not have time to think" is just horrible.

I will not use an airplane under such circumstances. No citizen should. Either demand that they stop this garbage or stop using the airlines.


:roll: The ignorance in your post actually scared me. This isn't Jeopardy. The marshall doesn't have until the song stops playing to make a decision. A man runs around screaming he has a bomb in his bag, ignores orders from the authorities, and then reaches into the bag. The marshall doesn't have psychic abilities. He is an imperfect human being that has the charge of keeping passengers safe during a time where there are terrorists whose main goal is to kill as many of us as they can. I'm sorry that we learned our lesson on 9-11, and took steps to bump up security at airports and on planes. The man might as well have killed himself. If you have a serious medical condition that can cause problems on the flight, you walk your butt over to airport authorities and they will work with you or maybe you don't even get on the plane. If the man or his wife had chosen to do that, the flight attendants could have been prepared for the situation, and the marshall could have had prior warning. And somday when you get on a plane, one of those 'mentally unstable and unreliable killing machines' may save your life.



Remnant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2005
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,750

09 Dec 2005, 4:03 pm

Frankly, I do not care what you think of my "ignorance." The world was a dangerous place before 9/11, and our own actions are making it a more dangerous place after 9/11.



Epimonandas
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 538
Location: Ohio

09 Dec 2005, 4:53 pm

First of all, people did and do, warn before using bombs, and yes even terrorists. Blowing up stuff w/o warning was not always the preferred tactic. Terrorists are nothing but mindless soldiers of powerful people that want more power and money. YES THAT is true now and it was true in the days of Hulagu Kahn and Omar Khayyam when the first cells of terrorist groups, known as the Hashashin appeared in the Middle East in the 11th Century, this group used the idea of the 70 virgins. They drugged recruits til they passed out from Hashish, then brought out the 70 ladies to serve their every need, after they enjoyed themselves awhile, they were drugged with hashish again and woke up before the cell leader, who would tell them to do everything he says w/o question if he ever wants to get back to heaven (they convinced them this visit w/ ladies was a trip to heaven that they had the power to show their recruits ) and the ladies. Terrorists did used to hijack planes, threaten w/ but not always use bombs, hence why the movie Airplane satirized it in the film, it happened alot.

And to the detractors of neccessary violence, that guy was in an airport, for one, if he had a bomb, how would the marshalls know how powerful it was? it might be a dirty bomb, or incindiary for all they know, or a chemical or biological weapon, which would not matter if he was several miles from people, it would still reach and kill many. There is this natural phenomenon called winds for one, that would help with that. Keeping that in mind, they could not risk something that did not GUARANTEE to stop him. Besides that, the guy was warned with guns repeatedly to stop and drop the case. He ignored them. Thus he was shot. If someone threatens me, whether or not i see a weapon, should i let him assault me or steal from me? I dont think so, tho i may not have to kill if i get the drop on said attacker, but if he has a weapon and i manage to find one too, you can bet i would use it or any means neccessary to defend myself. These are cops, NOT mindreaders, (which are not even guaranteed to be reliable anyway ). There is no way they could know he was not a threat, he boarded the planed from another country, too, its not like they had reason to doubt he could sneak something aboard. Do you know how secure Columbia's airports are? i don't. It may not matter much anyway, since its possible to have assembled it on the plane, say in the bathroom or something. THings get snuck in easier when they are in parts. Even if there had not been a 9-11 event, a threat of such magnitude can not be ignored. You are living in a make believe world of perfection, sorry guys, that world does not exist. Sure, i would love to live in such a world to, but this is reality, sh*t happens in reality by bad people that no matter how nice you are or loving, or kind, or well mannered or who you are, will still try every effort to kill or hurt you. Wake up and smell reality fellas! Its not that simple to let such people go. When that happens more people die or are put at risk.

And Remnant, it has happened before. Before the Mob, there was essentially no FBI. Dont forget the Untouchables, a gun totating warlike force in response to rampent violent mafia murders across the nation. Before the War of 1812 the U.S. did not even have a professional standing army. Are past is filled with 9-11 like changes and improvements. The Hat Squad of the '60s, resorted to tougher tactics to take on a mob rebirth period. The Coast Guard defends the coastline from drug runners, rescues storm and ship wreck survivors, and curbs mass illegal immigration and imports, the U.S. was not born with all these departments or units. They evolved and developed over time. Who can forget the terrorist Pancho Villa raiding across the border and killing Americans, when General Black Jack Pershing was sent over the border to track him down, since the Mexican Government seemed unwilling to help.
Remnant please read up on these facts before making such across the board inaccurate statements.

Have fun all, i hope i have enlightened you some. One of my motto "Don't be a willing victim"



Laz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,540
Location: Dave's Toilet

09 Dec 2005, 5:48 pm

Quote:
Terrorists are nothing but mindless soldiers of powerful people that want more power and money


Holy s**t the spanish conquistadors were terrorists :lol:

The british army are terrorists :lol:

Every colonial power in history were terrorists

Thats scary man, a damn conspiracy those al quidea guys probably have a secret orbital base like in that james bond film moonraker 8O

Quote:
Allah be praised, all your base are belong to us



Remnant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2005
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,750

09 Dec 2005, 6:58 pm

There are no guarantees in life. Those who seek guarantees become self-destructive and dangerous to others. Some of us have just decided to seek our guarantees by shooting people through the head when we think they might be doing something to us and we can't take the chance that they aren't, no matter how likely it is that they are harmless.

This is a very bad dynamic to introduce into any culture, especially "post-9/11."



Remnant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2005
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,750

10 Dec 2005, 8:02 am

Why am I not surprised by this article? It's only surprising that we found out. They talk about police holding shotguns to the heads of passengers on that plane and karate-kicking cell phones out of their hands. None of the witnesses heard anyone say anything about a bomb until the FBI persistently asked them if they did.

It turns out that there was a lot of lying about the subway shooting in London too.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/de ... cident.htm

The police who shot Jean Charles de Menezes in London may face charges:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/de ... ssible.htm

It's bad enough that people look to "post-9/11 rules" for comfort, the same kinds of rules that have so often been rightly rejected before, even in a more restrictive America like in the McCarthy era. It is just incrementally worse that not only do we have two innocent people being shot to death with these paranoid new rules, both cases also appear to involve deliberate official misconduct on the part of the law enforcement people. Why even look to law enforcement for help with this if they are screwing around?



Larval
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,037

10 Dec 2005, 7:48 pm

Egads! Scary stuff!