Printable View
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4508432.stm
A link to this story.
Any comments on this? Personally I think that instead of killing the man they should have restrained him, but I respect what they have done as it was the only choice available in such a close situation. Good job, US Air Marshals ~:cheers: :bow:
I just saw this on the news about 5 minutes ago. I think approtiate action was taken. Also agree it was a good job by the Air Marshals.
By the looks of things the Air Marshal did what he was instructed to do, in what was probably a chaotic situation; whether that was justified or not I'm not sure, I'll wait for some more information before judging.Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC Article
From what I just heard on the radio she said he was mentally ill (bi-polar actually) but not until after he was shot. I could be wrong, it was the radio.
Sad to see someone die but it makes me feel better about our security, perhaps we are not as vulnerable as some people say?:bow:
Claimed to have a bomb, fled and was shot? Sounds like suicide by police to me.
From the info available, it doesn't seem like the cops did anything wrong.
Even if she shouted that before he was shot, I dont think it couldve or shouldve made much difference.... air marshalls would have had no way of knowing who she was or how she was involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
Not apropiatte action to me, but then again I think that no one will care anyway, people tend to believe that people are guilty before innocent so they shoot. In any case: Was there a need to shoot to kill?Quote:
Originally Posted by From the article
Soulforged - what if the man did have a bomb? Just let him get into his bag to detonate it, killing God knows how many innocent bystanders?
We've been through this before in another thread. Law enforcement officers are trained only to shoot to kill, not to shoot to wound. There are a number of reasons for this, and all of them make perfect sense. Among them: shooting somebody in the leg, for example, is not only more difficult than aiming for center of mass, but it also may not prevent them from using deadly force of their own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
The only decision the cops need to make correctly is "to shoot or not to shoot." Once the decision to shoot is made, then (and rightly so) there is no "to kill or not to kill" decision.
Not sure if word ever got as far south as you are, but a few years back we had this incident over here in the states with a few planes and uh, ever since we've tried taking this sort of thing just a little more seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
wow we really have air marshels. Good Job
I’m still waiting to hear more, but I do feel sorry for the man and his family.
Yet another victory for terrorism.
Just to take it one step further, the police are actually trained to shoot to stop. If that means the guy is killed as well, too bad. But the primary goal of any police shooting is to stop the person from continuing his actions. Whether he is wounded or killed or simply knocked out isn't important.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Sad to see someone die but it makes me feel better about our security, perhaps we are not as vulnerable as some people say?
If that were true then it would have been established during screening that no passenger had any bomb before they were allowed near the aircraft .
For the marshalls to suspect that an already screened passenger had explosives it shows that they still consider aircraft very vulnerable despite screening .
.
Why don't they adjust their phasers? :stare:
.
This sounds like an unfortunate tragedy to me. I won't criticise those marshalls - they did what they are supposed to do. Heck, what I would want them to do if I was on that airport.
The guy should've known better than to shout 'bomb!' anywhere near a plane in America. That he apparently didn't know any better, goes a long way to prove what his presumed wife said afterwards: that he is 'mentally ill and had not taken his medication'.
I can't help but feel awfully sorry for that guy. This is not how a human's life should end. In a better world he should have been in Orlando now, having some fun in Disney World with his wife.
Why don't they adjust their phasers?
Cutbacks , due to the ongoing expenditure in the mid-east the distribution of star trek weaponry to air-police has been put on the back burner until such time as they can borrow enough extra money from China to pay for the program .:bow:
It's tough for the US to screen passengers when the flight originates in a foreign country huh? :dizzy:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Huh indeed Xiahou , so tell me if you would .
Did the passenger arrive on the plane from Columbia ? No .
Would he have been screened when he left Equador ? Yes
Would he have been screened when he arrived from Equador ? Yes
Would he have been screened when he boarded the flight to Orlando? Yes .
So huh what ?
Oh and in case you didn't know the US is also involved in screening at foriegn airports for flights that are destined for the US .
A great big HUH eh .~:rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Comments like "why didnt they shoot him in the leg" always surprise me, in a high stress situation you must shoot com, there is no shoot to wound, As far as I know it isnt taught in any self defence courses in the US.
Well it seems like an unfortunate incident to me. But atleast we know security is pretty good now.
Fair enough, but your point was still very naive. There is no such thing as 100% fool proof security, thus the obvious need for layered security. No matter how effective screening could get, there is still going to be the need for air marshalls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Removed out of respect for those that have mentally ill family members. Sorry.
No , the naivete(sp?) was someone saying that it shows the US (or anywhere else) is not that vulnerable .
No matter how thorough the screening is there is always a chance that someone will get through , which is why there are air marshalls as a second level of protection .
Air transport or any other mass transit system relies on moving large numbers of people as quickly as possible , it is a fine balance reducing vulnerability to attack and allowing the transport system to function .
In this case it was a mentally instable person declaring that they had a bomb after they had been screened , what if it had been an equally but more sinister mentally unstable person who had a bomb but didn't shout about it , what use would an air marshall be if they decided to detonate without shouting about it first ?
Thank God there are people trained to take care of these situations on a moments notice and don't leave decisions like this to "deep thinkers" such as yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Why don't you answer the question in the opposite way? That's why we end shooting before investigating. The question is: Why if he didn't had the bomb? That of course is what happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
Does it matter if the man was only trained to kill? No. As well as he can shoot a can from 100 m of distance he can shoot to his arm, instead of his head. Also mans are not machines, men usually can think for their own. That reason is perfectly understandable, looking at it logically, but the object at the end of the gun is an human being, so you can say "try the arms please", if you shoot the chest well...It will be wrong anyway, but at least you demonstrate that you're not a machine but an human.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
That doesn't makes sense to me. You can choose to shoot in a way that doesn't permanently harms the object, or even with non-lethal rounds. As always the problem is in the question at the beggining of my post.Quote:
The only decision the cops need to make correctly is "to shoot or not to shoot." Once the decision to shoot is made, then (and rightly so) there is no "to kill or not to kill" decision.
Oh yes I remember the old excuse of paranoia. That maybe an ideal excuse in someway, but in real life it doesn't excuse anything. Here we live in chaos, in many places, however our justice system is not so crazy to justify actions under excuses such as "but he was going to kill me, he looked like an assasin".Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
This surprises me even more. The first principles of a liberal republic are freedom and privacy, the second is having some problems in recent times as well as life. People are tending to feel better if safe, than be better if their fellow man is alive. Tribesman has a point though, security could have been enforced in previous stages instead of reaching this tragic episodes.Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar10
Soul your positons makes no sense. HE might have a bomb HE said he had one. I dont see the problem the man could have killed women children old people movie stars. The marshal did the right thing period end of story. The moron should pop his pills in the morning. I have no sympathy
Shooting a can at 100 meters with a pistol is not an easy task - one must line up the shot - and aim really carefully. Often there is absolutely no stress involved in that shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Shooting at an individual who might or might not have a bomb, but claims to have one. On an airplane where innocent people are wondering if the threat is real - and I would image some were not calm and rational around the pilot, Knowing that if you miss your target you will hit one of the innocent bystanders on the airplane.
You can question the judgement of wether the Air Marshall was right in shooting the man who claimed to have a bomb. But once the decision was reached to shoot the Air Marshall only had one opition - and that is to hit and stop the man. An arm shot and a leg shot does not stop an individual.
Yeah thank God. Otherwise we would be awash with loonies and Brazilian plumbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
I remember someone who tended and sympathized for leppers who had no control over having their condition...Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Why should we lock up someone who has treated schizophrenia?