Man Shot on Board of Plane in Florida

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BBC Article

A witness said that the man frantically ran down the aisle of the Boeing 757 and that a woman with him said he was mentally ill, the Reuters news agency reported.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

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.

---

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 From the article

The 44-year-old US citizen was shot after fleeing an air marshal and then reaching into his bag. Reports say no device has yet been found.

---

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?

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

In any case: Was there a need to shoot to kill?

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Was there a need to shoot to kill?

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

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.

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.

---

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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 .

---

It's tough for the US to screen passengers when the flight originates in a foreign country huh? :dizzy:

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

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?

---

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.

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:

---

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.

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 ?

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:

---

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 Alexander the Pretty Good

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?

---

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 Goofball

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

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.

---

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 caesar10

Well it seems like an unfortunate incident to me. But atleast we know security is pretty good now.

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

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..

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

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.

---

Yeah thank God. Otherwise we would be awash with loonies and Brazilian plumbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

One less skitzo that should have been locked up and out of the public in the first place.

---

I remember someone who tended and sympathized for leppers who had no control over having their condition...

Why should we lock up someone who has treated schizophrenia?

the airmarshall incident has me thinking how far this little tidbit will go. yes, they're not related, but you can always count on some overreaction during times like these.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strike for the south

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

---

I'm an incromprehended indeed.~;). I don't expect you to comprehend me, just to refute me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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.

---

Well yes that's common sense. However the problem is that Goofball stated that they should shoot to kill or not shoot at all.

Quote:

---

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 also miss the shot to the chest, you even can shoot to the lungs if that's your only purpose (security over all else).

Quote:

---

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.

---

But there's non-lethal rounds no? You can also shoot sleeping dards.

.
Drop an aeroplane with a pair of small scissors and I'll give you ten points. ~;p
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

the airmarshall incident has me thinking how far this little tidbit will go. yes, they're not related, but you can always count on some overreaction during times like these.

---

That's interesting. Is this only for US passangers? Also I think that many means in there are surpasing privacy by a long shot, I hope that this doesn't last long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre

.
Drop an aeroplane with a pair of small scissors and I'll give you ten points. ~;p
.

---

Where's my 10 points? ~D

I just noticed this is the most popular thread I've ever posted

I have a friend that moved with his other parent in Florida and he and his step mom are both pilots out of Orlando. I'm sure his family is freaked...

:hide:

M'eh. He's toast. I'm not bothered. One would assume he'd be crazy to shout 'bomb' in a US airport, like a few people have said. Getting into the medication bit cheapens the whole thing. Someone shot him in public - cut and dry.

Anyway, I'd like to see someone hit a can with a pistol at 100 metres. That's more than a football field in length.

It said what happened to the guy, but everyone was just doing their job, this was an unfortunate accident.

Soulforged - tranquilizers often take a few seconds to take affect, a person intent on using a bomb would still be able to use it.

Non-lethal ammunition like rubber bullets have the same drawback, they might knock a person down but that won't stop them hitting a trigger.

Most effective and efficient way of stopping a person intent on killing others is unfortunately to put several bullets into their head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

There is no such thing as 100% fool proof security (..)

---

Just goes to show, eh? LOL, that comment really made my day! I'll be going Stateside next month and I feel safer already.

Not.

I can't help thinking that it is funny, the US crowd seems to be applauding their security.

1. There was no danger
2. The man SHOUTED he had a bomb

I mean this is not the dangerous situation. I'd be more worried about the fellas that is smart enough to sneak a bomb aboard to bribe security guards etc.

Yet, this incident is proclaimed as a victory for the US security system.... way to go!

That's what happen when a country live in constant fear.
Terrorist already won a battle apparently.

I can't say the marshall has done something wrong, but I won't applaude either. An innocent man has been killed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

That's what happen when a country live in constant fear.
Terrorist already won a battle apparently.

I can't say the marshall has done something wrong, but I won't applaude either. An innocent man has been killed.

---

If someone yells bomb and runs off Im not going to be thinking Im not afriad Im going to be shoot before he blows up. This isnt about its about not getting killed. This dosent show any ingounes by our marshals ethier. I mean I could shoot a guy that yelled bomb. No real intellgence there fellas

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

I can't help thinking that it is funny, the US crowd seems to be applauding their security.

1. There was no danger
2. The man SHOUTED he had a bomb

I mean this is not the dangerous situation. I'd be more worried about the fellas that is smart enough to sneak a bomb aboard to bribe security guards etc.

Yet, this incident is proclaimed as a victory for the US security system.... way to go!

---

We are criticized for having security that worked (yes, I know, the guy didn’t have a bomb but the Air Marshal was there and did his job) I have no doubt that we would be criticized if this guy would have been running all over shouting bomb and we had no one to stop him.

Dammed if we do and dammed if we don’t.

I think I’ll take my glass half full today thanks.~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

We are criticized for having security that worked (yes, I know, the guy didn’t have a bomb but the Air Marshal was there and did his job) I have no doubt that we would be criticized if this guy would have been running all over shouting bomb and we had no one to stop him.

Dammed if we do and dammed if we don’t.

I think I’ll take my glass half full today thanks.~:)

---

What I was trying to say is, it takes no security to stop a man SHOUTING he has a bomb - it takes security to stop the one that doesnt shout it. Im not so sure the 'glorious marshalls' would have found the last guy, do you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

What I was trying to say is, it takes no security to stop a man SHOUTING he has a bomb - it takes security to stop the one that doesnt shout it. Im not so sure the 'glorious marshalls' would have found the last guy, do you?

---

What I meant in my original post…

Quote:

---

Sad to see someone die but it makes me feel better about our security, perhaps we are not as vulnerable as some people say?

---

… is that I am presently surprised that we have security that is actually capable of protecting us. Someone could have had a bomb and this guy removed the threat with hast. I hear too often how vulnerable we still are, its nice to see that marshals protect our airports and not minimum wage paid security guards. Thru my eyes this is a darn good thing. ~:)

The scenario you mention where the bad guy would be discrete is definitely the greater threat but at least knowing that the lesser threat can be handled is comforting to me. :bow:

I guess the Air Marshals need to have x-ray vision and the power of seeing the future as well. Jesus, some people on here are unbelievable. ~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Just goes to show, eh? LOL, that comment really made my day! I'll be going Stateside next month and I feel safer already.

---

Remember your meds and I'm sure you'll be fine.

Where will you be visiting?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

I guess the Air Marshals need to have x-ray vision and the power of seeing the future as well. Jesus, some people on here are unbelievable. ~:rolleyes:

---

I think they are trying to deport him in another thread.~;)

I have also heard people saying, "Why didn't they just tazer him"... LOL, the guy might have been carrying an explosive and people want to shock the guy!?!?!? Oh brother...~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

What I was trying to say is, it takes no security to stop a man SHOUTING he has a bomb - it takes security to stop the one that doesnt shout it. Im not so sure the 'glorious marshalls' would have found the last guy, do you?

---

Bingo!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

It said what happened to the guy, but everyone was just doing their job, this was an unfortunate accident.

---

Indeed.
I feel sorry for the guy...but he should have been more careful and not forgot to take his medicine. The marshall acted correctly IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

What I was trying to say is, it takes no security to stop a man SHOUTING he has a bomb - it takes security to stop the one that doesnt shout it. Im not so sure the 'glorious marshalls' would have found the last guy, do you?

---

Good point. Presumably real terrorists aren't going to be publicising the fact that they've got a bomb and aren't afraid to use it.

That said, there's always going to be exceptions and judging by the information released thus far there wasn't really any other realistic way for the Air Marshal in question to act.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Good point. Presumably real terrorists aren't going to be publicising the fact that they've got a bomb and aren't afraid to use it.

---

I could see another passenger seeing something strange and calling the terrorist out. Like fuses in his shoes, triggering the terrorist to flip and start screaming.

"Like a spear to the belly of the infidel bla bla bla" holding lighter and preparing to ignite the fuse, BANG! Thanks Air Marshal.

Umm, terrorist DO announce they have a bomb sometimes. The hijackers of 911 took over a plane with box cutters and told the passengers they had a bomb in order to keep the passengers from reacting.

How many times have the PLO and other terrorist us the "I have a bomb" announcement to take over planes?

If you announce that you have a bomb on a plane, you deserved to be capped. We put air marshals on planes, not physchiatrists. Do you think it would be a good idea to anylyze a person screaming they have a bomb on a plane?

Suspect: "I have a bomb!!!"
Air Marchal: "Did your mother hold you as a child?"

LOL, again you people are more worried about the crminals instead of the real victims. Some of you should be in therapy for everyone's sake. ~:rolleyes:

yes, you'd be surprised how many suicide bombers announce they have a bomb before blowing themselves up, happens quite often actually.

As for the Marshall, I think he acted appropriatly.

You have to have a death wish to shout Bomb in a US airport /plain.

When that man shouted Bomb, the MArshall had but one choice; to either let him live ( and perhaps let the man detonate his Bomb, which no one but the man himself knew he didnt have ) or to take him out.

He did the latter, and it was the correct thing to do, as said , tranquilizers would have taken to much time to work, and shooting in the lower area of the body whould mean he could have detonated his bomb.

If the man had had a bomb, and hte marshall would not have shot him, it would be all over the news : ''US Marshall fails to prevent suicide bombing''

An unfortunate event.

:balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Just goes to show, eh? LOL, that comment really made my day! I'll be going Stateside next month and I feel safer already.

Not.

---

Hey Adrian, are you going to be anywhere near St Louis? Let me know, we'll go have a drink or 20...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Umm, terrorist DO announce they have a bomb sometimes. The hijackers of 911 took over a plane with box cutters and told the passengers they had a bomb in order to keep the passengers from reacting.

How many times have the PLO and other terrorist us the "I have a bomb" announcement to take over planes?

---

Generally there'd be more than one; presumably one drawing attention, the other watching the crowd. If a terrorist was serious about actually blowing up a plane, rather than claiming to be willing to do so, there's no way he/she would try to draw attention in such a way. Though I do concede, they would do so if they wanted to force the cockpit and having an Air Marshal onboard would seriously hamper such attempts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Just goes to show, eh? LOL, that comment really made my day! I'll be going Stateside next month and I feel safer already.

Not.

---

If you actually needed me to point out the fact that there is no such thing as perfect security for you to finally realize it....then I feel bad for you. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

If you announce that you have a bomb on a plane, you deserved to be capped.

---

That statement goes to the heart of the matter.

As much as I hate to say it Dave, truer words were never spoken.

(By you, anyway.)

~D

I guess the lesson learned here is don't announce you have a bomb on a plane, then run away and ignore Air Marshals, then reach into your bag, which you just announced had a bomb in it.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

As much as I hate to say it Dave, truer words were never spoken.

(By you, anyway.)

~D

---

I know it hurt you to say that, and I love it!!! Thanks for the link in my inbox BTW, that will probably be me in 20 years or so!!! Bookmarked!!! LOL :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Thanks for the link in my inbox BTW, that will probably be me in 20 years or so!!!

---

Oh, please, oh please! Do share it with us! :jumping:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat

Oh, please, oh please! Do share it with us! :jumping:

---

Sorry, I can't, the mods don't want it posted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Hey Adrian, are you going to be anywhere near St Louis? Let me know, we'll go have a drink or 20...

---

So 20 is your ceiling, you American wimp? And that would be cough syrup, right?

Honestly, thanks for your invitation, Dave. But I'll be visiting an academic for a couple days and that'll fill my entire schedule. It's in 'Boastin' so I'm looking forward to the waterfront and lobsters.
:bow:

EDIT
Sorry, that should be 'lobstis' of course...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

So 20 is your ceiling, you American wimp? And that would be cough syrup, right?

Honestly, thanks for your invitation, Dave. But I'll be visiting an academic for a couple days and that'll fill my entire schedule. It's in 'Boastin' so I'm looking forward to the waterfront and lobsters.
:bow:

---

my cousin took me to a bar, last time i was there. it was on the waterfront, it had the best damn surf and turf ive ever had.. ill email her tonight and see if i can get a name for you... enjoy boston and try enjoy some of the sights, theres a lot of history in that town.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jayrock

my cousin took me to a bar, last time i was there. it was on the waterfront, it had the best damn surf and turf ive ever had.. ill email her tonight and see if i can get a name for you... enjoy boston and try enjoy some of the sights, theres a lot of history in that town.

---

Thanks man. You find out anything, please post it.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

LOL, again you people are more worried about the crminals instead of the real victims. Some of you should be in therapy for everyone's sake.

---

I'm worried about the two, thank you. Even if he was a criminal, because he wasn't, he's still an human being an saying things like "I've no simpathy" for him is pretty harsh. And that's exactly what I was trying to say, many people think the person is guilty before innocent, that's implicit in your statement.
Should I need to be in terapy, just for be worried about how humans usually manage situations? I'm still surprised to see people stating that the security is fine. Not just about the scanning made before boarding, but also...Did anyone in the service ask to the man if he had any condition? If he took the pills? Did the marshalls know that?

Other questions that are less important: How much time does it takes to grab a man before he reaches the bag? Or if he reached it: How much time before he puts his hand inside?
If you shoot a man in his arm and he's still moving: Can you shoot him again? Or you should shoot to kill always?

Also there's an investigation going on, as I've heard, perhaps there's more to this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

If you shoot a man in his arm and he's still moving: Can you shoot him again? Or you should shoot to kill always?

.

---

As someone already stated - if your a law enforcement officer and you decide that the situation requires you to fire your weapon - you fire it to stop the individual. Center Mass is where most of the training for firing weapons is currently structured toward - or it was in Oklahoma about 5 years ago when I happen to know the head investigator for the Oklahoma Bureau of Investigation - the agency that often gets involved in investigating police shooting within the state of Oklahoma.

I understand you point about shooting to wound - however I don't believe it is feasible or even reasonable to expect law enforcement shoot to wound only. The decision to use the weapon is what must be evaluated - once the weapon is drawn and and the decision is made to fire - the officer really only has the choice to shoot to stop the suspect. That is also what the training primarily consists of - to shoot into the center of mass to stop the suspect, which also avoids many of the possiblities of hitting bystanders. (Not completely of course)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

I understand you point about shooting to wound - however I don't believe it is feasible or even reasonable to expect law enforcement shoot to wound only. The decision to use the weapon is what must be evaluated - once the weapon is drawn and and the decision is made to fire - the officer really only has the choice to shoot to stop the suspect. That is also what the training primarily consists of - to shoot into the center of mass to stop the suspect, which also avoids many of the possiblities of hitting bystanders. (Not completely of course)

---

However you can shoot one of the lungs, that will not kill him, it will cause perhaps an irreparable damage, but not death, and lungs are pretty big. I wonder where do they shoot to kill? Chest mass is pretty big: Do they shoot directly to the heart (a hard target I suppose?) Do they shoot to the stomach? To the liver? This are trivial questions of course, I still think this is too much and this could have been prevented before, but I've to ask it to make it more clear for me. I'll also add that the example of the can wich provoqued a few voices almost mocking it here, was just an exageration to make the shoot at point blank or a close range one more accurate.

I also think that there must be some other technology wich can stop the subject without handicaping or killing him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

However you can shoot one of the lungs, that will not kill him, it will cause perhaps an irreparable damage, but not death, and lungs are pretty big. I wonder where do they shoot to kill? Chest mass is pretty big: Do they shoot directly to the heart (a hard target I suppose?) Do they shoot to the stomach? To the liver? This are trivial questions of course, I still think this is too much and this could have been prevented before, but I've to ask it to make it more clear for me. I'll also add that the example of the can wich provoqued a few voices almost mocking it here, was just an exageration to make the shoot at point blank or a close range one more accurate.

---

Not sure what you are after here - shooting center of mass puts the bullet hitting the body in the vicinity of several vital organs - where the shock of being hit by the bullet will often stop an individaul wether its a fatal shot or not. Not many people that are not hop up on drugs or aderline can take a bullet in the center of their body and continue moving. According to the investgator I knew - most law enforcement officers are only as accurate as their training has trained them to be.

Quote:

---

I also think that there must be some other technology wich can stop the subject without handicaping or killing him.

---

Not many that do it quickly without some severe problems for the individual.

News article update with some information coming from the passengers on the plane.

http://www.comcast.net/news/national...08/280197.html

The Air Marshalls acted correctly. It's a sad business, but there was only one way it could end. Statements like this, however:

Quote:

---

Removed by DD

---

... are just disgusting. Gloating over the shooting of an insane guy is just wrong, even if he posed a danger, and even if you tag a smiley on the end. The sentiment is unchristian, uncharitable, unworthy and unamerican. But hey, the smiley makes it all okay, right?

Soulforged, this wasn't like any other situation, where a man might pull a knife or even a gun out. All you have to do to set off a bomb is push a button, and wounding won't stop the bomber.

It's easy for you to sit there with the benefit of hindsight, knowing the man was harmless, and argue that the Marshal should have acted with less than lethal methods. However, none of what you suggest would have stopped a bomber-and the bomb would have gone off, killing many.

Its regretable that this man was killed, but the Marshal had to act as he did.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

I'm an incromprehended indeed.~;). I don't expect you to comprehend me, just to refute me.

---

That's quite an ego you've got there. ~:rolleyes:

The only decision to be made was whether to shoot or not, once the decision had been made to shoot then the guy was already dead.

I suppose they could have shot all his fingers off so he couldn't pull a trigger, then shot him in the leg so he couldn't run away or failing that you could live in the real world or find out something about the subject before preaching.

Sleeping darts don't work immediately and rubber bullets are a deterent, nothing more.

Quote:

---

Chest mass is pretty big: Do they shoot directly to the heart (a hard target I suppose?) Do they shoot to the stomach? To the liver?

---

Chest mass is chest mass, it gives the opportunity to hit any of the organs in it.

Quote:

---

I also think that there must be some other technology wich can stop the subject without handicaping or killing him.

---

Nothing that I've heard of that the benefits outweigh the risks. But if you can prove me wrong I'll pass it on to the relevant people in the British forces.

This is a victory for terrorism, it shows how - sadly - frightened, hysteric and over the top the US is at the moment. When you have an innocent man shot and people applauding you know people are seriously flawed in their thinking.

Firstly he was screaming he had a bomb - that not seem bloody weird? If he had a bomb he would have detonated not screamed that he had one. Look at the 9/11 bombers or the 7/11 bombers or the madrid bombers, any of them scream? In fact, go through the history of every single suicide bomber in history and you show me once where the bomber was screaming before he detonated that he had a bomb. It is madness.

Secondly I will never accept on any grounds that shooting to kill is any policy accept lunacy. There are others means and actions that could be undertaken, it is merely the think first find out later approach and always prone - and normally found out to be so - to huge risks in terms of innocents dieing and situations escilating. Especially on a plane - it is madness.

There are so many other reasons for it being madness to shoot him, not even mentioning the fact that his wife told them he was mentally ill. America is clearly an unsafe to be at the moment and I am quite glad I do not live over there, at least over here whe nwe have a shoot to kill incident and an innocent dies we demand justice for the innocent, over there it seems you applaud the great killing and hope for more blood, Disgusting.

And this weeks sanctimonious BS will be brought to you, as usual, by the Jagster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemurmania

The Air Marshalls acted correctly. It's a sad business, but there was only one way it could end. Statements like this, however:

... are just disgusting. Gloating over the shooting of an insane guy is just wrong, even if he posed a danger, and even if you tag a smiley on the end. The sentiment is unchristian, uncharitable, unworthy and unamerican. But hey, the smiley makes it all okay, right?

---

Removed out of respect for those that have mentally ill family members. Sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Wel, if he was properly locked up like all crazies should be then this would have never happened.~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D

---

About 25% of all people suffer from mental illness, should we lock all of them up. I hope someone remembers your views when you get old and can't quiet remember things as good as you used to, like what year it is and what your son's name is...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Thanks man. You find out anything, please post it.

:bow:

---

My favourite place in Boston was a chinese tea house ~:eek:

Somewhere on Shawmut Avenue, closest T station got to be New England Medical center. Yuuki might remember the place ~D

Otherwise, the classical Middle East (Cambridge) or the Milky Way (Jamaica Plain). Or ... Well it kinds on depnd what you like :)

Louis,