NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/07/airplane.gunshot/index.html

Seems like breaking news. I just got home.

No bomb. Dead man. Interesting how that turned out.

Maybe he was indicating, that yes, he did have lip balm.

I'm sorry, if you told me that you had a bomb, and made a threat, if you so much as blinked, you would be history. And I'm only a civilian carrying a gun.

I'm sorry, if you told me that you had a bomb, and made a threat, if you so much as blinked, you would be history. And I'm only a civilian carrying a gun.
Seconded.

Except I'm a little short on years to be able to have a gun. But yes.

That being said, I HAVE BALMS IN MY POCKET.

That being said, I HAVE BALMS IN MY POCKET.
Is that a dangerous animal?

Can't help but think the guy had some sort of death wish, saying he had a bomb and then reaching for his bag. Or perhaps he was dilusional? I don't know, I guess we'll have to wait for the details to come out.

Sad.:(

No bomb. Dead man. Interesting how that turned out.

Maybe he was indicating, that yes, he did have lip balm.

You'd be surprised what us Miamians can do with lip balm.

Is that a dangerous animal?

No, but it's made from dangerous animals. Animals that might have bombs in them.

Can't help but think the guy had some sort of death wish, saying he had a bomb and then reaching for his bag. Or perhaps he was dilusional? I don't know, I guess we'll have to wait for the details to come out.

Sad.:(


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10367598/


Mary Gardner, a passenger on the plane, told WTVJ the man started “running crazily through the aisle” after the plane landed in Miami. Gardner said a woman seated with the man ran after him, yelling that her husband was bipolar and had not taken his medication. Gardner described the woman as “hysterical.”

Nice, so the cops shot an innocent man. Good job US Air Marshals.

He probably *thought* there was a bomb in his luggage, which wouldn't surprise me given the general hysteria of terrorism.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10367598/


Mary Gardner, a passenger on the plane, told WTVJ the man started “running crazily through the aisle” after the plane landed in Miami. Gardner said a woman seated with the man ran after him, yelling that her husband was bipolar and had not taken his medication. Gardner described the woman as “hysterical.”
And you do realize how many problems it would've caused if the man really was making a legitimate threat, was tackled, and set off the bomb?

Considering this all happened AFTER the plane had landed, and it had already done it's trip, I can't draw any logical conclusion that would indicate that he was, infact, going to blow any thing up. He already got ON the plane in the first place. Was his bag not screened, was it not checked, PRIOR to getting on it? Was he not on the plane for the entire trip? This all happened after the plane arrived at it's destination.

Nice, so the cops shot an innocent man. Good job US Air Marshals.

He probably *thought* there was a bomb in his luggage, which wouldn't surprise me given the general hysteria of terrorism.

And what would you say if one had gone off? "where were the Air Marshalls? They're not doing thier job?"

Some guy runs around yelling he has a bomb, you don't give him the benefit or the doubt.

And you do realize how many problems it would've caused if the man really was making a legitimate threat, was tackled, and set off the bomb?


You're mistaking my post. I fully support the AM's actions.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10367598/


Mary Gardner, a passenger on the plane, told WTVJ the man started “running crazily through the aisle” after the plane landed in Miami. Gardner said a woman seated with the man ran after him, yelling that her husband was bipolar and had not taken his medication. Gardner described the woman as “hysterical.”
Well, there you go, then.

The SWAT teams just did what they were supposed to do. Him "running crazily through the aisle" probably added to the chaos of the situation, I imagine. It's sad the man had to die, though.

And what would you say if one had gone off? "where were the Air Marshalls? They're not doing thier job?"

Some guy runs around yelling he has a bomb, you don't give him the benefit or the doubt.

Let's take a look at the FACTS:

There was NO BOMB.
One innocent, although disturbed, man is DEAD.

And what would you say if one had gone off? "where were the Air Marshalls? They're not doing thier job?"

Some guy runs around yelling he has a bomb, you don't give him the benefit or the doubt.

If you shoot an innocent man, there will be congressional hearings into how badly you fucked up.

If you fail to shoot him, and he blows up a planeload of people, there will be congressional hearings into how badly you fucked up.

Considering this all happened AFTER the plane had landed, and it had already done it's trip, I can't draw any logical conclusion that would indicate that he was, infact, going to blow any thing up. He already got ON the plane in the first place. Was his bag not screened, was it not checked, PRIOR to getting on it? Was he not on the plane for the entire trip? This all happened after the plane arrived at it's destination.

Translation: "There is no way I'm going to support the actions taken here no matter how justified or legal they were."

Translation: "There is no way I'm going to support the actions taken here no matter how justified or legal they were."

I'm sorry, I didn't get the "shooting innocent civilians is legal" memo.

Let's take a look at the FACTS:

There was NO BOMB.
One innocent, although disturbed, man is DEAD.

Let's look at the facts:

A man was running around yelling he had a bomb and the AM's did their job.

I'm sorry, I didn't get the "shooting innocent civilians is legal" memo.

The second he yelled" I have a bomb" on a plane, he was no longer innocent.

I'm sorry, I didn't get the "shooting innocent civilians is legal" memo.
If you're following "Standard Operating Procedures" that were given to you in writing, it's a legitimate shooting.

Well, there you go, then.

The SWAT teams just did what they were supposed to do. Him "running crazily through the aisle" probably added to the chaos of the situation, I imagine. It's sad the man had to die, though.

Agreed. The AM's did their job.

Agreed. The AM's did their job.

Yes they did. And they also killed an innocent, obviously very disturbed, individual. Why didn't any one listen to his wife? Did they think for a second maybe he WAS bipolar? Maybe he was getting his medication. Maybe he was getting doctors papers. What he WASNT doing, was pulling out a bomb.

Yes they did. And they also killed an innocent, obviously very disturbed, individual. Why didn't any one listen to his wife? Did they think for a second maybe he WAS bipolar? Maybe he was getting his medication. Maybe he was getting doctors papers. What he WASNT doing, was pulling out a bomb.
He went for something in the briefcase. It could've been anything, LIKE A BOMB DETONATOR.

Yes they did. And they also killed an innocent, obviously very disturbed, individual. Why didn't any one listen to his wife? Did they think for a second maybe he WAS bipolar? Maybe he was getting his medication. Maybe he was getting doctors papers. What he WASNT doing, was pulling out a bomb.

Maybe this, maybe that... You can throw in all the "maybe's" you want. The fact of the matter is, is that a man yelled he had a bomb and then reached into his bag. The AM's, in order to protect all the other passengers, reacted as they were trained to do and how they should have. "Maybe" the "wife" was doing that to delay the AM's reaction.

Since you like all these "maybe's": why won't you answer my question: What would you be saying had a bomb gone off because the AM's didn't react in time?

Maybe he was sayign his medication was the bomb and was reaching in his bag so he could take it.

Agreed. The AM's did their job.


And they did it well. Professional. One shot, target hit and put down.

Next we'll have terrorists with partners yelling that they're bipolar or nuts to cause a second of doubt.

The AM did their jobs, they need to be commended.
No second guessing bullshit from the comfort of an armchair.
We dont want professional who have to protect us wondering how the media will play out afterwards-we need them to react in the manner they have been drilled on repeatedly.

The feds just announced the name of the guy who was shot:
Rigoberto Alpazar, 44, US citizen...

Okay. But then I have to ask you, how did this 'bomb' get on the plane in the first place then? Is luggage not screened and scanned and what not? Don't you have sniffer dogs, and all these ubertechnological machines that DETECT BOMBS? He went on the blame bombless, and yet he comes off the plane, apparently with a bomb.

They could have at least tried to shoot him in the arm that was reaching for the bag

A man on a plane

Running down the main aisle and eventually out of the plane

Screaming that he had a bomb, thereby threatening passengers

Presumably the authorities told him to cease, lie down, stop etc

He did not, continued his actions and reached into a briefcase, possibly reaching for an explosive device or triggering device

The Air Marshalls killed the man. They did their job, protected lives

Nothing wrong there

Yes they did. And they also killed an innocent, obviously very disturbed, individual. Why didn't any one listen to his wife? Did they think for a second maybe he WAS bipolar? Maybe he was getting his medication. Maybe he was getting doctors papers. What he WASNT doing, was pulling out a bomb.
They were following standard operating procedures.

You're not there to ascertain whether or not there's really a bomb. The assumption is made after the threat that a bomb is a reality.

Until the suspect is immobilized, either by surrendering and being handcuffed, or being shot while reaching for something, the bomb is considered to be a reality.

After everything is quiet, it can then be determined whether or not a bomb is real, or if the person just needed his meds.

Simple as that. It's not like the marshals were bloodthirsty and couldn't wait to pop someone on the plane. Their training emphasizes sacrificing one person for the potential safety of everyone else on the plane.

Okay. But then I have to ask you, how did this 'bomb' get on the plane in the first place then? Is luggage not screened and scanned and what not? Don't you have sniffer dogs, and all these ubertechnological machines that DETECT BOMBS? He went on the blame bombless, and yet he comes off the plane, apparently with a bomb.

So you trust the machines, run by people, in Colombia to be perfect? Why do you think we have AM's in the first place?

Maybe this, maybe that... You can throw in all the "maybe's" you want. The fact of the matter is, is that a man yelled he had a bomb and then reached into his bag. The AM's, in order to protect all the other passengers, reacted as they were trained to do and how they should have. "Maybe" the "wife" was doing that to delay the AM's reaction.

Since you like all these "maybe's": why won't you answer my question: What would you be saying had a bomb gone off because the AM's didn't react in time?

You have screening techniques that are used by every airport in the country.
Why wasn't it detected. That's what I'd say.

They could have at least tried to shoot him in the arm that was reaching for the bag

No, they shouldn't have. A smaller target leads to a greater risk of missing. An injured person can still set off a bomb. They are trained to kill w/ as few shots as possible.

Yes they did. And they also killed an innocent, obviously very disturbed, individual. Why didn't any one listen to his wife? Did they think for a second maybe he WAS bipolar? Maybe he was getting his medication. Maybe he was getting doctors papers. What he WASNT doing, was pulling out a bomb.


So-now you're saying that the AM should assume people are lying? How dare they not believe a man who says he has a bomb and wont stop acting as if he is retrieving it.

When a person says they have a bomb you automatically assume they are telling a lie?

No one is responsible for what they're doing these days, no matter how wrong it is.

This is one less nut I have to worry about-bomb or not, he wasnt likely someone I'd like to sit next to on my flight from Columbia.

So you trust the machines, run by people, in Colombia to be perfect? Why do you think we have AM's in the first place?

To shoot people without hesitation or remorse.

They could have at least tried to shoot him in the arm that was reaching for the bag
No, there's the possibility of missing or him still being able to detonate.

It's shoot to kill. Any less and you get in trouble, I believe.

They could have at least tried to shoot him in the arm that was reaching for the bag

Most people can't shoot that accurately with a pistol. Especially under pressure. And shooting someone in the arm does not necessarily stop them from continuing to act.

Police and military are told that regardless of the caliber of weapon used, or the number of hits inflicted, the only way to reliably stop an individual in time to prevent them from taking a deliberate action is to hit them in either the spine (from the 6th thoracic vertebra upwards), or the skull (specifically in the neural motor strips above the ears, or in the medulla). Virtually any other hit, including one to the heart, allows for someone to complete conscious action for up to 15 seconds - hitting them in an arm rarely renders the limb useless immediately.

To shoot people without hesitation or remorse.

Ah, and the true BS is shown. Thank you.

Simple as that. It's not like the marshals were bloodthirsty and couldn't wait to pop someone on the plane. Their training emphasizes sacrificing one person for the potential safety of everyone else on the plane.


And lets not forget- only one officer fired, and just one time. No wild blasting, no stray shots, no innocent people or their property destroyed.

These men were the professionals I want vigilantly watching over our flights.

You have screening techniques that are used by every airport in the country.
Why wasn't it detected. That's what I'd say.

Sure you would, especially since the plane didn't originate in the US.

hitting a certain vertebre in the spine is easier than hitting someone in the arm or shoulder? make it several shots then. at least try to keep the guy alive.

shooting someone in teh chest or head still leaves them an opportunity for action.

I'm sorry, I didn't get the "shooting innocent civilians is legal" memo.
Claiming to have a bomb on a plane, or in an airport is a federal offense in both Canada and the US.

hitting a certain vertebre in the spine is easier than hitting someone in the arm or shoulder? make it several shots then. at least try to keep the guy alive.

No again. You're on an airplane. You want him/her dead w/ as few shots as possible.

Okay. But then I have to ask you, how did this 'bomb' get on the plane in the first place then? Is luggage not screened and scanned and what not? Don't you have sniffer dogs, and all these ubertechnological machines that DETECT BOMBS? He went on the blame bombless, and yet he comes off the plane, apparently with a bomb.
The TSA ran tests of this, and they found that, although very difficult, it is POSSIBLE to evade security and bring on weapons, explosives etc. This certainly will become a hot topic the next few days...brings up questions about air marshals...

They could have at least tried to shoot him in the arm that was reaching for the bag


Thats only in movies and TV.

Average police and are trained to acquire center mass and put the target down.

Only a sniper in a well established position will shoot a target's gun barrel out or shoot an arm or hand.

No again. You're on an airplane. You want him/her dead w/ as few shots as possible.
But he wasn't on a plane. He was in the jetway.

Claiming to have a bomb on a plane, or in an airport is a federal offense in both Canada and the US.

Don't bother, it's already turned into a "jack-booted thugs" arguement.

Considering this all happened AFTER the plane had landed, and it had already done it's trip, I can't draw any logical conclusion that would indicate that he was, infact, going to blow any thing up. He already got ON the plane in the first place. Was his bag not screened, was it not checked, PRIOR to getting on it? Was he not on the plane for the entire trip? This all happened after the plane arrived at it's destination.

Considering your a dumb shit to not account the entire fact - The Plane came from another Country which does not screen small bags/backpacks.

Don't bother, it's already turned into a "jack-booted thugs" arguement.
Seems only one poster is taking it there at least.

hitting a certain vertebre in the spine is easier than hitting someone in the arm or shoulder? make it several shots then. at least try to keep the guy alive.

shooting someone in teh chest or head still leaves them an opportunity for action.

Unfortunately, the type of shots that stop people from taking immediate action - i.e., those that instantly disable you - are also the ones that instantly kill you.

Ah, and the true BS is shown. Thank you.

BS? I'm sorry I don't condone the murder of an innocent civilian, if that can be called BS.


:) :mp5:

But he wasn't on a plane. He was in the jetway.

SB is argueing the AM's should be trained to "keep the guy alive". They are trained to kill the individual w/ one shot. You still don't want an injured bomber on a jetway or in the airport either.

But he wasn't on a plane. He was in the jetway.

He went running down the Aisle screaming I have a bomb. He was then going out of the plane, then turn around and started screaming again. Even though the lady said he had a Bipolar disfunction, you can't dis-credit the fact that she could be covering for him in any situation possible, not saying she wasn't telling the truth.

Yes they did. And they also killed an innocent, obviously very disturbed, individual.
Everyone is responsible for themselves, and they need to act on the (sometimes minimal) information within their grasp. The AMs were confronted with a man yelling about a bomb, who then reached for a possible bomb, they did what was right and neccessary.
If the man was incapable of acting in a manner that would facilitate his survival in a certain situation (like being able to keep your fucking mouth shut on a plane) then when he entered that situation, he acknowledged that he may not survive.
Furthermore, if he was this deranged, then his wife is also responsible, she should have taken better care of him. The government ain't yo' daddy, mommy, older brother, baby-sitter, or primary caregiver. They don't kiss away booboos, and they often can't afford to be passing out the benefit of the doubt when other citizens lives are in danger.
To put the final bastardly cap on my argument, one less crazy is hardly a crime in a world filled with them, and it could be argued that the gene pool has been made just a bit cleaner by this man's removal.

The Moral, Children, is thus: Don't take your life into your hands if you've got butterfingers.

Don't bother, it's already turned into a "jack-booted thugs" arguement.

Yeah-we saw that coming. But its still ten to one against a misguided puppet.

Unfortunately, the way the news reports this, the Air Marshall will likely be experiencing a lot of remorse.
And he, as well as others, may be hesitant next time- not trusting their instinct or training because of the weight of screeching critics.

Thats only in movies and TV.

Average police and are trained to acquire center mass and put the target down.

Only a sniper in a well established position will shoot a target's gun barrel out or shoot an arm or hand.


I figure that a shoulder is just as easy a shot at the head or chest. If you are trained to shoot a gun, it shouldn't be much of a problem. I understand that they did what they were trained to do but I think that it shouldtn be that way. If you can disable a person without killign them you should try that first. if you try and fail then you have mroe round to squeeze off to end their life if necessary.

Nice, so the cops shot an innocent man. Good job US Air Marshals.

He probably *thought* there was a bomb in his luggage, which wouldn't surprise me given the general hysteria of terrorism.

Yup. They shot an innocent man who for god only knows why gave them plenty of reason to believe he had a bomb. The marshals did their job as well as they could. The man should've known better than to run down the aisles screaming that he has a bomb. It's sad he died, but the air marshalls had to look at it as either shoot one person or let many get blown up.
I'm sure if they had the chance they would have taken him alive, but he reached into the bag in which he claimed to have a bomb after ignoring orders and evading capture, thus eliminating any option they had save for shooting him. I mean, what competent person would say "Go ahead Mr. terrorist, do what you want. I'll just sit back and twiddle my thumbs while you kill people."?
So I fully agree with the way the situation was handled. Not the most desireable outcome, but I certainly feel safer flying knowing that the air marshalls don't hesitate to do what they feel is necessary.

BS? I'm sorry I don't condone the murder of an innocent civilian, if that can be called BS.


:) :mp5:

Once again, he'ld already committed a felony. You've claimed the AM's are murdering thugs. The BS flag is waving for you.

Post de Menezes, I no longer trust press reports on issues like this.

"He said he had a bomb"? "He was behaving erratically"? "He reached into his bag"? "He was told to stop"? Whatever, and de Menezes was "running", "wearing a heavy winter coat", "with wires coming out of it", and "jumped the turn style" and "the police identified themselves before shooting" Except those were all eye-witness lies.

The truth will come out over the next few weeks and months, and in the meantime the officer who shot him should be put on leave with pay until it can be assessed that his actuions were actually reasonable.

Unfortunately, the type of shots that stop people from taking immediate action - i.e., those that instantly disable you - are also the ones that instantly kill you.
The article says he was wounded, and died later...

I figure that a shoulder is just as easy a shot at the head or chest. If you are trained to shoot a gun, it shouldn't be much of a problem. I understand that they did what they were trained to do but I think that it shouldtn be that way. If you can disable a person without killign them you should try that first. if you try and fail then you have mroe round to squeeze off to end their life if necessary.

And in those seconds checking to see if he's "disabled", he sets off the kill switch.

That's why it's a kill shot.

The government ain't yo' daddy, mommy, older brother, baby-sitter, or primary caregiver. They don't kiss away booboos, and they often can't afford to be passing out the benefit of the doubt when other citizens lives are in danger.



Of course not. Let's just kill him now and ask questions later, yes?

The article says he was wounded, and died later...

oh hehe, I shoudl read what I am commenting on more often :P

Of course not. Let's just kill him now and ask questions later, yes?

If he's reaching into a bag, claiming he has a bomb? Yes.

I figure that a shoulder is just as easy a shot at the head or chest. If you are trained to shoot a gun, it shouldn't be much of a problem. I understand that they did what they were trained to do but I think that it shouldtn be that way. If you can disable a person without killign them you should try that first. if you try and fail then you have mroe round to squeeze off to end their life if necessary.

You have a higher chance of dying if shot in the shoulder. One - You have a major artery in either shoulder and a major vein on either shoulder. One in the front, one in the back. Two - Once shot there, you may never be able to use that arm again ie you could lose it to amputation because the more brittle joint there ( especially when your olders ) can't repair it self as well as older joitns.

It was completely moral to have shot the man in his chest. Maybe if panzies like you would take a few lessons on how death and guns actually work in real llife, we could avoid these arguments.

Post de Menezes, I no longer trust press reports on issues like this.


I was just waiting for this comparison to come up.

Of course there should be an investigation, and you're right, things probably won't become clear until later, but as the details stand right now, it seems that the shooting was justified.

If he's reaching into a bag, claiming he has a bomb? Yes.

And if I claim I'm God and I have nuclear weapons in my pants? You're just going to believe me?

oh hehe, I shoudl read what I am commenting on more often :P
That's ok...lots of people are assuming he died instantly. That doesn't seem to be the case.

And in those seconds checking to see if he's "disabled", he sets off the kill switch.

That's why it's a kill shot.


he's reaching into his bag, you shoot him to disable that arm.. walkign up to see if he is disabled you keep pointing your weapon at him, he moves his arm toward the bag again you shoot him again.

It was completely moral to have shot the man in his chest. Maybe if panzies like you would take a few lessons on how death and guns actually work in real llife, we could avoid these arguments.
That's uncalled for. He's not saying the shooting wasn't justified...just questioning whether a less lethal method of stopping him was possible. And pansy is spelled with an 's' anyway.

The second he yelled" I have a bomb" on a plane, he was no longer innocent.

Bingo. Bipolar or not.

And if I claim I'm God and I have nuclear weapons in my pants? You're just going to believe me?

Slippery slope, slippery slope, let's all slide down the slippery slope.


Do you have any real arguements, or are you just going to post more nonsense like this?

You have a higher chance of dying if shot in the shoulder. One - You have a major artery in either shoulder and a major vein on either shoulder. One in the front, one in the back. Two - Once shot there, you may never be able to use that arm again ie you could lose it to amputation because the more brittle joint there ( especially when your olders ) can't repair it self as well as older joitns.

It was completely moral to have shot the man in his chest. Maybe if panzies like you would take a few lessons on how death and guns actually work in real llife, we could avoid these arguments.


Panzies like me? lol, okay dude you obviously aren't worth talking with. Have fun with yoru hatred.

he's reaching into his bag, you shoot him to disable that arm.. walkign up to see if he is disabled you keep pointing your weapon at him, he moves his arm toward the bag again you shoot him again.


or you shoot to kill, not giving him the chance to get to his bag again.

he's reaching into his bag, you shoot him to disable that arm.. walkign up to see if he is disabled you keep pointing your weapon at him, he moves his arm toward the bag again you shoot him again.

Stop watching Action Movies because that doesn't work in the real world.

Your in a life and death situation where ever mila-second counts, and that could be resposible for dozens of lives. You have your slight reasoning meter, one man or 100 or so people ( or how many were on the plane ). End this man's life, or let him take his own with the dozens of others young and old. He claims to have a bomb, and may be mentally ill. But what happens if you take that risk? He won't respond to your demands, and a shot in the arm won't exactly do shit because you may miss and hit an innocent civilian because it is nearly impossible to shoot an arm at a running target. You only have one choice by now if you are smart and followed your training, you go in for the kill. Don't give him a second chance to reach in for that bag, you shoot him and make sure the shot will go as far to stop his brain's thoughts which tell him to open the bag either through a Mental Illness or through his OWN intentions.

---

So, try to think about real life over movies.

Slippery slope, slippery slope, let's all slide down the slippery slope.


Do you have any real arguements, or are you just going to post more nonsense like this?


Well? Are you going to believe me?

And if I claim I'm God and I have nuclear weapons in my pants? You're just going to believe me?
There is a difference and you damn well know it! One situation is plausible, one is completely out of left field.

Bingo. Bipolar or not.

Trusting the report that he said he had a bomb is foolish. Why can't people simply say "I will wait until the investigation is over" Why rush to defend the AM and condemn the victim of the shooting immediately, even though we know the minute-by-minute reporting is about as reliable as an office rumor mill?

Panzies like me? lol, okay dude you obviously aren't worth talking with. Have fun with yoru hatred.

Yes, oh my God. I am a complete racist, because I called you a panzy. Oh my God what crime have I commited?

Well? Are you going to believe me?

I do believe that you have no arguement and are going to continue to post nonsense.

There is a difference and you damn well know it! One situation is plausible, one is completely out of left field.


Not really, what's to stop me from getting on a plane and claiming I am, infact God, and I do, infact, have nuclear weapons in my pants?

Are your AM's going to murder me like they did that other innocent man?

In your case, NI, I would shoot you just for bull shitting. If a man screaming ' I'M GOD I HAVE NUKES WEEE ' I would most likely tell his caretaker to shut him up.

or you shoot to kill, not giving him the chance to get to his bag again.

All I am saying is I think it should be a different way. I think a bullet can reach his arm before his arm can reach the bag, especially if he is already injured in teh shoulder or whatnot.

I am not saying anyone did anythign wrong. I agree that they should have taken out the potential threat.

I figure that a shoulder is just as easy a shot at the head or chest. If you are trained to shoot a gun, it shouldn't be much of a problem. I understand that they did what they were trained to do but I think that it shouldtn be that way. If you can disable a person without killign them you should try that first. if you try and fail then you have mroe round to squeeze off to end their life if necessary.


people that arent in the business of neutralizing other people will never understand force or deadly force procedures in potential dangerous situations.
But these procedures have been honed for as lon gas one man has been doing another man wrong.
And men that make the split second decisions to act are what allows men that cant understand to continue living life in the style they are accustomed to.

So, we have an innocent man dead, a major, major, major embarrassment and a couple of passengers who are now, if secretly, in trauma counseling. This makes all our citizens feel so, so, so much better about national security now.

I would most likely tell his caretaker to shut him up.

Exactly. And what happened instead? They shot him.

Yes, oh my God. I am a complete racist, because I called you a panzy. Oh my God what crime have I commited?


Racist? WTF? no I just think you are being a douchbag and since you can't argue like an adult you don't even deserve to be debated with. You can grow up anytime now.

Slippery slope, slippery slope, let's all slide down the slippery slope.


Do you have any real arguements, or are you just going to post more nonsense like this?


I'm ashamed to say that I, as well as several others have taken the bait.

Not really, what's to stop me from getting on a plane and claiming I am, infact God, and I do, infact, have nuclear weapons in my pants?

Are your AM's going to murder me like they did that other innocent man?

And which innocent man are we talking about? The one who committed a felony?

ANd judging by your posts, I highly doubt anyone would beleive you have ANYTHING resembling a "nuclear weapon" in your pants.

Stop watching Action Movies because that doesn't work in the real world.
*snip*
So, try to think about real life over movies.
Why the hell are you going after Sumamba? Because he ASKED if it would be better to disarm the guy somehow than just outright kill him? If that's the only issue you have with his support for the actions taken by the AM, then perhaps you should expend your energies elsewhere? Jesus.

Kiador']So, we have an innocent man dead, a major, major, major embarrassment and a couple of passengers who are now, if secretly, in trauma counseling. This makes all our citizens feel so, so, so much better about national security now.
It does actually. Better than the whole 3,000 innocents dead on 9/11 and a President using his powers to take advantage of the situation and shape the start of this century.

AM's should have non-lethal means of incapacitating some one they deem a threat. Like TAZERS. Nothing like 5,000 watts to stop a would-be bomber. I don't care who you are, you get shot with a TAZER, and you aren't moving an inch.

Racist? WTF? no I just think you are being a douchbag and since you can't argue like an adult you don't even deserve to be debated with. You can grow up anytime now.


dont get warned or banned for this. Its hardly worth it.

Not really, what's to stop me from getting on a plane and claiming I am, infact God, and I do, infact, have nuclear weapons in my pants?

Are your AM's going to murder me like they did that other innocent man?
Fine then. Yes.
*Bang, Bang*
You're dead, now please quit being a fucking fool.

Trusting the report that he said he had a bomb is foolish. Why can't people simply say "I will wait until the investigation is over" Why rush to defend the AM and condemn the victim of the shooting immediately, even though we know the minute-by-minute reporting is about as reliable as an office rumor mill?
Because we're basing our opinions on the details as they are. That doesn't mean our opinions wouldn't change if new evidence showed wrongdoing on the part of the AM. We're discussing the very idea of lethal force being used to stop suspects...not just this specific case, because we DON'T have all the details. It's simply an example to use in order to further this particular dicussion.

Yes, oh my God. I am a complete racist, because I called you a panzy. Oh my God what crime have I commited?
The crime of saying stupid shit. And mispelling it.

Why the hell are you going after Sumamba? Because he ASKED if it would be better to disarm the guy somehow than just outright kill him? If that's the only issue you have with his support for the actions taken by the AM, then perhaps you should expend your energies elsewhere? Jesus.


well I am an idiot for not knowing everything already. my bad. I shouldn't ask questions or try to think of better ways to do things. in fact even having opinions to the contrary of anyone is just plain stupid.

Fine then. Yes.
*Bang, Bang*
You're dead, now please quit being a fucking fool.

Shhh...dont swallow the bait.

AM's should have non-lethal means of incapacitating some one they deem a threat. Like TAZERS. Nothing like 5,000 watts to stop a would-be bomber. I don't care who you are, you get shot with a TAZER, and you aren't moving an inch.

And you also obviously know little about the reliability of tazers.

Let's take a look at the FACTS:

There was NO BOMB.
One innocent, although disturbed, man is DEAD.Yes. Lets do look at the facts:

One obviously disturbed man, charging through an aircraft full of innocent bystanders, makes bomb threats. Law enforcement officers at that point are not psychic, nor do they have X-ray vision, and they take appropriate action, IAW with their training.

One suicidal mental patient gets his wish: Suicide by cop.

Or is it you assertion that deranged individuals would never have weapons or bombs, and that they would never follow-through on their threats? Is it your assertion that the Air Marshals have X-ray vision? Or that they're psychic?

Feh.

Frankly, the fact that he was mental, and off his meds, would be further justification for stopping his rampage as fast as possible.

AM's should have non-lethal means of incapacitating some one they deem a threat. Like TAZERS. Nothing like 5,000 watts to stop a would-be bomber. I don't care who you are, you get shot with a TAZER, and you aren't moving an inch.

True you cant do shit while being tazed.

AM's should have non-lethal means of incapacitating some one they deem a threat. Like TAZERS. Nothing like 5,000 watts to stop a would-be bomber. I don't care who you are, you get shot with a TAZER, and you aren't moving an inch.
Finally, you've added something useful to the conversation instead of just screaming bloody murder. Would a taser do the job?

Shhh...dont swallow the bait.

He has nothing to loose. He is immune from mod badness.

The crime of saying stupid shit. And mispelling it.


I hate when I tell someone off and either mis-spell or mis-type it. It just feels like all the air comes out of it.

They could have at least tried to shoot him in the arm that was reaching for the bag

Spoken like a person who has not tried to hit a moving target the size of a large stick with a pistol from 25-50 paces.

Look, it's really simple, the guy said he had a bomb on a plane - putting the lives of the passengers in jeapordy. So you do what you're supposed to, being take whatever measures necessary to keep them safe. The guy ignored demands to stand down - it's not like he said "I have a bomb" and they immediately shot him. So...when he reaches for the bag after ignoring the AM's demands they're really left with no other recourse. Even if he was bipolar, at that moment there is nothing to say that his 'wife' wasn't really an accomplice and just trying to distract. In hindsight...yeah, it sucks that an innocent guy died. But if he had actually had a bomb and detonated it because the AM's didn't shoot him...well hindsight would suck even more.

The real lesson here is if you have a problem, take your damn medication.

Kiador']So, we have an innocent man dead, a major, major, major embarrassment and a couple of passengers who are now, if secretly, in trauma counseling. This makes all our citizens feel so, so, so much better about national security now.

Major embarrassment? I think not. The Air Marshall made the right decision, instead of risking another terrorist attack in this country.

I hate when I tell someone off and either mis-spell or mis-type it. It just feels like all the air comes out of it.
But then you miss the irony (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/irony) of the situation.

Seriously. You can't really mess with the spelling more than that and have the word still be recognised.

Fine then. Yes.
*Bang, Bang*
You're dead, now please quit being a fucking fool.

I'm sorry, but I don't condone the actions of the AM's. At all. Infact, the entire 'anti-terrorist' system in the U.S. is pathetic. If some one wants to get into the U.S. and kill people, they are going to. And there is nothing you, nor any one else, can do about it. This is a perfect example. What if he did have a bomb? What if he had of detonated it in mid-air before all this happened? What would you be saying then?

dont get warned or banned for this. Its hardly worth it.


Yeah you are right. I can have knee-jerk responses too :P

Despite certain myths, Tasers are not infallible or completely effective. I mean, what if the guy was wearing the bomb somehow, like a suicide bomber? An AM tasers the guy, the sure of electricity sets it off? Perhaps unlikely, but still a possibility. A single round does the job far better and much more safely.

Finally, you've added something useful to the conversation instead of just screaming bloody murder. Would a taser do the job?

Isn't a tazer a one time use weapon? It seems as though you would be at a disadvantage if you had multiple bad dudes.

Although a multi shot one would probably work.

Finally, you've added something useful to the conversation instead of just screaming bloody murder. Would a taser do the job?

Tazers are notoriously unreliable in range and accuracy. You also don't want electricity running through a detonation device. Most are electric based.

A firearm is much more effective and reliable.

Because we're basing our opinions on the details as they are. That doesn't mean our opinions wouldn't change if new evidence showed wrongdoing on the part of the AM. We're discussing the very idea of lethal force being used to stop suspects...not just this specific case, because we DON'T have all the details. It's simply an example to use in order to further this particular dicussion.

There's a big difference between saying "If he said he had a bomb, he was no longer innocent" and "As soon as he said he had a bomb, he was no longer innocent."

But feel free to join in this circle jerk based on speculation presented as fact.

He has nothing to loose. He is immune from mod badness.
You've built quite a mythology for a humble forum Z0MB13 to live up to.

I'm sorry, but I don't condone the actions of the AM's. At all. Infact, the entire 'anti-terrorist' system in the U.S. is pathetic. If some one wants to get into the U.S. and kill people, they are going to. And there is nothing you, nor any one else, can do about it. This is a perfect example. What if he did have a bomb? What if he had of detonated it in mid-air before all this happened? What would you be saying then?

So you're saying we should do nothing? Do you actually have a solution or do you just like ranting about how evil the AMs are?

I would say Columbia needs to improve it's air security.

Tazers are notoriously unreliable in range and accuracy. You also don't want electricity running through a detonation device. Most are electric based.

A firearm is much more effective and reliable.
Question...could a bullet set off a bomb? Or C4 or sticks of dynamite, or whatever was going to be used to go BOOM?

Not really, what's to stop me from getting on a plane and claiming I am, infact God, and I do, infact, have nuclear weapons in my pants?

Are your AM's going to murder me like they did that other innocent man?
If things happened as reported then the man in question was not innocent and the AMs did not murdered him.

Nothing stops you from doing that in an airplane. And the AM has the obligation of stopping you by whatever means necessary after assessing the situation to prevent you from harming others, either because you're evil or just crazy.

Finally, you've added something useful to the conversation instead of just screaming bloody murder. Would a taser do the job?


No-it wouldnt. Thats why they have guns. And If the guy was tasered or maced, people would be screeching that they used either of those on some poor retard. God forbid he wet his pants-he'd sue everyone for millions and settle out of court. Or have a heart attack and we're back to square one.

Nope-put a fork in him-he's done. now we don thave to worry about him doing it again. Only the loads of baddies that watch how we deal with this and try to manipulate it to serve their own purposes down the road.
All terrorists will have an accomplice to attest to their mental problems so men hesitate in taking care of business.

There's a big difference between saying "If he said he had a bomb, he was no longer innocent" and "As soon as he said he had a bomb, he was no longer innocent."

But feel free to join in this circle jerk based on speculation presented as fact.
No, the facts stand that is is a federal offense to say you have a bomb, whether you have one or not.

And I'll leave the jerking off to you.

There's a big difference between saying "If he said he had a bomb, he was no longer innocent" and "As soon as he said he had a bomb, he was no longer innocent."

But feel free to join in this circle jerk based on speculation presented as fact.

I like how you automatically assume everyone is lying and refer to attacks on the AM's as a "circle jerk" (even though I wouldn't mind it from Sinuhue) :)

This is exactly the way we should handle things and I am totally 100% behind the actions of the air marshals. In those situations theres no, "well, maybe he does have a bomb, maybe he doesnt". It's either he goes down, or a couple hundred people, take your pick. I praise the marshals for picking the right choice. I'm glad to see we are taking a leaf out of Israel's book, notice how they dont have ANY hijacking problems, that I am aware of. You know why? Because they dont stop and think, well maybe hes not going to blow up me, along with a few hundred other people, maybe hes just bluffing, or insane. Its them and the passangers first, the criminal second. Thats how it always should be.

And you know what, if some lunatic gets taken out during all of this then oh well, cleansing the gene pool is all it is.

I am of course joking about that last part, death is never good, but what is good, is not always what is best.

Infact, the entire 'anti-terrorist' system in the U.S. is pathetic.And people with your brand of fantasies are a small part of the reason. I won't blame the whole problem on people who think we live in a magic land where perfect prescience is possible, but there certainly are a lot of people whom seem to think that magic fore-knowlege is not only possible, but should be common.

Considering the number of people who fly (there are over a million people in the air at any given moment), that this is the first time that I can recall that an air marshal has actually killed someone (though there might be one or two others), and the utter cocksnottery that about ten percent of people demonstrate when they fly, I think that the airmarshal service has done a pretty fucking fantastic job of not killing people.

In any case, this guy had is coming. It's a hard hearted thing to say, but gone are the days that you could dick around near aircraft.

So you're saying we should do nothing? Do you actually have a solution or do you just like ranting about how evil the AMs are?

I would say Columbia needs to improve it's air security.

Exactly. Which then would raise the question, how was this man, a terrorist, allowed onto this flight?

A) You don't know he's a terrorist.
B) You havn't found a bomb.
C) You have nothing that would lead to suspect him of terrorism.

All of these points apply both ways. Even WITH the security measures in place, if he isn't already a known terrorist, there is nothing to point to that he is, so why not let him on the flight?

Infact, the entire 'anti-terrorist' system in the U.S. is pathetic. If some one wants to get into the U.S. and kill people, they are going to. And there is nothing you, nor any one else, can do about it.

Quite incorrect. They are having a more difficult time to get in because the government is ignoring people like you who for god only knows why actually get mad when anything is done to stop people from killing others. Just by saying
What if he did have a bomb? What if he had of detonated it in mid-air before all this happened? What would you be saying then?[/
you are already pointing out the justification to shooting the man. It was easy to believe he had a bomb, assumptions that were only made easier when he foolishly evaded capture, and thus the air marshalls acted accordingly.
If you seriously think they did a bad job, then try putting yourself in the situation that air marshall was in and then try to say how you would've acted differently. Make sure you don't forget the "one man dies or dozens of people die" concern. Otherwise, as others have already said, please stop shouting out nonsense.

Question...could a bullet set off a bomb? Or C4 or sticks of dynamite, or whatever was going to be used to go BOOM?

Usually-no.

But we have to establish that we will always act, rather than fawn and fret and drop our weapons and panst and submit to a thorough rogering by whatever fuckup wants to hurt us-or forgets his asshole pills.

Why did his disorder make him behave that way? Why didnt he pass out flowers to everyone? Why didnt he sing a song? Why does the behavior always seem to ratchet up these dangerous scenarios?

Fuck him. I dont need assholes with bombs or assholes pretending they do.

And people with your brand of fantasies are a small part of the reason. I won't blame the whole problem on people who think we live in a magic land where perfect prescience is possible, but there certainly are a lot of people whom seem to think that magic fore-knowlege is not only possible, but should be common.

And what's to stop me from getting on a plane right now, and blowing it up?

I'm not a suspected terrorist.

I'm not on any international watch list.

I don't have a criminal record.

There is nothing suspicious about me. I'm just going to New York on a business trip.

I'm a random civilian, from No-Where-Canada, that's going to blow up a plane.

Tell me, what's going to stop me from doing this? The only measures you take against terrorists, are measures used to stop who you have already identified AS terrorists.

Exactly. Which then would raise the question, how was this man, a terrorist, allowed onto this flight?

A) You don't know he's a terrorist.
B) You havn't found a bomb.
C) You have nothing that would lead to suspect him of terrorism.

All of these points apply both ways. Even WITH the security measures in place, if he isn't already a known terrorist, there is nothing to point to that he is, so why not let him on the flight?

So you think that every terrorist is known to every gov't agency?

Did I say anything about "not" letting him on the flight?

Do you think Columbia's air security is at the same levels as the US's? You've already stated that you don't feel the US's is up to par.

What do you think should be done then?

Question...could a bullet set off a bomb? Or C4 or sticks of dynamite, or whatever was going to be used to go BOOM?

excellent question

Also, I wonder how many people say thay have a bomb before setting them off instead of just doing it. If I were in the AM's shoes I'd have shot the guy too as you don't really have time to think about all the angles, but it would be interesting to know.

And people with your brand of fantasies are a small part of the reason. I won't blame the whole problem on people who think we live in a magic land where perfect prescience is possible, but there certainly are a lot of people whom seem to think that magic fore-knowlege is not only possible, but should be common.
We do tend to look in the wrong direction in our airport security. I was in Israel a few months ago. When I left, I was questioned by a non-uniformed official about my trip. Just innocent questions like "Was your trip business or pleasure?", "Who were you working for?". Innocent, but enough to appraise the character of the questioned. My wife had the best response, though. She thought the officer was an airline official. Her question was "Can I get an upgrade to business class on this flight?".

In the U.S.A., we tend to ignore the person and put our faith in detecting the weapon. I don't advocate ignoring weapons, but I would like to see a little more effort put into evaluating the passengers. Some intelligent conversation seems to do as good a job as all the random searches in the world.

Quite incorrect. They are having a more difficult time to get in because the government is ignoring people like you who for god only knows why actually get mad when anything is done to stop people from killing others. Just by saying

you are already pointing out the justification to shooting the man. It was easy to believe he had a bomb, assumptions that were only made easier when he foolishly evaded capture, and thus the air marshalls acted accordingly.
If you seriously think they did a bad job, then try putting yourself in the situation that air marshall was in and then try to say how you would've acted differently. Make sure you don't forget the "one man dies or dozens of people die" concern. Otherwise, as others have already said, please stop shouting out nonsense.

I'm sorry, but can you give me an exact number of how many bombs AM's have found on planes?

Tell me, what's going to stop me from doing this? The only measures you take against terrorists, are measures used to stop who you have already identified AS terrorists.Are you nuts? Clearly the last measure is the AM. Is this guy making any sense? 'Cuz I'm not seeing it.

And what's to stop me from getting on a plane right now, and blowing it up?

I'm not a suspected terrorist.

I'm not on any international watch list.

I don't have a criminal record.

There is nothing suspicious about me. I'm just going to New York on a business trip.

I'm a random civilian, from No-Where-Canada, that's going to blow up a plane.

Tell me, what's going to stop me from doing this? The only measures you take against terrorists, are measures used to stop who you have already identified AS terrorists.

Once again proving you know little on the subject.

As "innocent" as you are, go to the airport and claim you have a bomb in you luggage. In Canada. Let's see what they do.

Let's take a look at the FACTS:

There was NO BOMB.
One innocent, although disturbed, man is DEAD.
Yelling that you have a bomb on a plane is a crime. He was a criminal from that point on.

The second he yelled" I have a bomb" on a plane, he was no longer innocent.
Right

The man had also just gotten in from Colombia which I think would have less anti bomb secuirty, so he could have snuck a bomb in.

Question...could a bullet set off a bomb? Or C4 or sticks of dynamite, or whatever was going to be used to go BOOM?In general, no. True nitro-based dynamite, maybe, but that's a rarity these days. The great majority of commercial explosives, and almost all military explosives are surprisingly stable and resistant to rough handling. It generally requires a very sharp shockwave to cause the explosives to detonate, and very few, if any, handguns are going to be able to deliver that kind of energy.

Of course, fluke events still happen... It's not a perfect, or safe, world in which we live.


Edit:
Typos

Are you nuts? Clearly the last measure is the AM. Is this guy making any sense? 'Cuz I'm not seeing it.

No. He's just trolling and doing some good old US bashing. There's rarely any coherency there.

So you think that every terrorist is known to every gov't agency?

Did I say anything about "not" letting him on the flight?

Do you think Columbia's air security is at the same levels as the US's? You've already stated that you don't feel the US's is up to par.

What do you think should be done then?

Absolutely nothing. That's what. People die. Shit happens. Move on.

It's one thing when bad guys kill good people, thats a problem, but when good people kill good people, trying to fix the first problem, it creates more problems.

Claiming to have a bomb on a plane, or in an airport is a federal offense in both Canada and the US.

Well, remember the context here. The man was dilusional with a mental disorder, and hadn't taken his medicine. That right there pretty much takes all blame off of him. He was innocent in the fact that he didn't have control over his actions.

HOWEVER, I do not hold the SF or police forces responsible. They were doing their job, the job they were trained to do, and they believed this man was a serious threat.

It is truly unfortunate that an innocent man whom had no control over his actions. It's a no-fault situation. Neither man nor the police can be blamed truly for this.

Yelling that you have a bomb on a plane is a crime. He was a criminal from that point on.


Right

This is exactly my point of the futility of the US's stance. Simply saying you have a bomb, is a crime.

I'm sorry, but can you give me an exact number of how many bombs AM's have found on planes?

I'm sorry, I don't quite know. Maybe while searching for it I'll come across how being an asshole makes one think they can debate and then both of our questions will be answered.

What I do know is even if they haven't found any that's not to say it will never happen. Afterall, prior to 9/11 no one had ever used airliners as a weapon and looky there, someone did. "It hasn't happened yet" is a horrible excuse in that field.

If I was an Air Marshal, and I say a guy yelling out that he HAD a BOMB and tried to run from us after we tried to stop him, I'd blow his mother-****ing brains out. So what if the plain already landed, he could still kill or injure people in the vacinity and cause tens of thousands of dollars in property damged.

One middle-aged mental guy isn't worth 4 or 5 other people and 20 grand worth of stuff, IMHO.

Simply saying you have a bomb, is a crime.Yup. You finally got it... And here I though you were unreachable. :p
It's exactly parallel to falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

Absolutely nothing. That's what. People die. Shit happens. Move on.

It's one thing when bad guys kill good people, thats a problem, but when good people kill good people, trying to fix the first problem, it creates more problems.

I don't even know how to reply to stupidity of this level.

And in those seconds checking to see if he's "disabled", he sets off the kill switch.

That's why it's a kill shot.
These guys are trained for one shot to one kill for a simple reason.Who wants unnecessary live rounds flying around a pressurised cabin at 35000ft.I am not in favour of taking a life for any reason but ,when the lives of many are at potential risk effective action must be taken to nuteralise the threat.These A/M opperated within SOP guidelines and are to be comended for the quick and effective action taken not to be portrayed as mindless thugs.They are in the same league as hospitals perse in that it is bad to need them but good to have them.

Once again proving you know little on the subject.

As "innocent" as you are, go to the airport and claim you have a bomb in you luggage. In Canada. Let's see what they do.
77. Every one who
(a) on board an aircraft in flight, commits an act of violence against a person that is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft,
(b) using a weapon, commits an act of violence against a person at an airport serving international civil aviation that causes or is likely to cause serious injury or death and that endangers or is likely to endanger safety at the airport,
(c) causes damage to an aircraft in service that renders the aircraft incapable of flight or that is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft in flight,
(d) places or causes to be placed on board an aircraft in service anything that is likely to cause damage to the aircraft, that will render it incapable of flight or that is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft in flight,
(e) causes damage to or interferes with the operation of any air navigation facility where the damage or interference is likely to endanger the safety of an aircraft in flight,
(f) using a weapon, substance or device, destroys or causes serious damage to the facilities of an airport serving international civil aviation or to any aircraft not in service located there, or causes disruption of services of the airport, that endangers or is likely to endanger safety at the airport, or
(g) endangers the safety of an aircraft in flight by communicating to any other person any information that the person knows to be false,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.

Precedent has been set which has section 77 g being applied to bomb threats. Life in prison.

This is exactly my point of the futility of the US's stance. Simply saying you have a bomb, is a crime.

He said it on a Plane filled with passengers who would have been killed if the bomb were real. What do you want him to do? Pick up the bomb and point it out to the authorities before detonating it? Jesus...

Once again proving you know little on the subject.

As "innocent" as you are, go to the airport and claim you have a bomb in you luggage. In Canada. Let's see what they do.

I'm not saying I'm going to claim I have a bomb, I'm saying I'm going to use that bomb to kill people. And I ask you, what can possibly be done to prevent it?

Well, remember the context here. The man was dilusional with a mental disorder, and hadn't taken his medicine. That right there pretty much takes all blame off of him. He was innocent in the fact that he didn't have control over his actions.

HOWEVER, I do not hold the SF or police forces responsible. They were doing their job, the job they were trained to do, and they believed this man was a serious threat.

It is truly unfortunate that an innocent man whom had no control over his actions. It's a no-fault situation. Neither man nor the police can be blamed truly for this.
Let's remember one more thing. This man may have been on a plane that just landed, but was he going to go through screening again before boarding a connecting flight? Maybe after customs, maybe not.

It's bad policy to let someone claiming to have a bomb run loose in any public place. When we endow our policemen with ESP or X-ray vision, maybe they can decide who is actually bluffing and who isn't, but until then, I'm content to have them treat everyone that claims to have a bomb as if they actually possessed one.

And, of course, the guy is a latino. Great.

Yelling that you have a bomb on a plane is a crime. He was a criminal from that point on.


However, he was dillusional. He would have easily gotten off on charges due to his mental disorder, which impaired his ability to act normally and be responsible for his actions.

However, like I said before, the police acted rationally and correctly. Sometimes it is best to be on the side of caution. It is unfortunate that an innocent(under this particular context) man had to die, however it wasn't the police's fault.

However, he was dillusional.Bi-polar != delusional.
Much more likely that he was trying for "suicide by cop."

Let's remember one more thing. This man may have been on a plane that just landed, but was he going to go through screening again before boarding a connecting flight? Maybe after customs, maybe not.

It's bad policy to let someone claiming to have a bomb run loose in any public place. When we endow our policemen with ESP or X-ray vision, maybe they can decide who is actually bluffing and who isn't, but until then, I'm content to have them treat everyone that claims to have a bomb as if they actually possessed one.

Which is exactly how they should be treated, and what I was trying to say in the second part of my paragraph.

What I was saying to that is that the man wasn't a criminal-he was dilusional. He was also on the unfortunate end of the stick in this case. The police acted correctly-they did what they had to.

This is exactly my point of the futility of the US's stance. Simply saying you have a bomb, is a crime.

Just like yelling "fire" in a movie theater if there isn't one is a crime. It is a public safety issue.

And as for you claiming to be god and having a nuke in your pants...if you did it on an airplane, in an airport, a courtroom...pretty much anywhere but the psych ward, then yes- if you run, refuse to freeze, and reach for your crotch or a button, then you should most definately be shot.

And the argument about aiming for the guys shoulder or arm is just silly. Olympian sharpshooters miss. Firing at a moving target, while one is persuing said target is infinately more difficult than firing on a range. You aim for the chest. Standard procedure.
The oldest adage in firearms (been around since muskets) is "aim small, miss small." You aim for the biggest target surrounded by the most real estate, i.e. the center of the torso.

Well, remember the context here. The man was dilusional with a mental disorder, and hadn't taken his medicine. That right there pretty much takes all blame off of him. He was innocent in the fact that he didn't have control over his actions.That doesn't automatically take the blame off him, no. For all we know, he committed suicide by cop.

Bi-polar != delusional.
Much more likely that he was trying for "suicide by cop."

Ah, true. Had my disorders messed up. However, he still wasn't in the right state of mind to be accountable.

Which is exactly how they should be treated, and what I was trying to say in the second part of my paragraph.

What I was saying to that is that the man wasn't a criminal-he was dilusional. He was also on the unfortunate end of the stick in this case. The police acted correctly-they did what they had to.

So how many more people 'on the unfortunate end of the stick' are going to have to die before you realize killing people, who ever they are, and what ever 'threat' they pose, in any case, is wrong?

That doesn't automatically take the blame off him, no. For all we know, he committed suicide by cop.

Which may very well have been a direct cause of his mental disorder. Not saying that what was done was wrong, just that it was quite unfortunate.

Perhaps delusional was the wrong word to use, as well.

Bi-polar != delusional.
Much more likely that he was trying for "suicide by cop."
People assume that all mental illness means you're delusional. It isn't true. And just because you have a mental illness, it does not mean you are never held accountable for your crimes.

This is exactly my point of the futility of the US's stance. Simply saying you have a bomb, is a crime.
I don't agree on the Threat law myself, (I almost got accused of it once) But it's still the law.

Terroristic Threats are wrong period. Now why don't you leave because you aren't going to win any converts here. You are just making a complete fool of yourself. Stop while you have a shred of credibility left.

Which is exactly how they should be treated, and what I was trying to say in the second part of my paragraph.

What I was saying to that is that the man wasn't a criminal-he was dilusional. He was also on the unfortunate end of the stick in this case. The police acted correctly-they did what they had to.
You're right. Law enforcement is always in a tough spot. If they are going to make a mistake, though, they need to make the mistake that will cause the least harm. That's what happened here, and I'm sure the Air Marshall wishes he had some super-powers to undo the whole thing. Hopefully, he will continue to exercise the good judgement that he showed this time and be fully supported by his superiors.

So how many more people 'on the unfortunate end of the stick' are going to have to die before you realize killing people, who ever they are, and what ever 'threat' they pose, in any case, is wrong?

Sorry, so the AMs should have just let the guy run around screaming he had a bomb? What if he was just using a shock tactic to confuse the AMs to give him time to reacha bigger target and more people to kill? Should they have just let him run around and possibly detonate a bomb?

I'm not saying I'm going to claim I have a bomb, I'm saying I'm going to use that bomb to kill people. And I ask you, what can possibly be done to prevent it?

What you can do to prevent someone from detonating a bomb is killing them first. Sad but true. It would be nice if there were alternatives, but that's the only sure-fire way. Thus why I agree with and support the air marshall.

So how many more people 'on the unfortunate end of the stick' are going to have to die before you realize killing people, who ever they are, and what ever 'threat' they pose, in any case, is wrong?

So your policy, I take it, would be to lie back and allow suicide bombers to kill people at will? Should victims of ethnic cleansing simply march to their mass graves and not lift a finger in the defense of their own and their children's lives?

People assume that all mental illness means you're delusional. It isn't true. And just because you have a mental illness, it does not mean you are never held accountable for your crimes.
Just so I'm sure you and I are on the same page, and we understand each other:

" != " means "Does not equal"

So how many more people 'on the unfortunate end of the stick' are going to have to die before you realize killing people, who ever they are, and what ever 'threat' they pose, in any case, is wrong?
Like I said in another post, using deadly force is a tough decision. The Air Marshall had very little time to react and had to take the best course of action. That means he had to act on the information he had at hand. He also had to pick a course of action, which if the wrong one, caused the least amount of harm.

What would you suggest that he should have done, instead?

Just so I'm sure you and I are on the same page, and we understand each other:

" != " means "Does not equal"
Damn mathematicians. :)

I don't agree on the Threat law myself, (I almost got accused of it once) But it's still the law.

Terroristic Threats are wrong period. Now why don't you leave because you aren't going to win any converts here. You are just making a complete fool of yourself. Stop while you have a shred of credibility left.

I'm not here to make friends, or converts, I'm not here to coincide with other people's opinions. I'm here to see what other people think, I'm here to ask them questions, how ever stupid and ridiclous they may be, and I'm here to voice my own opinion. Last time I checked, the U.S. and just about every other 'free' nation hadn't revoked free speech in the name of freedom and the 'war on terror', although I wouldn't be surprised if they did some time in the near future.

I don't care what you want to think.
I don't care what you want to believe.

I'm not here to be 'credible'. I'm not an intellectual. I'm not a university professor. I'm not a lawyer, or politician. I don't have any 'credibilty' to begin with, and from this, I can derive I have none to lose.

I don't even know how to reply to stupidity of this level.


Please!! He's Bi-polar!! Dont hurt him-just let him have his way with you. He'll stop when he's done.

Damn mathematicians. :)
:p

:D


Guity as charged...

Like I said in another post, using deadly force is a tough decision. The Air Marshall had very little time to react and had to take the best course of action. That means he had to act on the information he had at hand. He also had to pick a course of action, which if the wrong one, caused the least amount of harm.

What would you suggest that he should have done, instead?

Suggest he should have done? I don't have a suggestion. If the AM wasn't there in the first place, he wouldn't be dead. Again, I'll reiterrate the amount of bombs found on planes, which currently stands at zero.

I'm not here to be 'credible'. I'm not an intellectual. I'm not a university professor. I'm not a lawyer, or politician. I don't have any 'credibilty' to begin with, and from this, I can derive I have none to lose.
From which statement I think we can all safely conclude that you're here to be a troll.

And not even a very creative one, at that.

Just so I'm sure you and I are on the same page, and we understand each other:

" != " means "Does not equal"
I know...that comment was backing up what you'd said. I suppose I just could've said 'word':D

Suggest he should have done? I don't have a suggestion. If the AM wasn't there in the first place, he wouldn't be dead. Again, I'll reiterrate the amount of bombs found on planes, which currently stands at zero.

If the AM hadn't of been there, and the guy had had a bomb...several hundred people would be dead.

Suggest he should have done? I don't have a suggestion. If the AM wasn't there in the first place, he wouldn't be dead. Again, I'll reiterrate the amount of bombs found on planes, which currently stands at zero.



And that some how could prove this guy wouldnt have a bomb today?

There is a terrible flaw in your logic. It seems like you may feel you have been victimized by an authority at one time. I cant explain your thought process otherwise.

So how many more people 'on the unfortunate end of the stick' are going to have to die before you realize killing people, who ever they are, and what ever 'threat' they pose, in any case, is wrong?

This is not a fun question to answer, especially if you are a police officer or other policing force(Which my father is).

Do you take the side of caution and shoot a man who may be innocent?

Do you risk that he might be innocent and risk the lives of all the others?

Perhaps there was some confusion? Perhaps the officer whom shot him didn't know that he had a mental disorder? Perhaps the officer hadn't heard what his wife(Or other passengers) had said? Perhaps they had considered that what she had said was just a distraction?

The fact is, every officer has to make a hard call at least once in their career. I wouldn't doubt that the officer whom shot him feels like shit right now. He's not gonna be braggin about killing an innocent man. However, he did what he had to do. It is unfortunate, but shit happens.

I know...that comment was backing up what you'd said. I suppose I just could've said 'word':D

Heh!
:D

That's what I thought, I just wanted to be sure...

;)

From which statement I think we can all safely conclude that you're here to be a troll.

And not even a very creative one, at that.

A troll? I think not. A man is dead thanks to American policies. I want to know how people feel about this. Most of you don't seem to give it a second thought. Like the 16,000 thousand civilians American troops slaughtered in Fallujah, you don't seem to care. 3,000 American casualities justifies the actions of the United States in the past 4 years? I don't think so. Month after month your government strips people of their rights and treats them in a way that is disgusting and unethical in every way. You want to stop terrorists? Stop giving them a reason to become terrorists.

What you can do to prevent someone from detonating a bomb is killing them first. Sad but true. It would be nice if there were alternatives, but that's the only sure-fire way. Thus why I agree with and support the air marshall.

And how is he going to know I have a bomb? How is going to know I'm about to kill every one? You're assuming I'm going to rant a rave about how I'm about to destroy the plane, when I could very easily just aswell sit in my seat, drink a glass of wine, and have the detonator in the bottom of my shoe for all he know's. It could be in a pack of Smarties for god's sake.

I give up. You are not answering any actual arguments to your statements, and are instead merely maintaining your anti-american viewpoint without answering any arguments.

I'm not here to make friends, or converts, I'm not here to coincide with other people's opinions. I'm here to see what other people think, I'm here to ask them questions, how ever stupid and ridiclous they may be, and I'm here to voice my own opinion. Last time I checked, the U.S. and just about every other 'free' hadn't revoked free speech in the name of freedom and the 'war on terror', although I wouldn't be surprised if they did some time in the near future.

I don't care what you want to think.
I don't care what you want to believe.

I'm not here to be 'credible'. I'm not an intellectual. I'm not a university professor. I'm not a lawyer, or politician. I don't have any 'credibilty' to begin with, and from this, I can derive I have none to lose.
So to translate you are just being a annoying Troll correct?

Because you arleady know everyone's opinions, and none of them agree with yours. You've lost this Arguement.

A troll? I think not. A man is dead thanks to American policies. I want to know how people feel about this. Most of you don't seem to give it a second thought. Like the 16,000 thousand civilians American troops slaughtered in Fallujah, you don't seem to care. 3,000 American casualities justifies the actions of the United States in the past 4 years? I don't think so. Month after month your government strips people of their rights and treats them in a way that is disgusting and unethical in every way. You want to stop terrorists? Stop giving them a reason to become terrorists.

...and the truth comes out. Another I-hate-the-U.S. troll. Onto the ignore list with Swilatia you go.

So your policy, I take it, would be to lie back and allow suicide bombers to kill people at will? Should victims of ethnic cleansing simply march to their mass graves and not lift a finger in the defense of their own and their children's lives?

No, but they shouldn't get some one ELSE to do the job either. Are you oppressed? Then stand up for yourself. Some one's about to detonate a bomb? Stop cowaring like an idiot and do some thing about it. My 'policy' is to take responsibility for your own safety, and not leave it in the hands of others.

Suggest he should have done? I don't have a suggestion. If the AM wasn't there in the first place, he wouldn't be dead. Again, I'll reiterrate the amount of bombs found on planes, which currently stands at zero.
The logic of this statement eludes me. I guess that means that since I have never found an errant letter in my mailbox, then one will never appear? Errant, in this case, means a letter not addressed to me.

It doesnt matter if the guy was bipolar. His wife was screaming he wasnt on his meds, then why didnt she give them to him. She is caring for him, yet she cant give him pills when they are traveling on a plane. The AM did a great job handling this situation. The guy said he had a bomb, they shot him. You cant hesitate as an AM, hundreds or thousands of peoples lives depend on you and if you make the right choice.

[QUOTE=Nuclear Industries]A troll? I think not. A man is dead thanks to American policies.QUOTE]

Yup, those awful American policies. How dare they think one terrorist life would be worth less than multiple innnocent lives?

Seriously, where the hell do you get this stuff? It's like you're purposely ignoring all logic. I don't think every last act the government has done has been overly honorable, but I don't think they can do no right either.

Suppose the man did have a bomb, detonated it, and ultimately killed a friend or member of your family? Would you still say they shouldn't have killed him? He'd be dead either way, but the difference is he'd be the only one dead.

...and the truth comes out. Another I-hate-the-U.S. troll. Onto the ignore list with Swilatia you go.

Right, so you ignore every one who disagree's with what the U.S. is doing?
You throw out their opinions and beliefs because they don't support the U.S.

Nice, you're a real balanced individual.

A troll? I think not.
Evidence indicates otherwise.

A man is dead thanks to American policies.
American policies? Dude! You're either a really dumb troll, or have been living in a box somewhere... This is the standard approach used by pretty much every police force, everywhere in the world.

I want to know how people feel about this. Then why didn't you say so, explicitly, instead of trying to stir up sh!t with baseless, defenseless, dimwitted assertions?

Right, so you ignore every one who disagree's with what the U.S. is doing?
You throw out their opinions and beliefs because they don't support the U.S.

Nice, you're a real balanced individual.
Didn't NK say that this was a good technique to use when you have no good argument to use against the opposition? Twist around their words and exaggerate their position.

Didn't NK say that this was a good technique to use when you have no good argument to use against the opposition? Twist around their words and exaggerate their position.

Thank-you. Someone can phrase it better than I can. Tghis guy is ignoring all arguments counter to his and merely twisting words now.

Evidence indicates otherwise.


American policies? Dude! You're either a really dumb troll, or have been living in a box somewhere... This is the standard approach used by pretty much every police force, everywhere in the world.

Then why didn't you say so, explicitly, instead of trying to stir up sh!t with baseless, defenseless, dimwitted assertions?

This is the standard approach used by pretty much every police force, everywhere in the world, based from American assertation.

Why didn't I say I wanted to voice my own opinion? Why didn't I say I wanted to know how other people feel about this? Well, because I would think that's the general concept of everyone using this forum. Infact, I think that's the concept behind forums all together.

No, but they shouldn't get some one ELSE to do the job either. Are you oppressed? Then stand up for yourself. Some one's about to detonate a bomb? Stop cowaring like an idiot and do some thing about it. My 'policy' is to take responsibility for your own safety, and not leave it in the hands of others.

You're forgetting another one of those gash-darned oh-so horrible American policies - weapons are not allowed on aircraft. Something about some people hijacked some aircraft and hurled 'em into a few buildings killing thousands. Thus we have some people who are authorized to take weapons onto aircraft for the purpose of defending the people who had the intention of obeying a very intelligent and purposeful law.
And what makes them so worthy of carrying a weapon is that they recieved training on careful researched policies on when to and not to use an authorized weapon.

Anyway, I'm sick of this... there are much better thing I can think of to do with my time than argue with someone who goes out of his way not to make sense.

Thank-you. Someone can phrase it better than I can. Tghis guy is ignoring all arguments counter to his and merely twisting words now.

I'm not ignoring any thing, I've read every single argument addressed to me. I think I've answered most of them too. Some of you have chosen to put American life, over every one elses. And this is evident if you read half the posts in the thread.

This is the standard approach used by pretty much every police force, everywhere in the world, based from American assertation.


Actually, in many countries, he'd be liable to be shot as soon as he uttered the word "bomb". At least we give people a chance to give up. He didn't, he was shot. He wasn't shot on sight, he was shot as soon as the threat was to large, that being him reaching into his bag. As far as the world goes, that's quite liberal of us towards them. And many countries have followed much more strict policies long before 9/11. Really, this isn't an American thing you're talking about at all. At least we give people a chance to give up.

I'm not ignoring any thing, I've read every single argument addressed to me. I think I've answered most of them too. Some of you have chosen to put American life, over every one elses. And this is evident if you read half the posts in the thread.

Please, do explain how people have chosen to put an American life over everyone elses? If you are referring to the incident that started this thread, it is by no means unique to America. This could have happened in London, Paris, Rome, Athens...the list goes on. According to your statements, it would have been better to let this man possibly detonate a bomb and kill hundreds, instead of killing him and possibly saving many lives.

I'm not ignoring any thing, I've read every single argument addressed to me. I think I've answered most of them too. Some of you have chosen to put American life, over every one elses. And this is evident if you read half the posts in the thread.
I would support this action, even if it happened in Canada, to a Canadian, by a Canadian. Bomb threat. Federal offense. Refusing to obey orders to stop, reaching for what could be a weapon? Yup. Shoot him. Had he obeyed the orders, and just been arrested, then we could worry about putting him in jail for life for his crime. But he didn't.

It seems that the terrorists' strategies are working quite well. They usually do.

At home you fear your own shadows, abroad your army of occupation is being picked off one by one, your allies have become suspicious of your motives and your legitimacy in the eyes of the world is spiralling downwards.

Time to change your tactics, America. Only a complete change of government and foreign policy and a demonstrable shift of your role in the global economy will suffice.

Please, do explain how people have chosen to put an American life over everyone elses? If you are referring to the incident that started this thread, it is by no means unique to America. This could have happened in London, Paris, Rome, Athens...the list goes on. According to your statements, it would have been better to let this man possibly detonate a bomb and kill hundreds, instead of killing him and possibly saving many lives.

Yes it would, it would have been better to let him possibly detonate a non existant bomb and watch all the non existant hundreds die, instead of killing him, and possibly saving many lives, not in any danger to begin with.

Yes it would, it would have been better to let him possibly detonate a non existant bomb and watch all the non existant hundreds die, instead of killing him, and possibly saving many lives, not in any danger to begin with.

I highly doubt the man was wearing a badge identifying him as a sufferer of Bi-Polar disorder. The AMs were not psychic. The man said he had a bomb, the AMs had no way of knowing this was untrue, he refused to stop his actions, and was shot to protect the population.

I would support this action, even if it happened in Canada, to a Canadian, by a Canadian. Bomb threat. Federal offense. Refusing to obey orders to stop, reaching for what could be a weapon? Yup. Shoot him. Had he obeyed the orders, and just been arrested, then we could worry about putting him in jail for life for his crime. But he didn't.

No, and now he's dead for a crime he didn't commit. Who's really guilty here? An innocent civilian, or the guy who killed him?

I highly doubt the man was wearing a badge identifying him as a sufferer of Bi-Polar disorder. The AMs were not psychic. The man said he had a bomb, the AMs had no way of knowing this was untrue, he refused to stop his actions, and was shot to protect the population.

Shot to protect the population from a nonexistant threat. Good job.

This is the standard approach used by pretty much every police force, everywhere in the world, based from American assertation.You really are in la-la land. How many El-Al security officers have killed in similar circumstances? Several that I can think of. How many other similar incidents around the world happen every year? A few that break the surface, more that don'tunless you go looking. This is not an assertion, this is an observed fact.
Why didn't I say I wanted to voice my own opinion?
We know what you opinion is...That was never in question. However, when one wishes to create a debate, one does not repeat the same dimbulb proposition over and over again - One questions the other participants to the whys and wherefores of their opinions. For instance, any number of people have asked what realistic alternative you would propose, and you've responded by essentially restating your original thesis - Like an automaton with only two programed responses. Further, you've been asked to defend your original thesis, and you've responded with what amounts to "because I said so." You have futher attempted, pathetically, to use nationality to decide issues of credibility, which is so juvenile as to be almost laughable.

That, I submit, is not debate. That is trolling, and at a second-grade level.

I highly doubt the man was wearing a badge identifying him as a sufferer of Bi-Polar disorder. The AMs were not psychic. The man said he had a bomb, the AMs had no way of knowing this was untrue, he refused to stop his actions, and was shot to protect the population.

Shot to protect the population from a nonexistant threat. What a great thing to die for. I think I'll kill myself RIGHT NOW to save you the trouble, because I *might* be a threat to you some time in the future.

Shot to protect the population from a nonexistant threat. Good job.

A non-existant threat....that we know now. I doubt the man shouted "I have a nonexistant bomb" to everyone. The man said he had one, the AMs called on him to cease and desist, he refused to, then they fired on him to protect the passengers.

A non-existant threat....that we know now. I doubt the man shouted "I have a nonexistant bomb" to everyone. The man said he had one, the AMs called on him to cease and desist, he refused to, then they fired on him to protect the passengers.

Protect them from what again? The nonexistant bomb?

Cease and desist from doing what? Detonating the nonexistant bomb?

Shot to protect the population from a nonexistant threat. What a great thing to die for. I think I'll kill myself RIGHT NOW to save you the trouble, because I *might* be a threat to you some time in the future.

You really are not in touch with reality.

It doesn't matter if the threat doesn't exist-the fact is, he posed a very real threat to other civilians. Whether or not that threat was true or not does not mean it wasn't a real threat. The officer did what he had to to stop what he perceived as a real threat-which any person under those circumstances would have done. You are forgetten that you have the gift of hindsight, which the officer did not have. You know he didn't have a bomb, the officer thought he did. With the information he had, he made the only decision he could-shoot him. You KNOW he was unarmed. The officer DIDN't.

Protect them from what again? The nonexistant bomb?
They would have no way to determine if it existed or not. They must assume it does. That's their job. Are you also aware that in Canada and the US, it is a federal offense to say you are going to hijack a plane? Even if you're joking? This is VERY pre 9/11 by the way...your conspiracy theories are weak.

Protect them from what again? The nonexistant bomb?

Okay. The AMs didn't know he had a bomb. The man said he had one. They were not to know he did not have one, and he refused to stop his actions, which do not seem like the actions of an innocent man (Yes, he was bi-polar, I know).

Suggest he should have done? I don't have a suggestion. If the AM wasn't there in the first place, he wouldn't be dead. Again, I'll reiterrate the amount of bombs found on planes, which currently stands at zero.
well now there were all those bombs on planes that blew up eh?

there was the bomb in the shoe of that idiot who tried to detonate it with a match

No, but they shouldn't get some one ELSE to do the job either. Are you oppressed? Then stand up for yourself. Some one's about to detonate a bomb? Stop cowaring like an idiot and do some thing about it. My 'policy' is to take responsibility for your own safety, and not leave it in the hands of others.

so its better for the passengers to beat to death anyone they find suspicious rather than have a professional on the plane who is trained to deal with the situation??

Why are you guys continuing to bother with this guy? If he wants to live in a false reality and claim whatever he wants to, let him. He's already proved himself on multiple occasions to be highly unreasonable and refuses to provide a debate, rather just calls everyone whatever he feels like.

Protect them from what again? The nonexistant bomb?

Cease and desist from doing what? Detonating the nonexistant bomb?

Join a policing force, and see how far this attitude will get you. Sometimes, an officer has to make decisions like this. He posed a very REAL threat. Whether or not what he said was true does not remove the THREAT. The officer thought he had a bomb. All the evidence pointed to him having a bomb. You know he didn't have a bomb, but this is AFTER the fact. During the fact, the officers didn't KNOW he had a bomb. He made an action, reaching for what they *THOUGHT* was a bomb, and they decided to neutralize the threat. The threat always existed, and they had to remove the threat.

Why are you guys continuing to bother with this guy? If he wants to live in a false reality and claim whatever he wants to, let him. He's already proved himself on multiple occasions to be highly unreasonable and refuses to provide a debate, rather just calls everyone whatever he feels like.
Because frankly, the thread would die without him. He's the only one who thinks the AM wasn't justified:D

Yes it would, it would have been better to let him possibly detonate a non existant bomb and watch all the non existant hundreds die, instead of killing him, and possibly saving many lives, not in any danger to begin with.
yes its so much easier to know what to do when its all over and you can know for sure if there is a bomb or not.

you are the master of hindsight

Because frankly, the thread would die without him. He's the only one who thinks the AM wasn't justified:D
Yeah good point. It's rather cute actually.

Protect them from what again? The nonexistant bomb?One more time... At what point in time have human beings been issued with X-ray vision or preocgnition?

Without those, or very similar capabilities, your thesis is an excercise in stupidity. And simply saying "it ought to be that way is no answer - Wishful thinking doesn't make reality, nor does it make policy.

Why are you guys continuing to bother with this guy? If he wants to live in a false reality and claim whatever he wants to, let him. He's already proved himself on multiple occasions to be highly unreasonable and refuses to provide a debate, rather just calls everyone whatever he feels like.
Word.

;)

Bah, I'm done with this. You all seem to think it's justifiable to kill some one on a whim. None of your AM's or any one else involved in this issue is any better than the 'terrorist' they shot dead. The U.S. reacts the same as terrorists, which is with murder. I don't know about any of you, but I don't care who's getting killed, terrorists or civilians, it's wrong. Responding to terrorism with more terrorism isn't helping any thing. All the U.S. is doing is fueling more hatred towards them.

How many people have the AM's arrested for trying to blow up a plane?
Zero.

How many people have blown up a plane with an AM on it?
Zero.

How many people have tried to blow up a plane?
Zero.

How many bombs have the AM's found?
Zero.

How many deaths have the AM's prevented.
Last count, -1.

AM's don't seem to be doing much of any thing, other than killing innocent people. But I'm glad you seem to think that that's what they're there to do.

No bomb. Dead man. Interesting how that turned out.

Maybe he was indicating, that yes, he did have lip balm.
And maybe YOU need to get a grip! :p

Bah, I'm done with this. You all seem to think it's justifiable to kill some one on a whim. None of your AM's or any one else involved in this issue is any better than the 'terrorist' they shot dead. The U.S. reacts the same as terrorists, which is with murder. I don't know about any of you, but I don't care who's getting killed, terrorists or civilians, it's wrong. Responding to terrorism with more terrorism isn't helping any thing. All the U.S. is doing is fueling more hatred towards them.

How many people have the AM's arrested for trying to blow up a plane?
Zero.

How many people have blown up a plane with an AM on it?
Zero.

How many people have tried to blow up a plane?
Zero.

How many bombs have the AM's found?
Zero.

How many deaths have the AM's prevented.
Last count, -1.

AM's don't seem to be doing much of any thing, other than killing innocent people. But I'm glad you seem to think that that's what they're there to do.

You are now debating vague generalities and ignoring the actual argument in hand, which is that the AMs did not know that he had a bomb.

They did not know he had a bomb

However many times this has been pointed out to you, you ignore it. It is now obvious your anti-American views force you to ignore this point and instead rant on generalities.

Run along now, NI... The grownups want to talk.

Ta-ta!

Because frankly, the thread would die without him. He's the only one who thinks the AM wasn't justified:D

That's not entirely true. I simply have no idea whether the AM was justified or not. Since he killed an apparently innocent man, a good, long, hard look needs to be taken at him and his actions, but at this point, the most that can be said is "we have no idea if the AM was justified or not at this early stage."

Start declaring that he was justified now, then you prejudice the investigation in his favor.

Bah, I'm done with this. You all seem to think it's justifiable to kill some one on a whim. None of your AM's or any one else involved in this issue is any better than the 'terrorist' they shot dead. The U.S. reacts the same as terrorists, which is with murder. I don't know about any of you, but I don't care who's getting killed, terrorists or civilians, it's wrong. Responding to terrorism with more terrorism isn't helping any thing. All the U.S. is doing is fueling more hatred towards them.

How many people have the AM's arrested for trying to blow up a plane?
Zero.

How many people have blown up a plane with an AM on it?
Zero.

How many people have tried to blow up a plane?
Zero.

How many bombs have the AM's found?
Zero.

How many deaths have the AM's prevented.
Last count, -1.

AM's don't seem to be doing much of any thing, other than killing innocent people. But I'm glad you seem to think that that's what they're there to do.
You know what? I'm beyond giving a flying rat's ass what anyone thinks. The price of missing one asshole carrying a bomb is far too high to fuck around with some idiot who doesn't realize that making sudden movements after having been told to get down can make you very dead. These guys aren't there to play fucking idiot games.

You are now debating vague generalities and ignoring the actual argument in hand, which is that the AMs did not know that he had a bomb.

They did not know he had a bomb

However many times this has been pointed out to you, you ignore it. It is now obvious your anti-American views force you to ignore this point and instead rant on generalities.

What I'm arguing is the legitimacy of AM's in the first place. What exactly have they prevented? Nothing. They have prevented, quite literally, nothing happening to their population.

What I'm arguing is the legitimacy of AM's in the first place. What exactly have they prevented? Nothing. They have prevented, quite literally, nothing happening to their population.
And your point is???

well now there were all those bombs on planes that blew up eh?

there was the bomb in the shoe of that idiot who tried to detonate it with a match



so its better for the passengers to beat to death anyone they find suspicious rather than have a professional on the plane who is trained to deal with the situation??

Well let's see, a bunch of civilians out numbering a lone, mentally fragile individual, who could probably quite easily overtake him, given if they weren't cowaring in fear, as opposed to some authoritarian patriotic idiot with a gun, who is ready to kill without hesitation.

You know what? I'm beyond giving a flying rat's ass what anyone thinks. The price of missing one asshole carrying a bomb is far too high to fuck around with some idiot who doesn't realize that making sudden movements after having been told to get down can make you very dead. These guys aren't there to play fucking idiot games.

There is a subtle difference between an "idiot" and someone who's mentally ill with a bipolar disorder. If you do not recognize that, then you're either an idiot or mentally ill yourself.

Well let's see, a bunch of civilians out numbering a lone, mentally fragile individual, who could probably quite easily overtake him, given if they weren't cowaring in fear, as opposed to some authoritarian patriotic idiot with a gun, who is ready to kill without hesitation.
Ok. I'm done talking with you. You obviously have very serious issues and are ready to blame others. Goodbye.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10367598/


Mary Gardner, a passenger on the plane, told WTVJ the man started “running crazily through the aisle” after the plane landed in Miami. Gardner said a woman seated with the man ran after him, yelling that her husband was bipolar and had not taken his medication. Gardner described the woman as “hysterical.”
So, it aaaalll started because of an argument with his wife? :confused:

And your point is???

That the AM's have accomplished nothing, that they protect people from a threat that doesn't exist, and that they will kill any one who they deem as a threat (that doesn't exist) without hesitation.

Now, if I took that stance, and I started killing every one I thought was a threat to my safety, I'd be locked up in an insane asylum, and they'd throw away the key.

There is a subtle difference between an "idiot" and someone who's mentally ill with a bipolar disorder. If you do not recognize that, then you're either an idiot or mentally ill yourself.
Thank you for the flame.

So you explain to me how the Air Marshalls are suppose to tell the difference, oh wise one.

Well let's see, a bunch of civilians out numbering a lone, mentally fragile individual, who could probably quite easily overtake him, given if they weren't cowaring in fear, as opposed to some authoritarian patriotic idiot with a gun, who is ready to kill without hesitation.

The passengers on the 9/11 planes outnumbered the terrorists, and the planes still crashed. Yes, they had weapons, but this guy claimed to have a bomb. Both would cause people not to fight. You seem to think that once a bomb is announced everyone would just tackle him. I seriously doubt that - would a mother try and tackle a bomb-carrier instead of protecting her child? Would an elderly man try it? Sure, some would, but I doubt that many, especially duew to fears of it going off and destroying the plane.

That the AM's have accomplished nothing, that they protect people from a threat that doesn't exist, and that they will kill any one who they deem as a threat (that doesn't exist) without hesitation.

Now, if I took that stance, and I started killing every one I thought was a threat to my safety, I'd be locked up in an insane asylum, and they'd throw away the key.
Ohhh, I see now! You're one of these reality-challenged dweebs who think 9/11 never happened. Or perhaps you believe that the US government somehow caused them to happen. Uh HUH! :rolleyes:

There is a subtle difference between an "idiot" and someone who's mentally ill with a bipolar disorder.Idiocy and mental illness are entirely beside the point. It's not the officer's job to make distinctions like that in a situation like this. In fact, it's generally impossible. However, there was this little point of someone saying, loudly, that the subject was mentally unstable. What, mentally unstable persons never act violently? Of course they sometimes do. How about idiots? Do they never act violently? of course they sometimes do.

Anyway, as I said, it's a moot point; When a person makes credible threats in crowded venues, and then fails to respond to reasonable orders made by men pointing weapons at them, they then suffer the predictable consequences. In this case, idiocy or insanity, it simply makes no difference - Either condition was begging for a bullet.

Edit:
Typo(s)

Thank you for the flame.

So you explain to me how the Air Marshalls are suppose to tell the difference, oh wise one.

Possibly because his wife was "hysterical" screaming that he was bipolar and didn't have his medication. Maybe that could have tipped the Air Marshalls off? You think? Maybe they could have, I don't know, listened to her words, processed them in their brains, and understood their meaning? A possibility? Perhaps they could have taken what she said and combined it with her husband's actions to distinguish that he was mentally ill rather than "an idiot" as you've dubbed him? Do you think that might have been possible? Maybe?

Then again, in a split second, life or death decision, there may be no time to listen or think. Shoot first.

As I said, it makes no sense to condemn or acquit the AMs yet, until more concrete information comes out, but the rush to exonerate the AMs and condemn the victim is absurd.

What I'm arguing is the legitimacy of AM's in the first place. What exactly have they prevented? Nothing. They have prevented, quite literally, nothing happening to their population.
well now you dont know that.

you dont know what they have actually stopped that has been supressed and you dont know what plans they have stopped by them not being put into effect because of having air marshalls on planes.

you dont know what future plan may have just been put on hold because it has just become painfully obvious that the airmarshalls will shoot american citizens who pretend to be a threat.

they may not be valuable mile by mile (although they have dealt with many many incidents of out of control air rage) but all it takes is one foiled attempt to prove their value. that it hasnt happened yet to our knowledge doesnt change their value.

Possibly because his wife was "hysterical" screaming that he was bipolar and didn't have his medication. Maybe that could have tipped the Air Marshalls off? You think? Maybe they could have, I don't know, listened to her words, processed them in their brains, and understood their meaning? A possibility? Perhaps they could have taken what she said and combined it with her husband's actions to distinguish that he was mentally ill rather than "an idiot" as you've dubbed him? Do you think that might have been possible? Maybe?

Then again, in a split second, life or death decision, there may be no time to listen or think. Shoot first.

As I said, it makes no sense to condemn or acquit the AMs yet, until more concrete information comes out, but the rush to exonerate the AMs and condemn the victim is absurd.

A possiblity, perhaps slight, is that the 'wife' might have been an accomplice. An unusual plot, of course, but plausible if they decided to detonate it on the ground for some reason - perhaps more casualties - and needed time to arm it.

Is Nuclear Industries being annoying enough to report to the mod yet? because NI is just frailing around like a maniac and just ticking everyone off with his ignorance.

A possiblity, perhaps slight, is that the 'wife' might have been an accomplice. An unusual plot, of course, but plausible if they decided to detonate it on the ground for some reason - perhaps more casualties - and needed time to arm it.

I merely object to branding him "an idiot". He is an innocent man who was killed. The killing may have been justified, but it is still a tragedy and there is no reason to insult his corpse (other than the irrational impulse to demonize him to make the AM look like he was doing the world a favor).

Well let's see, a bunch of civilians out numbering a lone, mentally fragile individual, who could probably quite easily overtake him, given if they weren't cowaring in fear, as opposed to some authoritarian patriotic idiot with a gun, who is ready to kill without hesitation.
the airmarshal is trained, the civillians are not. yeah they MAY have been able to take care of one guy with a bomb in his backpack. or maybe they would have hesitated to see if he was going to bring out lip balm and give him time to detonate

and maybe they would end up beating to death other people who seemed to them to be dangerous that would be obviously harmless to the trained professional.

I merely object to branding him "an idiot". He is an innocent man who was killed. The killing may have been justified, but it is still a tragedy and there is no reason to insult his corpse (other than the irrational impulse to demonize him to make the AM look like he was doing the world a favor).

I couldn't agree more. To denigrate this ill man is something I frown upon. I merely believe that what he did, under the present atmosphere and the circumstances, seem to point towards a legitimate, if extremely regrettable, killing.

I merely object to branding him "an idiot". He is an innocent man who was killed. The killing may have been justified, but it is still a tragedy and there is no reason to insult his corpse (other than the irrational impulse to demonize him to make the AM look like he was doing the world a favor).
it is very sad that this man died.

the feds, the state and dade county are all investigating to make sure things happened the way they are reported to have happened.

if they did happen as reported, the airmarshalls did the right thing. its no different from dozens of similar incidents that happen every year in the US with city police.

Precedent has been set which has section 77 g being applied to bomb threats. Life in prison.
Does that mean that if you have a bomb on a plane and tell everyone you do. The actualy telling is not an offense. I realize bringing a bomb onboard would still be illegal but I just thought I would check.

i think there is something similar in the law: entering a bank with a gun with the intention to commit a crime is a felony. otherwise not.

Nice, so the cops shot an innocent man. Good job US Air Marshals.

He probably *thought* there was a bomb in his luggage, which wouldn't surprise me given the general hysteria of terrorism.

The guy was 44 years old claiming he had a bomb in his backpack - any 16 year old knows not to even joke about it. Not only that - he was running from the airplane when he was shot. I am in favor of the Air Marshal. Why don't you try it Nuclear Industries and see what happens to you?

Does that mean that if you have a bomb on a plane and tell everyone you do. The actualy telling is not an offense. I realize bringing a bomb onboard would still be illegal but I just thought I would check.

Yes, making a bomb threat (telling people that you have one) is an offense, even if you have no bomb.

And if you make a sudden move after saying that, in the presence of law enforcement, is a good way to get yourself killed.

And yes, bipolar people can act really crazy. My younger brother married one, after she had gotten out of the institution. And she should still be there, in my opinion---refuses to take her medication.:(

The bloody article contradicts itself. I want to know what happened.
First, he was shot while reaching into his bag after telling no certain person that he had a word that sounded like "bomb" in his carry on. Then, later in the article, he was shot for approaching the marshalls aggressively. Was he a South American zombie? What the hell really happened here.

When are people going to stop telling people in planes and airports that they have a bomb in their luggage when they in fact don't? No good has ever come of it, and few people laugh at the joke "No, I din't pack my own bags, som arabic dude I don't know named Achmed did it when I wasn't looking so he may have placed a bomb there."