Shooting People On Airplanes

[ThomWV]

So I guess this Federal Marshal son of a bitch thinks he's Matt Dillon or someone. Some poor crazy bastard has his wife yelling at everyone in a plane telling them he's nuts, harmless but nuts. and forgot to take his pills. Doesn't do any good, the Federal Marshal shoots the poor slob down in the terminal after he runs out of the plane.

What the fuck have we become?

[GrpCaptMandrake]

1. A Nation led by a coward

becomes a cowardly nation.

[flordehinojos]

27. more than that ... we are a nation led by a coward power and control freak

can you imagine the blabber on cnn, msnbc, fox and all other t.v. if that had happened in castro's cuba by a castro security agent?

[NanceGreggs]

2. Unfortunately ...

... we have come to exactly this.

[Bluzmann57]

3. The marshall did what he had to

Sounds like the guy seemed to be reaching for a gun. So what was the marshall supposed to do, take a chance on himself and others getting shot? Nope.

[stopbush]

5. Shoot to disable rather than kill. Call for back-up.

There ARE options in most situations. Why is shoot-to-kill the default position?

So, he didn't take a chance of a deranged, unarmed man shooting anyone. Like others, I'd like to know all the facts. Whether we'll ever GET all the facts is quite questionable.

[Walt Starr]

10. You ALWAYS shoot for body mass

ALWAYS.

[Missy Vixen]

45. Thank you

Shooting for body mass is the only smart thing for law enforcement to do. I strongly supported that the police in our town be outfitted with tasers as well. Interestingly enough, members of law enforcement have to take the greater good into account when they have less than five seconds to make a decision. So, wing the guy and have him shoot 1-5 others, depending on how many bullets are in the gun, or shoot him, stop him, and save the lives of other innocents?

Julie

[HEyHEY]

55. Not in these situations - I believe the policy is differnet

[Walt Starr]

57. Nope, ALWAYS shoot for body mass, ALWAYS! n/t

[Silverhair]

59. WRONG.

The ONLY reason for shooting someone is that they MUST be completely disable instantly, immediately. That means a shot to the center of the body mass. A wounded guy can still trigger a bomb. And a shot that only nicks a person can still prove lethal as some people die from minor wounds due to shock. ANY shot is a use of lethal force.

[HEyHEY]

102. THANKS

THANKS for SHARING

[TX-RAT]

128. Body mass, not always best shot.

There are those that are trained for just such scenarios, (holding bombs that can be triggered, holding hostages that could be shot.)

It's a spinal-cord shot to the neck. Not done with a pistol, and not done in a panic.

The Marshall did it by the book, even got the man off the plane before things went sideways.

[Generic Other]

66. Is that the front body mass or the back body mass?

I always thought it was bad form to shoot someone in the back when they were fleeing.

[Silverhair]

81. They can't set off a bomb if their back is to you?

Place yourself in a cop's place for a moment.

Guy is screaming that he has a bomb. He is running toward a building with LOTS of people in it. His back is to you.

Your ethics seem to require you not to shoot and to take a chance that he doesn't have a bomb. If you are wrong - LOTS of people in the building die - but you get to pat yourself on the back for not shooting a man in the back.

[Generic Other]

92. If you shoot him and he's carrying a bomb couldn't it detonate?

Seems like the marshals are as dangerous to innocent bystanders as the potential terrorists.

[Silverhair]

99. I think you just want to blame police no matter what.

Maybe you have been watching too much TV. There was a really STUPID rerun of X-files recently where the male FBI guy walks up to a guy that he mystically knows has a bomb. The FBI guy gives the bomber his own service pistol and says, "Here. Now you know you are in control." I cracked up laughing. Where do they hire such stupid writers?

I guess you think that somehow the police should be able to talk everybody out of everything.

If you shoot him for a few seconds he may be able to do something. Of course, you don't stop shooting with just one shot. You keep firing until he is down. While the bullets are hitting him it is unlikely that he will be able to do anything.

If you don't shoot him, HE CAN STILL SET OFF THE BOMB AT ANY TIME, including after the time when you could have shot him was past.

One way - shooting - stops the danger. Your way doesn't. You way appears to be kind and enlightened but gambles with other people's lives that he is bluffing or that you can talk him out of it.

Now if you are the only one in danger from the bomb, please feel free to take whatever risk you want to. Recently in Tacoma WA, when the nutcase started shooting people, a civilian who had a CCW and a clear shot at the shooter out his gun, then changed his mind, put his gun back up, and tried to talk to the shooter. The shooter shot the guy 4 times, and then turned back to shooting others.

[Generic Other]

103. I just don't want to be caught in the crossfire

I find all the gun violence scary no matter which direction the bullets come from.

BTW, I live in Tacoma WA. The guy with the gun never tried to talk to the Mall shooter. He pulled a gun on him. That's when he got shot 4 times. The gun didn't help him a bit.

[Silverhair]

105. On DU it is posted that he reholstered the gun.

That is what I am going by. If he pulled the gun, then he should have used it. A gun only helps if you can get it into action.

The point still stands. If you try to talk a crazy out of something you are taking a huge risk.

So you want the marshall to never fire until after the terrorist has proven he has a bomb. BOOM.

[Zynx]

113. Almost certainly not. Bullets can't set off most high explosives.

[Fescue4u]

68. Especially true in an aircraft.

A bullet hitting a limb (assuming the cop could hit a limb in motion), will keep going.

A bullet hitting body mass is likely to stay there.

[ohio_liberal]

118. Right on Walt

Two to the chest. Standard procedure.

[stray cat]

14. Not if he is opening a bag and yelling about having a bomb

Shoot to disarm is something you see on TV not the way people are trained. Its simply not that easy - you go for the chest because its your largest target and hope you hit the person you are aiming at and not a bystander.

I'm waiting to see the facts of the matter before I start calling for a lynch mob.

[Windy]

26. Exactly! The air marshall was doing his job

I've done a lot of flying since 911 and I am very very glad to have air marshalls on board. I wonder what those who are balking at this unfortunate event would say if they were on that plane or on the jetway?

Any idiot that yells that he has a bomb in his carry on while on a plane and runs out of the plane and into the jetway (ultimate destination, terminal full of people) and fails to comply with air marshalls, then makes threatening moves when told repeatedly to stop, put down his bag, etc... well, lets just say I don't blame the air marshalls at all.

[mduffy31]

15. Injured man is more dangerous

You got an injured man who may actually have a bomb it gives him a chance to detonate it.

[Zynx]

38. Disable shooting is generally Hollywood crap.

Trying to hit joints is extremely difficult with a pistol - even assuming the hit to the joint will stop the person, which it very well may not.

LEO's are trained to shoot at center-mass, and Air Marshals are trained to shoot to kill.

[SPKrazy]

39. He claimed he had a BOMB

Bombs go BOOOOOOOM!

injured men or women can still detonate a BOMB!

[hiaasenrocks]

41. That's incorrect.

I don't know the details of this particular case, so I have no opinion on it yet. But I can tell you that the protocol you describe is not correct.

[cascadiance]

50. When they get a "hand held" version of this newer "phaser" gun...

Perhaps give that to sky marshalls so that they can disable folks without killing them...

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10268690/



A bit big now to be concealed though...

[Clutch Cargo]

83. What if he shoots to disable and fails to disable....

and lots of people die as a result of a bomb detonation? Would you blame his judgement then? The law officer had no choice. This was tragic, but he acted correctly.

[Mike Daniels]

127. What are you going to do - shoot him in both legs and both arms?

If the guy had a bomb, would shooting to disable have necessarily kept him from being able to set it off? Hardly.

As far as the wife screaming about his status, how are the cops supposed to know that she's telling the truth?

The guy failed to follow directions and as tragic as it is, it seems like the AM's had no other real alternative but to act the way they did.

[mduffy31]

11. Did his job

Exactly. Is that what we have come to here? Blaming the Air Marshal for doing his job. This was a flight from Medillin Columbia, and he was not following instructions and saying that he had a bomb. The Marshal cannot believe his wife because she may be in on it. What was he supposed to do?

[rzemanfl]

13. How would he have gotten on the plane with a gun? Doesn't

TSA trust its screeners?

[mduffy31]

16. Flight from Columbia

[RagingInMiami]

94. It's Colombia

[mike_c]

19. I disagree-- any SOB with a gun could have shot the man...

...to avoid taking a chance that he MIGHT have a weapon. The marshall's training should have allowed him to make a more informed decision, and to take exactly the risk you say he shouldn't, in order to determine with greater certainty whether the suspect was actually armed. It's that training-- not the badge and not the gun-- that separates marshalls from yahoos. The marshall's job isn't to shoot at the earliest sign of trouble-- it's to determine the point at which fire can not be withheld.

[Silverhair]

64. And how do you determine if he really has a bomb in the bag?

Ask to see it? Wait until he sets it off? Then you would be complaining that the marshall didn't do his job.

[stray cat]

4. I'm waiting until I see some actual facts

Right now it sounds like a tragic shooting regardless. However, I'm not ready to condemn either side as being at fault just yet - simply not enough information.

[rudeboy666]

8. but that will not matter to the reactionaries.

Shoot from the mouth first.

Facts afterwards.

[stray cat]

17. Thanks sometimes I forget and get drawn into a pointless argument

[hiaasenrocks]

42. Agreed. We don't know enough yet. n/t

[Dark]

6. Better safe than sorry.

I don't like it when civilians die, but what if he had had a bomb?

I certainly think there should be an investigation, but I'd rather have one dead person than a hundred.

[The Stranger]

34. Apparently, we are not safe and only some of us are sorry.

"But what if he had a bomb" can be used to justify any type of homicide, in any place, and is being used to justify torture. That can no longer -- by itself -- justify homicide.

[Deja Q]

46. What if YOU were on that airplane?

I'd ask the same question to ANYBODY, here and now, sitting behind a desk with plenty of time to fathom "this" or "that".

Again, in a speeding aircraft, there is NO TIME to rationally discuss if the guy's a maniac or not.

Maybe they should have used strong tranquilizers. Of course, there may be drugs that render tranquilizers useless that a terrorist could use. I don't know. But given the gravity of the situation, they use bullets, they take no chances, I can't argue against them. Not under the prevailing circumstances.

[The Stranger]

124. "drugs that render tranquilizers useless that a terrorist could use"?

Is this some kind of science fiction novel? Are terrorists now somehow super human?

The FEAR that is rampant is the danger, and now innocent people are dying from that FEAR.

[GrumpyGreg]

7. I thought the man said he had a bomb and refused to stop and then

reached into the alleged bomb bag.


Was the marshal supposed to call a meeting to discuss the situation?


Nothing like Monday morning quarterbacking is there?

[sandnsea]

21. We really don't know

And there's so much gibberish on television, that it's hard to tell which is what happened and which is speculation. And I won't believe anything until I hear from the wife herself. Press conference now, see what they say.

[Lex]

9. Yelling you have a bomb in your bag in an airplane = shoot me.

Don't know all the other facts.

[dutchdemocrat]

24. I am wondering

I am wondering... you know... you have a fight with your wife - you decide 'fuck this!' and try to get off the plane... someone tries to stop you - you fight them off... finally saying, "I got a bomb!" just to get them out of the way because your can't handle the stress of arguing with your wife and just want to get away from her...

A scenario.

No one will probably ever know what happened.

[Lex]

32. It could be

very well what happened.

But the "I've got a bomb in my bag!" and reaching inside it was just a very wrong decision about what to say.

You're right, we may never know what actually happened.

[madeline_con]

93. "Don't know all the other facts."

If I were the Marshall, I doubt I'd need any more facts than that.

[texpatriot2004]

12. So his wife watches him get shot and killed? n.t

[Double T]

18. Another good reason NOT to fly..........

vigilante marshals that are trigger happy. Come fly the friendly skies, just don't get caught in the crossfire.

[ucmike]

25. please.

vigilante marshals???

trigger happy????

name another example of an air marshal shooting someone.

tragic situation, but its a little early to start a lynch mob.

[crispini]

88. Snork. Yes, it happens all the time.

those crazy wild eyed air marshals. :sarcasm:

[Double T]

121. Lynch mob NOT required; perhaps over reaction to this......

unfortunate situation.

[NYC Liberal]

28. Of course, if he HAD had a bomb, then it would have been,

'Why didn't the marshal DO something??'

[Windy]

30. Precisely! n/t

[hiaasenrocks]

63. EXACTLY.

People just want something to complain about.

[Silverhair]

69. And the SAME people posting complain now would be complain then. NT

[burythehatchet]

106. Do you hear yourself?

Let me help, "Of course if Iraq had WMD..." or of course if the Brazilian electrician had a bomb..."

[NYC Liberal]

125. Was Saddam running around screaming

'I have WMDs!!'? Was the Brazilian running around screaming 'I have a bomb!!'? No, but thanks for the attempt at comparing them.

[madeline_con]

95. I thought you were going to say unmedicated nuts! n/t

[Double T]

122. 'Nuts' that don't take their meds usually act like this guy did........

shooting him is an over reaction on the part of the marshal.

[RC]

20. The man was on an airplane.

What are the chances he had anything dangerous? Charge the Marshal with 2nd or 3 degree murder.

[Windy]

29. that is a ludicrous statement...

My god...

[RC]

36. Not it's not. And if the shot had missed?

Or if there were multiple shots? Supposed there was a bomb and a bullet hit it? Every big city airport I have ever been had lots of people around. Stray bullets in crowds have a habit of hitting people.

Besides this man had been through security. What, you don't trust our security system? Why not? This man died a wrongful death, fueled by the criminal paranoia of the rightwingnuts.

The United States has got to get away from the Wild West paradigm into something more humane.

[burythehatchet]

109. Its gonna be an ugly night and couple of days

I can't remember being so pissed off on DU.

[Fescue4u]

74. Then why have marshalls at all

Since there is apparently no chance of anyone having anything dangerous??

Let me clue you in. It is TRIVIAL to smuggle a weapon past TSA and it will always be that way.

[RC]

79. How many US planes have been blown up or hijacked since

1980? Since 9/11/2001? Not a whole lot and the famous 4 were with the blessing of our government. There were better ways to handle this situation. Just trap him in the gantry was one way. Nobody had to die.

[Fescue4u]

87. Sounds like a nice world that you live in.

[Silverhair]

91. How do you do that?

A running man can cover a lot of ground in a few seconds. In those few seconds you would have to get the people at the other end to close the gantry. They aren't set up to do that. And he can still blow the bomb (You can't afford to believe that he is bluffing.)next to the gantry doors, killing LOTS of folks on the other side.

You are thinking up options from the comfort of a chair, and showing little knowledge of the real world.

[RC]

101. Paranoid a lot?

Maybe that is the problem. I don't find the real world all that scary. What I do see is lots of innocent people dying from ingesting bullets from trigger happy real & pseudo law enforcement types.

More talk and a little less action.


BTY A bomb can be setup to go off when the bomber is incapacitated or killed. There are too many scenarios to be guessing to much.

[SoCalDem]

22. Like the UK police who killed a student from Brazil

We are slowly but surely regressing to our "Wild West" roots:(

[Lex]

33. Different.

That guy wasn't on a plane yelling he had a bomb in his bag.

[SoCalDem]

35. Perhaps today's guy wasn't yelling "I have a bomb"

The marshalls are saying that, because ..well.. People who have been interviewed say they did not hear anyone say anything, except the wife..

I wonder who called him and got him agitated.. The reports I have heard is that he became upset after a phone call..

sad for all involved:(

[SPKrazy]

40. I heard a witness say that he said he had a bomb

If you really want to believe that they just shot him for "fun"? then there probably isn't anything I can post that will change your mind.

[Terran1212]

52. Overanxious Marshall I think

The people my sister works with at least take their jobs pretty seriously, but 99% of them never get to see an actual terrorist event. They are trained to jump up at the moment of possible danger, and this man probably was preparing for this moment for years and felt the need to pull the trigger.

[Texasgal]

98. Oh yeah....

I'm sure he just COULDN'T WAIT to kill some random person... :sarcasm:

You would be best served if you learned a little about law enforcement.... Jeezuz.

[SoCalDem]

114. Not 'wanting" to believe anything in particular..just repeating

what the one witness I heard on tv say.. She only heard the wife..It's a sad thing for all involved:(

[Terran1212]

23. My Sister works for Homeland Security

She was telling me about this case. I've been in a counterterrorism simulation in Atlanta and the use of undercover agents is quite common. At one point during the simulation I ran away, fearing that I was being tailed (that much is true).

I will never make that mistake again after seeing that they SHOOT people who do that, apparently.


I don't understand why they can't carry nonlethal weapons...

[Zynx]

43. Most non-lethal weapons don't physically stop someone

Relying on discomfort to stop a possible religious fanatic or someone who is crazy or on drugs is a bad idea. That means all gas weapons and all rubber bullet guns are out because they likely won't work. Ditto any sort of physical contact tool like a baton.

That leaves something like a Taser - which will work on anyone, but isn't really a non-lethal weapon either.

[cascadiance]

54. I was thinking of a taser too, but doesn't that have to strike a person?

to work (make contact with them to shock them)? I don't think you can shoot it at a distance, which likely will be needed in cases like these. If you could have something like a "phaser" gun I mentioned above that could stun someone from a distance like the following:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10268690/



but not necessarily kill him. Now I know that tasers have had problems with killing certain folks when they shouldn't with other use of things like crowd control, etc. But in this situation, even if at times using a weapon like this might be lethal like a taser has right now, it still would be preferable to a real weapon firing bullets that most definitely will hurt or kill someone with far greater probabilities.

[Zynx]

112. Tasers can be shot, although not from that far away.

The prongs also need to hit the person and not some very thick clothing. The prongs work through normal clothes, but I doubt they would work through a winter jacket, leather jacket, or any sort of pack.

They're pretty powerful as well, more "less than lethal" than "non-lethal."

Compared to shooting someone with a gun, I guess they would be preferable because odds are the person will survive. And Tasers *will* drop someone - its mechanical, not a matter of willpower or being wired on dope. You *can't* stay standing after being shot by one, period.

This may be one of the few cases where they actually would have been better than anything else.

[Terran1212]

56. Israeli Counsalte Powerpoint on Stopping Suicide Bombers

Sis showed me:

One slide literally says:

100% SURE --- > SHOOT TO KILL!!!

[Silverhair]

72. A wounded man can STILL detonate a bomb. NT

[madeline_con]

97. Wouldn't they have to walk right up to the guy with the bomb...

to use a taser on him? It seems to me that would give him more time to blow stuff up. :shrug:

[Liberal In Texas]

31. A Police State

See my post in the Texas forum:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=180x23811
About a guy sprayed, cuffed, punched, and arrested for ... jaywalking. (No he did not mouth off to the cops.)

[SPKrazy]

37. The Marshal did the right thing

He had a responsibility to a plane full of people, and the people in the terminal to protect them.

They don't mess around when they tell you to do something and have a gun pointed at you and you don't do it, then you may get shot!

The woman running around screaming was his wife, but how would the Marshal have known that she wasn't a co-conspirator trying to give him time to detonate?

No one likes what happened (I hope)

but they did the right thing

The mentally ill man should have taken his meds.

[Deja Q]

44. No risks. Not in this situation. Others, yes. Not this one. Too risky.

You CANNOT, in such a fast-paced and precarious situation, sit back and deliberate over if the guy is a crackpot or a legit terrorist. You have a split-second to make a decision and you've got HUNDREDS OF LIVES BEING DIRECTLY IMPACTED; hundreds or thousands more that COULD be impacted like they were on 9/11.

Sorry, but I have got to side with the feds on this one.

BTW, there are other factors to consider. Maybe these will suggest WHY he said it.

[stopbush]

49. The guy was not shot on the plane. He was off the plane

between the plane and the airport entrance off the tarmac. I would assume that at that point the guy was no longer a danger to passengers still on the plane unless:

1. He was carrying a bomb in a satchel that had enough explosives in it to effect a large area, even if he was off the plane. If so, how the hell did it get on the plane to begin with? Or,

2. He planted a bomb in his checked luggage. If that was the case, why kill him once he's off the plane when you might need him to tell you where the bomb was? And how could killing him in this instance protect the passengers on the plane? If the bomb's in the undercarriage primed to go at a certain time or situation, he no longer has anything to do with what's a done deal.

[Silverhair]

75. He was running toward the terminal. Lots of folks in a terminal. NT

[tx_dem41]

47. IMO, this type of OP is equvalent to the Administration trying to control.

us through irrational fear. We now question and criticize ANYTHING done by the Government thus radicalizing and marginalizing ourselves on even seemingly the most logical of law enforcement actions. We are trying to strike irrational fear in people for ANYTHING that any level of Government does. You will rue this strategy IF and when you are the Government.

[HEyHEY]

48. Yes law enforcement should have the photo and mental state

Of every citizen fixed in their mind.
As well, I bet you the Marshall is just devastated by this.

[Batgirl]

51. So you're saying

that in the absence of facts, you can fathom the Marshall's motivations and know that he "thinks he's Matt Dillon or someone."

But try to understand that not everyone shares your gift for mind-reading, and so maybe he just did what he had to do when faced with someone who supposedly claimed to have a bomb.

[Zomby Woof]

53. "Forgot to take his pills"

And WHEN did she realize this? Sounds like a bullshit excuse.

If someone is that potentially dangerous and disruptive, they have no business scaring the shit out of others on an airplane, or anywhere else.

The air marshal did what he was trained to do.

[nini]

111. Hey... that's what I was thinking..

if she was with it enough to know he needed those meds she should have shoved them down his throat or got some kind of help before there was a crisis.


The marshalls did what they had to do under the circumstances.

[The_Casual_Observer]

58. Probably shot him in the back too.

But that's OK, it's all in the interest of "safety".

[GrumpyGreg]

60. Why do you say that?

Do you have contempt for law enforcement?

[The_Casual_Observer]

61. Yes, and it's a good old american healthy one.

So there.

[GrumpyGreg]

67. Not in my area it isn't. Nothing "american" about it.

[The_Casual_Observer]

110. I guess an old fashion shoot 'em up is perdy dern american

I guess they save tasers for use against guys they think are stealing from salad bars. It wouldn't make any sense to use things like that on airplanes though, better just to kill a guy instead. Who cares, he was crazy anyway. No doubt the story will change as time goes on anyway.

[hiaasenrocks]

62. What other "probably" assumptions do you have for us? n/t

[ToeBot]

70. 'Probably' my imagination, but this board seems awfully 'right' lately n/t

[hiaasenrocks]

73. So if someone doesn't

assume (with hardly any real information yet) that the Marshall was wrong, then they are to the 'right'?

If that's true, what does it say about the people who jump to conclusions with insufficient evidence at this point?

[Texasgal]

96. This is the same old regurgitated crap

that gets flung around this board so carelessly.... If you don't agree then your a freeper or something.... Sheesh. :eyes:

And people wonder why we have such problems in our party!

[Silverhair]

100. Yes indeed. Sounds very similar to the "Tookie is innocent" threads.

Some folks here just want to blame the cops, no matter what. I think that same inner drive to always blame the police compels them to believe Tookie's BS.

[Silverhair]

76. Hmmm. You are a cop. Guy has claimed he has a bomb in a bag.

He is running away from you, toward a building that has LOTS of people in it. His back is toward you. Your ethics say you can't shoot him because that would be a back shot so you let him run into the crowd to blow up the bomb. You take the change (With the innocent people's lives) that he doesn't really have a bomb. Rotten ethics you have.

[madeline_con]

82. "... that would be a back shot ..."

Wasn't that O.K Corral stuff; a bit outdated? :shrug:

[Silverhair]

89. I was responding to post 58, who seemed to think that shooting...

...the guy in the back was somehow wrong of the officer. Do you also think that the marshall should have gambled with other people's lives that the guy didn't have a bomb in the bag?

[madeline_con]

90. "Do you also think that the marshall should have gambled

with other people's lives that the guy didn't have a bomb in the bag?"

No, he did what he was hired to do, IMO.

[burythehatchet]

107. I can't believe this crap, I just shake my head in disgust

and yes, if I had to bet, he was shot in the back.

[Fescue4u]

65. If he had a bomb, the Marshall would be a hero

First off, the facts are not really in yet, so we have to make ALOT of assumptions

But really, if a guy says he has a bomb, and charges a marshall who has his gun drawn, there really is no choice...even if someone is yelling he's sick.

Just because some random women is yelling that he's mentally ill, doesnt really change the situation. If it did, standard criminal MO would be to have a female accomplice yell about how nice the guy is with the bomb.

[hiaasenrocks]

71. Come on now.

Always, ALWAYS, blame the police and other officials, including prosecutors and judges. They are the only ones who can ever be at fault for anything. And we need NO evidence.

Get with the program!

:sarcasm:

[Silverhair]

78. I wonder of many of the marshall-blamers also believe Tookie? NT

[burythehatchet]

108. WHAT???

holy shit.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

116. Correct, but then again...

...if the guy HAD a bomb, I really doubt he'd say it out loud.

[wuushew]

77. Why would the victim or family fail to notify the airline/security?

From a safety/liability standpoint why was this not done before the flight?

In a culture that emphasizes security in our current state of fearful paranoia should not non necessary travel be avoided by those such as this man who may be victims of mis-characterized behaviors?

[madeline_con]

80. "... his wife yelling ..."

How was the Marshall supposed to know who she was, whether what she said was true, or any number of other things?

Does law enforcement just take the word of whomever they encounter on the scene? I guess if 'they' say so, the guy won't shoot anybody, or doesn't really have a bomb...

[kskiska]

84. This brings to mind the Brazilian man shot in the Underground

in London. All the reports said he was told to stop, but ran from police, was wearing a bulky jacket in warm weather, and acting suspiciously. How long did it take before we found that none of this was true, that he was walking to catch his train, and was wearing a light jacket?

Time will tell.

[hunter]

86. Nope, this is America.

We'll never find out what happened.

But don't go acting crazy on an airplane, hear?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

115. Jesus H. Christ.

The Brazilian was PINNED TO THE FLOOR, didn't say ANYTHING, his assailants DIDN'T give any reason for the pursuit, the cop was ON TOP OF HIM, and he was SHOT IN THE HEAD MULTIPLE TIMES.

THIS guy, in my opinion, wanted to commit suicide, and got what he wanted. And the marshal was completely RIGHT.

[Swamp Rat]

120. Você tem razão

Aqueles assassinos em Londres EXECUTARAM esse tadinho! :mad:

[Walt Starr]

85. Based upon all of the reports, the Air Marshall acted appropriately

1) Guy yells he has a bomb and acts aggressive.
2) Air Marshall orders man to drop the bag.
3) Man refuses.
4) Bang.
5) Situation resolved.

My guess based upon the rest of the reports, the guy was in a depressive state. Manic-depressives bunce up and down and I'd bet he was in the lowest of the low side. Wanted to die and picked the easiest method, suicide by cop.

[chookie]

104. All around tragedy

The guy was symptomatic of extreme agitation of a manic phase of bipolar disorder.

It's all about context. Act like that in a hospital, and you get subdued by orderlies. Act like that on the street, and you get tasered by cops. Act like that in an airport/airplane, and you get shot by air marshals.

I'm not so sure we can read too much into it about ourselves as a society, unless investigation shows that the marshal truly acted inappropriately.

It totally sucks that the guy was shot because he was symptomatic of a serious mental illness, but mental illness totally sucks and is another aspect of the tragedy in this story. I've seen a lot of "He should have been on his meds!" comments -- FYI, I'd like to point out that compliance with medication with persons living with mental illness is sometimes shaky, and that there is nothing that their loved ones or society can do about it. Although treating mental illness is better than ever, living with it is not a picnic, to put it mildly.

[alarimer]

117. The mentally ill have never been safe from this

It just happened on an airplane this time.

[theboss]

119. Shoot 'im again!

He was probably harmless. But if I'm on a plane and someone is screaming about a bomb, I want that person subdued as quickly and efficiently as possible. If shooting is the only recourse, so be it.

There are moments when a competency hearing is necessary. And there are moments where you have to react.

Now, having said that, there is probably more to come from this story. But I can easily see moments where such action is necessary.

[Loonman]

123. Marshal Dillon, not Matt Dillon

Jesus Christ, you fuckers don't even do pop culture references properly.

[elvisbear]

126. Marshal Matt Dillon - Character's name on Gunsmoke.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047736/