Passenger killed by air marshall

Mycroft said:
Not necessarily. You could interpret “creator” to be literally those that created you, your mom and dad. Thus your “creator” endows you with inalienable rights simply by bringing you into this world. It’s entirely consistent with the idea of having rights simply because you are human and alive.
Click to expand...

Bull.
 
CFLarsen said:
Bull.
Click to expand...

You sound like a fundamentalist christian. Ok, let's say you are right, that Jefferson was some religious freak that believed rights came from a god. What then? Does that mean the USA should be a theocracy?
 
Ed said:
err no, not really. The Constitution defines the power of the government and sets out some law.



In fact, the word "God" does not appear in the Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence is errr... a Declaration of Independence from England.

Just to be abundently clear: you do understand now that the DOI does not frame our law, yes or no.
Click to expand...


I think someone missed this.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Rights of USA citizens come from our constitution, not a creator or the declaration of independence.
Click to expand...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Click to expand...

Etc, etc.

Sure, you have the Bill of Rights, too. And the Constitution. The Holy Trinity, so to speak.
 
Speaking as someone who is bi-polar and on medication, if I ever act in a suspicious and threatening manner in a similar situation I would have only myself to blame.

The only relevant question is : did this person act in a suspicious and threatening manner? If he did, then it does not matter a jot if it was because he was ill and not on medication or if it was because he was looking for his 72 virgins in the afterlife - he presented a credible threat, one which had to be dealt with. Again, that’s assuming he did act in a suspicious and threatening manner.

If your condition is such that while taking medication you are able to function as a responsible adult, then making the decision to not take the medication (or allowing your supply to run out) constitutes an act of irresponsibility, to my way of thinking little different than someone who goes driving while intoxicated. Drunk drivers are still held accountable for their actions even if they weren’t 100% in control at the time, as the very act of getting out of control was a conscious decision they are responsible for.

I can understand the desire for his wife to explain the situation as she saw it, but I can’t understand how what she did should have some how given the air marshals reason to reconsider at the time. The man either presented a credible threat at the time or he did not. The reasons behind his presentation of that threat should be irrelevant to the decision made by the air marshals at the time.

Granted this is only a single data point, but in all the flying I’ve done my condition has never caused those around me to have to evaluate (in a very short time frame) how much of a threat I posed to those around me. Personally I’m curious to see what this person actually said and did in the situation, since that is all which should matter in judging the correctness of the marshals’ actions.
 
CFLarsen said:
What do you mean, "official US document"?
Click to expand...

A document written by the governing bodies of the USA. Since the USA did not exist at the time the Declaration was written, it cannot be an official US document. It's a historical document of the colonies' declaration of independance.
 
thaiboxerken said:
You sound like a fundamentalist christian. Ok, let's say you are right, that Jefferson was some religious freak that believed rights came from a god. What then? Does that mean the USA should be a theocracy?
Click to expand...

No, Claus' MO has always been that the US IS a de facto theocracy, and therefore inferior to the enlighted people of Denmark (and their monarchy, and their state-established religion, and all the other "egalitarian" things he conveniently forgets about when lobbing stones westward).
 
CFLarsen said:
Etc, etc.

Sure, you have the Bill of Rights, too. And the Constitution. The Holy Trinity, so to speak.
Click to expand...

The declaration is in no way a part of United States government. The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.
 
thaiboxerken said:
A document written by the governing bodies of the USA. Since the USA did not exist at the time the Declaration was written, it cannot be an official US document. It's a historical document of the colonies' declaration of independance.
Click to expand...

Where do you have this definition from?
 
Jocko said:
No, Claus' MO has always been that the US IS a de facto theocracy, and therefore inferior to the enlighted people of Denmark (and their monarchy, and their state-established religion, and all the other "egalitarian" things he conveniently forgets about when lobbing stones westward).
Click to expand...

Well.. the USA is certainly influenced greatly by the christian religion, but we're not a full fledged theocracy.. yet. We have to keep the republicans from turning it into one, though.
 
thaiboxerken said:
No, it doesn't matter. He was acting very strange and disobeyed lawful orders from the skymarshall.
Click to expand...
I think it does matter, since it raises the question how the sky marshall came to believe that this man was a grave threat. Acting strange and disobeying orders alone are not grounds for killing someone - unless the sky marshall/police officer/security guard also had sufficient reason to believe that the suspect posed a grave threat.

I also think it matters in the sense that the facts of this story still aren't rock solid. When the news first broke the suspect had supposedly claimed to be in possession of a bomb; now that quote is being disputed by several witnesses. It makes me wonder what else is incorrect about the sequence of events initially described.
 
Perforatu said:
I think it does matter, since it raises the question how the sky marshall came to believe that this man was a grave threat. Acting strange and disobeying orders alone are not grounds for killing someone ..
Click to expand...

In an airport, it is.
 
thaiboxerken said:
In an airport, it is.
Click to expand...
It is? News to me... Then again I've only ever been in two American airports.

I wonder, how do they distinguish between real threats and people who act strange because, I dunno, they're extremely nervous about flying for a first time? If someone starts hyperventilating and becomes nearly oblivious of his or her surroundings (I've seen it happen) and is therefore unable to comply with an officer's orders, are they fair game?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom