Passenger killed by air marshall

Freakshow said:
I haven't seen any news stories yet that have stated conclusively that all present witnesses state he did not say "bomb". I have just found stories that say SOME of the witnesses claim that he did not say "bomb". I also have not found any that say some witnesses did hear him say "bomb".

In other words...I'm still waiting to get more info before I decide whether or not he said "bomb". But as others have pointed out, whether or not he said "bomb" might be irrelevant, depending on his other behavior.
Click to expand...

If some witnesses say they heard "bomb" that would much stronger evidence of the air marshal's version than the reverse.

For example, if the air marshals claim he said "bomb" and even one disinterested passenger said he heard it too, then it stands to reason crazy guy probably said it.

I must confess though, I cannot grasp the thinking of those who fault law enforcement officers for taking threats at face value in making split second decisions when innocent lives are at risk. As posted above, I'm quite certain that the very same people criticizing this shooting would be just as vocal if the officers had hesitated and other people died in a real bombing with exactly the same lead in: Crazy acting passenger. A woman yells "Don't shoot, he's mentally ill!" Crazy guy goes for his bag. Officers pause. Boom. Everyone's dead.
 
Last edited:
LW said:
What is the essential difference between people acting strangely and disobeying orders in an airport (that is, on the ground and not in a flying airplane) and people acting strangely and disobeying orders in some other place with lots of people in one place, like a crowded mall during Christmas shopping? I can't see it.
Click to expand...

The difference is security. If a guy is in a mall and an armed security guard tells him to stop ranting, and the guy says he has a bomb and reaches into his bag, then the guy in the mall should be shot as well. Rabid christmas shoppers should be shot on site.
 
Perforatu said:
If not, then I wonder how the sky marshall came to the conclusion that the man was a significant threat,
Click to expand...

The guy did say he had a bomb. Also, even if he didn't, he was ranting and acting very irrational while reaching into his pack. You might not agree, but I could care less. The guy suffered just consequence for his irrational action. If you think that's wrong, then feel free to write your congressman about it.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Read the damn thread you are posting in, TBK. Some eyewitnesses claim they heard mention of a bomb, some claim that they are certain they heard no such thing.
Click to expand...

Problem is, not all eyewitnesses were in a position to hear it. I place more value on those who actually witnessed the event close enough to hear what's happening then those who couldn't hear. I also don't think that there was a conspiracy by the skymarshalls to kill this man.

Here I was thinking that hanging around here for so long you would have picked up a thing or two about skepticism.
Click to expand...

I have, you haven't.

If people doing so was a security threat that we should be worried about, sure, hire security guards. Since it isn't, we can let that one slide.
Click to expand...

That's exactly my point.

They're the antithesis of straw men. Such as made-up terrorists who can pull bombs out of thin air, and who then flip out and run around making a total spectacle of themselves.
Click to expand...

No one said that he could've pulled a bomb out of thin air. Security is not 100% and contraband can be snuck through security. When a guy says he has a bomb and reaches to his pack, it's better to shoot first and wonder about it later.

Try some thinking of any kind, it would do us all some good.
Click to expand...

My thinking is well above your level of intelligence, perhaps this is why you can't figure out what a logicl argument is.
 
CFLarsen said:
There you go: Without the DoI, no US.
Click to expand...

And without the England monarchy, no USA, after all it was mostly english colonists that came to the USA. Using your line of logic, we can say that the Magna Carta was the foundation of the USA.
 
Ed said:
Well, for the common good, a persons complete medical history along with attending physicion verbatums, could be coded on our personal identity cards....
Then we would never be in the terrible position of maybe making a mistake.
Click to expand...

Good idea, we should tattoo UPC symbols on all people so we can't forget the cards. Heck, we can even lock people up in a cell every night to make sure that they are safe from any outside dangers....
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
The luxury of knowing that mentally ill people exist should have been enough.
Click to expand...

That's idiotic, and who says idiotic things? If a guy produces a knife and starts towards you ranting in tongues, should you not worry because you know there are some mentally ill people out there?

Under the circumstances in question a visible weapon or a visible bomb would have been a credible threat. Given that the man was coming off an aeroplane, confused ramblings about a bomb (assuming he said any such thing which has not at all been established) and possession of a bag do not alone make a credible case that a bomb exists.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. He said he had a bomb, that's enough.
 
I do understand the security pov. I guess I get a little tired of the standard solution is to kill crazy people as a first choice if they dare act crazy in public. Considering that's about 20% of the population...

Being a frequent traveler I've noted that airport security is created in a series of security barriers. You and your carry on luggage are inspected at least once and usually more times than that. Everything goes through the machine, you even take your shoes off and run them through. The likelihood of you having a bomb in your backpack is, well, almost zero.

It seems the likelihood of a crazy person wanting to leave the plane is going to be much higher than that someone has somehow slipped past all this security.

This event does not say much for their trust in their system - the actions do not reflect any sense of teamwork, they are the same as if no security check had ever taken place, and people walked in off the street. The penalty for anyone freaking out in that unfortunate moment is death.

This being the obvious result, the airline is negligent. The man & his wife should never have been allowed on the plane. Nervous people should not be allowed on planes, people who act funny should not be allowed on. Flying is simply not worth the risk of being shot.

The role of the air Marshall's "protecting" the whole plane is actually something fairly recent. The original air Marshall mission was to protect the cockpit. After all, a terrorist might well sacrifice someone to get the officers off the plane. So this has been sort of mission creep for them. And in doing so they abandoned the plane to kill an innocent guy.

Not saying they did not follow procedure, just that I feel less safe knowing this is how it would go down.
 
Kopji said:
Considering that's about 20% of the population...
Click to expand...
Sorry, Kopji, but I gotta do it... Where'd you get that number?

Being a frequent traveler I've noted that airport security is created in a series of security barriers. You and your carry on luggage are inspected at least once and usually more times than that. Everything goes through the machine, you even take your shoes off and run them through. The likelihood of you having a bomb in your backpack is, well, almost zero.
Click to expand...
The term in the computer security industry is "defense in depth". In other words: don't put all your eggs in one basket. Assume that the bad guys are going to get past your 1st layer of security. Then what? That'd better not be the only security you have.

As for getting THROUGH the passenger screening...I've already commented on that. If I was hired to pen-test airport security, sneaking something through passenger screening is just one approach I'd take. There are other possibilities to consider.

Not saying they did not follow procedure, just that I feel less safe knowing this is how it would go down.
Click to expand...
I feel more safe, myself.
 
I recall a news article where a kid snuck on some contraband material onto an airplane just to test security. I think he called the airport afterwards and told them where on the plane it was.
 
Should tranquilizer guns be developed to enforce civil compliance?

Should tranquilizer guns be developed to enforce civil compliance? I don't know if its possible to develop, but I'm envisioning a drug that would work as soon as it penetrates the skin via bullets not any more harmful than bb pellets.

I can think of at least four reasons to do this:
1) If an air marshell had to shoot someone on an crowded airplane, he would not have to be as concerned that if he missed he would accidently kill an innocent bystander.

2) I don't know what would happen if whatever type of bullets the air marshells are using now penetrated the wall of an airplane while it was in flight. Would the plane be able to maintain altitude or would it crash? Even if it wouldn't cause the plane to crash a lighter shell (if thats the right word, I know very little about guns) would do less damage to the plane.

3) Bi-polar people off their meds would be tranquilized instead of killed.

4) Real terrorists could be interrogated after they woke up to find out how they defeated airport security and where they got their funding from. Dead men tell no tales.

I can think of one reason not to do this:
More people might be willing to hijack/bomb planes or attack a policeman if they did not have to be worried about lethal bullets.

What do you think?
 
Freakshow said:
So if you were in the role of some sort of police officer, you always operate under the assumption that there is no risk, until proven otherwise?

QUICK! What am I reaching behind my back for?

Too late. You're dead. I drew and shot you while you were having a little mental debate about whether or not to take the risk seriously. At least you'll have a nice funeral, being a (dead) policeman.

I'm glad I don't rely on people like you for fighting crime.
Click to expand...

How far are you going to take that logic? It has repeatedly been demonstrated that if a person with a knife is within five meters of a person with a holstered gun and decides to kill the person with a gun there is no way on earth the gun owner can ready their gun and employ it before they have been stabbed repeatedly.

QUICK! I am within five meters of you, acting completely normally! I could have a knife in my sleeve, my belt, my boot, anywhere! What do you do? Too late, I've stabbed you.

QUICK! I am ten meters away, acting completely normally, but you really have to sneeze! As soon as you close your eyes I could be racing towards you with a knife in my hand! What do you do? Too late, I have stabbed you again.

QUICK! Same scenario but I am naked and I seem to be totally unarmed with no place to conceal a weapon... but I could have a knife taped to my buttocks where you can't see it! What do you do? Too late, stabbity stab stab.

Blowing people away the second they do something funny-looking , or have a panic attack and say something that rhymes with "bomb", is not the solution. The solution is to grow a pair, accept the risk that the boogyman will get you, and employ security methods that don't license jumpy cops to kill anybody who steps out of line.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
How far are you going to take that logic? It has repeatedly been demonstrated that if a person with a knife is within five meters of a person with a holstered gun and decides to kill the person with a gun there is no way on earth the gun owner can ready their gun and employ it before they have been stabbed repeatedly.
...
Blowing people away the second they do something funny-looking , or have a panic attack and say something that rhymes with "bomb", is not the solution. The solution is to grow a pair, accept the risk that the boogyman will get you, and employ security methods that don't license jumpy cops to kill anybody who steps out of line.
Click to expand...

Only if you're in the movies. Or think that you are.
 
Freakshow said:
Sorry, Kopji, but I gotta do it... Where'd you get that number?
Click to expand...

No problem, it's good to call me on these kinds of things. My comment came from a "1 in 5" number that gets batted around, but here's a little better answer below.

Study: U.S. Leads In Mental Illness, Lags in Treatment

One-quarter of all Americans met the criteria for having a mental illness within the past year, and fully a quarter of those had a "serious" disorder that significantly disrupted their ability to function day to day, according to the largest and most detailed survey of the nation's mental health, published yesterday. (June 2005)

linky
Click to expand...

I don't mean to imply that everyone's going to run off a plane screaming, just that it is much more likely to be due to mental illness than a terrorist.

I am an advocate for solving the right problem with the right tools. Treating mentally ill people as if they were terrorists is sort of a shotgun approach (excuse the expression). I think we can improve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom