Passenger killed by air marshall

Shera said:
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.
Click to expand...

That gun would either not work at all due to substances that person is taken or have a chance to kill that person for various reasons. While the latter is importan it's not so much as the former, if you can't stop a person from being a danger then the weapon is useless.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
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...

Or the solution is to comply with the authorites who are pointing a gun at you at that moment. That goes for whether they are right or wrong to do that, you can deal with the matter in court later.
 
Shera said:
Should tranquilizer guns be developed...<snip>

...What do you think?
Click to expand...

That sort of solution only works in the movies. In real life, the trank that would knock you out fast enough to make a difference is also likely to kill you.

The guys that knock out animals in the wild fire the dart, then wait around from a safe distance until it takes effect.
 
Mycroft said:
The guys that knock out animals in the wild fire the dart, then wait around from a safe distance until it takes effect.
Click to expand...
And also have to estimate the weight of their target in order to load the dart w/ enough tranquilizer to knock it out, but not enough to kill it. This takes a few minutes in the field, and is very inexact.
 
Grammatron said:
Or the solution is to comply with the authorites who are pointing a gun at you at that moment. That goes for whether they are right or wrong to do that, you can deal with the matter in court later.
Click to expand...

Mentally ill people exist, sick people exist, drunk people exist and panicky people exist. This is inarguable.

Terrorists who can construct suicide bombs out of in-flight drinks and chair lint, who then flip out and run around telling everyone they have a bomb, on the other hand, may not exist at all.

Arguably people should have the right not to be ordered around at gunpoint without a decent justification too, but that is very much a secondary consideration compared to the primary issue.
 
WildCat said:
Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the DoI has no legal status whatsoever, where is the word "supernatural" in it?
Click to expand...

Don't play word games.

If a psychic doesn't describe talking to the dead as "supernatural", would you accept that it isn't?
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Mentally ill people exist, sick people exist, drunk people exist and panicky people exist. This is inarguable.

Terrorists who can construct suicide bombs out of in-flight drinks and chair lint, who then flip out and run around telling everyone they have a bomb, on the other hand, may not exist at all.

Arguably people should have the right not to be ordered around at gunpoint without a decent justification too, but that is very much a secondary consideration compared to the primary issue.
Click to expand...

What also exists is if you act irradically, and possibly dangerously in front of people who are pointing guns at you, there's a possibility you may die.

What has to happen here is simple, really. We must determine if the shooting was warrented and what, if anything, can be done in the future to prevent an innocent person getting shot.
 
Grammatron said:
Or the solution is to comply with the authorites who are pointing a gun at you at that moment. That goes for whether they are right or wrong to do that, you can deal with the matter in court later.
Click to expand...
But this goes back to the problem of whether the person is even able to comply, or aware of the skymarshall's orders to begin with. It assumes that the person is still in control of their actions (not always the case with mental disorders) or completely aware of their surroundings (ditto; also see Shera's point about people with hearing problems).
 
Just to clear one issue up, does anyone have any link to anyone other than the marshals or a spokesperson for them claiming that the deceased made a bomb threat? Or even made a sudden lunge for a bag?

I just read a few articles on the major news sites, and I could not find any independent witnesses confirming the bomb threat claim. Nor did anyone seem to be able to confirm the claim the deceased made a grab for his bag. There were, however, people saying that they did not hear any mention of a bomb and people saying that making a bomb threat would have been wildly out of character for the deceased.

Have I missed a vital witness, or are the only people who "heard" the bomb threat or saw his alleged false move the men who shot him?
 
Upchurch said:
Would it matter if his wife was trying frantically to explain that he was bipolar and hadn't had his meds? Or that the man was apparently already off the plane?
Click to expand...
Not in the slightest. The wife could have been a "cover" - or what if he had enough explosives to cause major damage even when off of the plane? Or what if he had "only" been reaching for a gun? What, only the passenger's lives matter?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom