Passenger killed by air marshall

bigred said:
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?
Click to expand...
Bipolar people will get shot, then?
 
hammegk said:
I realize it's a difficult concept but sane or crazy, you, not anyone else, are responsible for your behavior, most especially in public venues, and even moreso if on transport of any kind.
Click to expand...

:eye-poppi

! Radical concept. I'm still reading the thread but would not be surprised if some tried to roast you alive for such a statement as it's such an endangered concept in today's society.

I find some of the attitudes here and elsewhere about this unbelievable. Frankly, they are no small part of what allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place, and are what will undoubtedly be this country's downfall, ie the decay from within in the form of an overly "nice" ie touchy-feely, hypersensitive, let's-not-hold-people-accountable lunacy.
 
shuize said:
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.
Click to expand...
:confused: There's thinking going on there?
 
Kopji said:
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....
Click to expand...
unbelievable....

er where do you get that "killing crazy people is the standard?" Noooo, killing people acting the way he acted (at least in/around airports) is the standard, or sure as hell SHOULD be. WHY is this so hard for some of you to grasp?

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
Click to expand...
LOL @ "inspected" = run through the machine. Yeah there's no way to mask a bomb or other dangerous weapons that way.

:oldroll:

The likelihood of you having a bomb in your backpack is, well, almost zero.
Click to expand...
Even if we assume that's true (and lol @ that), believe it or not, "almost" isn't really cutting it.

Please tell me you're not part of any airport security design or operations.


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.
Click to expand...
Yes, and we should put everyone else's lives on the line based on that "likelihood." Brilliant.


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.
Click to expand...
And that's bad because.......

No system is perfect. No matter what precautions are put in, there will ALWAYS be a possibility of someone figuring a way to beat the system and having a bomb, gun, or other dangerous weapon. If anyone acts in such a way, boom. Gone. Sorry. Bye. Of COURSE that's how it should be. Don't like it? Don't act that way. Better yet, don't fly.

I bet a lot of people in a lot of other countries are laughing their asses off at how some people are ranting at this "unjust action" and how the air marshalls are already catching flak for doing their job.

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.
Click to expand...
I don't know why this thought didn't kick in, but FYI maybe he wasn't acting nervous or "funny" before he got on. As for flying not worth the risk of being shot, you seem to be forgetting (in the same paragraph no less) that's he wasn't quite mentally stable.


Not saying they did not follow procedure, just that I feel less safe knowing this is how it would go down.
Click to expand...
Why, do you occasionally have urges to act nervous, funny or erratic in a way similar to how he did?

Then take a bus.
 
Last edited:
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.

What do you think?
Click to expand...
I'm thinking it's a nice thought, but wouldn't work for reasons stated, plus people could wear protecting clothing/etc that would prevent penetration.

Sorry but in such instances, we've little choice but to play hardball.
 
Last edited:
Joe Random said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly, bravo and thank you very much.
 
bigred said:
You don't get it. Him being bipolar isn't particularly relevent. Anyone who acts the way he acted will/should be.
Click to expand...

The way he is alleged to have acted, please.

In the mean time, how many scared, drunk, ill, mentally ill or otherwise impaired people do you think it is acceptable to kill to save, say, one life from (theoretical) terrorists who run off planes with bombs?

A woman has lost her husband of twenty years, Bigred. Please think about that for a bit before you open your mouth again.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
In the mean time, how many scared, drunk, ill, mentally ill or otherwise impaired people do you think it is acceptable to kill to save, say, one life from (theoretical) terrorists who run off planes with bombs?
Click to expand...
All of 'em when the behavior occurs in high-security situations involving public transport (in the developed world anyway .. I don't know much about Tasmania).
 
Ed said:
Did they?
Click to expand...
We all know the only thing the air marshalls knew for sure was they had a severely agitated passenger who said he had a bomb, ignored their orders to comply and reached into his bag. They had just a few seconds to make a life or death decision.
 
CFLarsen said:
Don't play word games.

If a psychic doesn't describe talking to the dead as "supernatural", would you accept that it isn't?
Click to expand...
No, there is no way to talk to the dead that isn't supernatural. My parents created me, and I assure you it was an entirely natural process.

Creator ≠ God ≠ Supernatural

Who's playing word games?
 
bigred said:
I'm thinking it's a nice thought, but wouldn't work for reasons stated, plus people could wear protecting clothing/etc that would prevent penetration.

Sorry but in such instances, we've little choice but to play hardball.
Click to expand...
Yes, after reading the reasons I agree. Thats what I like about this board -- there are always new opinions and facts to discover.
 
After 9/11 I outlined my "Fly Nude" program. I figured that since it was for the greater good, and would add to the protection of the children, it would be a smash hit. Perhaps now you will all listen. We would never have to second guess a split second decision by a cop again.

This and my "Move all the Jews to South Dakota and let Disney manage Jeruselem" idea will gain currency in our lifetimes. Mark my words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom