Passenger killed by air marshall

CFLarsen said:
What about people who are not Americans? Do they still have the rights that Americans have?
Click to expand...
Very few non Americans enjoy the same rights as Americans because the governments of their respective countries have taken away those rights. Politicians in the US also have the ability to take away rights. They just haven't been as successful as many other governments yet.

.
 
YoPopa said:
Very few non Americans enjoy the same rights as Americans because the governments of their respective countries have taken away those rights. Politicians in the US also have the ability to take away rights. They just haven't been as successful as many other governments yet.
Click to expand...

Is that a yes? If these governments hadn't "taken away" those rights, every person on this planet would be endowed with the same rights as Americans?
 
CFLarsen said:
Is that a yes? If these governments hadn't "taken away" those rights, every person on this planet would be endowed with the same rights as Americans?
Click to expand...
That's kinda close to what I am getting at except for your use of the word "endowed". Why do you want to slip that in?

ETA: In fact, folks from other countries could have more rights than US citizens (that's who we're talking about right?) because as I mentioned, our government has already taken away a lot of rights.

.
 
Last edited:
CFLarsen said:
Spin away.
Click to expand...
:id:

I'm surprised you can still type after all the spinning you've done in this thread. I've told you that the line you are fixated on is a rhetorical tool. If you see God in that, I'd say that says more about you than it does about the US founders.
 
Freakshow said:
Up until I start encountering straw men. Like the ones you listed.
Click to expand...

It was your idea to say that police should shoot anyone who could be a lethal threat to them. The problem with that line of thinking is that anybody who so much as looks at a police officer funny could be about to whip out a knife, or a gun, or detonate a bomb and there is nothing the cop can do about it except shoot everybody who so much as looks at them funny.

That's why we shouldn't allow police to use lethal force unless there is credible reason to believe someone is a threat, not just a conceivable means by which they could be a threat. Police are there to protect the public, meaning all of the public, not to protect themselves. They get fairly well paid and the death rate for police on the job is well below that of the really dangerous occupations, so taking that risk is part and parcel of their job.

If they aren't prepared to confront loonies for us, knowing that there is an incredibly minuscule chance that they have a bomb or something, they can always go get a job as a construction worker.
 
CFLarsen said:
Are those the only two responsible for the American Revolution?
Click to expand...

No, but one of them (Thomas Jefferson) personally wrote the Declaration of Independence.

CFLarsen said:
Where have I said that?

1) Founded by only religious people
Click to expand...

In this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1318701#post1318701

You state directly that you reject a non-supernatural definition for "creator" because "People were generally religious to an extent we can hardly imagine today"

Which seems to imply that there were no atheists, or even people who acknowledged the possibility that God may not exist.

I don’t think that’s supportable. Your own links demonstrate a wide variety of religious beliefs in the Colonies, and among some of those belief systems there were active debates on the existence of God.

The language in the Declaration of Independence is clearly designed to be inclusive of many different beliefs, and I see no reason to exclude atheism when it fits so well within the language.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
It was your idea to say that police should shoot anyone who could be a lethal threat to them.
Click to expand...
That is not what I said. I said they could shoot anyone who appears to be presenting a significant and immediate threat to the safety of the public. That is different some saying someone who "could" be a threat.
 
bigred said:
unbelievable....
blah blah blah etc
Click to expand...
LOL. I can tell that the paranoids who think everyone is a terrorist unless proven otherwise are still alive and well. You think you are safe. Guess what. I also fly on private corporate jets. You know something? Are you seated?

THERE'S NO SECURITY AT ALL ON CHARTER OR CORPORATE FLIGHTS.

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?
Click to expand...
I'll say that more slowly if you like, but there is no security for most corporate or charter flights. Your supposed "safety" is a carefully maintained illusion. Now that someone has been killed, everyone who wondered if things were not going well on the airport security-end can go back to sleep.
Please tell me you're not part of any airport security design or operations.
Click to expand...
No. You are safe. Go back to sleep.
Yes, and we should put everyone else's lives on the line based on that "likelihood." Brilliant.
Click to expand...
He was not ON the plane when he was killed.
He got OFF the plane.
The Air Marshalls LEFT the plane to chase him.
If there were a second terrorist on the plane all he would need to do is lock the door BEHIND them. Now THAT sounds really brilliant.
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.
Click to expand...
We still have no idea how he really acted, except being agitated and trying to leave the plane. I await the official report, which I suspect will be released in a year or so on a holiday weekend, and say something like nobody really heard precisely what he said.

(drum drum drum) Death to him and all like him.

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 Marshall's are already catching flak for doing their job.
Click to expand...
Terrorists included, they must love watching our paranoia and how we so willing give our rights and freedoms up because we are afraid of them.
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.
Click to expand...
Well witnesses said he was. They implied these included the air Marshall's.
Why, do you occasionally have urges to act nervous, funny or erratic in a way similar to how he did?
Click to expand...
I fly enough to see highly nervous passengers all the time. Sometimes there are no air Marshall's on board so I guess they can live that day. Seems a little like Russian Roulette.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
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.
Click to expand...
How many scared, drunk, ill, or mentally ill people have killed other people. For drunks, the number is unfortunately very high, particularly when we include DWI. For mentally ill, yes, a large number of mentally ill individuals are responsible for a strongly non-zero number of murders and mass-murders. There's a good reason that a substantial number of mentally ill individuals are now behind bars in a prison or criminal institution.

Just because someone is crazy, doesn't mean they're harmless. I've personally narrowly avoided violent situations with more than one of the local street crazies.
 
Kopji said:
THERE'S NO SECURITY AT ALL ON CHARTER OR CORPORATE FLIGHTS.


I'll say that more slowly if you like, but there is no security for most corporate or charter flights.
Click to expand...

So, which is it? There is no security, or some security? Can you make up your mind?
 
thaiboxerken:
"Why? You don't trust the police investigators?"


If we'd all taken that approach with the Menezes case, the whole world would still be saying and believing that the totally innocent guy had "acted suspiciously", jumped the ticket barriers, worn a bulky coat, ran away and refused to stop when asked to etc etc etc.
 
demon said:
If we'd all taken that approach with the Menezes case.
Click to expand...

Point. However, in this case, I see no reason to distrust the police, as this was done in a public place with many witnesses. None of which have come out to speak out against the "bomb" allegation. Some have said that they didn't hear it, but they didn't say it was never said.
 
If I Had a Hammer - The Federal Express Case
Also included in Criminal Acts Against Civil Aviation is a case that the FAA did not include among the other criminal acts. The FAA document and news reports on the incident paint the following picture if this April 7, 1994 event.
Click to expand...

Posting an example from 1994 leaves me unconvinced.

If security is thought of as protecting the major airlines from another economic disaster like 911, I think security is pretty good.

If security is thought of as good enough to prevent another plane attack, I think we are just pretending.

And we are not even talking about the municipal & private airports.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom