Passenger killed by air marshall

Upchurch said:
Am I crazy, or does it not matter that he may not have been yelling "I have a bomb"?
Click to expand...
That mattered 2 pages ago. But the thread has now been derailed to the point where it doesn't matter anymore. Sorry, you missed it. :D
 
I think it goes to the truthfullness of the agents who shot him (or, now that I think about it, perhaps simply to the ability of the TSA's bureaucracy to get a story out). But directly, no. A crazy guy who fails to follow the marshalls' orders and who reaches into his bag in such a way that the marshalls are concerned should be shot dead whether he uttered "the b-word" or not.
 
manny said:
But directly, no. A crazy guy who fails to follow the marshalls' orders and who reaches into his bag in such a way that the marshalls are concerned should be shot dead whether he uttered "the b-word" or not.
Click to expand...
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?

I don't think this is clear cut, yet. When it was simply a crazy man who ranted about a bomb on a plane, I thought they did the right thing. Yeah, I thought we should consider revamping the system a little to make officials aware of special needs (or whatever) passengers so the crazy people who need to fly somewhere don't get shot on the way, but I still thought they did the right thing.

Now, we have this alternate story of events that makes me question the appropriateness of the action. The two versions need to be reconciled.
 
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...
That might make it worse, actually.

I don't think this is clear cut, yet. When it was simply a crazy man who ranted about a bomb on a plane, I thought they did the right thing. Yeah, I thought we should consider revamping the system a little to make officials aware of special needs (or whatever) passengers so the crazy people who need to fly somewhere don't get shot on the way, but I still thought they did the right thing.
Click to expand...
Why did his wife not make sure he was ok to fly with out being disruptive in-flight?
Now, we have this alternate story of events that makes me question the appropriateness of the action. The two versions need to be reconciled.
Click to expand...
I just looked back on the news reports from that day on BBC:
"At some point, he uttered threatening words that included a sentence to the effect that he had a bomb," said Miami Federal Air Marshals official James Bauer.
Click to expand...

So what exactly did he utter? That seems to be the crucial part of the story.
 
Grammatron said:
So what exactly did he utter? That seems to be the crucial part of the story.
[/SIZE]
Click to expand...
I prefer 'actions speak louder than words'. Someone trying to run off a plane and not heeding air-marshall instructions deserves to be shot dead. What he, or his "wife/friend/accomplice" says is irrelevant too.

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.
 
Upchurch said:
Would it matter if his wife was trying frantically to explain that he was bipolar and hadn't had his meds?
Click to expand...

You would accept one unknown person's testimony regarding another unknown person, and give it more weight than the obvious signs? Not with my life in the balance, thankyouverymuch.

Or that the man was apparently already off the plane?
Click to expand...

Considering an airport can hold 1,000 time more people than an airliner, no that doesn't comfort me in the least.

I don't think this is clear cut, yet. When it was simply a crazy man who ranted about a bomb on a plane, I thought they did the right thing. Yeah, I thought we should consider revamping the system a little to make officials aware of special needs (or whatever) passengers so the crazy people who need to fly somewhere don't get shot on the way, but I still thought they did the right thing.

Now, we have this alternate story of events that makes me question the appropriateness of the action. The two versions need to be reconciled.
Click to expand...

No, now you see the shot man as a human being instead of a scary, anonymous threat. Only now, in hindsight, do you have that luxury. The Marshalls did not.

The only one responsible for that man's death is himself. Call the wife complicit for letting him fly off his meds if you like, but even if he never said "bomb" I think the cops did the right thing.

I hope, with all this pointless hand-wringing, that they have the guts to do the right thing NEXT TIME too.
 
From the registration-required Chicago Tribune:
"She was saying, 'My husband's sick. He's sick. He's bipolar. He didn't take his medicine. It was my fault. I made him get on the plane. You know, we just came from a medical mission. Oh, my God; they've killed my husband!'" Borrelli said.
Click to expand...
So the wife literally nagged him to death...
 
CFLarsen said:
A supernatural one.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Freakshow said:
No, just free of guns. Since they are magical, mythical devices that turn any normal person into an insane killing machine. Their very existence is to blame for all evils. Including the movie "Ishtar".
Click to expand...


So even the police shouldn't have guns, and the military should go back to waging wars with melee weapons?
 
thaiboxerken said:
So even the police shouldn't have guns, and the military should go back to waging wars with melee weapons?
Click to expand...
You'll have to ask him about that one.

As for me...I've said more than once that I would not consider living in a country that wouldn't let me own a gun. There have always been guns in my house. Even when I was a little kid, my dad, grandfather, and uncles taught me to shoot. Its just part of life for me. I'd no more give it up than I'd give up my car or TV.
 
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...
But it is not consistent with a view that in every atom in the universe, you can find yet another example that the US is a terrible, despicable place. Therefore, you are wrong, Mycroft. And a poopie-head, too. :D

Geez, I crack myself. Aren't Friday afternoons fun sometimes? :D
 
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'm not talking about law. I am talking about rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom