Terrible spin here.
First of, even if his wife WAS saying that he had a mental disorder WHILE this was going on. Which I have yet to read to be the case.
That means shit.
SANE people don’t bring bombs on airplanes.
Just because he has a mental disorder doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a bomb.
There is a reason we have a plea of insanity for murders.
[quote]fahd wrote:
However, I would like to see more non-lethal weapons being used as well.
[/quote]
Deadly force is met with deadly force.
I do agree with your point, albeit in a different situation. Cops now use tasers, which actually fall lower on the “force continuum” then pepper spray, as the effects cease as soon as the taser is deactivated, unlike pepper spray.
I don’t know about you, but if someone is charging me with a knife, bomb, gun, etc, I believe he’s trying to kill me. If I want to live, and have a split second to do so, I’m going to try to kill him first.
[quote]AZMojo wrote:
snipeout wrote:
AZMojo wrote:
hedo wrote:
If you threaten lethal force then lethal force is justified in being used against you and the other guy may just be better at applying it.
That may be true on the field of war, but among the civilian population it simply isn’t.
If somebody tells a cop that he’s “going to blow his brains out” but doesn’t have a weapon, the cop doesn’t get to shoot him just because he made a threat of lethal force. There actually has to be some sort of evidence that he can imminently carry out that threat.
That may be the case here, but your point is still incorrect.
Not true, if someone tells me they are going to “blow my brains out” I can escalate my levels of force to subdue and apprehend him. If he makes said claim and reaches into a pocket or his belt line he is probably gonna catch quite a few hollow point rounds in the chest. As for the incident, just because someone is shouting “my husband” and “he is mentally ill” doesn’t mean its not a cover for a terrorist attack. As I suspect these Air Marshalls will be run through the grinder.
What do you mean, not true? In your town, if somebody threatens you, you can shoot them? No wonder they make you wait so long for your gun permit. Of course a shooting is justified if somebody’s life is in danger, but not necessarily because somebody threatens it. There is a difference.
As far as being run through the grinder goes; maybe the shooting was legit and justified, but since there wasn’t an ACTUAL threat he should be put through the “grinder” to determine that, because at the end of the day an unarmed man was killed. Or, do you think that him simply stating he percieved a threat is good enough? Don’t police shootings in your jurisdiction get investigated?
[/quote]
Yet you’d be the same person to go ahead and say that we should have taken action on the warnings about 9/11.
You’ve got to go with what you have.
I really have no problem with this guy getting shot. The only question I have is why would someone who really has a bomb and is wanting to blow up a plane, run around yelling, “I have a bomb”.
I appreciate the sincere concern shown by some of the posters for what the Air Marshall is going through today.
He will carry this for the rest of his life.
JeffR
[quote]AZMojo wrote:
hedo wrote:
If you threaten lethal force then lethal force is justified in being used against you and the other guy may just be better at applying it.
That may be true on the field of war, but among the civilian population it simply isn’t.
If somebody tells a cop that he’s “going to blow his brains out” but doesn’t have a weapon, the cop doesn’t get to shoot him just because he made a threat of lethal force. There actually has to be some sort of evidence that he can imminently carry out that threat.
That may be the case here, but your point is still incorrect.[/quote]
It’s completely diffeernt. Threatening to blow your OWN brains out is one thing. Shouting you have a bomb, running, and reaching into your backpack is quite another. In the heat of the moment, it’s entirely reasonable that the police took him at his word and shot to prevent the death of hundreds if not thousands in the airport. The mental illness issue, complicates things, however. But I can’t imagine what an appropriate police response would be.
Norm: I got a plane full of people saying you threatened that stewardess.
Greg Focker: I was not threatening her. I was just trying to get my bag into the overhead storage thing…
Norm: You were acting like a maniac and you threatened her with a bomb.
Greg Focker: No, I said I didn’t have a bomb.
Norm: But you said bomb.
Greg Focker: I said, “It’s not like I have a bomb”.
Norm: You said “Bomb” on an airplane.
Greg Focker: What’s wrong with saying ‘Bomb’ on an airplane?
Norm: You can’t say ‘Bomb’ on an airplane!
Greg Focker: Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb. You gonna arrest me? Bomb bomb bomb bomb! During the war I was a BOMBadier!
Based on the information in the news, the Air Marshall acted appropriately. I believe he did his job well.
As for non-lethal weapons, I’m not very familiar with their efficacy. I suppose the thought that the good guys have guns makes me feel safer in an airport. For instance, if there was a larger group of terrorists, would non-lethal weapons be ideal? Like I said, I’m not very familiar and they may very well be just as effective…
The whole incident is really unfortunate, but it sounds as thought the Marshal was justified.
Let’s just hope that other people look at this situation and say “hey, I’m not going to screw around with bomb threats.” Then maybe we can pull something good out of this.
[quote]AZMojo wrote:
hedo wrote:
If you threaten lethal force then lethal force is justified in being used against you and the other guy may just be better at applying it.
That may be true on the field of war, but among the civilian population it simply isn’t.
If somebody tells a cop that he’s “going to blow his brains out” but doesn’t have a weapon, the cop doesn’t get to shoot him just because he made a threat of lethal force. There actually has to be some sort of evidence that he can imminently carry out that threat.
That may be the case here, but your point is still incorrect.[/quote]
Not exactly. If he said I am going to blow your head off and then reaches inside his pocket for “something” the shooting is justified. If he surrenders and holds his hands up. it wouldn’t be.
If a guy says I am going to blow the bag up and then reaches in the bag, a prudent man would assume his intention is to blow something up. Capability in this case cannot be judged prudently.
This shooting meets the prudent man standard.
On the field of war he need meet no standard. I can kill and expect to be killed because of who I am ,not what I do. My preference would be to suprise my enemy when he doesn’t know I am there, preferable while he is sleeping or eating and cannot respond in kind.
[quote]SWR-1222D wrote:
After reading the article, I don’t think anyone can blame the Marshall.
It may have turned out unfortunate if there really was no threat, but I don’t want an air Marshall to take that chance.
I also found this interesting about the article:
“After the shooting, investigators spread passengers’ bags on the tarmac and let dogs sniff them for explosives, and bomb squad members blew up at least two bags.”
It sounds like the dogs sniffed out some sort of explosive or residue on at least 2 of the passenger’s bags.
Maybe the guy grabbed the wrong bag and really did bring explosives with him.[/quote]
Interesting take, I didn’t think of that at first.
I’d love to see more info on why they decided those bags needed to be detonated. AND, how did TWO of them get by security on one flight. That’s pretty scary. What the fuck are we all waiting in line for at the airport?
I do agree that this was probably a good shoot, although my information is limited. It doesn’t seem like he had many options at that point.
I did see on CNN that the victim was wearing the backpack across the front, in addition to the fanny pack. What a bitch of a situation. Where did he shoot the guy? In the head? I wouldn’t want to pump bullets into a suspected explosive device.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
…2 years ago a depressed 18 year old kid came toward our duty officer and reached into his belt line, the captain quickly pulled his weapon and shot the kid 3 times. This 18 year old had no gun, what you don’t seem to understand is that police officers don’t have to wait to see a gun.
All I have to do is convince IA that in the given situation my life and the life of people around me was in danger and he was reaching for a weapon(ie bomb or gun).
Why don’t you run a little test AZ, accost a police officer on the street, tell him “I’m goiong to kill you” then reach in to your belt line. In this state we don’t have to wait to be shot to shoot and once shot at we are not required to retreat.[/quote]
Dude, WHAT county do you live in?
So, a mopey teenager(aren’t they all?) walks toward your duty officer and reaches into his beltline and gets shot? You guys sure are an edgy bunch. Was there any communication? Why did the officer percieve a threat? I hope you cowboys aren’t shooting every teenager who reaches for his wallet(also by the beltline). There has to be more to the story, do tell.
I believe the Marshall’s actions were 100% appropriate for the situation he was in, I don’t think he should face any reprocusion at all, as he was doing his job to the utmost of his ability. If he hadn’t shot that man after the threats had been made and the manner in which he was acting at the very second he reached in his bag, I would definately say that the Marshall had made a major err in judgement. This is a post 9-11 world in which we are no longer afforded the ability to take chances, especially at airports.
Thoughts and prayers go out to the Air Marshall and his family in this difficult time and the memories they will forever have to endure.
Terrible situation.
I think the air marshall did what he thought he had to do at the time. I won’t second guess his actions although I am sure he will for the rest of his life.
I feel for the guy and his family too.
I hate flying on commercial airplanes.
[quote]AZMojo wrote:
snipeout wrote:
…2 years ago a depressed 18 year old kid came toward our duty officer and reached into his belt line, the captain quickly pulled his weapon and shot the kid 3 times. This 18 year old had no gun, what you don’t seem to understand is that police officers don’t have to wait to see a gun.
All I have to do is convince IA that in the given situation my life and the life of people around me was in danger and he was reaching for a weapon(ie bomb or gun).
Why don’t you run a little test AZ, accost a police officer on the street, tell him “I’m goiong to kill you” then reach in to your belt line. In this state we don’t have to wait to be shot to shoot and once shot at we are not required to retreat.
Dude, WHAT county do you live in?
So, a mopey teenager(aren’t they all?) walks toward your duty officer and reaches into his beltline and gets shot? You guys sure are an edgy bunch. Was there any communication? Why did the officer percieve a threat? I hope you cowboys aren’t shooting every teenager who reaches for his wallet(also by the beltline). There has to be more to the story, do tell.
[/quote]
I agree with this. That sounds crazy and I hope that, if the kid didn’t have a gun, that the cop was reprimanded for this or worse. Unless the kid was making a threat, that makes no sense. I can’t reach in my pocket around a cop unless I want to die?
A couple comments/opinions:
Based on the situation, as I know it, I believe the air marshall was 100% correct in his actions.
If a guy runs through a plane threatening that he has a bomb and then puts his hand in a bag – immediate, deadly force is required. It is nice to think that non-lethal force could have been used, but in reality, you need to stop all human movement NOW. My guess is that these guys are trained to take a head shot. Anywhere else and the bad guy might still have the wherewithal to press “the button”.
If this had been real, the “wife” could have simply been a diversion to buy enough time to commit the crime. These guys are likely trained to ignore anything outside of the immediate threat.
Bottom line - in a VERY short period of time, you need to decide whether or not you have a threat and deal with it accordingly. You don’t have time to take a medical assessment, interview people, etc. These guys are trained to act, and they did.
If the air marshall had not taken the shot, according to our Congress, he would have been criminally negligent. They are tasked with protecting the many, even if it means bad things for the few.
I do feel for the family and the air marshall(s). All will have quite a bit of healing to do.
I feel for the guy too. If anything, though a little odd sounding to say, I think he’s a small time hero. I guess its all in how you tell the story too, it would be a lot different if the news said “marshall shoots crazy man because of random babblings.”
But what choice did he have? Shoot to kill was the only option. Otherwise he still would have been able to set off that potential bomb.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I agree with this. That sounds crazy and I hope that, if the kid didn’t have a gun, that the cop was reprimanded for this or worse. Unless the kid was making a threat, that makes no sense. I can’t reach in my pocket around a cop unless I want to die?[/quote]
Or how about he was answering his phone? Thats around the belt line. Maybe his mom was calling him to make sure he got there ok. Maybe he was gonna call and say he arrived there alright.
Or MAYBE how about this brainstorm. He didnt want to look shaggy infront of the office so gasp…he was tucking his shirt in to look neat?
The cop that did that is a threat to society, moreso than a depressed teen. We dont need edgey gun happy tools like that “protecting” our streets. Fucking menace!
That air marshall can fly with me anytime. He did the right thing.
[quote]AZMojo wrote:
snipeout wrote:
…2 years ago a depressed 18 year old kid came toward our duty officer and reached into his belt line, the captain quickly pulled his weapon and shot the kid 3 times. This 18 year old had no gun, what you don’t seem to understand is that police officers don’t have to wait to see a gun.
All I have to do is convince IA that in the given situation my life and the life of people around me was in danger and he was reaching for a weapon(ie bomb or gun).
Why don’t you run a little test AZ, accost a police officer on the street, tell him “I’m goiong to kill you” then reach in to your belt line. In this state we don’t have to wait to be shot to shoot and once shot at we are not required to retreat.
Dude, WHAT county do you live in?
So, a mopey teenager(aren’t they all?) walks toward your duty officer and reaches into his beltline and gets shot? You guys sure are an edgy bunch. Was there any communication? Why did the officer percieve a threat? I hope you cowboys aren’t shooting every teenager who reaches for his wallet(also by the beltline). There has to be more to the story, do tell.
[/quote]
My mistake, iyt was domestic issue, kid was arguing with his mom. Duty officer(captain) was first on scene. He tells the kid turn around hands on your head and drop to your knees. Kid states fuck you I will kill you, closes distance(approximately 15-20 feet) while reaching under his shirt into his belt line. Did you know that if you do not have more than 7 yards between you and a perceived threat they can close that distance and do damage to you before you pull your gun. AZ you are just full of hate for an authority and anyone that does not fall exactly into your line of thinking aren’t you?