Since we now have a precendent for shooting crazy people on planes, can we now move on and expand this to include noisy babies and fat people sitting next to me? I’d include people with a hysterical fear of flying but I think they can safely be included amongst the crazies for these purposes. Let’s make the skies friendly again.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
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.
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?[/quote]
Where did he shoot him?
The guy says he has a bomb in his bag.
The marshall tells him to get down on the ground.
The guy not only doesn’t he reaches toward the bag.
The possibilities:
He kills the guy, the guy doesnt have a bomb and one guy dies.
He kills the guy, the guy has a bomb and one guy dies.
He doesnt kill the guy, the guy doesnt have a bomb and nobody dies.
He doesn’t kill the guy, the guy has a bomb and is reaching for the detonator. He kills everyone on the plane and in the near vicinity.
Had a split second to make the choice with 100+ lives weighed against one.
If the marshall is ever put in the same situation I sure as hell hope he makes the same choice.
[quote]etaco wrote:
Since we now have a precendent for shooting crazy people on planes, can we now move on and expand this to include noisy babies and fat people sitting next to me? I’d include people with a hysterical fear of flying but I think they can safely be included amongst the crazies for these purposes. Let’s make the skies friendly again.[/quote]
See DTak’s post. Maybe it will help you get it.
I certainly agree with the majority here and think the marshall did the right thing. However, did anyone else see on the news where they had an eyewitness on the phone who said the guy never claimed to have a bomb, and was leaving the plane almost as if he was ill or had had an argument with his wife? I don’t remeber the channel it was on this morning, just wondering if anyone else heard that claim.
[quote]DTak wrote:
The guy says he has a bomb in his bag.
The marshall tells him to get down on the ground.
The guy not only doesn’t he reaches toward the bag.
The possibilities:
He kills the guy, the guy doesnt have a bomb and one guy dies.
He kills the guy, the guy has a bomb and one guy dies.
He doesnt kill the guy, the guy doesnt have a bomb and nobody dies.
He doesn’t kill the guy, the guy has a bomb and is reaching for the detonator. He kills everyone on the plane and in the near vicinity.
Had a split second to make the choice with 100+ lives weighed against one.
If the marshall is ever put in the same situation I sure as hell hope he makes the same choice.[/quote]
I like the way you think!
A point I wanted to add was about warning shots and less than lethal shots. I have never heard of anybody training to ‘shoot him in the leg’. The point of firearm training in the protection industry is to shoot to kill. If a situation is serious enough to warrant use of a gun, it is serious enough to kill.
I’m surprized that nobody’s mentioned this, but notice that there were roughly 100 people on the plane, and not 1 person did anything. If I was sitting close enough to the aisle, I would have tackled the prick, until the Air Marshalls got there. Once again, people duck their heads in the sand.
If the marshalls had not been on the plane, this douchebag could have caused a larger scare. Imagine if this had happened while airborn. Fighter jets would have intercepted the plane, and possibly shot it down. So, you take the life of a manic douchebag, or do you shoot down a jetliner with 100 people on board? -Starkdog
This situation would still be a cluster fuck if the Marshall did nothing. People would be screaming about the ineffectiveness of US security, and there would be a congressional hearing into the whole situation.
This poor bastard was in a no win situation. I think he did the right thing.
For anybody saying he shouldn’t have shot the crazy, what should he have done?
If you only wound him, he can still set off a bomb, so nothing has changed.
You can’t taser the guy, as many high explosives use an electrical charge to detonate.
If you use pepper spray, he can still detonate a bomb.
As unfortuate as it is, the only choice here was to kill him.
He did the right thing, but the poor bastard is going to get crucified by politicians and the media anyway.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
snipeout wrote:
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.
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?
Where did he shoot him?[/quote]
Use of deadly force is just that, police officers are trained to shoot center mass. This officer shot him 2 or 3 times in the right femur.
[quote]combatmedic wrote:
A point I wanted to add was about warning shots and less than lethal shots. I have never heard of anybody training to ‘shoot him in the leg’. The point of firearm training in the protection industry is to shoot to kill. If a situation is serious enough to warrant use of a gun, it is serious enough to kill.[/quote]
Anything that fires a projectile i.e. less lethal force in most states is still considered deadly force.
I was always under the impression that a shot towards the center of any limb has a pretty decent chance of being fatal, given the positioning of the arteries.
If you’re going to shoot someone, you may as well aim at the easiest to hit part rather than trying to line up so that you hit significant flesh while missing the important stuff.
I hate to turn this into a political thing, but - hide and watch. The damn democrats will call for a freaking congressional investigation of the Sky Marshall program.
I wouldn’t doubt that they attempt to bring accessory to muder charges against Rove.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
AZMojo wrote:
snipeout wrote:
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.
…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?[/quote]
Nice:) Yeah, I’m the one full of hate.
I don’t recall telling YOU to commit suicide by cop. Anyway, with any luck, maybe you’ll be able to scratch that trigger finger some day. It probably won’t even be hard to convince IA that it was justified, right?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I hate to turn this into a political thing, but - hide and watch. The damn democrats will call for a freaking congressional investigation of the Sky Marshall program.
I wouldn’t doubt that they attempt to bring accessory to muder charges against Rove. [/quote]
Because you believe that every republican agrees with his action?
[quote]etaco wrote:
I was always under the impression that a shot towards the center of any limb has a pretty decent chance of being fatal, given the positioning of the arteries.
If you’re going to shoot someone, you may as well aim at the easiest to hit part rather than trying to line up so that you hit significant flesh while missing the important stuff.[/quote]
Limbs move too much and are too small to hit. A target can still move when shot in a limb with a small caliber weapon like a 9mm, or even big like a .45. You shoot center mass of the chest, then to the head. On the head you shoot at a triangle drawn between the two eyes and the mouth. If the target is moving, you shoot at the hips to break the pelvis and then the head. If the target is wearing body armor then you shoot the hips and then the head.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I hate to turn this into a political thing, but - hide and watch. The damn democrats will call for a freaking congressional investigation of the Sky Marshall program.
I wouldn’t doubt that they attempt to bring accessory to muder charges against Rove.
Because you believe that every republican agrees with his action?[/quote]
No - because I believe, based on the overwhelming sentiment on this thread(including yours)has been in favor of the Marshall shooting the nut-job.
Democrats love to screw shit up. Plus - I thought it was funny.
[quote]fahd wrote:
I hate to agree with the conservatives here, but if someone is running around on a PLANE and making threats, I would like to see someone shoot him down.
However, I would like to see more non-lethal weapons being used as well.
This is a tragic situtation, and the only person I can blame is the wife who did not force her husband to take her meds before boarding on a plane.[/quote]
Do you have to be a conservative or what not to agree with this stuff? Does it even have a thing to do? Personally, I am not very involved in the US politics, but I can tell you that agreeing with the conservatives is pretty much your best bet on this point, if all conservatives think like that (while liberals think the opposite way) that is.
No matter your political standpoint, ‘‘Gros bon sens’’ (common sense) will always take over if you have the minimum of intelligence. Don’t attach the ‘he had to shoot’ view to the conservatives please, it was just the right thing to do.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I hate to turn this into a political thing, but - hide and watch. The damn democrats will call for a freaking congressional investigation of the Sky Marshall program.
I wouldn’t doubt that they attempt to bring accessory to muder charges against Rove. [/quote]
Same goes with you, and as I see - I meant democrats and not liberals (am I right? I’m not familiar AT ALL with US politics.)
[quote]snipeout wrote:
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.
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?[/quote]
I don’t see why you’re saying that about AZMojo. Given the limited information in your first story I thought the same thing. You later come back and the story turns out to be completely different.
A guy just walking up to someone, reaching into his belt line and gets shot is a LOT different than “Kid states fuck you I will kill you, closes distance…while reaching under his shirt into his belt line.”