Air marshal shooting
Discussion
It was inevitable that innocents would be killed once air marshals were installed on planes. I'm surprised it took this long personally. What has really surprised me so far is thet we haven't had planes hijacked by terrorists overpowering marshals and using their weapons.
I wasn't convinced this was a good idea from the outset, even less so now. I wonder if the other occupants of that flight felt safer knowing that they were being protected by a marshal, having seen an innocent man shot down in the aisle?
I wasn't convinced this was a good idea from the outset, even less so now. I wonder if the other occupants of that flight felt safer knowing that they were being protected by a marshal, having seen an innocent man shot down in the aisle?
victormeldrew said:
It was inevitable that innocents would be killed once air marshals were installed on planes. I'm surprised it took this long personally. What has really surprised me so far is thet we haven't had planes hijacked by terrorists overpowering marshals and using their weapons.
I wasn't convinced this was a good idea from the outset, even less so now. I wonder if the other occupants of that flight felt safer knowing that they were being protected by a marshal, having seen an innocent man shot down in the aisle?
Aren't the marshalls flying incognito?
Although tragic, this shows that the Air Marshalls don't 
around in my opinion.
I think it is an excellent idea they are aboard aircraft.
It would appear that the bottom line is that this guy had not had his medication (why not?) and shouted that he had a bomb in his bag.
Doing this on board an airplane is not a good idea in the current climate. The Marshall's had to make a split second decision. If they had hesitated and he did have a bomb then they would be condemned for failing to carry out their duty.
Sadly this man is another victim of terrorists IMHO.
>> Edited by alexkp on Thursday 8th December 11:12
around in my opinion. I think it is an excellent idea they are aboard aircraft.
It would appear that the bottom line is that this guy had not had his medication (why not?) and shouted that he had a bomb in his bag.
Doing this on board an airplane is not a good idea in the current climate. The Marshall's had to make a split second decision. If they had hesitated and he did have a bomb then they would be condemned for failing to carry out their duty.
Sadly this man is another victim of terrorists IMHO.
>> Edited by alexkp on Thursday 8th December 11:12
he wasn't shot down in the aisle - was shouting he had a bomb , then ran out of the aircraft and was shot outside when he reached into his holdall having refused to comply with instructions from the marshalls.
I suppose you would wait for a bomb to go off and then think about what to do ?
I suppose you would wait for a bomb to go off and then think about what to do ?
The coverage I'd seen said he ran to the other end of the plane while his wife shouted that he was mentally ill and hadn't taken his medication. No mention of going outside, holdall, bomb.
Two totally conflicting stories here - which is real?
Oh, and incognito? I'm pretty sure I spotted the single guy travelling light who scoped the entire plane on entry and sat like a ramrod on a flight I took in the US.
Two totally conflicting stories here - which is real?
Oh, and incognito? I'm pretty sure I spotted the single guy travelling light who scoped the entire plane on entry and sat like a ramrod on a flight I took in the US.
No matter what they do, they'll be in trouble with someone - whether it's those complaining because a bomb went off and "stupid laws" meant they had to questions the guy see if he was serious, double check he was serious, confirm he's not deaf just in case he can't hear them, and check that the big f**k off red button he's got his hands on is indeed not a toy set of sod off explosives.
Or...whether it's those that complain that some nutter shouted he had a bomb and put his hand in a bag, while still shouting he had a bomb, and got shot.
Disclaimer; assuming the news reports are correct; stop bloody moaning!
(yes, I am well aware of the irony of my last line!)
Or...whether it's those that complain that some nutter shouted he had a bomb and put his hand in a bag, while still shouting he had a bomb, and got shot.
Disclaimer; assuming the news reports are correct; stop bloody moaning!
(yes, I am well aware of the irony of my last line!)
If I were a passenger, I would have wanted the man stopped (maybe a tazer, rather than a bullet). No hesitation was necessary with the comments he was making.
Is there a reason that police...... do not carry these tazer weapons rather than guns? They appear to me, to be the best bet, as they do not kill, but render the person useless, instantly.
>> Edited by mkgriff on Thursday 8th December 11:20
Is there a reason that police...... do not carry these tazer weapons rather than guns? They appear to me, to be the best bet, as they do not kill, but render the person useless, instantly.
>> Edited by mkgriff on Thursday 8th December 11:20
victormeldrew said:
I remember similar comments after a certain Brazilian man was shot on the tube, and look how that turned out....
and unfortunately we all remember the 50 people who were killed by the ones that didn't get shot.Tough decision but in the light of what is happening today it's one that must be made.What's your solution?
victormeldrew said:
It was inevitable that innocents would be killed once air marshals were installed on planes. I'm surprised it took this long personally. What has really surprised me so far is thet we haven't had planes hijacked by terrorists overpowering marshals and using their weapons.
I wasn't convinced this was a good idea from the outset, even less so now. I wonder if the other occupants of that flight felt safer knowing that they were being protected by a marshal, having seen an innocent man shot down in the aisle?
Really not that much different to any other form of 'suicide-by-cop',
sensationalised by the media (interestingly, downplayed in the UK
compared to the hysterical CNN coverage) because these events
are so rare.
Edited: Victor, if you've got *that* much of a problem
with armed guards on passenger aircraft, don't get on the plane. Simple.
>> Edited by eharding on Thursday 8th December 11:30
mkgriff said:
If I were a passenger, I would have wanted the man stopped (maybe a tazer, rather than a bullet). No hesitation was necessary with the comments he was making.
Is there a reason that police...... do not carry these tazer weapons rather than guns? They appear to me, to be the best bet, as they do not kill, but render the person useless, instantly.
>> Edited by mkgriff on Thursday 8th December 11:20
What if the guy was wearing a "bomb belt?"Would a tazer set it off?
The tazer suggestion seems sensible. I don't think terrorists would be put off by marshals - if they are determined enough to get weapons onto a flight they will be determined enough to have a gunfight. Even if they don't win there's every chance the explosive decompression will do their job for them anyway.
And as for the guy not taking his medication - how come if proper security measures were in place the air marshals didn't KNOW they had someone on the plane who had a bi-polar mental condition and was on medication? Had they known that wouldn't they have put more credence in the pleas of his wife, clearly heard by other passengers? Or is it easier just to shoot to kill than do proper checks of the passenger list?
Its easy to dismiss concern as "moaning" (esp. with my moniker
) but I happen to beleive that when an innocent life is lost unnecessarily, questions should be asked. I don't buy into this "axis of terrorism" and "its for the greater good" mentality. From where I sit there is more than one bogeyman, and two wrongs don't make a right.
I may not have an answer, but it doesn't mean I shouldn't ask questions.
And as for the guy not taking his medication - how come if proper security measures were in place the air marshals didn't KNOW they had someone on the plane who had a bi-polar mental condition and was on medication? Had they known that wouldn't they have put more credence in the pleas of his wife, clearly heard by other passengers? Or is it easier just to shoot to kill than do proper checks of the passenger list?
Its easy to dismiss concern as "moaning" (esp. with my moniker
) but I happen to beleive that when an innocent life is lost unnecessarily, questions should be asked. I don't buy into this "axis of terrorism" and "its for the greater good" mentality. From where I sit there is more than one bogeyman, and two wrongs don't make a right. I may not have an answer, but it doesn't mean I shouldn't ask questions.
There are a few conflicting report on this now. It seems the guy was shot after the air marshal interpreted his words to mean he had a bomb. He was also mentally unstable and his wife was shouting to the marshal that he had not had his medication.
I find it amazing that live ammo is allowed on the aircraft. It shows no confidence in the new security procedures.
I find it amazing that live ammo is allowed on the aircraft. It shows no confidence in the new security procedures.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff