Before we're completely off topic here (TOO LATE!)... when I hear people using comments like 'deserved to be shot', or 'justifiable shooting' or even 'airmarshall had no choice' I think people have overlooked or worse, come to accept getting killed/killing as an 'eventuality'. I think that the airmarshalls were far to indiscriminant in the use of their weapons, especially in such a close, confined, and fragile space. We have alternative technology (to guns) and need to employ this. I do not condone the use of deadly force in this situation as there is far too great an opportunity for error. Doesn't anyone else think that a man's life is sufficient evidence of this? Personally, it is not okay with me that ANYONE shot at, near, next to, or beside me, let alone INTO me! IF you start saying/thinking 'oh, well it's okay to shoot people in that case'... then have you thought... YOU are part of those 'people' that it might be okay to shoot? I suggest that there were PLENTY of alternatives to shooting this guy. Look, if this had occured in, oh... Ireland, England, Scotland, India, Fiji, Samoa, New Zealand, Japan, Greece, Panama, Norway, Indonesia, Monaco (you get the idea) where police do NOT carry guns, they would have had to do something else... and he'd still be alive!
Fact: In the world, only 2 countries allow use of deadly force in cases of self defense: USA and Israel.
My point? There are alternatives; other nations have demonstrated this... and for any of us to accept otherwise puts us and our friends and families in jeopardy MORE than allowing some guy to run down the aisle screaming 'bomb. You may smugly think you've added one more notch to your layer of security, but did you notice yet another loss of life and liberty (literally!)in this era of 'patriot act' panic?
Remember: "The trade-off between freedom and security, so often proposed so seductively, very often leads to the loss of both."