Originally posted by sarmike:
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."
While what you say has merit, it doesn't hold water. What would you have done in that situation, armed with the same exact equipment that the airmarshal had? This BS tactic of playing the "what if" game is great on a message board, but the facts stand against your reason, not with it.
A distressed person was shouting he had a bomb on a plane in a post 9/11 America. The air marshall had his physical body, probably some cuffs, maybe pepper spray, and a gun. You would have the same equipment in the same situation. Which would you use? All but the gun, you have to get close, maybe too close, and to late? Pepper spray, doesn't effect half the people the way that you may think... so what should he have done? Try to talk him "down"? The tragedy is evident either way, but one man dead over a plane full, in this situation, with the equipment and judgement afforded the air marshall at the time......
Just to add, the london incident was much more callous. the guy was avoiding arrest, but he wasn't yelling he had a bomb, he wasn't on a plane.... etc... apples and oranges....
Previous Topic
Index
