Quote:
"i brought it up because of all the 'omg this man is innocent because he was sick and couldnt help it' arguments floating around."

You said before that 'in a deterministic universe such as this, everybody is innocent.'. Now you're saying that you brought up the deterministic universe to challenge the idea that this man is innocent (because he was sick and couldn't help it)? That makes no sense. I think you're contradicting yourself because you don't want to admit graciously that you were barking up the wrong tree.

Quote:
"no there isnt."

There IS a difference between suspecting and knowing. I know for a fact that I have a microwave oven in my house, but I don't know that you do. I suspect that you may do. To know for sure I would have to go to your house and see for my myself.

I'm not going to argue elementary concepts such as this with you. If you want to pursue this subject further, please don't do it with me - take it up with the people who make dictionaries, thesauruses and the like, whom you must believe are perpetuating misconceptions.

Quote:
"you are so hung up on this system of yours it seems to have become a goal in itself. justice is an illusion."

You should either answer my questions or admit you are dodging the point. I'm all for the greater good, but not where that means designating a certain group of innocent people who can supposedly be sacrificed for it.

Are you going to explain how justice is an illusion, without citing examples of injustice that fundamentally violate the system? If justice (in a social setting) is an illusion because we're in your deterministic universe, you have nothing to gain by participating in this debate. Like you said before, there's little point arguing about things you certainly cannot influence (change). There's little point talking about how the justice system should work ('yes it does. its all about adressing how i think the justice system should work') if you don't believe justice exists. More contradiction.

Quote:
"falling off a high building can kill you aswell, but that doesnt make me feel guilty about building high buildings, knowing that i might be killing people. similarly, i feel free to create laws that i know might kill people, if i feel the benefits outweight the costs. i know, im a heartless bastard."

I'm sorry you can't see the difference between constructing a high building and having someone willingly scale it and then fall off (essentially, an accident) and taking a gun and consciously choosing to shoot someone in the head.

Please explain the benefit of shooting this man. It's one thing to trade the life of a bomber for the life of many passengers (less overall harm than would otherwise have resulted), but quite another to shoot a man when you are not sure whether there is actually going to be a benefit. See my previous point about the sacrificial lambs.

Quote:
"omg this is classic. talking about pulling out of context. if you would also quote the sentence following up that one, you might see that this hypothetical man i was talking about wasnt Alpizar. that is, unless 'seeing what you want to see' prevails once again."

Please quote the sentence in question (the one you say I omitted) and identify the hypothetical man you say exists, because I've read and re-read the history of this specific point (I invite others to do the same) and as far as I can see *there is no such person*. While you're at it, show me where I quoted you out of context. I'm amazed that you think I've done something classic, considering the depths to which you are now sinking.

The only sentence I can find 'following up that one' (thanks for being so specific!) that I didn't include is this - 'preemptive srikes are more of a gray area, but if you go around claiming you are a serious threat, thats clearly on one side of the line in my book.'

Go around claiming you are a serious threat? Sounds a lot like you were talking about the Alpizar case to me. Bald-faced liar.

Quote:
"another piece of bad debating. no, im not going to try and explain the inner workings of the mind of a mental patient to you."

Fine, dodge yet another one of my points with a generic non-committal answer. I asked you why he would have left the plane if he had been *a terrorist* trying to hi-jack it or blow it up. This is important, because not having a credible answer strengthens the case that there were other circumstances that suggested the man was not a terrorist, however eratic his behaviour was. This weakens the case that even after he claimed to have a bomb (if that's true, see my other points about this), that this was likely and that his execution was necessary.

Quote:
"your empathy is heartwarming."

In the context of my point, what the hell does that have to do with anything? Oh, I see...another point dodge.

Quote:
"with power comes responsibility. if a man walks unknowingly into his death, and you know about it yet refuse to just give a shout which would have saved his life, no matter how far away from him you stand, i will see his blood on your hands. see how poor of a model of reality your theories of bloodhydrodynamics are?"

We're not arguing about a black-and-white case in which it's possible to intervene to save a man's life without harming anyone else (sigh). The case we're discussing is about not taking an action that would definitely take one person's life without a guarantee that this will actually benefit anyone else. I agree that blood would be on the hands of the person who refused to intervene in your straw-man example.

So...No, I don't see how poor my theories are. You need to explain to me how this is the case without resorting to straw-man arguments.

Quote:
"im sorry, i cannot guarantee no mistakes will be made. i realize you like to pretend you do, but no: you cant. i can see your point if you say mistakes might be lowered if police would be less trigger happy. personally i think the solution to less mistakes is not letting people who claim to have bombs run around, but rather better and independant review of police shootings."

I'm not arguing that people should be able to run around claiming they have bombs (bigger sigh). Yes, I think we should change the system so that it results in less of these inexcusable mistakes. I don't think that having better reviews ('yes sir, it looks like we did actually screw up') will help unless the information gleaned from those is used to improve the threat-identification and handling system. For the last time, the bomb claim has been challenged.

Quote:
"i do not believe i said i was convinced he was suggestive of being a bomber. the opposite, actually."

Ok.

Quote:
....
"ill pretend i didnt read the above and just say: 'apology accepted'"

Another flippant answer that dodges the point in question. What a surprise.

Quote:
"so i was right then? the only difference is the degree of certainty?"

There is a difference in the degree of certainty, yes. No, the difference has nothing to do with the arrogance of the user (nice!). Preventive strikes do not require people to be omniscient.

Quote:
"no, im trying to pressure you into acknowleding there is no such thing as perfect knowledge nor judgement. if you feel doing so would make your argument fall apart, perhaps you should call it a day?"

I'm not inclined to acknowledge that there is no such a thing as perfect knowledge. Yes, you can delve into the realm of philosophy and make all kinds of arguments that question the nature of reality, but this doesn't prevent us from making some claims of fact in the practical realm. See my previous example regarding my speculation about one of your belongings. As I said before, I'm not going to play silly word games with you (suspecting vs. knowing), that challenge the meaning of concepts we use and understand in everyday life.

Quote:
"what are those 'principles of justice'? 'proving' someone is 'guilty'? sounds like fooling yourself."

Yes, proving that people are guilty before exacting justice. You obviously don't believe in the concepts of proof, guilt etc.. and from the sounds of it, justice. If so, you must abhor our (flawed, but effective) legal systems. Considering the benefits of these principles (inc. guilt and innocence, which are measures of harm and allow us to predict the likelihood of quantities of harm in the future), look who's fooling himself that he is concerned with the greater good.

Paulcoz.

[Edited by - paulcoz on December 11, 2005 4:02:37 AM]

Are

Quote:
you

trying

Quote:
to

be

Quote:
funny?

:)

Paulcoz.

PS. I can see what you mean Andrew!

Quote:Original post by Nice Coder

Yep. Or simply switch button as in press button, nothing, release button, whoops. Not to mention that terrists don't say they have bomb. In rare cases when they do, it's when they are prepared for such action going on.

If somebody says he have bomb, what is likehood that he have bomb versus that he does not? I think mentally ill w/o bomb is much more likely, because there's many more mentally ill travelling without bomb than people with bomb. If somebody says he have bomb, most likely he does not, and in rare cases when he does, he is prepared for attack.

not to mention that chances are, he did not say anything about bomb in first place.

[Edited by - Dmytry on December 11, 2005 5:49:51 AM]

Quote:Original post by LessBread

Quote:Original post by meh
Actually all these people have said after the event that they could see the man was unstable. What they think then and what they thought at the time are two different things. It's easy after a couple of hours to make sense of a scary and hectic event. Whilst it's going on I doubt any two people had the same idea.

That applies to the marshalls and the authorities as well. However, I would say that at the time what the passengers didn't realize was how quickly and how drastically the situation would change.

Quote:Original post by meh
I don't believe the Marshalls had the ability during their snap-judgement to call up the video replay of the man moving through the security check. So they don't know the origins of the bag, nor the contents.

I don't believe they had that ability either but that misses the point. There were a number of places along the way where choices could have been made that would have changed the eventual outcome. It also doesn't address the marshalls lack of faith in the ability of the airport screeners to do their job. And it doesn't address the question of why the marshalls believed Alpizar but not his wife. And here's another question, if Alpizar wanted to blow up the plane they why did he leave it? And if he wanted to blow up the terminal, why did he board the plane? It still seems to me that the marshalls were so keyed up for signs of terrorism that they became blind to any other possibility and the result was tragic.

Quote:Original post by meh

Quote:

Quote:Original post by ApochPiQ
Once again, the summary:
- Man shot: bad.
- Marshals did what they should have with the information available: good.

Only with the information they deemed relevant, not with the information available.

*sigh*

You can sit all you like and criticise how the event went down, you simply don't know though as you weren't there.

That cuts both ways. You and ApochPiQ weren't there either, yet you deem the shooting jusitified, perhaps simply because you were told it was.

Quote:Original post by meh
You accuse the Marshalls of being paranoid, all this talk of cover-ups, clean-ups etc, seems you are more paranoid than they are of your own federal law enforcement!

There a big difference between armchair paranoia and armed paranoia. However, given the outcome, there's good reason to be paranoid about federal law enforcement. The facts are that law enforcement in the USA does not have a spotless track record when it comes to dealing with mentally ill people. Consider the record described in this article from 2000: Dying for Treatment: Police Shootings Spur Calls for Change.

Quote:
...
In the last six years, there have been 25 fatal police shootings involving the mentally ill, according to a Los Angeles Times report in November 1999.
...
Nationwide, more than half the police departments in cities with populations of 100,000 or more have no specialized response for dealing with mentally or emotionally disturbed people, according to a survey cited in a September 1999 report by Amnesty International. According to the human rights organization, there is a persistent problem of "police using excessive force, including deadly force, against the mentally ill or disturbed people who could have been subdued through less extreme measures."
...

And here's a reprint from the Amnesty report, Mentally ill or homeless: vulnerable to police abuse, that contains accounts of more than a dozen incidents were the police killed mentally ill people.

In the end it would seem that airline passengers should be sternly warned before boarding that there might be armed air marshalls aboard that might just kill them if they act up. At least that seems to be the bottom line here. To that end they should post signs saying "Attention: Misbehaving passengers will be shot!"

To placate Andrew here it is all in one go.

Yes, it does apply to the Marshalls and authorities which is why they have rigorous training.

As to the Marshalls not trusting the screeners, if the screening of everyone coming near the aircraft were perfect you wouldn't need the Marshalls! They exist to provide defense in depth especially with the skills of the TSA. The fact that the guy had been through security screening doesn't mean he couldn't have a bomb. There is time and opportunity between clearing security and boarding a flight where he could of transferred stuff into his luggage. Why did they not believe the wife? If man said he had a bomb, whether he is 'sick' or not is immaterial. I do believe the Marshalls were keyed up to terrorism and that it did cost this man his life. The blame how ever does not rest on the people who did the shooting.

Regarding the 'not being there' thing. It was my point that no one discussing this here was present, even myself! I dislike this armchair-quarterbacking of the decisions made based on media evidence! I know I'm guilty of it as well but am trying to question you more than I'm trying to put my own view on it... I hope. :o

Quote:Original post by LessBread
It also doesn't address the marshalls lack of faith in the ability of the airport screeners to do their job.

It would beyond retarded to assume that screeners will be able to catch every bomb 100% of the time. If someone states that they have a bomb (which isn't very clear in this case) then the Marshals can't just sit back and say. "No he doesn't. The screeners would have caught it."

I have kinda poll question to you all:
Somebody said he have bomb, and started running around weirdly.
How would you estimate probability that he have bomb (and that he don't)? Probability that shooting will save you?

I think different estimates of probabilities it's the core of disagreement there.

My opinion: mentally ill are much more common than bombers, right? So, most likely, it is mentally ill, and most likely, he doesn't have bomb. It is big problem actually, and is not at all rare. (of course not every mentally ill claim he have bomb, but not every bomber does either, and those who do probably would expect marshall to react) In reality, for air marshall, cnances to encounter suicide bomber that he can detect by listening for b-word _and_ stop by shooting is really, unimaginably small. It's _highly_ unlikely that it will ever happen in all time marshalls will be in use. Afterall, they are there mostly to prevent hijacking, and since they lack x-ray vision or psi powers, they can not and should not be expected to be able to stop bombers. It's really stupid to expect air marshalls to protect you from bombers when dedicated people (screening) failed. It happens only in movies where bad guys have 10 minute talk before doing evil things.

another part of disagreement is what to do with somebody who is either mentally ill or terrist, and most likely former - shot or not? this is now moral dilemma.

note: it's not about splitsecond judgements, and not even about this specific event, it's about what should be written in textbook for such cases.

[Edited by - Dmytry on December 11, 2005 2:36:10 PM]

Quote:Original post by Andrew Russell
Sure, they were doing their job. I really think that, after this incident, "their job" needs to be redefined to be less trigger happy. If they killed an innocent man, they may not be at fault but "their job" certainly is.

I'd rather a slightly increased risk of being blown up by a terrorist, for a greatly reduced risk of being killed by my own country's police for doing something slightly obscure.


I'd hate to think what would have happened if, say, the guy on the phone with the shotgun to his head had leaped up suddenly in reaction.

agreed.