It would appear that the word "bomb" is quickly becoming verbotten anywhere near an airplane.
Southwest Plane Evacuated In Burbank
Transportation Security Administration spokeswoman Jennifer Peppin says the pilot of the jetliner stopped his departure after two children were overheard making some remarks about a bomb.
Plane Evacuated At Burbank's Bob Hope Airport
Bob Hope Airport’s Victor Gill said the evacuation was prompted by a passenger on board making a remark about a bomb.
Passengers Evacuate Southwest Plane At Burbank Airport
Passengers evacuated from a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 Friday at the Bob Hope Airport in Burbank after a passenger on board allegedly made an inappropriate remark, according to an airport spokesman.
No more "He's da bomb", No more talking about the "long bomb", no more talking about "She dropped the bomb on him", no more "he bombed his audition", no more "I gotta go drop a burrito bomb" and so on and so forth.
Air marshall kills man on flight
Quote:Original post by Caitlin
At that point it becomes perfectly fine to take him out with any force necessary to prevent him from "triggering the bomb" - triggering the bomb as in what the Marshalls may have thought he was going to do since he was reaching into a bag.
Yes.
But "shot and killed" does not fall into the category of "force necessary" to "take him out". Not with today's weaponry.
My sense of justice demands that the air marshall(s) in question be charged with manslaughter or worse, and that the decision to arm these guys with *guns* be called into question. Entirely not called for. Let's also not forget that a gun was *fired in a public place* by an agent that the general public is supposed to trust. This carries the risk of injuring or killing innocent (even-more-innocent) bystanders.
Quote:Original post by Daniel Miller
Really?
What if he instead had brandished an unloaded weapon? Like in this situation, he wouldn't be posing a threat, but the reasonable/responsible thing to do is to respond as if it was loaded. In both situations, he is guilty of the act itself, not just the reason/excuse for the crime.
What, you consider it justified to shoot someone in response to them brandishing an unloaded weapon? Should we provide bank tellers with loaded firearms for self-defence in case someone decides to try to rob them with an unloaded weapon?
In the country I live in, criminal suspects get *arrested*, and *if necessary, disabled* first so that an arrest can be made. Shooting at someone is a last resort for a police officer. Shooting to kill even more so. Giving that level of power to someone who's *not* a police officer (though an air marshall probably should come *close*) makes it that much more sketchy-sounding. That much respect is owed to all; the alleged mental illness of the suspect in this case has nothing to do with my argument whatsoever.
I had thought that was the way things are supposed to operate in the US as well?
Quote:Original post by Zahlman
Giving that level of power to someone who's *not* a police officer (though an air marshall probably should come *close*) makes it that much more sketchy-sounding.
I think an air-marshall ranks above a police offier. Think FBI agent.
Quote:Original post by Zahlman
I had thought that was the way things are supposed to operate in the US as well?
Not anymore. "Who cares about the Constitution, we're figthing a war dambit!!"
Quote:Original post by kSquared
3.) If anyone's at fault here, it's the wife. Why didn't Alpizar have his medication?Quote:The wife returned to get her bag and was profusely apologetic, he said. "She said it was her fault that he was bipolar. He was sick and she had convinced him to get on the plane."
I wonder if the missing comma is poor copy-writing, or if the wife somehow believes that she is responsible for him having been bipolar (notwithstanding any responsibility for giving him his meds). o_O
Quote:Original post by LessBread
For more on the police state and the police state mentality:
Police Hit Grandmother With Taser Gun Five Times
Hooray for tasers! Now if we can learn to use them just once at a time. On targets that matter, like people who might possibly be carrying a bomb onto an airplane. And when it turns out that they don't, we can apologize, try them for the crime of disrupting the peace, take all circumstances into account, and let justice be served properly.
Quote:Original post by meh
The people on the Aircraft were treated exactly as they should have been. They are a threat until deemed otherwise, I'm suprised they weren't cuffed and laid out face down on the tarmac! Might have something to do with the potential bomb and waiting for an EOD team to show up and make the area safe. Until the time you can positively make sure someone isn't a threat they get treated as a potential threat.
...
...
Passengers on an airplane that attracts a guy who makes a bomb threat are somehow themselves potential threats?
Seriously, what the bloody hell are you thinking?
Quote:Original post by Roach
First off, you need to be really stupid to say you have a bomb on the plane. Bi-Poler people do know what's going on around them even when off the meds - are they unstable - yeah - but they still do have a concept of what's going on - even without their meds (I worked with bipolar kids before too for a few months - so I have some knowledge of what they are like to deal with.)
Ok.
Quote:2) if the guy was off his meds - where was his wife? It's kind of easy to tell when a bipolar person if off their meds, especially when you know what to look for (I would hope his wife would know the signs) - so in my mind - she had something to do with him being shot. She should have made sure he took his meds OR kept a closer eye on him. . . personal responsibility people - where has gone??
Agreed.
Quote:3) The Air Marshal put the lives of the 200+ people around the plane and on the ground ahead of the moron whom said he had a bomb and HAD A CHANCE to surrender peacefully. If he had just got on the ground as he was told - he would have been fine, and probably only detained for a day or two while the feds investigate the situation. What the feds would have found out in that time was that he did not have a bomb, and he was menially unstable - and he would have been set free under supervision. Unfortunately, the feds had no time to investigate and did the best thing, give the guy a chance to surrender - then if he doesn't - protect the lives of the innocent.
100% true.
Quote:4) If the guy DID have a bomb and the Marshal did not shoot - and lives were lost - it would have been a HUGE tragedy and people would have been yelling in screaming that theses Marshals didn't do their job.
No argument here.
Quote:Since when has the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many?
Indeed they do not.
Quote:Marshals were correct in shooting - period.
NO!
Absolutely, 100% positively DOES NOT follow from the above.
Non-lethal force.
Has noone in the US heard of it? Aside from police officers who have nothing better to do than harass senior citizens after their point has already been made?
Quote:Original post by Archetype-Lone
I don't think this man should be dead but I don't see how the situation could of happened any diffrently without endangering many people on the chance that he did have a bomb
If you were the air marshal what would you have done?
Fired a Taser. Or perhaps resorted to pepper spray or some other such device. You know, something that prevents people from acting (which includes detonating a bomb) without incurring significant risk of killing them.
Quote:Original post by AnonymousPosterChild
I know I'd think twice about flying if YYZ started exploding all around me.
O_O
That's not in Alaska... XD
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement