Air Marshal Shoots Passenger on Jetway - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 12-07-2005, 01:25 PM

Quote:

<DIV class=articleHeadline>Air Marshal Shoots Passenger on Jetway</DIV>MIAMI (Dec. 7) - A passenger who claimed to have a bomb in a carry-on bag was shot and killed by a federal air marshal Wednesday on a jetway to an American Airlines plane that had arrived from Colombia, officials said.

Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Doyle said the dead passenger was a 44-year-old U.S. citizen.

It was the first time since the Sept. 11 attacks that an air marshal had shot at a passenger or suspect, he said. A witness said that the man frantically ran down the aisle of the Boeing 757 and that a woman with him said he was mentally ill.

The passenger, who indicated there was a bomb in the bag, was confronted by air marshals but ran off the aircraft, Doyle said.

The marshals pursued and ordered the passenger to get on the ground, but the man did not comply and was shot when apparently reaching into the bag, Doyle said. Authorities did not immediately say whether any bomb was found.

Passenger Mary Gardner told WTVJ in Miami that the man ran down the aisle from the rear of the plane. "He was frantic, his arms flailing in the air," she said. She said a woman followed, shouting, "My husband! My husband!"

Gardner said she heard the woman say her husband was bipolar and had not had his medication.

The plane, Flight 924, had arrived from Medellin, Colombia, at 12:16 p.m. and was scheduled to depart two hours later for Orlando, American Airlines spokesman Tim Wagner said.

"I don't know yet if the passenger had been on the plane and was getting off, or was starting to board the aircraft," he said.

The shooting happened shortly after 2 p.m., suggesting passengers may have already been preparing to depart, he said. About 105 passengers scheduled to fly to Orlando, he said.

Martin Gonzalez, spokesman for Colombia's civil aviation agency, said the flight "left normally with no problems."

There were only 32 air marshals at the time of the Sept. 11 attacks. The Bush administration hired thousands more afterward, though the exact number is classified.

Well that didn't take all that long to happen. It was inevitable to happen...

If you are requested to stop by an officer, you should stop.

Think of it like FREEZE.... it means FREEZE, not cool down to a stop, it means stop immediately.

Glory's Sun · 12-07-2005, 01:27 PM

tough choice for the marshall to make.. but it's what he's paid to do. Better safe than sorry I suppose

oh and cyn.. can you take out the ads in your article

xepherys · 12-07-2005, 01:28 PM

Good to hear it! I don't care if the guy was mentally ill... If you make a threat like that and then run away from law enforcement, you should be shot. I'm sure some civil liberties group will have a field day with this... damned liberals!

radioguy · 12-07-2005, 01:29 PM

i'm glad the air marshall did what he did. i just hope the family doesn't come back and sue him and the bureau. who cares if the guy was nuts, he has to pay for his actions. sorry.

Charlatan · 12-07-2005, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

Good to hear it! I don't care if the guy was mentally ill... If you make a threat like that and then run away from law enforcement, you should be shot. I'm sure some civil liberties group will have a field day with this... damned liberals!

So much for your desire to be a centrist...

Cynthetiq · 12-07-2005, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr

oh and cyn.. can you take out the ads in your article

cut and paste, and ad blocker

wheee!!!

xepherys · 12-07-2005, 01:33 PM

Haha Charlatan... being a centrist doesn't mean being 100% neutral on 100% of the issues. :-p

highthief · 12-07-2005, 01:59 PM

If the fellow was mentally ill, I feel very badly for him and his family, but I agree, at first blush, it seems the marshall had to do what he did.

The comment "he has to pay for his actions" from radioguy, however, makes little sense.

Cynthetiq · 12-07-2005, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

If the fellow was mentally ill, I feel very badly for him and his family, but I agree, at first blush, it seems the marshall had to do what he did.

The comment "he has to pay for his actions" from radioguy, however, makes little sense.

it doesn't? why not? what does make sense?

Redlemon · 12-07-2005, 02:21 PM

It sounds justified, assuming the initial reports that we are hearing are true. However, I can't help but think of the guy shot on the London underground, which sounded justified at first, then more and more negative information was released.

radioguy · 12-07-2005, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

The comment "he has to pay for his actions" from radioguy, however, makes little sense.

the deceased claimed he had a bomb and ran off. he didn't stop and comply with the marshalls demands. those actions are what he is paying for.

martinguerre · 12-07-2005, 02:55 PM

there is some ugly posting here. deserved it? paying for it?

mental illnesses are just as organic as heart disease or cancer. unless you're argueing for eugenics, there's no sense in saying that someone deserved to die because of their disease.

hightheif got it right.

highthief · 12-07-2005, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by radioguy

the deceased claimed he had a bomb and ran off. he didn't stop and comply with the marshalls demands. those actions are what he is paying for.

You might as well say "that tornado killed my family! I'm gonna make it pay for its actions!".

Doesn't that sound silly? It's the same thing.

IF the guy was out of his head, you're not "making him pay" for anything. You might be stopping him from doing something that endangers others. You might leave his family with a giant hole in their lives. You may even be doing the right thing. But you are not "making him pay". That would require that the guy understood what he was doing was wrong and somehow could have avoided the situation entirely.

alpha phi · 12-07-2005, 03:47 PM

It's about time part of our homeland security plan works.
Civil liberties don't include saying "I have a bomb"
then take of running.
The person with him said "he was mentally ill"
Her interview on the news tonite she said "he stopped takeing his med's"
That excuse is comparable to "the devil made me do it"

JumpinJesus · 12-07-2005, 04:20 PM

I agree that the marshal made the right decision.

If the man had bipolar disorder, then I have to ask why he was off his medication and why was he traveling without them? There just isn't enough information in that article for me to come to any conclusion aside from agreeing with the marshal's actions.

martinguerre · 12-07-2005, 04:29 PM

just for the sake of information...

many persons with bipolar disorder have trouble with their medications. most of the common choices for treatment induce Tardive Dyskinesia, a chemically induced version of Parkinson's disease. other effects can include a feeling that one's life is muted, slowed thinking, and feelings of isolation.

it's a serious illness, and the medication is pretty damn serious, too. choosing to be off medication is quite a risk, but it's not simple willfullness or stupidity that make people stop taking their medication. the disease itself contributes to feelings of wellbeing and invincibility, and tricks a lot of folks into thinking that they've recovered and no longer need medication. with such significant side-effects, it's often a very difficult argument to ask someone who feels better to continue on pills that are making them sick, even lose control of their body.

Grasshopper Green · 12-07-2005, 04:47 PM

Thanks martin. My brother was often off his meds before he died. His meds made him constantly fatigued, gain a lot of weight, caused sleep problems, and after he was on them for awhile and felt better, would quit taking them because of the awful side effects. After he was off of them, it was hard to get him back on them because he would be delusional and wouldn't think he was sick...he would think the medicine was poison or something. (He was schizophrenic). I feel bad for this man and his family. Being off his meds isn't equal to the devil making him do it...it was a very unfortunate, sad incident and the air marshal did what he had to do.

Willravel · 12-07-2005, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Gardner said she heard the woman say her husband was bipolar and had not had his medication.

If this is true, this is very, very sad. I fell horrible. Very sad situation.

alpha phi · 12-07-2005, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

just for the sake of information...

snip for space

So Is a law enforcement officer supposed to yell
"STOP or I'll shoot...unless you are mentaly ill"
And if the suspect is still running, assume mental illness,
and let him/her go?

With all the abuse of power and authority today
It seems we should praise the Law enforcement
community when they do their job right.
We should save the criticism for when they are in the wrong.
ie. tasering an old lady on camera in a police station
in Ohio, or the 9 year old in flordia.

JumpinJesus · 12-07-2005, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

just for the sake of information...

many persons with bipolar disorder have trouble with their medications. most of the common choices for treatment induce Tardive Dyskinesia, a chemically induced version of Parkinson's disease. other effects can include a feeling that one's life is muted, slowed thinking, and feelings of isolation.

it's a serious illness, and the medication is pretty damn serious, too. choosing to be off medication is quite a risk, but it's not simple willfullness or stupidity that make people stop taking their medication. the disease itself contributes to feelings of wellbeing and invincibility, and tricks a lot of folks into thinking that they've recovered and no longer need medication. with such significant side-effects, it's often a very difficult argument to ask someone who feels better to continue on pills that are making them sick, even lose control of their body.

Thank you for the information, martin. I'm somewhat familiar with bipolar disorder but was not aware how serious the medication was or the issues surrounding why someone might go off it. I take zoloft for panic attacks and if I miss a day or two, I feel a little off, but the effect is relatively minimal.

Alpha phi,

I don't think anyone here is arguing that the marshal shouldn't have shot the man. I think everyone is in agreement that the marshal made the right choice. What some of us are saying (myself included, even though I didn't mention it in my earlier post) is that it wasn't as if the man was deserving to die. There's a huge difference in understanding the marshal's actions and saying that the man got what he deserved.

What we're saying is that it's a very sad incident that a man lost his life and that another man was put in a position where he had to take another's life. There are no winners in this situation.

meembo · 12-07-2005, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JumpinJesus

... it wasn't as if the man was deserving to die. There's a huge difference in understanding the marshal's actions and saying that the man got what he deserved.

What we're saying is that it's a very sad incident that a man lost his life and that another man was put in a position where he had to take another's life. There are no winners in this situation.

Well said. If any is going to pay for it, it will be the marshalls who shot the man. They have to live with the choice they made in the face of the awful dilemma put in front of them. I don't think any marshall, not matter how well trained, could not feel guilty (emotionally, not rationally) for shooting a person not in their right mind.

radioguy · 12-07-2005, 07:03 PM

i guess my words "he payed for his actions" was a little harsh, but i don't see how someone doesn't know to NOT SAY I HAVE A BOMB in an airport. i don't care if he was bipolar. i'm not trying to sound callous (i have little experience with bipolar stuff), even a mentally challenged person knows what to say and what not to say in most instances. i do have experience with that. sorry if i used such strong words for some. just sharing my thoughts.

albania · 12-07-2005, 08:19 PM

I think what would have been a more appropriate choice of words would be "His actions begot rational reactions". I think the real question here is, is it just to punish this man with death, seeing after the fact that he was actually only complicit in lower crimes that wouldn't have required his death. I am not asking if he was right in shooting him, it was the correct choice(based on this info), I am asking is this justice?
Before you answer consider this case, a man is convicted of a crime he did not commit, and is punished, is this just? Was it the right thing to do?

jorgelito · 12-07-2005, 08:26 PM

While the air marshal made the "correct" decision, it is still a tragedy nonetheless. Not sure I agree that he "deserved to die" or needed to "pay for his actions".

Still, the air marshals did their job, which cannot be an easy one.

Mantus · 12-07-2005, 08:33 PM

This has nothing to do with justice. This is like walking into a building a few seconds before they demolish it. Whether it was the result of mental illness, alcohol or stupidity it was his actions that got him killed. It's sad, very sad but unless there are some details the Marchals are not putting forward (very likelly) this is no fault of theirs. This is more like fate, is fate just?

albania · 12-07-2005, 08:54 PM

Mantus I don't think those situations are quite comparable, your situation is an accident, this one wasn't. Also, I think that no one here would disagree with you when you said that it was not the Marshal's fault. If I am not misreading no has said this.

analog · 12-07-2005, 09:12 PM

The thing i'm still hearing from a lot of people ignores this simple fact: it doesn't matter if he's mentally ill, it doesn't matter if he's perfectly normal, or any other excuse you can come up with.

When it happens, at that very moment, when you're asked to stop and surrender to authorities because of your actions- saying you have a bomb in your bag- and then you reach for your bag, you will, and should be shot. At that moment, there is no way of knowing if you're bluffing, if you're serious, if you're mentally ill, etc.- their job is to protect and save lives, and if you reach for a bag you just said contains a bomb, you will be put down, no questions.

I don't understand how anyone can take issue with this. Medication or not, illness or not, the actions taken were REQUIRED for the safety of all those on the plane, and at the airport.

And that's all there is to it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by meembo

I don't think any marshall, not matter how well trained, could not feel guilty (emotionally, not rationally) for shooting a person not in their right mind.

I disagree. The job itself requires mental conditioning that justifies the actions taken necessary to quell a dangerous situation. Given all the factors, I don't think they'll have any "guilt" or second-guessing at all. They did what they had to do- finding out he's mentally ill, either before or after he was shot, has no bearing on his actions and their effect. They did their job well.

jusolson00 · 12-07-2005, 09:16 PM

okay, heres my take on this.. If this man did in fact have a mental illness and he was "off his meds" then I can see that he did not understand what he was doing and therefore should not have been shot.. but.. under the circumstances.. you cannot tell within seconds/mintues if he is mentally ill and therefore must make a decision to secure the situation... you cant exactly go.. "okay mr crazy man.. just sit down so we can discuss if you are bipolar while you may have a ticking bomb in that bag.. but we dont want to jump to conclusions or hurt you, so if you could anser a few questions....." No this doesnt work.. I commend the marshall for his actions and hope he would do it again if need be.

martinguerre · 12-07-2005, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpha phi

So Is a law enforcement officer supposed to yell
"STOP or I'll shoot...unless you are mentaly ill"

In my home town, Minneapolis, we had one of the highest rates of police shooting mentally ill persons. First, any time an officer has to draw a gun, chances are, there may be serious consequences. People in cross fire, officer wounded, it's not just about the offender. And it was causing huge problems with community trust. Folks assumed that the cops were the ones who just showed up to shoot their friends and relatives for no reason, and not when they were needed.

Things are finally on the mend, but one of the most important things they did was to train a squad of officers who are knowledgable about mental illness, and better able to assess the threat in a given situation.

The plane was already landed...the moment of highest threat passed. i assume from my reading that the officers were at least aware of the claim that this man was ill...which may have made them more likely to believe that this person was actually dangerous, a innacurate stereotype. i know they have to take this seriously...i don't suggest for a moment that they don't. But the intersection of mental illness and police cannot just be assumed to be a fatal reaction. The cost is simply too high.

Jimellow · 12-07-2005, 09:19 PM

If the "bomber" hand't been stopped/shot, and had run on to blow up a plane, there would have been justifiable criticism from everyone.

Air Marshals are hired for this reason. If they aren't going to shoot self-proclaimed bombers when they refuse to acknowledge orders, there is no point in hiring them in the first place.

Furthermore, I am not sure I understand why mental retarded individuals should be exempt from authority, and permitted to run unimpeded from authorities. If someone claims to have an explosive device, and then ignores orders to stop, they should be shot. Yes, it's more tragic and sad if they turn out to be mentally retarded, but I don't think such a state exempts them from being restrained/stopped from performing terroristic acts.

Mojo_PeiPei · 12-07-2005, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

In my home town, Minneapolis, we had one of the highest rates of police shooting mentally ill persons. First, any time an officer has to draw a gun, chances are, there may be serious consequences. People in cross fire, officer wounded, it's not just about the offender. And it was causing huge problems with community trust. Folks assumed that the cops were the ones who just showed up to shoot their friends and relatives for no reason, and not when they were needed.

Things are finally on the mend, but one of the most important things they did was to train a squad of officers who are knowledgable about mental illness, and better able to assess the threat in a given situation.

The plane was already landed...the moment of highest threat passed. i assume from my reading that the officers were at least aware of the claim that this man was ill...which may have made them more likely to believe that this person was actually dangerous, a innacurate stereotype. i know they have to take this seriously...i don't suggest for a moment that they don't. But the intersection of mental illness and police cannot just be assumed to be a fatal reaction. The cost is simply too high.

First off, don't over state what is happening in Minneapolis. There were a few high profile incidents, namely the shooting of that one somalia resident. Somalian residents compromise a big minority population here, there was much damage control to be run. Again do not overstate what is happening here in Minneapolis, you are doing the whole Twin Cities metro area (2 million people) a disservice.

You cannot have police hesitate, especially when a suspect is claiming they have a bomb. SO what if he is no longer 30000 feet in the air? Because someone shouted he has a mental illness, does not give him a pass. Also, it is not like the cops were sniping for his head, you are trained to shoot for the broadest easiest target, the torso, not 100% becoming of a fatal wound.

For the place and time, this suspect was deserving of what happened, mental illness or not.

Cynthetiq · 12-07-2005, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

The plane was already landed...the moment of highest threat passed. i assume from my reading that the officers were at least aware of the claim that this man was ill...which may have made them more likely to believe that this person was actually dangerous, a innacurate stereotype. i know they have to take this seriously...i don't suggest for a moment that they don't. But the intersection of mental illness and police cannot just be assumed to be a fatal reaction. The cost is simply too high.

it may have been the highest but ANYTHING plane related makes people stop and think about 9/11.

In this case, I'm all for the needs of the many outweigh those of the one. Your "cost is simply too high" works both ways.

feelgood · 12-07-2005, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

mental illnesses are just as organic as heart disease or cancer. unless you're argueing for eugenics, there's no sense in saying that someone deserved to die because of their disease.

Look at it this way: Would the air marshall deserve to die? Because he couldn't really tell the differences between radical muslim and mentally ill person?

"Oh great, another retard guy acting like he has a bomb"

Disclaimer: I picked "radical muslim" because at this time in history, they're really crazy

AngelicVampire · 12-08-2005, 04:24 AM

Whether or not the guy had a bomb, whether or not he was retarded you can't say bomb on a plane or in an airport anymore, thats just the way it is. In this situation you have a lot of people in a very small space (terminals, cabin etc), its a good target. While situations may cause people to act silly and say they have a bomb (not saying mental illness = silly, but for the general case saying you have a bomb is stupidity), if you disobey an order like freeze and you are the only running person around/guy holding a gun then frankly if you don't you are asking for trouble... in Britain its often called Death by Cop. The officers don't want to risk themselves or others, however if it comes down to it you are a suspect and they are the law (and other civillians), they should generally take the rule that 1 < many and attempt to stop you in whatever way is necessary (especially in bomb/firearm cases).

ScottKuma · 12-08-2005, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

So much for your desire to be a centrist...

How was Xepherys' comment political...and how was it extremist, as your comment implies?

ScottKuma · 12-08-2005, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by radioguy

the deceased claimed he had a bomb and ran off. he didn't stop and comply with the marshalls demands. those actions are what he is paying for.

IMHO, "paying for" an action implies PUNISHMENT. There is no punishment in getting killed. The man was killed to protect the innocent passengers on the plane, the innocent travelers on the concourse, and the lives of the Air Marshals. This wasn't punishment, it was a consequence.

It was tragic that the man was unarmed and mentally unstable. However, it is equally tragic that the Air Marshal who pulled the trigger will have to live with the doubt of whether or not his actions were justified for the rest of his life.

Personally, I hope they don't crucify the Air Marshal or the Air Marshal program in the press/congress - doing so will only bolster those who really DO want to take down planes.

Charlatan · 12-08-2005, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottKuma

How was Xepherys' comment political...and how was it extremist, as your comment implies?

I was taking the piss out of Xepherys based on his other thread... he got the joke. Move on, nothing to see here.

highthief · 12-08-2005, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by analog

The thing i'm still hearing from a lot of people ignores this simple fact: it doesn't matter if he's mentally ill, it doesn't matter if he's perfectly normal, or any other excuse you can come up with.

When it happens, at that very moment, when you're asked to stop and surrender to authorities because of your actions- saying you have a bomb in your bag- and then you reach for your bag, you will, and should be shot.

I don't understand how anyone can take issue with this.

Who are these "lots of people"? Virtually everyone seems to agree the marshall did what he had to.

JumpinJesus · 12-08-2005, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by analog

I disagree. The job itself requires mental conditioning that justifies the actions taken necessary to quell a dangerous situation. Given all the factors, I don't think they'll have any "guilt" or second-guessing at all. They did what they had to do- finding out he's mentally ill, either before or after he was shot, has no bearing on his actions and their effect. They did their job well.

Analog,

I'm afraid I must disagree with your disagreement. While in the Air Force, we responded to a domestic dispute in base housing. A wife had found out that her husband had been cheating on her. They had both been drinking and the wife had a knife. She ignored our repeated demands to drop the knife. She claimed that she was going to kill her husband and if we got in her way, she'd stab us, too. The ranking person at the scene made the split-second decision to shoot her after she charged us with the knife. She shot her in the leg.

She was one of the most professional NCOs in our squadron with 16 years in service. Air Force Security Police (I think they're called Security Forces now) are highly trained with their weapons and on the conditions of when deadly force may be used. Even though she received commendations for her actions for diffusing the situation, saving the life of the husband and not seriously wounding the wife, the fact that she shot another person affected her to the point that she could no longer carry a weapon.

What I'm saying is that even though people are highly trained, actually shooting a person can have serious consequences for someone with a conscience about that sort of thing. Granted, my story is only an anecdote, but I think it illustrates that even a highly trained person can be affected by being forced to shoot another person.

In this case, the shooting resulted in the death of what turned out to be an unarmed person. Even if he believes he was justified in shooting this man, I am certain he will be dealing with his decision. A criminal may not have a conscience about shooting and killing another person, but an honest man most likely will.

This is mainly why I stated earlier that there are no winners in this situation.

Now, feel free to disagree with my disagreeing with your disagreement.

Charlatan · 12-08-2005, 05:47 AM

JJ I was thinking much along the same lines (only I didn't have an anecdote to back up my claims).

All around this whole scenario sucks and I don't think anyone should be too pleased about the inevitability of the outcome.

12-07-2005, 01:59 PM	#8 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	If the fellow was mentally ill, I feel very badly for him and his family, but I agree, at first blush, it seems the marshall had to do what he did. The comment "he has to pay for his actions" from radioguy, however, makes little sense. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

12-07-2005, 02:21 PM	#10 (permalink)
Redlemon Devoted Donor Location: New England	It sounds justified, assuming the initial reports that we are hearing are true. However, I can't help but think of the guy shot on the London underground, which sounded justified at first, then more and more negative information was released. __________________ I can't read your signature. Sorry.

12-07-2005, 02:55 PM	#12 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	there is some ugly posting here. deserved it? paying for it? mental illnesses are just as organic as heart disease or cancer. unless you're argueing for eugenics, there's no sense in saying that someone deserved to die because of their disease. hightheif got it right. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

12-07-2005, 03:47 PM	#14 (permalink)
alpha phi seeker Location: home	It's about time part of our homeland security plan works. Civil liberties don't include saying "I have a bomb" then take of running. The person with him said "he was mentally ill" Her interview on the news tonite she said "he stopped takeing his med's" That excuse is comparable to "the devil made me do it" __________________ All ideas in this communication are sole property of the voices in my head. (C) 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 "The Voices" (TM). All rights reserved.

12-07-2005, 04:20 PM	#15 (permalink)
JumpinJesus Junkie Location: Chicago	I agree that the marshal made the right decision. If the man had bipolar disorder, then I have to ask why he was off his medication and why was he traveling without them? There just isn't enough information in that article for me to come to any conclusion aside from agreeing with the marshal's actions. __________________ "I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

12-07-2005, 01:27 PM	#2 (permalink)
Glory's Sun Registered User	tough choice for the marshall to make.. but it's what he's paid to do. Better safe than sorry I suppose oh and cyn.. can you take out the ads in your article

12-07-2005, 01:28 PM	#3 (permalink)
xepherys <3 TFP Location: 17TLH2445607250	Good to hear it! I don't care if the guy was mentally ill... If you make a threat like that and then run away from law enforcement, you should be shot. I'm sure some civil liberties group will have a field day with this... damned liberals!

12-07-2005, 01:29 PM	#4 (permalink)
radioguy Registered User Location: Texas	i'm glad the air marshall did what he did. i just hope the family doesn't come back and sue him and the bureau. who cares if the guy was nuts, he has to pay for his actions. sorry.

12-07-2005, 01:33 PM	#7 (permalink)
xepherys <3 TFP Location: 17TLH2445607250	Haha Charlatan... being a centrist doesn't mean being 100% neutral on 100% of the issues. :-p

12-07-2005, 04:29 PM	#16 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	just for the sake of information... many persons with bipolar disorder have trouble with their medications. most of the common choices for treatment induce Tardive Dyskinesia, a chemically induced version of Parkinson's disease. other effects can include a feeling that one's life is muted, slowed thinking, and feelings of isolation. it's a serious illness, and the medication is pretty damn serious, too. choosing to be off medication is quite a risk, but it's not simple willfullness or stupidity that make people stop taking their medication. the disease itself contributes to feelings of wellbeing and invincibility, and tricks a lot of folks into thinking that they've recovered and no longer need medication. with such significant side-effects, it's often a very difficult argument to ask someone who feels better to continue on pills that are making them sick, even lose control of their body. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

12-07-2005, 04:47 PM	#17 (permalink)
Grasshopper Green ...is a comical chap Location: Where morons reign supreme	Thanks martin. My brother was often off his meds before he died. His meds made him constantly fatigued, gain a lot of weight, caused sleep problems, and after he was on them for awhile and felt better, would quit taking them because of the awful side effects. After he was off of them, it was hard to get him back on them because he would be delusional and wouldn't think he was sick...he would think the medicine was poison or something. (He was schizophrenic). I feel bad for this man and his family. Being off his meds isn't equal to the devil making him do it...it was a very unfortunate, sad incident and the air marshal did what he had to do. __________________ "They say that patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings; steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king" Formerly Medusa

12-07-2005, 07:03 PM	#22 (permalink)
radioguy Registered User Location: Texas	i guess my words "he payed for his actions" was a little harsh, but i don't see how someone doesn't know to NOT SAY I HAVE A BOMB in an airport. i don't care if he was bipolar. i'm not trying to sound callous (i have little experience with bipolar stuff), even a mentally challenged person knows what to say and what not to say in most instances. i do have experience with that. sorry if i used such strong words for some. just sharing my thoughts.

12-07-2005, 08:19 PM	#23 (permalink)
albania Psycho	I think what would have been a more appropriate choice of words would be "His actions begot rational reactions". I think the real question here is, is it just to punish this man with death, seeing after the fact that he was actually only complicit in lower crimes that wouldn't have required his death. I am not asking if he was right in shooting him, it was the correct choice(based on this info), I am asking is this justice? Before you answer consider this case, a man is convicted of a crime he did not commit, and is punished, is this just? Was it the right thing to do?

12-07-2005, 08:26 PM	#24 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	While the air marshal made the "correct" decision, it is still a tragedy nonetheless. Not sure I agree that he "deserved to die" or needed to "pay for his actions". Still, the air marshals did their job, which cannot be an easy one.

12-07-2005, 08:33 PM	#25 (permalink)
Mantus lascivious	This has nothing to do with justice. This is like walking into a building a few seconds before they demolish it. Whether it was the result of mental illness, alcohol or stupidity it was his actions that got him killed. It's sad, very sad but unless there are some details the Marchals are not putting forward (very likelly) this is no fault of theirs. This is more like fate, is fate just?

12-07-2005, 08:54 PM	#26 (permalink)
albania Psycho	Mantus I don't think those situations are quite comparable, your situation is an accident, this one wasn't. Also, I think that no one here would disagree with you when you said that it was not the Marshal's fault. If I am not misreading no has said this.

12-07-2005, 09:16 PM	#28 (permalink)
jusolson00 Tilted	okay, heres my take on this.. If this man did in fact have a mental illness and he was "off his meds" then I can see that he did not understand what he was doing and therefore should not have been shot.. but.. under the circumstances.. you cannot tell within seconds/mintues if he is mentally ill and therefore must make a decision to secure the situation... you cant exactly go.. "okay mr crazy man.. just sit down so we can discuss if you are bipolar while you may have a ticking bomb in that bag.. but we dont want to jump to conclusions or hurt you, so if you could anser a few questions....." No this doesnt work.. I commend the marshall for his actions and hope he would do it again if need be.

12-07-2005, 09:19 PM	#30 (permalink)
Jimellow Junkie	If the "bomber" hand't been stopped/shot, and had run on to blow up a plane, there would have been justifiable criticism from everyone. Air Marshals are hired for this reason. If they aren't going to shoot self-proclaimed bombers when they refuse to acknowledge orders, there is no point in hiring them in the first place. Furthermore, I am not sure I understand why mental retarded individuals should be exempt from authority, and permitted to run unimpeded from authorities. If someone claims to have an explosive device, and then ignores orders to stop, they should be shot. Yes, it's more tragic and sad if they turn out to be mentally retarded, but I don't think such a state exempts them from being restrained/stopped from performing terroristic acts. __________________ Desperation is no excuse for lowering one's standards.

12-08-2005, 04:24 AM	#34 (permalink)
AngelicVampire Insane	Whether or not the guy had a bomb, whether or not he was retarded you can't say bomb on a plane or in an airport anymore, thats just the way it is. In this situation you have a lot of people in a very small space (terminals, cabin etc), its a good target. While situations may cause people to act silly and say they have a bomb (not saying mental illness = silly, but for the general case saying you have a bomb is stupidity), if you disobey an order like freeze and you are the only running person around/guy holding a gun then frankly if you don't you are asking for trouble... in Britain its often called Death by Cop. The officers don't want to risk themselves or others, however if it comes down to it you are a suspect and they are the law (and other civillians), they should generally take the rule that 1 < many and attempt to stop you in whatever way is necessary (especially in bomb/firearm cases).

12-08-2005, 05:47 AM	#40 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	JJ I was thinking much along the same lines (only I didn't have an anecdote to back up my claims). All around this whole scenario sucks and I don't think anyone should be too pleased about the inevitability of the outcome. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke