Kilmer17 Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 Let's all hope this kind of thing never happens again. Regardless of the legalities, it's a bad situation all around. I know lot of us, our families, and friends will travel in the coming month, so here's wishing happy and safe travels for everyone. Hope what never happens? That a guy stands up and threatens a plane with a bomb? Absolutely. I hope that NEVER happens. But if it does, I hope to God a Marshall does the exact same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TODD Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 nm nm nm nm nm (10 characters ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 Frankly, I don't see what else you expect a federal marshall to do. A man threatens that he has a bomb on a plane full of people. You have him in custody and he starts running out of the plane and into an airport full of people. Of course the marshall has to shoot the person. The fact that the man's wife tells the marshall that the man is insane is of no consequence. What if she was an accomplice trying to prevent the marshalls from stopping the man before the alleged bomber reaches his target? It's not as if the marshalls heard the man say he had a bomb and just shot him. They took him into custody and the man started running away before they could ascertain that he in fact did not have a bomb. No question to me that they had to shoot him. that's a tough call for the marshall. he had to shoot him in the jetway, but did he have to shoot him six times and kill him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 that's a tough call for the marshall. he had to shoot him in the jetway, but did he have to shoot him six times and kill him? Yes, shoot to kill is the only way. They cant leave ANY chance that the guy could push the plunger on a bomb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 If these searches worked so well, we wouldn't have to worry about idle threats from a man off his meds. Wasn't he connecting on a flight from out of the country? And that is severly flawed logic (but I suspect you know that already... even before you typed it.). I don't even know where to begin with a statement like that :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 Hope what never happens? That a guy stands up and threatens a plane with a bomb? Absolutely. I hope that NEVER happens.But if it does, I hope to God a Marshall does the exact same thing. I meant the threat part, not the federal marshall's response part. Obviously if someone makes a threat again I want the federal marshall to response with the full necessary force. Just don't want them to be in a situation where they have to use such necessary force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 Yes, shoot to kill is the only way. They cant leave ANY chance that the guy could push the plunger on a bomb. I was thinking the same thing, but if the marshall had him in 'custody', why didn't he separate him from his bag that he claimed was his bomb? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 The government is at fault. It crafted a policy that causes the death of innocent people. The policy does more good than bad, but the bad part shouldn't fall solely on the mentally unstable ... the cost should be spread around.It's like when the government decides to take your land to build a new baseball stadium. You didn't do anything wrong, but you lose your land for the greater good of the community. The government then must pay you for the value of your land. Similarly, we have a policy in place that protects us all from terrorism, but it exacts costs from some innocent parties. Those innocents should be compensated. We aren't at fault. The guy should have taken his medication and he wouldn't have paid the ultimate price for his actions. As far as the baseball stadium in DC or going status quo with morally corrupt nightclubs, crime ridden rowhouses, refuse dumping area guess I'll side with revitalisation which will be an econimc boom to the poor part of Anacostia. Which will upset liberals because progress, opportunity, and eliminating the victimization class in that part of town hurts the voting base Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 Oh yeah Navy Dave, I'm a liberal...:laugh: Didn't say that you were one yet it appears that those quick to blame law enforcement always are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 Are you as stupid as you sound? No that would be you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 If these searches worked so well, we wouldn't have to worry about idle threats from a man off his meds. They arent going to be 100% and with the heightened alert when a guy's shoes went off at a NYC Airport 5 times earlier in the week was detained temporarily then released before the FBI could question him leading to now a search on the eastcoast I understand the their situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 It's official,Navy Dave, you drive me nuts. I respect your positions and your beliefs, but you so don't have any flexibilty to the point where you only see things so one sided and you are so worried about proving to everyone oyur side is right. I know this has been written before, but it's officialk for me now. The guy had a mental illness (maybe), no liberal or conservative spin. Simply a mentally ill individual. We don't have to re-write the constitution or question current civil rights. This was a case of a sick man apparently. Not a call to invade Columbia or strip search subway riders. Yep he was crazy thats sad, yet we are now supposed to exxpect air marshalls to have hesitated and think maybe this guy is bypolar and is just ranting. We have people second guessing them like its their fault. The guy said he had a bomb how long should they wait to see if its a bomb? When he is setting it off? It became liberal or conservative spin when some one was quick to say the marshalls f'd up and was wondering about the family hiring a lawyer. No one said invade columbia but I do believe we should inspect bags and packages at subways (strip searching?? a little extreme dont ya think) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supafly Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 I was thinking the same thing, but if the marshall had him in 'custody', why didn't he separate him from his bag that he claimed was his bomb? Air marshals asked him to get off the plane, which he did, but when they asked him to put his bag down, he refused, Adams said. Alpizar then approached the marshals in an aggressive manner, at which point two or three shots were fired, he said. Let's see. Would you personally try to take away a bag somebody is claiming to be a bomb? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 If you did this (and weren't shot), you would be found guilty in a court of law.If you committed the acts (and weren't shot), and in the courtroom it was proven that you were insane, you would be found not guilty. It's an important legal distinction. So jail space, jury duty and court costs are saved and avoided Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 Yet I hear nobody ****ing about our legal system when a rich white millionare gets off for shooting his wife in the head, or a rich effed up former black pedophile gets away with it either. Or how about when a few really rich white guys who are politically connected screw 20,000 employees out of their pension money, then they get to build $40million dollar mansions in Florida because you can't take away somebodies house in Florida. I didn't hear you complaining about lawyers then. . . No, it is when god forbid, a person who is completely nutz, is killed, THAT'S when you decide to attack the lawyers :rant: I do and did and hey it happened twice in California where the star struck idiot jury let them both off And as far as Florida and Texas those laws are a referendum away from being changed though if I wouldnt weep if one of those persons burnt the mansion to the ground Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlk2rn Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 Like.........whoah. That's crazy. Maybe there was a drug runner or mule or something that the Marshall caught and was trying to attack him? Who knows. Or maybe its a set-up to make Bush look good? :whoknows Any way you slice it, its pretty scary to hear about shots getting fired on an airliner... Dude how is that going to make Bush look good. The man said he had a bomb and reached into the back pack. I guess you would have just stood there and asked him to prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 that's a tough call for the marshall. he had to shoot him in the jetway, but did he have to shoot him six times and kill him? Yes You don't shoot to wound a potential bomber because he could still trigger the bomb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 YesYou don't shoot to wound a potential bomber because he could still trigger the bomb. You didn't see the later post: Quote: Originally Posted by Kilmer17 Yes, shoot to kill is the only way. They cant leave ANY chance that the guy could push the plunger on a bomb. I was thinking the same thing, but if the marshall had him in 'custody', why didn't he separate him from his bag that he claimed was his bomb? __________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlk2rn Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 I hope these people that support this mans moronic actions aren't in law enforcement. The marshal did his job. I would have done the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 You didn't see the later post: Quote: Originally Posted by Kilmer17 Yes, shoot to kill is the only way. They cant leave ANY chance that the guy could push the plunger on a bomb. I was thinking the same thing, but if the marshall had him in 'custody', why didn't he separate him from his bag that he claimed was his bomb? __________________ I didn't I was reading the posts chatting with my daughter having her insure me that she was driving home instead of flying "IF" she was coming here for the holidays from miami. If I was a marshall I wouldnt touch anything that may have a bomb in it; personal experience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 Hard not to support what the Marshall did. You have to take these threats seriously. It's like the man wearing the overcoat who fled police in the subway system in London after the bombings. I don't like the result, but that's more about hindsight than judging the marshall's actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 While it is sad the crazy guy got capped the Air Marshalls need support instead of second guessing and hopefully thathis will be a detterent to most potential troublemakers in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 I didn't pass judgement on the Marshall, just asked the question that with the knowledge (the guys wife told him her husband was sick) of the man's condition, and him claiming the bag was his bomb, and that he apparently surrendered (as he was in custody of the marshall) why didn't the marshall take the bag from him? Seems that would have been the better way to protect the public. I did agree that the man should have been taking his meds. And I do like the message it sends to people who would otherwise screw with the system, but It's distastfull that a mentally ill person gets killed who turned out to be only a threat to himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webnarc Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 It became liberal or conservative spin when some one was quick to say the marshalls f'd up and was wondering about the family hiring a lawyer. Bull crap!!! You tried to make it a liberal / conservative issue because you have a bad habit of acting like a sick and twisted fool. That's your MO Navy and your posts are totally useless because of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 Yep he was crazy thats sad, yet we are now supposed to exxpect air marshalls to have hesitated and think maybe this guy is bypolar and is just ranting.We have people second guessing them like its their fault. The guy said he had a bomb how long should they wait to see if its a bomb? When he is setting it off? It became liberal or conservative spin when some one was quick to say the marshalls f'd up and was wondering about the family hiring a lawyer. No one said invade columbia but I do believe we should inspect bags and packages at subways (strip searching?? a little extreme dont ya think) BS- I referred to posts well before details were released. You were already spinning 'the gov't has the right blah, blah, blah BS'. You probably didn't wait ten mins before you went defensive. I must have posted 12 hrs after your initial post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.