Agreed. We don't know all the details yet, but the preliminary details seem to suggest (to me at least) that the air marshalls acted correctly.ummbikes said:
Miami Passenger Shot by Air Marshals... was it the right thing to do?
- Thread starter N8 v2.0
- Start date
That would have been fine.LordOpie said:
Now, a dead man's switch and a bomb would have been trouble...
And if my Aunt had a penis should would have been my Uncle.LordOpie said:
In the heat of the moment, perhaps the Air Marshalls didn't have the time to run through all of the options available to them. Police officers can also attest to this, that in high-pressure situations your actions are determined by your training and split-second decisions. Without having seen the video, it seems to me that their AM acted according to the books.
Think-Of-Something-To-Do-And-See-That-Task-To-Completion!!!!!narlus said:
I remember when the guy was shot in the London underground and it was found that the cops just straight out lied to justify their action. I wonder if this case wil turn out similar.
Someone has to pay for that snafu. Yay culture of fear.PonySoldier said:
Oh come one, that'll be just one more whitewash from the office of Tony Blair...valve bouncer said:Someone has to pay for that snafu. Yay culture of fear.
wow. we agree on something.Changleen said:
the whole, "reaching into the bag" part is what got him. when you have a law enforcement officer pointing a gun at you screaming "stop" combined with something like "let me see your hands" and you reach into a bag...especially after you claimed you had a bomb....uh...i call it stupid tax and sucks for you if your body can't handle another orifice made by a fast moving metal projectile.
LordOpie said:
physiological studies say yes. would you want to do a physical takedown of someone that may blow up?
i loved the guest that katy couric had on the show the day after. she tried the usual liberal ignorant statement of, "why didn't he just shoot him in the leg...." the former air marshal's comment was something like this.., "mam, pinpoint shooting in a high stress environment is nearly impossible. we train to shoot center mass of the body to "stop the threat".
katy: well, how many shots does that take?
air marshall: "as many as it takes to "stop the threat"
i challenge anyone to sprint for ...say..um...1/8th mile knowing that the person in front of you may explode at any second and then try to shoot him in the knee as he's running away. sorry, not even supercop could do that.
the utter ignorance of real-life situations in the media disgusts me.
That's why I'm not faulting the air marshals involved. It's a stress situation with minimal time to think. We can deconstruct it all we want with days/weeks/months to think about it , but with everything I've heard, even from the wife, there seems to be reasonable cause to shoot.manimal said:
I saw a study, about 20 years ago, and most people, even with moderate training can only hit a moving man sized target at 10 feet half the time. After running and in a high stress situation, it would be even less. I doubt he was cooperating by standing perfectly still. It's an unfortunate incident.
Has there been anyone else besides the air marshall who heard him say he had a bomb?
I didn't know those guys had bionic hearing...
I didn't know those guys had bionic hearing...
Well, he was a spic, wasn't he? No harm done, I guess.The Amish said:
I believe the preferred nomenclature is raghead. You use the word "Arab" and capitalize it like a proper noun, and you almost make those sand niggers sound like human beings...LordOpie said:
That's ok. I understand you and your people are busy running the world, and assaulting Christmas with all your Jewishness. You can't be expected to keep on top of everything at this time of year.LordOpie said:
I thought every conspiracy theory has several elements either {aliens or Jews or the NSA} are using a {secret government agency or the internet or a super computer} to control the {stock market or press or world economy or democratic party or world energy supply}LordOpie said:
Changleen said:
Like a member of the cabal (even a junior semen scrubber like Opie) would admit to being a member. Ha!
You would have shot your dick off moron.bigdrop05 said:
lol
No dork, i shoot on a regular basis & just bought another 200 rounds today !valve bouncer said:
I shoot with an air marshal & can shoot as good as him. So no i would not shoot my dick off.
You think you are the expert on situations eh! People are ALWAYS the experts AFTER the fact huh valve bouncer....
I bet you would just use your "mind control" on the bi-polar running man & go unarmed on the flights because -you the almighty valve bouncer !
I stand corrected...you probably would have shot your balls off as well. BTW the original message you posted where you challenged me to a no holds barred death cage match- that was funny, you shouldn't have changed it.bigdrop05 said:
Just for posterity here is what he wrote. It's great stuff
I thought that was too good to go to waste.bigdrop05 said:
It was neither justice nor summary execution. It was the proper response of the law enforcement officers responding to the situation. They were very clearly operating within the restrictions of the 4th Amendment (use of force is governed by the provisions against unreasonable seizure) as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Graham and Garner, the cases which establish current use-of-force doctrine.Changleen said:
It's unfortunate that the man had to die, but his actions clearly presented the possiblity of a threat to the passengers, crew, and airport bystanders, as well as the Marshals themselves.
By reaching into the bag, despite the officers' presence and verbal warnings (which aren't necessary, but should be given if possible) he's presented the possibility that there may be a weapon of some sort in there. That mere possibility, combined with his refusal to submit to the officers' authority, justifies the use of deadly force under US federal law and the Air Marshal Service's own policies (which can be more restrictive than the constitution).
There's no basis for a Bivens lawsuit for use of excessive force or any sort of criminal liability for the Marshals involved.
Then again, I'm sure you're not arguing that the shooting was illegal... just that it should be. Personally, I'm damned glad it's permissible and the officers don't have to do any mental legal wrangling when presented with potential threats.
First, the location of the shooting is irrelevant. A bomb (or weapon, or banana) is a bomb in a jetway or in an airport or on a plane.Changleen said:
Second, the Marshals have to make a split-second decision, and taking the guy down is the best of a bunch of ****ty options. He may have a dead-man switch...or he may have a command-detonated bomb or he may have a gun, knife, or teddy bear in there. Best to take the most aggressive option to end the situation as quickly as possible. Again, the Supreme Court has validated this, and specifically stated that the actions of law enforcement personnel are to be held to a standard of 'objective reasonableness...' That is, their decisions are to be evaluated on the facts known to the officers involved at the time of their actions, with due consideration to the split-second decisionmaking that's often imposed upon them. The Marshals will be required to articulate what they thought and why they thought it, and they've got very clear reasons from the information in the article N8 posted.
The idea of 'knowing' what kind of device he was carrying exceeds this standard. There is no way to know it until the situation is over, and the Marshals have the obligation to end the situation as quickly as possible to protect *public* safety, not to protect someone who's presented himself as a possible threat to others.
If he hadn't reached into the bag, they'd have no legal basis to shoot. That action instantly elevated the situation to the level of deadly force.
What's amazed me is the Fox News and conservative response to this incident...they immediately began bashing phantom 'liberals,' a fictious crowd of outraged pinkos who were trashing the American hero Air Marshals. But there has been, to my knowledge, little to no criticism at all (at least until I read this thread) of the Marshal's actions. They acted reasonably, and the response to their actions has been largely reasonable as well from all sides.
MD
Well, if no one else on the plane heard the guy said that he had a bomb, how do you know that he actually reached into the bag on the jetway?
If he actually made a bomb threat, then the Air Marshals acted just fine, IMHO. However, I'd like to hear that bomb threat corraborated by someone who wasn't pointing a gun at the guy.
If he actually made a bomb threat, then the Air Marshals acted just fine, IMHO. However, I'd like to hear that bomb threat corraborated by someone who wasn't pointing a gun at the guy.
The guy was tryin to bring snakes, ON A PLANE!