Air marshals' shooting of passenger in December justified

[FA Mikey]

Bob is right. Any use of deadly force must be investigated. It can't be taken for granted that justice will come before the politics of an organisation.

It was Investigated and justified by the Dept of homeland security, the FBI and the Dade county D.A.

 

[Mach85ER]

It was Investigated and justified by the Dept of homeland security, the FBI and the Dade county D.A.

Each one of the three would run over the others in a parking lot given half the chance.

A coverup has no chance to succeed given the number of careers and little fiefdoms present with the different agencies.

 

[Bob Owens]

All indications were he was armed and dangerous. Law enforcement for their own safety sometime has to assume you have what you claim to. He claimed to have a dangerous weapon.

He claimed to have a bomb or that there was a bomb? He was running off the plane. You said "All indications were he was armed and dangerous". All? Give me one indication that that he was either.

Those are your words. I have never said that. But in this situation it was justified.

No those (potential threat) were your words. And you are saying that its justified to kill what are percieved to be potential threats. The fact is the man was unarmed and he was killed.

What bias? What politics?

Well I guess that answeres the question as far as being naive.

I have and the facts have. on every level of investigation. seems the only one unable to accept this man was a justified threat at the time is you.

Explain how this man who was unarmed and running off a plane was a threat to anybody.

Sorry I didnt know there was a procedure for terrorists and how they kill.

Well I've never heard of one where they do it without weapons and by trying to run off a plane.

One fact is irrefutable, and unarmed man was shot dead.

Another fact is that the man created a disturbance, but should the behavior have warranted death?

This man apparently had no intention to harm anyone. You claim that he posed a threat, but admit that he had no weapons, you say he was a threat because he "could" have had a weapon, but he didnt. At best you can say that he was "percieved" as a threat, but there was no actual danger to anybody.The likelyhood of him having a weapon was less than the likelyhood of you having a weapon since you are an airline employee and would have greater ability to get a weapon through security.

So who is to blame? Do we put all the blame on the Marshals who are trained to kill instead of arrest? Or should the whole system be reexamined so that something like this does not happen again? You seem to think that the system worked when an unarmed man is dead, I disagree. I must place a higher value upon life and demand more accountablity when life is taken away than you do.

 

[Garfield1966]

Ok Mr. NRA life member, What would you do if a person was chanting "I have a BOMB!"? This same person was acting in an very irrational manner and absolutely refused to obey any of your commands to drop the "BOMB-BACKPACK" they were holding in their arms? After repeated warnings to drop the "backpack" the person then reachs into the backpack, do you take the shot or wait see if a bomb detonates?

I have not really followed this case at all primarily due to the fact that the government in charge of the info and I would not trust them to tie my shoe much less give me the truth of what may or may not have happened that fateful day.

Be that as it may, if someone confronts me with a threat that they have a bomb, shooting them would be the last thing I would want to do. Seeing as I have no idea where the weapon may be, what will trigger it, how big it is … and this is the only guy who may have that info. If he had a bomb in a back pack, don’t you think shooting a man who may have been moving at a high rate of speed and moving erratically is a bit risky? The officer could have missed and …… boom. I thought I recalled that he was shot in the back running away. Why would you take a bomb with you?

In an age when a video shows 10 or so officers can beat the crap out of a suspect and nothing happens is does not surprise me in the least that they were cleared. I am not saying that they are guilty of anything, just that I am not surprised they were let off. I would be saying the same thing if they were convicted BTW. I would be suspicious that they were made out to be scapegoats.

I’m a pessimist if you have not figured this out by now.

 

[FA Mikey]

He claimed to have a bomb or that there was a bomb? He was running off the plane. You said "All indications were he was armed and dangerous". All? Give me one indication that that he was either.

asked and answered

No those (potential threat) were your words. And you are saying that its justified to kill what are percieved to be potential threats. The fact is the man was unarmed and he was killed.
Well I guess that answeres the question as far as being naive.

No, he said he had a bomb and tried to make a get away. He was warned repeatedly to stop and drop. He made a threatening move to the armed officers. He was a threat to that plane and those people.

Explain how this man who was unarmed and running off a plane was a threat to anybody.

Tell us who knew at the time? How were they supposed to know he was not a serious threat? All indications were he was armed and dangerous.

One fact is irrefutable, and unarmed man was shot dead.

Here is are a couple more. He said he had a bomb. He ran from armed officers on the scene, He made a treatening gesture after reapeated orders to stop

Another fact is that the man created a disturbance, but should the behavior have warranted death?

Hmmm a disturbance. Yelling bomb on a plane after 911 is more than a disturbance.

This man apparently had no intention to harm anyone.

says you after the fact. Easy to say so and second guess after isn't it.

You claim that he posed a threat, but admit that he had no weapons, you say he was a threat because he "could" have had a weapon, but he didnt. At best you can say that he was "percieved" as a threat, but there was no actual danger to anybody.The likelyhood of him having a weapon was less than the likelyhood of you having a weapon since you are an airline employee and would have greater ability to get a weapon through security.

Sorry this isn't MR. Rogers neighborhood. At the time he made claims and we have to assume the worst, and that he is telling the truth. He gave every indication he was a threat to the aircraft the crew, passengers and the airport.

So who is to blame? Do we put all the blame on the Marshals who are trained to kill instead of arrest? Or should the whole system be reexamined so that something like this does not happen again? You seem to think that the system worked when an unarmed man is dead, I disagree. I must place a higher value upon life and demand more accountablity when life is taken away than you do.

Guess you believe all bombers are easily taken and arrested. I guess you think that LEO's are required to risk there lives and ours on the off chance someone is just playing a game.

 

[Wretched Wrench]

......................................................I’m a pessimist if you have not figured this out by now.

My own choice of word would by cynic. I am a bit cynical myself whenever the government investigates itself.

There is an ancient dictum of English Common Law that is still with us today; "The King Can Do No Wrong." And, even if some people do not follow that maxim, they subscribe to Louis XIV's "Apres Mois, Le Deluge", fully believing that the floodgates of anarchy and criminality will open if we do not support our local whatever. No matter what.....There, however abstrusely and arcanely, I built a straw man.

 

[QA4Jet-A]

My own choice of word would by cynic. I am a bit cynical myself whenever the government investigates itself.

There is an ancient dictum of English Common Law that is still with us today; "The King Can Do No Wrong." And, even if some people do not follow that maxim, they subscribe to Louis XIV's "Apres Mois, Le Deluge", fully believing that the floodgates of anarchy and criminality will open if we do not support our local whatever. No matter what.....There, however abstrusely and arcanely, I built a straw man.

Heavy.... :blink:

 

[Bob Owens]

asked and answered

No, it wasnt.

No, he said he had a bomb and tried to make a get away. He was warned repeatedly to stop and drop. He made a threatening move to the armed officers. He was a threat to that plane and those people.

He was never a threat, he had no weapons.

Tell us who knew at the time? How were they supposed to know he was not a serious threat? All indications were he was armed and dangerous.

Again, what indicated that he was either armed, which we all agree he was not or dangerous, where you seem to feel that he was and I dont?

Here is are a couple more. He said he had a bomb. He ran from armed officers on the scene, He made a treatening gesture after reapeated orders to stop

Did he say he had a bomb or did he just say something about a bomb? I wasnt there, where you?

Hmmm a disturbance. Yelling bomb on a plane after 911 is more than a disturbance.

Ok, what is it then, is it a crime that warrants the death penalty?

says you after the fact. Easy to say so and second guess after isn't it.

The fact is an unarmed man was shot dead, you say "all indications were that he was armed and dangerous, how about the most powerful indication of all-visual, where was the visual indication that he was armed? The fact is there wasnt any because he was not armed.

Sorry this isn't MR. Rogers neighborhood. At the time he made claims and we have to assume the worst, and that he is telling the truth. He gave every indication he was a threat to the aircraft the crew, passengers and the airport.

There you go again with a general statement you cant support with facts. He was running off the plane, did he say he wanted to harm the passengers and crew? Where do you get off claiming that "he gave every indication he was a threat"?

Guess you believe all bombers are easily taken and arrested. I guess you think that LEO's are required to risk there lives and ours on the off chance someone is just playing a game.

No, I just dont expect them to be so trigger happy.

 

[FA Mikey]

No, it wasnt.

yes it was.

He was never a threat, he had no weapons.

to bad me like the LEO's cannot see through things and in to the future to know this. They had to take things as they were the second it was happening. Unlike you trying to make point with bits and pieces months after the fact.

Again, what indicated that he was either armed, which we all agree he was not or dangerous, where you seem to feel that he was and I dont?

My first indication he was armed would have been that fact that he repeatedly stated so. And we do not all agree he was not dangerious.

Ok, what is it then, is it a crime that warrants the death penalty?
The fact is an unarmed man was shot dead, you say "all indications were that he was armed and dangerous, how about the most powerful indication of all-visual, where was the visual indication that he was armed? The fact is there wasnt any because he was not armed.

He stated he had a bomb, he refused to stop when ordered by armed agents to do so. He made a threatening gesture that forced after repeated attempts to diffuse the situation agents to fire. There was no indication he was not infect armed and extremely dangerous.

There you go again with a general statement you cant support with facts. He was running off the plane, did he say he wanted to harm the passengers and crew? Where do you get off claiming that "he gave every indication he was a threat"?
No, I just dont expect them to be so trigger happy.

So to be a threat you must first publicly state so? Is it only verbally or can it be in writing?

He ran off a plane yelling bomb maybe he heard there was no drink service scheduled.

 

[Bob Owens]

to bad me like the LEO's cannot see through things and in to the future to know this. They had to take things as they were the second it was happening. Unlike you trying to make point with bits and pieces months after the fact.

And an unarmed man was shot dead, they made the wrong decision.

My first indication he was armed would have been that fact that he repeatedly stated so. And we do not all agree he was not dangerious.He stated he had a bomb, he refused to stop when ordered by armed agents to do so.

I thought he just said "bomb" as he was running off the plane- what would you do if you thought there was a bomb on board, just sit there or yell out "bomb" and run off? Now you are saying he said he was armed, I havent read that. Could you send me a link where it says he said that he was armed.

He made a threatening gesture that forced after repeated attempts to diffuse the situation agents to fire.

Threatening gesture, such as?

There was no indication he was not infect armed and extremely dangerous.

So now the criteria is to shoot first unless there is clear indication that someone is not armed and dangerous? Funny me, I always thought that they were trained that they shouldnt shoot unless they actually see a weapon.

He ran off a plane yelling bomb maybe he heard there was no drink service scheduled.

So did he say he had a bomb or not?

 

[QA4Jet-A]

And an unarmed man was shot dead, they made the wrong decision.
I thought he just said "bomb" as he was running off the plane- what would you do if you thought there was a bomb on board, just sit there or yell out "bomb" and run off? Now you are saying he said he was armed, I havent read that. Could you send me a link where it says he said that he was armed.



Threatening gesture, such as?



So now the criteria is to shoot first unless there is clear indication that someone is not armed and dangerous? Funny me, I always thought that they were trained that they shouldnt shoot unless they actually see a weapon.
So did he say he had a bomb or not?

According to the News/Papers, he stated he had a Bomb. Now I know the News/Papers can be wrong, but in this case, it seems it was reported, that he said just that. "I have a Bomb". I don't know about you Bob, but I doubt I'd sit there and Ponder the significance of this latest development, as a Pax or a FAM, if I thought the Moron had a Bomb. Let me ask, what would YOU have done? Offer some of your meds???

 

[FA Mikey]

And an unarmed man was shot dead, they made the wrong decision.

Unless you can show us all how anyone could have known he was unarmed. I mean in a realistic way and in the context of the situation. There is no other conclusion that those FAM's had to go on.

I thought he just said "bomb" as he was running off the plane- what would you do if you thought there was a bomb on board, just sit there or yell out "bomb" and run off? Now you are saying he said he was armed, I havent read that. Could you send me a link where it says he said that he was armed.

See above he said he had a bomb.

Threatening gesture, such as?

Reaching in to a back pack he had consipuously wrap and placed on his chest not his back.

So now the criteria is to shoot first unless there is clear indication that someone is not armed and dangerous? Funny me, I always thought that they were trained that they shouldnt shoot unless they actually see a weapon.
So did he say he had a bomb or not?

No Bob as many here and all reports have stated. The FAM's made numerous attempts to end or de-escalate the situation. They are trained to protect the public and themselves.