I'm sure everyone has heard about the shooting that occurred in Miami on Wednesday, but if not, here is a quick recap (surmised from a few New York Times articles). A passenger who "claimed to have a bomb" in a carry-on bag was shot and killed by a federal air marshal on a jet way to an American Airlines plane that had arrived from Colombia. There are reports that the man made loud, hostile comments (the martial reported that he actually said he had a bomb), and when confronted he ran down the aisle of the plane. Marshals ordered the passenger to get on the ground, but the man did not comply and was shot when apparently reaching into the bag. There was no bomb in his bag. The New York Times later reported that the man was bipolar and had no taken his medicine, according to his wife. However, a NYT article today reports that numerous passengers never heard the man say "bomb" and found him to be "restless and anxious, but not dangerous".
When I read this article on Wednesday it left me with a very uncomfortable feeling, but I can't quite put my finger on why. Most obviously, it is so depressing to me that all air marshals are trained to shoot to kill in those situations. I do understand the logic, if they didn't kill him with one shot he still could have triggered the bomb (if he had one...), but that just doesn't make me feel much better. I suppose I'm biased though; I'm one of those people who come close to exploding when asked to take off my shoes at an airport. I also get the feeling that everyone is looking at the incident as an unfortunate but understandable event. Do we really live in such a culture of fear that we don't mind when government officials hastily kill a man under the blanket guise of "terrorism"? What about the fact that they were wrong? Does that matter at all? It doesn't seem to. The NYT vaguely implies that the man was not white (although he was American), so would the same thing have happened if it had been a white man? It seems to me that all of the suspected terrorists that make the news are ethnic, so I would tend to say "absolutely not".
Anyways, I'm interested to know if anyone else had similar feelings. If so, could you help me put my finger on why? Thanks,
nari
Edit: the articles -[url] http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Airplane-Shooting.html[/url]
and http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/national/07wire-plane.html I think its great, finally people are standing up to protect us. It makes me feel much more comfortable when flying. In these uncertain times we don't have the luxury of giving people the benefit of the doubt. Say he did have a bomb and the marshall didn't shoot there would be possibly 100's of innocent deaths, instead of one non-innocent death. If he claimed to have a bomb, and ran after being ordered to the ground, the air marshall had every right in the world to shoot him.
I am glad they make me take my shoes off, I am glad they are making me go through x-ray machines where they see everything, I am glad they pat me down and touch my body parts, and I am glad they search through all my belongings. It is a part of national security, and a part of fighting terrorism, we must do what we must, even if people must die to protect other people.
Well my Point of view comes from a differemt stamdpoint where i am not american. I am Canadian. Close to the same thing but not really. I will be flying to Toronto tommorrow. The thing that makes me feel un easya bout all of this is that the marshal was wrong. What if it was me that got hit. Im no terrorist and im going for Buisness, but it doesnt take a whole lot to set someone off.
The reason i dislike this, is:
| Quote: |
Do we really live in such a culture of fear that we don't mind when government officials hastily kill a man under the blanket guise of "terrorism"?
|
THis is disturbing for the fact that the general population of Amaerica and abroad beleive what is told to them no matter what. If the government says it it has to be right, and is taken at face value. Why are there so many investigations in the WHite house and Parlements around the world. Because they are corrupt. Run by a bunch of wannabe dictators. If everyone was alittle more informed about both of the sides of the arguments, this world and the country of america would be a better place because people would question the government rather than taking it all at face value.
Ignorance in such cases is the worst thing. An un-informed vote is worse than not voting. An uninformed public is a threat to itself.
The government is getting to a Police state slowly but surely. Police and military already train for Full City tak overs and house by house search and siezures. All under the blanket of protection from Terrorism. But you know what. If i were a government official, All i would have to say is terrorism and people would bend over backwards for me. | Scotty Too Hotty wrote: |
Well my Point of view comes from a differemt stamdpoint where i am not american. I am Canadian. Close to the same thing but not really. I will be flying to Toronto tommorrow. The thing that makes me feel un easya bout all of this is that the marshal was wrong. What if it was me that got hit. Im no terrorist and im going for Buisness, but it doesnt take a whole lot to set someone off.
The reason i dislike this, is:
| Quote: | Do we really live in such a culture of fear that we don't mind when government officials hastily kill a man under the blanket guise of "terrorism"?
|
THis is disturbing for the fact that the general population of Amaerica and abroad beleive what is told to them no matter what. If the government says it it has to be right, and is taken at face value. Why are there so many investigations in the WHite house and Parlements around the world. Because they are corrupt. Run by a bunch of wannabe dictators. If everyone was alittle more informed about both of the sides of the arguments, this world and the country of america would be a better place because people would question the government rather than taking it all at face value.
Ignorance in such cases is the worst thing. An un-informed vote is worse than not voting. An uninformed public is a threat to itself.
The government is getting to a Police state slowly but surely. Police and military already train for Full City tak overs and house by house search and siezures. All under the blanket of protection from Terrorism. But you know what. If i were a government official, All i would have to say is terrorism and people would bend over backwards for me. |
I agree with Scotty. Shoot first ask questions later is something society should avoid at all costs. What is america going to do next, start shooting all the Handicap people if they start making weird noises? They might have a bomb!
I would rather have my freedoms... sorry.
Besides, air marshalls are more of a problem than a solution. Some trigger happy moron that was hired to shoot to kill at their discression isn't my idea of safety.I felt pity for it,from now on how many similar events happen?
it's easy to criticize a botched shooting. Hindsight is 20/20. However, if you were the trained air marshall whose job it was to oversee innumerable travelers and find the needle among needlestack... how would you have handled a situation barely developed? Do you think that he knew this man was mentally handicapped? How much information do you think the air marshalls had when all of this occurred? Balance that with how many people were at the airport, airplane...
| illini319 wrote: |
| it's easy to criticize a botched shooting. Hindsight is 20/20. However, if you were the trained air marshall whose job it was to oversee innumerable travelers and find the needle among needlestack... how would you have handled a situation barely developed? Do you think that he knew this man was mentally handicapped? How much information do you think the air marshalls had when all of this occurred? Balance that with how many people were at the airport, airplane... |
That is exactly why you should not have air marshalls. Too many variables, and some moron trying to figure crap out in a few seconds when 9 times outta 10 it is nothing.The marshall should at least be investigated by an independent body. A law-enforcement agent more than anyone should be subject to scrutiny.
After the subway bombings the london police shot a brazilian man, and lied about the details of the event to cover up their incorrect handling of the case.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1537457,00.html
Just because one believes it is correct to have air marshalls does not mean they should then not be subject to review. There did seem to be something fishy about this.
What makes me uncomfortable is that we are allowing our fear to shape our world. It is far more likely to be killed in a car accident than to become the victim of a terrorist attack. It is sad that our fear, in the white western nations, seems to be increasingly expressed as a xenophobia of cultures and skin shades. We each choose the society we live in, not so much by whom we vote for, but rather by the eyes and mind with which we perceive the world. With that, I am glad the message made you sad, because it is, very. One of the things that I find disturbing is that very few people notice that the man did not stop! If someone is pointing a gun at me on an airplane and shouting to stop, the LAST thing I will do is reach into a bag! Come On now! Is common sense so rare that nobody can figure out that if you do something so idiotic you will get hurt? If he had stopped they would have had time to figure out his intentions and no one would have been killed.
This man was clearly a danger to himself, why was he not accompanied by his family or locked up by his psychiatrist?
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| This man was clearly a danger to himself, why was he not accompanied by his family or locked up by his psychiatrist? |
He was accompanied by his wife. She was actually explaining to the marshal that her husband was sick. (at least that was what I read about it) | LumberJack wrote: |
| illini319 wrote: | | it's easy to criticize a botched shooting. Hindsight is 20/20. However, if you were the trained air marshall whose job it was to oversee innumerable travelers and find the needle among needlestack... how would you have handled a situation barely developed? Do you think that he knew this man was mentally handicapped? How much information do you think the air marshalls had when all of this occurred? Balance that with how many people were at the airport, airplane... |
That is exactly why you should not have air marshalls. Too many variables, and some moron trying to figure crap out in a few seconds when 9 times outta 10 it is nothing. |
but what do we do about the 1 time out of 10? are we willing to accept the outcome of that possibility? was the WTC disaster collateral damage for a free society? | illini319 wrote: |
| LumberJack wrote: | | illini319 wrote: | | it's easy to criticize a botched shooting. Hindsight is 20/20. However, if you were the trained air marshall whose job it was to oversee innumerable travelers and find the needle among needlestack... how would you have handled a situation barely developed? Do you think that he knew this man was mentally handicapped? How much information do you think the air marshalls had when all of this occurred? Balance that with how many people were at the airport, airplane... |
That is exactly why you should not have air marshalls. Too many variables, and some moron trying to figure crap out in a few seconds when 9 times outta 10 it is nothing. |
but what do we do about the 1 time out of 10? are we willing to accept the outcome of that possibility? was the WTC disaster collateral damage for a free society? |
I think there are always forces trying to take away my freedoms and rights. Including the people trying to protect them, some are are too stupid and lazy and can't do the job right and they want me to give up more of my rights so it is easier on them (and allows innocent people to fall through the cracks). Some people try and inflate things in order to control me using fear... <coughs> like the republicans <coughs>
There is a balance that must be found, and I feel that the current security policies of today go overboard.
I love my country and what it stands for and would not change it because someone decides to challenge it.
Was the WTC collateral damage? Unfortunately I feel it was. There are people who hate the USA and everything it stands for and as a result are willing to go to any extreme in order to hurt america. Americans are willing to change their society in order to try and prevent from happening again. I on the other hand am not so gullable to think that any changes we make will prevent it from happening again.
Terrorism has struck America before, from born and raised Americans.
Tim McVea (sp?) the Oklahoma City Bomber
Eric Rudolph, the Olympic Bomber
Richard Reid, Shoe Bomber
They are all terrorists and yet you seem to give them the title "bomber" for some reason like he is slightly above terrorist status or something.
How are your security policies protecting you from people like these? There not. You are all brainwashed to be focusing on non Muslims and Arabs or whatever you government tells you too, while there is white trash southern hicks that are just as willing to blow up buildings and fellow Americans.
I don't see you stereotyping white trash Americans like you have Muslims on this forum. They destroyed a building and blew up Americans too.
What about the million prisoners from your war on drugs that are set to be released to the public in the next 10 years because there sentences are up. Do you think they are rehibilatated? I don't think so. Do you think they are going to be productive members of society, or do you think they might have had 20 years to think of some pretty bad stuff.... i don't know, your problem, not mine.
America is running scared and isn't thinking clearly. Otherwise it would have taken a closer look at itself and spend all that money from the war into technology to try and get off its oil dependency. That would have been far far far more productive. | illini319 wrote: |
| but what do we do about the 1 time out of 10? are we willing to accept the outcome of that possibility? was the WTC disaster collateral damage for a free society? |
Are you kidding me? 1 Time out of 10? How many people have been attacked on a plane recently? You are more likely to be hit by a car than victim to a terrorist attack. I'll find some statistics if you'd like me to back that up. Having the population being affraid, fear for their safety, is very convenient for the government. Increasing security is reasonable, but you have to ask at what cost. Now, if you lived in Baghdad, it would be a different story...
To answer the question, yes I would be willing to accept the possibility of another attack. Increase security, scan all luggage, train your security personnel better, but cittizens should be very wary of their rights being limited and on the government going overboard. I would err on the side of caution, but apparently it is the other side. | withaar wrote: |
| illini319 wrote: | | but what do we do about the 1 time out of 10? are we willing to accept the outcome of that possibility? was the WTC disaster collateral damage for a free society? |
Are you kidding me? 1 Time out of 10? |
Are you serious? read the entire thread before you comment again, please. the 1 out of 10 reference was:
1. not an intended accurate reflection of statistical probability. and
2. a reference to an earlier statement, which I so conveniently quoted, that argued 9 out of 10 times security measures botch things up. The 1 out of 10 phrase was just meant to highlight the possiblity of a true terrorist threat... and the security measures we intend to have to prevent that.
To address your other comments:
I absolutely agree... increasing security IS reasonable. Increased security, for purely pragmatic reasons, is being implemented in a manner that does infringe on privacy rights. Should this be examined, re-examined, and improved upon? Absolutely. Were the air marshalls who shot that man justified? Absolutely. Did they make a mistake and shoot an innocent man? ABSOLUTELY.
It is truly a sad situation in our society when seemingly inalienable rights are compromised in the interest of a deemed higher good. But read your own history people. Ever since the revolutionary war, in times of crisis, our wonderful congress has enacted laws which knowingly limited citizens (or groups of citizens) rights. After those crises passed, those laws ceased. The one brilliant aspect of the Patriot Act is the cycling expiration date. The act must always be re-voted upon for it to stay in effect. Hence... as in previous times, we live in a moment of crisis. Is Bush supporting the correct policy? I don't think so, but that is the subject of a different thread. Are increased security measures a matter of national security? Absolutely.
I have nothing to hide; security officials can search me all they want. I will not be foolish enough to think that a sacrifice of convenience can ever outweigh the type of threat we are faced with, however remote. I don't wear a seatbelt because 99.9% of the time I will be safe without one. I wear a seatbelt when, in that 0.1%, the only thing that would save my life is a seatbelt....EVEN when the seatbelt itself may cause a broken collarbone, sternum, cracked ribs, and lacerated inner organs. Is there need to spell out this analogy too? | illini319 wrote: |
| withaar wrote: | | illini319 wrote: | | but what do we do about the 1 time out of 10? are we willing to accept the outcome of that possibility? was the WTC disaster collateral damage for a free society? |
Are you kidding me? 1 Time out of 10? |
Are you serious? read the entire thread before you comment again, please. the 1 out of 10 reference was:
1. not an intended accurate reflection of statistical probability. and
2. a reference to an earlier statement, which I so conveniently quoted, that argued 9 out of 10 times security measures botch things up. The 1 out of 10 phrase was just meant to highlight the possiblity of a true terrorist threat... and the security measures we intend to have to prevent that.
To address your other comments:
I absolutely agree... increasing security IS reasonable. Increased security, for purely pragmatic reasons, is being implemented in a manner that does infringe on privacy rights. Should this be examined, re-examined, and improved upon? Absolutely. Were the air marshalls who shot that man justified? Absolutely. Did they make a mistake and shoot an innocent man? ABSOLUTELY.
It is truly a sad situation in our society when seemingly inalienable rights are compromised in the interest of a deemed higher good. But read your own history people. Ever since the revolutionary war, in times of crisis, our wonderful congress has enacted laws which knowingly limited citizens (or groups of citizens) rights. After those crises passed, those laws ceased. The one brilliant aspect of the Patriot Act is the cycling expiration date. The act must always be re-voted upon for it to stay in effect. Hence... as in previous times, we live in a moment of crisis. Is Bush supporting the correct policy? I don't think so, but that is the subject of a different thread. Are increased security measures a matter of national security? Absolutely.
I have nothing to hide; security officials can search me all they want. I will not be foolish enough to think that a sacrifice of convenience can ever outweigh the type of threat we are faced with, however remote. I don't wear a seatbelt because 99.9% of the time I will be safe without one. I wear a seatbelt when, in that 0.1%, the only thing that would save my life is a seatbelt....EVEN when the seatbelt itself may cause a broken collarbone, sternum, cracked ribs, and lacerated inner organs. Is there need to spell out this analogy too? |
I wear a seatbelt, just for the record 
I am a fantastic driver, it is the other morons out there I am worried about (has been hit before). | coolclay wrote: |
| I think its great, finally people are standing up to protect us. It makes me feel much more comfortable when flying. In these uncertain times we don't have the luxury of giving people the benefit of the doubt. |
Uncertain times ? Paranoia ?
Why ? What happened ?
| coolclay wrote: |
| Say he did have a bomb and the marshall didn't shoot there would be possibly 100's of innocent deaths, instead of one non-innocent death. If he claimed to have a bomb, and ran after being ordered to the ground, the air marshall had every right in the world to shoot him. |
Say he did have a Bomb.
Also say that he was lucky enough to have gotten away with it through the numerous checks and searches at the time of boarding the plane.
Also say that he was stupid enough to allegedly shout and declare it - not midflight, but during a stopover.
Yes, I can see how it was justified.
Yet I won't blame the Air Marshall, I'm blaming those who gave him a gun and a license to kill.
Isn't it Ironic that the first shooting since the installation of Air marshalls resulted in the death of an innocent American ?
It's also symbolic.
| coolclay wrote: |
| I am glad they make me take my shoes off, I am glad they are making me go through x-ray machines where they see everything, I am glad they pat me down and touch my body parts, and I am glad they search through all my belongings. It is a part of national security, and a part of fighting terrorism, we must do what we must, even if people must die to protect other people. |
You're mentally well prepared for being ruled by a tyrannical regime.
Good for you.
Although not everybody is as well prepared.
Elizabeth McGarry was not very glad that she was forced to drink her own breast milk in front of other people at an airport security check.
How foolish of her.
For all we know, that breast milk could have been a WMD ! | illini319 wrote: |
Are you serious? read the entire thread before you comment again, please. the 1 out of 10 reference was:
1. not an intended accurate reflection of statistical probability. and
2. a reference to an earlier statement, which I so conveniently quoted, that argued 9 out of 10 times security measures botch things up. The 1 out of 10 phrase was just meant to highlight the possiblity of a true terrorist threat... and the security measures we intend to have to prevent that. |
Try 1 in a 100000 or more. I got the analogy all too well - did you? The original 9:10 is complementary incorrect - I stand corrected.
| illini319 wrote: |
| I will not be foolish enough to think that a sacrifice of convenience can ever outweigh the type of threat we are faced with, however remote. |
Here is the contradiction: "outweigh the type of threat" <---> "however remote". The remoteness definitely factors into the response.
I basically agree with you - I have nothing to hide myself (echelon) and I don't mind the 4 checks on the way to the plain, but it there is a guy with a gun waiting at the other end, I will avoid US airports as much as I can. Your sense of increased safety is false. Apart from a marshal succeeding with a gun where xray machines and security specialists failed before, do you think that a terrorist will pull the same stunt twice? There are far far easier targets. I think the air marshalls is a dumb idea too (see xalophus above), but this particular one should be suspended pending investigation, and fortunately I believe the case is at least being reviewed.
| illini319 wrote: |
| Is there need to spell out this analogy too? |
No, thanks, I got it the 1st time.I wouldn't compare it with the London shooting. The circumstances in that case were considerbly more questionable (suspect mis-identified, actually restrained before he was shot and shot repeatedly in the head) and the officers responsible should certainly be charged for misconduct.
| SunburnedCactus wrote: |
| I wouldn't compare it with the London shooting. The circumstances in that case were considerbly more questionable (suspect mis-identified, actually restrained before he was shot and shot repeatedly in the head) and the officers responsible should certainly be charged for misconduct. |
I suppose you are right.
From the news reports I read of the miami incident it may yet come out to be more similar than anyone would like, but it is too soon to say. | withaar wrote: |
| illini319 wrote: | Are you serious? read the entire thread before you comment again, please. the 1 out of 10 reference was:
1. not an intended accurate reflection of statistical probability. and
2. a reference to an earlier statement, which I so conveniently quoted, that argued 9 out of 10 times security measures botch things up. The 1 out of 10 phrase was just meant to highlight the possiblity of a true terrorist threat... and the security measures we intend to have to prevent that. |
Try 1 in a 100000 or more. I got the analogy all too well - did you? The original 9:10 is complementary incorrect - I stand corrected.
| illini319 wrote: | | I will not be foolish enough to think that a sacrifice of convenience can ever outweigh the type of threat we are faced with, however remote. |
Here is the contradiction: "outweigh the type of threat" <---> "however remote". The remoteness definitely factors into the response.
I basically agree with you - I have nothing to hide myself (echelon) and I don't mind the 4 checks on the way to the plain, but it there is a guy with a gun waiting at the other end, I will avoid US airports as much as I can. Your sense of increased safety is false. Apart from a marshal succeeding with a gun where xray machines and security specialists failed before, do you think that a terrorist will pull the same stunt twice? There are far far easier targets. I think the air marshalls is a dumb idea too (see xalophus above), but this particular one should be suspended pending investigation, and fortunately I believe the case is at least being reviewed.
|
Unless you happen to lose all your intelligence and decide to yell some incendiary (all pun intended 
) comment, I highly doubt you have anything to fear from any gun toting american in an airport. Remember this, it was one man. However unfortunate that incident was, it was still one man. How many passengers fly in any given day, in any given airport? I have no clue, but it's got to be a freakin' ton; certainly more than the hundred thousand you mention! One crazed man.
Having said that.. yeah you are right. The odds are against security. Security officials have to be successful 100% of the time. A terrorist just has to be lucky once. Whatever measures we take, I'm sure a determined person can figure some way around it. So... how does having air marshalls help americans, at large? It may not be measured in getting the baddies. It may well just be measured in my 'false' sense of security. In my increased confidence to fly the friendly skies; in my feeling, however absurd, that I live in a 'safer' world. Collectively, air travel is back to levels before 9/11. Collectively, the economy is recovering from its post 9/11 security paranoia. Are we really any safer? probably less so... but man we should milk this placebo effect for all its worth. I'm sure we all don't need to stress about yet another thing. | xalophus wrote: |
Isn't it Ironic that the first shooting since the installation of Air marshalls resulted in the death of an innocent American ?
It's also symbolic. |
That's a fantastic point. Actually, I think it comes close to nailing down my original uneasiness about the whole event.
Wow, this discussion has been fantastic. So many of you helped me to articulate my feelings about the event, and I just wanted to say thanks! Also, I think a lot of you would really enjoy the book "The War on Our Freedoms: Civil Liberties in an Age of Terrorism" by Richard C. Leone and Greg, Jr. Anrig. It covers a lot of these concerns in A LOT more detail. | illini319 wrote: |
| The one brilliant aspect of the Patriot Act is the cycling expiration date. The act must always be re-voted upon for it to stay in effect. |
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20051216/ap_on_go_co/patriot_act_50
Who said our voices are not heard? You can call this senate moral fiber. I'd rather call it public opinion polls (which often reflects who's in or out come election time...).I dunno yall I think they acted with true intentions but this all seemed a bit trigger happy to me and some of the passengers told a rather different version of the events. So this whole event is very shady.
