Decius wrote:

"This shows that the program has worked beyond our expectations," said Rep. John L. Mica (R-Fla.)

?? It appears they shot an innocent person. There are questions. Where the proceedures followed? Are the proceedures correct? Even if this is the best we can hope for it should not be trumpeted as a success. It is a failure and it deserves critical analysis.

Decius,

I respect your opinion, but making this tragic incident into something more, is simply wrong.

This mentally disturbed who claimed to have a bomb, who hadn't taken his medication, did not notify the airline that they had a mental patient on board, and the wife KNEW her husband hadn't taken his medication, if anyone is to blame for this man's death, it would be his Wife.

The Air Marshall did his job, and under great risk, took the action he needed to in order to protect the other passengers and bystanders from harm. If this mentally unstable person would have simply followed the requests of the agent to STOP, and Surrender, he would not have been shot.

Lastly, what would have happened if it were a bomb, and the news read, "Bomb kills 27, maims and injures 44, while Air Marshalls stand idly by." There would be an outcry from the public that "NOT ENOUGH HAD BEEN DONE" to protect the public...

So where does the line get drawn?

I prefer to err on the side of safety... besides, sometimes it cleans the gene pool...

dc0de wrote:

I respect your opinion, but making this tragic incident into something more, is simply wrong.

My opinion is that this should not be tumpeted as a success. If you call the incident "tragic" I presume you agree that it is not a success. The two ideas are mutually exclusive. I also offered that the situation ought to be given a critical look to see if this failure can be avoided without weakening security. Are you suggesting that is a bad idea think critically about incidents like this?

The Air Marshall did his job, and under great risk, took the action he needed to in order to protect the other passengers and bystanders from harm.

I object to the assertion that you know whether or not the Air Marshall followed the proceedures. Do you know what the proceedures are? Do you know the specific details of the events in question? I certainly don't. Neither does the federal government, which is why they have started a formal investigation.

In the wake of the shooting in London I assumed that there was no problem with police action, but over the weeks that followed we learned that absolutely nothing about the person's behavior should have aroused suspicion. He was dressed appropriately for the weather and did not behave in an eratic way. Most of the early information reported in the press was either incorrect or incomplete.

This time I think it makes sense to wait for an investigation to take place before one jumps to conclusions about either the correctness of the actions or the effectiveness of the policies.

So where does the line get drawn?

I prefer to err on the side of safety... besides, sometimes it cleans the gene pool...

I submit that arguing against taking a critical look at situations where innocent people are killed by the police is not erring on the side of safety. Its erring on the side of killing innocent people. It may be the case that the only policy which can effectively prevent terrorist incidents results in some innocent people being killed, but you can't know that without asking questions. To celebrate the killing of an innocent person as evidence of the success of the anti-terror program before any investigation has occured is grossly irrational as far as I'm concerned.

Decius wrote:
dc0de wrote:

I respect your opinion, but making this tragic incident into something more, is simply wrong.

My opinion is that this should not be tumpeted as a success. If you call the incident "tragic" I presume you agree that it is not a success. The two ideas are mutually exclusive. I also offered that the situation ought to be given a critical look to see if this failure can be avoided without weakening security. Are you suggesting that is a bad idea think critically about incidents like this?

The Air Marshall did his job, and under great risk, took the action he needed to in order to protect the other passengers and bystanders from harm.

I object to the assertion that you know whether or not the Air Marshall followed the proceedures. Do you know what the proceedures are? Do you know the specific details of the events in question? I certainly don't. Neither does the federal government, which is why they have started a formal investigation.

In the wake of the shooting in London I assumed that there was no problem with police action, but over the weeks that followed we learned that absolutely nothing about the person's behavior should have aroused suspicion. He was dressed appropriately for the weather and did not behave in an eratic way. Most of the early information reported in the press was either incorrect or incomplete.

This time I think it makes sense to wait for an investigation to take place before one jumps to conclusions about either the correctness of the actions or the effectiveness of the policies.

So where does the line get drawn?

I prefer to err on the side of safety... besides, sometimes it cleans the gene pool...

I submit that arguing against taking a critical look at situations where innocent people are killed by the police is not erring on the side of safety. Its erring on the side of killing innocent people. It may be the case that the only policy which can effectively prevent terrorist incidents results in some innocent people being killed, but you can't know that without asking questions. To celebrate the killing of an innocent person as evidence of the success of the anti-terror program before any investigation has occured is grossly irrational as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be investigated. All shootings, of any kind, are investigated. I'm just saying it shouldn't be blown out of proportion. As for a shooting in London? I don't care. Not my problem, not my country, not my tax paying citizen concern. That's a problem for the British to resolve.

Just my 2¢, YMMV.

Decius wrote:

"This shows that the program has worked beyond our expectations," said Rep. John L. Mica (R-Fla.)

?? It appears they shot an innocent person. There are questions. Where the proceedures followed? Are the proceedures correct? Even if this is the best we can hope for it should not be trumpeted as a success. It is a failure and it deserves critical analysis.

The air marshals waited till he was reaching into his bag to shoot him... At that point, they more or less had to. I don't think it was a success because they didn't stop anyone from blowing anything up, but i think this sort of thing should be expected when people start running around with claims of a bomb in an airport. It's not a situation you can really give someone the benefit of "maybe he's kidding."

I still have yet to hear of airport security successfully stopping terrorists before they already managed to do what they got their tickets for... So airport security still remains a 100% failure.

terratogen wrote:

Decius wrote:

"This shows that the program has worked beyond our expectations," said Rep. John L. Mica (R-Fla.)

?? It appears they shot an innocent person. There are questions. Where the proceedures followed? Are the proceedures correct? Even if this is the best we can hope for it should not be trumpeted as a success. It is a failure and it deserves critical analysis.

The air marshals waited till he was reaching into his bag to shoot him... At that point, they more or less had to. I don't think it was a success because they didn't stop anyone from blowing anything up, but i think this sort of thing should be expected when people start running around with claims of a bomb in an airport. It's not a situation you can really give someone the benefit of "maybe he's kidding."

I still have yet to hear of airport security successfully stopping terrorists before they already managed to do what they got their tickets for... So airport security still remains a 100% failure.

I'm not convinced that putting armed martials on airplanes are the way to go. It's a token gesture. The reason airplanes were originally used was because they were an unexpected target, playing the proverbial game of whack-a-mole doesn't strike me as very effective.