Yesterday, a Federal Air Marshal shot and killed a passenger who was acting irrationally, refusing to follow the instructions of the law enforcement official pointing a gun at him, and - oh yes - had indicated that he had a bomb and intended to blow the airplane up.
There is now a hue and cry over the fact that the wife of this individual had been crying and screaming and pleading for the Air Marshal not to shoot him, saying he was "mentally ill" and "off his medication".
Excuse me? What the fuck? If he's mentally ill and gone off the reservation, that's more of a reason to shoot him, not less. Off their meds is when a person who is normally quite sane and composed may in fact do something completely crazy like, say, try to blow up a plane. There are two types of people who do that sort of thing ... cold and calculating people (Al-Qaeda style), and mentally-fucked-up people (Hinckley style).
We shouldn't let ourselves get caught up emotionally in the whole "his neighbors thought he was quiet and loving" type of nonsense. His neighbors probably very very rarely saw him go off his medication, too.
I'm the first one to gripe about the "jack-booted thugs" these days, but I have to say that given what the media has released -- which I should point out seems to be heavily biased in favor of the dead guy -- I have to call it a clean shoot.
Absolutely agree in this case. Air Marshals are not trained to "Shoot to Wound". In addition, they didn't just whip out the gun and peg a guy cracking a joke. They did exactly what they were trained and paid to do.
This was a case of Blue Suicide if nothing else.
Being here in France I've not yet heard this story, but it sounds like the Air Marshal acted in the best interests of the public good.
When flying at 35000 feet you you have to make a judgement call based on the information at hand. You don't have time to call the office and get a second opinion.
In Canadian airports and I'm sure in American ones too, any jokes about bombs, guns, disasters, etc. told in public could have the RCMP walk up behind you and take you away for a good long talk - long enough that you would miss your flight most likely and probably be fined for disturbing the peace or creating unreset or something like that.
They didn't muck about with such things before 9/11, they certainly don't since. Its serious busy if you utter anything that might be considered life threating in airports and planes.
First off, it's a very sad situation and I feel for the man & his family, as well as the officers who are no doubt traumatized, and the passengers on the plane who got quite a scare.
I don't agree that people who are "off their meds" are more likely to carry bombs onto planes. This guy was running OFF the plane .. maybe delusionally he thought he was taking the "bomb" AWAY from the plane & passengers. It'll never be clear ... but I don't think the officers could, in good faith, have behaved any differently.
From the articles I read I didn't see anything about him "indicating he intended to blow up the plane" .. he said "i have a bomb" but, I believe stopped short of clarifying his intentions so specifically. I doubt very much he packed an "invisible, imaginary" bomb in his bag & set out to kill passengers. More likely he looked in his bag while on the plane, believe there to be a bomb inside - told his wife, they argued as she tried to calm him down ... he freaked and ran OFF THE PLANE. When officers asked him to comply - hit the ground -- he continued to freak. Tragic ending. Ya buying it?
Yes, the officers are probably somewhat traumatized. They're human, it's going to haunt them for quite some time.... "Is there something they should have picked up on that they didn't", or anything like that.
I'm not making a broad generalization that "people who are off their meds are dangerous". I'm simply saying that if a man is running around with his backpack strapped on his FRONT, shouting "I've got a bomb in my bag", ... ok, that's a shoot-to-kill moment right there. If the woman next to him is sobbing "he's off his meds, etc., etc." -- TO ME, anyway -- that explains (in the fraction of a second you have to determine the shoot/no-shoot outcome) that "this guy is obviously mentally impaired in some way (hence the meds), he's acting irrationally, disobeying orders of a gun-toting law enforcement official, and -- given all that -- he seems *more* likely to be about to do something than just the "crazy guy who won't shut up". If that makes any sense.
I think in the end, if the cop points his gun at you and tells you to stop, you stop. If he tells you to "drop the bomb", you drop the bomb. Even if that bomb is only in your head.
I'm not saying it's a "good" situation in any way. Only that I think the current media portrayal which seems to be intent on casting doubt on the whole affair, seems to be a bad way of handling it.
I think saying "I have a bomb" means -- to anyone thinking clearly -- "I have a bomb and I'm willing to use it."
If you "think you have a bomb and you're not supposed to", you don't run around shouting about "your bomb", you bring it -- really damned carefully -- to someone important who knows what they're doing, like a stewardess or something.
Now, admittedly, he's not necessarily thinking clearly. This goes without saying.
I agree with you that "what went through this guy's mind" will never be known. I simply think that, with everything the officers had available to them, that it was a clean shoot.
Unfortunate turn of events, but it was fair. Post 9-11 hype or not, it was a fair call for the greater good.
#1. Bi-Polar Disorder makes people do nutty things.
#2. Wifey should have made sure husband WAS taking his medicine. If he isn't, she should have a dose with her just in case he "forgets".
#3. Clean shot, legal kill. If you know you have a disease that will cause you to be psychotic, and you refuse to take your meds, then you deserve what you get.
These people were missionarys helping out on a dental volunteer project in Peru. Are you so sure he "forgot" to take his meds? Or "forgot" to pack them & found 'em hard to get in foreign country.
Last I heard people with "wifeys" are still responsible for their own actions. Mentally ill or not.
Clean shot? Legal kill? Probably. Deserved what he got? Not on your glib ass.
Might this be one for the Darwin Awards?
I don't fault the air marshalls for what they did, they were doing their jobs and did exactly as they were trained.
However, what does disturb me is that I read that they took all the luggage off the plane, lined it up and had a bomb sniffing dog search the luggage for bombs. In the article they said that some bags were "blown up" but no bombs were found. Did they take the dog's word for it that there was a bomb in the suitcase? Did they even bother to verify the dog's claim? How would you like to learn that your luggage had been "blown up" because a dog thought there was a bomb in it? I'd be really annoyed.
My understanding is that the bag that was destroyed was *his* bag. e.g., the one(s?) he had been ranting about that "had a bomb".
In other words, -- at least as far as I understand it -- they specifically didn't trust the dogs on those and said "he says there's a bomb, we treat them as if there's a bomb."
I have to agree with Derek. The marshalls did the smartest thing in the time they had. While people will debate this for weeks, they had moments. "Of his meds" will be talked about a lot. Perhaps it's ignorance, but I hear that I think crazy dangerous, not crazy no common sense.
I do not disagree that the air marshalls did what they had to do. It was an ugly situation that ended tragically.
HOWEVER ... Derek (and all who say the fellow got "what he deserved because he was off his meds"), I do hope that you do not have any family members or close friends that have mental illnesses. Your ignorance and intolerance is wretched. It is truly disgusting. You, and those who think this way too, are dangerous to the well being of society in general, and the mentally ill in particular.
Get a friggin clue ...
Whoa whoa whoa... where did I say "he deserved to die"!?
All I have ever maintained is that what happened in that airport is what "should" have happened, as far as things like the rules of engagement and such are concerned. All I have ever said, consistently, is that it was a clean shoot.
Unless he didn't say bomb at all?
http://www.aztlan.net/air_marshals_shoot_latino_passenger.htm
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1138965,00.html
Okay, let's get the niceties out- I feel for the guys family, I feel for the other passengers that witnessed this, and I even feel for the officer protecting the innocent.
Now, for the reality. Why is a mentally unstable patient "off his meds" out in public anyway? Why did the wife, knowing her husband was unstable bring him to an airport? From what I have read and seen, the unstable man was given plenty of time to stablize or at least calm himself. And last, the officer, that is paid and trained to do EXACTLY what he did, should be at the very least thanked by the public that was possibly saved. What people don't think about is: What if this 'episode' had not showed until the mental case was at 35,000 feet? If that did happen and the 'episode' happened while little Johnny and Susie were up getting to meet the pilot and the the cockpit was not secure?
I agree it was a bad situation all around but this officer should not be getting the media beating he should be labled as a man that did his job well and had a terrible decision to make; One crazy, possibly dangerous person off his perscription or a hundred innocents?
Could anyone make that decision lightly?
"Pop-Quiz Hot shot"
Whenever there's a possibility of someone getting hurt or killed the final decision is going to be wrong from someone's point of view. Unfortunetly media nowadays 9 times out of 10 picks the point of view that gets them most viewers and the least backlash. In this situation it's victimization of a mentally ill person (which I suspect in society equates to innocence) that achieves the media's goals.
I wonder how it would be if the situation played out differently. What if the marshalls left the decision for a bit longer and the guy went screaming so more about having a bomb? How many stories would we have about the indecisivness of the Air Marshalls?
Scratch that. I really don't wonder. No matter what, what's done is done. Nothing can be done to change what's happened.
We train warriors to make difficult decisions and then spend hours, days, and years determining if they did right although they only had a matter of seconds to make the same decision.