Log in

It's been a while, hasn't it? I haven't even had a chance to write… - The home of the intellectual elite [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Intellectual Elite

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

[Dec. 8th, 2005|09:59 am]
Intellectual Elite


It's been a while, hasn't it?

I haven't even had a chance to write in my own journal for a few weeks! Pardon the gaps between postings. Remember: you can all make posts in here too! Feel free to post questions to the community at large to start a debate.

Today's Question: YESTERDAY, AN AIR MARSHAL KILLED A MAN who was thought to have been carrying a bomb in his carry-on bag. After detonation of the bag, it was found that he was not, in fact, carrying a bomb, but was having a psychotic fit. Between four and six shots were fired.

This is a two part question.

1: Do you think air marshals should have the right to shoot a man while a plane is grounded? Should there be different ways of subduing a suspected terrorist - besides shooting at them?

2: This man was having a psychotic fit brought on by lack of medication to control his bipolar disorder. If air marshals were made aware of people with mental disorders (bipolar, depression, Downs syndrome, etc) on their flight, do you think such instances could be avoided?

1: I do not believe that a gun should be the only way to subdue a person. We do have stun guns that could temporarily disable a person, while the air marshal disarms them and takes them into custody. Before people start shooting, they should try to calm the person down and assess the situation better.

2: I do not think that the marshals would gain much from knowing of certain people with certain disorders. Although it could have saved this man's life, it may also be seen as a breech of privacy.

[User Picture]From: blackandredlove
2005-12-08 09:24 pm (UTC)
1. I feel that the air marshal should have the right to be able to shoot a person to subdue them... whereas killing them with four or six shots is a tad bit extreme. As for whether or not the plane is grounded, it is irrelevant. One person is still endangering (or possibly endangering) the lives of other people... there are still innocent lives put in harms way.

2. I think knowing whether or not the person has a personality disorder would not be enough grounds to mitigate the fact that the person claimed they had a bomb. Saying anything pertaining to a bomb within the locale of an airport or airplane is serious business. That air marshal held the person at gunpoint and told him to get his hand out of the bag... he failed to do so. The air marshal (partially) did the right thing, did not take any chances, and saved (if you will) the lives of the rest of the people on board. Just a quick reiteration, I think firing four to six shots was overkill and in this instance, was the wrong thing to do.

To talk about the case at hand, I think it was blown out of proportion within respect to the media coverage and the size of the police force that was allocated to the scene. The air marshal had the situation under control; I fail to see the point as to why so many police officers had to show up to the location.

I think it is also unfortunate that such an event like this just occurred... they were just going to loosen up the security policies in airports and I feel they will probably keep them equivalent if not strengthen the policies even more. They already search our bags for bombs, the chances of one slipping in appears to be very unlikely. I do not see why they have to limit such things as razors for shaving that go in luggage in the luggage compartments and I bet it is doubtful that precaution will be relieved anytime soon… because of a bomb threat. I find that strange… bombs are not the same things as razors.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: blackandredlove
2005-12-08 09:27 pm (UTC)
A continuation of my thoughts... I would like to advocate and clarify that I do not feel that shooting with a lethal gun should be and/or is the only way for the air marshal to obtain control of the situation. A point that you had stated... a stun gun would temporarily disable the suspect and would allow for detainment and disarming, which is a nice and more peaceful solution to the overall mess.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)