Passenger on 757 shot

**mranderson** · 12-08-2005, 06:47 AM

The man's wife claims he was off his meds, however, he ran down the aisle of the plane and yelled he had a bomb. After he was captured, he fled only to place his hand in his attache making air marshals believe he was going after a bomb. They then shot him hin the head, killing him.

In your opinion, were they justified in their actions? If not, what would you have done? Either way, should the shot been to the head? If not, why?

Keith · 12-08-2005, 09:17 PM

Originally Posted by mranderson

The man's wife claims he was off his meds, however, he ran down the aisle of the plane and yelled he had a bomb. After he was captured, he fled only to place his hand in his attache making air marshals believe he was going after a bomb. They then shot him hin the head, killing him.

In your opinion, were they justified in their actions? If not, what would you have done? Either way, should the shot been to the head? If not, why?

When somebody runs down the aisle of a plane and yells he has a bomb, it is up to the air marshalls to take whatever precautions they need to take. They had no idea he was off his medications...only that he seemed to be a threat. As he reached in to his attache case, all they could do was assume he had a bomb. They had the right to shoot him, however, I don't believe they should have killed him.

**Curt** · 12-08-2005, 09:41 PM

I feel they did the right thing and yes the shot was placed where it should have been placed to neutralize the threat.

**dirtrider73068** · 12-09-2005, 09:03 PM

I think they were wrong for shooting him in the head, however They did what they were trained to do. They could have at least shot him in the leg and made him fall or shot his one arm that was reaching in the bag. At least he could have still be alive. What really angers me is the fact tehy then blow up his bag only top find out nothing was in there, and the result is a lost life because he was a threat to the plane. If I am on a plane I would want the air marshals to do what it takes to protect me and my family but at same time do it in a manner that doesn't end in a result like this one. If I was a air marshal I would have went for a wound shot, put him at bay then move from there. If there was a bomb then he could be jailed and prosocuted by the law. But lets think a minute, lets everybody put ourslefs in her shoes. How would you feel to see and know that your husband/wife/loved one whatever the situation be was shot cause they didn't take there meds and hollered bomb on a plane. What would you have done? If you were there would you stop the person yourself? Would jump in and say stop he is mentally sick he hasn't taken his meds? What woudl have happend if this was young child that was mentally sick? If he threatened a bomb, would it be right to him to just because he said he had a bomb? This also could have been a case that it was a suicide by cop. Now adays it seems that we are more on a shoot now ask questions later. I have seen cops video that was this way instead of wounding the runner they just kill him. To me this is not how america should be, its not right. Protect but don't shot to kill when there is a threat present.

**Curt** · 12-09-2005, 10:51 PM

With the list of names on the suspected terrorist list at 80,000 and growing they cannot just shoot to wound, they cannot take that chance of the suspect getting in a shot or detonating a bomb.

Keith · 12-10-2005, 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by mariner62

With the list of names on the suspected terrorist list at 80,000 and growing they cannot just shoot to wound, they cannot take that chance of the suspect getting in a shot or detonating a bomb.

Exactly. Even today, there was a flight on its way to Honululu, and another crazy man started threatening passengers. There was not an air marshall on this flight, however, several passengers ganged up on the man and subdued him.

**dirtrider73068** · 12-10-2005, 09:48 PM

You just said in a previous response that in your words copy/paste

" They had the right to shoot him, however, I don't believe they should have killed him."

Now you are agreeing with mariner and saying yea shoot anybody that is a threat. What is your fixed opion? Your two sided here stateing now they shouldn't shoot and yea they should shoot. Shoot and wound then give one last warning if they make another threatening move they will be shot dead. If somebody is crazy mentally sick no matter what you tell them they will not hear or understand what you say to them. Maybe everybody shoudl carry guns if we see somebody that is suspicious lets just fill them full of lead, one way of controling the crazy people population. Thats one of many things is wrong with todays world too many dang people jump to conclusions with out stopping and thinking of resolution to a problem.

Originally Posted by Keith

Exactly. Even today, there was a flight on its way to Honululu, and another crazy man started threatening passengers. There was not an air marshall on this flight, however, several passengers ganged up on the man and subdued him.

**Curt** · 12-10-2005, 11:32 PM

Dirtrider..you cannot give some a second chance, in some cases it comes down to you or them and what would you do? You cant give some people an option, you have to eliminate the threat, not slow it down. I know what I would do and I would sleep like a baby at night knowing I did the right thing. Please dont tell me your against the right to carry also.

**dirtrider73068** · 12-10-2005, 11:43 PM

I am not against the right to carry, and no I could not sleep at night knowing I just shot a inoccent man for something he coudl have never done. But the air marsel are trained to not let that stuff bother them. Its a job I could never do and don't ever want to do. I know I will not chose my right to carry, I have a bad temper and the wrong person woudl pis sme off and I would wind up locked up becasue my temper took over. One reason guns are not allowed in my house another is I have two kids. The only thing I have is a couple bb guns and those are put far away, and are not ready to used they have to be loaded with bb's to even be used. I am just saying in the end they shot a inoccent deranged man, when they could have wounded him in the leg or the arm he was reaching in in with, give one last if he moved to the bag again then shot him dead. Once you shoot someone they are in too much pain to really move at all, then move in take him away, isolate the bag take it outside invisagate it then go from there. I know our airports need to be secure but I think they are takeing it too far. Before we know it the government is going to check us at every door we go in, cause of terrorist threats. What some don't realize is they can hit anywhere at anytime. They could even hit a walmart, any nobody is gaurding them. WHat about a sports game where there is numerous fans those could be hit. Doesn't mean we have to slack up at the airports. We need teh security by all means but lighten up some. As for the right to carry you don't want the wrong people carrying either.

**Curt** · 12-10-2005, 11:56 PM

I understand where your comming from..trust me I do. We dont need to lighten up on security though..we are in fact way to easy on people. As far as the right to carry goes..no we dont need the wrong people carrying..but they already are and not legally either. The ariport police are way out gunned as it is..trust me..they are not taking it too far at all..their hands are tied way too tight as it is. Sometimes once you shoot someone they dont really feel the pain quick enough to stop attacking because the adrenalin is flowing and they wont stop attacking..you just cant give them a chance. Law enforcement people are trained if your gonna pull your gun you better shoot to kill..you cant aim for an arm or leg and take a chance of missing..you have to go for the center of mass or the head.

Keith · 12-11-2005, 07:41 AM

Originally Posted by dirtrider73068

You just said in a previous response that in your words copy/paste

" They had the right to shoot him, however, I don't believe they should have killed him."

Now you are agreeing with mariner and saying yea shoot anybody that is a threat. What is your fixed opion? Your two sided here stateing now they shouldn't shoot and yea they should shoot. Shoot and wound then give one last warning if they make another threatening move they will be shot dead. If somebody is crazy mentally sick no matter what you tell them they will not hear or understand what you say to them. Maybe everybody shoudl carry guns if we see somebody that is suspicious lets just fill them full of lead, one way of controling the crazy people population. Thats one of many things is wrong with todays world too many dang people jump to conclusions with out stopping and thinking of resolution to a problem.

Actually I said that they had the right to shoot him, however, I feel they should have wounded him severely instead of killing him. They had no idea that the guy was a mental patient. It's one of those decisions that is hard to make unless you were there. Depending on the circumstances (I don't know the whole story), I may have shot to kill also.