Anyone catch the Today show bit about the Air Marshall shooting?

[NineseveN]

Oh let's make it even more risky than that.

Let's say the guy yells "I've got an atomic bomb!"

Now millions of lives are in danger. An entire city may be in danger.

Does this now change the risk of shooting him versus not?


http://www.cronab.demon.co.uk/sallet22.htm

Sometimes shooting bombs DOES make them explode.

Oh god, stop it. Let me say this politely, you have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about. If a naked man ran through an airport with a fighter jet armed with air-to-ground bombs strapped to his back, maybe we wouldn't want to shoot. Plastic-type explosives and other man-mountable explosive devices generally do not explode when hit with a bullet, unless the bomb is rigged that way. However, if it is, since one should know SoP is for the FAMs to shoot if you have a bomb, their intent is obviously to kill, not negotiate, and then bring about conflict like we have in this discussion...one cold assume that the bomber would have detonated the bomb manually if the "oh, he shot me, it goes boom now" switch did not work. If you did not want to kill anyone in the first place, why use a real bomb with a retaliatory mechanism fail-safe to detonate it? Never mind, don't answer that, please.

"I have an Atom bomb" is nearly the same as saying "I have the King of Prussia in my underpants!” it's all silliness, you watch too much television. Don't even start on "suitcase nukes", that's more myth than reality. No current terrorist organization has the means to facilitate the maintenance needed to store one of those, let alone transport it...especially as they weren't all that high-quality in the first place. A small transportable nuke is a pipe dream born from fantasy and movie producers. Now, one day, they will be a reality I would assume, that day is not today.

 

[Borachon]

Your use of anecdotal statistics off the internet to determine the probabilities of a certain type of bomb construction is a VERY dangerous way to assess and react to threats.

A valid assessment. I'll not deny it.

I DO suspect that professionals in this field HAVE compiled some data on types of bombs, types of initiation devices, and psychological profiles of the bombers, but I don't expect they would share it across an open forum like the 'net.I also suspect they have concluded that, for now, shooting a person with a bomb is the safest way to deal with an uncertain threat.

This I'm not so confident of. If you've got any anecdotal statics off the internet to back up your opinion on the professionals research efforts in this field, I'd be glad to look at them.

 

[AZ Jeff]

Sometimes shooting bombs DOES make them explode.

But you STILL have not presented an arguement that shows that SCIENTIFICALLY and STATISTICALLY, the odds of detonation of the bomb go UP by shooting the bomber.

This is a silly discussion now. Unless there is some concrete information provided that shooting bomb-holders is MORE risky than NOT doing so, the safest course appears to be to shoot them.

 

[Borachon]

Oh god, stop it. Let me say this politely, you have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about.

They are not that really hard as concept questions.
I'll summarize some of them again.

Why is shooting a man who claims to be armed with a bomb the best course of action?

Was it reasonable to assume he had a bomb in the first place?

Do other factors enter into deciding whether someone is a threat or not, or do we take him at his word?

 

[NineseveN]

If you've got a guy on the verge of quitting, why not give him a couple of encouraging words to make him stop himself. Instead of a couple of discouraging bullets.

I think I just peed myself a little laughing at that statement. I can't take anymore of this, I swear! :banghead:


"I have a bomb you America pig-dogs! You will all now die and feel the wrath of sticking your American noses into business that does not pertaint to you. Jallah be praised, die infidels!"

"Hold it right there sir, allow us to give you some encouraging words!"

*blink, blink*




LMFAO.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

[Borachon]

But you STILL have not presented an arguement that shows that SCIENTIFICALLY and STATISTICALLY, the odds of detonation of the bomb go UP by shooting the bomber.

Show me that they go DOWN scientifically and statistically by shooting the bomber.

 

[Yooper]

Suicide bombers in Israel have been known to change their minds at the last minute. They are sometimes impressed into performing as suicide bombers and aren't really committed to dying. Some have been known to do it for the money their family have recieved. So some of them back out at the last minute when they change their minds.

The suggestion that we frame our national security around what "some" suicide bombers "might" do if we coddle them is absurd.

I agree, this is getting silly beyond reason!

 

[Borachon]

LMFAO.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

But at least you thought about it enough to scoff at it. That's good enough for me right now.

 

[Archangel]

Under your rules of engagement, no one would ever know why. Because the bomber would either be shot to death, or he'd blow everyone up.

Or he could comply with the federal agents pointing guns at him.



But leave the bomb out of it for a second. Say we have an individual, who for whatever reason has attracted the attention of law enforcement officers as possibly being a threat of some sort. While the officers are trying to sort things out, the man repeadedly refuses to comply with their directions, and then reaches into a bag / pocket large enough to conceal a weapon.

In that split second, what should the officers do?

 

[Borachon]

The suggestion that we frame our national security around what "some" suicide bombers "might" do if we coddle them is absurd.

Why wouldn't we frame our national security around "mights" and "could bes"? It's what we do now by checking people who board flights. There "MIGHT" be a bomb coming aboard. So we check.

Coddling a man who claims to have a bomb isn't coddling in my opinion. After you talk him out of the bomb, kick his ribs a few times for being stupid enough to try this stuff in the first place. But at least he didn't detonate the bomb. (The better option...remember?)

Stopping the terrorist BY WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY...why does this JUST mean killing him now? Why doesn't it mean talking him down? Or frightening him into stopping with what Allah might do to him if he kills himself? (Suicide is forbidden in the Koran.)

If all we ever do is shoot them, then the terrorists are going to start using that against us. Dead man switch if nothing else....or delayed dead man switch....let the FAM guys shoot the suspect then detonate the bomb when they move in. Or remote detonation from another suspect standing nearby.

 

[NineseveN]

They are not that really hard as concept questions.
I'll summarize some of them again.

Why is shooting a man who claims to be armed with a bomb the best course of action?

Was it reasonable to assume he had a bomb in the first place?

Do other factors enter into deciding whether someone is a threat or not, or do we take him at his word?

Asked and answered, a dozen times.


Shooting human-mountable bombs does not generally make them explode, I need no statistics for this, all one has to do is to have an education on the engineering and components of such devices to know that it would very rare to do so unless it was an intended retaliatory mechanism. Also, it is common to take headshots on bomb wielding terrorists just in case, which is why I would assume the FAMs are all top notch marksmen as well. You equate rounds hitting fighter jet bomb units and making them explode to man-mounted explosives, which are completely different things. If you’re an explosives expert, feel free to correct me, otherwise, I would suggest I have a lot more expertise in this area than you do.

Terrorists do not commonly use dead-man switches. This is all for the movies and Internet rumor.

Airline security screening is not anywhere near 100%, it never can be unless every passenger endures invasive x-rays, rectal probes/cavity searches, lie detector tests, dismantling of luggage and item accompanying them which would make the process so unpleasant, people will not want to fly anymore.

Any innocent civilians take precedence over someone saying they have a bomb, in of all places, an airport after disobeying lawful commands from federal agents acting in the course of their duties. The mere threat that the suspect may have an explosive device is sufficient enough to warrant a kill.

I don’t know how many times we need to tell you all of this….

 

[Borachon]

While the officers are trying to sort things out, the man repeadedly refuses to comply with their directions, and then reaches into a bag / pocket large enough to conceal a weapon.
In that split second, what should the officers do?

They are trained to shoot.

That's how deaf and blind people get shot all the time.

And why wheelchair bound drivers who are ordered to get out of cars at traffic stops often look like they are reaching for a weapon.

Or why actors in Hollywood who are hanging out at a party get shot because they yell the words, "BANG" at two police officers that arrive on the scene.

I don't think we SHOULD leave the bomb out. The bomb is the reason...supposedly...that this man was shot. Why would he have been in the position in the first place if not for the bomb threat?

Should they have shot in this case? Given all statements being made by the man's wife, and the potential risk posed by a possible bomb?....eh, I wonder.
Isolate the suspect, evac the airport, and call in the bomb squad. My opinion.

But I'll agree they aren't TRAINED to do this.

 

[Yooper]

Why wouldn't we frame our national security around "mights" and "could bes"? It's what we do now by checking people who board flights. There "MIGHT" be a bomb coming aboard. So we check.

The operative phrase in my earlier post was "suicide bombers", not "possible suicide bombers".

 

[NineseveN]

Coddling a man who claims to have a bomb isn't coddling in my opinion. After you talk him out of the bomb, kick his ribs a few times for being stupid enough to try this stuff in the first place. But at least he didn't detonate the bomb. (The better option...remember?)

So police brutality is fine by you, but killing a man with a bomb isn't? Or killing one who breaks the law and says they have a bomb when they don't but refuses to follow direct and lawful orders of federal law enforcement agents (who don't know he does not have a bomb) isn't?

Stopping the terrorist BY WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY...why does this JUST mean killing him now? Why doesn't it mean talking him down? Or frightening him into stopping with what Allah might do to him if he kills himself? (Suicide is forbidden in the Koran.)

Um, suicide bombers? I don’t think they subscribe to your version of the Koran.

If all we ever do is shoot them, then the terrorists are going to start using that against us. Dead man switch if nothing else....or delayed dead man switch....let the FAM guys shoot the suspect then detonate the bomb when they move in. Or remote detonation from another suspect standing nearby.

Quite possible. But it's a lose-lose. Right now, they use our hesitation against us in conflicts every single day. Ask someone who has been to the sandbox lately about al the hesitation games and exploiting of that 'weakness' that goes on there. It's lose-lose. IN this type of event, you take a proactive stance, not a reactive stand, it would take more time than I have to train you on why that is important in special operations and anti-terrorism, but I assure you, men and women with more experience who are far more educated than you and I on the subject have made these decisions, and after being educated on them myself, I understand. You should go through some counter-terrorist training; it would do you some good.


I gotta go get some grub, this discussion has famished me.

 

[Borachon]

I would suggest I have a lot more expertise in this area than you do.

Really? If you don't mind my asking, what is your background in this area?

Understand...it won't necessarily change my questioning of your opinion...I'll still react from a Know-it-all perspective but you'll raise your cred among the other readers.

 

[Borachon]

Um, suicide bombers? I don’t think they subscribe to your version of the Koran.

Oversimplification. We can't know what they subscribe to...either you or I. Whose to say that a true believer wouldn't react to a new passage from the Koran? In fact they've had some success with that down at Gitmo.

 

[NineseveN]

They are trained to shoot.

That's how deaf and blind people get shot all the time.

This is a myth and a lie, prove it. I want statistics.

And why wheelchair bound drivers who are ordered to get out of cars at traffic stops often look like they are reaching for a weapon.

Statistics on how often this happens? If you have none, you have no point.

Or why actors in Hollywood who are hanging out at a party get shot because they yell the words, "BANG" at two police officers that arrive on the scene.

And this has happened how many times exactly?

I don't think we SHOULD leave the bomb out. The bomb is the reason...supposedly...that this man was shot. Why would he have been in the position in the first place if not for the bomb threat?

Should they have shot in this case? Given all statements being made by the man's wife, and the potential risk posed by a possible bomb?....eh, I wonder.
Isolate the suspect, evac the airport, and call in the bomb squad. My opinion.

But I'll agree they aren't TRAINED to do this.

Bomb, handgun, acid, whatever, furtive movements after a blatant disregard or lack of cooperation will get you maced, tazed or shot in this instance and rightfully so. Can't mace or taze a bomber, so shoot to kill. Mace and the "Big T" aren't always viable unless the suspect is not armed as they do require a pretty close proximity to the target, which is not good when they're armed. Mace does not render movement impossible, so they could still use the weapon, wielding it wildly and injuring someone or shooting out randomly and killing someone.

 

[Archangel]

In that split second, what should the officers do?

They are trained to shoot.

But what do you think they should do? Since you obviously think shooting was the wrong answer.

 

[NineseveN]

Oversimplification. We can't know what they subscribe to...either you or I. Whose to say that a true believer wouldn't react to a new passage from the Koran? In fact they've had some success with that down at Gitmo.

This boy cannot be helped I think.

We're supposed to read them scripture instead of shooting them? Who are you and why have you come to my planet?

It is obvious you are not grounded in reality, but instead have your head way off in a fantasy world in which you can make anything possible and twist and bend reality at your whim, and thus, there is no discussing this with you, really, I keep coming back because I see some hope, and then patently retarded statements such as the one I just quoted remove all hope from the equation.



"Hey, that man has a bomb!"

"Quick, read him some scripture!"

"Don't forget the encuaraging words!!"


*blink, blink*

:banghead:

 

[Borachon]

We're supposed to read them scripture instead of shooting them? Who are you and why have you come to my planet?

I got that from interrogation methods currently being used at Gitmo. Don't shoot the messenger.

"Hey, that man has a bomb!"

"Quick, read him some scripture!"

"Don't forget the encuaraging words!!"

Synopsize all that to: talk to the person if he hasn't already blown himself up. Maybe you can talk him out of hitting the kill switch. Like I say...after he's turned off the bomb, beat the snot out of him. Sheesh...I'm not a liberal.

Added to that would be the idea of finding out how often (with publically available statistics so that I can argue more effectively on the Internet) it's better to shoot a suicide bomber and how often it's better to talk or negotiate with someone who hasn't tripped the switch. Get some info to back up the "shoot" or "don't shoot" policy. It would save the gov from having to justify themselves if they had stats to back them up.

 

[CAS700850]

You know, back on Dec 8 when I started this thread, it was about the entire notion that a "respected journalist" was advocating for shooting someone in the leg to make them stop instead of "shooting to kill." Now, this thread has deteriorated into an argument as to whether or noth the shooting was justified. And, as someone who could be called upon to help legally defend a police officer involved in a shooting, this thread has turned into a nightmare. We have two schools of thought discussing the matter for darn near a week about whether or not the trigger should have been pulled. The officers didn't have a week to discuss the merits. the officers had seconds, not hours.

This very thread representes the nightmares of the "team" we created to defend officers against wrongful death/wrongful injury cases brought after an on-duty officer involved shooting. The concern is that a jury will spend hours thinking about a decision that took place in seconds, with full beneft of hindsight and without the pressure of life-and-death on their shoulders.

Thanks for confirming these nightmares to be true. :banghead:

 

[Yooper]

I think a jury is going to behave like a jury, regardless of what we might wish for. That's why there are twelve of them, to minimize the probability that all will be of the same mindset.

 

[jtward01]

And does his wife look Arab? Does the guy shouting about the bomb look Arab?

They sure did, just as Arab as Timothy McVeigh.

 

[Borachon]

This very thread representes the nightmares of the "team" we created to defend officers against wrongful death/wrongful injury cases brought after an on-duty officer involved shooting.

I don't blame the agents for shooting. That's what they were trained to do. I wish they'd stopped to think about it for a minute, and maybe violated their training for a minute, but I don't hold them responsible for the FACT that the man is dead....if the statements about the way the thing went down comport to what other witnesses said. If they don't, then I'm less sympathetic.

What I object to is the limited options they were given by their agencies policy. They are trained to shoot...irregardless of what else may be happening around them. A woman saying it's her husband and he's off his meds? Irrelevent. The guy just went through a metal detector? Irrelevent. No visible bomb in evidence? Irrelevent. They were trained to react as though the WORST thing were occurring. Not to evaluate the situation and take into consideration the fact that they were in a supposedly secure airport lounge.
They didn't let the agents have any other leeway. The policy may need to be reviewed...IMO.

Being sued? That's just the times.

the officers had seconds, not hours.

Seconds to react, yes. But YEARS to train how they would react. Their training is going to influence their reaction. So don't get too upset about the limited amount of time. Focus on making sure that what they did was either correct (ie...the best for society) or if it wasn't (ie...harmful to society). They get paid to do this. A lot of them love what they do.

I just wanna make sure we are getting what is best for our society. And I'm not willing to take it unquestioningly just because others tell me it is. SHOW ME why it is...don't just tell me.

 

[Borachon]

They sure did, just as Arab as Timothy McVeigh

Actually that was a bad point I made. I didn't know the guy was dark skinned when I made that comment.

He does look Arab.

But on the Tim McVeigh thing...Tim wasn't a suicide bomber was he? Are you suggesting that agents should have shot Tim for parking in front of a federal building in a van and walking inside? What if he was there to renew his driving license?

But let's say that they figured it out....Spidy Sense maybe. Is it smarter to shoot Tim while he's in the truck or wait? And would it have stopped the bomb from going off? Only if you shot him before the fuse was lit.