When air marshals attack
Maybe I'm just cynical, but I'd always suspected that the percentage of flights with air marshals was relatively small, and that the marshals were a token presence on a handful of routes, more to provide psychological comfort than anything else. I'm now beginning to suspect that they may be more common than I realized. I mean, yesterday's flight was Miami-Orlando, after all, not Heathrow-Logan.
Yesterday's shooting death? of a mentally ill man was a tragedy, plain and simple. It's heartbreaking to read the news accounts.
Still, I have to say that the marshal responded exactly as I'd want him to under the circumstances. It appears that not only are the air marshals out there on duty, but that they're vigilant and willing to use deadly force, if necessary, to ensure the safety of the skies.
There will, of course, be the usual chorus of accusations and second-guessing in the wake of this tragedy. And rest assured that the loudest screeching will come from the very same quarters that have complained for four years that "nothing has changed" and thar air travel is "no safer" than it was before September 11.
Comments
Agreed.
I hope the air marshal program is much bigger and widespred than we know of. Terrible thing, given the circumstances, but--in my cold-hearted opinion--tough darts. Thank god these guys are around.
Posted by: fred | December 8, 2005 09:11 AM
The NRA method would work better. Issue an automatic weapon with teflon bullets to all passengers when they board the aircraft.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | December 8, 2005 09:33 AM
> Issue an automatic weapon with teflon bullets to all passengers when they board the aircraft.
I'm an NRA guy myself, but that sounds like a recipe for a *lot* of holes in the airframe.
Posted by: Barry | December 8, 2005 09:42 AM
What's most disturbing is the idea that with all the hassles involved in screening, it's STILL in the realm of possibility that this guy COULD have had a bomb in his carry-on bag.
I'm not second-guessing the air marshals; the claim that this guy was off his meds could have been false. However, you'd think that since the guy wasn't on the plane when they shot him, and since the alleged bomb was in the carry-on bag, couldn't someone have just opened the bag? Was he saying that it would explode if anyone opened it?
Just askin', is all.
Posted by: Jill | December 8, 2005 11:37 AM
These situations are all terrible, this one and the one in London as well, BUT the job of Security Forces, be they police, or Air Marshalls, or FBI, etc, their jobs are to put the safety of all above that of the one acting "suspiciously."
You hear people opposed to any such violence calling for "non-lethal means," to be used.
What non-lethal means would (1) disarm an actual suicide bomber, while (2) preserving the safety of both the passengers and just as importantly the Security Personnel?
Posted by: JMK | December 8, 2005 02:28 PM
To me, if you are shouting that you have a bomb in your backpack in an airport after 9-11, you are just commiting suicide without paying for your own gun and ammo.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | December 8, 2005 03:34 PM
It's called "suicide by cop."
Posted by: Barry | December 8, 2005 04:31 PM
Man, i've seen someone freak out who was bipolar and he almost kicked my ass on some wild shit. I guess it can get pretty gnarly. He was supposed to be taking Lithium i believe. He went from passing out cold in the hallway to jumping on the couch like a escaped zoo animal.
Posted by: ortho | December 8, 2005 07:17 PM