| Yarr The Pirate! http://www.yarrthepirate.com/phpbb3/ |
|
| Did he deserve it? http://www.yarrthepirate.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7632 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Supafly [ Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Did he deserve it? |
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/08/airpla ... index.html I'm bored and I figured we should discuss somethinng that could affect us in the future in some way, shape, or form. He was manic - depressive His actions were because of this psychological disorder He was in federal airspace He made an outrageous claim and was asked several times to comply to the orders of US Marshals US Marshals utilized "deadly force" AN EXAMPLE WAS MADE!!! Implications: People will never fuck with a "bomb" joke or otherwise on a plane, or else they may suffer the same fate. Had the US Marshals only wounded this suspect, think of the lawsuits... Will local police maybe utilize this shoot-to-kill method in the future to avoid the BS that is the judicial system and prison over-crowding? Is our society starting to shy away from its political correctness and beginning to recognize that indeed "certain people" deserve this? My opinion I think this man, although tragic, deserved this in the end. In no way, shape, or form should an individual be allowed to endanger others in this manner, threat or otherwise, and I feel safer knowing that the US Marshals took such a swift and decisive action. However I know a few people feel so much sympathy that they are questioning if there could have been another way. Discuss. |
|
| Author: | Armani [ Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I agree. If you're going to say something like that, even if there is something like that, deadly force should be taken. Jails are overcrowding and the judicial system is costing too much to put up with all this. If people knew he had a problem, they shouldn't've let him near the airport at all, let alone out of the house. If more stuff like this happens, just think of it as one less person to worry about killing your kids or something. Anyone know where that post of Yarr saying something about kool-aide is? I want to put it in my sig. |
|
| Author: | Dinav [ Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The thing is, I can't blame the Air Marshals here for following the rules to the T and doing what they believed to be in the best interest of the civilians on the plain. |
|
| Author: | Feep [ Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The marshals are completely justified. He presented a threat to innocent people and failed to comply with orders from the US Air Marshal. There is no difference in that situation from one in which he actually had the bomb; there was no way of knowing. The marshals acting to protect others is perfectly acceptable, nay, expected behavior. That moron. |
|
| Author: | Ridere [ Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
He deserved it. If some retard is gonna claim he has a bomb and run around like an asshole, then he deserves to be shot. It's called Darwinism - survival of the fittest. Frankly, I think we ought to shoot a lot more people than we currently do. Or rather have an efficient and more popular death pentalty. Murderers should be killed, rapists should be killed, drug dealers should be killed. Just off them all. They aren't benefiting society in the least, and we're forced to pay a buttload in taxes for them to live in some prison. If it didn't basically take an act of God to execute someone for a crime in the united states, I think we'd have a lot bigger of a deterrant for crime. And if not, who cares. Even if it doesn't reduce crime any, at least we're ridding society of that criminal in one way or another - be it by deterring them from doing the crime to begin with, or just killing them once they're caught. I don't expect to get many people agreeing with me on this, but whatever. |
|
| Author: | Whisp [ Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
wtf kind of justification is this? they had no way to neutralize the situation other than taking someone's life? plus everyone claims he never said there was a bomb, except those responsible for his death. death is something you can't reverse. this nation is so paranoid. |
|
| Author: | Feep [ Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well, then you're getting into conspiracy theories. The report I read said he claimed to have a bomb...if he didn't say that, well, perhaps it's another story, but he still didn't comply with orders from a man POINTING A GUN AT HIM. I mean, come on. This guy was doing something wrong. Protection of innocent people from a perceived threat is not wrong. These guys didn't have Stun batons or tasers on them, and even if they did, there was no guarantee that he couldn't have triggered the bomb anyway (there was no bomb, of course, but they didn't know that). |
|
| Author: | Dinav [ Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
As I heard it - and yes this has become a rumor story, since the major media can't even seem to get strait story - he was told to stop, and he moved for a bag. Bang, I would have shot. If someone reaches for anything with a gun pointed at them, there's no time to consider an incapacitation. His own wife said that he mentioned he had a bomb before running. She was screaming at him as he ran. He had a bipolar disorder, and she coerced him onto the flight, which he was unsafe about. He "freaked out" and the rest occurred. |
|
| Author: | Kazekuro [ Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
There's no real arguement here. . . if you were faced with this same decision, would you think to incapacitate a man who could very well end your life, or the life of those around you? or would you do whatever you could to limit the casualties? I don't condone killing people, but I commend and support the actions of the US. Martials. Given the situation, I see why they did what they did. I am also sorry for the loved ones this man has left behind. |
|
| Author: | Chamelius [ Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Kazekuro wrote: There's no real arguement here. . . if you were faced with this same decision, would you think to incapacitate a man who could very well end your life, or the life of those around you? or would you do whatever you could to limit the casualties? I don't condone killing people, but I commend and support the actions of the US. Martials. Given the situation, I see why they did what they did. I am also sorry for the loved ones this man has left behind.
You stole my arguement from lunch, though, we had the same arguement, bah. However, were I to place blame, it would fall with his wife, for, it is/was her duty to ensure he took his meds. She also did not inform the crew prior to boarding about her husbands medical history, in this case his mental health, and she said that she knew he wasn't taking his meds, therefore, it is her fault. |
|
| Author: | Crayon [ Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
There is zero justification for NOT bringing him down. Your duty as a US Marshal is to neutralize any threat that comes up that could potentially kill hundreds of inocent people. "This nation is so paranoid" You make it sound as if they opened up on him due to the way he looked or for another poor reason. He manically ran around screaming he had a bomb and failed to comply when weapons were raised. What else do you expect a Marshal to do whose job is to protect people from those exact threats? In the heat of the moment there is no way to confront him and be 100% sure he does not have a weapon. This rides on himself and his wife for even being in that position in the first place. It was completely justified and to think otherwise is nothing more than idiotic unless actual evidence comes up proving otherwise. Although after viewing several interviews from actual passengers onboard it backs up exactly what happened. |
|
| Author: | Caduceus [ Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The death penalty is a waste of resources, believe it or not, a life sentence is actually cheaper. Anyway, back on topic, erring on the side of safety isn't a bad thing, but I'm really actually suprised they didn't try to incapcitate him first. |
|
| Author: | Chamelius [ Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
1 $.02 bullet is cheeper than a life sentence. |
|
| Author: | Arim [ Sat Dec 10, 2005 11:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
whats the big deal, he screamed bomb and made it seem like he had a bomb and made it seem like he was gonna pull the trigger. 1 life vs. what the 1000 in an airport i'll choose the 1. |
|
| Author: | Caduceus [ Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: 1 $.02 bullet + hundreds of thousands, even millions, in Court appeals and lawyer costs over the course of several months while an inmate attempts to get his sentence overturned is not cheeper than a life sentence. Fixed. I'm not even sure why we have the death penalty, lol. Quote: "A 1982 study showed that were the death penalty to be reintroduced in New York, the cost of the capital trial alone would be more than double the cost of a life term in prison. (1) In Maryland, a comparison of capital trial costs with and without the death penalty for the years 1979-1984 concluded that a death penalty case costs "approximately 42 percent more than a case resulting in a non-death sentence." (2) In 1988 and 1989 the Kansas legislature voted against reinstating the death penalty after it was informed that reintroduction would involve a first-year cost of "more than $11 million." (3) Florida, with one of the nation's largest death rows, has estimated that the true cost of each execution is approximately $3.2 million, or approximately six times the cost of a life-imprisonment sentence." (4) Quote: Why is capital punishment so much more expensive? To make sure that innocent people aren't executed, capital cases are given a lengthy appeals process. Many Americans are impatient with this perceived delay of justice, and call for it to be drastically shortened. But it is important to realize that even under the current system, a substantial number of innocent people get executed. The Stanford Law Review has published a famous study documenting 350 cases this century where a person sentenced to death was later proven clearly innocent. Seventy-five of those cases occurred recently, between 1970 and 1985. Although not all of them were executed, most spent decades in prison agonizing over their unjust fate. Without question, shortening the appeals process would increase the already high percentage of innocent people executed.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-murderersalive.htm |
|
| Author: | Purity [ Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
If it costs so much, they should reinstate public executions and charge a fee to watch online/on PPV/live. I'd say if there were enough interest, anywhere from $10-$20 for live, like $19.99 for PPV, and like $25 for online. The government gets some cash so sick people can watch the death of another sick person. ....oh, and it also might deter other crime and stuff. |
|
| Author: | Armani [ Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ridere wrote: Frankly, I think we ought to shoot a lot more people than we currently do.
. . . I don't expect to get many people agreeing with me on this, but whatever. I don't see why I wouldn't agree. |
|
| Author: | Caduceus [ Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: If it costs so much, they should reinstate public executions and charge a fee to watch online/on PPV/live. That's considered inhumane. Which is why they didn't publically televise the Timothy McVeigh execution. armani wrote: Ridere wrote: Frankly, I think we ought to shoot a lot more people than we currently do. . . . I don't expect to get many people agreeing with me on this, but whatever. I don't see why I wouldn't agree. Because we have this whole thing about "innocent until proven guilty" thing and that whole deal about American freedoms, although you Canadians and Europeans can go wild on that one, but considering gun-related violence and the like I don't think its an issue. |
|
| Author: | Kailyn [ Sat Dec 10, 2005 8:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
If they simply raised the burden of proof for death sentence cases, those costs would go out the window. IMO a criminal is not entitled to a 5+ level appeal process which is currently the path they must take. If you wish to appeal your death sentence with that higher burden of proof, send it straight to the Supreme court. Either that or create a special court to oversee such matters. |
|
| Author: | Itto [ Sun Dec 11, 2005 12:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
US does have imunity under international law and can/will shoot first without justification the rest is just PR work http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051210/ap_ ... hooting_65 |
|
| Author: | Xiona [ Sun Dec 11, 2005 12:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
meh, one less crazy guy i gotta listen to ramble on about how his fork keeps trying to stab the spoon while i wait on him at work lol. on the serious side, im glad we finally have people who wont pussy out on serious shit. to much crying my the masses causes shit to get watered down and ineffective |
|
| Author: | Lazyazn [ Sun Dec 11, 2005 1:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
1- Right thing 2- arrest his wife 3- if you do not get why go die |
|
| Author: | Whisp [ Sun Dec 11, 2005 1:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
did the federal air marshals actually verify that there was a bomb before they decided to execute the poor guy? |
|
| Author: | Volrath [ Sun Dec 11, 2005 1:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
You dont have time to verify there was a bomb, they told the man to get down, they had the reasonable doubt that this man was dangerous, he did not stop, reached into his bag when they told him to get down, what else do you need? if this man actually had a bomb, it would have gone off by the time that you want the marshalls to act, so instead of losing 1 man, many more could be dead. I think they acted apropriately. |
|
| Author: | Xiona [ Sun Dec 11, 2005 1:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Whisp wrote: did the federal air marshals actually verify that there was a bomb before they decided to execute the poor guy?
if he complied and didnt reach in his bag screaming "i got a bomb" im sure they would have refrained from shooting. i mean shit, if you have anyone pointing a gun at you and telling you to get on the ground... hi? |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|