Print Page | Close Window

Left Wing Opinions > *

Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=146198
Printed Date: 14 November 2025 at 12:35pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Left Wing Opinions > *
Posted By: NotDaveEllis
Subject: Left Wing Opinions > *
Date Posted: 07 December 2005 at 8:26pm
Responding to the shooting of the man shot by an air marshall this evening

-----------------------------------

Dec-07-05 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #66
92. So they shot a crazy person who was freaking out....
AGAIN!
I am **** sick of this. I hate our government. I HATE WHAT AMERIKA HAS BECOME. I miss the old USA, where people have rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. WHERE PEOPLE ARENT SHOT IN COLD BLOOD EVEN THO THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY CRAZY!!!
THE KILLED AN AUTISTIC MAN IN MY HOME TOWN JUST LAST WEEK. Crime: freaking out! They Tasared him to death. Mother of God in Heaven... CURSE THEM!
CURSE THEM!
CURSE THEM!!!

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness still exist, I'm pretty sure theres no rights to claiming you have non-existant bombs on an airplane


---------------------------------

The Stranger (1000+ posts) Wed Dec-07-05 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #69
91. That is why you investigate to see if it is a threat.
You don't shoot people for yelling things in airports, unless you want to stand trial for murder.

I claim to have a bomb, I'm running frantically saying I have a bomb in my bag, and I reach into that bag, you should stop and investigate what I really have in that bag before you kill me

-----------------------------------

Stand and Fight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed Dec-07-05 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #72
82. They could have shot him in the legs.

A man frantically yelling that he has a bomb, he's obviously not right in the head, but lets go ahead and slightly wound his leg, then we'll investigate

------------------------------------

Chicago Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts)Wed Dec-07-05 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #146
170. I am too mostly,but could they have used less than deadly force?
Or rechecked the scanning images and assess the 'likelihood' of this 'bomb'? They need to plan for kookoos happening MORE OFTEN than real terrorists...Just saying...
Why we always have to side on overkill for =everything= now?

Yes, lets stop, collaborate and listen, check the scanning images, who knows if they can even do that, let alone do that in a split second time between when the man reached into his bag and the decision to fire was made

Of course there was valid opinions from what I read, but I found these to be quite humorous. I think the democrats have enabled a time stopping device.



Replies:
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 07 December 2005 at 8:31pm
Good.

If 4 nutty people that freak out in an airport get shot to death, the one guy that has a bomb and gets shot instead of killing 14 people.

I really just dont care.

People need to understand that there are certain places you dont need to be freaking out at. And if you know you are going to an airport, the family or guardian needs to call ahead and warn the place. "Yeah, my cousin, hes nuts, he might freak out, dont shoot him."

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">


Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 07 December 2005 at 8:38pm
Fire in a crowded theater.

-------------

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.


Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 07 December 2005 at 8:38pm
Uh, taser?

-------------



Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 07 December 2005 at 8:39pm
^^ I agree, you have to look at what these men have put upon their shoulders.  They are tasked with the job of preventing another 3,000 dead because of a terrorist(s) on a plane.  That means responding to every threat with an appropriate amount of force, even to empty threats.




DEVILS ADVOCATE: what if a bomb had been attached to the man's pulse for the sole purpose of making him too important to kill, therefore the officer's shot would have detonated the bomb....would the blame fall on the marshall?


-------------
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo


Posted By: bluemunky
Date Posted: 07 December 2005 at 8:41pm
Ha. Fools. Let's stop and investigate before we shoot him, that one made me guffaw loudly.

-------------


Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 07 December 2005 at 9:06pm

Originally posted by NotDaveEllis NotDaveEllis wrote:


Chicago Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts)Wed Dec-07-05 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #146
170.

Yes, lets stop, collaborate and listen, check the scanning images, who knows if they can even do that, let alone do that in a split second time between when the man reached into his bag and the decision to fire was made
.

http://langstroth.net/images/vanilla_ice.jpg -



-------------



Posted By: Badsmitty
Date Posted: 07 December 2005 at 9:12pm
A pirate could beat an air marshal.


Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 07 December 2005 at 9:13pm
Originally posted by Tae Kwon Do Tae Kwon Do wrote:

Originally posted by NotDaveEllis NotDaveEllis wrote:

Chicago Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts)Wed Dec-07-05 04:47 PM Response to Reply #146 170. Yes, lets stop, collaborate and listen, check the scanning images, who knows if they can even do that, let alone do that in a split second time between when the man reached into his bag and the decision to fire was made .


http://langstroth.net/images/vanilla_ice.jpg -



I picked up on this as well.

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">


Posted By: Ejp414
Date Posted: 07 December 2005 at 9:59pm
Originally posted by Badsmitty Badsmitty wrote:

A pirate could beat an air marshal.

ARE YOU KIDDING
ME?


-------------
__________________
__________________



Posted By: pbdude985
Date Posted: 07 December 2005 at 10:26pm
Originally posted by Tae Kwon Do Tae Kwon Do wrote:

Originally posted by NotDaveEllis NotDaveEllis wrote:


Chicago Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts)Wed Dec-07-05 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #146
170.

Yes, lets stop, collaborate and listen, check the scanning images, who knows if they can even do that, let alone do that in a split second time between when the man reached into his bag and the decision to fire was made
.

http://langstroth.net/images/vanilla_ice.jpg -

lol



-------------


Posted By: TheSpookyKids87
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 8:24am
Originally posted by Tae Kwon Do Tae Kwon Do wrote:

Originally posted by NotDaveEllis NotDaveEllis wrote:

Chicago Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts)Wed Dec-07-05 04:47 PM Response to Reply #146 170. Yes, lets stop, collaborate and listen, check the scanning images, who knows if they can even do that, let alone do that in a split second time between when the man reached into his bag and the decision to fire was made .


http://langstroth.net/images/vanilla_ice.jpg -



lmao

that made me giggle like a school girl.



Posted By: cadet_sergeant
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 8:44am
the correct desision was made in my opinion. if the wife wants to blame anyone she needs to blame her self, for not checking if her bipolar husband took his meds.


Posted By: reifidom
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 8:56am
The general public seems to take a Hollywood perspective on an officer's ability to shoot under various conditions and ranges. Hitting a frantic man in the leg is much more difficult than hitting that same man in the torso. It's easy to say how they should have fired after the fact, but I'd imagine you have to take the sure shot when the cards are down and lives are on the line.

And I just LOVE IT when people like this have bipolar suggested in the news as the cause of their actions. Whether or not it's true it just makes my life so much easier. Maybe now people will be scared of me for a few days.

-------------



Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 9:49am
Originally posted by reifidom reifidom wrote:

The general public seems to take a Hollywood perspective on an officer's ability to shoot under various conditions and ranges. Hitting a frantic man in the leg is much more difficult than hitting that same man in the torso. It's easy to say how they should have fired after the fact, but I'd imagine you have to take the sure shot when the cards are down and lives are on the line.

You mean it's not EASY to hit a frantic RUNNING man in the legs? C'mon. It has to be easy. Bruce Willis does it all the time!

I see it as a crazy man, claiming to have a bomb in his bag, refusing to comply with law enforcement, acting erratically, running... and then reaches in said bag?
After the fact it's easy to go over options.
At that very moment and time... and in the world we live in today... do you really take the chance that he's reaching for a twinkie or pack of tic-tacs?
No.
No you don't.

Moral of the story: don't claim you have a bomb. If you want to run and scream frantically while flailing your arms... just claim that you have herpes, or leprecy. People will get out of your way and leave you alone.
Bomb will get you shot, every day of the week.

The possible consequences of not taking action far outweight any other scenario. And if it's proven otherwise, then the next TRUE terrorist simply has to flail his arms with a woman yelling behind him to successfully carry out an attack... because he no longer represents a threat, he simply represents a bipolar guy off his meds.


Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 9:58am

Originally posted by reifidom reifidom wrote:

The general public seems to take a Hollywood perspective on an officer's ability to shoot under various conditions and ranges. Hitting a frantic man in the leg is much more difficult than hitting that same man in the torso. It's easy to say how they should have fired after the fact, but I'd imagine you have to take the sure shot when the cards are down and lives are on the line.

And I just LOVE IT when people like this have bipolar suggested in the news as the cause of their actions. Whether or not it's true it just makes my life so much easier. Maybe now people will be scared of me for a few days.

I have to agree with you 100% on this one.

Law Enforcement is taught to shoot to kill, becuase a wounded man can still detonate a bomb just as easy as a unwounded man.



-------------


Posted By: WGP guy2
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 10:14am
Originally posted by reifidom reifidom wrote:

The general public seems to take a Hollywood perspective on an officer's ability to shoot under various conditions and ranges. Hitting a frantic man in the leg is much more difficult than hitting that same man in the torso. It's easy to say how they should have fired after the fact, but I'd imagine you have to take the sure shot when the cards are down and lives are on the line.

And I just LOVE IT when people like this have bipolar suggested in the news as the cause of their actions. Whether or not it's true it just makes my life so much easier. Maybe now people will be scared of me for a few days.


To my understanding they shot him in the head as trained.


Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 10:29am
I would find it hard to believe that Air Marshalls are trained to shoot headshots. The possiblity of overpenetration through a suspects head is very likely, and the possiblity of the round going through the suspect, and damaging the pressure hull of the aircraft is to great for them to risk a headshot. A pressure hull penetration would make life very uncomfortable for those onboard the aircraft.

-------------


Posted By: Liquid3
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 10:40am
I'm confused as to why this is a debate. Picture you and your family were there and then tell me about how they should have taken half an hour deciding what to do and checking him out. This is a prevention problem. He should never have been allowed there in the first place.  Once he was and did that, it's all over.


Posted By: reifidom
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 10:44am
Originally posted by WGP guy2 WGP guy2 wrote:

Originally posted by reifidom reifidom wrote:

The general public seems to take a Hollywood perspective on an officer's ability to shoot under various conditions and ranges. Hitting a frantic man in the leg is much more difficult
than hitting that same man in the torso. It's easy to say how they should have fired after the fact, but I'd imagine you have to take the sure shot when the cards are down and lives are on the line.
And I just LOVE IT when people like this have bipolar suggested in the news as the cause of their actions. Whether or not it's true it just makes my life so much easier. Maybe now people will be scared of me for a few days.


To my understanding they shot him in the head as trained.


All the news said here was that they shot him, shooting to kill, and that he died later of his injuries. I'm not sure just where they shot him.

And Liquid, what do you mean by he never should have been allowed there in the first place?

-------------



Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 10:58am
Liquid means he shouldn't be allowed to travel because he was crazy. That is wrong, we do live in a country where we are free to travel where we please so pretty much be his statment no retard, or other mentally incompetant fool should be allowed to leave his house.

-------------


Posted By: reifidom
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 11:02am
I'm bipolar and am sometimes off my meds for periods of time that have me suffering the effects again, but I travel just fine. I can't say how bad it was for him.

I wouldn't want to be confined to my house when I don't have my medicine. Crazy people do crazy things, but "sane" people do some really, really stupid and crazy things too.

-------------



Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 11:10am

So true, that is why the Air Marshalls were justified in shooting the guy. What else would they do if you ran down the jetway, screaming "I've got a bomb"



-------------


Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 12:17pm
Originally posted by Snake6 Snake6 wrote:

I would find it hard to believe that Air Marshalls are trained to shoot headshots. The possiblity of overpenetration through a suspects head is very likely, and the possiblity of the round going through the suspect, and damaging the pressure hull of the aircraft is to great for them to risk a headshot. A pressure hull penetration would make life very uncomfortable for those onboard the aircraft.
It is my understanding the Air Marshals utilize Frangible ammuntion for this very reason.


Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 12:25pm
Exactly Shorty. It smashes to dust on impact with a hard surface, and in soft tissue, as the added effect of making pudding out of someone's internals. Know if they're using glaserB's or regular frangibles?


Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 12:43pm
Originally posted by rednekk98 rednekk98 wrote:

Know if they're using glaserB's or regular frangibles?
No clue. I also cannot verify whether they use frangible rounds at all, it's just a guess... as post 9/11 the debate over frangible round use came up again. Not sure which way they went... frangible, or HP.
Air Marshalls back in the 70s/80s did not use Frangibles. They used .38s with hollow points. Emphasis was on training and hitting your target, rather than worrying about missing and hitting the aircraft interior.
These days... not sure. It's not public knowledge (for good reason).


Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 12:45pm
They made the right decision, just like in London.

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">


Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 12:54pm
Originally posted by ShortyBP ShortyBP wrote:

Originally posted by rednekk98 rednekk98 wrote:

Know if they're using glaserB's or regular frangibles?
No clue. I also cannot verify whether they use frangible rounds at all, it's just a guess... as post 9/11 the debate over frangible round use came up again. Not sure which way they went... frangible, or HP.
I'd heard on the news that they are using frangible bullets. Messy stuff to get hit with. Also, have you heard much about blended metal ammunition? I don't know if military lawyers have approved it, but civilian contractors in Iraq seem to love it. I guess it solves all sorts of problems. Peirces body armor, but breaks up in flesh, works great in 5.56mm, even in short barrels. Just haven't heard much about the accuracy.


Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 12:57pm
Peirces armor, but breaks apart in flesh. That doesnt seem right to me.

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">


Posted By: The Guy
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 1:19pm
Awesome, I bet TSA is taking some heat for this one,letting that one slip through the scanners.

and the answer is no Dave, they can't go back and look at the scans unless the screener took a screenshot.


-------------
http://www.anomationanodizing.com - My Site


Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 1:21pm
Originally posted by rednekk98 rednekk98 wrote:

Also, have you heard much about blended metal ammunition? I don't know if military lawyers have approved it, but civilian contractors in Iraq seem to love it. I guess it solves all sorts of problems. Peirces body armor, but breaks up in flesh, works great in 5.56mm, even in short barrels. Just haven't heard much about the accuracy.
By LeMas?
Wicked, wicked, WICKED stuff!
Pistol rounds are especially impressive (not saying the rifle rounds aren't). I am thoroughly impressed by the technology, and would like to see it in the hands of our troops... but knowing the way Da Gubmint works... I'd be very surprised if it's issued any time soon.


Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 1:33pm
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/bullets/ - Armed Forces Journal
Apperantly the rifle ammunition is quite different in design from the pistol stuff. Digging around on the net for more info at the moment.


Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 1:39pm
Thats really really cool.

Does N.A.T.O. Have anything negative to say about these bullets? They seem a bit cruel.

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">


Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 1:39pm
Originally posted by rednekk98 rednekk98 wrote:

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/bullets/ - Armed Forces Journal
Apperantly the rifle ammunition is quite different in design from the pistol stuff. Digging around on the net for more info at the moment.
Well, that was back in 2003! I didn't hear about blended metal ammo until 9 months ago. And as far as I know... it's still dead in the water.
My guess... the dimwits down the street at the Pentagon won't start expressing interest in it, until we face an adversary that uses it themselves. At which point, we'll be playing "catch-up".

And no... pistol stuff is just as effective.


Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 1:40pm
Well doesnt the government have current contracts they must fullfil with bullet manufacturers before they can switch over to blended technology?

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">


Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 1:43pm
Originally posted by DBibeau855 DBibeau855 wrote:

Well doesnt the government have current contracts they must fullfil with bullet manufacturers before they can switch over to blended technology?
Nope. Government has contracts for ammunition, but can develop, purchase and utilize anything new. The contracts are not exclusive. Sam needs 250,000rds of 5.56, company A bids on it and wins. Sam still buys those 250k rounds... but can buy 250k of something else whenever he wants, so long as he has the funding.


Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 1:43pm
   Again, taser? What if this guy would have been part of a 9/11 style conspiracy? We shoot him in the head instead of asking him questions and the other 7 guys on the other 7 planes don't freak out and actually do blow up the planes. That would be our fault. I know those guys prolly thought they were all gonna get blown up and wounding the guy would have allowed that but stick him with 100k volts or whatever and I guarentee he wont be operating any switches. Then we could have sent him off to Saudi Arabia for questioning. After all WE don't torture.

-------------



Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 1:50pm
Actualy if you shock someone the chances of them setting off an explosive is much higher. The musseles contract and you make a fist, electricity forces all your muscles to involentarily contract.

Also tasers are subect to range and acuracy problems. You cant always whip out a taser and use it.

So Shorty, what do you think the hold up on this new ammo is?

Well, .Ryan, you are half right, in our inteligence centers, officialy, we cannot torture, US soldiers are bound by the same laws no matter where they are deployed. CIA assets employed by the CIA and NSA are a completely different matter though..

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">


Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 1:55pm
Well, if it is similar to the pistol ammunition, I can see why it'd be illegal. The pistol stuff has a nylon ball in the base of the bullet, making it lighter weight with the weight foreward. Nylon wouldn't be easily detectable in the human body. I guess when it hits something hard the nylon compresses, but in something softer it's allowed to break up. That is, IF it's like the pistol bullets. Otherwise maybe the same effects can be reached with actual powdered metals and still be legal. I also assume one of the things that facilitates it's killing power is the fact that since these bullets are typically very lightweight(37gr. in a 5.56mm) the 3600fps velocity might have something to do with really blasting the crap out of soft tissue. Wonder if the long range accuracy hold up though?


Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 2:00pm
My only thing is that these might be ileagle because they cause unessesary suffering.

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">


Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 2:12pm
Originally posted by .Ryan .Ryan wrote:

    Again, taser? What if this guy would have been part of a
9/11 style conspiracy? We shoot him in the head instead of asking him
questions and the other 7 guys on the other 7 planes don't freak out
and actually do blow up the planes. That would be our fault. I know
those guys prolly thought they were all gonna get blown up and wounding
the guy would have allowed that but stick him with 100k volts or
whatever and I guarentee he wont be operating any switches.


Originally posted by DBibeau855 DBibeau855 wrote:

Also tasers are subect to range and acuracy problems. You cant always whip out a taser and use it.
Range, accuracy, and concealability. And if you MISS... you're done. You don't get a second chance.

Have you seen the size of a Taser unit? NOT something you can hide under a shirt.
Air Marshalls are plain-clothes. They have to blend in with the rest of the passengers on a plane. Cannot do that with a Taser unit bulging from your side.

In an ideal world... there would be a more "humane" means of subduing a suspect.

But in an ideal world, such suspects and such threats wouldn't exist.

You make the threat, you get taken down... and not pretend taken down, not taken down nicely... just taken down. There is no compromise.

As for questioning... yeah, it'd be nice. But if the choice is between: risk blowing up civilians and risk not being able to question this guy IF he knows something... guess which choice is chosen?

Bomb threat is not something you take lightly, nor is it something you take CHANCES on. You want less people killed by air marshalls? Tell them not to make bomb threats.


Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 2:14pm

This whole case leaves me sick to the stomach.  I don't see how the Air Marshal could have done anything different, yet it seriously bothers me that this guy essentially got shot for missing his meds.

There has got to be a better way - I just don't know what it is.

Ugh.



-------------
[IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg">


Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 2:20pm
Originally posted by Rambino Rambino wrote:

There has got to be a better way - I just don't know what it is.
Disallow ANY carry-on items, make people wear flip flops issued to them at check-in and subject them to full X-ray screening.

Or, have God swoop his hand over the land and cast away any person that would commit a terror action, therefore eliminating any threat and thereby any need for security measures.

Otherwise... stuck with guys in Hawaiian shirts with concealed handguns.


Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 2:20pm
It seems like we have no choice. On one hand, i think it could have been avoided if the airline was aware of this mans condition. But that brings in privacy issues. This to me seems like a slow moving train. Very scary looking, unavoidable and unstoppable. There wasnt much anyone could have done.

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">


Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 2:26pm

Originally posted by ShortyBP ShortyBP wrote:


Or, have God swoop his hand over the land and cast away any person that would commit a terror action, therefore eliminating any threat and thereby any need for security measures.

I like this plan.  Surely somebody here has the Pope's cell number and can ask him to get right on that.

 

(Actually, it just occurred to me that God is a regular poster here.  We should set up a special prayer thread with special requests.  That would expedite things.)



-------------
[IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg">


Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 2:29pm


Are you sure you want this man casting away people at a whim??



Hes so.. scary looking. The late Pope John Paul II was much more friendly looking.

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">


Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 2:31pm
What do you expect a former Hitler youth to look like?


Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 2:33pm
That's what we need.

Benedict is nice to those that deserve his kindness... but that scowl is needed to send terrorists to beyond.

He don't mess around.


Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 2:34pm
A shorter chubbier version of hitler i suppose. With leiderhossen.

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">


Posted By: HOInfantry
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 3:04pm

Originally posted by DBibeau855 DBibeau855 wrote:

My only thing is that these might be ileagle because they cause unessesary suffering.

 

Hey,

Please, do not take this as a pointed or direct attack at you, it's a serious question because, as we all know, it is difficult to convey all emotions and intents via typing:

Are you stating this as a simple fact or legality (or illegality) or are you arguing against the use of these rounds because they cause unneccessary suffering?

Thanks.

Hell's Oracle, Semper Fi



-------------
"HO is right..."

- Procarbinefreak


Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 3:06pm
Well i was under the understanding that certain rounds, weapons and munitions are banned by NATO. I was thinking that our government may be dragging its feet in pushing these rounds into service because they are or would cause a controversy.

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">


Posted By: HOInfantry
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 3:12pm

Originally posted by DBibeau855 DBibeau855 wrote:

Well i was under the understanding that certain rounds, weapons and munitions are banned by NATO. I was thinking that our government may be dragging its feet in pushing these rounds into service because they are or would cause a controversy.

Hey,

Okay, cleared up. Thanks.

If you had personal moral objections (if) to them, I'd simply say...Terrorists sawing off someone's head causes unneccessary suffering that is...purposless as well as being completely illegal and immoral in any way I look at it.

Good luck!

Hell's Oracle, Semper Fi



-------------
"HO is right..."

- Procarbinefreak


Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 3:13pm
I have absolutely no moral objections to them. If we have a round that can drive through a car and hit you in the butt then kill you. With just one shot, i say we need to use them.

But this is also a double edged sword. If a kid gets hit with this. He wont survive it.

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">


Posted By: NotDaveEllis
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 3:15pm
According the paper the AM's shoot Sig Sauer's with Hollow Points, not sure if you guys solved that one yet


Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 3:19pm
Not NATO. Hague Convention of 1907. And this may be one reason why no interest in their deployment has been shown.


Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 3:20pm
Originally posted by NotDaveEllis NotDaveEllis wrote:

According the paper the AM's shoot Sig Sauer's with Hollow Points, not sure if you guys solved that one yet
Us? Solve anything?

Man. You expect US to solve anything?   We can barely tie our own shoes.


Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 3:20pm
Originally posted by ShortyBP ShortyBP wrote:

Not NATO. Hague Convention of 1907. And this may be one reason why no interest in their deployment has been shown.


Thats what i was thinking of. Thats my hunch as well.

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">


Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 3:29pm
Originally posted by DBibeau855 DBibeau855 wrote:

Originally posted by ShortyBP ShortyBP wrote:

Not NATO. Hague Convention of 1907. And this may be one reason why no interest in their deployment has been shown.


Thats what i was thinking of. Thats my hunch as well.
So this limits full scale issue.

However, it's the ruling of JAG that the conditions set by Hague apply only to warfare against an opposing nation's armed forces. NOT to terrorists. JAG has issued statements allowing BTHP use by snipers, and JHP in SOG handguns (SOCOM .45s for example).

Therefore, I STILL see promise in blended metal use by specialized units in theater.

Maybe not full-issue to every foot soldier and use in every campaign... but using it for current operations in Afghanistan and Iraq by specialized units seems like it would still cut the mustard, in my eyes.


Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 3:33pm
So because they have no uniform, no rank and serial number and no nation to fight for. We can use these munitions.

I suppose the same goes for torture and interogations and such.

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">


Posted By: NotDaveEllis
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 3:34pm
Originally posted by ShortyBP ShortyBP wrote:

Originally posted by NotDaveEllis NotDaveEllis wrote:

According the paper the AM's shoot Sig Sauer's with Hollow Points, not sure if you guys solved that one yet
Us? Solve anything?

Man. You expect US to solve anything?   We can barely tie our own shoes.


Thats why I get them sweet velcro shoes, so i can win the race


Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 3:35pm

Keep in mind, though, that JAG is the military.  They are entitled to their opinion, but they are not the ultimate authority on what the Hague Convention means.  To the extent that international law exists, JAG is the equivalent of defense counsel.

From what I have read, the rest of Hague interested parties (or at least most) do not agree with the US interpretation of the applicability thereof.



-------------
[IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg">


Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 3:35pm
Originally posted by NotDaveEllis NotDaveEllis wrote:

Originally posted by ShortyBP ShortyBP wrote:

Originally posted by NotDaveEllis NotDaveEllis wrote:

According the paper the AM's shoot Sig Sauer's with Hollow Points, not sure if you guys solved that one yet
Us? Solve anything?

Man. You expect US to solve anything?   We can barely tie our own shoes.


Thats why I get them sweet velcro shoes, so i can win the race


I actualy went shoe shopping the other day. And while i was in the store i realized that i hadnt actualy had to tie my shoes in about 3 years..

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">


Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 3:45pm
Originally posted by Rambino Rambino wrote:

Keep in mind, though, that JAG is the military.  They are entitled to their opinion, but they are not the ultimate authority on what the Hague Convention means.  To the extent that international law exists, JAG is the equivalent of defense counsel.


From what I have read, the rest of Hague interested parties (or at least most) do not agree with the US interpretation of the applicability thereof.

Right. Making me delete what I was gonna say.


Posted By: Badsmitty
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 4:27pm
Originally posted by Rambino Rambino wrote:

This whole case leaves me sick to the stomach.  I don't see how the Air Marshal could have done anything different, yet it seriously bothers me that this guy essentially got shot for missing his meds.

There has got to be a better way - I just don't know what it is.

Ugh.

I agree.  I am also wondering how many other terrorists have come running yelling "I've got a bomb?"

I think that anyone who finds this whole event satisfying is sick.



Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 4:30pm
Same as crying fire in a theater. Terrorists do have catch frases they like. Be it i have a bomb or Allah-hu-akbar or whatever.

Hes dead, this isnt a problem we need to fix. End of story.

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">


Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 4:35pm
Originally posted by Badsmitty Badsmitty wrote:

I agree.  I am also wondering how many other terrorists have come running yelling "I've got a bomb?"
I think that anyone who finds this whole event satisfying is sick.
I'll bet you there have been a few (back when hijacking for demands and not so much intentional immediate suicide bombers of today).

And I would hope no one finds this event satisfying.

I do not come out of this with any good feelings, and I wholeheartedly sympathize for the man, and ESPECIALLY for his wife who had to witness everything. I will not even begin to say that I can fathom her anguish.
However, at the same time, I will not fault the Air Marshall. Will not.


Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 4:36pm
Poor woman saw that right in front of her eyes. Thats nuts.

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">


Posted By: Sammy
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 4:49pm
Originally posted by The Guy The Guy wrote:

Awesome, I bet TSA is taking some heat for this one,letting that one slip through the scanners.

and the answer is no Dave, they can't go back and look at the scans unless the screener took a screenshot.


What did they let through the scanners? He didn't really have a bomb and they can't stop him because he is bi polar...

-------------


Posted By: djrock
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 4:50pm
All I read in this was thread was the words left wing. All I am gonna say is GO CONSERVATIVES!!!

-------------

It's been changed jackass.


Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 4:53pm

Originally posted by djrock djrock wrote:

All I read in this was thread was the words left wing. All I am gonna say is GO CONSERVATIVES!!!

You perhaps do not realize this, but your post, combined with your sig, spells out in large letters:  "I R A SHEEP"

 



Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 4:53pm
Originally posted by djrock djrock wrote:

All I read in this was thread was the words left wing. All I am gonna say is GO CONSERVATIVES!!!

You are killing america.

-------------



Posted By: djrock
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 5:09pm
You can't say all Republicans are bad just because we have a bad one in  office right one. Look at John McCain, I wouldn't mind seeing him run for president.

-------------

It's been changed jackass.


Posted By: Sammy
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 5:12pm
Originally posted by djrock djrock wrote:

You can't say all Republicans are bad just because we have a bad one in  office right one. Look at John McCain, I wouldn't mind seeing him run for president.

She didn't say that..

-------------


Posted By: djrock
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 5:14pm

Go threaten to kill someone for all I care.

Republicans keep winning. I am sorry that liberals can't run winners.



-------------

It's been changed jackass.


Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 5:15pm
I feel like I'm only hearing one half of a conversation...


Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 5:58pm
Yeah seriously. He even admits he didn't read anything but the title of the thread. Anyways, yeah it's a crappy situation, but I can't fault the Air Marshal. From what I understood he had said something about a bomb, they tried to question him, and he bolted for the terminal, refused to stop, and tried to reach into his bag. No news reports I have heard said he started raving about a bomb while running for the terminal.


Posted By: Kristofer
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 6:09pm
The Air Marshal did the correct thing. Actually. I think he should have shot the guy a couple more times to be positive. better safe than sorry right.


Posted By: Hairball!!!
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 6:09pm
Originally posted by DBibeau855 DBibeau855 wrote:

My only thing is that these might be ileagle because they cause unessesary suffering.


I have an issue with that.

If it's more lethal, doesn't that cause less suffering? Not specifically for these rounds, but for example the NATO-issue 5.56 rounds the military uses. They go straight in, maybe straight out. Not very powerful. Now take an FN 5.7mm round. Goes in, tumbles, does tons of damage.

If the target dies on the spot, is that more humanitarian than being wounded and surviving for a while in a make-shift hospital that probably doesn't have the proper medication or tecniques to treat the wound?


Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 6:18pm
Seriously. We can't pretend normal bullets aren't designed to tumble and cause a maximum amount of damage without actually being expanding bullets. Yugoslavian 7.62x39mm ammunition has much better terminal ballisics than the Russian stuff. Why? With it's flat base and lead core, it starts tumbling faster in tissue. The origional M193 5.56mm ammunition fragmented and tumbled like crazy, and even the M855 stuff supposedly will fragment in flesh. An excellent example is the Russian 5.45X39mm round fired by the AK-74 family of rifles. It has a hollow tip under a guilded steel jacked, and a steel core with a lead plug sitting on top of it, when it hits something, the lead plug comes off the steel core, shifting the weight foreward at the same time the nose bends one way or the other. The results are that it tumbles like crazy and can be shot into your stomache and come out your neck. The Afghans used to call these "poison bullets" and were so awed by what the Russians did to them with it, captured AK-74 rifles where prized posesions.


Posted By: Badsmitty
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 6:20pm

Originally posted by Kristofer Kristofer wrote:

The Air Marshal did the correct thing. Actually. I think he should have shot the guy a couple more times to be positive. better safe than sorry right.

Hawdcore...



Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 6:33pm
I was under the impression that frangible rounds were illegal because it makes it nearly impossible to determine what gun shot the round.

-------------
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo


Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 7:31pm
Originally posted by usafpilot07 usafpilot07 wrote:


I was under the impression that frangible rounds were illegal because it
makes it nearly impossible to determine what gun shot the round.
Don't think so. I'm fairly sure I can purchase frangibles, and have considered doing so for home defense rounds, but decided since I have a brick house that JHP would be fine.

Plus, in the context of this thread, it would be government use of frangible rounds. So even if they were illegal for civilian use, Fed agent on-duty is exempt.


Posted By: goodsmitty
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 9:07pm

It's a great day in America. I'm glad he's dead. They should have shot his crazy wife also. That's what they get for coming north of the border in the first place. Probably terrorists anyway. He probably had a small pox bomb wired to his brain waves so that he couldn't be shot.

God bless George Bush, Shawn Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and all of the other conservative combat heros.

God bless America.

Amen.



-------------
"Reading this thread, I'm sad to say that the only difference between the average American and the average Taliban is economic status."
-Zesty



Posted By: Sammy
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 9:11pm
Originally posted by goodsmitty goodsmitty wrote:

It's a great day in America. I'm glad he's dead. They should have shot his crazy wife also. That's what they get for coming north of the border in the first place. Probably terrorists anyway. He probably had a small pox bomb wired to his brain waves so that he couldn't be shot.

God bless George Bush, Shawn Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and all of the other conservative combat heros.

God bless America.

Amen.


I lol'd.


-------------


Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 9:18pm

That would be a hard one to explain to the flight people....

"Look, I am off my meds, in a few hours, I am going to go nuts. Whatever you do, dont shoot me. Whatever I say, I dont have a bomb.."



-------------



Posted By: djrock
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 9:27pm

You guys mind if a conservative interups you conversation?



-------------

It's been changed jackass.


Posted By: borntopaint
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 9:29pm
Originally posted by usafpilot07 usafpilot07 wrote:

^^ I agree, you have to look at what these men have put upon their shoulders.  They are tasked with the job of preventing another 3,000 dead because of a terrorist(s) on a plane.  That means responding to every threat with an appropriate amount of force, even to empty threats.




DEVILS ADVOCATE: what if a bomb had been attached to the man's pulse for the sole purpose of making him too important to kill, therefore the officer's shot would have detonated the bomb....would the blame fall on the marshall?


Wouldn't the blame be on whoever attatched the bomb to the mans pulse?


-------------


"I normally refrain from conversation during gestation."


Posted By: Badsmitty
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 9:30pm
I prefer Glaser Safety Slugs when shooting the mentally ill.  You gotta be careful though, because the mentally ill are sometimes armed with frangible lithium tablets and other high caliber anti-psychotic medication.  We're talking maximum double tap in the ten ring with a triple axel guaranteeing triple tens from the judges.  I'm getting a gun rack for my Neon.  I once killed a gopher with a stick.


Posted By: djrock
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 9:50pm

[QUOTE=Badsmitty]I prefer Glaser Safety Slugs when shooting the mentally ill.  QUOTE]

I prefer not shooting Americans that are mentally ill.



-------------

It's been changed jackass.


Posted By: Kristofer
Date Posted: 08 December 2005 at 9:54pm
Originally posted by goodsmitty goodsmitty wrote:

It's a great day in America. I'm glad he's dead. They should have shot his crazy wife also. That's what they get for coming north of the border in the first place. Probably terrorists anyway. He probably had a small pox bomb wired to his brain waves so that he couldn't be shot.


God bless George Bush, Shawn Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and all of the other conservative combat heros.


God bless America.


Amen.



Damn Straight! But isnt it Sean? Anyway, Damn Straight!

But the rule must be. 5 in the chest. 2 in the head.


Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 09 December 2005 at 7:50am
badsmitty, If you are saying that the Marshall shouldn't have shot him, what would you suggest we have done? Stopped him and questioned him?

-------------


Posted By: Jim Paint
Date Posted: 09 December 2005 at 10:22am
Originally posted by DBibeau855 DBibeau855 wrote:



Are you sure you want this man casting away people at a whim??



Hes so.. scary looking. The late Pope John Paul II was much more friendly looking.



We need him to lead troops into batle.
 

-------------



saepe fidelis


Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 09 December 2005 at 10:47am
lol

-------------


Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 09 December 2005 at 10:53am
Originally posted by Jim Paint Jim Paint wrote:


Originally posted by DBibeau855 DBibeau855 wrote:



Are you sure you want this man casting away people at a whim??


Hes so.. scary looking. The late Pope John Paul II was much more friendly looking.



We need him to lead troops into batle.
�<!--
var SymRealOnLoad;
var SymReal;

Sym()
{
window.open = SymWinOpen;
if(SymReal != null)
     SymReal();
}

SymOnLoad()
{
if(SymRealOnLoad != null)
     SymRealOnLoad();
window.open = SymRealWinOpen;
SymReal = window.;
window. = Sym;
}

SymRealOnLoad = window.onload;
window.onload = SymOnLoad;

//-->



Well he does sort of. The popes job is to protect the church from itself.

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">


Posted By: Trogdor2
Date Posted: 09 December 2005 at 11:25am
Originally posted by Tae Kwon Do Tae Kwon Do wrote:

Originally posted by NotDaveEllis NotDaveEllis wrote:


Chicago Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts)Wed Dec-07-05 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #146
170.

Yes, lets stop, collaborate and listen, check the scanning images, who knows if they can even do that, let alone do that in a split second time between when the man reached into his bag and the decision to fire was made
.

http://langstroth.net/images/vanilla_ice.jpg -


That was the first thing I thought of when I read that.


-------------
Something unknown is doing we don't know what. That is what our knowledge amounts to. - Sir Arthur Eddington


Posted By: cadet_sergeant
Date Posted: 09 December 2005 at 11:28am

Originally posted by Cedric Cedric wrote:

Originally posted by djrock djrock wrote:

All I read in this was thread was the words left wing. All I am gonna say is GO CONSERVATIVES!!!

You are killing america.

I suggest you stop drinking the leftist cool-aid they serve at Connecticut University. The sooner the left condemns John Kerry, the ACLU, and Nancy Pelosi the better. They have takin the framers intentions out of context, and are ruining the moral fiber that has held this country together since the Civil war. BTW why did democrates vote to keep parts of the Patriot act? o yeah thats right because its works. John needs to watch his words calling our solders terrorist by terrorising woman and children in the middle of the night. ACLU is just dumb supporting partial birth abortions, not wanting sex offenders to have to register, filing law suits againt the boy scouts. what kinda crap is that?

and befor i forget Howard Dean

"We need a special task force of anti-terrorist troops stationed in the Middle East, because we're going to have to deal with Zarqawi for a long time."

hey Dean what did Clinton do to inteligence in the middle east? o thats right he got rid of ALL of them. during the Clinton/gore administration we had no informants in the middle easy the number of arib speaking CIA member was reduced my 70%. why? because Clinton didnt want American inteligence to rely on osomas top lieutenants for vidal information. so yes Dean i agree with you that we need anti-terrorist groups in the middle east, but we whould have all ready had them if Clinton had not done away with them in the first place.



Posted By: Rico's Revenge
Date Posted: 09 December 2005 at 1:01pm

I wanna be a cowboy...

Things never change, some idiot screams "bomb" and get HIMSELF killed and people want to blame conservatives and Bush.  

Hmmm... maybe it was a plot all along to make the moron into a martyr to make Bush look bad?



Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 09 December 2005 at 3:05pm

This thread really is filled with an amazing number of knee-jerk non-sequiteurs...

Quite amusing, really.  It's like everybody is having their own little conversation.



Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 09 December 2005 at 3:10pm

Now THIS is interesting.

Alpizar Didn't Say 'Bomb', According to Passengers
By CURT ANDERSON, AP

http://twx.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v5336530%2at%3B20556744%3B0-0%3B0%3B11655760%3B2321-160600%3B13281220132991161%3Bu%3DF351D39856E6AA22%3Bdcg%3D40800a%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp://www.inphonic.com/r.aspx?R=aolio&p=Sony+Ericsson+Z520a+Video+Phone&c=Cingular+Wireless&refcode1=q405&refcode2=topnewsart160z520bt" target=_blank> MIAMI (Dec. 9) - The airline passenger shot to death by federal marshals who said he made a bomb threat was agitated even before boarding and later appeared to be desperate to get off the plane, some fellow travelers said.

One passenger said he "absolutely never heard the word 'bomb' at all" during the uproar as the Orlando-bound flight prepared to leave Miami on Wednesday.

Federal officials say Rigoberto Alpizar made the threat in the jetway, after running up the plane's aisle from his seat at the back of the jetliner. They opened fire because the 44-year-old Home Depot employee ignored their orders to stop, reached into his backpack and said he had a bomb, according to authorities.

Alpizar's brother, speaking from Costa Rica, said he would never believe the shooting was necessary.

"I can't conceive that the marshals wouldn't be able to overpower an unarmed, single man, especially knowing he had already cleared every security check," Carlos Alpizar told The Orlando Sentinel.

Some passengers said they noticed Alpizar while waiting to get on the plane. They said he was singing "Go Down Moses" as his wife tried to calm him. Others said they saw him having lunch and described him as restless and anxious, but not dangerous.

"The wife was telling him, 'Calm down. Let other people get on the plane. It will be all right,"' said Alan Tirpak, a passenger.

Some passengers, including John McAlhany, said they believe Alpizar was no threat to anyone.

McAlhany, a 44-year-old construction worker who was returning home from a fishing trip in Key West, said he was sitting in Seat 21C when he noticed a commotion a few rows back.

"I heard him saying to his wife, 'I've got to get off the plane,"' McAlhany said. "He bumped me, bumped a couple of stewardesses. He just wanted to get off the plane."

Alpizar ran up the aisle into the first-class cabin, where marshals chased him onto the jetway, McAlhany said.

McAlhany said he "absolutely never heard the word 'bomb' at all."

"The first time I heard the word 'bomb' was when I was interviewed by the FBI," McAlhany said. "They kept asking if I heard him say the B-word. And I said, 'What is the B-word?' And they were like, 'Bomb.' I said no. They said, 'Are you sure?' And I am."

Added another passenger, Mary Gardner: "I did not hear him say that he had a bomb."

Officials say there was no bomb and they found no connection to terrorism.

Witnesses said Alpizar's wife, Anne Buechner, had frantically tried to explain he was bipolar, a mental illness also known as manic-depression, and was off his medication.

The National Alliance on Mental Illness called on the Air Marshal Service and other law enforcement agencies to train officers if they don't already in responding to people with severe mental illness.

Others said Alpizar's mental health didn't matter while marshals were trying to talk to him and determine if the threat was real.

Shooting to maim or injure - rather than kill - is not an option for federal agents, said John Amat, national operations vice president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, which includes air marshals in its membership.

"The person was screaming, saying he would blow up the plane, reaching into his bag - they had to react," Amat said.

"The bottom line is, we're trained to shoot to stop the threat," said Amat, who is also a deputy with the U.S. Marshals Service in Miami. "Hollywood has this perception that we are such marksmen we can shoot an arm or leg with accuracy. We can't. These guys were in a very tense situation. In their minds they had to believe this person was an imminent threat to themselves or the people on the plane."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the two air marshals appeared to have acted properly when they shot to kill.

Both air marshals were hired in 2002 from other federal law enforcement agencies and were placed on administrative leave, said Brian Doyle, spokesman for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Miami-Dade Police were investigating and the medical examiner's office was performing an autopsy on Alpizar, who was from Costa Rica but became a U.S. citizen years ago. He lived in Maitland, an Orlando suburb.

Neighbors said the couple had been returning to their home from a missionary trip to Ecuador. Buechner works for the Council on Quality and Leadership based in Towson, Md., a nonprofit organization focused on improving life for people with disabilities and mental illness, the organization said in a statement.

David Stempler, president of the Air Travelers Association, said he thinks the shooting may prove more "reassuring than disturbing" to the traveling public his organization represents. "This is a reminder they are there and are protecting the passengers and that it is a seriously deadly business," he said.

Armed police boarded the aircraft after the shooting, with some passengers in hysterics. McAlhany said he remembers having a shotgun pressed into his head by one officer, and hearing cries and screams from many passengers aboard the aircraft after the shooting in the jetway.

"This was wrong," McAlhany said. "This man should be with his family for Christmas. Now he's dead."

Associated Press writers Andrew Bridges, Mark Sherman and Lara Jakes Jordan in Washington; Mike Schneider and Travis Reed in Orlando; and Jessica Gresko and Tim Reynolds in Miami contributed to this story.

12/09/05 10:10 EST

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press.
 


-------------



Posted By: Whazuuup!
Date Posted: 09 December 2005 at 3:10pm
Edit: ^^^hmm, very interesting development. They never said whether any passengers did hear "bomb" though. I'm kinda thinking it may just be selective interviewing.

I agree with Rambino. The marshall acted correctly, but it's still very unfortunate.

Rico! Haven't seen you in a long while. Are you gonna post about your paintball weekend this monday? I'm looking forward to it.

-------------

http://ipods.freepay.com/?r=20098193 - Free ipod! Yay!



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2021 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net