Please Forgive My Total Ignorance

Ignoring the right and wrong of the shooting at the Miami Airport and whether or not the word bomb was ever uttered I have to ask; is it generally a good idea to discharge a firearm in the direction of a suspected bomb? Isn't there a possiblity that the bomb could be struck by a bullet and detonated?

Again, I'm not interested here in the actions of anyone involved I'm just looking for a techical explanation. Any explosives experts out there?


Chris

I think all the rationalizations they have for shooting that guy are just a case of CYA. (Cover your ass).

But I don't understand why people who are *Democrats* and part of an *Underground* are so into promoting these rationalizations.

question, but welcome to DU, chrisau214! :toast:

Glad to be here. Although I can't really claim to be all that new. I just don't post a lot because most of what I would say has already been stated. I don't like to be redundant.


Chris

are operating under the assumption that the plane is going to be blown up anyway or used as a weapon and crashed. They are trained to take head-shots to kill immediately. No negotiations like in the old days.

then this makes a certain amount of sense. But they weren't on the plane when the weapons were fired.


Chris

- where they went for the head as they suspected him of having a bomb. Even though this man had left the plane, he could have still run back towards it or gone into the crowded terminal - both would have endangered hundreds.

There is no negotiating with anyone making threats on or near an airplane or airport these days - for obvious reasons.

remember that there wasn't even a bomb on 9/11.

the whole idea that this was a terrorist situation didn't add up, and trained professionals should have recognized that.
for starters, even assuming he did say bomb and was claiming to be the one who had it, why didn't he do this in the air? why did he run OFF the plane? why did he ANNOUNCE that he had a bomb instead of just blowing it up?

why not wait for him to announce his ransom demands? why not ask to see the bomb? if he announced that he had a bomb, that implies he wanted people to know about the bomb.

if he's set on blowing it up regardless, then he wouldn't announce that he had a bomb, he'd just set it off.
if he was using the bomb as a threat of some kind, then he would have had demands.


'shoot first whenever you get nervous' is not very good training. i hope the training is more comprehensive than this and that this was just an unfortunate situation involving two air marshalls that didn't handle the situation according to protocol.

if that is the policy, then you are in MUCH more danger from the air marshalls than from any terrorists.

- was to knowingly take an unbalanced man who had been without his meds on an airplane.

I don't think it was fear that motivated the shooting. It was threat. This man was obviously unstable and was making threatening actions. Law enforcement has to make split second decisions - they don't have the time to ask all the why's and how's and what if's. The marshal's options sucked - he could either lose one person or possibly lose a whole plane or terminal full of people.

It's more than sad how it turned out BUT what if the marshal had done nothing and this guy was rigged and detonated, taking out 20-30 or so innocents with him? What would we be saying now if that had occurred?

The only way to have prevented this tragedy would have been for that man to have never gotten on that plane in the first place or to have simply taken his meds as prescribed.

unless there's a court order involved, he's legally able to make his own decisions and his wife couldn't have prevented him from getting on the plane. yes, she probably could have talked him out of it, but she obviously thought he could handle it. and she never could have imagined that the penalty for guessing wrong would be death.

but bottom line, would the situation have played out any differently if the had been no wife in the saga at all? what if he had been travelling alone, or with a business partner or someone else who didn't know (or didn't know enough) about his condition?

he still would have freaked out and those air marshalls still would have shot him.


also, you're framing is a false choice. if it comes down to one dying or many dying, fine, shoot the one. but that framing is only valid if you have good evidence that that's the choice. as it turned out, the choice was between one dying and zero dying.

how were they do know? THAT'S WHAT ALL THE TRAINING IS FOR. they are supposed to be able to assess the situation and evaluation the risk.

now, if the guy had DYNAMITE strapped to his belly and wires and a button, THEN i'd have far more sympathy for shooting the guy (although even still, i'd want to be very sure there was no dead man's switch, e.g.) but the fact is, he was armed only with a backpack.


imagine, if you will, that all this had been done by a 5 year old. air marshalls see a 5 year old run up the aisles and yell 'bomb'. would shooting the kid be ok? of course not. because it doesn't add up that this is a terrorist attack if the word 'bomb' is coming from a 5 year old. air marshalls' training should teach them to pick up on clues like that to assess whether or not the risk is real and imminent.

Or had become suddenly violently ill? Blaming humans for having human ailments is not enough to whitewash this screw up. This was just wrong, for so many reasons, including the fact that it would have been wrong if really had had a bomb too.

It's starting to sound like london.

say that the man was RIDDLED with bullets. That seems to me to be a little more then a head shot?

but I'm waiting for the investigation.

That's why they go through so much training. They could have hurt a lot of people by 'panicking'.

YOU are the first I've seen to bring up this important point. Perhaps you ought to post more often!:-)

(IMHO the marshal panicked, shot and everything else is excuses.)

He was fleeing for his life, not from the Marshals but from the bomb he perceived to be on board.

my own brother (bipolar paranoid schizophrenic with delusions) did something almost identical to this situation. fortunately, it was on a bus, not a plane, and when the police came they didn't shoot him.

what my brother said was that the lights on the dashboard were part of a bomb, but not to worry because he knew how to diffuse it and he would save everybody.


i can understand mental illness can cause sufferers to FEAR that they might be a VICTIM of a terrorist attack.

i cannot undertstand mental illness that can cause sufferers to think that they themselves are the terrorist.

if the guy mentioned 'bomb' at all, he probably thought he was an intended VICTIM of a terrorist attack. that's 1000 times more plausible than the notion that he thought he was suddenly a terrorist.

absolutely right- and i never realized the connection. I've known several BP folks- and am PTSD/BPII myself- and i've not once seen anyone desire to be a terrorist- rather, even those who were violent, were responding to the threat they percieved was being brought against them- or out of absolute 'spur of the moment' frustration and rage- (you can't produce a bomb spur of the moment)-

I think you stumbled onto something really crucial here Unblock- a bomb requires alot of pre-planning- it's not something a person in a paranoid delusion would use to protect themself. Running away- picking up anything nearby as protection, that sort of thing, but ..a bomb??? uh, don't think thats very likely-

And one would think that if indeed this man was a 'terrorist' who DID have a bomb- shooting him would have been very unwise- If the bomb was on him it would most likely have detonated it- if it was placed somewhere, they wouldn't be able to ascertain where after the guy was DEAD-

first, there might not be a bomb at all. the guy might be delusional, mistaken, drunk, or playing a very very stupid, sick joke.
second, even if there IS a bomb, the guy shouting 'bomb' might just be another intended VICTIM, who happened to have spotted the bomb and freaked out.
third, even if there is a bomb and the guy WAS the terrorist, shooting at him could set it off or cause him to set it off. think dead man's switch or clutch reflex.
fourth, even if there is a bomb and the guy was the terrorist and shooting at him doesn't set it off, he might have an accomplice who would set it off if any of them get shot.
fifth, even if there is a bomb and they was the terrorist and shooting at him doesn't set it off and he has no accomplice, he might be the only one who knows WHERE the bomb is or HOW to diffuse it.


personally, i think he freaked out. maybe he thought there was a bomb, maybe he even said 'bomb', maybe not. in any event, he clearly created an incident and the air marshall treated it like an incident and tried to take control of the situation.

so far, so good.

then, the guy didn't comply with their instructions to get down, so the air marshalls, in turn, freaked out and shot him.

if their training taught them to shoot anyone who doesn't comply with their instructions, then their training need some serious revamping. deaf people, non-english speakers, mentally ill people, mentally challenged people, heavily medicated people, etc. all might have difficulty following shouted orders in an emergency situation.


damn the banana republicans and their damn culture of FEAR that makes people GROSSLY overestimate the actual risk.

folks, the odds of you being the victim of a terrorist attack are AMAZINGLY low and EVEN WITH someone running off a plane and even shouting the word 'bomb', your odds of being the victim of a terrorist attack are STILL EXCEEDINGLY REMOTE.

should we be on the lookout? sure. but a little perspective might have proved useful in this situation.

very well thought out and reasoned.
I wish those who support the shooting would take the time to address each of your points. I also would sincerely hope that the people involved in the training of these officers would address each of these points, because it is not evident they have.
:thumbsup:

There's nothing like murdering an innocent, panicked passenger to get a cowed and fear-ridden populace to toe the line. Absolutely every way that this was handled and publicized in the media has been perfect for creating fear and public compliance - including the ethnicity of the victim.

... and 30-40% of DUers happily cooperate. :puke:

... would be some form of military plastique that wouldn't be detonated by a bullet. You can use a huge chunk of C-4 for target practice but until a detonator is used, it won't explode.

Nonetheless, the FAMs overreacted. This homicide should have never happened.

Thanks for the information.

It still seems like a big assumption though. Until they knew what kind of bomb was being carried I would think that it was wise to err on the side of caution. Couldn't a bomb be something as simple as a container of gasoline?

Again, my technical knowledge of explosives is pretty much nil. I've watched a couple episodes of MacGuyver but beyond that...


Chris