On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:17:33 +0000, Bill McKee wrote:


He very much could have had a bomb. Just not able to fire it off. Same
as the guy trying to light the fuse on the shoe bomb. Nuts or not, if you
make a statement that you have a bomb, while on an airplane or public area
with lots of people, I would not fault anybody from shooting the guy in
the head, and killing him very quickly. That includes those with
Concealed Carry permits. Just make sure there are witnesses to the bomb
statement.

Those same witnesses would be testifying against you in court. Air
Marshals operate to different guidelines, and from the little we know of
the circumstances, this shooting was probably justified. However, under
the guidelines of most jurisdictions, this man's behavior doesn't fit a
policeman's guidelines for deadly force, but the guidelines are in debate
as we speak. However, as a civilian, you had better pray for a
sympathetic jury, because you would be facing one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080301867.html

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:17:33 +0000, Bill McKee wrote:


He very much could have had a bomb. Just not able to fire it off. Same
as the guy trying to light the fuse on the shoe bomb. Nuts or not, if
you
make a statement that you have a bomb, while on an airplane or public
area
with lots of people, I would not fault anybody from shooting the guy in
the head, and killing him very quickly. That includes those with
Concealed Carry permits. Just make sure there are witnesses to the bomb
statement.

Those same witnesses would be testifying against you in court. Air
Marshals operate to different guidelines, and from the little we know of
the circumstances, this shooting was probably justified. However, under
the guidelines of most jurisdictions, this man's behavior doesn't fit a
policeman's guidelines for deadly force, but the guidelines are in debate
as we speak. However, as a civilian, you had better pray for a
sympathetic jury, because you would be facing one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080301867.html


You're correct about different guidelines. The simplest would be that you
might be handled differently if you said you had a bomb, but were standing
in the middle of a street which could be cleared of potential victims, or
alternately, on an airplane ramp not far from passengers stuck behind you in
the jet and a wing loaded with jet fuel.

Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Can't help jumping in. If he were really intent on killing anybody,
wouldn't his actions
include having a bomb or some kind of weapon?

Seems to me you could say, his actions indicated he either wanted to
scare people,
or was just basically crazy or troubled (off his meds like the wife
said). Mabye the case
could be made that the killing was justified in the name of pragmatism,
but to say that this
guy "deserved" to die seems like a real stretch.

richforman


He very much could have had a bomb. Just not able to fire it off.

Huh? I don't think I follow you - it was reported right away that the
authorities stated he did NOT have a bomb. So again, I just challenge
the statement made previously: that his actions indicate he was intent
on killing anybody. What actions? (From what I've read so far, his
actions indicate to me that either he wanted to make people THINK he
was intent on killing, or more likely that he was just crazy.) Makes
no sense.

I have not weighed in at all on whether or to what extent the air
marshalls' shooting him dead was justified. It probably was, but I
have to admit this kind of thing makes me a bit queasy. I always
wonder if these people are supposed to be SO professional, so trained,
so skilled, if they can't be expected to have ways in their arsenal to
nullify a potential threat without killing essentially innocent people.
I'm also not saying (yet) that the man killed was innocent, but if he
was mentally ill, it would seem that way to me.

richforman

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 13:21:29 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 08:47:48 -0500, *JimH* wrote:


Sure he did. His actions indicated he was intent on killing hundreds.

No, Jim, his actions were *misinterpreted* as indicating he was intent on
killing hundreds. If that was his intention, he would have needed a way
to accomplish it. He didn't, no bomb, no weapons.

Again, the Air Marshals may have been justified in the use of deadly
force, but this man did not "deserve" to be killed.

Kinda like everyone 'misinterpreting' Saddam's weapons and intent? So Bush may have been justified
in his attack, but Saddam really didn't 'deserve' to be attacked?

--
John H

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Wishing you Peace, Fellowship, and Good Humor as we celebrate the birth of OUR Lord, Jesus Christ on the Christmas Holy Day.

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 13:23:56 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 08:47:48 -0500, *JimH* wrote:


Sure he did. His actions indicated he was intent on killing hundreds.

No, Jim, his actions were *misinterpreted* as indicating he was intent on
killing hundreds. If that was his intention, he would have needed a way
to accomplish it. He didn't, no bomb, no weapons.

Again, the Air Marshals may have been justified in the use of deadly
force, but this man did not "deserve" to be killed.


If I were a prosecutor or defense lawyer, Hertvik would be the first
prospective juror I would want removed from the panel.

I would think you'd try to have anyone with an IQ above 80 removed.

--
John H

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Wishing you Peace, Fellowship, and Good Humor as we celebrate the birth of OUR Lord, Jesus Christ on the Christmas Holy Day.

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 13:23:56 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 08:47:48 -0500, *JimH* wrote:


Sure he did. His actions indicated he was intent on killing hundreds.

No, Jim, his actions were *misinterpreted* as indicating he was intent
on
killing hundreds. If that was his intention, he would have needed a way
to accomplish it. He didn't, no bomb, no weapons.

Again, the Air Marshals may have been justified in the use of deadly
force, but this man did not "deserve" to be killed.


If I were a prosecutor or defense lawyer, Hertvik would be the first
prospective juror I would want removed from the panel.

I would think you'd try to have anyone with an IQ above 80 removed.

As the saying goes...
"Do you really want your fate determined by 12 people who were too stupid to
get out of jury duty?"

That is the first thing lawyers do, they want simpletons who they can
manipulate. My guess is Harry has spent a lot of time on juries.

I have never been called. I always look very stern. Give them very short
answers, and I never get beyond the first round.


"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 13:23:56 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 08:47:48 -0500, *JimH* wrote:


Sure he did. His actions indicated he was intent on killing hundreds.

No, Jim, his actions were *misinterpreted* as indicating he was intent
on
killing hundreds. If that was his intention, he would have needed a way
to accomplish it. He didn't, no bomb, no weapons.

Again, the Air Marshals may have been justified in the use of deadly
force, but this man did not "deserve" to be killed.


If I were a prosecutor or defense lawyer, Hertvik would be the first
prospective juror I would want removed from the panel.

I would think you'd try to have anyone with an IQ above 80 removed.

--
John H

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Wishing you Peace, Fellowship, and Good Humor as we celebrate the birth of
OUR Lord, Jesus Christ on the Christmas Holy Day.

"Lord Reginald Smithers" Ask me about my driveway leading up to my manor.
wrote in message ...
That is the first thing lawyers do, they want simpletons who they can
manipulate. My guess is Harry has spent a lot of time on juries.

I have never been called.

I have certain t-shirts in mind to wear in court should I ever be called.

If it's a 4th amendment/illegal search and seizure case:

http://www.iflipflop.com/nosearch_t.jpg


If it's a case of police brutality (a la Rodney King):

http://www.thetshirtgame.com/godblesspolice.gif

http://www.daytonanow.net/warnabrotha/warnabrotha.jpg



And when all else fails:

http://shadow.mediafilter.org/images.../S39madPig.jpg

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 13:23:56 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 08:47:48 -0500, *JimH* wrote:


Sure he did. His actions indicated he was intent on killing hundreds.
No, Jim, his actions were *misinterpreted* as indicating he was intent
on
killing hundreds. If that was his intention, he would have needed a
way
to accomplish it. He didn't, no bomb, no weapons.

Again, the Air Marshals may have been justified in the use of deadly
force, but this man did not "deserve" to be killed.

If I were a prosecutor or defense lawyer, Hertvik would be the first
prospective juror I would want removed from the panel.

I would think you'd try to have anyone with an IQ above 280 removed.

--
Wouldn't that leave you and Hertvik on the jury, i mean, after the mind
meld?


Indeed. :-)

NOYB wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 13:23:56 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


thunder wrote:

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 08:47:48 -0500, *JimH* wrote:



Sure he did. His actions indicated he was intent on killing hundreds.

No, Jim, his actions were *misinterpreted* as indicating he was intent
on
killing hundreds. If that was his intention, he would have needed a way
to accomplish it. He didn't, no bomb, no weapons.

Again, the Air Marshals may have been justified in the use of deadly
force, but this man did not "deserve" to be killed.


If I were a prosecutor or defense lawyer, Hertvik would be the first
prospective juror I would want removed from the panel.

I would think you'd try to have anyone with an IQ above 80 removed.


As the saying goes...
"Do you really want your fate determined by 12 people who were too stupid to
get out of jury duty?"


Don't you consider that as a civic duty?