"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 18:25:50 -0500, *JimH* wrote:


Bang-bang. Dead man. He got what he deserved.

Interesting choice of words for this tragedy. The shooting may have been
justified, but there is no way this man "deserved" killing.



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

Bang-bang. Dead man.

*JimH* wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

thunder wrote:

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 18:25:50 -0500, *JimH* wrote:



Bang-bang. Dead man. He got what he deserved.

Interesting choice of words for this tragedy. The shooting may have been
justified, but there is no way this man "deserved" killing.



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

Bang-bang. Dead man.


Might be time to forward some of your posts to the Arch Bishop of your
diocese.

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

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. 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.

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.

"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


Different guidelines than a cop. But with the amount of suicide bombers in
the world, and after 9/11 and the guy with the shoe bomb, would be very hard
to get all 12 jurors to say you are guilty. If you come up with a couple of
creditable witnesses, even a mediocre lawyer could get you off.

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

wrote in message
ups.com...
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


In this day of suicide bombers, both out of the country and in the country
(9/11 WTC, the young man outside the football stadium) You are going to more
likely believe a statement of someone that they have a bomb, than think 'Oh,
he is just kidding'!

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.