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'!