Terror in Florida
So they decided to shoot him dead. Certainly, I wasn't there and don't really know what went down, but still - isn't this quite ridiculous? They say that before he ran off the plane he "uttered threatening words that included a sentence to the effect that he had a bomb." As he ran off, his wife chased him, screaming that he was mentally ill. "Witnesses said his wife, Anne, frantically tried to explain he was bipolar, a mental illness also known as manic-depression, and was off his medication." As he ran out of the airplane through the jetway, he "appeared to reach for his bag," which is when the marshals shot him about 5 times.
This in essence is one of my largest difficulties with the Bush administration - the assumption that might makes right. Why isn't killing this guy the last resort? How about trying to shoot him in the leg, then if he continues to reach into his backpack after screaming on the floor, then shoot the arm that's reaching in. That at least gives some miniscule benefit of the doubt to the guy, to his wife, to the security that x-rayed the bag and checked him out before he got on the plane. Why end his life? Why destroy the lives of his family and friends? This is how we deal with any threat? Or better put - this is how we deal with any presumed threat? - like Iraq. We thought they might have weapons of mass destruction, even though the inspectors were saying they hadn't found anything and needed more time. We thought this guy might have a bomb in his backpack, even though the x-ray security didn't show anything and his wife is telling us that he's acting erratic because he's mentally ill.
The man was from Puerto Rico, and was a U.S. citizen, having lived in the States for over 20 years. He was returning from a missions trip to Ecuador. As he ran off the plane, his wife yelled after him in Spanish and in English. Would this man have been shot if he were white? Would the marshals have been more likely to believe his wife? Would they have been less suspicious of the man? Would their actions have been halted by the thought of the horror of killing an innocent, white American?
We have chosen death, not life. We have sided, because we have that luxury, with destruction of the weak rather than with empathy and aid. To the shame of our nation, democracy has not been heeded. Instead, the powerful wield their will with swords. To the shame of the church, we have reveled in our power, mistaking it for blessing, not realizing that our "security" comes at the cost of the death of innocent people both here and abroad.
This man's death comes from decisions that have been made at the top of the power structure. Destruction is not the necessary answer to threat. We have over-reacted to our 9/11 wound, justifying any action as self-preservation. Not even the death of over 2,000 American soldiers (with an additional 20,000 wounded) and the death of approximately 27,000 civilians in Iraq have made us second-guess our approach to threats. The threat has not diminished. The 9/11 commission still warns that it is not a matter of "if" but of "when."
I have seen no out pouring of sympathy for this man and his family. The news treats him as an incidental casualty of the war. Democracy means more than freedom; it also means that we are all implicated in this man's death.
12 comments:
I wasn't there either, but from my past inklings to be in law enforcement I might understand why the marshals shot the man. if you are using a gun the only reason is to kill. If you don't believe you might need to kill, you try other means: negotiation, physical restraint, pepper spray, tazer, whatever. If the situation is such that other innocents could be killed if the person threatening them is not killed than you shoot to kill.
That being said, it is just sad. it's a tragedy. it's crap. For the family and friends of the man who was shot. For the people who witnessd it. For the men who shot him and their families. I envy none.
It could have all been so different. The Marshals could have used non deadly force. the man could have taken his meds. the pilots could have shown up drunk and the whole flight been canceled. It just sucks.
I don't think blaming W for the whole thing is not quite right. I really don't give him that much credit. I expect the great white satan to be someone a little more clever maybe. A someone who doesn't have to have the speech that was written for him explained to him afterwords sort of fellow.
something like that maybe.
i don't know.
You said the marshals could have used non-deadly force, but they didn't. And that is one of my points. They didn't because they weren't taught to. And that teaching comes from someone higher up than them.
I see it as a microcosm of the larger problem that exists in the Bush administration. I've been against the war in Iraq from the beginning and against the one in Afghanistan as well.
My point is that militarism has been taken too far. There is a philosophy of militarism in this country at the current time, and that comes from the top. Bush did his best to convince the nation that war was the answer to our hurt over 9/11. And I disagree with that.
btw-
i appreciate your opinion, and i think it is a very valid one.
i don't think there is anything wrong in your reasoning or view of what happened.
in fact, parts of me agree with you and say that what i wrote is an over-reaction. and maybe it is. maybe i'm just ticked that no one seems to have taken this man's death seriously. just like no one stops to mourn when we here than more soldiers were killed today in iraq - or worse (since they chose nothing like this) that more innocent iraqis died. it seems, however, that there is a reason that we don't mourn his death. and the clearest reason i see in the news and such is that we think he is simply an unfortunate casualty of the "war on terror," which by the way seems to have no boundaries or rules or compassion.
to be slightly rediculous to make a point, the guy who was shot could have taken his meds and not caused the shooters to have to live the rest of their lives knowing they killed a man who might have totaly innocent and just mentaly unstable.
I don't think that these situations have only been happening for the last 5 or 6 years either. I thik it's a little more like the shark attacks in florida a couple of yeas ago where, if you believed the media, there was an epidemic of man eating sharks happening. Turned out that the number of shark attacks was no higher than any other year, the media had just found a something to sell its ads with.
Don't get me wrong, I think W has helped carry the american handbasket a little closer to a warmer climate, I just think there are a lot of people to blame and he is just part of the larger problem.
The bigger problem being the fact that there are no In n' Outs in oregon. i blame the hottentots.
point well made,
except there were no marshals on nearly every flight 5 years ago.
That was a decision that was made, and I'm guessing there was a similar decision not to carry tazer guns or something like that. I think there was unnecessary force used. That force is not necessarily traceable to George W., but from my vantage point it certainly mirrors W's policies of if you're not for us then you're against us. That's a sad, and unneeded dichotomy.
btw - i have great sympathy for the marshalls. They were in a crappy situation, like you said, and I don't think they necessarily did anything wrong. They may not have had a choice, which is the very reason that I look up the chain of command. Someone somehwere does have a choice.
Thanks for hearing me.
I hear you too.
hey-
what's this?
I don't want the niceness. I need somebody to argue with me. You know that!
oh yeah!!!
I really meant that i hear you being a left wing bleeding heart commi and think you ought to keep your thought fodder in your twinkie hole!
how's that!? ;)
T. Basselin said...
hey-
what's this?
I don't want the niceness. I need somebody to argue with me. You know that!
Well... as long as you’re pitching, I'll take a swing.
Let me start out by saying that is was quite unfortunate that this man had a loss of ability to control his actions at this particular time. However, what is sadder is that while he was out of control, he used the “B” word.
I have a friend who is an active Air Marshal. He puts his life at risk every day when he boards a plane. He is on that plane for one reason. To ensure that any threat made against that aircraft or its occupants is neutralized. He does carry non-lethal weapons and has been trained in hostage and threat negotiation. 99% of incidents are handled by these means, but you don’t often hear about them in the media. However, once someone claims to have a weapon of mass destruction (Bomb), even if they "uttered threatening words that included a sentence to the effect that he had a bomb.", the negations cease. For the most part, after threatening to have a bomb, the only way to come out alive is to comply with the instructions of the Marshall. They MUST assume that the threat is valid and that if they do not prevent the device from being detonated, that they are responsible for the life of everyone within the potential blast radius.
By not complying with the Marshal’s orders and making a motion toward his backpack, they no longer had a choice. A tazer or (insert non-lethal weapon of choice here) could easily active or detonate a bomb. These men had no choice but to shoot him.
It is sad that this mad in dead. I am truly sorry for his family and loved ones.
However, he all but committed suicide by making a bomb threat and not complying with the law enforcement agents that were attempting to diffuse the situation. There was no time for this man to be psychologically evaluated, and no weight could be given to his wife’s claims that he was mentally ill. She could have just as easily been a co-conspirator.
-WJ
Hey Buddy!!
How's it all?
I agree with pretty much everything you said in your reply, and as I said in one of my replies to E.U., I don't really think the air marshals did anything wrong. What I'm questioning is the logic behind it all.
I admit, after much badgering from my friends (thank you), that I over-stated my case. I knew I was doing that in the beginning. It was a rant and was meant to stir the pot a little. Mostly, though, I wanted to let off some steam. I agree with what you said, Wayne, but I still have very strong reservations that this isn't the ONLY way to deal with the same situation.
For the rest of my thoughts, see my new blog.
my new blog entry that is
Post a Comment