« Minnesota Moments | Main | Bizarre »
December 08, 2005
In Support of Tasers
Kate's got a good post on the deeper implications of the bipolar passenger who air marshals shot down on an American Airlines flight yesterday. It's hard to fault the marshal -- the dude was charging up and down the aisles claiming he had a bomb in his bag -- but that leaves it all the more unsettling. It's a pity that we're in such a dangerous world that the crazy can be mistaken for the deadly, and dispatched accordingly. That's not to say most would have it any other way, but it doesn't seem totally out of the question to equip air marshals with high-voltage tasers* and shotguns so they've an intermediate step between lethal force and verbal warnings. We have an inventive, ingenious weaponry industry, why don't we call on it?
* And yes, I know tasers can be lethal, just as beanbag cannons can kill. But the difference between a weapon that rarely takes a life and one that's designed to kill on contact shouldn't be elided.
December 8, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/19450/3817690
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference In Support of Tasers:
» Airline Passenger Who Made Threat Killed from Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator
A passenger who claimed to have a bomb in a carry-on bag was shot and killed by a federal air marsha [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 8, 2005 2:08:20 PM
Comments
Sad events. I agree with you in principle that the air marshalls should have non-deadly weapons to use, as well as deadly weapons.
However, there may be mitigating factors: the need to resolve a potentially catastrophic situation with frightening quickness; technological limitations of non-lethal weapons (the need for repeating fire, etc).
Posted by: TJ | Dec 8, 2005 12:34:32 PM
How is a marshal to know which one to use? The reason fleeing criminals are shot at is that we don't know what they're going to do next, but if they're going to risk being shot at, it's probably very dangerous and bad.
Posted by: Sara | Dec 8, 2005 12:46:47 PM
We have an inventive, ingenious weaponry industry, why don't we call on it?
You liberals and your nuance.
Posted by: Shakespeare's Sister | Dec 8, 2005 1:02:34 PM
Those who cry the loudest ususally have the least experience with firearms. Here are some facts:
Handguns are effective means of stopping people, and that is the goal. If there were something more effective, law enforcement would be utilizing the technology. Those who point to tasers, etc., are not aware that they are only sometimes effective (Rodney King footage)and only good for a few feet out. With the lives of 250 airline passengers, no one can afford to sometimes effective and the marshalls must be able to stop targets at any distance. Another whine I have heard is "Why not just wound, and not shoot to kill?". It is hard enough to hit a moving target. Law enforcement and concealed carry license holders are continually challenged and tested on proficiency because they are not as easy to use as one would think from watching Hollywood movies. It takes practice....so much so that handgun use is an olympic sport.
In Kate's post, she seems to want the marshalls to put eveyone else at risk. The guy is screaming that he has a bomb and then reaches for his backpack. These are the people that, if a bomb does go off, will most likely criticize the marshalls, homeland security and ultimately, Bush, for not killing them immediately.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 8, 2005 1:41:24 PM
Man -- everything is partisan with you, isn't it Fred?
Posted by: Ezra | Dec 8, 2005 2:00:22 PM
Man -- everything is partisan with you, isn't it Fred?
I was thinking the same thing about you and your girlfriend. Take a look at just who is criticizing this action by the marshalls and get back to me.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 8, 2005 2:05:29 PM
Two weeks ago, a Corvallis police offer shot a 50 year old, mentally ill man. He died. The man was bipolar, liked to "mow the street" and cast magic spells. He was apparently fine when on his meds. This day he was not on his meds and the police had been notified of his behavior earlier in the day but couldn't find him.
The man was apparently drunk that evening and was allegedly looking for or found illegal drugs. He was carrying some sort of metal pipe (probably casting spells) when the cops responded to a call. The man had apparently taken an offensive posture with the officers, threatening them with the metal pipe. At some point the officers were wrestling with the man but couldn't get him under control. One officer tried to Taser the man, but his thick coat kept the Taser from working. The man allegedly was becoming more aggressive and was taking an attack posture on one of the officers. The other officer pulled his weapon and shot the man FOUR times.
Two officers can't distract and tackle a 50 year old, mentally ill drunk?
There was a trainee officer there also, so that makes three of them that can't handle this situation without shooting a man four times.
I understand these two situations are different, but are officers just to fucking gung ho to shoot?
Posted by: evilchemistry | Dec 8, 2005 2:24:13 PM
Fred, I think the point is to try to do better. Reasonable people will agree that when unfortunate things happen, you have to at least try to see if you can do better. Your disinterest is no surprise, however: you -and your political sty-mates- are famously uninterested in honestly assessing efficacy and examining alternatives.
Posted by: TJ | Dec 8, 2005 2:25:32 PM
Holy shit this sucks. I despise being even near the same side as Fred but I have to say, I am, sort of.
Ezra, I've dropped comments here and there on your stuff since you were over at Pandagon. I'm a staunch progressive. I also have a license to carry concealed weapons, and I do, regularly. All this is just by way of explaining where I am coming from here.
Fred is (fuck this hurts) essentially correct in every aspect. Granted, he's a partisan troll but Ezra, as the old saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
From what I've read on the issue, the Air Marshall did what should have and frankly, I cannot imagine and I mean that in the literal sense, I cannot imagine the weapon that he might have used in place of a handgun. If I was on that plane, again, from what I've read, I would want to happen what happened.
I think the post you linked to of Kate's makes some good points but, in the end, those "we wish things were this way" just are not, so we ahve to address the erality we have, not the one we want. I wish more people had a deeper understanding of mental illness. I wish this person did not need to be hurt at all. But who decides, in a few seconds, who makes this diagnosis and who takes responsbility if they are wrong?
I think the Northwest Security Director that quoted in the end was correct. It was "terrible decision" and it's not that what the Air Marshall decided to do was incorrect, it's terrible he had to decide at all.
Wouldn't it be great if we did possess some kind of Star Trekian, freeze ray that perfectly disabled people without hurting them giving us unlimited time to assess a situation and act accordingly.
But we don't have that and the non-lethal stuff we have now is not appropriate.
One other thing, and I think it's worth mentioning. If you've flown anywhere in the last few years, you have to know this. There are signs everywhere about not joking about bombs or threats. Granted, the person here in question was not rational, but why take someone like that on an airplane knowing that anything could happen? Is there some small responsibility on the part of this person, or his wife?
Thanks.
Posted by: ice weasel | Dec 8, 2005 2:29:54 PM
Take a look at just who is criticizing this action by the marshalls and get back to me.
It's hard to fault the marshal -- the dude was charging up and down the aisles claiming he had a bomb in his bag
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Dec 8, 2005 2:32:51 PM
Reasonable people will agree that when unfortunate things happen, you have to at least try to see if you can do better.
I agree. My point was that the suggestions of non-lethal weapons or 'shoot to wound' are not "doing better". They are doing worse as it puts all at risk. It was a crappy suggestion all the way around. What you don't like is that I don't bite my lip in a Clintonesque way or make my voice tremble when I say this. If it makes you feel better, just imagine all of those things......however, the message, no matter now delivered, remains the same.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 8, 2005 2:46:13 PM
My point was that the suggestions of non-lethal weapons
Fred, non-lethal weapons are not limited to tasers. Note that Ezra even opened up your favorite avenue for solutions: the magic of the free market. Why do you hate capitalism?
Posted by: TJ | Dec 8, 2005 2:55:05 PM
The market is working....it's just that the marketplace thinks your ideas suck.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 8, 2005 3:16:24 PM
I'm with Ezra on this one. Tazers can incapacitate, rarely kill and unlike a shotgun, won't depressurize the cabin (or kill other passengers) if misfired.
The market is working....it's just that the marketplace thinks your ideas suck.
Or maybe the Gun lobby has much too much pull in Washington?
Posted by: Keith | Dec 8, 2005 3:23:58 PM
Okay. Time to jump in. Fred -- I wish your computer would break because you never have anything constructive to say.
My point in my post was to take the episode and talk about mental illness. Ice weasal -- I find your point about how "you wish people knew more about mental illness but that's just how it is" despicable. Just like how we used to wish we knew more about how women were capable of owning property ... but they just can't. Like how we wish we knew more about disabilities but disabled people are clearly retarded so that's just the way it is. You claim to be progressive, but can't understand the idea that things would be better if we understood mentall illness better? And therefore might take things like this and try to learn something from them? This man shouldn't have been on a plane, period.
I wrote my post because I think our country (and most of the world) is very ignorant about mental illness. Why are we all forgetting that an innocent man died here??? If he had physical spasms and that caused him to be shot, wouldn't we think it was terrible? This man had no control over his state of mind once he entered into a manic episode. Now he's dead. That could have been my family member. It's something those of us with loved ones who are mentally ill fear constantly.
I can't say whether the air marshall shouldn't have shot him -- I'm inclined to think that he shouldn't -- but I'm not an expert. What I do know is this man was clearly not getting the treatment he needed, probably shouldn't have been on a plane, and now his life is over. He was married. He worked. That's a tragedy. He didn't need to die.
Posted by: Kate | Dec 8, 2005 4:05:26 PM
Hmmm. As far as I see it, what happened in Florida has absolutely no political angle. I hope we keep it that way.
Posted by: Adrock | Dec 8, 2005 4:15:25 PM
Oops, I guess not.
Posted by: Adrock | Dec 8, 2005 4:17:34 PM
I think its useful to use this as an opportunity to discuss mental illness. But there is a difference between discussing mental illness and discussing this situation. With such limited time and information, an Air Marshall is not bound to first figure out the pysche of a crazed passenger threatening with a bomb. Tragic yes, but from what I know of the situation, there was no other course.
I know a few policemen, and not one of them would enjoy drawing their gun on a citizen, let alone actually firing it, and most certainly not killing them. We have to rest in the faith that we train these people to use lethal force as a last resort. I personally believe that most policemen are responsible.
With all that said, any situation like this is an opportunity to assess these methods and reflect. Outright rejection of alternatives seems to me to be more pigheadedness than reasonableness.
Posted by: Adrock | Dec 8, 2005 4:32:26 PM
Kate, if you wish to make me the bad person you're welcome to try but I think you'll fail. You call me despicable but that doesn't change the reality. Remember, we progs are supposed to be the ones that live in the real world, not the one we wish we had. It doesn't mean, in any sense, that we have to approve of it. I try, every day, to change things for the better. But to pretend that everyone is a mental helath professional and can make a running diagnosis, in the midst of a crisis is, well, a bit detached from reality.
I fought against when reagan turned out the mental hospitals so the mentally could be put on the streets to fend for themselves. And I'll add in, some of those hospitals were fucking horrific. But they were better than the streets for both the patients and "society". I guess I'm being despicable again.
I have to admit, I don't understand this wishful thinking. It's dreadful, as I think I clearly stated, that this guy was killed, apparently only for the reason that he was mentally ill. But it's not the Air Marshall's fault. It's not the gun's fault.
Sorry Kate, I'm horrible, we disagree on much of what you wrote. We do agree on one thing, it was a tragedy.
Keith, I'm sure how much experience you have with tasers. I'm guessing, from your comments, very little. Suffice to say, if someone is claiming to have a bomb in a bag, the last thing I want, as someone stuck in an airplane with them, is the Air Marshall to pull out a taser. No way. It's the wrong tool for that job.
evilchemistry, people are, regrettably human all too often. Some of us are evil. But sometimes they just make really bad judgment calls. I know nothing about the situations you noted but they sound more borderline to me than otherwise. Now, take the Amadou Diallo case, that was a heinous misuse of force and a travesty (just to cite a clear example).
And EC, no question about it, the gun lobby and the NRA have way too much pull. For that matter, so does AARP but that's a tad bit irrelevant.
Posted by: ice weasel | Dec 8, 2005 4:46:55 PM
I don't think every person is a mental health professional at all. And I don't think they should be.
I do think law enforcement (and there's ample evidence for this) can do a lot better in regard to the mentally ill. I'm not trying to pretend that the world is different than it is (and I don't see how anything I said has suggested otherwise) but I do think we can use bad situations to talk about how to make things better. Because it seems to me that this situation was preventable.
Posted by: Kate | Dec 8, 2005 5:04:00 PM
A Taser or bean bag gun or any other less than lethal weapons we currently have would not work well in this situation. The problem being that it doesn't take fine muscle control, or much in the way of overt action to trigger a bomb. So if you Taser him, or shoot him in the leg, it's still quite likely he could trigger a mechanism before the officer can switch to his lethal weapon and firing an aimed shot to kill the individual. It's sad, but the marshall did the only reasonable and currently available thing he could do.
Sara, cops can't shoot fleeing suspects unless they are suspected of murder (the theory being that if they have already show they will kill then they may kill again in an escape attempt). You can't shoot a guy that comes running out of a house with a dvd player tucked under his arms.
Ezra/Fred, their is alot of work in the less than lethal munitions design arena. It's no secret that the police and military would love a weapon that could be used indiscriminately against a crowd with no long term negative effects.
Posted by: alaric | Dec 8, 2005 5:08:44 PM
Ok Kate, how do you think this specific situation could have been prevented?
Posted by: ice weasel | Dec 8, 2005 5:18:48 PM
I can't say whether the air marshall shouldn't have shot him -- I'm inclined to think that he shouldn't...
Let's review...the man is running screaming that he has a bomb and reaches for his backpack. The man needs to be stopped....NOW! I would like to hear why Kate thinks the marshalls shouldn't have shot him.
What I do know is this man was clearly not getting the treatment he needed, probably shouldn't have been on a plane, and now his life is over.
True...and how are the marshalls supposed to know that?
He was married. He worked. That's a tragedy
Indeed
He didn't need to die.
He needed to be stopped.....*IMMEDIATELY*!! I just don't understand her inablilty to grasp the necessity of that....
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 8, 2005 5:52:23 PM
Well for one, Fred, noone other than the air marshals corroborates that he was yelling "I've got a bomb". One passenger said that they heard "I've got to get off", but noone else apparently heard anything. So there is some room for doubt on this issue.
Posted by: TheDeadlyShoe | Dec 8, 2005 6:58:21 PM
I think this specific situation could have been prevented by having this man's illness stable! He shouldn't have been on a plane if he was in that intense of a manic episode. Or he should have flown under special arrangements with the airline acknowledging he was ill and subject to DELUSIONS.
Posted by: Kate | Dec 8, 2005 7:00:58 PM
Kate, I agree with you on that 100%. That man should have never been on that plane or not identified as someone who could behave erratically.
Posted by: ice weasel | Dec 8, 2005 7:37:32 PM
OH bloody hell, I hate to even ask this, but deadly shoe, do you really think the air marshalls made the part about the bomb up? Just as an excuse to smoke this guy? Seems a bit more than far fetched. I'll grant you it's possible. And I'm curious to know why the story hasn't been corroborated (because other passengers won't can't corroborate it or because they haven't asked anyone else?).
Posted by: ice weasel | Dec 8, 2005 7:39:51 PM
"OH bloody hell, I hate to even ask this, but deadly shoe, do you really think the air marshalls made the part about the bomb up? Just as an excuse to smoke this guy? Seems a bit more than far fetched. I'll grant you it's possible. And I'm curious to know why the story hasn't been corroborated (because other passengers won't can't corroborate it or because they haven't asked anyone else?)."
Seems far fetched at first, but that's exactly what the Metropolitan police did when they shot an innocent man on the London Underground after the July bombings. Almost every part of their initial story turned out to be untrue and designed to make them look less culpable for the tragic screw up. I'm not saying the air marshals did make it up, but a) it's a possibility, and b) there are a ton of witnesses to this, so we don't have to rely on their word.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Dec 8, 2005 8:13:11 PM
Yes Ginger you're absolutely right and that was the case that sprang to mind when I started thinking about Shoe's point. Who knows, maybe the whole thing was fabricated. That said, the story, for now, is plausible enough. Until I hear some good reason to think otherwise, I'll keep my tin foil chapeau on its' shelf.
Posted by: ice weasel | Dec 8, 2005 9:54:34 PM
Ezra, I think the problem with tasers is that they are not used as a substitute for lethal force by law enforcement in practice. They are used as a substitute for other non-lethal tactics. There may be a few cases in which police, instead of shooting someone with a gun, shot him with a taser, but I think there are far more cases where they shot him with a taser instead of using physical restraints, pressure points, etc. Have more people's lives been saved by tasers than lost? Maybe, but I don't think it's likely.
Posted by: Julian Elson | Dec 8, 2005 10:48:23 PM
Seems far fetched...
Boy, you really *ARE* a moron...
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 8, 2005 11:15:29 PM
Or maybe the Gun lobby has much too much pull in Washington?
What kind of drugs is Keith on? What in the fuck does the gun lobby have to do with government Homeland Security forces ? The gun lobby is a civil rights lobby for civilians!!
What a maroon!!
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 8, 2005 11:20:38 PM
Just on a side point: if you fire a round through the side of an aircraft, it will not depressurise. Airliner cabins are not completely airtight - there are plenty of (very small) gaps and chinks. The cabin is kept pressurised despite these leaks by the airliner's air conditioning packs. If you put a 9mm or whatever diameter hole in the side, the air conditioning will be able to adapt to cope: it is designed to be able to maintain pressure even if an entire window blows out. The same holds even if you put a round into the controls on the flight deck - there is enough redundancy there to keep the aircraft flying.
Anyway: Fred, the point is that, as it turned out, he didn't need to be stopped immediately. They thought he did, because they apparently thought he had a bomb. But they were wrong.
Now, it seems that the witnesses to the incident divide neatly into two groups.
Group 1 consists of the air marshals - who could be up for murder unless they're judged to have had a good reason for shooting this unarmed man dead. They say that they heard the words "I have a bomb."
Group 2 consists of everyone else present - the passengers. They're disinterested: however it turns out, they certainly won't be facing life in prison. They all say that they never heard any such thing. He was running down the aisle, shouting, "I've got to get out!" followed by his wife shouting "he's sick, he's sick!"
Apparently, according to Group 1, as soon as he left the aircraft, he started saying he had a bomb. And so he had to die.
No one not facing potential murder charges has gone along with Group 1 so far.
Hmm.
Posted by: ajay | Dec 9, 2005 5:55:51 AM
Well, ajay,
That's what the hearings are for. Of course, if it were up to you, these people that we hired, trained and paid to protect us would be swinging from a tree by now. The fact is, the preliminary investigation that interviewed all witnesses has stated that they acted appropriately.
Perhaps you know material facts that no one else knows. Or, perhaps, in a liberal knee-jerk reaction to law enforcement, you wish to second-guess trained peace officers based on hearsay from the comfort of your keyboard. My suggestion would be to wait until you actually learn of some wrongdoing before running your fat mouth and leave the investigation to the professionals. That is what I did with President Clinton and with Tom DeLay and I am better off for it. In both instances, I could have jumped on the bandwagon and looked like the same type of ass you now appear to be.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 9, 2005 9:41:54 AM
That's what the hearings are for. Of course, if it were up to you, these people that we hired, trained and paid to protect us would be swinging from a tree by now.
To borrow from your tired, pathetic shtick:
Where did ajay, or anyone else who's involved with this conversation, say that the federal air marshals deserve to be lynched?
You may put the answer here: ______________________
In case you don't get it (a) stop doing that, the line-thing is lame, even for you, and (b) don't keep attributing insane positions to people simply because they have a different viewpoint.
This is part of a larger problem with you, Fred Jones. Having an opinion is one thing; the way you express it is another. Your bilious expressions of your opinions, and the obnoxiousness with which you shout them are the primary causes of most peoples' distaste for you, here.
There's a better way than writing "Waaaa Waaaaa" and making derogatory references to Amanda Marcotte. Try it, please. Please.
Posted by: TJ | Dec 9, 2005 11:36:27 AM
Wrongdoing? An innocent, unarmed man has been killed by the people who were supposed to protect him. Wrong enough for you?
And I don't lynch people. That's an American habit.
Posted by: ajay | Dec 9, 2005 12:48:24 PM
Boy, you really *ARE* a moron...
*gasp* What a brilliant argument! Ginger Yellow makes a case, citing evidence and precedent, and you respond with...name-calling. Worse, it's unoriginal name-calling that would make a three-year-old on a playground blush with shame.
How pathetic.
Posted by: Linnet | Dec 9, 2005 12:49:49 PM
Shit Fred, and I had to agree with you. You're an ass. Obviously my mistaking for a rational person who makes reasonable arguments was a mistake on my part.
Noww Fred, don't you have some black helicopters to hide from or some Iraqi veteran funerals to protest?
Oh, are those stereotypes?
Damn, that sucks, doesn't it?
Posted by: ice weasel | Dec 9, 2005 2:32:15 PM
Mr. Weasel,
As you have seen, you are a troll here simply because you didn't go with the groupthink on guns. You dared to exercise your God-given and lawful right of self protection. Now you are a "gun nut" that lives in a trailer and beats his wife. That's how it works here at the "Klein Klub". Luckily, you don't disagree with Ezra's minyons on much else
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 9, 2005 4:39:41 PM
Wow Fred, you're right. You've made me see the light. These people don't like me at all.
This completely changes my point of view.
Fred, you're a complete ass.
Posted by: ice weasel | Dec 9, 2005 9:15:53 PM
Yeah....I feel the same about you, too weasel-boy.
However, I must always remind myself that my conservative views are the views of those in charge, and of the voting majority who put them there. Government approved racism in the form of set-asides and race preference, pro-abortion and pro-sodomy and even anti-Americanism are the hallmarks of the liberal agenda, not mine. I stand with the "reasonable man" and you stand with those who attempt to find new and novel definitions of marriage, separation of church and state, gun control and racism to achieve what you cannot win via a democratic process. Always remember who is the outlier, the extremist.....(hint: it's *you*).
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 9, 2005 11:47:56 PM
Equip: Increases healing done by spells and effects by up to 42. Veteran’
Posted by: become a power spell caster | Mar 22, 2008 11:22:21 AM
