I'm just saying that 30 years ago there were diseases/viruses/conditions etc that we didn't know about that are today widely accepted, and it stands to reason that if more research/funding went into ADD (like with HIV and AIDS) that we'd know more about it....and possibly it would be widely accepted.

So, you believe EVERYTHING you read and state it as the "facts"? Why am I not surprised by this? Did you happen to stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night too?

BTW, during 911, one of the terrorists said he had a bomb strapped to his chest while the others used knives to slit the pilots throats. It's too bad no one was able to "subdue" the bomber so they could "subdue" the other terrorists with... oh that's right... they used everything on the first guy. Good luck with that one. And it's also a shame that when they subdued him, he released his fingers from the "trigger device" and it blew everyone up just like it would if he was shot.

You just a fucking moron plain and simple you have no clue and I am sorry for you. Happy day.

While what you say has merit, it doesn't hold water. What would you have done in that situation, armed with the same exact equipment that the airmarshal had? This BS tactic of playing the "what if" game is great on a message board, but the facts stand against your reason, not with it.

A distressed person was shouting he had a bomb on a plane in a post 9/11 America. The air marshall had his physical body, probably some cuffs, maybe pepper spray, and a gun. You would have the same equipment in the same situation. Which would you use? All but the gun, you have to get close, maybe too close, and to late? Pepper spray, doesn't effect half the people the way that you may think... so what should he have done? Try to talk him "down"? The tragedy is evident either way, but one man dead over a plane full, in this situation, with the equipment and judgement afforded the air marshall at the time......

Just to add, the london incident was much more callous. the guy was avoiding arrest, but he wasn't yelling he had a bomb, he wasn't on a plane.... etc... apples and oranges....

Dammnit!

Are we back on topic?

I was enjoying the other argument!

.....

OK, I'll bite.

I think that shooting a bomber is a good solution, depending on circumstances. ESPECIALLY if he is standing somewhere where minimal collateral damage is likely.

Why would they subdue him? That will just get the air marshalls killed when he detonates it.

Yeah - all of that subdue stuff assumed the plane was in flight, or at least that the bomb was in the plane, etc.

What? I thought this was over with. Okay... here's the 411:
Again, post 9/11, the Int'l Assn of Police Chiefs had a good idea. Based on the question, 'faced with a bomber... now what?' they thought to base police procedure on the physics associated with a suicide bomber type bomb. Smart so far. Well, professors at Yale & the US Naval Postgrad school undertook experiments and to quote them, "the conclusions were quite unexpected". Here,you read:

"It turns out that very few people are killed by the concussive force of a suicide explosion; the deadly weapon is in fact the shrapnel . The explosions, though, are usually not powerful enough to send these projectiles all the way through a human body, which means that if your view of a suicide bomber is entirely obscured by other people at the moment of detonation, you are much more likely to escape serious injury. Because of the geometry of crowds a bomb set off in a heavily populated room will actually yield fewer casualties than one set off in a more sparsely populated area; the unlucky few nearest to the bomb will absorb all of its force."
further (sorry, more reading):
"calculations demonstrate that causeing people near the bomber to scatter or hit the deck would make things worse - as a packed crowd ran away from a bomber or dropped to the ground, the circle of potential victims around him would get wider and thus more populous, and more lives could be lost."
So, according to both the Pentagon findings (shooting a bomber is more likely to cause a detonation than not); and the Police Chief Assn findings (don't tell people to hit the deck) the air marshall's actions were 100% wrong.
But don't feel bad, because DESPITE all the studies proving to the opposite, you know what the 'powers that be' decided? Get this:
"The International Association of Chiefs of Police issued guidelines this year suggesting that police officers who find a bomber in a crowd should fire shots into the air".
I feel safer! how about you?

Chew on this for awhile...

Do you really have a clue or you just guessing here?

Because nothing you say is accurate. The air marshall acted correctly. You seem to be the only one who disagrees. We all agree it was tragic but he acted on the information given to him at the time.

Your armchair quarterbacking sucks. Stick to your day job.

Yeah - sounds like the marshall should have made the passengers get out of the plane, and surround the bomber, so that their bodies would absorb the damage, saving the other people still in the plane, etc....then, standing in an, um, airport, he fires his weapon into the, um, air, which would doubtless cure the bomber of his chemical imbalance, and lead him to disarm immediately.

Nothing scares a suicide bomber like shots fired into the air, making him think he's going to be shot next...and as he's obviously going to be standing there threatening to blow himself up, he obviously doesn't want to die, and will immediately surrender to the authorities.

etc.