Never cry wolf

[LoneWolf16]

Actually thats good. It was used in early surgery for it's effects although in some cases it left a fully aware patient completely paralyzed but still able to feel the full effects of surgery which could not have been at all pleasent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's...nightmarish. But somehow really interesting too.

[Blank]

"He was flying with his wife, who during the incident ran frantically after him, allegedly shouting that he was bi-polar and had not taken his medication."

 

poor lady couldn't keep pace with her husband. that, or her frantic screaming was unintelligable.

Edited December 8, 2005 by Blank

[Judge Hades]

So, how do we mark this up? How can we make sure this sort of tragedy doesn't happen again? Should lethal force be the first and foremost answer in situations like these or should the Marshal service try a different approach next time. I never like the idea of lethal force being the first and only option.

Edited December 8, 2005 by Hades_One

[Reveilled]

Well, the mobile phone thing came into use, I believe, mostly because it's difficult to get cellular cervice above a certain altitude, and also because airlines wanted to encourage the use of their skyphones.  As far as other electronics go...it's pure overcautiousness or another motive that I have yet to deduce.  There's no way your Walkman's going to interfere with the instruments.  If it did, why aren't you more worried about getting onto a plane in the first place?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What I had heard was that the transmission frequencies of a mobile phone interfere with the connection between the plane and Air Traffic Control. As I remember, a month or two ago there was some trouble because new advances in Air technology mean phones will no longer interfere, and as a result mobile phones would become usable on plane flights, which the CIA apparently wasn't happy about, and so is seeking to have them banned on flights by Federal Law.

[tarna]

I don't fancy tasers myself. Aren't they basically single-shot?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. They have an replaceable head that can be changed out in 3 seconds if you're quick. If you just pop the firing head off the taser becomes and extremely high voltage shock stick. Same voltage but now you have to 'reach out and touch someone' . It was the 15 foot range that made me favour it for my daughter. I wanted that extra distance between her and some goon. Police models fire up to 25 feet BTW. Those aren't allowed for civilians ( Right! Watch me " ).

[Surreptishus]

My knowledge of tasers is miniscule, but from what i know i dont think you need to reload or whatever. Once the barb is in can't you just keep frying the target from a comfortable distance?

[Gabrielle]

No Tazers or other forms on nonlethal force. As I said about my reason why.

 

Lethal force should be used in a situation like this. It saves on dollars being spent in court for convicting the terrorist and expenses for keeping the creep alive in jail.

 

But the problem there is you will have fools like this person who gets themselves killed. But sacrifices have to be made for the greater good of the whole.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Blank]

...

 

Don't you "..." me young man!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...

[Child of Flame]

<uncalled for backhander>

[tarna]

My knowledge of tasers is miniscule, but from what i know i dont think you need to reload or whatever. Once the barb is in can't you just keep frying the target from a comfortable distance?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You only need to reload if you have to 'shoot' a second person. When the taser hits a target, it delivers @ 5 seconds of charge and then stops or about 10-15 seconds. After that, it discarges again until turned off. When fired, the trigger locks into the on position. I told my kid that if she ever uses it, to drop it and go have a cigarette. If he's done twitching and smoking when she comes back, he's about done.

 

 

BTW-Tasers dump several hundred microdots when fired. These contain colour and hexadecimal codes that identify the purchaser ( assuming you allowed the purchase to be registered of course ).

[tarna]

So, how do we mark this up? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Evolution in action.

[LoneWolf16]

...

 

Don't you "..." me young man!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, well.......you.........................you just....................shut up.

[LoneWolf16]

No Tazers or other forms on nonlethal force.  As I said about my reason why.

 

Lethal force should be used in a situation like this. It saves on dollars being spent in court for convicting the terrorist and expenses for keeping the creep alive in jail.

 

But the problem there is you will have fools like this person who gets themselves killed. But sacrifices have to be made for the greater good of the whole.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Seems a tad bit extreme.

 

And why do costs factor in when we're dealing with human life?

 

I say shoot them AFTER you find out they're an actual terrorist.

[Blank]

[merciless lethal force] seems a tad bit extreme.

 

And why do costs factor in when we're dealing with human life? 

 

I say shoot them AFTER you find out they're an actual terrorist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah man, like this:

 

Marshal1: are you a terrorist!?

terrorist: Muhama Jihad!

Marshal2: hey, i liked that movie too.

terrorist: MUHAMA JIHAD!!!

Marshal1: does that mean he's a terrorist?!

Marshal2: oh, well, i don't know...

 

terrorist explodes and kills everyone on the airplane

THE END

 

Definitely sounds like a good idea to me...

[SteveThaiBinh]

If this were a real (suicide) terrorist, he wouldn't have run around saying he had a bomb, he would just have detonated it. The 'Air Marshall' would have been unable to stop him. This is why 'shoot-to-kill' policies are wrong and unnecessary. The hypothetical situation of the terrorist with his finger on the trigger who needs to be taken out immediately doesn't occur in practice because there's little chance the 'Air Marshall' would spot him and no reason for the terrorist to reveal himself before the attack. If you put armed men on planes with a shoot-to-kill policy, the result is dead innocent people, as we have just seen. There will probably be more.

[Blank]

If this were a real (suicide) terrorist, he wouldn't have run around saying he had a bomb, he would just have detonated it.  The 'Air Marshall' would have been unable to stop him.  This is why 'shoot-to-kill' policies are wrong and unnecessary.  The hypothetical situation of the terrorist with his finger on the trigger who needs to be taken out immediately doesn't occur in practice because there's little chance the 'Air Marshall' would spot him and no reason for the terrorist to reveal himself before the attack.  If you put armed men on planes with a shoot-to-kill policy, the result is dead innocent people, as we have just seen.  There will probably be more.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ah, good point and very true. HOWEVER, if you look at the 9/11 terrorists you see that they weren't just trying to blow up the airplane with a bomb, but they ended up taking the planes to crash into somewhere instead. a marshal with a gun would've been helpful there.

 

but how an actual terrorist could get into a situation where it is "shoot-to-kill" for the marshals and they have time before the terrorist does anything is hard to conceive of. and also i think only innocents will die, since as you said you couldn't spot them in time anyway, so all agreed here

[alanschu]

Actually thats good. It was used in early surgery for it's effects although in some cases it left a fully aware patient completely paralyzed but still able to feel the full effects of surgery which could not have been at all pleasent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

How can someone be completely paralyzed, yet feel everything?

[Surreptishus]

Stopping motor functions but not tactile senses? A guess

[alanschu]

Well, then that wouldn't truly be paralyzation then would it?

 

 

Speaking of paralyzation, it's a cool/bizarre feeling. I remember getting my wisdom teeth pulled and they froze my jaw...it was wierd looking into a mirror touching my jaw and not feeling it at all! I needed that mirror to drink the gingerale they gave me, otherwise I'd just spill it everywhere :D

 

To the topic at hand, I do disagree with a shoot-to-kill policy. The man had a mental disorder and killing him because of it isn't far off from euthanasia now is it?

 

 

Speaking of which, I thought you were generally in favour of extreme reactions Hades. Weren't you the one that openly stated that you supported simply dropping nuclear weapons on terrorist nations?

[Blank]

To the topic at hand, I do disagree with a shoot-to-kill policy.  The man had a mental disorder and killing him because of it isn't far off from euthanasia now is it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

it is so far off from euthanasia. you know what euthanasia is right?

"Bringing about a gentle death in the case of an incurable or painful disease."

#1 how is shoot-to-kill gentle?

#2 the man was not killed because he was mentally ill. the marshals were not Hitlers, they killed the man because they believed he was a terrorist, and they had no idea until afterward that he was mentally ill

[Musopticon?]

You didn't get it.

[alanschu]

#2 the man was not killed because he was mentally ill. the marshals were not Hitlers, they killed the man because they believed he was a terrorist, and they had no idea until afterward that he was mentally ill

 

Now imagine that YOU are a parent of someone that develops a mental illness...

 

Or care for someone that has one...

 

 

Imagine if you were that person's spouse....

Edited December 9, 2005 by alanschu

[Commissar]

If you put armed men on planes with a shoot-to-kill policy, the result is dead innocent people, as we have just seen.  There will probably be more.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He wasn't innocent. Claiming to have a bomb in an airport or on an airplane is very much a crime.

[Commissar]

Speaking of paralyzation, it's a cool/bizarre feeling.  I remember getting my wisdom teeth pulled and they froze my jaw...it was wierd looking into a mirror touching my jaw and not feeling it at all!  I needed that mirror to drink the gingerale they gave me, otherwise I'd just spill it everywhere :D

All I remember from getting my wisdom teeth pulled is going completely under, and then waking up at home vomiting more blood than you could imagine. It was like a horror movie.

 

To the topic at hand, I do disagree with a shoot-to-kill policy.  The man had a mental disorder and killing him because of it isn't far off from euthanasia now is it?

He wasn't killed because he had a mental disorder. He was killed because he claimed to have a bomb in an airport. Someone (I think Steve) made the point that if he really had a bomb, no one would've found out until it was too late. I disagree. He might've not been an al-Qaeda-related terrorist, and even if he had been, those guys aren't always the slick international operators who do everything right. They've screwed up on a lot of stuff, this could've just been another example.

 

As it is, I think it's a fine testament to why people with psychiatric problems need to remember to take their medication, and why those who are in charge of caring for them need to be on the ball.

[Calax]

um on the decompression thing from a few topics back. No you wouldn't get sucked out into the sky from a window being blown open. everything that was light and not nailed down would. and your ears would start bleeding because the pressure change was too fast... this would probably also give all the passengers a serious case of the bends too. Then if they were to keep flying there wouldn't be enough o2 content in the air for the passengers to breath regularly. Thus the little yellow facemasks drop.

 

on the subject of tazer vs shoot to kill... A tazer if it missed would probably have a higher chance of accidently messing somthing up in the aircraft. I mean your sending 75,000 volts through an aluminum airframe... I don't think that's going to do much good.