You have to be stupid or drunk to claim, aboard a commercial airliner, to have a bomb in your backpack. Especially if you don't have one. You must expect to have guns pointed at you by those whose job it is to keep us safe. You will be neutralized. But how? In light of recent developments in the field of efficient interrogation and detainment techniques, what are your options?
If you are not a seasoned terrorist but a deranged fool or just an imbecile, you might think it's better to get killed by a rifle shot than being transported to an undisclosed location where Vice President Dick Cheney is personally going to pull you toe nails out. You would of course be wrong because the Vice President doesn't get his hands dirty, and dead.
All those who are still alive, and not being tortured, should take a few minutes to contemplate where our world is drifting to. This is the second time in a few months that a person has been killed in public space by law enforcers. Is shooting to kill at a slight suspicion the right response to the dangers that Western civilization faces? And what are the gravest dangers our civilization faces? Whose zeal is more worrying? And what are you going to do when the officer in black calls your name from behind you?
4 comments:
A few days ago in Israel, 2 people died and 50 were injured because an officer didn't shoot and instead tried to restrain someone who was acting very similarly to the man who was shot on the plane. (Those security officers hadn't shot because they wanted to first rule out the possibility that he was deaf rather than a suicide bomber)
Declaring that he had a bomb and refusing to listen to an officer's orders to stop and hold your hands up was not "slight suspicion", it was the officer's last chance to save a hundred lives if he hadn't been lying.
Well, Steve, I certainly invite all the law enforcment officers in the world to shoot at suspects, but I would sleep better if I knew they were trained well enough to pulverize the suspects' shoulders instead of killing outright.
"At some point Alpizar reportedly suggested that he was carrying a bomb in his backpack, before moving his hand towards the bag." BBC
"At that point, he appeared to be reaching into his carry-on bag... the air marshals took the appropriate action and that's when the shots were fired," Homeland Security Department spokeswoman Joanna Gonzalez, as relayed by the BBC
I agree, it sounds like it may have been possible for them to shoot to disable, as he obviously didn't have the detonator in his hands. However, as he was reaching for what he'd declared to be a bomb, there wouldn't be much time to determine if a lesser amount of force would be sufficient. If the shot to the shoulder didn't incapacitate him, he might still have managed to detonate if he'd actually had a bomb.
Of course, there are others (including at least one who had the training) who say the training is too generous as to when to shoot to kill.
I think the most significant dfetail in this case is that the widow blames the fact her husband was off his meds, not the officers, for his death. (At least in all the news reports that I've read, she may have a different opinion privately)
I don't blame the officer either. He did his job. And of course it's easy for me to say, from a distance, that he should have rather targeted the shoulder or the knee or whatever. That wasn't the point of the blog entry, though.
The blog was about two issues that I'm happy to raise again. First, for the second time in not even half a year, an innocent person was shot in the public space. I don't care how many potential lives this potentially saved - two innocent lives were taken.
Second, I don't like the way the war on terror is being pursued. I resent off-legal prisoner camps, extraordinary rendition, torture, and justice being administered in the street. These procedures are not acceptable in a democracy, nor do they conform to the ethics and morals that define Western civilization.
For the point in case, a guy claiming to have a bomb, I have no solution either. But I feel the official formula should be examined, discussed (as we're doing it) and, if possible, improved.
Post a Comment