Quote:
Originally Posted by widgeon13
(Post 9423381)
Hadn't heard that, should have been escorted off in FLL if that was the case.
We seem to pay much more attention to the rights of the perpetrator than the innocent and it bites us in the ass every time.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by widgeon13
(Post 9423463)
|
Latest information dismisses the altercation on the aircraft. No passengers or crew members reported any conflicts aboard the flight. Also,
the only luggage he had was the gun case itself--it was not inside another piece of luggage.
Fort Lauderdale airport: 5 dead, shooting suspect had gun in bag - CNN.com
We all feel the frustration expressed by your posts, but what do you propose? Something
was done. The FBI recognized a man with mental heath issues and turned him over to local authorities, as should be done. He could not be placed on a no-fly list as there was no evidence of a danger beyond his mental instability, and that cannot be used until it has been ruled to be so by a court. The local police committed him to a mental health facility for evaluation (the first step in establishing legal mental deficiencies), which should be done. Our laws allow any adult who cannot be deemed a danger to himself or others to be released if they wish. It does not matter if they still have mental issues, they cannot be held against their will. That is the law, like it or not.
He had a past history of abuse. Who knew? That was never adjudicated. The cased was
dismissed pending his completion of the dismissal requirements,
so there is no record of the charges against him. What agency, whose charge is to protect the public through preemptive actions, would be informed of this? As per the article linked in the post, his only record was for minor traffic infractions and eviction for non-payment of rent. This is what the FBI would find in doing a check on him. Is that enough to "do something?"
He legally had a weapon. We all agree that mentally unstable people should have a restriction on possessing a weapon, but how do you take a weapon away from an owner who has not been judged (legally) to be mentally unstable? Do you want the government to take away your weapon simply because you have a mental health evaluation? Once one is legally determined to have mental health issues, they are investigated to determine if they have weapons. This, of course, never happened in this case. Who's to blame?
As the saying goes, hindsight is 20-20. The warning signs were there because all the separate,
isolated, pieces were put together
in order to explain the event. In the real-time world, each piece is isolated and is
evaluated by itself against the rights of the individual and the safety of the public. There are, literally, millions of individuals with exactly the same behaviors who do not and will not shoot-up an airport. It's like a jig-saw puzzle where many pieces are the same shape, there are thousands of ways to put them together--all valid--and there is no picture to guide you to the finished puzzle. Then, an event happens and we now have the picture we want to create, so we put the pieces together to make the finished puzzle.
At this stage of the incident investigation, I don't see any real failure on the part of the "system" to perform as designed, and that design is to allow maximum individual liberty to be balanced with maximum public safety. It's not perfect and it's run by human beings. Sooner or later, unfortunately, an individual will be able to find a way to slip through even though all "safeguards" are in place.
