ATL airport worker's iPod goes up in flames -- worries about being shot
Oct 13, 2007, 8:37 pm
#31
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,704
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes
Oct 14, 2007, 2:44 pm
#32
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: DUB/YHZ/PVD
Programs: AF Plat, SPG Titanium
Posts: 534
Okay, I knew about this one, but it's a little more complicated than just some guy walked out of a door next door to a suspect as well....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes
Oct 14, 2007, 3:39 pm
#33
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,704
You're right of course. It's much more complicated then most situations. But the complications are mostly on the side of the authorities and the mistaken identification. The question, I believe, was whether someone had been shot for less. And at least in terms of the actions of the victim (leaving house, getting on train, even the getting on and off the bus bit) it would seem to be considerably less then running around while smoking.
This was one day after the Tube bombing, this guy matched the description of one of the bombers and he was heading to the Tube, where the authorities had been notified he was not to be let onto, due to him being a suspected bomber. He then got on it and the melee ensued.
Was it a bad shoot? Obviously. Was there some stuff behind it other than just guy with a fire in his pants. Yes.
I think nerves would be much more on edge in this situation than a guy with a I-pod aflame. Not justifying it, again, but to compare the two situations you must compare them in their totality.
Oct 14, 2007, 5:11 pm
#34
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: DUB/YHZ/PVD
Programs: AF Plat, SPG Titanium
Posts: 534
I don't think this is less at all.
This was one day after the Tube bombing, this guy matched the description of one of the bombers and he was heading to the Tube, where the authorities had been notified he was not to be let onto, due to him being a suspected bomber. He then got on it and the melee ensued.
Was it a bad shoot? Obviously. Was there some stuff behind it other than just guy with a fire in his pants. Yes.
I think nerves would be much more on edge in this situation than a guy with a I-pod aflame. Not justifying it, again, but to compare the two situations you must compare them in their totality.
This was one day after the Tube bombing, this guy matched the description of one of the bombers and he was heading to the Tube, where the authorities had been notified he was not to be let onto, due to him being a suspected bomber. He then got on it and the melee ensued.
Was it a bad shoot? Obviously. Was there some stuff behind it other than just guy with a fire in his pants. Yes.
I think nerves would be much more on edge in this situation than a guy with a I-pod aflame. Not justifying it, again, but to compare the two situations you must compare them in their totality.
Oct 14, 2007, 5:37 pm
#35
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,704
These are good points, but they are still all just influences on the authorities. In other words the complications that led to the shooting, while explainable, and possibly even understandable, were external to the guy who simply left his apartment and went off to his job. My point is just that the actions of the victim (and not the complications, misunderstandings, possible tensions) were less.
At the end of the day it comes down to the totality of the circumstances.
If a guy's I-pod starts smoking in his pocket in a terminal on a normal day it's much less likely to be a problem than, say, a day after a suicide attack in an airport terminal.