[JCEccles]

The issue is whether, under highly pressured circumstances, with potentially dozens or hundreds of lives in the balance, the sky marshalls were justified in acting on the belief that there was a bomb.

Now, you may not like or agree with the law of self-defense or defense of others, but the law allows you (as it does sky marshalls) to be wrong and and even take a life as long as you act reasonably on the basis of information available to you when you acted. Your right to defend yourself or others from apparent lethal force by applying lethal force is not judged in hindsight.

What is your rationale for subverting the right self-defense in this manner?

[JeffAtlanta]

What is your rationale for subverting the right self-defense in this manner?

Huh? I have repeatedly said that given the current information, the air marshals were justified in their actions. How do you get that I want to subvert the right to self-defense?

Seriously, did you actually read my post?

We are not discussing what the air marshals believed. The other poster believes that it is possible that the air marshals may have caught this guy trying to detonate a bomb. I am just addressing that fallacy. The feds say this is not the case in their official statements and there was no bomb on the plane.

[JCEccles]

The eyewitness complaining that an LEO knocked his cell phone out of his hand and put a gun barrel next to his neck had better count his blessings that he isn't dead too.

Terrorists often rig bombs to detonate when a certain telephone number is called. Or, they communicate with other team members to coordinate their attacks. If you are a sky marshall and have told everyone to get down and stay down and you see some yahoo half raised, peeking through the seats and using a cell phone, you might well be justified in shooting him.

I haven't this fellow on the news, but I'm guessing he doesn't fit the "Middle-Eastern male 18-30 years old" profile. If he did, he'd probably be dead.