[jra]

Instability is a factor in favor of shooting, not against it. Agitated people are more likely to perpetrate violence. I think the guy's agitated state reinforced the decision to shoot, accompanied by not following orders, and according to the official report, expressing a verbal threat that could be taken as a threat to detonate a bomb

My point in bringing that up is that the MSM now has a built-in excuse to point to for their objections (which they would have had anyway, let's be honest). Now they can say, "Look, these Marshals killed an innocent man who was a likeable fella who was unstable and off his meds. The problem with that, IMO, is that a terrorist could presumably act in a similar way. the Marshal made a split-second decision that--to be honest--I'm perfectly okay with.

[Cboldt]

My point in bringing that up is that the MSM now has a built-in excuse to point to for their objections (which they would have had anyway, let's be honest). Now they can say, "Look, these Marshals killed an innocent man who was a likeable fella who was unstable and off his meds.

They are certainly critics, but in this case, I think more for the shock value than as a matter of knocking the current administration.

The problem with that, IMO, is that a terrorist could presumably act in a similar way.

Both the media and the administration share the problem of promising or demanding perfection, absence of error that results in innocent loss of life. Security in a public setting is particularly difficult, becuase people prefer to think they aren't being managed that closely. Face it, mitigation of terrorist threat, or just plain "bully threat" even if not part of organized terrorism, has a price. There are many factors to balance out in that calculus, but no matter where the balance is struck, innocent people will be killed - either by bad guys, or by friendly fire.

In the current paradigm, all you or I have to do is follow orders, and those in charge will minimize casualties.

... the Marshal made a split-second decision that--to be honest--I'm perfectly okay with.

I'm ambivalent. I was ambivalent with the guy in London too. At the same time, I am pretty sure there will be no watering down of security, and no admission of error.