well, those kids shoes that blink when you walk - just shoot them and ask questions later.
How about we agree that if it looks suspicious you check it out. If it is a bomb, you take whatever emergency steps are required (evacuation, shoot the guy, don't shoot the guy because it might be rigged, etc.) and if it isn't a bomb, let the kid, woman, or guy who turned out not to be a jihadist acting like a jihadist not acting like a jihadist after all to go about their business as if they were not the jihadists they turned out not to be (sorry, that is your logic, not mine).
One issue is that you and your fellow travellers have lost site of is that the real threat that we and the terrorists are concerned about is a bomb on an airplane. A bomb in an airport not on an airplane is like a bomb in a mall, public space, office building etc. Not exactly nice, but not the same as blowing a 747 out of the sky at 550 kts and 35,000 feet with hundreds of passengers on board.
Second, normally, in anglo-saxon law we have a way of simplifying the whole logical mess you have created by sorting out the double, trebble and quadrupple negatives into the innocent, whom we leave to go about their constitutionally protected affairs, and the guilty, whom we detain, charge and try.
The problem with folks like you is that you cannot keep track which bin is which and what is the appropriate treatment for the not not not not innocent / guilty.
In particular you of the hard core calvinist bent have a hard time putting the not not guilty into the innocent bin. I am trying to understand why. Is it the view that if they were truly innocent they would never have come under suspicion in the first place? Is it your view that security folks are such cretins that to be suspected of something by them you must really really have done something outrageous because they are oblivious to the normal ebb and flow of human affairs. Help me understand.
“How about we agree that if it looks suspicious you check it out. If it is a bomb, you take whatever emergency steps are required...”
That is exactly what happened at Logan Airport.
“...you and your fellow travellers have lost site of is that the real threat that we and the terrorists are concerned about is a bomb on an airplane.”
I have not lost sight of this. I simply don’t want to end our security there, simply because it’s often a worst-case to get onto the plane.
“In particular you of the hard core calvinist bent have a hard time putting the not not guilty into the innocent bin.”
She is as guilty of a crime as someone who shouted “fire” in a crowded theater. Her actions were obviously pre-meditated, and were intended to cause a panic.
“Is it your view that security folks are such cretins...”
I believe this is the point you have been espousing. My view is that when one purposely sets out to cause a panic by pretending to be a suicide bomber, they are both subject to criminal charges, and in danger of being shot to death, under justifiable circumstances.
I am frankly astounded that you are so obtuse on this very simple point.