Wednesday marked the first ever shooting under increased airport security since Sept. 11 and marks a watershed in policing strategy.
When a middle aged man created a disturbance at the Miami Airport, claiming to be carrying a bomb in his carry on luggage, federal air marshals had no other choice but to shoot. The exact location of the shooting remains unclear, but one thing is clear: When a passenger threatens the security of the airport and plane, the police will take no risks. As soon as the victim claimed possession of explosives and refused to cooperate, he introduced significant uncertainty and forced marshals to pursue lethal actions.
Shoot to kill policies are always highly contested. There have been many scandals where the public has subsequently questioned the police action. This man was bi-polar - and forgot to take his medication that day - and there will certainly be outcry from mental health groups in days to come.
Some witnesses said a woman claiming to be his wife attempted to follow the victim before he was shot. This unfortunate incident involving a mentally-challenged passenger demonstrates the need for personal responsibility. All parties involved must take more effective measures to prevent these types of misunderstandings.
Any airline passenger, or passenger's guardian, has a responsibility to ensure that they do as little as possible to interfere with travel. This involves adequately preparing oneself for travel - by whatever means necessary - as well as cooperating with standard screening procedures. Regardless of irritation of airport security measures, it is in every individual's best interest to oblige so as to ensure smooth travel. The time to point out shortcomings in the nation's security screening system is through a reasoned e-mail, not when asked to remove a pair of shoes after walking through an X-ray.
Police have no way of determining a suspect's mental state. Faced with this lack of understanding, they must take actions based on the suspect's actions. Claiming to posses a bomb and fleeing security both indicate dangerous behavior which places the people abroad at significant risk.
As in the London subway shooting this July, the air marshals were dressed in plainclothes. This is a crucial part of their mission: Air marshals are intentionally not dressed in uniform so potential terrorists are not aware of their presence or lack there of. This anonymity affords them the benefit of unobserved surveillance, but at the same time marshals must realize a nervous passenger often reacts dangerously confronted with these situations. Marshals - who must make shooting decisions in fractions of a second - must be constantly examining the environment. Though it is unknown exactly what happened in this case, the effect will be to place further pressure on marshals to better mitigate situations.
When a suspect does not comply with police orders, there is little choice but to obey the framework designed to protect the interests of all passengers. A variety of new tools could be implemented to prevent lethal situations - including rubber bullets. But ultimately the question continues to boil down to individual accountability when using mass transportation system.
Passengers and security officials alike must maintain the greatest degree of transparency possible in their actions. In tense, uncertain situations, everyone benefits from non-aggressive confrontation.
While it is saddening that an apparently harmless man had to be killed to reveal this necessity, it is also commendable that he has only been the first airport security related death in more than four years. As holiday travel season comes into full gear, it is critical that passengers accept the long lines and stress of airports so everyone can reach home safely.
