a fair and balanced birdthing (raaven) wrote,
a fair and balanced birdthing


Okay, I've been a bit out of the world-news-loop the past few days...I was taking some time off to spend in Philly with my little brother (who drives big ol' trucks for a living, so I only see him rarely).

Now I'm back in NYC, at work. The big topic of the day seems to be the LAX shooting last Thursday.

The basic story (so far) is that an unnamed 52 year old ponytailed man armed with two handguns and a knife opened fire near the El Al ticket counter. Two people were killed, and several others wounded.

The gunman was shot to death by an El Al security guard.

That the random shooter was a nut job, I'll not deny...that seems clear (whether the shooting was politically motivated or not is up in the air). That the person who killed him probably saved lives (and is most likely a hero), I'll also not argue.

El Al is the most security conscious airline in the world. Their sky marshalls and guards are supposedly well-trained. They're probably the most threatened airline in existence, as they are the national airline for Israel, so they've good reason for the precautions.

One thing about this situation disturbs me, though...and I seem to be the only person bothered.

Why is no one questioning the right of El Al (or ANY corporate security force) to use deadly force on American soil? Aren't the only folks who're supposed to do that American police and American military? Does this alarm anyone else at all?

Um, yeah. The guy saved lives. I get that. I even approve, with some reservations. I remain, however, deeply dubious about whether killing the guy was the best option. Or whether any killing at all should be condoned for airport security. Or whether airports are safe places to go, even when there are no terrorists or nutjobs.
  • Post a new comment


    Comments allowed for friends only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded