100 monkeys typing.

From one who’s never put one’s life in harms way, comes an atrocious question “wouldn’t winging him have been more appropriate.” The simple fact is all law enforcement personnel are taught one simple truth…to neutralize the threat…translation to KILL.
Whether it is my sidearm, shotgun or assault rifle, there is only one place I, and others like me who “protect and serve,” are trained to shoot…center mass.
While tragic as this incident is (and yes I believe it to be), the FAMS (Federal Air Marshals) from initial reports acted in a professional manner based upon their training. While I wouldn’t expect you to understand, allow yourself the time to stop and think about such a scenario and the mass confusion it must have been.
A lone individual (suspect), carrying a satchel, was verbally and physically threatening to the passengers on the aircraft. Coinciding were alarmed passengers and the suspect’s wife, all blurting out at the same time. Given the totality of the circumstances, the FAMS primary objective was the suspect posing the threat.
It’s unfortunate that the suspect shot was unable to either comprehend or comply with the FAMS verbal commands, however he not only posed a threat to the passengers but also the officers. It will be debated (in civil court more than likely) about whether the word “bomb” was ever used during the course of the incident, however people still forget that he reached into his satchel after being ordered by FAMS to cease from his aggressive actions. That action in and of itself is a threat, given the totality of the circumstances. So the FAMS, faced with his elusive actions, the commotion on the plane, his inability to comply with verbal commands and his secondary threat of reaching into his satchel…were justified in neutralizing their threat!
Which leads us to your eluded to question, why did they need to hire attorneys, if in fact they were justified in their actions? Simple…it’s called Civil Court. While in fact the FAMS may be cleared of procedural and criminal wrong doing by their agency, that in no way protects them from the civil court system, where hungry trial attorneys feast at the hands of the deepest pockets. It’s more than the FAMS actions on the line…it’s their family, their possessions and most importantly their reputation as law enforcement professionals.
So if you want to wing it…go get hot wings, otherwise take the time to learn what an officer is faced with daily. You can do this by calling your local agency and attending a citizen’s police academy…then and only then, can you understand the term “to protect and serve!”

Willy said: It’s more than the FAMS actions on the line…it’s their family, their possessions and most importantly their reputation as law enforcement professionals.

To which I answer, well, all the individual had to lose was his life, which he did.

If all you say is true, why do we have (and need) civilian oversight boards for rogue "law enforcement professionals"? And since when do a few weeks at a law enforcement academy magically transform one into a "professional"?