So The Villan, would you prefer being the innocent person who gets shot by the marshalls? I think you'd be whistling a much different tune had this happened to you or your loved ones, eh?

First, I haven't seen any expression of an opinion in this thread that nothing should have been done to restrain this passenger. Zero, zip, zilch. What is being discussed is what should have been done (instead of pumping the guy full of lead) to restrain this passenger, and allow the crew and marshalls to suss out what was happening.

So your comment, The Villan, that those of us who are questioning the use of a shoot to kill policy being used on airline passengers, are being "soft" is a red herring. We are saying that we believe better judgment AND tactics could have been used, so we are now demanding to know why they weren't.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence on God's green earth that says shooting someone armed with a bomb will save anyone. So why do so many people assume that shoot to kill is the one and only way practice that should be used for dealing with someone who is acting in an unconventional way and may (or may not) claim to have a bomb?