Let me guess, they shot the bipolar man and found NO bomb...

Right? After they shot him dead in front of his wife for God's sake...they found nothing. Isn't that true?

What in the hell kind of Marshalls do they have in the air? What the hell happened to America? When are we going to snap out of this crazy mindset that we are in now?

I cannot begin to imagine the hell, the agony of this man's wife. Who are the terrorists again?

WINAAAAAAAHHH!!!!

But yes, you're right. He had no bomb.

.. that the guy's wife was yelling that he was bipolar and off his meds.

Guess those air marshals didn't hear her. Wonder why...

Scenario in your world. If someone yells out an explaination for an action the cop has to stop taking action and talk to the explainer. So if I were a terrorist I would always have a female accomplish to confuse things to buy me time. Your police would always have to stop because of her explaination. Then I would know who and where the security was, and could take him out.

And then run away from the very people you planned to kill with that bomb?

I dunno. It all seems kind of messed up to me, I can understand why the marshall shot him, but it is tragic.

had to say.

Heck, I thought most bombers *ARE* crazy. Thats why they are bombers.

I doubt that bipolar people are more likely to be bombers than the rest of the population.

The point of the bipolar claim is that he was agitated. That is all he was. He never said he had a bomb. That was just an assumption - probably because the air marshals were taught something along the lines that people with bombs are likely to be agitated.

So the gist of it is - it becomes a "crime" to be agitated on a plane.

And he was more than just agitated, he was raving and yelling, and then tried to reach into a bag. There COULD HAVE been a bomb.

The air marshal did the right thing.

to make me feel better???

"Recent tests of airport security to determine whether screeners would discover concealed guns, knives, and simulated bombs had failure rates comparable to tests done in the 1980s and 1990s, says Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), who was briefed in April on the classified results. The earlier tests showed that screeners missed roughly 20 percent of the prohibited items at checkpoints and that screeners using X-ray machines to examine luggage missed 2 of every 3 bags carrying simulated explosives."

http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2004/07/06_400...

Witnesses are coming forward and saying that they never heard him say he had a bomb, that they just saw an agitated guy and things happened pretty fast.

I'd like to see some first-class passenger statements, though...

I would like more to come forward, as witness statements often conflict.

To answer your last question, it appears, not anytime soon.

-edit- just learned that the guy was bipolar. sorry. :)

Was his bag unchecked?

Wait, no, that was the other scenario the Air Marshall was contemplating at the time.

He was just heading towards a very busy TERMINAL where lots of PEOPLE were.

Have you ever seen a jetway?
Do you know how the jetway connect to a terminal?
Have you seen the door that connects the jetway to the terminal?
Did you know that the door can be locked?

Jeezus on a trailer hitch, this is the same god damned crap that happened here after the Londen bombings when they shot the fucking electrician from Brazil because he was fleeing police after he jumped a turnstyle waving a weapon and wearing a heavy coat.

Why don't you at least wait until some facts are confirmed before you exonerate the law enforcement agency...oh that's right, because law enforcement officers rarely, if ever, get it wrong.:mad:

So, you are defending this person without knowing the facts either?

I have an idea... Why don't YOU also wait for some facts instead of fucking finger pointing.... what do ya say?

"Jeezus on a trailer hitch, this is the same god damned crap that happened here after the Londen bombings when they shot the fucking electrician from Brazil because he was fleeing police after he jumped a turnstyle waving a weapon and wearing a heavy coat."

According to leaks from the ongoing inquiry Menezes was not wearing a heavy jacket nor did he jump a tunrstyle and neither was he fleeing from the police.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4157892.stm

connect's to the plane. He had a checked carry-on.

Reason, meet reality.

Nothing is ever going to be good enough is it?

Had this person actually HAD a bomb and blew up the freakin' terminal.... we would all be bitching that air marshall's are worthless!

Wake up! This guy was running through an airport screaming that he has a bomb! What did you think was supposed to happen?

Anyone who wasn't actually THERE really has no basis for judgment.

So if you weren't, don't.

I am simply commenting on the NEWS reports... Is that okay?

I agree with you. Sorry I wasn't clear.

How many times has the media got it right? Especially the first few hours after an event?

Not many that I can see.

Why doesn't everyone wait for witness statements before condemning the Marshall or the alleged bomber?

A witness other than a marshal?

A couple of witnesses came forward yesterday and said that they never heard him yelling, never heard him say anything about a bomb, and were really scared when the marshalls started pointing guns in everyone's faces, screaming at them to get down.

You might as well call me freeper....go ahead... Seems like instead of using debatable tactics when you disagree it all comes down to name calling...:eyes:

there will be a lot of OOPSing by the people who are ready to exonerate the killer.

People dig themselves in on these boards, and it is the rare individual who will simply say, 'oops, I got it wrong'.

and wasn't able to post. I wish I were now traveling and I'm sure many others posters wish that as well.:)

Wake up! This guy was running through an airport screaming that he has a bomb! What did you think was supposed to happen?

EXACTLY.

Also: It's not the FAM's responsibility to provide an expert psychological analysis under stress on the scene and determine whether or not this was a genuine mental illness or a contrived one in order to carry out a different action.

This should be a conversation about the quality of care our mentally ill receive - not a conversation about how air marshals should be able to read peoples minds.

He was not running through an airport, we was ordered of the plane and he followed instructions.

Not one civilian witness heard him say anything about a bomb.

Sounds to me you're making things up as you go along.

Here are some interesting snips form CNN:

"She was chasing after him," said fellow passenger Alan Tirpak. "She was just saying her husband was sick, her husband was sick." When the woman returned, "she just kept saying the same thing over and over, and that's when we heard the shots."

Another passenger, Mary Gardner of Orlando, said she also overheard Alpizar's wife. "I heard her say, 'he's bipolar, he doesn't have his medicine,'" Gardner recalled.

Dave Adams, a spokesman for the Federal Air Marshal Service, said Alpizar had run up and down the plane's aisle yelling, "I have a bomb in my bag."

Adams said Alpizar fled the aircraft when marshals confronted him on the boarding bridge.

"They asked the gentleman, 'Drop your bag, drop your bag. Come to the ground. I'm a federal law enforcement officer. Police. Drop your bag,'" Adams told CNN.

"He failed to comply with their commands, continued approaching the air marshals claiming he had a bomb in his bag. And then they ordered him again down to the ground. He didn't."


Isn't it strange, that according to Dave Adams, a spokesman for the Federal Air Marshal Service, the man had run up and down the aisle yelling he had a bomb, yet not one witness has verified that story? I think if I was on a plane and someone ran up and down the aisle yelling about a bomb, I would remember it.






http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/08/airplane.gunshot/index.html

Who knows where they were in relation to him if/when he said it?

I'm sure there'll be more interviews conducted, but this one statement doesn't prove to me that he didn't say it.

Comes from the feds.

Nobody else heard him say that. If he was running through the airport screaming that he had a bomb, and trust me, MIA is a very busy airport, more people would have heard him.

As it is right now, we have two unidentified marshals, one or both may have shot him, giving us their side of the story.

The man was having some kind of panic attack, or manic attack, or whatever it is called when a bipolar person is off his meds. He was running off the plane. His wife was retrieving their luggage to follow him.

I would bet to say that if he said anything to those feds, it was "leave me alone".

He was screaming that he had a bomb?

You have read different reports than me it seems....

and as he was going up the Jet-Way, I would have had security stop him at the other end. You know they were at the other end since this was brewing for a while. Whats he going to do blow up a jet-way,, why ?

terminal where there were lots of people? That's one problem.

As for his wife's claim that he was bipolar, that may or may not be true. We don't know. I've heard conflicting things tonight about whether he was bipolar.

But would you suggest that every time there's a threat to public safety (i.e. someone says they have a bomb) the police should relax their protocol if that person's companion says the suspect is just off his meds?

I hope this doesn't become part of police procedure. Terrorists, or any criminal for that matter, would exploit the crap out of that.

What happened was unfortunate, but how would people feel if the guy DID have a bomb and killed 40 people and the police didn't stop him because somebody said he was just bipolar?

people would be questioning why the Marshall didn't do anything.

No win situation.

...it's still unfortunate that it happened.

and killed a deranged person who was freaking out and had to get off the plane.

As there was no bomb, there was no real threat. The onus is now on the law enforcement officers to prove that the shooting was justified, that there was no other non-lethal course of action possible.

The point is that a man was acting erratically, claimed to have a bomb, refused to comply with the Air Marshalls' orders and ran toward a terminal. Glossing it over by claiming that he "was freaking out and had to get off the plane" doesn't paint the full picture.

How were the Marshalls to know that the man didn't have a bomb? He SAID he did. He then ran toward a terminal. The Marshalls didn't have the benefit of the information we do. They had to react to what, on the surface, was an imminent threat and they did so.

If the story is accurate, I fully support their actions. To call them "trigger-happy" is just ridiculous.

Chance.. a small explosive in a terminal?? Is everything going to be a summary Judgment now.

power. It could bring down a plane, but in a terminal not much would happen, think of a pipe bomb,, So you can assume if he wanted to kill, he would have done it on the plane,, but then again, Saddam Hussein was "thinking" about reconstituting a Nuclear Weapon ,, be afraid ,be very afraid... lots of people run thought airports.

I see now that it would have only been a "little explosion" if he had really had a bomb.

:hide:

If you run around like a madman on a plane, claim to have a bomb, don't listen to calls to stop, and then reach into the bag, well you best be prepared to take a bullet.

Thank you air marshals. I know you are going through agony tonight over the decision you had to make and the action you took, but it was the right thing to do and I thank you for it.

So then everyone can cry about the ineffectiveness of Sky Marshals? What happened today, while regrettable, is what should happen when someone claims to have a bomb while acting maniacally in an airport. It's not something to take chances with.

It's either act or die.

is that had they not acted nobody would have died. Amazing tricks reality can play on dead certain logic, huh?

It would have been just another disturbance on concourse C.. But then again some people knew for certain Saddam had WMD. Summary Judgment.

If this dude was packed and the marshall hesitated because he wasn't sure if the guy screaming that he had a bomb actually had one and killed a couple hundred people, it's too late. They acted correctly. I'd rather see one guy get killed for pretending to have a bomb instead of hundreds because the marshall wanted to make sure it wasn't a fake.

to kill hundreds, or even tens or even one person other than himself while the airplane is on the ground and he is out of the airplane and not in the terminal?

The justifications here all end up with: but if the sitation had been something other than what it was it would be fine. Well perhaps, but I'm not playing. The situation is what it was and it isn't fine.

his carry-on luggage. I assume the bag was relatively small (carry-on) but how much explosive material can you pack in, say, an average sized backpack?

And while I have heard all the many explanation of his actions that would make the shooting reasonable, and perhaps it was, I'm just going to wait until a few more passengers have had their say before I blindly accept the word of the authorities that the only choice they had was to kill this man.

I'm not an expert in bombs or bomb-making. I'm trying to figure out how this "small" bag couldn't have been much of a threat.

to provide security.

I don't.

I accidently carried a 6 inch automatic knife onto a flight about a year ago. Went right through security. (I mistakenly put it into my carryon instead of my checked luggage)

If I can carry a deadly weapon on accidently, imagine what you can do intentionally?


It is still trivial to get a weapon or a bomb onto a flight, especially if you don't mind getting caught. (i.e. the bomber would just detonate there at the security checkpoint if detected, surrounded by hundreds of victims)

A small block of C-4 will do some serious damage. And there are tons of other kinds of explosives where you need even less. Or it could be a chemical bomb or a biological bomb. This guy was running toward the terminal where, as you know, hundreds of people are. Play or not as you see fit, what had to be done was done.

All I can say is I'm glad you are not a Sky Marshal.

Unless the perp gets picked for a random screening and get patted down, C4 will not be found.

Sort of odd then that airplanes aren't blowing up on a regular basis. Did al qaeda run out of recruits? out of money? what?

When was the last time you heard of a bomb being found at a checkpoint.

Wouldnt that be newsworthy?

You are wanting the officer to gamble with the lives of the people in the terminal.

1. If he shoots and the guy doesn't have a bomb, one person dies.

2. If he doesn't shoot (Divides into two sets)

A. The guy doesn't have a bomb, no one dies.

B. The guy sets off a bomb in a crowded terminal LOTS of people die.

THOSE ARE ALL OF THE OPTIONS. Decision time. You have only a few seconds to make the decision. You seem to think that the officer should take option 2 and hope for result A. That is a gamble with many innocent lives.

I wonder how you would want the officer to act if you were in the terminal?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I personally have not seen enough contradictory nonsense to conclude that we are seeing a repeat of the malfeasance that was inflicted on the unfortunate de Menezes.

I will say this though: it seems that the man was off the plane, with little likelihood of being in actual possession of a bomb, and as he was off the plane he most likely he did not represent a serious threat to the passengers. He ought not to have been executed for being deranged.

He might conceivably have represented a serious threat to those who were trying to make him submit to their authority, but that is a different story. It is their job to take such risks, and it is their responsibility to not use lethal force if it is not required.

As I said to start with, despite the above reservations, I have not made up my mind on this incident. At the moment I consider it vastly unfortunate. I have questions, but mostly I find our eager acceptance of the use of lethal force appalling. I want proof that this person did present a credible threat that could only be neutralized with the use of lethal force, not proof that he didn't.


Those of you using the 'but what if' scenarios ought to reflect on the de Menezes case, and perhaps withhold your judgment until we see where this is going.

and remember how this process works, the government's bullshit position gets out first, then little by little the truth gets out, but by that time everyone is looking at the next shiny marble. Remember you read it here first.

esp. in light of what we learned about the London case.

We should process information with an open mind.

I just sit back and watch the same reaction time after time. "We just can't take that chance," seems to be the favorite line of those who protect the killers of the innocent.

:)

I agree especially with the following:

"I have questions, but mostly I find our eager acceptance of the use of lethal force appalling. I want proof that this person did present a credible threat that could only be neutralized with the use of lethal force, not proof that he didn't."

If you are in an airport or an airplane and scream that you have a bomb, they should shoot you dead.

If I was there, and I was near this person, I will have killed him myself.

Shoot him dead?

Suppose the deranged person is shouting 'I have a bomb' in a language you don't understand, but you think he might be saying 'I have a bomb'? Death?

Suppose you overhear a conversation and you think the person has said "I have a bomb", death?

By the way, it seems that in this particular case, the person was neither in an airplane, nor in a terminal.

The response is based on the threat. Air Marshalls aren't mindless drones, they evaluate the situation and respond.

By the way, in this particular case, the man had just run OFF of an airplane and was in the jetway, running TOWARD the terminal.

"If you are in an airport or an airplane and scream that you have a bomb, they should shoot you dead."

You did not qualify it. You generalized from the specific case. Now you want to back away from your generalization. I don't blame you.

I don't recall making such a statement.

I do, however, agree with it (with small semantic revisions).

This would be my statement:

"If somebody in an airport or on an airplane screams that they have a bomb, refuses to comply with Air Marshalls' orders when confronted, and runs from them toward a terminal the Air Marshalls have the RESPONSIBILITY to stop the percieved threat"

Somebody with the name "BIG Sean" did. My mistake. Big Sean posed the hypothetical to which I responded.

I'll wait until I have heard reports from passengers on the plane before I accept the account as currently reported. The authorities have a vested interest in making the shooting appear completely justified. The indisputible fact is that this man was not a lethal threat as he had no bomb. I am awaiting the proof that there was no reasonable course of action other than killing him.

concourse behind construction wall, we use powder acuated guns for nailing steel to concrete, we yell "Fire" everytime we nail (because of OSHA), this is right next to a jetway or even in a jetway, I can't wait for someone to call me a "Bum", after I messed up,

I don't see how that has anything to do with the conversation.

I just was curious about how blanket it was. It seems not so blanket after all.

By the way, your acceptance of this killing would also be posted from the comfort of a desk chair, yes? So it seems posting from desk chairs is not a disqualifying attribute for one's position.

If the officer had not fired and the bomb had been real and innocents killed, you would be posting screaming about the ineffectiveness of the police.

One or more officers fired. Their target did not have a bomb. Only one innocent person was killed.

I haven't 'found fault' yet. I am waiting for more information. I want proof that there was indeed no alternative.

What else is your complaint with me? Ah yes had the nonexistent bomb gone off I would be screaming about the ineffectiveness of the air marshalls. Actually I don't think I would. I only have 9-11 and OK City to go by, but in neither case was I running around blaming the authorities for their ineffectiveness. I do of course have some deep reservations about just what the Bush Cabal knew and what they did with their knowledge of 9-11, but those reservations developed long after the initial incident.

me already once, is it because you don't have a chair?

"Suppose the person is 4 Shoot him dead?"

A Child? No

"Suppose the deranged person is shouting 'I have a bomb' in a language you don't understand, but you think he might be saying 'I have a bomb'? Death?"

If a person looks and sounds like they are about to get violent, and I can not make a safe excape...they are going to get hurt.

"Suppose you overhear a conversation and you think the person has said "I have a bomb", death?"

I then get out from where ever I am and call the police. If I can NOT get out, then they get confronted.

"By the way, it seems that in this particular case, the person was neither in an airplane, nor in a terminal. "

I don't give a shit if it happens on line at Burger King. Scream you have a bomb, and I will kill you.

Let's say that the next time there is an incident like this and the air marshall hesitates to find out all the facts. In that time, a bomb actually DOES explode and kills 50 people in the terminal. What would the critics say then?

if you are willing to shoot to kill anyone so blythly-

There ARE ways short of murder to disable people who frighten you-
But that would require not being ruled by fear, and responding to a threat with anything less than lethal means.
What a world this is- what a sad fucked up world- We don't need any real enemies- we have our own grown up boogie men to justify our knee-jerk reactions.

Granted, it was not a 'simple' scenerio- but one would hope someone trained well, in how to respond to a threat- wouldn't shoot a man dead, while he was on the tarmac- out of the plane, and not in the terminal- especially while a rational explanation was being offered for his behaviour- How many suicide bombers went around screaming and ranting that they needed to exit the bus,resturant, vehicle,before they detonated themselves?????

I hope the marshall can live with what he did- i also hope he resigns.

they try to stop you, you ignore orders to halt and lie down, and instead reach into the bag. If it happened as reported, that is.

You look like a crazy person at that point. Crazy people that claim they're going to do dangerous things have a low incidence of doing dangerous things. Usually they don't. (Sometimes they do. "Crazy" does not necessarily involve a psychological diagnosis here.)

Those that are hurt when they claim they'll do something dangerous, I feel bad about. Law enforcement should be perfect. They should never make mistakes, of any kind. They should not be flawed human beings, but instead ideal abstractions that base every action on the sum total of all the information that will ever become available. In theory. But practice is a different story.

When somebody's hurt as the result of some crazy person doing something dangerous they said they were going to do, we all have the opposite response (Columbine? various instances of people going postal?). Where was law enforcement? How dare those people actually have the temerity to be ... people? Again, they weren't perfect. They didn't have all the information--verified, trustworthy information. Since I have this horrible problem of making mistakes, frequently based on incomplete knowledge or my own emotions, it's something that I--unlike many people--can empathize with.

The air marshals had to decide if Alpizar was indeed dangerous based on little information but his actions. They were wrong. I also feel sorry for them.

that a screened bag would have a bomb? Just wondering, so no flames please.

The possibility, however, means that any claim of a bomb must be handled as a real threat.

Airport security, like most systems, is based on redundancy. We are asked if we have been in possession of our bags at all times. We walk through metal detectors. We or our bags are randomly searched. We have Air Marshalls on the planes themselves.

None of these security measures is designed to work alone. Any time a possible threat is identified, it has to be treated as real.

There are ways to mask the molecular signature of explosive materials long enough to sneak them on a plane. I have plastic baggies in my garage that are specifically designed to prevent molecular leakage of the interior contents to make them undetectable to the outside world (primarily used for wilderness food storage where you want to keep animals from detecting its scent).

Plus there's the entire range of non-conventional explosives. A large sealed ball of lithium could be taken onto a plane without anyone objecting because when properly sealed it releases no detectable molecular fingerprints. Drop that ball of lithium into a large cup of water, however, and you'll have one heck of an explosion.

I'd guess that it would be difficult to get dynamite or C4 onto a plane nowadays unless you were really good at hermetically sealing everything, but there are all kinds of improvised explosives that could be slipped through relatively simply.

The problem with many of the arguments here is that people assume that security catches 100% of all contraband. I've unwittingly carried "contraband" through security before in my carry-on's, and I understand full well that they don't catch everything (my multitool slipped through the last time I flew, and it has two blades on it).

A guy threatens to blow up a plane and gets taken down and you blame the person that was protecting the innocent people. Given this board, it was obvious it was going to happen.
Whether the guy was off his meds or not is not for the air marshall to decide. His job is to protect the people on the plane. If a lunatic decides to threaten to blow the plane up, disobeys orders, and then reaches into his bag; the air marshall's job is to take the guy out. Not let the guy do whatever he wants just cause someone at random says he is off his meds. Most likely that wouldn't even be heard cause of the strong focus on the guy threaten to kill everyone else.
Being mentally ill doesn't give you an excuse to be a moron.

If the guy had had a bomb and blown it up, you'd be posting that the air marshalls are worthless for not protecting the people on the plane.

Nor do I. All we do know at the moment is that a man who had no bomb or weapon has been killed, shot dead by air marshall. The man was not on the plane or in the airport at the time he was shot. That appears to be all that is substantial in this case.

"The man was not on the plane or in the airport at the time he was shot"

He had just run OFF of an airplane and he was running TOWARD the terminal.

That aside, the jetway IS, technically, "in the airport".

the person that sneezes next to ya , not some pipe bomb.

ask no questions route?

You have a view of federal authority that many of us have found difficult to maintain under the Bush administration.

to conduct summary executions based on their assertion of a threat. Why are we doing this? Isn't the threat posed by the state's misuse of this authority we seem so eager to grant them far greater than the threat posed by terrorists?

Perhaps you think that we should disband law enforcement. Or have them all turn in their guns and take courses in "How to sweet talk violent crazies".

The choice is not between granting the state the right to execute us on a suspicion and disbanding law enforcement. Perhaps there is some middle ground between your two extremes?

In the REAL WORLD, criminals often use deadly force. To meet that force, the police are also armed with deadly force. The situations in which that force is needed arise with great suddenness. There will be no time to call a judge, describe the situation, get a warrant, and then use force. The decision has to be made in one or two seconds. THAT IS THE REAL WORLD.

That means that sometimes tragedies will occur. Examples are the cop shooting somebody who was armed with a realistic looking toy gun, or empty gun. And when those occur, you will be one of the ones screaming about how horrible the police are.

I suppose in your fantasy world, all an officer needs is a degree in "How to talk nice to violent people" and then law enforcement would be perfect.

We are empowering the state to use force when necessary to protect people's safety.

We've always done that.

I wouldn't. Thankfully, most other people wouldn't either.

Sig Heil!

You honestly feel that empowering law enforcement to use force to provide airport security equates to Nazi Germany? Perhaps you should read up on Germany in the 30's and 40's...

You keep squawking about "summary judgement"...(I'm assuming you mean summary execution)

There's just something about armed killers being around me that doesn't make me feel so safe. I don't care what uniform they're wearing (or if they're disguised as civilians).

Some people feel safe seeing a street crawling with SWAT team cops. I get the opposite reaction.

I feel safer when I know there's security around (in places like airports).

loses. This is most certainly not Nazi Germany.

It predates Nazi Germany by several centuries.

However, we're not talking about summary executions, we're talking about the use of deadly force to protect bystanders.

that insists on high speed car chases for traffic infractions, killing innocent bystanders with regularity. There are some things that cause the law to see red mist. Scary.

and I know exactly how that man behaved in that situation.

It would have taken just a couple of minutes for his wife to calm him down.

I thing this is one more solid step to "Americism" a far more devastating version of "fascism", to get rid of those with such disabilities.

"I thing this is one more solid step to "Americism" a far more devastating version of "fascism", to get rid of those with such disabilities."

So the Air Marshall shot this guy just to exterminate a person with bipolar disorder?

Jesus Christ, this is getting ridiculous.

It's getting so ridiculous I am rolling on the floor laughing. Thanks for that!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I've gone back twice now just to make sure I read it correctly. And, unfortunately, it appears I did.

Just amazing.

PNAC?
Bolton in the UN?
Brownie in charge of FEMA?
9/11 Commission saying that America is less safe now?
The Patriot Act?
The rendition process?
US Citizen Jose Padilla in jail for how many years without charge?
The Downing Street memo?
The plan to attack Al jazeera?
Scalita in the Supreme Court?
Joe Libermann judging progress based on number of satellite dishes?

Require any more of the million pointers?

And morons as armed Air Marshalls who cannot tell the difference of bi-polar disorder to terrorists.

Spend a few months looking after your son in an institution and you can tell the difference in behaviour between a bi-polar individual and anyone else. My wife and I have spent 13 years nursing him back to health - and some moron should be allowed to shoot him for his disability?

To me it isll part of Americism, a Peter Principle outcome.

Is that getting ridiculous?

Thank God I do not live in America!

You allege that the Air Marshall shot this guy because he was bipolar, and this was part of an American plan to wipe out people with this disorder.

So, yeah, I say that's ridiculous. And I think you know it's ridiculous, which is why nothing you posted in response has anything to do with the quote we're talking about.

Why the hell would they carry out the plan that way? Shooting bipolar people at goddamn airports? LMAO. That's stupid.

the quote we are talking about you know they have lost. Why people can't just admit they said something stupid and move one is beyond me. I would be a lot more impressed if they admitted a laps in judgment rather than them trying to win an argument just for the sake of winning. That is Bush Administration logic.

1) You DON'T know "exactly" how that man behaved based solely on your personal experiences.

2) You DON'T know that "It would have taken just a couple of minutes for his wife to calm him down".

3 Most importantly, the Air Marshalls didn't have the benefit of hindsight like we do. They were faced with a man screaming that he had a bomb. They ordered him to stop and he ran toward the terminal. They didn't know there really wasn't a bomb. They had the responsibility to ensure the safety of hundreds of people and acted in the only way they could.

in which he claimed he had a bomb. The Marshals followed protocol perfectly. Had they not fired and their had been a bomb the Marshals would have been either dead or scorned by the nation.

the plane-
The marshalls were more likely too quick to act because of the 'secret warning' (no doubt garnered through that effective method of torture- which we americans refuse to call torture-as if that makes it any less vile, immoral, or effective) that there would be planes targeted by suicide bombers-

When they searched his bag a SECOND time, found no explosives, and then blew it up on the tarmac, 'just in case'- i believe we have reached a point where our 'fear' and mis-trust reveals VOLUMES about the evil that lives in the minds of US- After all, much of what we fear in others, originates in our own psychie.

While i don't think the marshalls are looking to kill off mentally ill passengers, they should have much better training as to what to look for, and signs of a person losing it mentally, versus a true 'threat' from a 'terrorist'. Travelling by plane is not an easy thing for MANY people- and those with anxiety, panic, and other mental dis-orders shouldn't have to fear that 'losing it' on a plane (which is their biggest fear to begin with) will more than likely cause them to be shot on the spot-

This isn't the first time someone lost it on a plane- actually this guy wasn't even on the plane when they killed him- other flights have dealt with distraught passengers short of killing them.

How sad that we have become a place where we can always justify the ends, using our fear as the rational.

FDR said it best- "We have nothing to fear but fear itself". Our 'fear' is killing thousands upon thousands of people- not to 'protect us' but because we live in FEAR-

Just because he wasn't on the plane itself doesn't mean he couldn't have killed a lot of people.

'logic' of what you are using as a 'defense' of the killing-

A guy has a bomb- he gets on a plane- goes all bat-shit, calling immense attention to himself, and screaming he has to get off the plane- he gets off the plane (no report that ANYONE other than the 'marshalls' heard the man say ANYTHING about a 'bomb' have surfaced yet-) The man is OFF the plane, away from the people on board, NOT in the terminal, and he can only be apprehended by shooting him dead?

Believe me, i know it's FAR easier to monday morning quarterback this, but by god, it'll be cold day in hell when i ever set foot on an airplane- NOT because i'm afraid of terrorists, or of bombers- but of the people whose paranoia make the concept of being on an aircraft far more dangerous than it ever was, or really IS.-

We are killing ourselves out of fear- and 9/11 has changed this world forever- NOT for the reasons most people will use- but because people are foolish enough to buy into the myth that we can be 'safe' in this world- there is NO place safe- using common sense, and taking reasonable precautions is fine- but we all should learn to live life like every day is our last one- because for many of us, it will be-.

This country has become a police state- and we are in the infancy of what we will come to see as a life of 'pretend' security at the cost of freedom, spontanity, and joy. I'll be gone then, by my kids won't- and that reality SUCKS.

This is about a man being told to get down and refusing to do so then reaching into his bag and being shot. He gave the Marshals no choice. If the marshals didn't shoot him he probably would have been shot by Airport Security for doing the same thing.

It's unfortunate but his Wife who convinced him to go on the plane even though she knew he was freaking out should have told authorities about his condition. People off their meds have often freaked out and had to be subdued on planes. I don't blame his wife but the whole thing is just unfortunate and no one should be blamed.

The man was told to get down on the floor twice and refused. He reached into his bag and was shot by both Marshals. Any police officer on the street would have reacted the same way. You either shoot or take the chance of him reaching for a weapon or a bomb. The marshals had no choice but to do what they did.

they weren't in uniform- he was already distraught- i'll tell you- i wouldn't lay down on the ground for any joe shit who told me to- and i'll never set foot on a us commercial plane either-
There is no-where i'll ever NEED to go, thaat i can't get to by other means-

What the hell kind of 'freedom' is it that 'they' hate us for, if a person can and should expect to be shot to death for failing to lay face down when ever someone claiming to be 'a marshall' or 'a person in authority' tells you to?

This isn't my america- this isn't a 'free country' and i've READ THE FACTS-
you want to defend the cold blooded killing of a distraught man because he 'might' have been a bad man- then you'd could also justify going into Iraq, Iran, Syria, Turkey- Korea, any nation in the world, with the excuse that 'they could want to harm us'-

If you don't think this was about terrorism, you'd better go read the facts- this never happened before the bushwacked gov't encouraged and demanded that we were going to be forced to live in a continual state of 'staged' fear, anxiety, and dread-

Those marshalls will have to live with their actions- i can't commend them, nor condone what they did- Had this man been a bomber- i couldn't defend HIS position- but he wasn't and they killed an innocent man- their BAD- not his- they were the ones trained, and armed, he was joe shmo ordinary- and hispanic at that- and he was trying to get OFF the frickin plane, not on-

If he was someone close to you, i'll be willing to bet your ture would be quite different- America, the land of the fearful. may she rest in peace.

we hope is correct given the facts thus far. All shootings should be looked into however.

off his meds.

Why does that make him any less of a threat?

I am personally familiar with bipolar disorder (extended family members) and I can tell you when they are off their meds they are unpredictable and uncontrollable. Now, I know this may not be the case for every person who is living with bipolar disorder, but it certainly is a trait of the disorder.

So why is "He was off his meds" a reason to believe that (a) he wasn't a threat and (b) there was no bomb? And how was the Air Marshall supposed to answer these questions under the circumstances?

I was thinking the exact same thing earlier. It's often people who are off their meeds who do shoot people or blow things up. I feel bad for the guy but the "he was off his meds" argument just doesn't fly. No pun intended.

... Guess that's part of what makes me too "moderate" for some people's likings.

If someone is so mentally unbalanced that they might claim they have a bomb or any other dumbfuck thing at the airport, the person taking them to the airport is irresponsible.

I don't care WTF the man's wife was screaming. If someone says he has a bomb, I say shoot to kill.

I once dated a dumbfuck who made a joke (pre-9/11) about a bomb, and I about broke up with him right then and there at the airport. Had someone shot him dead on the spot, I would not have been surprised and I would have supported it.

I've been in Rome's airport, where guards stand above the crowds overhead with automatic weapons trained on the crowd at all times. The airport isn't a place for stupidity, and it isn't a place for someone whose outbursts or comments can't be controlled.

I'm sorry she lost her husband. They were idiots for a) taking him off his meds and b) taking him to the airport in the first place.

If you ask questions like those, the terrists win.

and run because they are frightened.

:eyes:

What's the point of the rolling eyes?

We're not talking about somebody just saying something stupid and running because they're frightened. We're talking about somebody becoming uncontrollable on an airplane, screaming that they have a bomb, not obeying Air Marshals, and running toward a terminal.


There's a bit of a difference.

Until then, I'm discussing the issue based on current information. That's what people usually do, right?

Both my sons take medication, but only one is calm both on or off medication. The other can be erratic off his.

...a Darwin Award.

Color me dumb. Anyway, of course I've raised them as best I could. Hope it doesn't mean that if he is off his meds and acts erratic, he can be shot despite someone explaining the situation.

We used to worry about a commie hiding under every bed.

Now we worry about a terrorist on every flight. So we fly armed and who gets shot...the terrorists? Not yet! They seem to be kind of hard to find. Today, we just shoot each other.

In fact, can anyone point out some real honest to goodness Islamic terrorists that law enforcement or the government has actually taken off the street recently. I'd like to get a look at them.

What a country!

for doing the exact same thing. This isn't just an airport/terrorist thing. When someone claims to have a bomb and reaches into a bag what do you expect air marshals to do?

When a man claims to have a gun in front of a store and reaches inside his jacket what do you think police are going to do?

The lesson is, don't be STUPID or at least don't get on a plane if you haven't taken your meds.

Even if America has lost it, this is not an example of such.

the question is, is this what they should be doing?

I bet those air marshals feel like shit tonight. The lesson cannot be "take your meds" because mentally ill people simply will not learn from this and more will die. Everyone looses.

Btw, apparently the air marshals do not trust TSA's screening. How could this guy be carrying a bomb if TSA is doing their job?

America is way too paranoid. Please, show me the terrorists.

The screenings and the Marshalls are different links of the same chain. Airport security, like many systems, is based on redundancy. A problem at ANY stage of the process HAS to be handled as if there were no other safeguards in place for the system to work.

Perhaps they thought he was just a guy who was off his Meds and wanted to take a bunch of people with him like a Post office worker going postal.

I am sure the Marshals do feel like shit tonight and you are not helping them out. The guy claiming to have a bomb is the one who put them in this extremely difficult situation. I feel bad for the Marshall's.

Trust the screening?????? Did you miss the news about the kid who brought all the knives on a plane and hid them in the bathroom then told the news? People sneak stuff past the screeners all the time. Why do you think they have Air Marshall's???? Because they know people are going to get stuff past the screeners.

as a direct result of the 9/11 terrorist attack. This expansion had nothing to do with crazy postal workers and had everything to do with terrorists, or so we are lead to believe. Apparently only 33 air marshals were considered necessary for controlling the postal workers.

I am aware that TSA is often ineffective. I was pointing out the irony of the situation i.e. in this case one might argue that TSA actually was effective!

There was no bomb. A man is dead. Something is clearly wrong.

I feel badly for the dead man, the marshals and both parties loved ones. Every one lost.

are flights in the U.S. There again, I could be wrong.

"Although the precise number of marshals is classified, sources say about 6,000 have been hired since Sept. 11. Before the terrorist attacks, fewer than 50 marshals flew, and only on international routes."
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2002/2002-08-15-air-marshals.htm

and who knows, there may be a copycat in the wings. I think they will strike where there is less chance of being thwarted though.

law enforcement. There were too many shootings of unarmed crazy people or just plain unarmed people or in one case, a playful Labrador retriever, in the Portland area to make me say "Good job!" when the cops shoot someone.

Was shooting the only alternative? What about tackling the guy or grabbing his carry-on away from him? What about trying to talk him down. What about shooting to wound? How often do people who run around screaming that they have a bomb really have a bomb? (There must be statistics about this.) In real life, suicide bombers try to be inconspicuous and blend in with the crowd, at least in all the cases I've heard of, unless they're using a truck or car.

As far as being "off his meds" is concerned, it is conceivable that due to flight delays and so on, he was away from his meds longer than anticipated.

not his back side and was starting to reach into the backpack. I don't think they had time to tackle him if he was reaching into the bag. The Marshall followed protocol perfectly.

I don't know about you but if someone was wearing a backpack on his chest running around saying he had a bomb I would be totally freaked out! People would be screaming and all you would have is a fraction of a second to make the decision to shoot or not to shoot. I am sure it was a HIGHLY stressful situation.

I'm reserving a final judgment until I know more about the specific facts of this case. But IF the events corroborate with what witnesses and the air marshals said, then the air marshal's response was the only justifiable one.

You have a person screaming he has a bomb and running into a crowded building. He does not stop when you tell him to stop. A woman claiming to be his wife yells that he's bipolar. But you don't know her, have no way to check her background in the amount of time you have, and have only seconds to act if there is a bomb. Most likely, there isn't. But the risk exists that there is. This is tragic, but what's the use of having air marshals if they're not going to shoot to disarm or kill when there is a potential threat that is as concrete as "I have a bomb" and refusal to cooperate?

is the MSM is trumpeting this kind of reaction as completely justified. I was shocked at the brevity of my local news station's report on the incident. They delivered the story as though this were completely justified and that no one should be too alarmed or shocked - like it was a necessary casualty in the spooky "war on terra-ism". Un-fucking-believable.

Move along, nothing to see here, it's just your big brother weeding out the undesirables.

Just to validate snuffing him.

High drama to lend credence to the whole episode.

I'm sure the air marshalls would have appreciated having as much time as you've had to digest the whole situation through the newswires from the stressless comfort of your armchair.

God, so many people on this thread are spouting off with indignation over this like they were eyewitnesses who also happen to know what an air marshall's job entails! Dammit, I expect better from you guys!

I don't care if it's a cliche: Walk a mile in someone else's shoes before you judge 'em, folks.

In the meantime, let the story unfold as it should, and hit the MSM--hard--if they don't allow for it to happen. Until then, leave the air marshalls alone.

an investigation. I would have done the same thing. I'm sorry, people can't act like this in airports or anywhere else for that matter.

Just wondering.

when he said he had a bomb. How did he get through security with a bomb?

Man I feel safe now - NOT.

They made me take my shoes off and they took my fingernail clippers away, but this guy somehow snuck a bomb on board? WTF??

want our security to conduct a thorough investigation at that time? Think about what might happen if a lunatic actually does have a bomb and will detonate it.

supposed to make sure no one is bringing a bomb aboard?

bomb? What if he was going Postal and wanted to take a bunch of Innocent people with him?

If the guy had continued through the Airport and been confronted by police who were not on the plane and was wearing a back pack on his chest (which he was) I would suspect the police would respond in the same way the Air Marshall's did. The key word here is Bomb! It wouldn't matter if this happened today or twenty years ago. If you say you have a bomb in an Airport you have always had a very good chance of getting shot weather you are a terrorist or just off your rocker.

prevent this sort of tragedy from happening again -- not about how the poor guy "asked for it." In the old America, people would have agreed that every life is valuable and would be concerned about the possibility of air marshals abusing their power. They would consider whether there was any way the air marshals could have figured out that the guy did not really present a threat.

Or is that Canada I'm remembering?

I believe the suggestion was for people who acted erratically when they were off their meds refrain from flying while unmedicated.

a) I'm talking about it being discussed in the mainstream media and also by the pundits. The main point should be that an innocent person has been killed -- not that "the air marshall system is working," which it isn't.

b) The (unrealistic) argument that "mentally unstable people should not fly when they're off their medication" does not address the problem that an innocent person has been killed. Are you saying that mentally unstable people lose their basic human rights when they're off their meds?

Yes, it's unfortunate that this man was killed. However, the system did work as it was designed to, and I think that's a good thing.

As far as "mentally unstable people lose their basic human rights when they're off their meds", it's not a "basic human right" to scream that you have a bomb on an airplane and refuse to comply with subsequent law enforcement instructions. He wasn't shot because he flew unmedicated, he was shot because his actions identified him as a danger to others.

This is like saying that the Guantanamo prisons are working since they're full of prisoners, regardless of whether those prisoners are guilty. You are kidding yourself if you think that the killing of some bipolar guy making bomb threats shows that the system is working. A real terrorist would likely not made any threats, and the bomb would have exploded despite the air marshall.

It is a basic human right to expect that you will not be killed if you haven't committed a crime. Making bomb threats is not a crime punishable by death, and it shouldn't be. The fact that so many people here can't see that is a sad indication that Americans have lost all sense of what freedom really is.

and are ready to blow up part of the Airport and everyone in the vicinity. This has NOTHING to do with terrorism. If the guy did this in front of a store on Main Street claiming to have a gun and not a bomb you would have the EXACT same outcome.

The NUMBER 1 concern of the Air Marshall in this case was the lives of everyone near this person. He had a split second to react and he did so. It's extremely sad but this is a common sense reaction and has nothing to do with the war on terror. It has everything to do with threatening people and saying you have a bomb. If this had happened in 1950 and their were cops in the Airport you would have had the exact same outcome.

?

It is designed to minimize threats to the general populace. Having a bomb, or claiming that you have a bomb is a threat. Claiming that you have a bomb and then running from authorities makes the threat more credible. Claiming you have a bomb, running from authorities, and then reaching into the very bag that you claim to have the bomb is a HUGE threat, and is suicidal.

I don't know, since the guy was off his medicine, and arguing with his wife, has anyone thought of suicide by cop (in this case air marshall)?




edit: to add title and fix misspellings

What a useless suggestion.

I don't believe she suffered from any mental illness.

The comments in this thread starkly delineate the people who still believe in the values of the old America from those fearful, paranoid, cowardly, post-9/11, pro-police state authoritarians who take the government authorities at their word and OUT OF HAND try to justify the actions of trigger-happy marshals. Their belief in summary judgment and summary execution as the ONLY way to deal with the situation -- in contravention of even common sense -- is truly frightening. We always knew the Republics were like that; but now look at all the so-called Dems taking that side.

What's that saying about those who are willing to sacrifice some freedom for a little (in this case false) security deserve neither freedom nor security? The terrorists have truly won. Now I wonder who the real terrorists are.

I especially like your first line. There are people who wait all their lives for a chance to slip on the jack boots and the next best thing is to live vicariously through people who already wear them.

I was maybe 7-8...(about 23 years ago) I don't remember why, but for some reason, I mentioned "a bomb" or said the word "bomb". An airport policeman escorted me to the back, told me about the dangers of a bomb and the threat the word implies...and what could happen to people who make threats of bombs in airports, being at a fairly young and impressionable age, it stuck. That was Louisville, KY, in 1983.
As far as the summary execution comments goes. Military trained (like myself) police officers (like my my family and neighbor) are trained that if a persons conveys a threat, acts like a threat and acts on a threat (which is what he did when reached into the bag) then guess what, you should consider them a threat and neutralize them. If you do not do so and it turns out that he is indeed a threat, the consequences could be far worse than this poor man being dead. If he had had a bomb, if he had had a gun, if...., when a threat like that is front of you, you assume that it is real, and act on that assumption. Period. Like so many others have stated, if he had had some kind of bomb,and the air marshall paused to think about him being bi-polar and the guy had detonated the bomb..what would the response be then...

Only BLONDE bipolar men should fly, sans carry-ons.

Voila. problem solved.

Shame on the air marshall for making the wrong decision.

That silly air marshall had an entire 1/4 second to figure out what to do. Maybe if he had entire minute he may have came to the same conclusion that you did 18 hours later with 20/20 hindsight.

Unfortunately, having someone proclaim to have a bomb in a bag while reaching into said bag tends to limit how much time you have to make such amazing "guesses"

worst of all they were not in the air. The senseless slaughter of innocents. Unfuckingbelievable.

Holy shit? What would your comment have been if he had blown up and taken 40-50 folks with him?
Why didnt those air marshalls do their job and prevent this tragedy they had a chance to stop him and didn't act it... this sensless neglect of their duties killed 40 people?

a diabetic in crisis, shoot him too.

most diabetics in crisis, as in hypoglycemia pass out, if they are in severe DKA (diabetic ketoacidosis) they may say some irrational things/behavior, but it usually takes a while to get there, slow burn if you will...

You didnt answer what your comments would be if he had blown himself and 40 others up....

They can act like obnoxious drunks...faster than you think.

What would your comments be if he had blown himself up and taken 40 people with him?

However, I would suspect that you know as much about what happened as I do:

Nothing.

I found aspects of the story to be frightening--mostly from the way the other passengers were treated. However, as far as the shooting goes, I have not received training in that area...doubt you have either...and the media can't be relied upon for decent information.

Stephanie

I would suspect that I am not trying to make the air marshall out to be a guy that just summarily executes people.

if a person verbalizes a threat, acts like a threat, and looks to be carrying out a threat...then guess what, he is a threat.
Training as far as shooting goes? Oh yes I have. See above. when it comes down to the life of the suspect/perp/derainged individual over the life of the officers/passengers and you have limited information to go by and split second to make a choice, the the suspect/perp/derainged individual is always going to lose.

your "gun training."

if you feel the need to respond to my comments, then respond. Don't tell me to look somewhere else.

as in the above sentence...but thats ok..

13 years Active Army is where I received weapons training. If a person makes a threat, acts in a threatening manner, makes threatening motions, guess what...they are to be considered a threat.

Having good aim is NOT the equivelent of training. One of the FIRST things you need to learn when you pick up your weapon is to put down your arrogance.

You write that you are trained...I think you even spelled ketoacidosis correctly, and I am not going to look that up right now because it's time for my oatmeal. However, you have NO clue how diabetics act...that stuff you wrote about a "slow burn" is so completely inaccurate it's not even funny. I suspect that your training with mentally ill citizens is just as lacking---I dated a military guy once, and my ANECTDOTAL (got that everyone????) evidence was that the military wasn't so fucking hot about teaching common sense and compassion in the real world.

I do see that some of your family is law enforcement--and I can tell you that I have had much experience with law enforcement officers--however, I am also of that good 'ol "stick together" philosophy...which is drummed into them from the word "go." I am not talking about the "bad cop" crap in Eddie Murphy movies....but, I assume you know that.

Sorry to tell you this, but I don't think you have anymore of a clue than anyone else on this board what happened yesterday.

military...
arrogance has little to do with it...
If a person presents themselves in a threatening manner, continues to act irrationaly when confronted and has verbalized that he has a bomb...then reaches for what may or may not be a bomb/weapon/or lolipop...

what do you think the reaction of about 99.9% of law enforcement/military folks is going to be?


as far as the absolute specific details to what happened, nope, I don't know. But based on what has been reported thus far, the incident escalated and ended pretty much in policy. The difference is, i do not immediately jump to the conclusion that the air marshalls were trigger happy zealots that were just all to happy to gun down a bi polar man.

There could be a million things that happened, but the officers, according to reports so far, acted with due diligence, and would have be negligent had they not.

put down the air marshalls.

I did suggest their behavior, particularly putting a gun to the head of another passenger...is scary as shit.

If that's the way 99.9% of law enforcement is going to act, then I cannot wait to leave this stupid fucking country.

The poor cops think they're only kicking the shit out of some drunk, which is apparently okay, but then they get a rude surprise. Oops.