You are law enforcement, a man runs around screaming he has a bomb

The man appears to be mentally unstable, ranting and raving about a bomb he has in his bag. A woman is with him screaming about his instability and his need for medication. The man will not drop the bag he says he has a bomb in. You repeatedly warn him to drop the bag he himself is saying contains a bomb. You tell him to drop the bag and lay down. He refuses. You tell him again and he begins to place his hand in the bag.

You have a choice:

A. Wait to see if he really has a bomb in there, risking your own life and the lives of anyone in the vicinity depending on the size of the bomb the man, I repeat, says he has.

B. Stop the man using force.

I would choose B over A simply because if he did have a bomb I and anyone near would be dead.

just hard choices which have to be made in an instant.

If the guy was mentally unstable and needed meds, why did'nt his wife make sure he had taken them? Or at least let someone know he did'nt have his meds and may cause problems? There are SO many things these people could have done to prevent this. The Marshall did the right thing, period.

but, I agree that the air marshalls did the right thing.

It is too bad that he could not have been simply wounded, but that situation may be just as deadly as not acting at all.

Terrible terrible tragedy, no doubt about it.

I would like to sit in a room with the air marshalls for a while. I'll bet they are just as sick about the situation as anyone.

Now consider, if this mans backpack, was in fact loaded with explosives, and there was a detonator he was reaching for. These guys would be true heros.

Cheers
Drifter

are there witnesses who confirm that he claimed he had a bomb?
Is there a witness to confirm that he was reaching into the bag?

opinions are calcified.

lunatic!

Because if he did have a bomb, he'd be more likely to set it off in that state of mind.

We'll see about that. I'm much more skeptical after what happened in London.

London aside, these air marshals are going to shoot first and ask questions later. As far as they are concerned, there is no more wait and see or wait and negotiate. They are assuming the plane is going to be crashed or shot down by our military in the process.

I have a friend that is FBI and she is still staking out flights. She is doing this for reconnaissance but she tells me the air marshals are going to shoot for the head first chance they get.

You're assuming that all accounts of the incident are 100% accurate as reported by the authorities. At the least, there are some vagaries to the accounts we've heard so far.

For example, some of the other passengers said that the victim made no statements re: a bomb. The following is from CNN.com: "Accounts vary on whether Alpizar had announced he had a bomb. Tirpak (a passenger - Mostly) said he didn't hear Alpizar say anything. 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.'"

That's a pretty wide disparity: one person saying the guy said nothing, and another saying he RAN UP AND DOWN THE PLANE'S AISLE saying he had a bomb. I don't know about you, but I notice things like passengers running up and down the aisles of a plane announcing they're armed.

I heard another report in which a witness said the victim specifically said he did not have a bomb.

The truly tragic part is that a lot of the blame probably lays with the wife. It appears she knew her husband was in some difficulty and also knew he was not on his meds and was growing agitated, even before they boarded the plane. Again, from CNN.com: "Ellen Sutliff, who said she sat near Alpizar, described him as agitated, even before he boarded the plane. His wife kept coaxing him, 'We just have to get through customs. Please, please help me get through this,' according to Sutliff." Given that, she had a responsibility to her husband and the other passengers. She should have contacted airline personnel before boarding, explained the situation and asked for help. The airline and airport personnel probably bear some culpability too, as they are required to screen for intoxication, etc and possibly should have pulled this man aside to make sure he was OK to fly. But that's just my opinion based on reports that are very likely to change as the investigation evolves.

Given the fact that the situation was tense, fluid and developing, judgement by ALL parties needs to be witheld. Anybody saying the shooting was or was not warranted has jumped to conclusions, in my opinion. The last word is this, also from CNN.com: "The incident remains under investigation."

Mostly

On Edit: I had dome somthing which made all the text red when hovered over. I hope I've corrected it now.

I was just about to post the same.

How can one man, who was not there, claim the man run up and down the plane's aisle yelling, 'I have a bomb in my bag.'" While people who were there, said it never happened.


Hmmm, who to believe.

It would be easy for passengers in one part of the plane to barely know what was going on in another. They had just boarded so people are putting away their things, finding seats, etc. I don't know if that is the situation but it's one possible scenario. As you pointed out, info is conflicting and incomplete, so we may never know enough details to figure it all out.

As for his condition I also hadn't heard the information you posted, so thank you for that. I'm definitely beginning to question how wise it was to bring someone on a plane in his condition without warning the airline first. As I stated in another thread, if it were me I'd be worried about my husband first and foremost and would want his flight to be as safe and comfortable as possible. Knowing how cautious airlines have to be these days about erratic behavior, I would definitely want to let them know in advance so they could understand the situation.

It's entirely possible that the plane was large enough or chaotic enough during pre-boarding that he did announce he had a bomb and other passengers did not hear him. I am troubled by the marshall's statement that he "ran up and down the aisle yelling" that he had a bomb. The CNN story make that look like a direct quote, so I'm assuming it is.

If it is, then it's clearly hyperbolic in some manner - if he was running and yelling, a LOT of people should have seen it. And yet, nobody so far has said that's what they saw. That's what really bothers me at this point.

Mostly

That's troubling in and of itself.

but everything else you say is correct. Would you shoot him? To me, whether or not he was claiming to have a bomb is the critical question.

... if I choose to believe the other passengers, who have no axe to grind, over the Air Marshalls , who have to justify killing a man, you won't mind too much if I choose to believe the passengers.

So far, I haven't heard any of them say jack about a bomb threat.

seems that these days every time a law enforcement officers fires a weapon, it's to kill . . . are they such bad shots that they couldn't hit him in the leg to disable him? . . . shoot to kill should be a very rare exception, but it has become the norm . . .

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

Disable him...not kill, talk about a no brainer.

Cheers!

Assuming he did say he had a bomb (see my post upthread re: this assumption), then shoot-to-kill is the only option. A leg shot might disable him in the sense he couldn't get away, but that's kind of useless when the threat is a suicide bomb attempt. A leg shot still gives him the opportunity to detonate the device. Besides which, it's a lot easier to miss a leg shot, leaving the suspect completely able-bodied. Center mass is the only way to go when time - and we're talking split seconds here - is collapsing.

Perhaps a head shot is somewhat excessive (and, given the fact it's a harder-to-hit target under the circumstances, maybe a more dangerous choice) but if you make the decision to shoot, it HAS to be a potentially fatal shot - otherwise, why shoot at all?

Mostly

to this man did not hear him say the word bomb? Sounds like another case like that of a Brasilian electrician runing to catch a train or a black man holding up a wallet that was mistaken for a gun and then shot 60 times.

JETWAY away from passengers heading towards the terminal?

"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.'"

Note: this specifically states he ran up and down the plane's aisle talking about the bomb. Not the jetway, the aisle.

Confusing matters is this: "Tirpak (another passenger - Mostly) said he didn't hear Alpizar say anything."

Those two statements simply do not reconcile in any way UNLESS the officer's statement misplaces the action (i.e. it took place in the jetway, not the plane's aisle) OR the officer is exagerrating the action (i.e. the man walked to his seat and said he had a bomb but did not "run up and down the plane's aisle yelling").

Mostly

according to the official explanation, the man was running UP AND DOWN THE PLANE yelling he had a bomb!

this kind of crap happens fairly frequently. the largest psychiatric ward in the state of illinois is the cook county jail. this is the unfortunate, but perfectly predictable consequence of the current state of mental health care and awareness.

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

After all, he reached for his wallet ...More here

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

Same situation, same reaction. New York City settled with Amadou's survivors for $3,000,000. Seems that the city believes the shooting was not justified.

To say nothing of the fact that if we consider that shooting justified, we've basically given the police the authority to shoot civilians at will.

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

The police officers were later indicted for second degree murder - and subsequently acquitted. But, at what bullet did the Grand Jury decide that a justified shooting had become second degree murder?
What is the law with respect to the number of bullets you can fire?

people acting crazy/drunk/belligerent on planes, and everywhere else for that matter. One of the guys from REM got into trouble on a plane recently.

One of the things we have to keep in mind as the investigation goes forward is whether what happened was a result of profiling, because it looks like this guy had brown skin. Personally, I am not opposed to profiling in principle, but how we react to the "profile" is important. Just because someone fits a profile shouldn't give extra license to kill. Would this action result in a death if it had been a white guy?

If the 'law enforcement' people don't have any confidence whatsoever in TSA and baggage-screening, then we're wasting billions! The calculus of 'reasonable doubt' is way over into cloud-cuckoo-land when it rationalizes the outright slaughter of a passenger. If the mission of 'public safety' completely discards any reliance whatsoever on steps taken to ensure passengers aren't carrying weapons or explosives and makes members of that same public into cannon fodder for whatever doubt exists regarding the efficacy of screening, then we're too far down the path to a fascist police state for anything to matter.

My own integrity would, I hope, require that I physically restrain him, bearing the risk myself. I doubt I could, in any kind of good conscience, perform such a job (public service) without such a commitment.

If you risk physically restraining him, yes, you're in peril if the bomb is a reality. But you would also be making the decision to place everybody in the vicinity in danger. I'm OK with you making the decision for yourself, but not for everybody else.

If the marshalls had reason to believe he had a bomb (and that's a point of contention that has to be ironed out), then deadly force is the ONLY reasonable option.

Mostly

... and the general public to invest BILLIONS (in direct and indirect costs) as well as their own safety in reliance on appallingly intrusive body searches, baggage screening and other 'protections' ... and then COMPLETELY DISCARD all reliance on such 'safeguards' in rationalizing the assassination of a member of the public? I just cannot accept that moral calculus. Not for a minute.

Placing one's self "in harm's way" doesn't mean committing homicide in response to any kind of anomalous situation. Again, if I were in such a public service role, I could not chose to terminate the life of another human being based on some vague doubt regarding the efficacy of the security measures taken by my colleagues. It's a reprehensible kind of Catch-22 ... and not at all consistent with my ethical rules.

Your argument relies on 100% efficacy of screening processes. I, for one, expect less than 100% efficacy of everything, especially human endeavors. By definition, airport security is flawed - you must either accept that or argue that it IS perfect, as of yesterday about 10 minutes before this sad incident occured. If you want to take that tack, go ahead, but I think you'll have a hard time making it work. In fact, this incident is, in and of itself, irrefutable proof against the perfection of the system.

Therefore, it's a given that security is flawed and will always be flawed in some way. The possibility exists that contraband and weapons will make it through. The odd pair of tweezers, a pen knife and so on. And, in some cases, possibly some plastique or other explosives. So, your moral calculus leaves out a crucial variable: possibility. It is possible that any given passenger could have an explosive device on the plane. And it’s that possibility that makes what the marshall did morally justifiable (note: not justified but justifiable. Jury’s still out).

The situation yesterday was this: either the guy has a bomb or he doesn't. There’s no middle ground here: the marshalls were reacting to a situation that centered around explosives.

It makes no difference as to whether the marshals had bad information, believed it erroneously, etc. The simple fact is, that’s the true/false situation at hand. If we assume that a passenger could have explosives, here are the possible outcomes:
1. Explosives are detonated and mass casualties result.
2. Suspect is detained, explosives are not detonated, no casualties.
3. Suspect is killed, explosives are not detonated, no casualties.
4. Suspect is detained, explosives are detonated, mass casualties.

There are two scenarios in which the suspect is detained and not killed. One of those is good, one is bad. You’re arguing that the marshall should have picked the one that potentially endangered dozens of people, rather than one. I disagree. What it comes down to is this question: assuming the man did have a bomb (a big assumption, admittedly, but it’s the one that was in play at the time), the choices are to endanger one through action or endanger many through inaction. I prefer the argument that sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

As I see it, the debate here is not on whether the man should or should not have been killed. It is on the entire basis on which his death is based: the idea that he announced he had a bomb. That’s the crux of the whole thing: if he did, then deadly force is the only sane way to go. If he did not, then there’s been a state-sanctioned murder committed.

Mostly

... reliability of the screening process. I make one ethical assertion: that those 'public service' personnel who assume the responsibility for public security assurance, upon which the general (unarmed/disarmed) public is expected to rely when traveling should not and must not scapegoat members of the general public for their own conveniently amplified lack of confidence in the safeguards.

Again, I say this based upon the ethical posture I would take if I were doing such a 'public service.' I say this not without some experience upon which to base it. I do not say it lightly. I have some experience "standing in harm's way." I do not believe a free society can accept anything less from people in 'public service.' That altogether too many are willing to accept less is testimony to the decline of our free and democratic society, I believe.


I'll also make note of disturbingly similar hyperbole (and outright invention of "facts") in this case and in the case of the murdered subway commuter in Britain. If the posture of homocide apologists is so contorted that fictions are created as substitutes for facts, then that very rhetoric portrays consciousness of an ethical vacuum.

Ok, so let's begin at the beginning:

1. You admit that the screening process is not infalliable: "I ...do NOT assume 100% reliability of the screening process".

This means
2. You admit that there is the possibility, however remote, that any passenger, at any time, could have an explosive device.

OK, so now let's move to specifics. Assume you're an air marshall and you learn that there's a disruptive passenger on board (from CNN.com: "Gardner said that before the shooting, a fight broke out between the Alpizars. She said she was comforted after an airline pilot seated beside her said air marshals were on the plane and aware of the situation.").

So you're already monitoring the situation. Next, the very same passenger says he has a bomb (This is the central assertion of the dialog and must be taken at face value if we want to argue about the justifiability of the action. If you argue that he did not say he had a bomb, then certainly the shooting was not justified, but that doesn't seem to be a part of the dialog we've established thus far.)

Now if we go back to presuppositions 1 and 2, then there is the very real possibility (not likelihood but possibility) that there is an explosive device aboard the plane. And you are tasked with protecting innocent bystanders and civilians from the damage that would cause.

You have no other knowledge about the device: it could be an M80, a WWII-era grenade, 80 pounds of plastique. It could be configured to detonate via cell phone, pressue switch, simple time-delay. It could be big enough to wipe out the whole plane, or small enough to cause little more than second degree burns to those in immediate proximity.

The least risky course of action, in terms of protecting the populous at large, is shoot to kill. And protecting the public is the sole job with which you're tasked as an air marshall.

Shoot to maim is not an option - no police force on earth does that: it's always shoot for center mass if you're going to shoot at all. Detention is not an option either because the device may be detonatable in the process.

If you do any less than shoot to kill, you're essentially abdicating your responsibility to protect the public in favor of protecting your own morals and ethics - essentially, you're making the decision that your ethical stance, which stands the possibility of getting someone killed, is more important than than that person who you're consigning to death at the hands of your ethics. Any job that involves a gun is not subject to moral absolutism or long term pontificating about the moral calculus involved in any particular situation.

I say again: the issue here is not use of force. It is the very foundation of the action: did this man say he had a bomb or not? Everything after that is academic.

Mostly

:eyes:

If you'll openly and honestly reread your own post, you might see where you're inflating language one-sidedly to shore up the case.

Let's try to keep in mind that ...
(1) He was on the jet ramp, not in a loaded airplane.
(2) He'd already checked through screening at his departure airport and through customs in Miami.
(3) His wife accompanied him and (a) said he was emotionally ill and (b) was urging restraint.
(4) He's a married mid-40's Latino (in Miami!!), not a 20-something "Ayrab".
(5) He wasn't surrounded by a school-full of kindergartners.
(6) He'd ALREADY flown in on a flight he could have bombed if he'd had one!!

The marshals had him contained. It wasn't like he was running amok; the "sin" was in not acting like a trained dog.

I won't deny that the Marshals are "trained" to overreact. I deny that their actions were rational and humane under the circumstances.


This guy had a WMD just like Saddam had WMDs. They both were "proven" to have them despite the fact they didn't use them when they might have. Where's the fucking logic? Where's the ethics?

Nowhere.

Again, you're looking at this after the fact and saying "He didn't have a bomb so nobody would have gotten hurt." Entirely true, but also irrelevant.

The belief (supposedly: again, this is really what's worth debating) is that he had a bomb. What kind of bomb? How big? What kind of blast radius?

1. The fact that he was on the jetway does not place the passengers out of harm's way. By definition, the door to the plane had to be open because he walked into the plane, then back out again. So if he detonates a bomb, it's entirely plausible that the passengers in the plane would be hurt, possibly killed. by the pressure wave, flames and shrapnel.

2. Agreed, but you've already admitted that airport screening and security was not and can not be made perfect. As a result, you cannot use this as an argument: if the possibility exists to bypass or fool security (as you've admitted it does), then the fact that he had passed security is moot. Your argument essentially becomes "why do we have air marshalls at all when people have to go through security checkpoints".

3. From what I've read, she said this only as the situation came to a head, as the air marshalls were already moving into action. The phrase "day late and a dollar short" comes to mind. If your spouse is having a psychotic episode before s/he gets onto the plane (from CNN.com: "Ellen Sutliff, who said she sat near Alpizar, described him as agitated, even before he boarded the plane. His wife kept coaxing him, 'We just have to get through customs. Please, please help me get through this," according to Sutliff.'"), then you have an obligation to notify somebody. If you have source that says she told the airline ahead of time, or between flights, I'll gladly read it and may change my opinion as a result.

4. This demonstrates an amazing sort of reverse prejudice on your part. So the air marshall should only look sideways at Arabs? Even if the passenger in question claims they have a bomb? Or am I right in assuming that you'd agree anybody, of any color/nationality/etc might be capable of wanting to bomb a plane? If you said "yes", this negates #4 as a factor in any way.

5. I have no idea what this means.

6. Here again, you're deciding something that you don't have the right to decide. Could he have bombed the first flight? Sure. But maybe, for whatever reason, he chose not to. We're talking about someone with a bomb (supposedly): do you really want to base any aspect of your argument on the logic of somebody who is (supposedly) planning on killing a bunch of innocent people?

"The marshals had him contained." That's an assumption on your part. You don't know what was going on on the jetway, and as I mentioned before the fact that he's on the jetway does not necessarily contain him as a threat because we're talking about an explosive device, not a knife or gun.

Mostly

... any person anywhere COULD have a bomb. Indeed, their ability to have one undetected is orders of magnitude higher! Thus, anyone could be shot and killed by any 'law enforcement' officer for any concocted rationale ... anywhere!!

While the screenings aren't "perfect" (nothing is), the fact that he'd gone through at least two such screenings to get where he was makes the liklihood so low that the rationale for deadly force is made bankrupt. The probability doesn't get higher just because of FEAR!! (That's the essence of blame-shifting.)

Again, that level of rationalization makes absolutely EVERYONE a target.

Don't go to a mall.
Don't go to any elementary schools.
Don't go to a restaurant.
Don't go to sporting events.
And for God's sake, do what ANYONE tells you to do whether they're uniformed or not. (Remember, Federal Air Marshals take pride in not looking like Federal Air Marshals!!!)

At the same time, surrender your civil liberties and allow your privacy to be violated ... even though your safety becomes far more threatened by the 'law enforcement' people than any 'threat' they're supposedly protecting you from.

Ethical and political corruption. Period.
This is how people behave when RULED BY FEAR!!!

"Thus, anyone could be shot and killed by any 'law enforcement' officer for any concocted rationale ... anywhere!!"

Ah, the crux of the biscuit, as it were.

This man was not killed "anywhere" for "any" rationale. He was killed because he (supposedly) said he had a bomb, on a plane. That's not just any old rationale. That's a pretty good one. It's a damn far cry from he had a gun on the street or he brandished a knife in his bedroom.

But that is distinctly not what you've been arguing. You've been arguing over whether the use of deadly force was warrented IF/WHEN a person claims to have a bomb on an airplane.

Essentially, though, you're right: the "fact" that he said he had a bomb gave the police a blank check to use force. What's important is whether the word "concocted" plays into this situation. That's why I have repeatedly said that the real issue was whether he said what they claim he said. On that score, the jury's still out and I don't have any strong suspicion either way.

Tangentially, the act of screaming "fire" in a crowded theater has never been considered a Constitutional right, and claiming one has a bomb on a plane would fall into that realm. Therefore, the fact that you or I cannot scream "Bomb" in a crowded plane is not a loss of civil liberties.

Also, I have a question about the following: "the fact that he'd gone through at least two such screeings to get where he was makes the liklihood so low that the rationale for deadly force is made bankrupt."

So are you saying that we don't need to worry once we've gotten past the security check points? No need for locked cockpit doors? No need for air marshals? No need for police personnel inside the terminals?

Mostly

You could just shoot him in the leg.

Just kidding. Ok fine, I prefer Hollywood to real life. Shoot 'em in the leg.

no suicide bomber announces it by shouting "ive got a bomb"...
a sign that the person wants theatre, not deaths.

Do nothing, wait. The likelihood is that he does not have a
bomb, even if he says so, just because it is more statistically
insignificant than winning the lottery, standing next to a
bomb that really goes off.... i'll take the odds... I'm more
likely to win a supreme court seat.

Only kidding. In a clearcut situation the response is obvious, but usually the true story takes a lot longer to come out (as per the Brazilian shot in London.

How much is a Brazillion? :hide:

how many dollars you'll spend if you go to the Rio Carnival!

:party:

"don't shoot!! He's mentally ill!!!"

The story very nicely gets them off the hook and makes it sound like a good shoot. The story also has no corroboration beyond the blue shield. I have major doubts that the dead man made any threats, but we will likely never know.

This is so similar to Amadou Diallo it is scary. Maybe he was going for identification papers if he reached into the bag at all.