Uh-oh...Return of the trigger-happy police?

[Fig]

You know about that FAM shooting on the Miami plane?

According to the FAM version of events, the man who was shot claimed to be carrying a bomb in his bag, and was shot when he reached into his bag. A regreatable incident, to be sure, but not a behavior that we could blame on the federal air marshalls - if he really claimed to have a bomb in his bag and was reaching into his bag, not shooting him was probably too much of a risk.

But quoth the CNN :

The marshals say Alpizar announced he was carrying a bomb before being killed.

However, no other witness has publicly concurred with that account. Only one passenger recalled Alpizar saying, "I've got to get off, I've got to get off," CNN's Kathleen Koch reported.

Let's hope it's just that no one has confirmed it *publicly* *yet*. The last thing we need is a repeat of London shooting.

EDIT : It appears several passengers HAVE spoken publicly about *not* hearing any bomb threat.

Gah.

EDIT II : More from the CNN article (you can find it here : http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/12/08/airplane.gunshot/index.html)

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."

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

Tirpak said he didn't hear Alpizar say anything.

Passenger Mike Beshears recalled Alpizar running off the plane clutching a bag, chased by a man in a Hawaiian shirt.

That man turned out to be one of the two air marshals.

Like Tirpak, Beshears said he did not hear Alpizar say anything. "He just was in a hurry and exited the plane," he said.

 

[Zeta]

Reminds me of the preacher we had outside of the library a week ago urging us to slay all muslims in the name of Christ.

 

[The Big Al]

Now do you see why I'm more fearful of our government than the terrorists? There either stupid, insane, or both.

 

[Fig]

We don'T know for a fact that it WAS a police mistake (let alone an evil police plot).

We just have some reasons at this point to *doubt* the police version, which is not entirely the same thing.

 

[The Big Al]

And unfortunately we can't ask the "bomber" what they were saying.

 

[evkl]

Although in fairness he could have muttered it or something. And if he did in fact reach into his bag after being told to get on the ground, that's basically signing your death sentence.

 

[Jukain]

Ok, who time traveled me back to the '70s?

 

[Dagoth Ur]

He was acting weirdly wasn't he?
And he was wearing a backpack in front of him?
And when he was told to stop, he did not and instead reached into his bag, which could be either to pull a weapon or a bomb?

So what if he's bipolar. Too bad. Should have taken his meds. He got what he deserved. Considering that he is mentally ill and that his vacation was missionary in nature, I'm not sympathetic one bit.

Oh, and the people who are horrified as a knee-jerk reaction are idiots. Why don't you provide evidence that the air marshalls acted incorrectly, which given the circumstances they didn't?

And the passengers who were inconvenienced or got their luggage blown up should sue the widow.

 

[The Big Al]

He was acting weirdly wasn't he?
And he was wearing a backpack in front of him?
And when he was told to stop, he did not and instead reached into his bag, which could be either to pull a weapon or a bomb?

It use to be they grabbed them by each arm and escorted them off the plane if they were on the ground or land at the nearest airport if they were in the air and then escort them off. This isn't the first person to go nuts on a plane and he won't be the last. You can't shoot a person because they won't sit down.

So what if he's bipolar. Too bad. Should have taken his meds. He got what he deserved. Considering that he is mentally ill and that his vacation was missionary in nature, I'm not sympathetic one bit.

You're scum of the earth. To say a person with a mental illness should be shot is sick. Maybe he was fine unil he realized something. As you said, he was bipolar and I've dealt with people who are bipolar. Even on medication, bad news tends to set them off.

Oh, and the people who are horrified as a knee-jerk reaction are idiots. Why don't you provide evidence that the air marshalls acted incorrectly, which given the circumstances they didn't?

According to all neutral witnesses, he never said bomb. He was going into a fit.

And the passengers who were inconvenienced or got their luggage blown up should sue the widow.

They should sue the air marshalls because they overreacted.

 

[Jukain]

What we have here is two opposing stories from two different points of view. It is difficult to tell who is telling the truth. The story of the witnesses seems to be a lot stronger, though, simply because they have more people to back them up.

 

[Zeta]

What we have here is two opposing stories from two different points of view. It is difficult to tell who is telling the truth. The story of the witnesses seems to be a lot stronger, though, simply because they have more people to back them up.

Not to mention they have nothing to gain by lying.

 

[Fig]

Essentialy, yes.

If the Air Marshall story is true, then what they did was the right thing. If the FAM story is *NOT* true, as some of the witnesses seems to imply at this point, then a lot of questions need to be asked - mostly WHY the FAM tried to lie to the public. Such a lie should get everyone (knowingly) involved in it fired (irrelevant of whether or not they thought they had OTHER good reasons to shoot)­.

And Ted, you are, ever were, and ever will be one of the most disgusting example of human being on the face of earth.

 

[Dagoth Ur]

It use to be they grabbed them by each arm and escorted them off the plane if they were on the ground or land at the nearest airport if they were in the air and then escort them off. This isn't the first person to go nuts on a plane and he won't be the last. You can't shoot a person because they won't sit down.

And what if he did have something inside his bag? I'm sure taking the time to close the distance is a priority when the dude could be pulling out a gun or arming a bomb. Times have changed. What used to be is out of date.

You're scum of the earth. To say a person with a mental illness should be shot is sick. Maybe he was fine unil he realized something. As you said, he was bipolar and I've dealt with people who are bipolar. Even on medication, bad news tends to set them off.

You misinterpret me. He deserved what he got because he failed to take the medication that keeps him rational, and his wife and caretaker did not make him. Since as a society you choose to let mentally ill people who do not take their medication run around loose instead of safely (to himself and others) in a home somewhere, it is no surprise that something like this would happen.
My policy is this: people who are mentally ill should be institutionalized, or if not then should take their medicine. If not, then whatever happens is their own fault. Please explain how this perfectly logical idea makes me "scum."

According to all neutral witnesses, he never said bomb. He was going into a fit.

He reached into his bag against orders from law enforcement. Whether he said "bomb" is irrelevent. It would not surprise me if the air marshalls were trained to treat this behavior (reaching into a bag when cornered) as synonymous with "bomb," and associate the two in their minds into their memories. It could simply be bad recollection rather than an outright lie.

They should sue the air marshalls because they overreacted.

Assuming the evidence so far, there was no overreaction. The air marshalls are the last line of defense, and here we have a passenger going nuts, disobeying commands, and acting in a way that would send any cop's tension through the roof.

It was the man and his wife's responsibilities to take the medications. They failed.
The air marshalls acted based on what they observed, rather than the commands based on incomplete information from some other officer elsewhere like in the London case.

 

[Fig]

Whether or not their actions were justified (which we do NOT know for a fact yet - has it ever occured to you that if they were lying about "crying bomb", they could be lying about other parts of the story?), they should be fired if it turns out that they lied about the bomb threat.

People who are trusted with the security of the people owe the truth to their ultimate employer (ie, the public). If they cannot respect that, then they do not deserve the job.

 

[Dagoth Ur]

Whether or not their actions were justified (which we do NOT know for a fact yet - has it ever occured to you that if they were lying about "crying bomb", they could be lying about other parts of the story?), they should be fired if it turns out that they lied about the bomb threat.

I see no evidence of lying yet, just pure misrecollection which I have already explained. Given the complete lack of other motive to shoot down a person who everybody stated was acting oddly, I am inclined to take the law enforcement account.
What we know so far:
1) This occurred while passengers were boarding the jet.
2) The shooting occurred on the jetway. Apparently passengers and witnesses heard what was going on, but none actually saw it happen
3) Air marshalls say he mentioned bomb. Passengers say they did not hear it.
4) The wife was yelling that her husband was bipolar and off his meds.

People who are trusted with the security of the people owe the truth to their ultimate employer (ie, the public). If they cannot respect that, then they do not deserve the job.

Agreed.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

If the man said ANYTHING about a bomb, and then failed to stop when told to...I completely side with the air marshalls. They aren't going to shoot someone on a plane just because they can. They aren't baggage screeners.

Maybe he was fine unil he realized something.

From what I've heard, he was off his medication at the time, which explains his actions. The air marshalls viewed him as a threat and proceeded to protect those on-board. This isn't like the guy who was shot in London after the bombings. This guy had a bag, on a plane FULL of people, and they clearly called out for him to stop. It's a tragedy that a man had to die, but the movie Airplane taught us a simple lesson: Do NOT cut off the drugs before going on a plane.

They should sue the air marshalls because they overreacted.

I think they acted with the proper amount of force. They could have done MUCH worse.

It's horrible that someone died. And, certainly, if what the air marshalls claim WASN'T true, then SOMETHING should be done, but you have to keep in mind that the passengers COULD have been extremely shaken by what happened, and possibly blocked out the words (or simply didn't hear them). Those close enough to hear could have been traumatized, while those farther away might not have heard anything (ESPECIALLY if the engine on the plane was running, or they were still loading people).

 

[The Big Al]

Here's my question. Why did they let him on the plane in the first place? Witnesses said he was behaving strangly before he even got on the plane and then freaked out once he got on the plane. So the ticket checker should have though "oh, this guy is unfit to fly" and turned him way. They do it for drunk people.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

And that's why that person should ALSO be investigated. And the baggage checkers as well (just in case he was acting crazy that far back).

 

[Alabaster.j.cat]

Just a question i might have missed but, after they shot him did they ever check his bag to see what it's contents were?

 

[Girafarig_Magcargo]

I don't think the air marshals would have enough time to check the passenger on the computer system in such a situation.