Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

BREAKING NEWS- Shots fired by US Marshall on airplane!


Heidenreich

Recommended Posts

How can anyone feel bad for him. He said he had a bomb. What a dumb a$$! How can anyone be this stupid after 911. If it was because he didnt take his meds, thats his fault. He obviously was able to understand orders, since when they told him to stop...he did. But when they tell him to put down the bag, with their guns aimed at him, he refuses and instead reaches inside the bag. What does anyone expect to happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this sounds like a complicated situation and i hope the marshall exhausted all other options and used good judgement before he used deadly force. i don't go around causing troubles on planes, but being wrongfully shot by the police is a real concern of mine.

No. It's not complicated at all. A bomb would kill lots of people in the blink of an eye. Anyone who says they have a bomb and reaches into his bag should be shot regardless of what anyone, even somone claiming to be his wife says (they could be a terorist team). The marshal's job is to protect the plane and it's passengers and with seconds to act THERE IS NO CHOICE. Tragic, but that's just the way it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guy picked the wrong place and time to stop taking his meds... :2cents:

The Marshall didn't do anything wrong IMO but he will still be sued.

I tend to agree with this.

If:

(1) The Marshall identified himself as a U.S. Marshall

(2) The Marshall told the man to stop running.

(3) The man reached into his bag.

...then this is a case that falls under the "shoot to kill" policy that the Israelis use and that the British have implemented (also resulting in the killing of an innocent man in the London subway).

However, I also believe the man's family should be able to sue and that they should receive some compensation. We all must make sacrifices in the War on Terror, but when some of us sacrifice in great disproportion to others, those people should be compensated. The families of 9/11 victims should receive money for the government's mistakes, and this man's family should as well.

No policy is perfect, and the costs of this particular policy are that some innocent Americans will be killed by law enforcement. These costs should be spread among all Americans rather than falling disproportionately on the mentally unstable or the unlucky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No policy is perfect, and the costs of this particular policy are that some innocent Americans will be killed by law enforcement. These costs should be spread among all Americans rather than falling disproportionately on the mentally unstable or the unlucky.

I don't see how he is innocent. Granted, he apparently has mental instability, but regardless you don't say ever "bomb" on an airplane.

You especially don't say "I have a bomb" on an airplane.

It's the air marshal's job to take down people who are acting like this. Frankly, I'd be concerned if he didn't take the guy out.

I would be very disappointed if the marshal saw any repercussions for doing his job. I would also be worried that other air marshals would be hesitant to act differently after hearing this case.

We'll all be waiting for the details, but from what we know so far, nothing but justice was served on the tarmac.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how he is innocent. Granted, he apparently has mental instability, but regardless you don't say ever "bomb" on an airplane.

You especially don't say "I have a bomb" on an airplane.

It's the air marshal's job to take down people who are acting like this. Frankly, I'd be concerned if he didn't take the guy out.

I would be very disappointed if the marshal saw any repercussions for doing his job. I would also be worried that other air marshals would be hesitant to act differently after hearing this case.

We'll all be waiting for the details, but from what we know so far, nothing but justice was served on the tarmac.

I don't think the air marshal should see any repercussions, but justice was not served on the tarmac. The air marshal did his job, but an innocent man was killed. Justice would be served if the man were a terrorist. Justice would be served if the man had been tackled and perhaps fined for his behavior. Justice would also be served if the dead man's family receives some compensation.

The point of a "shoot to kill" policy is to stop terrorists from blowing things up; it is not to shut people up who are mentally unstable. This man's death is the cost of having such a policy - we will sometimes kill people who aren't terrorists.

I'm not saying the air marshal did anything wrong, but the man did not deserve to die. Give the air marshal a medal. Give the man's family some money. If one day we start handing out too much money like this, then we might need to reconsider our policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the air marshal should see any repercussions, but justice was not served on the tarmac. The air marshal did his job, but an innocent man was killed. Justice would be served if the man were a terrorist. Justice would be served if the man had been tackled and perhaps fined for his behavior. Justice would also be served if the dead man's family receives some compensation.

The point of a "shoot to kill" policy is to stop terrorists from blowing things up; it is not to shut people up who are mentally unstable. This man's death is the cost of having such a policy - we will sometimes kill people who aren't terrorists.

I'm not saying the air marshal did anything wrong, but the man did not deserve to die. Give the air marshal a medal. Give the man's family some money. If one day we start handing out too much money like this, then we might need to reconsider our policy.

TJ, I see where you are coming from, but how can we take chances these days? Airplanes are now places where we can't afford any BS; you don't say bomb, you don't say you have a bomb, you don't F around with an air marshal. It's just way too serious of a matter after 9/11.

And I don't find this person to be innocent. He's not a fundamental terrorist, but he sure as hell acted like one from what we've heard and that is not tolerable on airplanes. I'm not sure how the marshal is supposed to differentiate between him and a terrorist... does the marshal know this guy is on meds? Does he know he doesn't have a bomb? Does he know he's not another Rick Reed who may look Western? Nope he doesn't, you have to assume he's a terrorist. And aren't you still undermining the safety of everyone by "tackling" someone who says they have a bomb? It's explosive...

Do I necessarily think the man should have been killed? Of course not, he has a mental illness and he didn't really have a bomb. But did the marshal do the right thing by shooting him? Absolutely. Saying you have a bomb, reaching into your bag despite warnings, and undermining the safety of everyone on board subjects you to capital punishment.

The family should not be compensated unless the government offers it. No way can they sue for wrongful death in a situation such as this. The air marshal was obviously doing what he was taught to do and he should be commended for doing his job.

I'm certain that there are standard operating procedures for these marshals... they aren't acting on a whim; their job is too important. When someone who says they have a bomb reaches into their bag when they are told not to that is when there is not a second to play around. The marshal is protecting everyone on that plane and he would be irresponsible to act any differently than how he acted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TJ, I see where you are coming from, but how can we take chances these days? Airplanes are now places where we can't afford any BS; you don't say bomb, you don't say you have a bomb, you don't F around with an air marshal. It's just way too serious of a matter after 9/11.

And I don't find this person to be innocent. He's not a fundamental terrorist, but he sure as hell acted like one from what we've heard and that is not tolerable on airplanes. I'm not sure how the marshal is supposed to differentiate between him and a terrorist... does the marshal know this guy is on meds? Does he know he doesn't have a bomb? Does he know he's not another Rick Reed who may look Western? Nope he doesn't, you have to assume he's a terrorist. And aren't you still undermining the safety of everyone by "tackling" someone who says they have a bomb? It's explosive...

Do I necessarily think the man should have been killed? Of course not, he has a mental illness and he didn't really have a bomb. But did the marshal do the right thing by shooting him? Absolutely. Saying you have a bomb, reaching into your bag despite warnings, and undermining the safety of everyone on board subjects you to capital punishment.

The family should not be compensated unless the government offers it. No way can they sue for wrongful death in a situation such as this. The air marshal was obviously doing what he was taught to do and he should be commended for doing his job.

I'm certain that there are standard operating procedures for these marshals... they aren't acting on a whim; their job is too important. When someone who says they have a bomb reaches into their bag when they are told not to that is when there is not a second to play around. The marshal is protecting everyone on that plane and he would be irresponsible to act any differently than how he acted.

Look, I'm not saying the marshal shouldn't shoot the guy.

I'm saying it's fine to shoot the guy, just give his family some compensation.

Next time this happens, shoot that guy too - and if it turns out he's not a terrorist either, compensate his family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, I'm not saying the marshal shouldn't shoot the guy.

I'm saying it's fine to shoot the guy, just give his family some compensation.

Next time this happens, shoot that guy too - and if it turns out he's not a terrorist either, compensate his family.

To compensate is to indicate fault. Why should the government/airline/marshal admit any guilt for his death?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To make it clear-- Tj, I do find it to be a very sad story all in itself and I very much see the emotional side of it. The guy was crazy (whether that is indicative of him not being on his medicine, I don't know) and he tragically died. It's sad for him and his family, but he, sane or no, was at fault with his behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To compensate is to indicate fault. Why should the government/airline/marshal admit any guilt for his death?

The government is at fault. It crafted a policy that causes the death of innocent people. The policy does more good than bad, but the bad part shouldn't fall solely on the mentally unstable ... the cost should be spread around.

It's like when the government decides to take your land to build a new baseball stadium. You didn't do anything wrong, but you lose your land for the greater good of the community. The government then must pay you for the value of your land.

Similarly, we have a policy in place that protects us all from terrorism, but it exacts costs from some innocent parties. Those innocents should be compensated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An update.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/07/AR2005120701578.html

Man Who Claimed to Have Bomb Shot, Killed in Miami Airport

By William Branigin and Spencer S. Hsu

Washington Post Staff Writers

Wednesday, December 7, 2005; 6:48 PM

Federal air marshals today shot and killed a man who boarded an American Airlines flight in Miami and claimed to have a bomb in his backpack, officials said.

Authorities subsequently searched the passenger's belongings and found no explosives. Nor was there any evidence of a connection to terrorism, officials said.

In a press conference at Miami International Airport nearly four hours after the shooting, James E. Bauer, special agent in charge of the Federal Air Marshal Service field office in Miami, identified the dead man as Rigoberto Alpizar, 44, a U.S. citizen.

Alpizar "was holding a backpack and uttered a threat that he had a bomb," Bauer said. Two federal air marshals who were on the plane "came out of cover" and confronted Alpizar, who was "noncompliant" and "attempted to evade them," Bauer said.

As a result of the incident, federal air marshals were deployed to airports throughout the United States to check whether the episode was part of a larger scheme, but they found no indication that it was anything other than an isolated event, officials said.

The passenger reportedly was behaving erratically before the fatal confrontation in the jetway between the plane and the terminal at Miami International Airport.

The incident occurred shortly before American Airlines Flight 924 from Medellin, Colombia, was scheduled to depart for Orlando, Fla., after a two-hour stopover in Miami.

Alpizar and his wife cleared customs in Miami after flying in from Ecuador and had boarded Flight 924 for the flight to Orlando, said Rick Thomas of the Transportation Security Administration.

Officials refused to address reports that Alpizar had a mental illness.

Hours after the shooting, the plane remained parked at a terminal gate while authorities unloaded passengers' baggage and screened it on the ground beside the aircraft. At least three bags were taken away and blown up on the tarmac.

While the plane was parked at gate D42, Alpizar indicated there was a bomb aboard his carry-on bag, said Russ Knocke, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security in Washington.

A team from the Federal Air Marshal Service confronted the passenger, who tried to run off the plane through the jetway, he said.

The team "pursued the subject into the jetway and ordered the subject to get down on the ground," Knocke said. "The passenger appeared to reach into the carry-on bag, at which point in time, consistent with their FAMS [Federal Air Marshal Service] training, the air marshals took appropriate action." He said shots were fired as the air marshals "attempted to subdue the subject."

Another Homeland Security Department spokesman, Brian Doyle, said the incident marked the first time since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that an air marshal had shot a passenger. The air marshal service, originally formed in 1968 under the Federal Aviation Administration, was expanded dramatically after the Sept. 11 attacks and transferred to the Homeland Security Department.

Before the shooting, the man frantically ran down the aisle of the plane, and his wife said he was mentally ill, according to a witness interviewed by a Miami television station. Passenger Mary Gardner told Miami's WTVJ that the man ran down the aisle from the rear of the plane.

"He was frantic, his arms flailing in the air," Gardner said. She said a woman followed, shouting, "My husband! My husband!" Gardner said she heard the woman say her husband had bipolar disorder and had not taken his medication.

The flight left Medellin at 9:06 a.m. and arrived at Miami airport at 12:16 p.m. It was scheduled to leave for Orlando at 2:18. The shooting occurred at about 2:10 p.m.

As the incident unfolded and security teams boarded the plane, passengers were told to stay in their seats with their hands on their heads. The passengers were then allowed to leave the plane and were taken to buses.

Special correspondent Catharine Skipp in Miami contributed to this story.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government is at fault. It crafted a policy that causes the death of innocent people. The policy does more good than bad, but the bad part shouldn't fall solely on the mentally unstable ... the cost should be spread around.

It's like when the government decides to take your land to build a new baseball stadium. You didn't do anything wrong, but you lose your land for the greater good of the community. The government then must pay you for the value of your land.

Similarly, we have a policy in place that protects us all from terrorism, but it exacts costs from some innocent parties. Those innocents should be compensated.

Again, I completely and udderly fail to see the man's innocence. He was completely and 100% guilty of threatening to the existence of tens of people and an aircraft.

I think that logic is flawed. So, let me get this straight... The man's life is the land that was taken by the government and you own the man. Fair enough. You didn't do anything wrong, but the government took the man's life anyway. Okay.

But in your scenario, the land didn't threaten to set forth America's most significant terrorist attack since 9/11, which is an important variable.

Let me just say, that if that there are any reparations, they better not be public. That undermines the legitimacy of our entire air police system and would only put America more at risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I completely and udderly fail to see the man's innocence. He was completely and 100% guilty of threatening to the existence of tens of people and an aircraft.

I think that logic is flawed. So, let me get this straight... The man's life is the land that was taken by the government and you own the man. Fair enough. You didn't do anything wrong, but the government took the man's life anyway. Okay.

But in your scenario, the land didn't threaten to set forth America's most significant terrorist attack since 9/11, which is an important variable.

Let me just say, that if that there are any reparations, they better not be public. That undermines the legitimacy of our entire air police system and would only put America more at risk.

If he had intended to threaten the airplane, I would agree with you. If he had understood that by reaching for his bag he would be risking his own life, I would agree with you. But I think it's pretty clear that this man was mentally unstable and was not aware of what he was doing.

In the land example, if you are using your land to grow pot or as a terrorist training facility, the government can seize it without compensating you - in that case you are guilty. In most cases of someone threatening an airplane I don't think any compensation would be due, but I think this is a very special case where we've ended up killing someone innocent.

I don't see how reparations for his family would undermine our air police system at all. People are still going to be shot if they do the exact same thing. Compensating one grieving family is not going to make any future airplanes less safe. Air Marshals should continue to shoot people in this manner. If someone intentionally threatens an airplane, his family should receive no compensation. However, when there are unfortunate circumstances as we have here, I believe it is in the interests of justice to attempt to make his family whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After what happened in England on the subway (the guy they shot) I think we should wait to see how the story unfolds and let those that investigate things figure everything out before we pass judgement. Remember in that case they said he was acting suspicious, ran from them, and all this other stuff that later turned out to be false.

Personally I doubt the marshalls did anything wrong but we'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take is if he said he had a bomb and reached into his bag, it's his own fault. Now people will think twice before doing stupid things, like saying they have have a bomb in the airport. Whether he was sick or not, you can't blame the Marshall. I heard a report on the radio on the way home that he did follow procedure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government is at fault. It crafted a policy that causes the death of innocent people. The policy does more good than bad, but the bad part shouldn't fall solely on the mentally unstable ... the cost should be spread around.

The government is at fault, are you kidding me. Since when does threatening you have a bomb make you innocent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government is at fault, are you kidding me. Since when does threatening you have a bomb make you innocent.

When you don't understand he consequences of your actions. For example, if you are mentally insane or you are a child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government is at fault. It crafted a policy that causes the death of innocent people. The policy does more good than bad, but the bad part shouldn't fall solely on the mentally unstable ... the cost should be spread around.

It's like when the government decides to take your land to build a new baseball stadium. You didn't do anything wrong, but you lose your land for the greater good of the community. The government then must pay you for the value of your land.

Similarly, we have a policy in place that protects us all from terrorism, but it exacts costs from some innocent parties. Those innocents should be compensated.

This is just crazy thinking. If this was just some dude standing around, then his family may be entitled to compensation. It is not the governments fault that he did not take the meds, it's his. What should happen is his actions, fostered by him not taking his meds, should be deemed criminally negligent. His actions put others at risk. It is he who is at fault, not the policy. If you want to assign blame elsewhere, assign it to the terrorists.

(Caveat: The above, except for the crazy thinking part, assumes the early reports are correct. We need to wait and see to be sure.)

We live in a free society. There are inherent risks for this for which the government bears no responsibility. We are free, because we choose as a nation to be so, not because the government forces us to be. If someone flies a plane into a building and I get killed, it is not the governments responsibility to compensate my family. As a citizen of a free and open society, I understand that it is an unrealistic expectation that the government can protect me from every evil person in the world. Sometimes crap happens and no one is specifically to blame other than the perpetrator.

You want to compensate the family, compensate them from seized assets. That would be just.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds more like suicide by cop to me.

Nice attempt to use this man's mental frailties for your political gain, though.

:notworthy

If these searches worked so well, we wouldn't have to worry about idle threats from a man off his meds.

And of course there would also be no need for armed Marshalls, either. :doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just crazy thinking. If this was just some dude standing around, then his family may be entitled to compensation. It is not the governments fault that he did not take the meds, it's his. What should happen is his actions, fostered by him not taking his meds, should be deemed criminally negligent. His actions put others at risk. It is he who is at fault, not the policy. If you want to assign blame elsewhere, assign it to the terrorists.

(Caveat: The above, except for the crazy thinking part, assumes the early reports are correct. We need to wait and see to be sure.)

We live in a free society. There are inherent risks for this for which the government bears no responsibility. We are free, because we choose as a nation to be so, not because the government forces us to be. If someone flies a plane into a building and I get killed, it is not the governments responsibility to compensate my family. As a citizen of a free and open society, I understand that it is an unrealistic expectation that the government can protect me from every evil person in the world. Sometimes crap happens and no one is specifically to blame other than the perpetrator.

You want to compensate the family, compensate them from seized assets. That would be just.

Except that the government DID compensate the victims of the 9/11 families.

You make a good point though - if he doesn't have some reasonable excuse for not taking his meds, his family doesn't deserve any compensation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...