Air Marshal Leaves Plane After Dropping Bullets

[dev_null]

IT'S CALLED A MAGAZINE!!!

Yabbut if the reporter said his magazine fell to the floor the readers would think he dropped a copy of Maxim or something.

 

[bamawrx]

Something about this story isn't right. Ammo falling out of a loaded mag when dropped is not normal. One round, possible, but the article indicates multiple rounds. I've thrown more mags to the ground in training or IDPA than I can count. I don't think one round has ever come loose other than the half stripped round that caused a malfunction. I'm callling BS on this storys details.

Also, no air marshall is going to be handeling a mag, loose ammo, or firearm while entering a plane. That kind of gets in the way of being covert doesn't it. So, if he dropped the mag something very strange happened to facilitate that. The mag could have hung on something in the plane and got pulled out of his mag pouch. A situation like that would be a "no fault" error in my book.

I think he should have played it cool and stayed on the flight. Heck its not like most people pay attention and the whole plane won't see what you are picking up.


ALSO, I strongly support the shooting of the dude that claimed he had a bomb. It was unfortunate, but sends the right message about aircraft security. If your crazy....take your freeking meds.

 

[NineseveN]

I wonder if the crazy guy that was killed by Air Marshalls considered his death "statistically irrelevant".

I wonder if his family considered it irrelevant?

Will the jury consider it irrelevant during the ensuing civil lawsuit?

Statistics themselves are irrlevant, when we are talking about one individual life.

Wow, that's a pretty weak emotional ploy and really it says little and proves nothing.

If your argument is that the event, in and of itself was tragic, you have a point. If you're arguing that this one incident is somehow evidence that the FAM program is bad, well, that incident, in and of itself is "statistically irrelevant" and proves nothing even close to that. So, what's your point, exactly?

This is the same type of emotional whoring argument that is used against gun owners; the anti-gun crowd takes some bad incident/s involving guns and says, "see, guns are bad, look what happened here!". The problem is, those incidents too are statistically irrelevant compared to the number of incidents that are positive gun uses (self defense) and even more so compared to the number of incidents that don't happen every day with the millions of legal firearms in this country.

Of course, it would not matter how relevant the gun tragedies were on a numerical basis, the right supercedes the abuse.

With the FAM program, if a substantial number of people were being killed due to FAM negligence, it would indeed matter in regards to the effectiveness and value of the program. However, we've seen only one incident, where the shoot was ruled justifiable (despite the man being cleared as a non-threat after the fact) based on the events leading up to the shoot.

Your statement is simply worthless, and I suspect it is merely a cheap emotional ploy that you're using as cover for your dislike of the FAM program for whatever reason.

Again, what is your point exactly? What relevance does the case you brought up have to the discussion at hand? We weren't talking about that incident until you brought it up, so what point were you trying to make by doing so?

 

[CombatArmsUSAF]

Shooting someone who is posing a threat to you and all the other passengers aboard a plane is only good common sense.

If you are pyshco and forget to take your meds- Oh Well

Far as his family is concerned, maybe they should have been involved in the guys life a little more.

When you consider how many flights are in our skies every day, I think 10% coverage is a pretty good number. Especially when you consider how many of those flight are going from Smallville, Montana to Nowhere, ND. They play it smart by putting their people on the major flights like NYC to LA. Why waste people on the flights that have the least risk? I would personally have 2 air marshals on a flight from LA to Chicago, than 1 on a flight from minneapolis to minot.

 

[jeepmor]

but did anyone say....

How did you get that gun onthis plane Mister? I found the air marshall fellas, I'm sitting next to this guy....

So what, he dropped something relevant to his job and blew his cover. Did he get replaced by another, or did the flight go without?

Embarrassing, yes, but pulling himself from the flight, must me a protocol issue since cover was blown.

And secondly, why didn't the vigilante types pounce on this guy? Did he wave his badge to show he was actually "allowed" to possess a firearm on a plane?

jeepmor

 

[carebear]

Prior to '63(?) we could have had 200 armed civilians on a plane (unlikely but possible).

Explain how maybe one guy on 10% of flights is an improvement, deterrent wise, exactly?

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Four planes were hi-jacked on September 11, 2001. .

If 10 percent of flights that day had had an air marshall on them, what are the chances all 4 of those planes would have had an air marshall on them?


1 in 10,000.

You call this an effective program?

 

[freebird]

I agree. Just let us all carry. I was detained for 30 minutes for a flight leaving Pittsburgh airport while they checked my camera bag and had to look up in their manual to see if it was ok for me to carry a baseball on the plane? I had a ball in the camera bag from a MLB game I had went to in hopes of getting autographs. Granted I used to pitch and have a great arm but how in the heck am I going to throw the ball and take out the whole flight crew. Some of this is just getting ridiculous.

 

[NineseveN]

Four planes were hi-jacked on September 11, 2001. .

If 10 percent of flights that day had had an air marshall on them, what are the chances all 4 of those planes would have had an air marshall on them?


1 in 10,000.

You call this an effective program?

What, did you not have time to come up with an answer to my questions posted in response to you?

You still haven't made a point. Anyone can play that game...

4 planes were hijacked on 9/11/2001, and 0 (zero, zip, zilch, nada) have been hijacked since the ramp up in Air Marshal coverage...using the same foolish logic that you're trying to use, we could say that the Federal Air Marshal program has been 100% successful in keeping terrorists from hijacking planes.

However, neither of those presumptuous statements really mean anything because they're simple answers that fail to account for the greater complexities that you just cannot ignore if you're going to begin to assess the issue with any semblance of intellectual honesty.

For clarity's sake, I’ll ask again (in reference to your post about the 1 death of a non-terrorist by the FAM program)....

Again, what is your point exactly? What relevance does the case you brought up have to the discussion at hand? We weren't talking about that incident until you brought it up, so what point were you trying to make by doing so?

You don't seem to really have a point, nor an argument, is your goal here just to complain about the program and offer no real point, no real useful arguments and no actual factual analysis of the situation that one can use to draw the same conclusions you have? Isn't that a waste of time for both yourself and any potential reader of this thread? Nothing useful can come of your posts if you fail to make a point and simply resort to fruitless rhetoric, baseless emotional ploys and conjecture.

 

[carebear]

Nine,

Can we say the AM program HAS accomplished anything positive?

All we can really document is the "x" amount of money and resources it has used since its creation.

I suppose there are those who may feel safer, but I don't weigh feelings against dollars and cents. I certainly don't feel any safer with the odds there'll actually be an AM on my particular aircraft if those same odds go so bad against me that there's a terrorist on it.

It may be possible to say there is a deterrent effect of having AM's on flights, but if 10% is sufficient, why not a cheaper, less involved 5% rate? Or 1%? Or just a Potemkin Village scenario of -zero- actual Air Marshalls, just some nice publicity shots of generic men training in mock ups and a couple service pistol contracts (which can then be farmed out to other agencies so as not to be a real cost)?

If we can't come up with a cogent reson for the AM service to exist as is, it's a bit of a stretch to ask folks to argue why it shouldn't.

Especially when tax dollars are being spent.

 

[dartos]

I had one of my Walther P99 S&W40 mag's with a defective plastic base come apart in my hand, dumped all ten rounds as the spring shot out, I've never dropped the mag, Walther sent me two new replacement mag base's N/C, an early manufacturing defect Walther has now corrected, If anyone has an early Walther P99 they may want to contact Walther to make sure their mag's are OK.

 

[AZLibertarian]

Lonegunman

So far, the Air Marshalls have killed more innocent civilians than terrorists.

This is one of the dumbest things I've seen on this Forum. Tell ya what. Take 45 minutes and read this, and then come back and tell us just you would have had these FAMs do.

Given that the press is often flat wrong about firearms matters, and given that they will often miss key details of a story, my first thought was that this FAM had one of the floorplate malfunctions described twice here already. If this is true, it could have happened to anybody.

 

[NineseveN]

carebear,


I think the only great benefit from the FAM program we get now is the publicity and thus the 'deterrent factor'...would 5% be better or more efficient? I don't know really, I've never really analyzed the cost-effectiveness aspect of it but I think that's kinda subjective and would rely heavily on the percentage chance of having a FAM on a flight where there could be problems given a good risk analysis.

 

[MICHAEL T]

If its a gov. program,its to large, to expensive, and will have little effect on the problem.
Seem lately any trouble Ive read about on a aircraft The Passengers are handling. Haven't read where the Sky cops are doing much. I don't want to be the person that pulls a boxcutter and says this is a hijacking.



We have surrended to many of our rights and freedoms in name of security Its time to stop wasting money on feel good programs

"I much prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery."
Thomas Jefferson
He said it best.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Wow, I didnt mean to get everyone's blood pressure up!

I am still trying to figure out what you guys think I said that is not true.

I am not trying to make any profound points, just a few simple observations.

I guess, if anything, my point is that I think the Air Marshall program is poorly run, inadequate to provide any sensible level of protection, and over-priced for the service we are supposed to be getting. I would be just as happy flying on a plane without an Air Marshall, and save the money. It is just another feel good program to make the average person feel like it is safe to travel.

I read the link posted about the air marshall incident. It seems people on the plane were unsure if he was saying "I have a bomb" or something to the effect of "there is a bomb on the plane". Everyone seems to be in agreement though that the wife was yelling that he was bipolar and sick. I am less than convinced that the only solution to this problem was to shoot this guy, but I don't doubt that the Air Marshall did as they were taught, and shot him for making a bomb threat.

Whether shooting him was the only choice or not, the fact remains he was not a terrorist, would be alive today had it not been for combination of the Air Marshalls and his own psychosis, and no bomb would have gone off whether there were Air Marshalls there or not.

 

[AZLibertarian]

I guess, if anything, my point is that I think the Air Marshall program is poorly run, inadequate to provide any sensible level of protection, and over-priced for the service we are supposed to be getting.

Do you have any evidence which would lead someone to take a similar position?

I would be just as happy flying on a plane without an Air Marshall, and save the money. It is just another feel good program to make the average person feel like it is safe to travel.

I'm sympathetic to the arguement that the .gov is too big and that we ought to pare back. However, in a post-9/11 environment, I don't buy that you shut down the FAM program because it's too expensive. It would be the heigth of irresponsibility if we did not find a way to put up an adequate deterrent to a repeat of 9/11. [And please, let's not drift into yet another "Let CCW holders carry on planes" discussion. I'm on record here (starting on page 2) and elsewhere that CCW-on-a-plane is a very, very bad idea.]

I read the link posted about the air marshall incident. It seems people on the plane were unsure if he was saying "I have a bomb" or something to the effect of "there is a bomb on the plane". Everyone seems to be in agreement though that the wife was yelling that he was bipolar and sick. I am less than convinced that the only solution to this problem was to shoot this guy, but I don't doubt that the Air Marshall did as they were taught, and shot him for making a bomb threat.

Look. The fact that he may have been bi-polar and off his med's is absolutely irrelevant to the matter. He can be off his med's and have a bomb. Plus, it is neither the FAM's responsibility (nor the airline's) to determine if he's psychologically fit enough to travel. Whether his wife was yelling about his medical condition also has no bearing here. It was his actions, not his medical condition that got him shot. If you go back and re-read page 45 of the report, you'll find a map of the locations of the witnesses who heard something about a bomb. There is no uncertainty here. He mentioned "bomb" as he was entering the First Class cabin.

Whether shooting him was the only choice or not, the fact remains he was not a terrorist, would be alive today had it not been for combination of the Air Marshalls and his own psychosis, and no bomb would have gone off whether there were Air Marshalls there or not.

The FAMs had no choice. None at all. Alpizar had mentioned "bomb" loud enough to draw attention. He wore his backpack on his chest and had his hand inside. He refused the instructions of the FAMs and came back towards the airplane. There's not one LEO in America who would let him back on that plane.

That Alpizar was not a terrorist with a bomb, but rather a poor man off his med's is a tragedy, but it does not relieve the FAMs of their responsibility to take the action that they did.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Oh, I agree with you that the Air Marshalls acted as they were instructed to act in that situation.

I have no intention of offering the argument that CCW holders should be able to carry on planes. I think thats a bad idea too.

As for the evidence you ask to back up my claim that the Air Marshall program is poorly run, inadequate, and over-priced, all I can tell you is that only 10 percent of flights have an Air Marshall on them. That seems inadequate to me. Does it not seem inadequate to you? I don't think we ought to pay for inadequate service. I think whoever conceived the idea that only 10 percent of flights ought to be covered with Air Marshalls is doing a poor job running the service. If we need protection, certainly we need more than 10 percent protection. Either we need to provide security along the lines of El Al, or just go without it entirely. Having partial protection that may or may not do anything gives us all a false sense of security.

Putting armed air marshalls on board planes may provide protection against terrorists, if the system is done properly. But our system is so inadequate that the benefit it provides does not justify the risk.

 

[kengrubb]

I can tell you is that only 10 percent of flights have an Air Marshall on them.

With 30K commercial flights a day, I'm skeptical there's even 10 percent coverage.

If we need protection, certainly we need more than 10 percent protection.

Far more people die down on the ground every year. Cops as a percentage of the population as a whole are but a small fraction--an even smaller fraction when one looks at how many are working at any given time.

Either we need to provide security along the lines of El Al, or just go without it entirely.

The El Al model will never happen. It's heavily subsidized, El Al doesn't make short hop flights, El Al puts six armed security people on each flight, most El Al pilots are former Israeli Air Force pilots, flight crew are trained in HTH combat and most have served in the IDF.

Americans are already impatient over having to be at the airport 90 minutes ahead of time. They would NEVER tolerate waiting hours and being repeatedly questioned. Just wait for the claims of racial profiling.

Having partial protection that may or may not do anything gives us all a false sense of security.

False senses of security can serve as a deterrent. Ya don't need moats and alligators around your home--just don't look as tempting a target as the neighbor's house. If I decided I really wanted to break into a house, for the majority of houses I suspect I could do it with simple tools.

 

[kengrubb]

So far, the Air Marshalls have killed more innocent civilians than terrorists.

Careful, your reasoning can be something of a slippery slope.

CCW licensees don't kill all that many criminals each year. Why are we continuing to allow them to carry firearms? Same is true of cops.

 

[carebear]

Non sequiter much?

The purpose of CCW is not to "kill criminals", it is to provide people the means to defend themselves, hopefully without shooting at all. Which happens all the time.

The purpose of AM are to prevent terrorist attacks on aircraft, right now there's no evidence they've done that even once. Given the public knowledge of the lack of flight coverage and the apparent ease at which they can be spotted due to stupid dress codes, there's no reason to believe they've even deterred anything, much less beaten the piss poor odds to have even been in the right place and time to prevent an actual attack.

 

[Marshall]

Mistakes happen to the best of us.

 

[AZLibertarian]

...partial protection [=] a false sense of security....

There's not a cop or a CCW holder on every street corner, yet I don't perceive a sense of insecurity on most of our streets. There are streets and neighborhoods where none of us would travel, but by-and-large, we live in a very safe society without the "full protection" that comes with a Police State.

As we all know, the security on a plane is layered. The most obvious layer is the screening we all undergo just to get into the place. Some flights are piloted by armed pilots. And others have FAMs on them. The security is not all encompassing, yet, IMO, it is not inadequate either.

 

[AZLibertarian]

The purpose of AM are to prevent terrorist attacks on aircraft, right now there's no evidence they've done that even once. Given the public knowledge of the lack of flight coverage and the apparent ease at which they can be spotted due to stupid dress codes, there's no reason to believe they've even deterred anything, much less beaten the piss poor odds to have even been in the right place and time to prevent an actual attack.

Since most of the FAM program (how many, which flights, their ROE, etc.) is classified, I would expect that any direct evidence (beyond an obvious shooting of a terrorist) that they've deterred a terrorist attack would also be classified. As you know, I've said here that I am a captain at a major national airline. I see FAMs regularly. There are holes in the system, which I will not get into, and which I do not know how to fix. However, there are holes in the security in a maximum-security prison too. I will say that their dress code issue has been fixed. While it's not impossible to ID a FAM, I'd wager that their presence on a plane is rarely determined accurately. Outside children and the elderly, you really have to look at everybody--white, black, brown, yellow, male and female. And this is where the "partial coverage" issue becomes a strength of the program...the fact that FAMs do look like everybody else means that the real coverage is hard to determine. They're camoflagaed right in front of us.

 

[dev_null]

Actually, if what I've read is true (always a dangerous assumption), you can narrow it down to able-bodied people who never read a book or magazine, never open a laptop, never listen to an iPod, and never take a nap.

 

[Don Gwinn]

If the baseplate lets go, not only will the rounds in the magazine come out, but they'll be everywhere. I can only imagine the humiliation of a Federal Air Marshal as he crawls under the first-class seats to find that last round, which of course must have rolled about twenty feet. They always do.