Anyone catch the Today show bit about the Air Marshall shooting?

[juggler]

Reverse the situation. There was a bomb and the marshall didn't shoot. What would Katie say now?

OK I'm a little behind, and there have been several different ways of saying it......Unless you were there and had to make the immediate decision, you are just passing gas by 2nd guessing.

I WANT to take the person yelling "BOMB" seriously.

To not react immediately to a verbal and physical threat is neither intelligent nor reasonable.

Are you picking up on the repeated term "IMMEDIATE"?

QUICK!!! Is this a real whackjob or a phony whackjob?!?

Better to deal with the press than the widows and orphans.

 

[Borachon]

In less than 2 minutes on google I found these reports. So you are still contending that the system in place is safe and foolproof?

I haven't been contending it was foolproof. Other people on the forum have kindly put those words in my mouth without me needing to say them.

What I've said is that the system of checking is intensive (and I believe it is), and that it is still a flawed system if Air Marshalls don't trust that passengers who passed thru the security screen aren't carrying bombs.

But the marshalls should KNOW that the people standing around waiting for their flight are as unarmed as they can be....given that they've passed thru the screen. Will it work 100% of the time. No...it doesn't. No system for anything ever does.

Like I said...if the guy had flipped out and started screaming "I've got a bomb" on his own then someone should put him down. With his wife saying that he's off his meds, I think they should have given him a little more time...and remembered for a moment that all the passengers had SUPPOSEDLY been screened already. If you asked me to pick an area that I considered to be the most "Gun and Explosive Free Zone" in the US right now, I'd probably end up picking the waiting area in a large airport. So why don't the Air Marshalls have this same faith? If they know it's screwed up, then THERE is our first order of business. Fix that first. Let's face it. Neither I nor anyone on this forum should have been able to accidentally carry anything explosive on a plane. The fact that we did is bad. But that doesn't necessarily mean the system won't stop people just because a couple...or fifty...or 200...managed to slip through. You'd have to know a chronic area that had a problem to reliably be able to smuggle explosives on the aircraft. I don't think we have that. I think we have some times when the staff get busy and miss something, but are just as likely to wake up a few minutes later and catch the rest. And they are catching a lot of stuff right now.

This isn't the 1960's. This is post-911. A serious terrorist now would never have announced he was about to blow up a plane. If you give the authorities warning (or the passengers), they will come shoot you. The only warning you MIGHT have gotten was when someone yelled out, "Allahu Akbar" and then one second later the detonation. If the guy isn't a serious terrorist, then what is he? One of the options...maybe...should have been that the guy was drunk, or nuts, or like his wife said...off his meds.

 

[Borachon]

To not react immediately to a verbal and physical threat is neither intelligent nor reasonable.

You ever hear of something called a "dead man's switch"?

Shooting someone who was wearing a bomb with a dead man switch attached wouldn't have been a good idea. In that case reacting wouldn't be a good idea. You cause the thing you were trying to avoid. Remember the Pizza delivery guy who got blown to smithereens?

Guy yells out he's got a bomb. Okay...he's talking. That means he hasn't blown anything up yet. Maybe he just wants to talk. Shooting at the bomb isn't necessarily the best of ideas.

 

[teknical]

And even if he IS her husband and IS "off his meds" that by definition does NOT mean he ALSO is not armed with a bomb. Given that many crazy people do crazy things without their loved ones noticing, it is equally likely he went off his meds earlier and devised some bizarro world plan to blow up people.

I think everyone here would agree that you'd have to be pretty crazy to make a bomb, bring it onboard an aircraft, and then detonate it without saying a word to arouse suspicion, killing yourself and a number of people in the area. In my mind, at least, you'd have to be even crazier to tell everyone in the area that you have a bomb and then start moving toward the place you want to detonate, greatly chancing your ability to actually use it. Compare this with the Tacoma mall shooting and the prudent idea of not shouting and flashing your concealed gun at the active shooter, but instead to remain low key until/after you draw and fire.

Someone in this thread has taken the position that because the perp's wife insisted he was off his meds, that he therefore wasn't a threat because the validity of anything he said should be called into question, and further, that the FAM ignored the wife when he should've clearly believed her. I see this a little differently: Lets say the FAM(s) is/are onboard and have a guy that says he has a bomb and a wife that says he's off his meds. Who says the FAM(s) didn't believe his wife?

Immediately, to me, a guy off his meds shouting something about a BOMB is an even more credible threat than if the guy just said he had a bomb. With someone off their meds, even without a bomb threat, you have a very sound basis that the guy is nuts and isn't pulling a prank (If they were nuts enough that they needed meds, what are they when they go off their meds?). How long was he off his meds? By the time his wife found out about it, and like others have said, for the drugs to gradually stop working, it could've been days or weeks: plenty of time to make a bomb, especially if you just got back from a country where you could more easily buy components.

I think carebare was the only other person to catch that if he's off his meds and nuts onboard, then what else has the guy done that's nuts before ever even getting onboard?

Also, I don't know about anyone else here, but I'm not going to give the benefit of the doubt to some guy making bomb threats on the same plane I'm on. If, during boarding, a guy starts shouting that he has a bomb and doesn't get shot or the hell off the plane, would you dump the nearest emergency exit and beat feet the hell away from the plane?

 

[teknical]

Also,

What I've said is that the system of checking is intensive (and I believe it is), and that it is still a flawed system if Air Marshalls don't trust that passengers who passed thru the security screen aren't carrying bombs.

But the marshalls should KNOW that the people standing around waiting for their flight are as unarmed as they can be....given that they've passed thru the screen. Will it work 100% of the time. No...it doesn't. No system for anything ever does.

Borachon, by saying that screening is flawed because FAMs don't trust the passengers who've been screened is absurd. Everyone knows screening isn't 100%. To make it 100% would require more time and money than anyone has to throw at the issue. So, with such a high-risk endeavour, you provide a backup system: the FAM. It's the FAM's very job to catch the ones that fall through the cracks in security.

It isn't that the screening is flawed if FAMs don't trust the screened passengers, it's that screening is flawed if FAMs even exist in the first place. Further, if, as you say, "unarmed as they can be" means instead of 2 handguns, a snap-blade knife, and a large bomb, the guy only has a small bomb, how is that acceptable, especially to men being paid to fly on aircraft to take out the ones that get through?

Will it work 100% of the time. No...it doesn't. No system for anything ever does.

And that's exactly what the FAMs are here for.

 

[Kenneth Lew]

My 2 cents,

The guy was crazy enough to announce that he had a bomb.
He acted in a weird manner.
He did not follow the orders of an air marshall (no time to think whether the airport screeners were effective or not).
He fled.
He reached for something.

If the accounts were correct, the guy deserved to be shot!

 

[MtCowboy]

Hey everybody. Just found this thread and wanted to add my .02 cents. I am not a cop nor do I play one on tv. I have however gone through training courses in three states for concealed carry and for armed security guard licenses. We were told two major things: LRN and AOIJ. Those acronyms stood for: All use of deadly force must be Logical, Reasonable, and Necessary. The determining factor for the above was: Does the suspect have the Ability to kill or cause serious bodily harm? Does the suspect have the Opportunity? Does he have the Intent? Is your life or safety in Jeopardy?

The man stated he had a bomb, he had a bag that he wouldn't drop, refused the lawful orders of an armed police officer to stop, and reached into a concealed location against the orders of the officer. If it was me in a similar situation, (Lord willing it won't be) I would have taken the shots as well. Everything the man did would have put me in fear for my life and everyone's life around me.

And I am sorry but the wife's statements would have meant nothing to me. I don't know that she is his real wife, I don't know that he takes medication regularly, I know nothing about the guy other than what he is presenting to me at the short space of time we have met each other.

The officer had to make his decision in that short space of time. Everybody else who is not involved is making decisions with the advantages of lots of time, no adrenaline, and no real danger. Condition White for you Cooper fans. I am sorry for the family's loss but it is not the Marshal's fault. He was presented with a non-compliant threat and dealt with it properly and according to his training. I pray that the Marshal's family will be all right with this incident and will not suffer because of it.

 

[insidious_calm]

+1000 to all those who believe it was a good shoot.


I.C.

 

[Borachon]

Sorry I disagreed with a different opinion.

All of you are right and I was wrong.

Thank you.

 

[MDHunter]

Intensive Screening Process - with Big Holes

Borachon,

I'm too impatient to read all 5 pages of posts, but I want to comment on your statement about the screening process being intensive, with a FIRST-HAND PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.

September 2003 - going to Alaska to hunt moose and caribou. I have three boxes of .30-06 cartridges in my luggage, which are confiscated upon passing through screening - I didn't have them in a hard plastic case, just the cardboard/paper boxes they came in. Why am I frustrated with this? Because I didn't clearly research and understand the requirement......and BECAUSE I PASSED THROUGH SCREENING IN SEPTEMBER 2002 (that would be one year after 9/11) WITH THREE BOXES OF .30-06, AND TWO BOXES OF .300 WEATHERBY (for my buddy), AND NO ONE EVEN NOTICED THEM!!

Think I could have done much damage, with ONE HUNDRED high-powered rifle cartridges? The process may be intensive, but a LOT of things get through.

Good shoot IMO, nothing else the marshal could have done and fulfilled the responsibilities he accepted in that profession.

Michael

 

[Borachon]

I'm too impatient to read all 5 pages of posts, but I want to comment on your statement about the screening process being intensive, with a FIRST-HAND PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.

Don't feel bad about not reading. I've been posting on and off all day and gotten absolutely ZERO support. So you haven't missed much. If you read my last few posts, it's the same as if you'd read all of mine.

I had much the same personal experience that you had. Even more so in fact because I travelled to a foreign country and never got caught even though I went thru two other countries security.

I'd like to repond more fully to your comment, but I'm tired. I've been doing this all day and I haven't changed anyone's opinion and they haven't changed mine.

So now it's time to just move on.

 

[Teufelhunden]

Dead guy's wife is heard screaming about how the guy is bi-polar and off his meds

I keep hearing this and have yet to understand why being admittedly mentally unstable and off of prescribed medication makes this individual less of a threat. If anything, this fact lends creedence to the possibility that he was a credible threat.

-Teuf

 

[Archangel]

I haven't been contending it was foolproof

So is it logical to assume that he's got a bomb? I'm not sure I'd say it was.

It was stupid for the agents to think that this guy made it this far with a bomb in his bag.

Those agents should have been 100% sure that the man couldn't have gotten a bomb to that point

Airport screening being what it is now, I dare say that the next airliner brought down won't be by explosives smuggled onto the plane.

I'm saying that the screeners are going to allow you to KNOW what a person has on them after walking thru the Human X-Ray machine, the Baggage X-Ray machine, the Clothing Pat Down (including shoe search), the Metal Detector, and the occasional random strip search

I'm saying that it's not necessarily reasonable for the agents to have believed him when he claimed to have a bomb.

Reagardless of what you may or may not have been contending, I think we can agree at this point that the screening process is not 100% effective. Even if it is 99.9999% effective (and it is nowhere near that good), that means there is a 0.0001% chance that something got through.

When the air marshalls are presented with a man claiming to have a bomb, they must, until they can prove otherwise, act on the possibility that they are dealing with that one in a million case where something got past the screeners.

The only part that bothers me is the wife telling them he was off his meds.

The problem is, even if they believed her without question (and if you think that they should do that, then there was a screw up at the bank, and they accidentally transfered $1000 of my money into your account. I'm going to need that back. ), that still doesn't change anything. Until they can prove that he doesn't have a bomb, they have to treat him like he does.

"He's my husband" does not equal "he doesn't have a bomb."
"He's bi-polar" does not equal "he doesn't have a bomb."
"He's off his meds" does not equal "he doesn't have a bomb."

 

[Nathanael_Greene]

I heard some idiot reporter suggest that the air marshals need to get training in psychotherapy, which leads me to wonder...

...When did this guy's failure to take his medication become the responsibility of the FAMs?

 

[NineseveN]

I heard some idiot reporter suggest that the air marshals need to get training in psychotherapy, which leads me to wonder...

...When did this guy's failure to take his medication become the responsibility of the FAMs?

Indeed.

 

[C. Rabbit]

+1 to all those who thought it was necessary.

Just for fun, I'd thought I'd share with you a post by a fellow from another forum I frequent (Note: this guy is the stereotypical communist English Labour supporter):

This is a victory for terrorism, it shows how - sadly - frightened, hysteric and over the top the US is at the moment. When you have an innocent man shot and people applauding you know people are seriously flawed in their thinking.

Firstly he was screaming he had a bomb - that not seem bloody weird? If he had a bomb he would have detonated not screamed that he had one. Look at the 9/11 bombers or the 7/11 bombers or the madrid bombers, any of them scream? In fact, go through the history of every single suicide bomber in history and you show me once where the bomber was screaming before he detonated that he had a bomb. It is madness.

Secondly I will never accept on any grounds that shooting to kill is any policy accept lunacy. There are others means and actions that could be undertaken, it is merely the think first find out later approach and always prone - and normally found out to be so - to huge risks in terms of innocents dieing and situations escilating. Especially on a plane - it is madness.

There are so many other reasons for it being madness to shoot him, not even mentioning the fact that his wife told them he was mentally ill. America is clearly an unsafe to be at the moment and I am quite glad I do not live over there, at least over here whe nwe have a shoot to kill incident and an innocent dies we demand justice for the innocent, over there it seems you applaud the great killing and hope for more blood, Disgusting.

I'm not making any of this stuff up. Its hard to imagine someone so deeply ingrained with liberal BS, but they are occasionally good for a laugh (though not so much this time).

CR

 

[NineseveN]

Quick, someone ask that guy's wife if he's stopped taking his medication!

 

[middy]

Boo hoo.

And another one hits the kill file, only the second one, heck, even Werewolf isn't in there yet (j/k wolfie).

 

[one-shot-one]

C. Rabbit

hope you can get this message to that "stereotypical communist English Labour supporter". we are glad he aint here too, got plenty to go aroud already.

 

[molonlabe]

So whats the truth here?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/akers/akers24.html

or this
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1389642

That contrasts with a passenger who "recalled Alpizar saying, 'I've got to get off, I've got to get off.'" Another remembered that "he wasn't saying anything; he was just running." Nor did this witness immediately think, "Terrorism!" Being a rational person instead of a hyped-up air marshal, he settled for a likelier explanation: "I said to myself, 'It is probably a person who took the wrong plane.'" A second man of similar rationality assumed Alpizar was nauseated and heading for the men’s room. Furthermore, Mrs. Alpizar chased her husband, trying to help and inadvertently explaining the situation to everyone, including the trigger-happy sky-cops. A passenger told CNN, "She was just saying her husband was sick, her husband was sick."


or this

Trying to justify the murder of this innocent man, Leviathan has changed its story, as liars do. The Feds originally had Rigo declaiming about a bomb while running "up and down" the plane's aisle. But at least seven passengers deny that Rigo mentioned anything about a bomb, and several insist he did not speak at all. "I can tell you, he never said a thing in that airplane. He never called out he had a bomb," an architect named Jorge Borrelli told the Orlando Sentinel. "He never said a word from the point he passed me at Row 9. . . . He did not say a word to anybody." So Leviathan now alleges that Rigo shouted about the bomb in the jetway, where his killers were the only witnesses.

 

[CAPTAIN MIKE]

Critter Has It Right

Wifey probably could have help avoid the situation in the first place if she had insisted that Hubby take his medication before they got on the airplane.

Air marshals are a focused, well trained and professional lot. They have a split second to make the decision based on the surrounding factors. Here they unfortunately had to "do their job".

 

[NineseveN]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/akers/akers24.html

or this
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1389642

That contrasts with a passenger who "recalled Alpizar saying, 'I've got to get off, I've got to get off.'" Another remembered that "he wasn't saying anything; he was just running." Nor did this witness immediately think, "Terrorism!" Being a rational person instead of a hyped-up air marshal, he settled for a likelier explanation: "I said to myself, 'It is probably a person who took the wrong plane.'" A second man of similar rationality assumed Alpizar was nauseated and heading for the men’s room. Furthermore, Mrs. Alpizar chased her husband, trying to help and inadvertently explaining the situation to everyone, including the trigger-happy sky-cops. A passenger told CNN, "She was just saying her husband was sick, her husband was sick."


or this

Trying to justify the murder of this innocent man, Leviathan has changed its story, as liars do. The Feds originally had Rigo declaiming about a bomb while running "up and down" the plane's aisle. But at least seven passengers deny that Rigo mentioned anything about a bomb, and several insist he did not speak at all. "I can tell you, he never said a thing in that airplane. He never called out he had a bomb," an architect named Jorge Borrelli told the Orlando Sentinel. "He never said a word from the point he passed me at Row 9. . . . He did not say a word to anybody." So Leviathan now alleges that Rigo shouted about the bomb in the jetway, where his killers were the only witnesses.

Molonlabe, the second story is pretty much the one I had all along, so not sure what that means.

 

[TallPine]

If the accounts were correct, the guy deserved to be shot!

 

[molonlabe]

You know, My first impression was Gee.. that poor officer, that he had to make that decision to shoot. Now I wonder if it was a good shoot. Given the Guberments past record of fabrication. I want to know more now. And what’s up with intimidation of the passengers? I know they don’t know what’s going on but the flight attendants do or are they suspects too?

This is why I don’t fly anymore…

 

[Biker]

I agree. Based on the intial reports, it appeared to be a good shoot. Now, I'm thinking back to the subway shoot in Britain and the lies that were told by the shooters there.
The plot thickens...
Biker