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

[22rimfire]

I suspect that I am really going to regret doing this but feel I must.

I do not post here often for a variety of reasons. One being my current employment as a you guessed it, a Federal Air Marshal. I have been with the FAMS since early 2002. If anyone reading this chooses not to believe me that's OK.

Most of the people responding to this topic have a very good understanding of this shooting. There was more than enough Probable Cause to do the ultimate arrest, I.E. use Deadly Force.

When I first read Borachon's posts I could not believe what I was reading, and suspected that he was an Internet Troll. After some consideration I am sure he or she is not, just someone with a believe that the clear majority of us here do not share. That is fine with me. The world would be a boring place if we all looked at everything in the same way.

I am curious about Borachon's profession. Some of the comments, or the way he phrased questions are what I would expect to come out of the mouth of a civil litigation lawyer . And lady's and gentlemen, boy's and girl's, there is no doubt in my mind that a civil law suit against the individual FAMs and the Service will be forthcoming. Some of the comments made by Borachon will no doubtedly be the same questions that a civil lawyer will be asking. Contrary what some of you may believe most LEOs will do everything they can to avoid a line of duty shooting. This incident was clearly unavoidable and anyone not seeing that is in my opinion very naive at best.

From what I have read, officially and unofficially, there is NO DOUBT in my mind that this was a justifiable shooting. It is unfortunate that we as a people have become so cynical of our government and its agents, that we question everything the government does.

The vast majority of FAMs I know are very good at what we do, drawing from a variety of previous law enforcement experiences. Many have both military time and civilian law enforcement backgrounds. All are without a doubt the finest shots (marksmen) I have ever competed with. I consider myself a very proficient shooter and am humbled every time I step up on the firing line.

While I will not disclose the total amount of training hours spent each year for various contingencies, I will say that it is much more than most other Federal agencies. Trust me when I say that "I'm with the government and here to help" And also when I say that FAMs as a group are pretty squared away.

I apologize for the mini rant.

So in closing I would like to say Thank You to everyone here who has supported the use of deadly force in this instance.

This will be my one and only post on this topic. But it is always fun to try and have someone draw me back into it again (Trust me it 'aint gonna happen)

Cheers, M.

 

[spooney]

I would think in this day and age you would know better than to say "I have a bomb" in an airport...If I stood up and yelled that I would expect to get shot as well. Like the sign in the airport says "Do not make jokes."

 

[molonlabe]

From what I have read, officially and unofficially, there is NO DOUBT in my mind that this was a justifiable shooting. It is unfortunate that we as a people have become so cynical of our government and its agents, that we question everything the government does.

I appreciate your input, and no further comment is necessary. I hope when all is said and done this is a good shoot. My concern stems from past abuses what ever you feel about them from Ruby Ridge to the NO fiasco the Constitution of this great country is being torn apart. We, and I think I speak for others want our children to grow up with the same freedoms we enjoyed and my brothers who have died in combat for. If we sound cynical you can point to the attack on the second amendment, firearm confiscations in NOLA, Ruby ridge, Waco, Patriot act, and did our president say the constitution is just a piece of paper? Couple this with arming our police with military equipment, abuses of power popping up here and there like weeds and any sane person should be worried.

All I can say is that I will remain eternally vigilant as I would hope others would until I am placed against the wall, and finally silenced, but I will not go quietly.

"The price of Freedom is eternally vigilance." Thomas Jefferson

 

[Fly320s]

22rimfire,

Thanks for the info and for your service. As a pilot I have met many FAMs. Without a doubt, they are all nice, professional people. I am happy to have the FAMs on board my flight.

As for the training and marksmanship abilities of the marshals, 22rimfire is exactly right; they are the best trained LEOs out there. Earlier this year I was given a tour of the Orlando FAM office. It was a Sunday morning and the man giving me the tour, who was in charge of that office, was there with others to do interviews. He showed me the facilities (very nice), told me about their training and qualification requirements (rigorous), and gave me his basic theory about FAMs and airline interaction. I didn't get to see the range as they are a few miles away from the airport. But I have seen them from the air.

All-in-all a very nice experience. I wish I had access that that kind of training on a daily basis.

As I was typing this, I heard a report on the radio that said, according to the Washington Post, the FAMs are expanding their duties to cover other mass transit such as trains, busses, subways, and ferries. Interesting.

 

[TheEgg]

22rimfire:

From what I have read, officially and unofficially, there is NO DOUBT in my mind that this was a justifiable shooting. It is unfortunate that we as a people have become so cynical of our government and its agents, that we question everything the government does.

I, too, think this was a good shoot.

I will take issue with your second sentence, however. It is NOT unfortunate the we question everything the government does. That is what is supposed to happen in a free and open society, if we wish to remain free and open. When you or your fellow agents are questioned, it is not persecution -- we just want to make sure that everything was done right and if not, we need to fix it.

I appreciate your service and am thankful that you and those like you are willing to do these dangerous and unpleasant jobs. But that does not get you or your fellows a free pass -- you get judged each and every day for how you do your job. It HAS to be that way, because we entrust you and people like you with great responsibilites and great power.

 

[NineseveN]

22rimfire:


I, too, think this was a good shoot.

I will take issue with your second sentence, however. It is NOT unfortunate the we question everything the government does. That is what is supposed to happen in a free and open society, if we wish to remain free and open. When you or your fellow agents are questioned, it is not persecution -- we just want to make sure that everything was done right and if not, we need to fix it.

I appreciate your service and am thankful that you and those like you are willing to do these dangerous and unpleasant jobs. But that does not get you or your fellows a free pass -- you get judged each and every day for how you do your job. It HAS to be that way, because we entrust you and people like you with great responsibilites and great power.

There's a difference between questioning someone's performance and questioning their character. Too many folks hiding behind their keyboards accuse LEO's of murder when simple negligence will suffice. Question how they did their job, not what their moral character is.

22rimfire, thanks for adding your thoughts as well.

 

[Werewolf]

It is unfortunate that we as a people have become so cynical of our government and its agents, that we question everything the government does.

That the above statement is made by one of the government's enforcers is no surprise to me at all.

On the other hand, however, it is oh so very sad to know that some believe that questioning the actions of our government is cynicism; as if we are all to believe that the government is infallible and can do no wrong. Trust our masters for they know what is best for us.

A government whose actions go unquestioned inevitably transforms itself into a tyranny.

 

[TheEgg]

Nineseven:

There's a difference between questioning someone's performance and questioning their character. Too many folks hiding behind their keyboards accuse LEO's of murder when simple negligence will suffice. Question how they did their job, not what their moral character is.

I hope, sir, that you notice how I very carefully pointed out that we need to examine 'how they do their job'. Nothing I posted could in any way be taken as questioning someones character, and if you think you read that somehow in my posting you really need to work on your reading comprehension.

If you intended that comment to be pointed at others, don't use quotes from my post to make your point. Quote from those you intend to address.

Thank you.

 

[Borachon]

A government whose actions go unquestioned inevitably transforms itself into a tyranny.

A sentiment that was expressed thousands of times by the men who formed the United States as a nation.

 

[Borachon]

As for the training and marksmanship abilities of the marshals, 22rimfire is exactly right; they are the best trained LEOs out there.

I believe that training is nice. As long as you are facing the type of situation that you train for. If the situation you encounter is outside of your area of expertise though, you may react to a situation by using your training...only to discover that you've made a mistake by doing so.

Or in other words....when you train to use the hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

 

[Borachon]

I would think in this day and age you would know better than to say "I have a bomb" in an airport...If I stood up and yelled that I would expect to get shot as well.

Suppose you were off your meds and you removed all your clothing. You are now wearing nothing. Suppose further that you then decided to run down the concourse screaming that you had a bomb. Is it logical to shoot a naked man screaming that he has a bomb?

Going through the security screen is the equivalent of removing all your clothing. In some cases, it is literally the equivalent.

 

[Dave Reese]

Borachon,

You've flown once in fifteen years. Generalizing your one-time experience with TSA folks at the Memphis airport to every bunch of screeners everywhere makes no sense.

You don't have a sufficient base of experience to make the assertions you're making about airport security procedures. Not at all.

On the other hand, many others on this board have flown our share of places over the past few years and can say pretty emphatically that TSA screening does not necessarily make you 'naked' for security purposes. Not hardly.

 

[Mnemesyne]

In my opinion the air marshall did the right thing...In a situation like that, you don't have time to say "well, perhaps they are missing their meds"...Person said they had a bomb plain and simple....I hope they clear this air marshall of any wrong doing....


I just hope this gets wrapped up rapidly...If the man was that mentally out of balance, then they had no buisness being on an aircraft to begin with (mainly for the stresses involved with the whole flying bit anymore)....


just my 2c...


Mneme

 

[NineseveN]

Nineseven:



I hope, sir, that you notice how I very carefully pointed out that we need to examine 'how they do their job'. Nothing I posted could in any way be taken as questioning someones character, and if you think you read that somehow in my posting you really need to work on your reading comprehension.

If you intended that comment to be pointed at others, don't use quotes from my post to make your point. Quote from those you intend to address.

Thank you.

TheEgg:

Take a pill. Your post failed to properly illustrate the distinction as far as I am concerned and I felt that I could add something to that discussion. I quoted you because your words are what I was replying in response to, your lack of clarification on a point I felt needed to be clarified for all involved is what sparked the reason behind my post. As far as I know, I am free to quote anything that is posted on this, a public forum, you have absolutely zero authority over me here, so kindly go find something else to do. Your attitude is not needed, nor is it wanted. If you intend to ask me to do something, ask, don't demand, you are in no position to demand anything because it is impolite, and most don't respond well to rudeness. If you don't want your words referenced, don't write on a public Internet forum.

More importantly, you quoted 22rimfire and his thoughts about how unfortunate it was that we have become so cynical that we question everything the government and its agents do. I doubt he was talking about whether folks question if the FAMs or any other LEO or soldier is trained properly or has all the right tools and performs at acceptable levels; I find it more likely that he was responding to the insinuations that the man was clearly not a threat, yet the FAM shot him anyway, which is, of course, murder and not an issue of performance.

Performance would be called into question had the FAMs missed their shots, or failed to clear a jam or lost the suspect in the airport; though yes, it is loosely appropriate and arguable that performance means abiding by the law and not murdering anyone.

While it is an arguable aspect that training makes the deciding factor of when to shoot, I am sure FAMs are not trained to shoot at random people for no good reason. The articles that were posted just prior to 22rimfire's post alleged that the man said nothing about a bomb, that he did not even say anything. I can guarantee you that there is nothing in the FAM manual that says one should kill a man for getting up and not speaking.

Those articles also allege that this was a case of "a hyped-up air marshal", "trigger-happy skycops" and calls them "killers", which again, I think is part of what prompted the person you quoted to post their thoughts.

I hope, sir, that you reread your own post and realize how it came off, and why I responded this way. I will not continue a flame war over this, I have stated my case, I do not wish to explore why you felt the need to come at me with such silliness here. Thanks.


::Edited to add::
I honestly meant no offense in quoting you, sorry you took it that way. There's no accounting for the sensitivities of others. All apologies, and I should have included this in this post originally. I am sorry I forgot to and had to edit it in.

 

[NineseveN]

Suppose you were off your meds and you removed all your clothing. You are now wearing nothing. Suppose further that you then decided to run down the concourse screaming that you had a bomb. Is it logical to shoot a naked man screaming that he has a bomb?

Going through the security screen is the equivalent of removing all your clothing. In some cases, it is literally the equivalent.

This man was not naked, and had a bag/pack that he reached towards/into. One has nothing to do with the other. Security screening does not leave you naked.

You cannot expect FAMs to make a distinction of whether or not security can be breached in an airport on an individual basis. No security is fool-proof, you always assume it can be because it can be, you err on the side of caution for those that don't run through airports screaming that they have a bomb. That's their job.


It's the same thing as "treat all guns as if they are always loaded". Even if you know that you didn't put a round in your gun before you locked it away in your safe to whcih you have the only key, you would never think to point that gun to the head of your wife or child and pull the trigger after retrieveing it from the safe without firs checking the chamber. Why? You know you didn't load it, right?

Because nothing is perfect, our memory, our awareness, our safes and gun cases, and you err on the side of caution and check the chamber. This situation is different only in that, the FAMs made verbal commands for the suspect to cease so that they could "check the chamber" (check the validity of the bomb claim) but when the suspect refused to cooperate and tried to flee, he realistically removed that option and put a large number of innocnent people in danger.

If you had a gun in your safe, that you were sure you did not load, and someone broke into your safe, got that gun and then pointed it at the head of one of your immediate family members, would you shoot the perpetrator to stop the threat or would you just know that logically the gun is not loaded and let him pull the trigger? 6 of one, half dozen of the other.

 

[AZ Jeff]

Going through the security screen is the equivalent of removing all your clothing.

This is a JOKE, right? There is no such thing as a 100% effective security screening any more than there is a 100% effective quality inspection in the manufacture of a product.

If you really feel that security screens are so effective, maybe you need to do some research on how many incidents are reported each year of "forbidden items" being discovered in the part of an airport PAST the security screen. It's literally ten's of thousands of REPORTED incidents, and who knows how many OTHER, UNREPORTED incidents occur.

Don't think for one minute that TSA security screening is 100% effective, or even anything close to that level of effectiveness.

 

[Rob62]

Howdy Borachon,

Suppose you were off your meds and you removed all your clothing. You are now wearing nothing. Suppose further that you then decided to run down the concourse screaming that you had a bomb. Is it logical to shoot a naked man screaming that he has a bomb?

Going through the security screen is the equivalent of removing all your clothing. In some cases, it is literally the equivalent.

The above comments show your misunderstanding of the situation and I think the use of deadly force in general.

Using your example above. If a naked man running down an airport concourse had been shot for screaming "I have a bomb", there is no doubt that it would NOT be a justifiable shooting. I would be one of the first ones to ask why??

After all, he was naked and not carrying anything. Now change that scenario to him still being sans clothing but carrying a backpack, then I say it would be reasonable to use deadly force. Clearly a minority of people may disagree with this assessment. After all the use of deadly force or any force for that matter is a judgement call - what would a reasonable person under circumstances given at THAT time do ? (Note - at THAT time - not in HINDSIGHT or after the fact).

I say it is more than reasonable that a LEO uses deadly force against someone that:

1. Exhibited unusual behavior (arguing with wife, not following instructions of flight attendants, running down aircraft aisle and then running off of aircraft)
2. Said "I have a Bomb"
3. Did NOT follow verbal commands given by LEO's who have identified themselves as such. (Did not get on the deck or put down his backpack)
4. And after all that the individual then attempts to reach into his backpack.

I'm not sure how much more clearer a case could be to use deadly force.

Borachon, you seem to be claiming that going through a TSA checkpoint is conclusive proof that someone could not possibly be carrying any type of weapon, certainly not a bomb. Horsepucky!! As has been said by many people here that fly regularly, of which I am one, TSA checkpoints are NOT foolproof. That's why aviation has layers of security. Airport checkpoints are just one of the layers. At this point it seems clear to me that you will continue to be convinced that there is some question about this shooting being justified. I'm not sure anything that I or anyone else could say would change your mind, so we will just have to agree to disagree.

BTW - You made reference to the use of a "Dead Man's" switch on an explosive device/bomb. I bet $20 you nor anyone else here can give ONE verified example of such a trigger mechanism ever being used by a suicide/homicide bomber. Lots of problems with using dead man switches.

Merry Christmukah, Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, Joyous Kwanzaa, Felis Navidad, Frohes Weihnachten

Rob

 

[Borachon]

First off, 22rimfire, thank you for the service you provide to our country. People like you do risk their lives, and we are grateful for your service.

However, we are not blindly grateful. As a nation, I don't think we'd consider ourselves lucky if we hired a group of Hessians to protect us from Al Quada, and then had those Hessians turn around and begin shooting civilians in the streets of the US for little or no reason.

The agency that you work for is less likely to become a bloated monster like some other agencies might...in my opinion. Your agency is limited both in the area of operation and area of jurisdiction. An Air Marshall is unlikely to be kicking in doors in St. Louis in order to find someone who spit on the airplane floor when they were last aboard a flight.

But on airplanes, you are one of the more important agencies. It is the area of operation. Questioning how you and other agents do your jobs while performing your duties is not only necessary, but vital to the protection of our nation. Just as it would be if we hired Hessians from overseas to protect us. Questioning your performance is not bad thing. It may be an embarrassing thing. It may serve to limit the range of powers that your agency has. But we typically as a nation...in former times...have never preferred to have a dictatorial style government. Curtailing questions will lead to this.

And besides which...there's an unarmed dead guy laying on the slab in Miami now. A dead guy who wouldn't have been dead except that he was shot by Air Marshals. That needs to be questioned. If for no other reason than to find out why. Or to find out how security can be increased.

When I first read Borachon's posts I could not believe what I was reading, and suspected that he was an Internet Troll.

No, not a Troll. Although I understand why you might have thought so.

I just used my Constitutionally recognized right to express my opinion. My opinion was, and still is, that your boys down in Miami screwed up.

And lady's and gentlemen, boy's and girl's, there is no doubt in my mind that a civil law suit against the individual FAMs and the Service will be forthcoming.

Ya think? That was gonna happen no matter what. Given the high profile nature of the event. (Oh and I'm not an attorney btw.)

Many have both military time and civilian law enforcement backgrounds. All are without a doubt the finest shots (marksmen) I have ever competed with.

And I think that might have been the mistake in this case. Or at least might have been the ONLY consideration in hiring you guys...which I think might be a mistake. You are conditioned by your training to see situations in their worst possible light. To react to situations as needing the "last option" as your first option. As I said before...if you train to be the hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.


Frankly, I'd be a little happier if you said that FAM had the finest marksmen in the world, and who also were the finest psychologists in the world. In fact I'd be happier if you trained psychologists to shoot and then put them on the flights.

The question isn't "can Air Marshals shoot" the question is "do they know when to shoot...and when not to". Most everyone agrees with you that this was a valid shoot. I have no doubt that your fellow agents down in Florida will be absolved of any wrongdoing. I'm assuming of course that the witnesses all back the agents versions of events. Some of the more liberal blogs have stated that the word "bomb" was never spoken by the suspect. We'll have to wait until all the witnesses have a chance to address this in court before we know whether this was the case or not. If he never used the word "bomb" then your guys are in trouble. But assuming that he did, then they'll have nothing to worry about.

But just because you and your fellows are TRAINED to do something a certain way doesn't necessarily mean that you are correct to do it. We can train agents to beat a confession out of suspects. Doesn't mean that is the best way.

Trust me when I say that "I'm with the government and here to help" And also when I say that FAMs as a group are pretty squared away.

I'm sure they don't teach you this at Fed school, but Constitutional studies have shown me that the Founding Fathers of this nation understood that what you just expressed is an idea dangerous to democracy in the United States.

They cautioned us to NEVER trust the government. They wanted as little of it is they could in order to survive as a nation. Governments that professed to be helping typcially have not been.

 

[NineseveN]

Borachon:

Some of the more liberal blogs have stated that the word "bomb" was never spoken by the suspect. We'll have to wait until all the witnesses have a chance to address this in court before we know whether this was the case or not. If he never used the word "bomb" then your guys are in trouble.

Actually, even if he never said the word "bomb", but he still made the attempt to reach into his pack/bag while refusing the commands of the legal authoritiy after enagaing in suspicious and erratic behavior and possily made an attempt to flee, it's still likely to be a good shoot. Furtive movements count as an escalation of threat in such circumstances.

 

[Borachon]

No security is fool-proof, you always assume it can be because it can be, you err on the side of caution for those that don't run through airports screaming that they have a bomb.

If he was screaming he had a bomb. There is some debate on that.

Erring on the side of caution always sees to go toward the idea of shooting the suspect. Why don't we err on the side of caution and assume that we DON'T shoot the suspect? Is it really the best idea to shoot a man who says he has a bomb...especially when you don't know HOW that bomb is wired? Dead man switch? Pressure release detonator? Or for that matter, just hitting the detonator with a high velocity round.

Remember the blown up Pizza Delivery man? Elaborate bombs aren't that uncommon nowadays. Elaborate bombs are tricky. Is it really the best idea to shoot the man holding one?

A guy screaming that he has a bomb has not detonated it. To me that means he has just opened negotiations. And if you REALLY believe he's got a bomb, why do you want to shoot him and have him fall on it? Or miss him and hit the bomb?

Not to mention that a captured terrorist is a good source of info. Catching him might reveal where another ten terror incidents are going to occur.

These are jsut a few questions I've got about WHY the agents shot the man after he passed thru the airport screeners.

The next time the guy may really HAVE a bomb. Why is it the best option to shoot him?

 

[Borachon]

Actually, even if he never said the word "bomb", but he still made the attempt to reach into his pack/bag while refusing the commands of the legal authoritiy after enagaing in suspicious and erratic behavior and possily made an attempt to flee,

I'll remember that when I'm reaching for my "I'm deaf and can't hear you" public announcement card.

 

[Yooper]

The argument that a mentally unstable person threatening to detonate a bomb is entitled to special consideration is an absurdity. It would imply that ordinary suicide bombers are somehow mentally stable.

His medications are not our responsibility, period.

Our safety is the responsibility of the air marshalls.

This individual must be related to the guy who tried to rob a gun store where several of the patrons were carrying concealed weapons.

The air marshalls did their job very well.

Rationalization and responsibility-dodging is always done with the luxury of 20/20 hindsight.

 

[Borachon]

The argument that a mentally unstable person threatening to detonate a bomb is entitled to special consideration is an absurdity.

Call me crazy, but I think a person who claims he has a bomb in public OUGHT to get special consideration.

In fact, I'd even go so far as to build him one of those little wheelchari ramps if it would keep him from blowing up.

 

[TheEgg]

Nineseven:


I will not continue this exchange as your post makes it clear that to do so would be futile in the extreme. However, if you go back and read my 2 posts and yours, I think it will be clear who needs to 'take a pill'


Good bye.

 

[Borachon]

Our safety is the responsibility of the air marshalls.

Yeah...and you see....that's the funny thing. The guy who got shot...he was an "OUR".

Hardworking guy who was going home after doing church work. He ran through an airport and may have been yelling that he had a bomb. He's dead now. And the bottom line is that we were in no more danger ten seconds before he died as ten seconds after.

Thus the questions about why he died.