BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Rasener
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 08:40 AM

CarolC
I consider anybody who walks into a crowd of people with bombs strapped to their body and who deliberatly blow themselves up and takes anybody who is unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time with them, mentally ill.
I detest anybody who is prepared to do such cowardly things and have no sympathy for them. Unfortunately, due to their actions, it is a fact of life that innocent people who behave in a wierd way may well be taken out and questions asked later in order to protect the majority.
Blame the terrorist not the people trying to protect us.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Peace
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 10:07 AM

I didn't read Carol that way. I understood her to say that she wishes deeply that it could have been accomplished in a different manner. And in that she undoubtedly agrees with all people of good heart and will.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 10:24 AM

Peter K (Fionn) - 08 Dec 05 - 06:14 PM

"Bravo guest of 4.55pm. It took 30-odd posts for someone to make the obvious question."

Now what was the "Bravo" about:

GUEST 08 Dec 05 - 04:55 PM

"It says a lot about the air marshalls confidence in security check in procedures for hand luggage if they thought he could have got that far carrying a bomb."

You are of course joking aren't you Peter? Security checks of hand luggage are cursory at best. Besides that is not primarily what the Air Marshalls are onboard the aircraft for, they are onboard to prevent anyone taking over the aircraft, as did happen on 911.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Sorcha
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 10:28 AM

Donuel, you obviously don't know the police that I do.....

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Sorcha
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 11:11 AM

I usually stay out of this kind of crap but this one I can't leave alone. I have lived in the law enforcement community most of my 54 years...and have NEVER known an officer with a throw away.

See, they go to work everyday, holidays included, KNOWING that somebody is out to kill them just because they wear a uniform. They just don't know when, where or who.

It's just as likely to be a 'routine' traffic stop as escaping armed robbers. Actually, more likely. A person beating the spouse, turns on the cops...or their own kids....I dare most of you to take that kind of stress for up to 12-14 hrs a day for 30 years.....

You know what? Law enforcemnt personell are PEOPLE and people make mistakes, especially under stress and spur of the moment decsions. In this case however, I don't think they made a mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Peace
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 11:24 AM

I too have worked with cops on emergency scenes for about eleven years. Mostly, they are good people. The operative word is people. And the important word is good. They got into the business of law enforcement because they want to effect positive change. In my world, they are the folks I help pay to protect my kids, my neighbours and me. They carry 9 mm pistols so that I don't have to. They go to work wearing bullet 'proof' vests on my behalf--bullet proof until some sick bastard produces teflon projectiles. The situation was tragic, and I do not for a minute doubt the officers (marshals) involved will undergo CISD--not because it's policy, but because they need it.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Sorcha
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 11:34 AM

Oh yes, and while I'm at it, learn to deal with police officers.
If you are stopped, do EXACTLY what the officer says. No more, no less.
If you are told to put your hands on your head, DO IT and keep your mouth shut.

Do NOT reach for your wallet, argue, say, but but but......because if you do, somebody is probably going to get hurt and it's most likely to be YOU. Stay calm, and say, my wallet is in my back pocket.....and wait for instructions!!!

Police are trained to a) protect themselves first at all costs, and b)minimize the damage to other people. After all, don't YOU protect yourself and yours first? Problem here is that the officers have more resources available to them than you do...both physical and mental ones.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Sorcha
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 11:56 AM

Scenario:
You are a dispatcher. You are in charge of 5 officers, 6 phone lines, filing, a fire department, and an amublance service. Keep track of all of it at once.

You have an ambulance call, a fire and a domestic going on. You must know where everybody is at all times, and what they are doing. People calling about all situations....wanting to either report it or just know what is going on.....

Then the lady calls and wants someone to get her cat out of the tree....
Since you are a dispatcher you do NOT have a weapon. A squirrelly looking guy walks in the front door and DEMANDS to see an officer NOW....you try to explain....he goes ballistic and puts his hand in his coat pocket.....now what do you do?

Oh, I forgot the teletypes coming in that you have to read and decide what to do with.....instantly.

Deal with this up to 12 hrs a day because the dept is short handed, people off sick...etc....go ahead, you try it. See how long you can do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Rasener
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 12:00 PM

Peace
If I misread it, then apologies to Carol.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 12:04 PM

teribus nobody said air marshalls are responsible for security at check in?

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Peace
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 12:18 PM

Not to worry, Villan. Keep well.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 12:45 PM

GUEST 09 Dec 05 - 12:04 PM My apologies I did not make the point clearly. Air Marshals are present onboard the aircraft to prevent it from being taken over. Their level or degree of confidence in whatever security checks are in place is irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 01:29 PM

well if the guy had a dead man switch(that goes off when released), shooting him would just make the bomb go off.
nonetheless- they made the call - Im glad I dont have to do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 02:59 PM

teribus I have to disagree. If airlines allow armed marshalls on board planes with instructions to kill in the event of a 'possible' threat, then I think the security check in procedures should be such that 'mistakes' can't be allowed to happen.

Killing an unarmed man because security isn't tight enough to deter passengers carrying bombs on to planes is wrong. They should be spending their resources on tightening up security before the passengers board. Not employing trained professionals to kill.

If it means emptying hand luggage onto the floor and sifting through it bit by bit then do it. If it means issuing passengers with see though plastic bags to carry their belongings then do it. If it means limiting hand luggage to what can fit in a ten inch square transparent plastic box then do it. If it means check in takes another 15 minutes for each passenger then do it.

It is early days, but not one passenger has yet confirmed the word "bomb" was uttered. If we are hearing passengers saying that they did not hear that, why are we also not hearing from passengers who did hear it? Could it be because it was never said?

If the air marshalls did have confidence in the check in security procedures that man would still be alive. They would have known that he was unarmed and restrained him without killing him. Some people will cause disturbances on planes. Some people will act in a bizarre fashion due to mental illness. But they don't deserve to be killed because of doubt, when that doubt could be removed by rechanneling resources in such a way that doubt is not an option.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 06:45 PM

Teribus, just be sure you never travel on one of those thousands of flights a day that cruise around the world without air marshalls! Certain suicide.

And when are we going to wake up and realise that anyone mentally ill could pose a threat? Why are such people allowed to walk the streets? I mean we know it's often symptomatic that they don't take their meds. If I were Big Macho Mick, they'd all be shot. Period. I mean "taken out." Period. Blah blah blah.

Sorcha, my heart bleeds. Maybe you could campaign for an administration that would raise tax by a cent or two, then maybe the USA could afford to take on a second despatcher?

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Peace
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 06:52 PM

"If the air marshalls did have confidence in the check in security procedures that man would still be alive. They would have known that he was unarmed and restrained him without killing him."

That point by GUEST is excellent.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Sorcha
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 07:01 PM

I have more to say about dissing cops, but since nobody has responded, I guess I'll shut up.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 09:08 PM

You know, Peter (Fionn wannabe), I drove around today thinking about what you said. I had intended to come back to this thread and tell you that I disagree with you but I respect your opinion. I have decided against that in light of your last post. You are a know it all asshole who imagines every evil in this world is somehow related to the evil US. I didn't say anything macho, I said that under those circumstances I would have done the same thing. I believe that circumstances as I understand them justified deadly force. Your problem is that you are afraid that someone's opinion other than yours might be taken seriously. Folks like you have all the answers as long as your world revolves around a computer monitor. But if you were in a situation where your life was in danger and one of these folks saved it, the story would be different.

I'll bet you eat McDonald's and watch American soap operas.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: robomatic
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 09:29 PM

I don't think unnamed Guest made any kind of good point. The Air Marshalls are there to handle any problems that occur on the plane. That is what happened. The 911 hijackers created a rather sizable problem without having violated any of the prohibited carry-on materials at all.

I don't necessarily believe that the poor man Mr. Rigoberto even said he had a bomb. His behavior was cause enough.

Trusting to screening procedures to say to themselves, "hey, can't be a problem here" is to deny the very reason they ARE there.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 09:52 PM

"And when are we going to wake up and realise that anyone mentally ill could pose a threat? Why are such people allowed to walk the streets?"

They don't walk the streets ALL the time, they LIVE somewhere! You could come and stay with me, and enjoy my neighbour!

;)

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 10:09 PM

Re airport screenhing:

I lost a great deal of faith when I was passed through the security check without a pause one time--I have a steel knee, which for some reason didn't set of the alarm that one time. I haven't weighed it, but I'd guess that that's at least half a kilo of undetected metal.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Burke
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 10:43 PM

Dick, I agree on the screening. I went through the metal detector once with my keys in pocket & did not set the alarm off. When I realized it, I was torn about if I should report it. I had images of the whole airport being shut down to make everyone go back thorough the metal detectors, so I kept my mouth shut.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Big Mick
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 06:35 AM

I fly monthly out of Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago, Grand Rapids, Milwaukee. I have never been able to get so much as a finger nail clipper through. I have lost numerous pocket knifes because I forgot they were in my pocket.

One more thing to Peter. There are 3,000 people dead at the hands of an organization that has sworn to do it again. They have sworn to destroy our country. Our government has uncovered numbers of cells and plans. Of course you would have us drop our guard. But had you or someone you loved been in the WTC that day, I wonder what your attitude would be.

I believe that GWB has far overreached in his Homeland Security Act. But to deny that we have to be exceedingly vigilant at this point in our history is to beg for more innocents to be killed.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 06:48 AM

"uncovered numbers of cells and plans" hmmm, alleged maybe... and under the non-existent torture (similar practice of the Spanish Inquisition now having been deemed 'not torture'), you too would say anything they want you to!

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 08:02 AM

Bobert, the air marshalls thought the guy might have a bomb, not a boxcutter. Anyway, boxcutters are now contraband. It is entirely feasible to stop prohibited materials getting on to planes. Those who would rather put their faith in marshalls need to think about the question I put earlier: what use are marshalls going to be if someone takes a bomb on board but doesn't say so? Or am I being ridiculous to think that a terrorist would do such a trick?

Maybe the reason that greater effort is not made is because airliners are already one of the safest environments known to man. And with or without greater security, with or without marshalls killing innocent people, sooner or later someone will manage, somehow, to perpetrate another atrocity if the will is there.

Big Mick said I'll bet you eat McDonald's and watch American soap operas. No and NO in that order.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 08:29 AM

It certainly is easy to identify the people in this thread who are prone to hysteria and histrionics when it comes to "being safe". They all favor the use of excessive force in any situation where a human being acts in a way that must be subjectively interpreted by armed (and obviously trigger happy) marshalls.

I live in an area where we had a rash of murders of innocent mentally ill people by the police, in the name of "public safety". The outcry was so loud against the actions by the police, that dealing with agitated (and sometimes violent, though not usually) mentally ill suspects is now a mandatory part of police training.

People here see this tragedy in terms that are much too starkly black and white. The fact is, most of the instances of agitated airline passengers will always fall in gray areas in between, just as this case has. Drunks, the mentally ill, people who are claustrophic, have a fear of flying (which can surface at any time in a person's life, and quite suddenly on a flight that isn't going smoothly), are having a adverse reaction medically, or are emotionally distraught for any perfectly legitmate reasons, should be shot in the name of "public safety"???

I don't think so.

To me, the sad truth of this story is none of the other passengers have said anything (as far as I have heard or read) about feeling UNSAFE BECAUSE OF THE MAN'S ACTIONS.

It is ludicrous to suggest that this man's behavior, which apparently wasn't threatening to anyone but himself and his wife, is equatable to the actions of the 9/11 hijackers.

We trust the air marshalls to be able to make these distinctions. That is what they are paid to know. How to tell the difference between a genuine threat to public safety, and one that is merely causing inconvenience and social discomfort to the passengers observing a passenger's unruly behavior.

Perhaps next we should just start shooting adolescents for acting unruly in school as a threat to "public safety" too. And drunks. And people behaving badly in shopping malls at Christmas.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 08:33 AM

Also, the arsenal of the air marshalls is also in question in my opinion. I believe that use of a firearm should be a last resort. There is no reason why a taser gun couldn't have been used to subdue this man. The air marshalls could just as easily have killed other passengers or crew with an overzealous stray bullet.

I don't think this case was handled correctly, and I think the official version is a pack of lies.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST,A
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 08:38 AM

Mick, do you think that Peter is also the last unnamed Guest?

Guest's last sentence is a classic - of what I am not sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 08:43 AM

Guest A, you seem to be a classic troll, playing a baiting game.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST,A
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 09:31 AM

Sorry you took it that way.

I think you are dead wrong and without a grasp on reality.

OK?

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST,Sam
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 09:49 AM

I'm not a regular here, so I'm not sure what the antagonisms are between certain people on this thread. But it is nice to see a few voices of reason, shouting into the winds of 9/11 paranoia being expressed by some here. It is that paranoia that scares me much more than a deranged airline passenger, and I fly about once a month on business, and several times a year on vacation.

PeterK said it most succinctly for me with this:

"The hysterical over-reaction to 9/11 was hard enough to stomach at the time. That a large part of the population is still living in fear, as evidenced by the irrational attitudes to risk voiced in this thread, would be laughable if it were not for all the human rights that are being surrendered because of it."

I disagree very strongly about the negative comments on the so-called "Monday morning quarterbacking". In a democracy, it is a citizens right and duty to look critically at such a questionable tactic being used in the name of public safety. Nor have I heard a report that any of passengers felt threatened or that their safety was in question.

Lest we forget, in a democracy the government works for us, and that includes the government's security forces, in this case the air marshalls. If we as citizens believe the government is acting incorrectly, it is our job (as Guest 08:29 AM alludes to in the case of police murders of mentally ill) to criticize and challenge the government authorities responsible for the problem caused by questionable actions of employees, poor training, and overzealous security practices.

Yes, the job of public safety is difficult and fraught with subjective judgment under duress. That is why we must have very high standards of whom we allow to act on our behalf as our protectors, and to constantly scrutinize their training, procedures, etc.

In my view, the criteria for selection of those people who are entrusted with the sacred duties of protecting the public, that reptilian testosterone "shoot first, ask later" types need not apply.

I often wonder how a circumstanc like this might have turned out if female officers were making the split second decisions, rather than male officers. Despite the fact that we see more and more women in law enforcement, I can't think of a single incident where a female officer has been the shooter, been accused of excessive force, etc. Just a thought. How different it would be if women carried the guns and were the majority of security workers, not the minority.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: heric
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 09:52 AM

Thank you Guest 10 Dec 05 - 08:29 AM. That was the first well articulated and pursuasive statement I've heard (here or in real life) of what is wrong with this scenario.

I said earlier that the guy may have earned the shot IF the marshalls weren't lying. Unfortunately, I can only guess as to whether their version is a lie. If I had to guess one way or the other, I would guess they were more flustered than calmly and coolly calculating bomb risks, and that he never clearly indicated any bombing intention or even used the word bomb.

But we just can't know. We can't convict those marshalls on a weak guess that they're probably fabricating.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: heric
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 09:53 AM

persuasive, even

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 10:13 AM

The problem I have with some peoples' opinions here heric, is the depiction of those of us who believe the air marshalls acted improperly as somehow wanting to "convict" (your word) the air marshalls of something.

That is not the case for me. What I see is a tragedy, that I don't ever want to see repeated for anyone else. It is true, I do not share the assumption being made (as it appears to me) of those defending the marshalls' actions, that the marshalls were either good people, were well trained and experienced on the job. I don't know why their defenders assume that they are, because as of right now, we have no evidence of that.

In fact, in this case what we do have is some evidence that either the marshalls aren't particularly good people (bad people get into public safety and law enforcement, just like they do any other field or endeavor), or that they possibly weren't well trained and/or experienced.

How tragic it would be if this death turned out to be a case of a trigger happy, gung-ho over-reaction of a marshall to a mentally ill person. Or even more tragic and sad, if the marshall had been trained to use deadly force improperly by superiors, or was still wet behind the ears.

I'm not looking to crucify or convict here. I'm a frequent enough airline passenger myself, and will be flying to Mexico for Christmas. I'm much more afraid of the US authorities than I am any other aspect of flying, including dangerous passengers, terrorists, hijackers and bombers. I know too many people who have been fucked with by the homeland security fascists.

Just ask Ted Kennedy.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: heric
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 10:22 AM

One newspaper purported to quote an anonymous air marshall who described a difficult training and procedures principle that the air marshalls shall never help out in the passenger cabin on any situation that is not directly related to their main charge, preventing a hijacking or on board bombing threat, which principle is obviously fraught with ethical complications. It does *appear* (and the anonymous source suggested) that these two were BOTH lured away from that principle. (Although I suppose that if one moves, the other is obliged to provide support.)

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 10:41 AM

And lets not forget about the bazillion of cases of air rage these days too. The airlines run courses on dealing with abusive passengers for their employees, keep plastic handcuffs on board planes, and actively encourage flight crew to report incidents to the police. So what happened here? How did the marshalls become involved in this to begin with?

Delays and lack of information, long, slow lines and cramped seating in economy class are enough to drive even the most placid traveller to despair. It just gets worse in winter, because of weather delays. Frustrations mount quickly--I've seen it happen many times travelling, and not just by air. Historically, people claiming to have bombs in airports or on planes are arrested and prosecuted, not shot.

I don't trust ANYONE whose first impulse/knee jerk reaction is to kill a citizen first, ask questions later. Not law enforcement, not my fellow citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Rasener
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 10:44 AM

The only good point that I have heard so far, is the use of stun guns, rather than real bullets.

I think they should ban bullets.

Nobody wants to see an innocent person killed.

However it has happened and there is no going back.

I tell you what, I wouldn't like to have any of you people protecting me, who are talking the softly softly turn the other cheek approach. I just hope you are never in the middle of a real bomb issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 10:56 AM

So The Villan, would you prefer being the innocent person who gets shot by the marshalls? I think you'd be whistling a much different tune had this happened to you or your loved ones, eh?

First, I haven't seen any expression of an opinion in this thread that nothing should have been done to restrain this passenger. Zero, zip, zilch. What is being discussed is what should have been done (instead of pumping the guy full of lead) to restrain this passenger, and allow the crew and marshalls to suss out what was happening.

So your comment, The Villan, that those of us who are questioning the use of a shoot to kill policy being used on airline passengers, are being "soft" is a red herring. We are saying that we believe better judgment AND tactics could have been used, so we are now demanding to know why they weren't.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence on God's green earth that says shooting someone armed with a bomb will save anyone. So why do so many people assume that shoot to kill is the one and only way practice that should be used for dealing with someone who is acting in an unconventional way and may (or may not) claim to have a bomb?

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: wysiwyg
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 10:58 AM

Of course we have the right (and the duty) to question.

Effective "questioning" usually requires schooling, study, research, facts, and/or life experience.

"Monday morning quarterbacking" (AKA "sniping") merely requires a modem and an internet connection faster than the brain of the user.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 11:17 AM

You know, I don't come here often, but it seems to me that this WYSIWYG person is a real patronizing, know-it-all sort of jerk.

Thanks, ~S~, but I'd rather not leave it all to the "experts". They are more often the problem than the cure. Personal slurs like "Monday morning quarterbacking" (AKA "sniping") merely requires a modem and an internet connection faster than the brain of the user" are completely unwarranted here. We are all expressing something we are all perfectly entitled to: our opinions.

In a democracy (something you apparently feel pretty threatened by), there are other measures we use to assess the ethics of a situation like this, and none of them requires a PhD, a divinity degree, or work experience in the police, military, or other security forces.

Your snottiness is pretty unpleasant, but I'm guessing you behave this way because you don't even recognize how snotty and condescending you are towards those who disagree with you. Mature people can handle disagreement and tolerate different opinions being voiced, without turning it personal.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: wysiwyg
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 11:34 AM

We are all expressing something we are all perfectly entitled to: our opinions.

Me too, GUEST. I stated an opinion. You took my post personally and then attacked me. Whatever!

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 11:42 AM

It was your comment about "the brain of the user". That is personally attacking the person expressing the opinion, not the opinion being expressed. It was snotty, and uncalled for.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 11:44 AM

Ignore her, most of us do. She can't handle opposing views.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: wysiwyg
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 11:46 AM

Actually, my opinion was an observation on a cultural phenomenon, not an attack on an individual. You took it as you chose to take it. If you were hurt by it, I am sorry, but you did it to yourself. Also, where did you get the divinity degree part? Not from MY post.

Have a nice day, Guest.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Rasener
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 12:23 PM

Guest are you chicken to say who you are, or are you just a shit stirrer.
I think you are just a flamer who should be ingnored.

You have your opinions and I have mine. At least I don't come on as a guest.

For all we know, you may well be a terrorist.

Have a nice day :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 01:08 PM

Thanks for the heads up Guest 11:44 AM. Point taken.

There are so many troubling aspects to the "official version" of events, I really do believe the official version being handed down is merely to silence the media in the same week the US government is trying to renew the Patriot Act. We don't want anyone looking too closely at the government's homeland security conduct in a post-Katrina world, when we are trying to renew the most highly questionable aspects of the government's "homeland security" response (the Patriot Act) to the 9/11 debacle.

First off, we haven't heard from the airline crew. Now, the plane was coming from Columbia to Miami. The marshalls, as I understand it, were not on board the plane, but had the victim in jetway between the plane and the terminal. In other words, they had him isolated from the other passengers in both the plane and the terminal. So the idea that they were protecting the safety of the passengers is a stretch, especially because none of the passengers said they were aware of any problems on the plane at all--just that the victim had rushed to the front of the plane when they landed. Which means the marshalls likely fired because they thought they themselves to be danger, not so much the passengers.

"Deadly force may be employed only when a federal agent has probable cause to believe there is an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to himself, his partner or others." said David Adams, of the Federal Air Marshal Service."

I think we need to question that shoot to kill deadly force policy regarding airline passengers. It isn't a reasonable practice. Non-deadly force could certainly be used to subdue violent and potentially violent passengers--like I said, a stun gun could easily have been used in this instance, and most other instances like it.
We aren't living in a war zone like Israel. This kind of force being used against the US citizenry, under the guise of protecting us, is just plain wrong, and lazy law enforcement.

And marshalls obviously need more training in how to recognize a situation where they are confronting someone with a mental illness, or other forms of duress.

From what we can suss out and conjecture about from news reports, it is most likely what happened occurred spontaneously when the plane landed, and the victim simply was trying to get off the plane as soon as he could. The marshalls (who possibly had a language barrier) perceived his agitation as threatening, and rather than trying to subdue him, came out guns blazing instead.

A recent national study by the non-profit Treatment Advocacy Center in Virginia, found that mentally ill people were four times more likely than members of the general public to be killed by the police. Not only was the victim mentally ill, but he was also a Spanish speaking man of color, which also raises the possibility of racial profiling. In reports I've read from reputable news organizations (who also get things VERY wrong--like the Iraq war intelligence, for one), one of the marshalls is possibly fluent in Spanish? They aren't really saying. So was this passenger speaking in Spanish and not understood by the marshalls?

It really troubles me that people are so quick to accept the official version of events, especially in the wake of the Katrina debacle, in the wake of the Iraq war debacle, in the wake of the 9/11 debacle...our government pretty much sucks at this national security thing, but no one seems to notice much. They'd rather blindly accept the official story being fed to a mainstream media feeding frenzied atmosphere. And then the story is, bizarrely, gone. Total and complete silence. No interviews with passengers, crew, the wife, or any other witnesses. And no questions from the mainstream press. I guess they learned a thing or two from the murder by British authorities of the innocent South American man in the London tube.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 01:37 PM

People at the end of a flight are often oxygen deprived. Really!
Add to that diesel and jet fumes when they finally allow external air to recirulate at ground level and you have some fairly toxic people.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 01:47 PM

Actually, here is the first full account of the situation from a passenger that I've just found--I was wrong about the plane arriving--it was departing. The victim was trying to get off the plane before it took off. Here is the account, in full, from Time.com:

Posted Thursday, Dec. 08, 2005
At least one passenger aboard American Airlines Flight 924 maintains the federal air marshals were a little too quick on the draw when they shot and killed Rigoberto Alpizar as he frantically attempted to run off the airplane shortly before take-off.

"I don't think they needed to use deadly force with the guy," says John McAlhany, a 44-year-old construction worker from Sebastian, Fla. "He was getting off the plane." McAlhany also maintains that Alpizar never mentioned having a bomb.

"I never heard the word 'bomb' on the plane," McAlhany told TIME in a telephone interview. "I never heard the word bomb until the FBI asked me did you hear the word bomb. That is ridiculous." Even the authorities didn't come out and say bomb, McAlhany says. "They asked, 'Did you hear anything about the b-word?'" he says. "That's what they called it."

When the incident began McAlhany was in seat 24C, in the middle of the plane. "[Alpizar] was in the back," McAlhany says, "a few seats from the back bathroom. He sat down." Then, McAlhany says, "I heard an argument with his wife. He was saying 'I have to get off the plane.' She said, 'Calm down.'"

Alpizar took off running down the aisle, with his wife close behind him. "She was running behind him saying, 'He's sick. He's sick. He's ill. He's got a disorder," McAlhany recalls. "I don't know if she said bipolar disorder [as one witness has alleged]. She was trying to explain to the marshals that he was ill. He just wanted to get off the plane."


McAlhany described Alpizar as carrying a big backpack and wearing a fanny pack in front. He says it would have been impossible for Alpizar to lie flat on the floor of the plane, as marshals ordered him to do, with the fanny pack on. "You can't get on the ground with a fanny pack," he says. "You have to move it to the side."

By the time Alpizar made it to the front of the airplane, the crew had ordered the rest of the passengers to get down between the seats. "I didn't see him get shot," he says. "They kept telling me to get down. I heard about five shots."

McAlhany says he tried to see what was happening just in case he needed to take evasive action. "I wanted to make sure if anything was coming toward me and they were killing passengers I would have a chance to break somebody's neck," he says. "I was looking through the seats because I wanted to see what was coming.

"I was on the phone with my brother. Somebody came down the aisle and put a shotgun to the back of my head and said put your hands on the seat in front of you. I got my cell phone karate chopped out of my hand. Then I realized it was an official."

In the ensuing events, many of the passengers began crying in fear, he recalls. "They were pointing the guns directly at us instead of pointing them to the ground," he says. "One little girl was crying. There was a lady crying all the way to the hotel."

McAlhany said he saw Alpizar before the flight and is absolutely stunned by what unfolded on the airplane. He says he saw Alpizar eating a sandwich in the boarding area before getting on the plane. He looked normal at that time, McAlhany says. He thinks the whole thing was a mistake: "I don't believe he should be dead right now."

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 01:52 PM

Thank you for the truth.

Such is the trade of Liberty for security.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 01:59 PM

You are welcome.

100!