BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls

Subject: BS: Good call or bad call?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 05:21 PM

Possible mentally ill man shot dead.

Does this make you feel safer? Or is it another Stockwell type cock up?

---

Two threads on same subject combined.

Subject: RE: BS: Good call or bad call?
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 05:30 PM

At this point, who knows. We don't even know yet whether he was just boarding or whether he'd flown from Colombia.

The only thing I can think of that might have made a difference is if the purported wife had notified the plane officials that her husband was disturbed and unpredictable. At the very least they could have confiscated his bag. Realistically though, they would probably not have let them fly.

One thing for sure: I would not want to be in the shoes of those who are hired to "keep America safe". They couldn't pay me enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Good call or bad call?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 05:58 PM

I suggest we all write to our reps to congress and demand that they bring back the Sky Marshalls. I intend to do just that.

Wolfgang (finding that quote by searching for 'sky marshalls'; date: 11th of September, 2001)

Subject: RE: BS: Good call or bad call?
From: GUEST,Martin gibson
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 06:03 PM

Yes it is possible he was mentally ill. It is also possible he could have really cause some major damage.

Take him out. The passangers are safe. You can wring your hands all you want over it. safety of the innocent and SANE comes first. No one is going to and should take a chance over this.

Subject: RE: BS: Good call or bad call?
From: Burke
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 06:13 PM

Someone who claims to have a bomb & taking it on a plane, when he does not, is a good candidate for a Darwin Award.

Subject: RE: BS: Good call or bad call?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 08:09 PM

GOOD call in realtime, BAD call only possible with hindsight. Bombs blow up (or passengers stampede/drop dead of heart attacks in panic), in REALTIME. I'm real sorry for the guy and his family--what a nightmare-- but if you dash into heavy traffic because you are delusional, do you not expect to be run over by a bus?

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Good call or bad call?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 08:20 PM

Why do you have to be sane to be innocent?

Subject: RE: BS: Good call or bad call?
From: mack/misophist
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 11:43 PM

It's sad. Those who are issued guns are usually given instructions on when to use them. The article said he was reaching into the bag when shot. Assuming all this is true, I don't see any alternative. Of course, it may not be true.

Subject: RE: BS: Good call or bad call?
From: dianavan
Date: 07 Dec 05 - 11:52 PM

"...but if you dash into heavy traffic because you are delusional, do you not expect to be run over by a bus?"

I think if a delusional person dashed into heavy traffic, there would be absolutely no expectation that had anything to do with reality, let alone a bus.

Very good point, Richard. Insanity does not rule out innocence.

Subject: RE: BS: Good call or bad call?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 12:04 AM

Why do you have to be sane to be innocent?

It's not a question of guilt or innocence. In fact, if a "sane" person made the same claim and acted in the same manner there would be no doubt of his lack of innocence. It's only because the guy was not sane that there's any doubt about the issue at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Good call or bad call?
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 04:15 AM

BUT HOW do you know if faced with such a person..if they are sane or not? The right course of action seems to have been taken...given what we are told!........repeat...given what we are told. The suspected terrorist who was followed onto the tube in London was totally innocent but the Police claimed he was running from them when they 'disposed' of him........we were told this and it turned out to be untrue.
Let's wait and see if the truth 'outs'
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 05:48 AM

An airline passenger shows signs of his illness. Passengers know the score - they hear his wife saying he has a bi-polar disorder (manic depression) and has not taken his meds. An air marshall kills the man. Gee, thanks Air Marshall! Truly the American People are safe in your care!

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Rasener
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 06:47 AM

I thought he told them that he had a bomb?

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 06:50 AM

His car was in the carpark!

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: jacqui.c
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 07:01 AM

The news report I saw suggested that he did not stop when commanded to by the air marshalls.

I have some sympathy with those guys - if someone seeems to be behaving in a suspicious manner it is their job to deal with the situation. I suppose it's possible that, concentrating on the guy running toward them, they may not have heard what his wife was saying the other end of the plane. However, I wonder if they had orders to shoot to kill, rather than to disable a suspect, and, now that the whole story is known, I wonder how they feel.

This sounds like a similar event to the shooting of the guy on the underground in London after the bombings. As in that incident there will be a number of versions of the event and lots of theories flying around. Whether we ever hear the real facts is debateable.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 07:04 AM

Having read the full news report on the BBC, I would have shot him too.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: SINSULL
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 08:39 AM

He said he had a bomb They blew up several pieces of luggage on the tarmac according to the news because they believed he had a bomb. If I am on a plane and someone says he has a bomb I would believe him and take appropriate action if possible.
If anything, I sympathize with the marshalls who did their job and now have to live with the outcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 08:57 AM

The guy was experiencing a severe panic brought on by his mental condition. His disease caused him to step over the line when he said the word "bomb". Everybody who flies knows that from the time you park your car in airport parking until you get to your motel room at your destination, "bomb" ceases to be part of your vocabulary.

This may be the first case of air marshalls shooting someone who exhibited threatening behavior brought on by mental illness, but it's certainly not the first case of authorities, in general, doing so. It happens every day. It's always unfortunate, but how are the police supposed to know, in the seconds they have to respond, whether someone is a genuine threat or a nut-case acting out.

I didn't know the man, but I've known a few severely bipolar people, a couple of whom have taken their own lives. Don't discount the possibility that, on some subconscious level, this may have been a case of "suicide by cop".

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Rapparee
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 09:15 AM

Yup. And I hope that the shooter gets appropriate help. The cops out here do/would.

Apparently the man didn't take his medicines. He said he had a bomb, he was commanded to stop and lay down by the marshals. He didn't, they shot. The marshals had a whole planeload of people they were responsible for.

I probably would have shot too.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Ella who is Sooze
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 09:19 AM

I was recently on a conector flight between Washington and Boston, when not even half an hour in to the flight I really and I mean REALLY needed to pee. I couldn't stand the pain, I had to get up, we weren't out of WDC airspace, but I had to gooooo..

So I got up and went to the loos... and on the way got tackled (questioned) by the air steward and told off. I just told them, it's either this or you have to clear up a mess they wouldn't like to.

I didn't know about the half and hour no stand up in Washington airspace... I'm a brit... no clue about all the new ideas.

E.W.I.S

Subject: RE: BS: Good call or bad call?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 09:37 AM

He was killed as he was running away from the plane. I wonder if shooting was the only option under such circumstances. If he'd had a bomb, it seems to me he would have tried to blow it up while still on the plane. Maybe some further training for the air marshalls would be helpful in preventing something like this from happening again in the future.

Subject: RE: BS: Good call or bad call?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 09:40 AM

dianavan, DUH. By using simplified tenses I must have left my point unclear. Let's try again. It's a pretty simple point.

If you were to dash into heavy traffic in a delusional state, would you therefore not be subject to being run over by a bus?

I am NOT saying the passenger could have been thinking in those terms. I AM saying that people who are looking at what happened in a supposedly objective frame of mind, and judging what was done by the authorities as wrong, may be thinking that the world can and should run on the assumption that mental illness will control the reality to which we're all subject.

Even if the bus driver in my example COULD read the delusional person's mind, s/he would not have the magical power over physics to stop the bus instantaneously and, therefore, SHOULD have. In the same way, even if the person who shot the passenger could have known the person had a mental disorder, and believed it-- could s/he have taken the risk that the same person might have been "crazy" enough to build and bring a bomb?

It's the kind of Monday-morning quarterbacking in the opening post that our culture is so rife with these days. WE WEREN'T THERE. The people entrusted with passengers' lives WAS there. They made a split-second decision in favor of saving HOW many lives. If there HAD been a bomb, and the passenger had NOT been stopped, would the passenger's mental illness have resulted in kudos for the security folks, for being so kind and understanding? No. They'd have been asskicked.

The shooter, and the shooter alone, has to live with having done what training and policy required. For us to judge that person and the policies, without actually knowing a thing about the reality of being in that position, is the height of pretense.

Our society seems to lack the capacity to witness tragedy without immediately going into accusation-mode. It's magical thinking-- it's not based on the simple reality that some poor working stiff got up that day, had his bowl of Cheerios, went off to do an honest day's work, and got landed with having to enact an ultimate decision. Another regular Joe got up that day and as the day went on, something inside went horribly out of control. That's a tragedy-- not an opportunity to take shots at policies before even knowing what actually occurred.

Monday-morning quarterbacks tend to be people who try (and fail) to control the situations in their own hands-on lives. People tend not to take them seriously, in their own lives, because in their own lives they are really lousy quarterbacks and aren't allowed near the ball. So they bloviate in public instead. It reminds me of a bar full of drunks egging each other on to blame the world for everything while getting drunker and more obnoxious with each loudly-proclaimed judgment on the world. The opening post in this thread reads like a drinking song. Agree? Take a drink. Disagree? Take a drink.

I think yesterday's situation is more serious than an excuse for a drinking game.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: wysiwyg
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 09:42 AM

If you were to dash into heavy traffic in a delusional state, would you therefore not be subject to being run over by a bus?

I am NOT saying the passenger could have been thinking in those terms. I AM saying that people who are looking at what happened in a supposedly objective frame of mind, and judging what was done by the authorities as wrong, may be thinking that the world can and should run on the assumption that mental illness will control the reality to which we're all subject.

Even if the bus driver in my example COULD read the delusional person's mind, s/he would not have the magical power over physics to stop the bus instantaneously and, therefore, SHOULD have. In the same way, even if the person who shot the passenger could have known the person had a mental disorder, and believed it-- could s/he have taken the risk that the same person might have been "crazy" enough to build and bring a bomb?

It's the kind of Monday-morning quarterbacking in the opening post that our culture is so rife with these days. WE WEREN'T THERE. The people entrusted with passengers' lives WAS there. They made a split-second decision in favor of saving HOW many lives. If there HAD been a bomb, and the passenger had NOT been stopped, would the passenger's mental illness have resulted in kudos for the security folks, for being so kind and understanding? No. They'd have been asskicked.

The shooter, and the shooter alone, has to live with having done what training and policy required. For us to judge that person and the policies, without actually knowing a thing about the reality of being in that position, is the height of pretense.

Our society seems to lack the capacity to witness tragedy without immediately going into accusation-mode. It's magical thinking-- it's not based on the simple reality that some poor working stiff got up that day, had his bowl of Cheerios, went off to do an honest day's work, and got landed with having to enact an ultimate decision. Another regular Joe got up that day and as the day went on, something inside went horribly out of control. That's a tragedy-- not an opportunity to take shots at policies before even knowing what actually occurred.

Monday-morning quarterbacks tend to be people who try (and fail) to control the situations in their own hands-on lives. People tend not to take them seriously, in their own lives, because in their own lives they are really lousy quarterbacks and aren't allowed near the ball. So they bloviate in public instead. It reminds me of a bar full of drunks egging each other on to blame the world for everything while getting drunker and more obnoxious with each loudly-proclaimed judgment on the world. The opening post in this thread reads like a drinking song. Agree? Take a drink. Disagree? Take a drink.

I think yesterday's situation is more serious than an excuse for a drinking game.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Good call or bad call?
From: Pied Piper
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 09:50 AM

What an extraordinarily unpredictable post from Martin, complete with his strange obsession with hand wringing (a closet Campanologist?).

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 09:56 AM

BBC story


The air marshals have not got the luxury of time to figure out if someone is serious. They did the right thing in the circumstances.

In a cold hearted calculation it is far, far better to have the occasional innocent casulty, like this man, or the man killen in a UK tube station this summer, than to have one bomber you could have stopped get through.

It's not good, but it's the lesser of two evils.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 10:00 AM

Well said, Wysiwyg. I feel your last long paragraph may be too strong, I agree about the Monday-morning quarterbacking. Too many people are eager to criticize, too early.

Remember the Exxon Valdiz oil spill? Dear Connie Chung killing herself to imply that the crew was drunk. When it came out months later that the spill happened because the crew was overworked and sleep-deprived, the news was buried in the back pages.

I do wish to point out that if there had been a bomb in the bag, then shooting the bomber might have been the worst thing to do. What if it was on a timer and only he knew how to disable it?

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Peace
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 10:06 AM

And if you meet anyone you know who's named Jack, say hello, not hi.

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

FYI

"Every Federal Air Marshal candidate must successfully complete a two-phase training program to fulfill the requirements necessary to become a Federal Air Marshal (FAM). The initial phase consists of a seven-week basic law enforcement officer training program conducted at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (F.L.E.T.C.) in Artesia, NM. The FAM basic training has been specifically tailored to prepare recruits for the unique and critical mission of the Federal Air Marshal Service. The core curriculum taught during FAM basic training is drawn from the following disciplines: constitutional law, basic marksmanship, physical fitness, defensive tactics, emergency medical and fundamental law enforcement investigative/administrative practices. FAM candidates who successfully complete the basic training curriculum continue to Phase II training conducted at the Federal Air Marshal Training Center in Atlantic City, NJ.

Phase II training is dedicated to providing FAM candidates with the knowledge, skills and abilities specifically applicable to the environment in which they will perform their duties. Emphasis is placed on developing advanced firearms and defensive techniques proficiency, advanced operational tactics, strength conditioning and aerobic training, aircraft systems emergency procedures and legal and administrative protocols. Candidates who successfully complete Phase II have demonstrated the ability to carry out the duties and tasks necessary to fulfill the mission of the Federal Air Marshal Service. Upon graduation from Phase II, newly appointed Federal Air Marshals are assigned to one of 21 field offices to begin flying missions."

Subject: RE: BS: Good call or bad call?
From: jeffp
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 11:42 AM

He was killed as he was running away from the plane. I wonder if shooting was the only option under such circumstances. If he'd had a bomb, it seems to me he would have tried to blow it up while still on the plane. Maybe some further training for the air marshalls would be helpful in preventing something like this from happening again in the future.

The above-referenced article states that he was running across the air bridge from the plane toward the terminal building. So instead of being a threat to the people on the plane, he would have been a threat to everybody in the building, a far greater number.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: artbrooks
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 01:06 PM

He was apparently wearing a backpack - and at least one person said that it was on the front of his torso. He was told to put it on the ground and seemed to be reaching into it when he was shot. Tragic, but how were the officers supposed to know? For all they could have known, the person yelling that he was sick could have been another terrorist trying to distract them. These guys are trained to be professionally paranoid and that, IMHO, is a good thing.    CNN Story

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: kendall
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 01:13 PM

What does it matter if he was in the plane or in the terminal?

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 04:31 PM

If they could have isolated him on the air bridge, and prevented him from entering the terminal or returning to the plane, they might have been able to avoid shooting him. But I have no idea whether or not it would have been possible for them to do that.

I do think it's a good idea to give law enforcement people training in how to recognize and effectively deal with people with mental illness. I have a relative with bipolar disorder who once was removed from the top of the wing of a airplane (he was standing on top of the airplane wing) in an airport. He has no idea how he got there becuase he was having a psychotic episode at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST
Date: 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.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 05:43 PM

" White House backs air marshals' actions" You'd have thought that they'd have learned by now that it's better to wait until the actual facts have been established before comeing out with that kind of stuff. Remember that crap that the police chuief Ian Blair came out with in London about how Jean Charles de Menenzes had been runnigh away and acting suspiciously and all that.

And where do these blokes with the guns get the bright idea that shooting someone who actually did have a bomb would be a surefire way to stop them detonating it? It might just as easily be a ceertain way of ensuring that they do detonate it.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 05:45 PM

If anyone hasn't guessed so far, I have only contempt (or maybe contempt and anger) for W, the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security.

Having said this, I must say that the sky marshal approach seems to be the only "security" measure he has undertaken that makes sense. Shooting a psycho who says he has a bomb is, IMO, exacly as well justified as shooting someone who's threatening you with a rubber knife or a realistic toy gun--EXTREMELY well justified.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 06:14 PM

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

Crazy as it sounds, most countries have security procedures specifically designed to prevent bombs being carried on to planes. Most even had such measures in place 9-11. In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, the pilots of British airlines said that they didn't want armed marshalls on planes: the place for security, they said, was at the check-ins, not on board. It would seem from many of the brainless posts here that most Americans prefer to have air mashalls murder the suspects.

Well that would be fine, but what's a poor air marshall to do if someone brings a bomb on board and forgets to mention it?

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Peace
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 06:25 PM

Some bombs can be hooked to the beating of one's heart. The heart stops beating for ten seconds (or pick a time of your own choosing) and BOOM, the bomb detonates.

I recall air marshals from the late 1960s or early 1970s. A fellow stopped me as I was walking up the ramp to the plane. I put my hands up--he had no gun in his hand--and I slowly turned a 360 degree circle. I asked him why he was stopping me. He asked if I had any weapons. I said no. He never did frisk me (the idiot). He'd stopped me because I had long hair--that was back in the day when I HAD hair. Sometimes, the decisions people make can be downright stupid. If memory serves, I was leaving for Montreal from Newark Airport.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: robomatic
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 06:39 PM

I had an experience of being on an airliner when a passenger a couple rows behind me went into diabetic coma. It was an unhappy thing to see. Passenger's relative seated right by said they had some medicine but they checked it. Plane made a cordscrew descent to the nearest major airport and passenger was wheeled off. (I called the airline to see what happened and was not surprised to be fobbed off).

In that circumstance the fellow passengers and crew did all they could, but the patient had the responsibility to manage their condition, and through absence of mind or overconfidence they didn't make out so well.

Likewise in this circumstance, I heard more than once that the (alleged) wife stated that the man who was shot was bipolar and "off his medication". It's not clear at this point if the sky marshall's even were within hearing distance of her.

Tragic all round. The wife, the shooters, the victim, the witnesses.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Peace
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 06:46 PM

I am with you on that, Robomatic.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 06:54 PM

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

Yes peter I thought it glaringly obvious. When I started this thread I wondered how long it would take for someone to mention it too. They didn't so I did. If I lived there, that is what I would have concerns about. Not rush in and try and justify a senseless killing. Wood trees, trees wood. Perversely the presence of air marshalls could be putting more in danger.

" Hey just give the bags a quick once over, if anyone starts any funny business up there we'll shoot the bugger."

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Big Mick
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 07:11 PM

Carol, I think the world of you, but you are speaking as if there were time for a nice discussion, let's weigh the options, kind of scenario. Over the course of minutes we are faced with a man who is acting irrational, says he has a bomb, is not cooperating, in fact is running, and then reaches into the backpack (remember he said he had a bomb). You have seconds to make a decision. The training is to take the threat to innocent life out.

I was listening to Katie Couric (does anyone else dislike her interview style as much as I do?) this morning. She kept trying to press the point that they didn't have to shoot to kill. Let me make something clear folks. Surgical shooting is a skill to be sure. But when the rubber is on the road and one must make a decision quickly, you shoot for the center of mass. You don't have time, despite what you have seen in the movies to try and hit the trigger finger, or kneecap.

These marshalls did an admirable job, and now will face a tough time dealing with the consequences. I feel as badly for them as I do the family of this man.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: bobad
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 07:17 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."

If he would of had plastic explosives they wouldn't show up on x-ray. Are explosive sniffers being used at all airports in the U.S. ?

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 07:29 PM

Over the course of minutes we are faced with a man who is acting irrational, says he has a bomb, is not cooperating, in fact is running, and then reaches into the backpack...

Possibly so, possibly not. The media reports I have seen indicate that there is some dispute about what actually happened. Remember how in the Lndonn tube shooting Jean Charles de Menenzes was said to have been dressed suspiciously, acting suspiciously, ran away when challenged and leapt over a ticket barrier - and all of that turned out to be a compete pack of falsehoods.

Moral is, don't rush to judgement - either way. Wait for the facts to be established rather better than they have been.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 07:41 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.

I'm wearing my seatbelt, I'll just turn the airbag off as I don't need it.

I know my parachute is packed properly, I won't bother with the spare today.

Regardless of how sure of the primary you are, do you get rid of the back up? This is what the air marshals are, an extra measure for when the first fails.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST,Richard H
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 07:47 PM

CNN: The marshals say Alpizar announced he was carrying a bomb before being killed.

However, no other witness has publicly concurred with that account. Only one passenger recalled Alpizar saying, "I've got to get off, I've got to get off," CNN's Kathleen Koch reported.

After all the false reports given by the police in England for shooting the Brazilian guy, surely we should be wary of saying: "He said he had a bomb" just because the security people say so.

As one who suffers panic attacks in confined places, it scares the ---- out of me to think I might ever say: "I've got to get out" and get blown to kingdom come by guys in Hawaiian shirts.

Not that I'm saying security people have an easy job.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 08:12 PM

Mick, I hope you did not take my comments as any kind of criticism of anyone, because they certainly were not meant in that way. As I said in my last post, I really don't know if what I was speculating about was even possible under the circumstances. But I do know that giving law enforcement people training in dealing with people with mental illnesses is a good thing for everyone involved, not least being the law enforcement people themselves.

Having said that, I also agree with the Guest who has brought up the subject of airport security prior to passengers boarding the plane.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: kendall
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 08:38 PM

Let's all hope that Katie Couric is never charged with dealing with a nutcase in a plane. Monday morning quarterbacks are bad enough if they know what they are talking about, let alone someone who doesn't have a clue.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 08:48 PM

Knowing many policemen, IF you shoot someone you usually have a back up knife, gun or story to plant on the victim if things look too fishy.

I too noticed that the initial people interviewed by the media chose their words carefully in saying "he INDICATED he had a bomb. or MADE REFERENCE to having a bomb.

Interesting that no other passengers heard him yell I HAVE A BOMB.

After awhile most people will begin to believe they heard what was expected of them to hear. Besides the passengers were led off the plane with their hands on their heads and interrogated for several hours. I am surprised if passengers have not yet supported the "official story".

Still, explosives are the easiest and most likely way of causing mayhem on a plane or in the airport, especially in the luggage compartment. Meanwhile don't wrap your presents or try to bring fruit cake or other deserts on board.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 09:59 PM

Monday morning quarterbacks are bad enough if they know what they are talking about, let alone someone who doesn't have a clue.

Kendall, it sounds like the people responsible for pre-flight security checks are among those who don't have a clue. It's obvious the air marshalls can't trust them. But then there was virtually no security on internal USA flights before 9/11, so perhaps they;re rookies. The UK and many other countries don't permit armed marshalls on board, except of course on flights to and from the States, where Uncle Sam insists.

Meanwhile Big Mick reminds us that the guy who was shot said he had a bomb. The point being, I suppose, tha the marshalls are trained to recognise such a claim as a danger sign. But in present-day, shoot-first America, it's most often going to be a clue to mental illness.

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.

Why should any of this bother me? Only because whatever the US admin does today, her majesty's supine government does tomorrow.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: heric
Date: 09 Dec 05 - 01:46 AM

You can denigrate the opinions, or the people who express the opinions contrary to your own, Peter K (Fionn), as forcefully and dramatically as you'd like, but it goes nowhere to increase the persuasiveness of your own opinion. Tying the job performance of two guys serving in their professional capacity to ambiguous assertions of 9/11 hysteria four years ago seems to be logically, well, shall we say, weak.

In my humble opinion, *IF* the guy said he had a bomb and ran, he earned the shot, rationally or irrationally. *If* he reached into his peculiar front-pack with guns drawn on him, he may have earned the shot on that basis.

Of course, newspaper facts are frequently unreliable.

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!

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: gnu
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 02:00 PM

96 posts! Good thing that the lads with the guns didn't have this long a discussion when buddy was reaching into his bag after being told to stand down.

Why don't you understand why there was no lengthy discussion of why the lad was having a bad day? "Freeze" means "freeze"... no fucking discussion. Even if he didn't understand "freeze", or was deaf, perhaps the guns pointed at him might have given him a clue?

Cut and dried... he decided to die. I feel sorry for those marshalls who HAD to shoot.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 02:10 PM

Frankly gnu, I'll take the word of the eyewitnesses before you. The official version is unravelling.

Another eyewitness account from Time.com:

"My Husband's Dead, Isn't He?"
SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR
Posted Thursday, Dec. 08, 2005
Shortly after Rigoberto Alpizar rushed through the airline cabin clutching a backpack, passenger Mike Beshears saw a man in a Hawaiian shirt bolt out of his First Class seat. The man, who turned out to be a federal air marshal, followed Alpizar toward the jetway. Beshears heard yelling and then a series of shots.

"I could not make out what the words were," Beshears told TIME. But shortly after that he heard five or six shots. "It was crack-crack, then crack-crack-crack-crack," he says. His Air Force training and experience as a hunter led him to believe it was a .9 mm-caliber handgun. "It didn't take a second for me to realize it was gunfire."

According to Beshears, a 48-year-old IT project manager from the Orlando suburb of Winter Garden, the incident began shortly before the last passengers had taken their seats. Alpizar ran up the aisle, barreling into them. "He had a bag clutched to his chest and his head looked as if his left cheek was resting on the bag," Beshears says. "There were a couple of passengers trying to get back into Coach. There were one or two more passengers trying to take their seats in Coach. He pushed them almost into First Class."

At first Alpizar's wife, Anne, followed him, but then she returned to the back of the airplane to retrieve her carry-on luggage, he says. "She was visibly upset," he says. "She said 'My husband is sick. I've got to get my bags.'"

From his seat in the first row of Coach, Beshears assumed that Alpizar and the marshal were on the jetway, but could not see to the entrance of the plane, which was at a right angle to the main aisle. When he saw the crew running back to the Coach section, Beshears assumed the worst. He was in an exit row and began fumbling to open the emergency door. "I was reaching for the arming device and then somebody said, 'No, get back down. Now!'" Beshears got down on the floor.

When Alpizar's wife heard the shots, she started running to the front of the airplane, but the flight attendants intercepted her, he says. "She wanted to run to the jetway bridge," he says. "We knew there were shots and her husband was out there. The airline attendant did a great job. She just spoke to her."

Alpizar's wife explained that she persuaded her husband to take the flight. "'He didn't want to get on the plane,'" Beshears says she told everyone in earshot. "'It's all my fault. He's sick. He's bipolar. He didn't' take his medicine.'"

She attempted to persuade the flight attendants to let her go to her husband. "'I want to talk to him,'" Beshears recalls her saying. "'I want to let him know I love him.' Then she made a remark, 'My husband's dead, isn't he?'"

Although no one answered her question, she appeared to know the answer. "When she made that remark, she was very upset," he says. "The flight attendant was well-trained. She just talked to her to keep her from going totally hysterical."

Within the next five to ten minutes, several Miami-Dade police officers converged on the plane. When the flight attendants told them she was the victim's wife, they escorted her off the aircraft, he says.

"Then the SWAT team came on," he says. "These men are serious. They came in methodically. They said, 'Hands on your heads and don't move.' There were machine guns and shot guns everywhere. They let you know they were going to use them."

Because they evacuated the airplane from the back Beshears was among the last to deplane. All the passengers exited the plane with their hands on their heads, even as they walked down the metal steps to the tarmac, he says. Bomb-sniffing dogs greeted them on the ground.

"One German shepherd and two other mixed-breed dogs were there," he says. "The German shepherd seemed to be the dog checking out every passenger. We had to leave everything. We came out with our hands on our heads, no luggage, nothing. If you weren't wearing it, you left it."

Once they passed the dogs, the passengers went through a pat-down search. Then the passengers boarded a bus that took them to another concourse, where an FBI agent and a Miami-Dade homicide detective questioned them individually, he says. The final step in the process involved giving a sworn statement, which was taken down by stenographer.

Beshears concluded that he feels bad for all parties involved—the Alpizar family and the air marshals. "They're in my prayers today," he says. "That family has suffered. The air marshals themselves are in my prayers because the duty they had to carry out was not one that everyone has to do."

You can't blame the air marshals for what happened, he says. "When the air marshal left the plane, I didn't see a crystal ball in his hand to say what this guy's mental condition was," he says. And it's not Alpizar's fault either, he says. "I firmly believe that if that man had the mental capacity to stop and surrender his bag and cooperate, he'd be alive today."

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 02:24 PM

Another correction: the victim, Rigoberto Alpizar, who lived in Maitland, Fla., had flown into Miami earlier in the day from Quito, Ecuador.

He was scheduled to take American Airlines Flight 924, which originated in Medellin, Colombia, to Orlando. There were 120 passengers and crew on board.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 02:30 PM

All the passengers exited the plane with their hands on their heads, even as they walked down the metal steps to the tarmac, he says. Bomb-sniffing dogs greeted them on the ground.

What a shame that chain of events hadn't happened in reverse, ie the bomb sniffer dogs greeted them on the way to the plane.

From a wordy point of view the 'He deserved it, I would have done the same thing' crowd on this thread are the very people who should never be allowed anywhere near a firearm.

Perhaps the air marshalls should be replaced with psychiatric nurses and alsation dogs.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 02:51 PM

From Newsday:

Seven passengers interviewed by the Orlando Sentinel -- seated in both the front and rear of the main passenger cabin -- said Alpizar was silent as he ran past them on his way to the exit. One thought he had taken the wrong flight. Another thought he was going to throw up.

"I can tell you, he never said a thing in that airplane. He never called out he had a bomb," said Orlando architect Jorge A. Borrelli, who helped comfort Alpizar's wife after the gunfire. "He never said a word from the point he passed me at Row 9. . . . He did not say a word to anybody."

Two teens seated in Row 26 agreed. So did Jorge Figueroa, a power-plant operator from Lakeland seated a few rows behind first class.

"He wasn't saying anything; he was just running," Figueroa said. "I said to myself, 'It is probably a person who took the wrong plane.' "

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: heric
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 03:11 PM

Off topic: Guest wrote: "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."

So do I guest. The worst was when five (FIVE) cops standing in a semi-circle emptied their guns into a drunk who was swinging a stick. That story familiar to you?

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: gnu
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 07:47 PM

"Frankly gnu, I'll take the word of the eyewitnesses before you."..... "Beshears heard yelling and then a series of shots."

Yeah... me too.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 09:08 PM

Villan, the guest whom you wouldn't trust to protect you quoted this: "All the passengers exited the plane with their hands on their heads....Bomb-sniffing dogs greeted them on the ground." He followed it with this comment: What a shame that chain of events hadn't happened in reverse, ie the bomb sniffer dogs greeted them on the way to the plane.

I wonder if you are able to see the point he's making?

You yourself said this: "I wouldn't like to have any of you people protecting me, who are talking [sic] the softly softly turn the other cheek approach."

Perhaps you would say who exactly does protect you when you travel by plane? And what's so softly-softly about preventing prohibited items getting into cabins? (This being the preferred security option for those many airlines that manage without marshalls.)

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Sorcha
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 09:16 PM

Did NONE of you actually read what I posted about the STRESS involved????

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: heric
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 09:18 PM

Well if they're stressed take the guns away from them, then.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: heric
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 09:37 PM

I still don't understand where the second marshall came from, whether he felt the need to shoot anyone at all, and why they keep using the term "intercepted" when the one marshall we know about chased down the guy and shot him because he was scared of airplanes. WTF?

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 11 Dec 05 - 05:50 AM

WTF?

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST,a
Date: 11 Dec 05 - 06:02 AM

Peter K, you said "for those many airlines that manage without marshalls." All airlines have marshalls, this is not their option.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Dec 05 - 06:28 AM

what a magic word...freeze

If I say it before I kill you

it turns murder into a prudent action.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: gnu
Date: 11 Dec 05 - 07:03 AM

No, "freeze" means one should be prudent in one's actions due to the severe consequece(s) of non-compliance.

I shall now withdraw from this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Dec 05 - 07:34 AM

Logically, shooting dead a suspected suicide bomb carrier is unwise - never head of 'dead hand switches'?

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Big Mick
Date: 11 Dec 05 - 08:25 AM

Wonderful how all you wizards who didn't have the need to make a split second decision, with the lives of many others as your responsibity, and who have the benefit of hindsight and time to ponder, have all the answers. Your snide comments simply make you look like self important people who think they have all the answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Dec 05 - 08:40 AM

Big Mick,

My previous comment was not aimed at the poor grunts on the ground, but the desk jockeys who haven't considered the possibility that killing a suicide bomber with a 'DHS' trigger is not the cleverest policy.

And if they haven't started using them yet, sooner or later they will wake up.

And I won't say what cheap item available in every household and shopping centre can be used to make one, either.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Big Mick
Date: 11 Dec 05 - 09:33 AM

I understand, Foolestroupe, but I get tired of the same old cast of characters who seek every opportunity to trash Americans and the USA at the drop of a hat. Even in this debate they seek to somehow lessen the gravity of 9-11 and this country's response in order that they can pursue their agenda. THERE WERE OVER 3,000 PEOPLE KILLED IN A SINGLE TERRORIST ATTACK. That necessitates a response to insure it doesn't happen again. We are an extraordinarily open society which makes us vulnerable. If you want to debate the smugness and world view which made and continues to make us vulnerable, then I am with you. I am perfectly willing to have a discussion of how the conservative fundamentalist hawks have used Homeland Security Act for reasons far beyond the scope of keeping us all safe from the attacks that THE TERRORISTS HAVE PROMISED WILL COME. But when I look at this thread, beginning with its sarcastic title, and see otherwise bright people using it for no reason other than to denigrate all things American, I get tired of it. When you do this, you are employing the same tactic that those you detest use.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 05 - 09:43 AM

Nobody has used this thread to denigrate all things american. It has been used to question the validity of armed marshalls and the lack of security on the ground.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: heric
Date: 11 Dec 05 - 11:28 AM

WTF is an acronym for "what the hell??"

I don't have any answers, either Mick. I feel sorry as hell for that guy in the Hawaiian shirt if he breached protocol by jumping out of his seat. I feel sorry for him even if everything he did was correct. And I appreciate his work.

But the powers that be instantly told us that two marshalls intercepted a guy screaming "I have a bomb" as he was running into a crowded terminal, which gained our sympathies for a sad situation. I'll be impressed, and maybe a little surprised, if it turns out they were telling the whole truth, instead of just shooting first with their mouths.

When the five city cops plugged the drunk homeless guy in our town, for swinging a stick, the authorities told us that protocols were followed then, too. For a while.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 11 Dec 05 - 12:24 PM

GUEST,a, you might be right, in which case I stand corrected. But I've not managed to find anything to update the info provided HERE, for instance, where a UK government minister was talking about marshals being deployed on "some" flights. A BBC report refers to the UK acting in line with Australia and the article for which I've given the link said Australia was deploying 70 marshals on internal flights and 40 on international flights.

In other words a derisory proportion of flights. (Though I assume the FAA has stipulated that there must be marshalls on all flights into and out of the US.) As I said, I might have fallen behind the times on this, but I haven't managed to find much info on the present situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 05 - 10:37 PM

It would be idiotic, dangerous, demagogic, and irresponsible to try and reduce every security threat to simplistic "terrorist" threats. This sad and tragic death proves that, as if any proof were needed after the Katrina debacle.

Other countries have lost as many people as we have (with much smaller populations) to terrorism. Breast beating and pseudo-patriot bleating won't change the fact that terrorism is something the entire globe is dealing with, not just the US. Even though some people would like us to believe US deaths are somehow more sacred than any other nations' deaths due to terror.

Excessive use of force is excessive use of force. This was clearly a case of excessive use of force.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 01:58 AM

GUEST 09 Dec 05 - 02:59 PM

GUEST, I believe that the man who had attracted the Air Marshall's attention ignored their instructions, had he stopped and complied with those instructions he would be alive today.

On airport security checks, what they 'should' be and what it is possible for them to be are as different as chalk from cheese. A workable solution is a matter of arriving at the best compromise solution. The measures you proposed in your post would prevent and deter nothing.

The Air Marshalls are there to prevent the aircraft from being taken over and used as weapons as was the case on 911.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 06:28 AM

teribus why would the measures I proposed prevent and deter nothing?

I agree that had he followed instruction, assuming he was able to, he would be alive today. But it all depends where you are taking your first step in prevention, and had it been on the ground with more stringent security check in, he also would have been alive.

And the air marshalls wouldn't have the death of an innocent man on their conscience.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST,A
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 06:50 AM

How would "more stringent security check on the ground" have prevented his behavior on the aircraft. Are you advocating professional counseling as well as metal detectors at the checkin point?

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 08:35 AM

No I'm not. It is the 21st century and we can't stop someone boarding a plane with a bomb?

We can of course, but time and financial constraints have decreed that we would rather not. Which means armed marshalls do not know what they are trying to deter. And as in the case last week they used unnecessary force.

Why do we bother with contraception when we have abortion?

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 08:44 AM

Why not use one first, and then, only if necessary, the other?

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 07:44 PM

GUEST 12 Dec 05 - 06:28 AM

"teribus why would the measures I proposed prevent and deter nothing?"

To answer your question:

"What does a bomb look like?" - How imaginative do you want to be?

"What do you think all those people at the hand-luggage are actually looking for?" - Besides looking for items on the proscribed list of articles, they are looking for anything "unusual", out of the ordinary, odd.

"Do you think that they would recognise a bomb, or it's component parts if they uncovered them during a thorough search as you described?" - Pitted against people who have been well trained and equipped with the right material, they wouldn't stand a hope in hell of detecting anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST,A
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 07:57 PM

........and C-5 explosive will not trigger a metal detector.

If someone yells "I have a bomb", they can get shot. It is not the time for the Air Marshall to say "can we talk?"

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

see how well the PR management has worked?

People believe the guy yelled "I have a bomb."

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST,A
Date: 13 Dec 05 - 06:31 AM

heric, it doesn't matter if I believe it or not. The report that the Sky Marshalls heard the phrase is the point.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: kendall
Date: 13 Dec 05 - 09:01 AM

Maybe they should have done nothing and just let the man go. However, if he did have a bomb, and he set it off killing a group of people, we can guess what this thread would have been about. The Marshal's motto should be : "We are damned if we do, and damned if we don't."

Next time I fly, I hope I'm sitting next to a Marshal.

Do your job Marshals..screw the know it all detractors who were not there.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: heric
Date: 13 Dec 05 - 09:59 AM

Clear and undisputed fact is that they were hunting him down long before there is any possibility that he used the word bomb or any words whatsoever. Screw me if you want to for pointing that out.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Dec 05 - 11:17 AM

So security on the ground can't stop bombs getting on planes and air marshalls can only deter them if the bomber yells " I've got a bomb." Anyone going to the trouble of boarding a plane with a bomb is hardly likely to declare the fact.

Nobody other than the air marshalls heard the word 'bomb.' Why?

In this case the only people putting passengers lives at risk, and in one instance killing one of them were the air marshalls.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Dec 05 - 11:42 AM

The worst was when five (FIVE) cops standing in a semi-circle emptied their guns into a drunk who was swinging a stick. (heric)

I transpose this sentence into a picture and I think two of them have been quite careless.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 13 Dec 05 - 11:56 AM

Kendall, I've seen you and you look very inocuous to me. Eactly the kind of guy who might have a bomb. So maybe sitting next to a marshal wouldn't be such a good idea in your case. Or is it only those punctiliously honest terrorists who say "I have a bomb" who pose the threat? Whatever, I assume from your selfish tone that you are not a manic depressive.

"Guest,a" says C5 explosives won't trigger metal detectors. Oh dear. If metal detectors are the only defence in the US, any serious minded terrorist who wanted to get a bomb on board would presumably just check it in. In which case can we not assume that passengers who claim to have bombs in their hand luggage are probably mentally ill?

"Guest,a" goes on to imply that any marshal should be entitled to kill anyone, so long as he remebers to say he heard the word "bomb." Whether his claim is believable is not the point according to "Guest,a."

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Dec 05 - 01:05 PM

Job Description for Air Marshall.

Wanted - men and women who are willing to kill mentally ill passengers who try to get off a plane. Must be able to stick together especially when fabricating reports. An ability to not be able to handle stress is a must. You will be directly responsible for security as our ground staff can't be trusted to know what they are looking for. People who engage their trigger finger before their brain preferred. Anyone with the gall to question procedure need not apply.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 13 Dec 05 - 02:14 PM

"I transpose this sentence into a picture and I think two of them have been quite careless."

lol. Yeah, okay I'm a liar too (aren't we all.) I just wanted to paint a picture of a firing squad effect, and screwed it up.

But there were five of them, . . . really.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 13 Dec 05 - 02:54 PM

Off topic: Okay I just checked my facts. Facts are so tricky. (This was five years ago.) There were four officers and a police dog, but looks like they, or at least the dog, did circle up. Only seven shots were fired from three guns:

"The other officers continued to tell Mr. Miller to drop the stick, but there can be no question that Mr. Miller intentionally ran at Officer Jones," Pfingst wrote. "Officer Jones's fear for his own safety was not unreasonable."

Pfingst said the other two officers lawfully fired to protect Jones. The three fired one minute after an officer with a police dog arrived. The dog was wounded in a paw by a bullet that passed through Miller.

The shooting unleashed a public outcry for less-lethal measures when dealing with the mentally ill.

Yesterday, Bejarano said his department is giving officers more training in dealing with the mentally ill and in communicating with each other during tense situations.

Also, all patrol officers are being issued tasers and bean bag- round shotguns. Training in their use is to be completed by the end of July, Bejarano said.

Subject: RE: BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls
From: GUEST,A
Date: 13 Dec 05 - 03:30 PM

Peter K, your spin is near perfection.