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.