BS: Fly safe with the air marshalls

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.

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,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
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 11 Dec 05 - 05:50 AM

WTF?

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 02:24 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 - 02:10 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: 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 - 01:59 PM

You are welcome.

100!

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 - 01:47 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 - 01:37 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 - 01:08 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.