December 07, 2005

• I think it is fair to note that the man was not yelling "I have bipolar disorder, and have not taken my medication" at the time, so it is doubtful the Air Marshall's knew of his condition. The man said he had a bomb, and then ran when ordered to stop.
• Knowing what I do of bipolar disorder, this could be a case of Suicide By Cop.
• I likely would have made the same decision. Strangely, it says, "Authorities did not immediately say whether any bomb was found," not, "Authorities did not say whether any bomb was found by the time we went to press." Though it only happened, what, 2 hours ago, that could be the reason. Hopefully that will be clarified, though I'd imagine that he did not have a bomb.
• I'm waiting for more info before I form an opinion. Like the Menezes shooting in London, if initial reports are to be believed, the marshals did exactly what they were supposed to do. Saying the word "bomb" on or near an airplane/airport is likely to get you cavity-searched. Running from authorities after proclaiming you have one will likely make you very dead. What were they going to do? "Excuse me sir, are you being serious, or are you simply off your meds? Oh, and if you have a bomb, just what kind?"
• >The man said he had a bomb, and then ran when ordered to stop. If that turns out to be what happened, then it's sad, but it's hard to fault the air marshal. It's worth bearing in mind that the initial reports about Menezes, the guy who got shot in the London underground, were that he ran from police and jumped over a ticket barrier; neither of those things turned out to have been true. But from what this guy's wife apparently said about his mental condition... maybe this is just what it seems to be on the face of it- a sad accident.
• Like the Menezes shooting in London Speaking of, whatever happened with that? Did everybody shrug and move on? It didn't make my heavily filtered faux news after the assertions that they were watching the wrong house, etc, etc.
• ...my thoughts are with that man's wife.
• Last I heard it's on a news blackout because of, if I remember correctly, the Official Secrets Act. I don't think we'll hear more until it's all over.
• Fuck almighty. Poor guy. Poor wife. This is what you get with a Culture of Fear.
• No to get too off topic, but last I heard, petebest, is that there's an investigation that everyone seems to be welcoming. most current BBC news story Personally, I think the Met's going to get their asses handed to them on this one. Having a resemblance to a bomber is a lot flimsier (and ultimately so bad that it's criminal) cause to shoot him than the original stories that he'd jumped the barrier, etc. Hence why I'm waiting to hear what this guy in Miami really did rather than the media's tried-and-true "people say" game of telephone.
• What I know of bipolar illness, the guy probably had a bad time with all the people on the plane, his wife tried to calm him down, he freaked out, tried to barge thru' the people, and yelled 'get out of my way I got a bomb' in order to get people to get out of his way. Problem for him: this will get you shot, now.
• I disagree with the use of deadly force as a first option. I think attempting to physically restrain the guy should be tried first. I realize that the US has always been, and probably always will be, "shoot first, ask questions later". I'd like to see how things would be if we changed that.
• I agree un- with the exception that if he really did have a bomb, the agents probably didn't want to wrestle with him. Still, I wish shooting to kill wasn't the first resort. It's probably what they teach them in Air Marshall class though. And Chyren, were you reading the thread on the blue? Cause that's exactly what someone reported happening.
• I don't make a habit of reading those kinds of threads on the blue, but I can accurately predict these sorts of situations because I know loonies, and unfortunately also suffer from panic attacks on occasion. I would not be so stupid as to yell about having a bomb on American soil in an airport, however, but we are not in short supply of stupid people on planet Earth; that's one resource that doesn't look to run out soon. I can also accurately predict that people in the thread on the blue are bitching about the newsfilter and probably fighting amongst themselves over one thing and another.
• *gapes in awe*
• I just checked the thread. HA! But, you know, pretty safe bet.
• I'm waiting for more info before I form an opinion. As am I. As with the tube shooting, we could well be hearing a completely different story in 48 hours. If the official story is correct -- and I am not saying it is -- then it's likely a justified shooting. Man claims to have bomb in bag --> Marshals chase man onto jetway --> man reaches into bag where bomb is allegedly located. If a man tells you he has a bomb and then appears to be reaching for it in a panic during a pursuit, you don't yell 'freeze.' You protect the people in the airport and on the plane. If that's the case, then they did their job. If not, I hope they're strung up by their nuts and beaten with sticks. That said, this is horrible and sad and if it was just some poor sick man, then I feel awful for him and his surviving family and friends. I wonder why he was traveling without his meds. I wonder if Fes's suicide appraisal is correct.
• I once had a neighbor who was obviously mentally ill (and had a really creepy way about him besides) approach me claiming to have a bomb under his jacket. It was one of the scariest moments I can remember ever experiencing in my life.
• By that I mean to say that this might be an example of "if it looks and sounds and acts like a terrorist, you'd damn well better treat it like a terrorist."
• I'm not going to make the same mistake I did with the Menezes shooting, in case I have another blue with quidnunc.
• I think attempting to physically restrain the guy should be tried first. There's no way in hell I'd go that route. If the marshals were stupid enough to actually get close enough to physically restrain him he's going to be thrilled; he can take out some marshals as well as himself. I'd shoot him. If he's physically capable of detonating a bomb and killing me and others, I do not care about his mental state. It's a shitty way to die, but so it goes.
• Chy, I don't mean to make snap judgements about bipolar - I know exactly one person with it (although she's very close) and pre-medication she attempted suicide on several occasions in fairly dramatic fashion, and it was told to me later that such was often typical for unmedicated bipolars. I also know a lot of cops (former reporter), including a couple who have been the unfortunate machina for suicide-by-cop, and mental illness seems to be a prevalent theme in their stories. In any event, it wasn't my intention to be flippant. I apologize if I seemed that way.
• Why he might be travelling without his meds? He was on a plane. Maybe they were delayed. Maybe extraordinarily delayed. Maybe his meds ran out. Maybe his meds were in his checked luggage. All are reasonable guesses. Need more info. Suspending judgement until then, but the desire to blame Chimpy somehow, anyhow, is luring me with it siren call...
• I hate Bush too, but still can't fault him or the air marshals. Same thing would have happened with police (or armed security guards) if the guy had been in front of city hall or in a mall. Tragic, but unless we have the presence of "shoot on sight" orders or the absence of yelling "I have a bomb", not anyone's fault but the person responsible for sanity.
• "In any event, it wasn't my intention to be flippant." Don't be silly. You were quite possibly correct. Anyway, I wasn't trying to snark at you, it probably came out that way. Apologies. I'm always going to act like I'm an authority on loonies, because, frankly, I am one and my family is full of actual mentally ill people. But that doesn't mean people can't speculate or comment about loonies in general or specific, because like all people, loonies vary a fair bit in their ways, and why not?
• And if a new story emerges tomorrow, I will once again damn the news organizations and their shadowy overlords.
• Chy, how do you know you're not simply a musician instead?
• CNN is reporting that there is no bomb. (Not a big surprise, to be sure.)
• The guy run off the aircraft. Ergo, he was already frisked/searched/probed and his carry-on luggage checked, when *boarding* the fuscked plane, didn't he? How come security personnel didn't notice this? I understand these situations burden such people with split-second, life-or-death decisions, but still... shit, used to be that yelling 'communist!' or 'witch!' could bring down hell on anybody; now someone yells 'bomb!' and automatic systems are set in motion and pity the one on the receiving end. Shudder to think of this used on innocent people by third parties. If the wife alerted security about this person's condition and wasn't acknowledged, guess she's got quite a good case? Not that will help him anymore, of course. And who knows... tomorrow we might start hearing that he wasn't running, didn't yell 'bomb', didn't jump the turnstiles...
• Indeed.
• In any event, it wasn't my intention to be flippant. I apologize if I seemed that way. followed by... Anyway, I wasn't trying to snark at you, it probably came out that way. Apologies. Aw, cmon, can't one of you at least give the other a poke on the snoot? But seriously, it's nice to be in a quiet civilized place. Hats off to ye gentlemen.
• Old US policy (Ready, Fire, Aim!) plus New US policy (Deterrnet first strikes are OK! When we do 'em,that is.) Result: We provide body bag, you bring body. No fooling, there is something profounsdly obscene to me about posting this on Pearl Harbour Day, speaaking of deterrent first strikes.
• Hmmm. Good point.
• A terrorist is not going to screech "I have a bomb!" and then go fumble through his carry-on to find it. A terrorist would simply press the button. This was an over-reaction by Rambo cops that wanted to be heroes.
• Another good point.
• /takes another dose of Lamictal
• A terrorist is not going to screech "I have a bomb!" and then go fumble through his carry-on to find it. A terrorist would simply press the button. Possibly / probably true of terrorists. But not everyone who might actually think of carrying a bomb onto a plane would necessarily have a terrorist agenda. And, while I think it's tragic that this man lost his life this way, I think you may be asking a lot of reasoned thinking from someone who was probably working on adrenaline and taught behavior by that point. As in: "Wait... He said he has a bomb. What's the likelihood of a terrorist telling us he has a bomb, since ordinarily terrorists don'tBOOM!"
• There is a bit of a heavy focus on suicide-style terrorism in the last few comments, and I think it's worthwhile to remember that there are other types of terrorism where the person DOES want people around to know or believe that they have a bomb or other weapon. Consider the possibility of someone off the deep end who says they have a bomb and they'll give it up for money, or to get their girlfriend back, or for a ransom. I hate to pseudo-godwin the thread, but remember that on 9/11, the passengers of those planes thought that it was a "normal" hijacking where the plane and passengers would be leverage for a negotiation. So I CAN think of plenty of instances where a real terrorist would advertise that they have a bomb. Because not all terrorists are the suicide-bombing type, despite what our societal focus (or more properly, obsession) has been in recent years.
• Of course, it's easier to just base your argument on assumptions, rather than considering the possibility that world is a more complex place than you think. But remember what they say: When you ASSUME something, you make an ASS out of U and ME.
• Because not all terrorists are the suicide-bombing type, despite what our societal focus (or more properly, obsession) has been in recent years. Societal focus/obsession? Eh, intensive, even excessive media exposure of suicide bombings is probably more accurate. Can society help what the news filters deem *more* newsworthy?
• This was an over-reaction by Rambo cops that wanted to be heroes. You must have some kind of secret insider information, or you're making some huge assumptions, because everything I've seen so far, including witness interviews, makes me question that statement. I mean, here's the scenario: GUY: "I have a bomb, and I'm going to fucking trigger it!" AIR MARSHAL: "Sir! Put the bag down, now! Put the bag down, or we'll shoot!" GUY (not putting down the bag): "No way, fucker! I'm gonna blow you all up!" AIR MARSHAL: "Sir, I repeat -- put down the bag, or we'll shoot! Put the bag down now!" GUY: "I'm gonna trigger this bomb now!" A couple of questions: Isn't it possible that the air marshals did exactly as they're trained to do? Are you prepared to live with the results if the guy does in fact have a bomb and you don't take him out before he blows up a bunch of people?
• If he had been off his meds for a few days (believe me, it's impossible to get reliable psych drugs while out of the country) it's likely he hit mania (which causes paranoia, extreme irritability, delusions, and sometimes violent behavior), flipped out over something small and wasn't able to calm back down. It's a bad place to be and, if this is the case, I doubt he knew what he was doing. I feel for his wife and family... it's not easy to be close to someone with a severe mental illness like that. That said, if the articles are any where near truth I can't fault the marshals... they were responding the way they knew how with only the information they had in that instant.
• This was an over-reaction by Rambo cops that wanted to be heroes. This was a proper reaction by professionals who have been trained to respond in exactly this manner*. *IF the facts agree with the reported eyewitness accounts. On preview: What H-W said
• His wife also may have been just guessing that he was off his meds - it's certainly possible they just weren''t working for him at the time.
• I think everyone did what they were "scripted" to do. Ahh, life in these times. Acting crazy gets you killed. And being surrepticious gets you tagged and possibly kidnapped. Just be a docile sheep, and you may live to see daybreak. I can't fault the marshals, although they apparently were on airport territory and not plane territory (don't know what difference it makes).
• It's quite often the case that people on the kind of medication we are talking about here may decide for some reason to stop taking them, or be resistive to taking them. You can also, of course, simply forget to take them. With these kinds of medications you only have to miss one or two doses for the effects to get all out of whack. It is very easy to forget a dose of even everyday medicine, we've all done it. And if you're sleeping erratically, as on a long flight, or get your time zones mixed up, it's even easier to miss a dose that might have to be taken at a fairly regular interval. suphaltus' comments above are insightful. I feel personally that the stresses of being in a crowded environment had a large part to play in this person's reactions, if indeed it is true that they were suffering from bipolar disorder.
• True, and I realize that there are many people who should be on some kind of of maintenance medication, but aren't. I deal with the delusionals at least two or three times a week. I've only had to call the sheriffs on maybe two people in ten years. My concerns are: 1) unbalanced people are a part of life; 2) usually after some exposure most people can deal with unbalanced people; they are generally harmless, and need to vent or be talked down; 3) we are in a heightened state of security/emergency, with questionable enforcement; 4) unbalanced people are indistinguishable from terrorists 5) who can possibly prevail here?
• I wonder if the Air Marshall in question is going to be haunted by the decision to pull the trigger for the rest of his life? I don't doubt he'll be exhonerated, unless, as others have stated, we are not yet in possession of all the facts, but even so, I wonder if he's going to play out those events over and over again for years to come, wondering if there was something he should have noticed, something he should have realized, something that might have meant he wouldn't have pulled the trigger.
• Who cares? We're at war, man.
• That's right, everything is black and white.
• Whoa...planetthoughtful... I'd watch that 'thinking air marshals are real live humans' thing. Muddies the waters.
• As liberal as I am, if some fuckstick is screaming on an airplane that he has a bomb...well, I'd shoot him in a heartbeat.
• I may not be as liberal as Argh...but I second that emotion.
• Well, I for one welcome the US government's new policy on the metally ill. They should shoot the lot of them, or better yet, exterminate them in camps - it cuts the costs. I'd even emigrate to the US to take my place in the Stalag, so long as they start the rounding up with the loons in the Whitehouse.
• Well, I for one welcome the US government's new policy on the metally ill. They should shoot the lot of them, or better yet, exterminate them in camps - it cuts the costs. I'd start with these guys.
• After the shooting, investigators spread passengers' bags on the tarmac and let dogs sniff them for explosives, and bomb squad members blew up at least two bags... police boarded the plane and told the passengers to put their hands on their heads, Gardner said. "It was quite scary," she told the TV station via a cell phone. "They wouldn't let you move. They wouldn't let you get anything out of your bag." Everything up until that point makes sense to me. It is horribly sad, and my heart goes out to his wife, but if what is reported is true, then the man acted in a way that prompted the air-marshalls to shoot heim. Sounds like they acted as trained. Although, it might be appropriate for them to offer an apology. However, the blowing up of other luggage and holding the other passengers captive sounds like something out of a Heller novel or a Gilliam movie. Absurd?
• I euthanized one of my fish tonight. This made me realize two things. 1.) I would have shot the guy dead as dead can be. 2.) It would haunt me for the rest of my life. And this is why I'll never be an air marshall. Well, that, and I got tired of flying long ago.
• No, not absurd at all. This man may have been a decoy to reveal who the air marshal's were so some other plan could be enacted. At least, I imagine thats the thought. Just because they killed somebody doesn't mean we're having a normal day.
• You're not going to be haunted by a fish right? I've killed some expensive fish, and its still the ghosts of dead pet hamsters that haunt me.
• can someone explain to me why the average policeman can carry a taser but an air marshal has to resort to deadly force immediately? serisously, set phasers on stun...
• OK, cynnbad, I officially ban you from using the word 'prevail' from henceforth. You've been watching too many uber patriotic movies and I think it will make us puke if you carry on with that sort of jingoism. >:|
• "Henceforth" doesn't need "from" in front of it, it's redundant.
• Yeah, thanks for that.
• I'd start with these guys. Okay, I recognize Donny and Marie, but who's the other guy?
• They called him Rigo, short for Rigoberto. To neighbors, he was a jogger, an immigrant, a bicyclist, a loving husband. He was the paint guy at the Home Depot, the man who always waved hello. In the hours after Rigoberto Alpizar's name flashed on television and computer screens, friends, neighbors and family members struggled to understand how someone so nice could be the same man who authorities said claimed to have a bomb at the Miami airport. "I can tell you he was very proud to be living in America," said brother-in-law Bradley Jentsch in Sheboygan, Wis. Alpizar moved to the United States about 20 years ago after growing up on a farm near Golfito on the Pacific coast of Costa Rica, according to his in-laws. He and Anne Buechner, his wife of more than 18 years, "regularly jogged and rode bicycles together through their Maitland neighborhood. Shortly after Thanksgiving, Alpizar and his wife left on a trip sponsored by their church to work with children in Colombia, said neighbor Louis Gunther, who was taking care of their house. Orlando Sentinel from (sidebar)
• oops, from here
• The guy was not in a plane or in the airport. He was outside on the pavement. Unless he has a Daisy Cutter in his bag, he is not going to be taking too many people out with him. Shoot him in the damn legs.
• I didn't hear about this until my brother called me last night. He knows some air marshals; he's been considering taking a job as one (pretty much anything is better than the alternative, which is being re-deployed to Iraq... I think he's had enough of that!). He said the upside is you get to travel a lot. The downside is you have to deal with people like the guy in question here, and sometimes you have to do what you are trained to do. Cops and feds and air marshals aren't trained to shoot a guy in the kneecaps to "slow him down" like they do on TV. They're trained to take the guy out. Body shots offer a bigger target than a limb. They can't afford the potential repercussions if they miss, so shooting the bag (or gun) out of the suspect's hand doesn't happen in real life. It's a shitty decision to have to make, but the fact that people like this air marshal do what they are trained to do helps more people than it hurts in the long run. I mean, you don't get this kind of national attention and news coverage when a hero cop shoots an armed robber, do you? All we hear about are the times when there is a problem, and that makes everyone assume the problems are the norm and not the other way around.
• I don't think the question was whether or not the guy did what he was trained to do, but whether he should have been trained to do that.
• the fact that people like this air marshal do what they are trained to do helps more people than it hurts in the long run But I do question exactly that. Is there some study which shows that more lives are saved by using deadly force as a first option?
• Who cares? We're at war, man. .
• Scary.
• According to CNN, the wife was shouting to the marshalls that he was mentally ill. They knew, well in advance of the shooting, that he was sick. The jack-booted thugs killed him anyway. They wanted to be heroes, and in their tiny fascist little minds, they probably think they are. They deserve to go to jail for what they did, and they deserve every legal misery that is surely coming their way. May their souls rot in hell.
• maybe not so much.
• >the wife was shouting to the marshalls that he was mentally ill. They knew, well in advance of the shooting, that he was sick. Yeah, and the victim was shouting that he had a bomb. And again, if they hadn't shot him, and he'd had a bomb and had killed a lot of people with it, we'd be saying, "They knew well in advance of the detonation that he had a bomb." It's a terrible, sad accident- and, moreover, I hate the way The Terrorists and the fear of them is used to justify every inch of our slide towards fascism or kleptocracy or whatever the hell it is we're sliding towards. But in these particular circumstances, I think "jack-booted thugs" is a bit much.
• Seems there are a lot of conflicting stories about this. What I just read a moment ago was that he was on the plane and got up from his seat all crazy & running around. Here's what the AP has to say about the bomb part: "Before he ran off the plane he 'uttered threatening words that included a sentence to the effect that he had a bomb,' said James E. Bauer, agent in charge of the Federal Air Marshal Service field office in Miami." What I read about the wife was that she was yelling the bi-polar stuff in Spanish. So, maybe they didn't catch that. Or maybe that part is as phony as "uttering threatening words...". What I think happened was the guy flipped, started to run off the plan, was muttering something to himself that could be interpreted any way the hearer wanted to, and then air marshalls freaked out & shot the guy dead.
• "Jack-booted" is a reference to Nazis, right? If so, I agree simply because there's way too much Godwining happening these days. I would like to take this opportunity to urge careful thought before bringing Hitler or the Nazis into any discussion.
• Ah yes, Jatayu das, all those jackbooted, hell-bound fascist air marshals who've been shooting mentally ill people almost constantly for the last few paranoid years, their domineering presence casting a pall over every flight they're on for the passengers' fear of repression and fascist violence. Oh, I forgot. This is the first time an air marshal has EVER discharged his weapon on duty. Oh, and they're not supposed to advertise their presence... so much for intimidating jackbooted thugs. But I bet they've been just waiting to scratch that itchy trigger finger for years! However, feel free to continue to live in your simple black and white world. Based on your comment, I'd say it seems you and Sean Hannity are cut from the same bolt of cloth; your dehumanized enemy simply being "jack-booted thugs" rather than "Islamofascists."
• > "Before he ran off the plane he 'uttered threatening words that included a sentence to the effect that he had a bomb,' Oh jeez. Well, okay, it's a safe bet that if the guy had announced that he had a bomb, there'd be no need to equivocate about it. Perhaps we are in for another of these deals where people are given a few days to lose interest before the real story begins to peek out.
• > "Jack-booted" is a reference to Nazis, right? i think it's just a tall heavy boot.
• This is the first time an air marshal has EVER discharged his weapon on duty. Well, it's not the first time that "the authorities" have shot a guy and it later turns out that he's not a real threat. I don't see how it matters whether it was an air marshal or not. In the US, all the authorities pretty much follow rules that allow use of deadly force first. So tragedies like this do happen, and will continue to happen.
• Is there a way that this is just a horrible tragedy without demons or angels on either side? 'Cause that's how I see it. So very sad.
• Someone in the MeFi thread on the 25th anniversary of Lennon's murder called it a tragedy - and I thought of this guy. Kind of a humanistic juxtaposition. shoot, now I'm out of syllables
• What Lara said. There are such things as complexities, extenuating circumstances, and nuance, which I must say most people here have shown an appreciation of. In this case at this time, we have probably 3 sentences' worth of hard facts. Beyond lie innuendo and speculation. Some comments here speak more about the commenter's personal inclinations than the facts of the matter.
• *invokes spirit of SideDish for apparition of much-needed kittens*
• How about some bunnies? I'm not good at this ... I wish Dishie would come back!
• Argh! Quick, look at this!
• Ugh! Koko! Bad! No pie! Bad!
• looks at Lara's kitten picture. head explodes from cuteness overdose
• The jack-booted thugs killed him anyway. . . . May their souls rot in hell. Must be nice to have a preternatural ability to see through the complex details that the rest of us are grappling with, right straight to the God's-honest truth. Moron.
• Also, I take your bunnies, and I shoot them!
• I think someone already gone and did that to Koko's bunnies, HawthorneWingo.
• Bad Koko! No!
• Mmmmm... bunnies... I'll have mine barbecued, thanks!
• Sorry! Sorry! Here's some cute kitties!
• *buys little fur coats and slips them on the bunnies.
• *gently pulls Koko away from computer and takes her to the pet store.
• get her a wet cat!
• According to CNN, the wife was shouting to the marshalls that he was mentally ill. They knew, well in advance of the shooting, that he was sick. The jack-booted thugs killed him anyway. They wanted to be heroes, and in their tiny fascist little minds, they probably think they are. They deserve to go to jail for what they did, and they deserve every legal misery that is surely coming their way. May their souls rot in hell. You missed oppressed, dictator, stormtroopers, white males, totalitarian, New World Order, and 1984.
• Jatayu das totally Jatayu dassed this thread.
• Hitler!
• Like Zorro!
• Per MJ: These air marshals are obviously the real terrorists.
• Anyone who thinks otherwise is an assmunch.
• Koko is the anti-SideDish.
• MCT is the alternate-universe Quidnunc.
• Stop with your cutie bunny/kitty prozac alternative. The fact remains that some people who are actually charged with protecting the common airspace have killed an out-of-control individual is moot. That is what they do. And they did it well. The fact that they chased him beyond their apparent jurisdiction worries me.
• I consider any comparison between me and that swarthy, elephant-tracking bastard to be the highest form of compliment. For him, natch.
• I think this has something to do with W, aka Shrub , Rumsfeld, Neocons, and raising the terror alert level for the USAian fundies in the red states who are against gay marriage and aren't as smart as the people in Canada and Western Europe.
• And who, again, are dillweeds, dickheads, and cockpunch-drinkers.
• And live in fens.
• Because of Hailburton and Diebold
• The fact that they chased him beyond their apparent jurisdiction worries me. Me, if I was an air marshal, I'd watch the guy and his alleged bomb run like hell toward the airport. I'd light up a smoke thinking, "Aw fuck it. The baggage handlers can take him". Then I'd laugh maniacly and surrepticiously hammer the horns back in my head.
• Well do I remember the day my Father said to me, "Son (he said), nobody's perfect, not even you. Actually, especially you. And when you are given to criticize others for their actions without attempting to understand the sad truth of human fallibility, you commit the sin of sanctimony, and there's nothing more unforgivable than that." It was at that moment that the reactor went critical, but his words have haunted me ever since.
• moneyjane: yeah, I guess i'd do it too. But I hazard to say that we'd all do it only once.
• Stop with your cutie bunny/kitty prozac alternative. And you stop with your flag-waving paranoia. You want to know what it's like to be at war, literally? Ask people who have bombs exploding a couple of blocks from their homes every single fucking day. You are not in a war zone. That is what they do. And they did it well. The fact that they chased him beyond their apparent jurisdiction worries me. You're contradicting yourself. If they did it well, why are you worried? If they went beyond their authorised duties, how can they have done it well?
• these "bombs", they are allowed in the carry-on luggage, now? it is funny that someone mentioned the US military-industrial complex because i was just thinking that we (by "we" i mean more like the military/defense contractor r&d) should maybe come up with some better, more effective, non-lethal methods of incapacitation.. like supersonic tranquilizer darts, tazer force fields, evil-seeking missiles or some other shit? (relax, libertarians...) guns are terrific and all, but this "kill first, ask questions later" BS all seems a little retarded imho.)
• When the hell did this place become Da Blue?! /threadhijack
• I am not waving a flag. I do not know what it is like to be at war. My parents don't know from war. Only my dad and brothers fought in wars; is that Ok? I don't know from war. Nobody asked me about this.
• cynnbad - Nobody asked any of us, but we offer our opinions anyway; that's what Monkeyfilter is for. And you've offered your opinions as well, which includes the implication that you think you're in a war. I have no problem with that. You are free to think what you wish, and express your thoughts - until you start trying to tell the rest of us what not to do here. Then you had better brace yourself for payback. Yes, payback's a bitch, and in this particular scenario, the bitch is me. Hello! For the rest of you all who are discussing in good faith, may I proffer my apologies.
• And sometimes HTML can be a bitch as well. *sigh* Sorry!
• I certainly agree with the kitten-Prozac analogy. Dammit, I'm getting a cat.
• Ahh... Uh... I wonder whether that had a calming effect or the reverse... I sort of think that if I had been the marshall I might have waited, just out of incredulity; rather in the way that that Russian submariner failed to press the fateful button because in spite of what he was seeing he didn't quite believe a nuclear war had already started. But as other have pointed out it does depend a lot on the exact circumstances, which it's hard to feel sure about. If these reports are as accurate as the early ones about the London incident, the 'mad man shouting about a bomb' will turn out to have been a silent immobile nun.
• If the wife was shouting in spanish, and no one could understand her, what language was the man shouting or muttering in? So, he's Brazilian, thus apparently a 'swarthy' fellow, and he's muttering in English that he has a bomb, yet he's also out of control and flipping out. It is interesting to me that the guy is having a psychotic episode yet he keeps his shit together enough to threaten people in English. I think that I am at the point of dismissing all of that crap. Meanwhile, one eyewitness says they never heard the word 'bomb'. Perhaps the Marshals shot the guy merely because he was not white.
• What if you are standing on a subway platform holding your bag, and some looney next to you points to you and yells: "He has a bomb!"? Or if a bomber in a big green parka runs past you, and hides in a doorway, while you stand there, in your big green parka? With current policy, your life is in danger. Mistakes happen. Brazilian electricians get executed on subways. Mentally ill people will be slaughtered on runways. Maybe the next mistake will be you, or someone you love. Is this really what we want? Should we really expect the authorities to use lethal force before attempting to physically restrain? Has restraint-first policy actually been shown to result in more lives lost? If someone could cite a study, I would love to read it. If it hasn't been done, why the heck not? I don't want to just forfeit my humanity without reason. I do not feel safer in this world now, and it's not just because of the damn terrorists. I do suspect that the safety that people feel knowing that the authorities have the power of life and death of each and every one of us is illusory.
• Chyren wrote: "Perhaps the Marshals shot the guy merely because he was not white." We're talking about Air Marshals, Chyren. Not NYC police.
• Because NYC police are all known pedophiles with halitosis.
• Oh snap!
• 
• What if you are standing on a subway platform holding your bag, and some looney next to you points to you and yells: "He has a bomb!"? Or if a bomber in a big green parka runs past you, and hides in a doorway, while you stand there, in your big green parka? Well, if you then run when told to stand still, you get shot. And how, exactly would restraint-first work with a bomb? It's not like the guy is standing there buck naked waving a whiffle bat. He's presumed to have something concealed that kills at a distance in both your scenarios In any system mistakes are made. Eggs break. However if you benefit in any way from that same system I find it hypocritical to flip out over isolated incidents. If air marshals are spending their down time skeet shooting skateboarders mid-leap then you have a problem. what language was the man shouting or muttering in? The word for bomb is bomba in both Spanish and Portuguese, with the accent on the first syllable.
• In any system mistakes are made. Eggs break. However if you benefit in any way from that same system I find it hypocritical to flip out over isolated incidents. If air marshals are spending their down time skeet shooting skateboarders mid-leap then you have a problem. I don't think anyone's flipping out here. It's a natural thing to wonder, when one person takes another person's life, whether it could have been prevented.
• In any system mistakes are made. I'm just asking how do we know we are using the right system? Not in a flipping out kind of way I hope.
• Certainly. But the information we have indicates the air marshals were doing what they are trained to do. How could it have been prevented? If the man had not been agitated, giving some kind of verbal indication he had a bomb, and then not run when ordered not to do so, I do not think they would have shot him, given this is the first time they have shot anyone. A system that was in place was triggered, and proceeded to launch sequence. If one possible mistake invalidates the system, then the decision is whether more people's safety is at risk with air marshals on planes or without. I watched a man outside my building refusing to drop something he had in his uprised right hand. It was at night, and he was surrounded by 6 or 7 cops with both handguns and shotguns, and he would not drop the object. Why? Was he deaf? Did he not understand English? Was he suicidal? Even if deaf or not able to understand English, do not cops around the world pretty much operate in the same way? Has this person never seen a cop show in his entire life? Drop it or we'll kill you is pretty universal. Or was he refusing to drop it because it was a gun and he wanted to shoot a cop before he died? They did not shoot him. After about 10 agonizing seconds, he dropped whatever it was. I was glad he was not shot the same way I'd be glad that someone who decided to wander too close to a bear was not mauled; however I would have understood perfectly had they shot him. There are a lot of ways to indicate you are not a threat, and you have a responsibility to use them; move slowly; do not raise your voice; do not indicate you have a weapon of any kind; do not refuse to follow the orders of cops/air marshals/bank robbers/unhinged co-workers or anybody else pointing guns at you. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, however sympathetic, this guy did not do these things and got shot. I do not see any practical way these kinds of mistakes can be avoided in these circumstances.
• "In any system mistakes are made. Eggs break." We're not really talking about whether this was something that can be avoided, I think the point many of us are making or are tangentially adressing, is whether the account of the incident itself that we have been given is true.
• Well, I do want to question the system too. I hope that's okay. But it will be interesting to see if the details of the account change. If the eyewitness was correct that Alpizar did not say "bomb", I would expect that to change public perception.
• Hmmm. It occurs to me that the use of the term "flip out" has caused some concern among the humans. I shall reprogram myself immediately and input this interesting phenomenon. Please substitute either "be concerned with" or "run around without pants" as needed.
• I'm more prone to be flippant than flip out. But I'll run around without my pants for a while and see if that works too. I just hope I don't get shot!
• I don't think anyone's flipping out here. That's because you "don't think," you jackbooted thug.
• Nope, not by me at least. I always aim right for the pants. Hence my disgrace and dismissal from the Force after the Birthday Suit Terrorists event of 2003.
• That kitten's cute as hell, btw. Shame it has to die such a gory death.
• If I run around with my pants off, can I keep my jackboots on?
• Still unclerar from reports today what was going on. There are discrepancies. The wife of the dead man told the air marshals he was mentally disturbed and had not taken his meds. Other passengers heard her say this. What other passengers DID NOT HEAR was thie man saying he had a bomb. The air marshals say they heard him say he had a bomb. There is to be an investigation, in which, presumably, each of the other passengers will be asked what happened. Possibly after that a more or less accurate idea of what actually transpired will emerge.
• Only if you bought them at Fascist Larry's New World Order Boutique and Terrarium. He's one of us.
• Used to be 33 terror-stopping gun-wielding protectors of the public safety. Now there are HOW MANY? I'm wondering how often we're going to be reminded how much we need these guys. Of course he must of said "bomb." They wouldn't have shot him otherwise. Right? My view of our government and our society is going in the toilet so fast, I hope to Jebus he did yell "bomb." At least he wouldn't have been shot because someone wanted to be a hero.
• The bottom line is: 1) don't have an episode near a jetway; 2) things are different these days; 3) just be yourself.
• Gradmother, Oh Great and Glorious: Don't give up on us. I think this will all shake out. As usual, pray that someone you know isn't a casualty.
• I am glad I like Amtrak. They are a bit more relaxed about these things. Although I still would not run down the aisle of car 34 holding something shiny and screaming, "I got a quarter and I'm going to derail this motherfucker!"
• ....or maybe they're a celebrity. The pay's better.
• oops, that doesn't make hella sense.
• cynnbad, why don't you just shut the fuck up?
• As I always believed, the unstable do not travel well.
• > Used to be 33 terror-stopping gun-wielding protectors of the public safety. Now there are HOW MANY. i'm sorry, that information is classified because keeping it secret is important in somebody's bizarre imagination. just in case someone decides to hijack a plane because statistically it's unlikely there's a marshall on it. at this stage, i'm thinking about three things in relation to this shooting: 1. this is a case where plain clothes "officials" have pursued and killed a citizen. i wonder how more effective it would have been to have a uniformed official challenge the guy to stop. perhaps not at all. 2. it may boil down to accepting the air marshalls' version of events. 3. it's possible that the training of air marshalls in how to evaluate threat levels has been insufficient.
• What other passengers DID NOT HEAR was thie man saying he had a bomb. To be clear, it was one passenger who said he didn't hear him say "bomb". That doesn't necessarily mean he didn't say it.
• this is a case where plain clothes "officials" have pursued and killed a citizen. i wonder how more effective it would have been to have a uniformed official challenge the guy to stop. perhaps not at all. Interesting point. A more obvious authority figure might have been more effective. Did they flash badges? Did they shout "AIR MARSHALL!!" (I don't remember and I'm too lazy to look for it.) Personally, I think they should carry little flashing red lights, the old-fashioned rotating cop-light kind, to affix to their heads in an emergency. Then there'd be no mistake.
• I hadn't thought of it that way. How do air marshalls identify themselves, and could the guy understand this identification? If two guys in hawaiian shirts (or whatever, regular clothes) were chasing me, with guns, I would keep running unless they made it more than abundantly clear that they were cops.
• A very good point indeed. That changes everything if he did not know who they were.
• Okay, so the AP article in yesterday's paper here said: a) the guy was on the jetway when he said he had a bomb, so the other passengers may not have heard. He left the plane and was blocked on the jetway. b) another passenger said the man's wife was apologising to other passengers after the shooting, saying that it was her fault for pushing him to board the plane before he was ready. c) the air marshals, after he said he had a bomb, apparently identified themselves, told him to get down, get down. He reached for his backpack instead, so they shot him.
• Impossible! Law enforcement officers NEVER act in the public's best interest! In other news: All Irish people are drunks! All black people are lazy!
• It seems that a lot of people are concerned with a "lethal force first" policing tactic that isn't even representative of policing. Lethal force is used to deal with lethal threats to individuals and police officers. If it was used first, we would not get such wonderful television shows such as "World's Greatest Car Chases" or "America's Stupidest Criminals." Police are trained and equipped to kill. Soldiers are trained and equipped to wound. That may not make sense, but think about it. Police use hollow-point bullets (which cause more damage to major arteries from mushrooming into a larger object through impact) because the fact that they reshape within the wound reduces their chances of creating an exit wound. They are also trained to shoot at the largest mass, the torso, to prevent missing and to encourage the bullet to travel through the largest amount of friction possible to decrease chances of stray bullets due to exit wounds as well as misses. During war, these sorts of exit wounds help to incapacitate an army so that the more people taking care of injured people mean less soldiers to fight and more resources used. It's tactical. Hollow points are not military ammunition. The reason police respond with lethal force is so they do not die. If they are killed then they can't do their job which, on the extreme end of things, is to kill people. It's not lethal force first, it's protect first. Of course, don't get me wrong abuses of power occur, but I don't jump the gun, so to speak, on the rule but the exceptions to it. Air Marshalls are trained to kill people, too. And contrary to what seems to be the popular opinion, the MK-ULTRA and other covert tests didn't result in any new methods for law enforcers, soldiers or spies to develop x-ray vision, read minds, or interpret several thousand stimuli with split second acuity. When we develop these sort of abilities maybe we could detect first and shoot later. But as it stands, it's a bluffing game. No matter how poor a bluffer you are, everone has an oscar-winning poker-face when it comes to lethal threats where the agent of destruction is concealed and capaple of large scale destruction and, most importantly, death. We are not at war, get your heads out of your collective asses. The USA has been overly concerned with threats to its security because the policy is paranoid. For all you USA monkeys thank McCarthy and his bedfellows. As far as I know, the forties and fifties is when everything really changed in this way. It's a shame that a few assholes at the top have to fear-monger their own paranoid fantasies to steal the liberties of the masses. Worry more about more imminent threats, such as robbery, groundwater pollution, air toxins, drug addiction, or your partner's fidelity if you really have that need to worry. Hell, most of the population of the world doesn't even like you, anyway. In fact, I'll bet more people like George Bush than like you. What this article really makes me concerned about is the wife of Alpizar. It's a shame she couldn't penetrate the kill-or-be-killed-with-all-these-innocents adrenaline rush of the Air Marshall who responded for the benefit of the masses. And the only question I have is: "Why didn't he take that pill?" I know it's pretty common for people on medication to try and live without it, I know and have known a lot of people on "stabilizing" meds. I wonder if he thought he was cured or that he could deal with it. The functionability of the meds can give you one hell of a confidence boost for your ability to cope. That's part of what they're supposed to do methinks.
• Ooops. I think people might misinterpret the "doesn't even like you" remark. This is regarding the fact that people need to know you in order to like you, not that people don't like Americans. That comment was for everyone, it just happened to be in a loaded context.
• InsolentChimp, you make some good points, but I don't understand what your overriding message is. First you talk about how difficult it can be for an air marshal to do his/her job ("the MK-ULTRA and other covert tests didn't result in any new methods for law enforcers, soldiers or spies to develop x-ray vision, read minds, or interpret several thousand stimuli with split second acuity. When we develop these sort of abilities maybe we could detect first and shoot later. But as it stands, it's a bluffing game"). But then you move into the "The USA has been overly concerned with threats to its security because the policy is paranoid" part of your message. I happen to agree with both of these points, but don't see how they're connected.
• I'm sure that the marshals feel uneasy about this. It is uncharted territory. What an awful situation. And Chyren, I will not shut the fuck up, but thanks anyway. Nevertheless, even in the face of your incomprehensible hostilty, I wish you a good Christmas time. No, not "Holiday." Merry Christmas!!
• ... I don't understand what your overriding message is... I wouldn't want to override anything in my comment except the context error in the remark about individuals not being liked by most of the people in the world, which I've noted. Thematically, however, I responded to a common fear of lethal force that occurred in this thread. I also defended the reasoning for lethal force when it is used. I compared police who kill to soldiers who wound. The paranoia remark was to suggest that the war on terror is not real, or at least, there is no militarized zone. It's terrorism, not war. Remember that hegemony inadvertently creates protocol and so the law enorcement officers in question are, for the most part, responding to what we all consider - for whatever reasons we allow those who rule to dictate - threats. The context of the MK-Ultra joke was not about the difficulty of an Air Marshall's job. It was about an Air Marshall's training in the use of lethal force. But I agree with you that they have a difficult job, especially when it comes to dealing with lethal threats.
• InsolentChimp, I'm sure I didn't express myself clearly, but I didn't mean "first option" to mean anything indiscriminate, but in response, as you say, to a possible lethal threat. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the rules have been changed recently, lowering the threat threshold where the authorities feel it's okay to use lethal force, particularly in certain situation, like on airplanes. I understand there is a risk to the officer if they do not use lethal force in the face of an obvious lethal threat, but what I still question is whether or not studies have shown more lives are saved when lethal force is used "pre-emptively" (perhaps that's a better term) when the threat is unclear, for example, when no weapon is visible. Anyway, in terms of this particular incident, it seems to me that the "lethal threat" of Alpizar claiming to have a bomb, may be in question. What if he really didn't ever mention the word "bomb" but was just acting crazy and trying to desperately leave the plane? Is that kind of behavior enough to trigger a lethal response? It's a scary thought. Hopefully the investigation will bring out the facts of the matter.
• Or what if he said, "Ba da da da la Bamba?" I suppose we may be waiting for a long time, if the outcome of who actually started the fires at Waco can be any indicator. Until then, or until the greiving widow exposes her belief that this was an outrageous abuse of power/tactics/training pr what not, I'll just go with the fact that the amount of Air Marshalls has dramatically increased in the past four years and there has been this one incident. The Air Marshalls identified themselves and he didn't respond in the way they asked. They were holding deadly weapons at the time. Even if he didn't have a bomb or didn't say that he had a bomb, why would he disobey law enforcement officers from his own country that were holding deadly weapons? Furthermore, why would they shoot him let alone draw down if he didn't constitute a lethal threat? It's a shame if Alpizar was reaching into his pack for his meds, but an invisible threat is still a threat. The article didn't seem to be insinuating anything more. I'll not read between the lines for the sake of furthering bias. I am not aware of relaxed laws for approaching non-lethal threats as lethal threats. Do you know where you saw that?
• I just get a general impression that authorities these days take a more aggressive posture. From that article: "Last year, Chief Gainer became the first U.S. police chief to adopt a shoot-to-kill policy if his officers confront a suspected suicide bomber who is unco-operative, and other U.S. law enforcement agencies are considering adopting a similar policy, the newspaper said." Well, I guess I won't convert anyone here to my radical pacifism :) But if anyone is interested, I will be hosting a meeting of the Commitee to Live on our Knees at my house. I'll be serving tea and homemade blueberry pastys.
• > I just get a general impression that authorities these days take a more aggressive posture. i agree, and it annoys me enough that i'll tie their shoe laces together from behind. but realistically, they serve you, so they should not be more aggressive than you want them to be, ever.
• ...but realistically, they serve you, so they should not be more aggressive than you want them to be, ever. Yikes! I hope I didn't come across as saying the opposite...
• The DHS agrees that the air marshalls over-reacted. Also confirmed - the guy did not say the word "bomb", or anything else for that matter. However, the general public will never see this memo, because it was leaked by a frustrated DHS employee. To Capitol Hill Blue, which I've never heard of before. Hmmm....
• re: capitol hill blue, fwiw.
• Huh. It's interesting that one passenger said the guy had on a fanny pack and may have been trying to move it out of the way to get on the ground. Still, I'm waiting to see how this plays out in the press.
• Capitol hill blue is, er.. not very credible.
• Still, I'm waiting to see how this plays out in the press. I don't think they're going to be very critical.
• But will it play out at all? Capitol Hill Blue has been on my "WTF" list for awhile - is it simply a rumor mill or is it specifically Enquiereresque sensationalism? Was it credible at some point and now that the editor's retired -not?
• I had never heard of Capitol hill blue, but it certainly didn't *look* credible. I'm probably just in wishful thinking mode -- especially in wanting the mainstream press to actually do its job and scrutinize this.
• Pfft. Crazy dreamer!
• Marshals: Innocent People Placed On 'Watch List' To Meet Quota