spacemanspiff
New member
they must have had their telepathic mind readers turned off and were unable to determine beyond any doubt that the threat was stopped.
Air Marshals, what were they supposed to do?
- Thread starter Doug.38PR
- Start date
- Status
FirstFreedom
Moderator
what "threat"? He's agitated - that alone is not a threat.
Hmmm, interesting - a lot of people that *weren't there* and have a strong interest in covering up the story know all about this alleged threat.
Show me a WITNESS, other than the air marshall himself, who says he heard that there's a bomb? Can they come up with even ONE witness on board this very CROWDED plane who heard the deceased say the word "bomb"?
I just can't believe these news media outlets are actually running the the bomb threat thing as a 'fact' in their lead paragraphs, rather than attributing it solely as a quote to the fed air marshall spokesman, without one witness who says so. The media are misleading us all right - in favor of the government, not the other way around.
Appeared to be... uh-huh. Where have I *amadou diallo & about a hundred other wrongful shootings* heard that before? And do they mean the SAME BAG that was thoroughly screened for explosives minutes before at the TSA checkpoint? Or are we now admitting that our screeners are wholly ineffective at protecting us from bomb-wielders - which is it?
Guys, if we don't fear & distrust our government after Waco, Ruby Ridge, Patriot Act, Jose Padillo, & DeMenezes, there's something SERIOUSLY gone awry here.
Hmmm, interesting - a lot of people that *weren't there* and have a strong interest in covering up the story know all about this alleged threat.
Show me a WITNESS, other than the air marshall himself, who says he heard that there's a bomb? Can they come up with even ONE witness on board this very CROWDED plane who heard the deceased say the word "bomb"?
I just can't believe these news media outlets are actually running the the bomb threat thing as a 'fact' in their lead paragraphs, rather than attributing it solely as a quote to the fed air marshall spokesman, without one witness who says so. The media are misleading us all right - in favor of the government, not the other way around.
Appeared to be... uh-huh. Where have I *amadou diallo & about a hundred other wrongful shootings* heard that before? And do they mean the SAME BAG that was thoroughly screened for explosives minutes before at the TSA checkpoint? Or are we now admitting that our screeners are wholly ineffective at protecting us from bomb-wielders - which is it?
Guys, if we don't fear & distrust our government after Waco, Ruby Ridge, Patriot Act, Jose Padillo, & DeMenezes, there's something SERIOUSLY gone awry here.
spacemanspiff
New member
will that even satisfy you though? or will you then want to see documented evidence that the suspect SCREAMED he had a bomb?
law enforcement deals with this type of situation often. furtive movements to what could be a weapon will prompt a quick lead infusion. if you have a problem with that, then dont make furtive movements.
and why is it that you want to hear another passenger corroborate the word of the marshalls?
why do i get the feeling that if the deranged and now dead suspect was of middle eastern descent we wouldnt be having this conversation? post 9/11 everyone in the pro-gun firearm community online wanted armed air marshalls on board each and every flight to handle just this type of situation. whats changed since then?
law enforcement deals with this type of situation often. furtive movements to what could be a weapon will prompt a quick lead infusion. if you have a problem with that, then dont make furtive movements.
and why is it that you want to hear another passenger corroborate the word of the marshalls?
why do i get the feeling that if the deranged and now dead suspect was of middle eastern descent we wouldnt be having this conversation? post 9/11 everyone in the pro-gun firearm community online wanted armed air marshalls on board each and every flight to handle just this type of situation. whats changed since then?
BreacherUp!
New member
Incredible, some of you people. Already, the anti-leos and govmint agent types are all over this (as TFL has a larger than most gathering of these sorts).
1) Just b/c some passenger (Edit: sorry type-O) says I didn't hear it, doesn't mean it wasn't said. You can't fit 130 people on a jetway.
2) If someone says I have a bomb, you tell him to stop, and he reaches into his backpack, do you wait to see what he does? That is not what you are trained to do, nor what you are expected to do. If there had been a bomb, it could've killed a lot pf people. Whether he had one or not really doesn't matter. At that time, at that place, he was a threat.
3) All these people said the guy was acting crazy when he was at the ticket lines. His wife knew he was in a manic state before getting on the plane. WHO IS AT FAULT here, people? If one or two people had spoken up about that guy instead of just minding their own business, maybe he would've been told not to board.
His wife. Why the hell would you bring a man in a manic state onto a plane with 200 other people flying at 25k feet??!!
Now he goes crazy. Crazy people hurt other people. That's why they are on medication!
Let the investigation take its course, and review the results.
1) Just b/c some passenger (Edit: sorry type-O) says I didn't hear it, doesn't mean it wasn't said. You can't fit 130 people on a jetway.
2) If someone says I have a bomb, you tell him to stop, and he reaches into his backpack, do you wait to see what he does? That is not what you are trained to do, nor what you are expected to do. If there had been a bomb, it could've killed a lot pf people. Whether he had one or not really doesn't matter. At that time, at that place, he was a threat.
3) All these people said the guy was acting crazy when he was at the ticket lines. His wife knew he was in a manic state before getting on the plane. WHO IS AT FAULT here, people? If one or two people had spoken up about that guy instead of just minding their own business, maybe he would've been told not to board.
His wife. Why the hell would you bring a man in a manic state onto a plane with 200 other people flying at 25k feet??!!
Now he goes crazy. Crazy people hurt other people. That's why they are on medication!
Let the investigation take its course, and review the results.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
I have no earthly idea what descent he is of as of this moment, nor do I care, so you're waaay off base there. What's that got to do with it. This is about an American citizen, just like you or me that was KILLED because he (a) wanted to get off of a plane, and (b) was guilty of 'contempt of cop' - failing to stop when the marshall said stop.
Of course it would satisfy me if he had said bomb. Then there'd be EVIDENCE of a potential THREAT!
Looks look, shall we?
ACTUAL WITNESS ===> He never said bomb.
NOT EVEN THERE ====> Said that he said the word bomb.
Very odd, don't you think, that in story after story, every single person who said that the guy said the word bomb either (a) wasn't there, or (b) is an air marshall themselves. Yet, OTOH, out of ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN people on the plane, they can't come up with one, uno, who heard that, and in fact some that were very close and are actually testifying that he NEVER said the word bomb. Y'alls BS meters are seriously miscalibrated, I might suggest.
So far there's at least THREE government agents who they have trotted out to claim that the guy said the word bomb. And none of them were there. Nor can they identify the name of a person upon whom they are relying for that allegation, other than the Leos themselves. Maybe everyone except the leos had earplugs in? Is that a new requirement of the TSA?
Umm, easy one there...the air marshall who carried out the death sentence without trial for contempt of cop.
Oh, and I LOVE how the backpack is now 'strapped to his chest'. That's a cute little demonizing bit of wordplay that wasn't present before. I guess you guys believed Janet Reno too, that David Koresh was a threat to our society.
Of course it would satisfy me if he had said bomb. Then there'd be EVIDENCE of a potential THREAT!
Looks look, shall we?
ACTUAL WITNESS ===> He never said bomb.
NOT EVEN THERE ====> Said that he said the word bomb.
Very odd, don't you think, that in story after story, every single person who said that the guy said the word bomb either (a) wasn't there, or (b) is an air marshall themselves. Yet, OTOH, out of ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN people on the plane, they can't come up with one, uno, who heard that, and in fact some that were very close and are actually testifying that he NEVER said the word bomb. Y'alls BS meters are seriously miscalibrated, I might suggest.
So far there's at least THREE government agents who they have trotted out to claim that the guy said the word bomb. And none of them were there. Nor can they identify the name of a person upon whom they are relying for that allegation, other than the Leos themselves. Maybe everyone except the leos had earplugs in? Is that a new requirement of the TSA?
Umm, easy one there...the air marshall who carried out the death sentence without trial for contempt of cop.
Oh, and I LOVE how the backpack is now 'strapped to his chest'. That's a cute little demonizing bit of wordplay that wasn't present before. I guess you guys believed Janet Reno too, that David Koresh was a threat to our society.
BreacherUp!
New member
1stF, I finally figured out what boiled you over in the 1st couple of sentences. It was a type-O on my part, not a slander.
Secondly, you put ACTUAL WITNESS. What about the air marshalls. Are they not ACTUALL WITNESSES in the same vein as your witness? Unless of course your witnesses didin't hear it because they were not in the same earshot as the marshalls.
Again, he didin't get shot b/c he didn't freeze.
This really boils down to individuals who understand crisis situations and the thought processes and tactics that are involved in them, and those that do not. Those that MMQ and wait to get all the details before making a decision. That is why the MMQs are not in jobs such as these. But where they are, they usually get people killed through lack of action as much as those that kill through action. And in this case, a lack of action theoretically could've been 130 dead instead of 1.
Secondly, you put ACTUAL WITNESS. What about the air marshalls. Are they not ACTUALL WITNESSES in the same vein as your witness? Unless of course your witnesses didin't hear it because they were not in the same earshot as the marshalls.
Again, he didin't get shot b/c he didn't freeze.
This really boils down to individuals who understand crisis situations and the thought processes and tactics that are involved in them, and those that do not. Those that MMQ and wait to get all the details before making a decision. That is why the MMQs are not in jobs such as these. But where they are, they usually get people killed through lack of action as much as those that kill through action. And in this case, a lack of action theoretically could've been 130 dead instead of 1.
Capt. Charlie
Moderator Emeritus
Drawn conclusions here are being presented as fact. Before fingerpointing, I strongly suggest that we wait to see if there is indeed someone or something to point a finger at.
This thread is deteriorating at an alarming rate. Its future will depend on how fast and how much the temperature drops here gentlemen.
spacemanspiff
New member
please go back and re-read the entire article from the time website.
you will notice that the suspect was at the rear of the plane, and this so-called 'eyewitness' claims to have been in 24c, about the middle of the plane. Could he have heard every thing the suspect said as he came down the aisle, and went to the front of the plane?
again, there is only ONE supposed eyewitness that has come forward and said 'i didnt hear him screaming at the top of his lungs that he had a bomb, nor did he pass out cards with the message printed in braille to the blind, nor did he have an American Sign Language translator signing his words to the hearing impaired, so obviously he never said it!
This is what really happened:
The guy probably got sick. He ran.
They asked, "Why are you getting off the plane?"
He says, "I'm gonna vomit!" They hear, "I'm gonna bomb it!"
They yell, "STOP!"
He says, "I gotta go!" They hear, "It's gonna blow!"
Just kidding. Sorry. The subject is so heavy I had to lighten up a bit.
Personally, if someone demands money with his hand under his coat and starts to whip his arm out, I'm not waiting to find out if it's really a gun or just a stick. I'm going to act. Run, hide, shoot, or comply? Whether he tells me he has a gun or not, it would be justifiable to shoot.
If a man acts like a bomber, and has a backpack and reaches inside, you're in pretty much the same situation. Sure there were a hundred people on the plane and they all heard or saw something totally different. Let's not rush to any wild conclusions and judge the men who are protecting us, based solely on what the news is feeding us about the situation.
It's a tragic death to be sure. But trying these guys in the press isn't going to fix it.
"Yet, OTOH, out of ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN people on the plane, they can't come up with one, uno, who heard that..."
Why would the press want one? That wouldn't be controversial. how would they sell newspapers?
The guy probably got sick. He ran.
They asked, "Why are you getting off the plane?"
He says, "I'm gonna vomit!" They hear, "I'm gonna bomb it!"
They yell, "STOP!"
He says, "I gotta go!" They hear, "It's gonna blow!"
Just kidding. Sorry. The subject is so heavy I had to lighten up a bit.
Personally, if someone demands money with his hand under his coat and starts to whip his arm out, I'm not waiting to find out if it's really a gun or just a stick. I'm going to act. Run, hide, shoot, or comply? Whether he tells me he has a gun or not, it would be justifiable to shoot.
If a man acts like a bomber, and has a backpack and reaches inside, you're in pretty much the same situation. Sure there were a hundred people on the plane and they all heard or saw something totally different. Let's not rush to any wild conclusions and judge the men who are protecting us, based solely on what the news is feeding us about the situation.
It's a tragic death to be sure. But trying these guys in the press isn't going to fix it.
"Yet, OTOH, out of ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN people on the plane, they can't come up with one, uno, who heard that..."
Why would the press want one? That wouldn't be controversial. how would they sell newspapers?
Wyo Cowboy
New member
What I find most interseting is that most of the comments here are based on MEDIA reports. This is the same media that hate anyone with a gun. This is the SAME media that stated that the "Assault Weapons ban" passed the House in a landslide... It passed by ONE vote after it had failed and the Dems held the vote opened for another 20 minutes to arm-twist. This is the SAME media that calls a Ruger 10/22 an (gasp!) ASSAULT RIFLE... This is the SAME media that calls a brick of .22lr's and two .22 pistols an arsenal... This is the SAME media which calls Hillary Clinton a "Hawk" and a "Moderate"... :barf:
I fly a 737 (for a different airline) and I have had many dealings with the FAM's. These are very professional people. They train extensively in evaluating behavior of people behaving in a different or unusual manner. To fire a weapon is the last thing that they are looking to do. They are very good at it, but they want to resolve non-violently. Having a person state that "I have a bomb" (I have heard this from non-media types) and run off of the plane would probably resulted in an emergency evacuation if the FAM's hadn't been there. The comment and the action indicates a serious threat to all. Imagine if the guy really had a bomb and detonated it by the forward entry door... or in the crowded terminal.
Yes, I am sorry for the family, the gentelman, the passengers and THE FAM's. No one wants this sort of thing to happen... but many of the posters here talk about how they will react if threatened. You must make a split second decision as to the intent and ability of the person. What would YOU do if you were in, say a restauraunt with no way out except past someone claiming "I have a bomb, and I'm gonna blow your @@$#@%'s straight to Hell" and reaches into the bag? Draw and shoot? What if it's just his laundry? Not shoot? What if he's telling the truth? What if he draws a pistol and starts aiming at your table? Shoot? What if it's a Air-Soft and you just killed an "unarmed man"? Not shoot? One of your family is wounded or killed? It is sooo easy to sit and spend 30 minutes, or 30 days, deciding whether the shoot as legit when the FAM's (or anyone involved in a shooting situation) reacted with much less information in a very limited amount of time.
For me, I'll wait for the investigation by the PROFESSIONALS, not the media, to be complete. In the meantime I will support the FAM's and the professional job which the do every day.
Rant complete!
I fly a 737 (for a different airline) and I have had many dealings with the FAM's. These are very professional people. They train extensively in evaluating behavior of people behaving in a different or unusual manner. To fire a weapon is the last thing that they are looking to do. They are very good at it, but they want to resolve non-violently. Having a person state that "I have a bomb" (I have heard this from non-media types) and run off of the plane would probably resulted in an emergency evacuation if the FAM's hadn't been there. The comment and the action indicates a serious threat to all. Imagine if the guy really had a bomb and detonated it by the forward entry door... or in the crowded terminal.
Yes, I am sorry for the family, the gentelman, the passengers and THE FAM's. No one wants this sort of thing to happen... but many of the posters here talk about how they will react if threatened. You must make a split second decision as to the intent and ability of the person. What would YOU do if you were in, say a restauraunt with no way out except past someone claiming "I have a bomb, and I'm gonna blow your @@$#@%'s straight to Hell" and reaches into the bag? Draw and shoot? What if it's just his laundry? Not shoot? What if he's telling the truth? What if he draws a pistol and starts aiming at your table? Shoot? What if it's a Air-Soft and you just killed an "unarmed man"? Not shoot? One of your family is wounded or killed? It is sooo easy to sit and spend 30 minutes, or 30 days, deciding whether the shoot as legit when the FAM's (or anyone involved in a shooting situation) reacted with much less information in a very limited amount of time.
For me, I'll wait for the investigation by the PROFESSIONALS, not the media, to be complete. In the meantime I will support the FAM's and the professional job which the do every day.
Rant complete!
As the son of a Bi-Polar man, I know what it is like when bi-polars go off thier meds. There is NO reasoning with them. My own Father was Baker Acted a few years ago, he was about to start a fire. The police officer wrestled him to the ground. Would you believe my Dad still won't admit to anything! It is tragic what happened, but no LEO wants to be the one who let the bad guy win. If the guy did have a bomb, those two marshalls would be getting medals from the President right now.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
Amen.
Spaceman, you may be right about that one witness, but why can't they find ONE of the 113 who WAS close to the guy that heard 'bomb'? ONE? It's extraordinarily fishy to me. We'll see. I think we can all agree (as per usual) that it's pretty futile to argue until an investigation ensues. So let's not jump the gun in either direction (as I may have done).
22-rimfire
New member
I think you people need to understand with the Homeland Security Agency (or group of agencies), when there is a threat, they shoot to kill. They don't play around and do "what if's?" during an incident. They follow their training as best they can. The air marshalls did what they were trained to do! Done deal. Expect more of this at sensitive facilities if the terrorist issue heats up here in the US.
As was said, if the air marshalls did nothing and the guy ran into the terminal and blew himself up killing many at the gate, who do you think the news people would be pointing a finger at? With most of the media, it is a no win situation for sane people. They have so much time to fill up on the 24 hr news channels that they continually do the what ifs and whys and analyze something to death without even having many facts. I will say that the initial news reports were favorable toward the air marshalls. They did their job.
As was said, if the air marshalls did nothing and the guy ran into the terminal and blew himself up killing many at the gate, who do you think the news people would be pointing a finger at? With most of the media, it is a no win situation for sane people. They have so much time to fill up on the 24 hr news channels that they continually do the what ifs and whys and analyze something to death without even having many facts. I will say that the initial news reports were favorable toward the air marshalls. They did their job.
stephen426
New member
First Freedom,
I understand that there have to be checks and balances rather than simply accepting what the government has to say as hard facts. Those checks and balances are the freedom of speech and the right to bear arms in case all else goes to hell.
I give the Air Marshalls the benefit of doubt simply due to the fact that they are carrying out their actions in front of a whole mess of impartial witnesses. Are there dirty cops who would put a bullet in someone and then plant a weapon on them? Of course there are, but they wouldn't do it in front a bunch of witnesses. I'm also sure air marshalls hate to blow their cover. I'm not sure what the regulations are but over 100 people now know what they look like. Air Marshalls are supposed to be under cover. Simply saying that it was a case of "contempt of cop" is unfounded.
The fact that he was an American citizen means nothing. Are you so naive as to believe that there aren't sleeper cells of terrorists that are fully legal to be in the US, including some with citizenships? What about citizens who have been converted to Islamic extremists? Don't you remember that guy who threw grenades in the mess hall in Iraq? What about the Washington D.C. Sniper? How about all of the hoodlums in New Orleans that were murdering, raping, and looting? Weren't most of them Americans?
It has already been mentioned many times, but failure to act carried a tremendous amount of risk for all of the people on board. It is a tragic event but if what the air marshalls said is true, they really had no choice but to terminate the threat. As for the witnesses, I'm sure some of the passengers heard what Alpizar said. I'm sure most of them just want to forget about the whole incident rather than reliving what must hve been a terrifying experience. I'm sure most of them would have wanted the air marshalls to shoot Alpizar if there was even a remote chance he had a bomb. Unfortuately hind sight is always 20/20. The air marshalls had to make a decision based on the information they had at the time and follow the proper protocol. I'm sure there will be inquiries and no air marshall in their right mind will blow someone away in front of a mess of witnesses for "contempt of cop" as you call it.
I understand that there have to be checks and balances rather than simply accepting what the government has to say as hard facts. Those checks and balances are the freedom of speech and the right to bear arms in case all else goes to hell.
I give the Air Marshalls the benefit of doubt simply due to the fact that they are carrying out their actions in front of a whole mess of impartial witnesses. Are there dirty cops who would put a bullet in someone and then plant a weapon on them? Of course there are, but they wouldn't do it in front a bunch of witnesses. I'm also sure air marshalls hate to blow their cover. I'm not sure what the regulations are but over 100 people now know what they look like. Air Marshalls are supposed to be under cover. Simply saying that it was a case of "contempt of cop" is unfounded.
The fact that he was an American citizen means nothing. Are you so naive as to believe that there aren't sleeper cells of terrorists that are fully legal to be in the US, including some with citizenships? What about citizens who have been converted to Islamic extremists? Don't you remember that guy who threw grenades in the mess hall in Iraq? What about the Washington D.C. Sniper? How about all of the hoodlums in New Orleans that were murdering, raping, and looting? Weren't most of them Americans?
It has already been mentioned many times, but failure to act carried a tremendous amount of risk for all of the people on board. It is a tragic event but if what the air marshalls said is true, they really had no choice but to terminate the threat. As for the witnesses, I'm sure some of the passengers heard what Alpizar said. I'm sure most of them just want to forget about the whole incident rather than reliving what must hve been a terrifying experience. I'm sure most of them would have wanted the air marshalls to shoot Alpizar if there was even a remote chance he had a bomb. Unfortuately hind sight is always 20/20. The air marshalls had to make a decision based on the information they had at the time and follow the proper protocol. I'm sure there will be inquiries and no air marshall in their right mind will blow someone away in front of a mess of witnesses for "contempt of cop" as you call it.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
It's all statistical decision theory - what risk to you want to take?
1. You shoot an innocent who seemingly is acting suspiciously
2. You let a terrorist or mentally disturbed person carry out an extreme action.
What are your criteria for deciding when to act.
I would also point out that memories after the fact are extremely fragile and subject to reconstruction. While police certainly have lied about incidents and framed people - one can discern motivation. Sometimes it is to solve cases and up their seeming success ratio.
However, what is motivation of the marshalls to take an action such as this without good reason?
I would trust their decision processes more than that of an individual who boasted about 'being ready to break necks'.
The man clearly was acting in a bizaare fashion. Just getting off a plane in today's world is not normal - one could contact the flight crew if there was a real reason. Memories of who heard what will be difficult to parse, esp. with witnesses such as Mr. I will Break Your Neck.
You need an investigation with folks cognizant of the decision factors as happened in the Diallo case. Ranting here based on such little evidence is really worthless.
I might be wrong when the evidence comes in but I can't fault the marshalls on first glance. I could be wrong but we will see.
1. You shoot an innocent who seemingly is acting suspiciously
2. You let a terrorist or mentally disturbed person carry out an extreme action.
What are your criteria for deciding when to act.
I would also point out that memories after the fact are extremely fragile and subject to reconstruction. While police certainly have lied about incidents and framed people - one can discern motivation. Sometimes it is to solve cases and up their seeming success ratio.
However, what is motivation of the marshalls to take an action such as this without good reason?
I would trust their decision processes more than that of an individual who boasted about 'being ready to break necks'.
The man clearly was acting in a bizaare fashion. Just getting off a plane in today's world is not normal - one could contact the flight crew if there was a real reason. Memories of who heard what will be difficult to parse, esp. with witnesses such as Mr. I will Break Your Neck.
You need an investigation with folks cognizant of the decision factors as happened in the Diallo case. Ranting here based on such little evidence is really worthless.
I might be wrong when the evidence comes in but I can't fault the marshalls on first glance. I could be wrong but we will see.
DonR101395
New member
Call me cold hearted, but I don't see it as a tragic event. It was stupidity on the wifes part to let him get on an airplane. Growing up with a bi-polar father I can tell you when my dad decided he didn't need his meds he also didn't go anywhere, not even the grocery store. You never knew when or what was going to trigger an "episode" when he was off his meds. We certainly wouldn't have put him in an enclosed airplane flying at 35,000 feet and hoped for the best. IMHO the family is a bunch of knuckleheads and it's too bad stupidity isn't a crime.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
One might feel concern for the Marshalls. While it might be shown that the shoot was legitimate, we know that such shootings do take a toll on personnel. Before someone says a good LEO, etc. should not be affected - that's just not true from numerous well research studied.
Limeyfellow
New member
Has there been any more reports from the people on the plane that were claiming that the word bomb was never used and the Feds were trying to pressure people into saying it was?
- Status