Air Marshals, what were they supposed to do?

Status
Not open for further replies.
So whats the truth here?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/akers/akers24.html
or this

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1389642

My first impluse was to think (Gee, that poor officer) but with this story, I want to know more.

That contrasts with a passenger who "recalled Alpizar saying, 'I've got to get off, I've got to get off.'" Another remembered that "he wasn't saying anything; he was just running." Nor did this witness immediately think, "Terrorism!" Being a rational person instead of a hyped-up air marshal, he settled for a likelier explanation: "I said to myself, 'It is probably a person who took the wrong plane.'" A second man of similar rationality assumed Alpizar was nauseated and heading for the men’s room. Furthermore, Mrs. Alpizar chased her husband, trying to help and inadvertently explaining the situation to everyone, including the trigger-happy sky-cops. A passenger told CNN, "She was just saying her husband was sick, her husband was sick."
 
Last edited:
So:

1. The air marshalls are hallucinating and/or lying

2. These passengers (one of whom brags about breaking necks) have perfect memories of a dynamic situation - when we know that memories are really suspect and terribly vulnerable to all kinds of errors of storage, retrieval and reconstruction.

I would take umbrage with Mr. Wah, Wah My Cell Phone was karated out of my mitts. If you think you have an incident going - can phones be used to set off explosives or communicate with accomplices. That complaint was from the 'neckbreaker' hero. Maybe it was a taekwando chop BTW.

It comes down to what error you want to make. An innocent is shot vs. the chance you could have a terrorist incident happening. You have aberrant behavior. The wife could be a smoke screen.

It's sad - but if this guy was unstable - how about he doesn't fly? Or go on vacation to Columbia.
 
I agree memories are suspect especially during a dynamic situation but ALL the memories? That makes me suspect.

I think this is grounds for an investigation. I would hope they interviewed each person separately and analyze the responses. I would think that would become public record so leading may be identified.
 
Yep, you are correct. They need intensive interviews from folks trained in such techniques to avoid suggestion and bias. The DOJ or FBI had a team of experts do a report on such awhile ago.

It's certainly possible the marshalls misheard or they didn't. I just cringe when I see folks with political position A or B, right nut or left nut go ballistic without the investigation.
 
Hind sight is always 20/20. As stated, what if he did have a bomb and his wife was distraction? What if they blew the damn plane up? What would the news asses say then? That we don't do enough to protect their asses. Thats what they would be saying!:mad: :barf: This was a tragic event but they Mr. Alpizar should not have been off his meds, especially in these kinds of situations.
 
OK, so far 84 posts on this, and what do we have?

He was justified.

No he wasn't.

Wuz too!

Wuz not!

:rolleyes:

Closed until either A. New solid FACTS are revealed on the incident, or B. we want to discuss the overall incident from a tactical or training standpoint, (minus the "wus-not!-wuz-too!'s" ;) )

Feel free to start Pt. II if either A or B applies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top