NationStates Jolt Archive

Passengers: Alpizar Didn't Say 'Bomb'
AP - 2 hours, 17 minutes ago

MIAMI - The airline passenger shot to death by federal marshals who said he made a bomb threat was agitated even before boarding and later appeared to be desperate to get off the plane, some fellow travelers said. One passenger said he "absolutely never heard the word 'bomb' at all" during the uproar as the Orlando-bound flight prepared to leave Miami on Wednesday. Federal officials say Rigoberto Alpizar made the threat in the jetway, after running up the plane's aisle from his seat at the back of the jetliner.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/business/aviation_security

Yeah, I'm sure he was just shot for target practice.

Rigoberto Alpizar may have just been scared.

As more details emerged about Wednesday's anxious moments aboard American Airlines Flight 924, it became increasingly apparent that the Maitland man killed by federal air marshals may have been fleeing in panic as he suffered the symptoms of bipolar disorder.

To grieving relatives, two air marshals acted rashly and an innocent man died -- one whom at least seven passengers said they never heard say anything about a bomb.

"With all the advances that the U.S. has supposedly made in their war against terrorism, I can't conceive that the marshals wouldn't be able to overpower an unarmed, single man, especially knowing he had already cleared every security check," Carlos Alpizar said Thursday of his brother's death, in a telephone interview from Costa Rica.

Yeah, I'm sure he was just shot for target practice.

The Orlando Sentinel has a pretty compelling article, you should check it out. It looks like, even if the air marshals were correct in their actions, the immediate reports were largely fabricated. All witnesses from the plane say that he never mentioned a bomb or said anything at all.

...Alpizar, who worked at a Home Depot in east Orange County, and his wife, Anne Buechner, were among the last to board the American Airlines Boeing 757 bound for Orlando International Airport. They had arrived in Miami about two hours earlier on a flight from Ecuador, where they had traveled with one of Buechner's relatives, a dentist who was providing free care to children.

A few minutes before takeoff, Alpizar ran for the exit, jostling other passengers in the aisle.

A Miami-Dade police spokeswoman said Thursday that multiple witnesses reported that the 44-year-old was yelling that he had a bomb as he made his way down the aisle with a backpack slung across his chest. Later, the agency's chief of investigations insisted that Alpizar was yelling about a bomb but declined to say whether he was on the plane at the time.

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.' "

--Wife tried to explain--
What Alpizar's fellow passengers did hear were the desperate explanations from Buechner, Alpizar's wife, who at first seemed embarrassed by her husband's hasty exit. She started to follow him off the plane, saying, "He's sick. He needs to get off the plane," witnesses said.

But she had forgotten her bag and turned back to retrieve it. That's when passengers heard yelling from the jetway.

Investigators say that two undercover air marshals followed Alpizar off the plane and ordered him to surrender. The marshals say Alpizar yelled that he had a bomb and would use it. He walked toward them, they backed up, he started to put his hands in his backpack, and they fired. Alpizar was hit by multiple shots fired by both officers.

Y'know if we didn't retaliate and invade random Muslim countries. We might not have to shoot people who were mistaken to be a threat. This is the second incident of its kind. Don't they make something called a tranquilizer gun that won't kill if it misses the target.

Yeah, I'm sure he was just shot for target practice.

Does the name 'Jean Charles de Menezes' ring any bells?

The Orlando Sentinel has a pretty compelling article, you should check it out. It looks like, even if the air marshals were correct in their actions, the immediate reports were largely fabricated. All witnesses from the plane say that he never mentioned a bomb or said anything at all.

hmm, now where have we seen something similar happen before? it's escaping me at the moment. as if it had just gotten on the subway in london...

The Orlando Sentinel has a pretty compelling article, you should check it out. It looks like, even if the air marshals were correct in their actions, the immediate reports were largely fabricated. All witnesses from the plane say that he never mentioned a bomb or said anything at all.exactamente...

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-planefolo0905dec09,0,3421926.story?coll=orl-home-headlines

Y'know if we didn't retaliate and invade random Muslim countries. We might not have to shoot people who were mistaken to be a threat. This is the second incident of its kind. Don't they make something called a tranquilizer gun that won't kill if it misses the target.
Um, the only types of drugs that can take a person down quick enough that they won't have an opportunity to detonate the bomb if they have one are extremely nasty neurotoxins.

hmm, now where have we seen something similar happen before? it's escaping me at the moment. as if it had just gotten on the subway in london...

:p

It's not the same because it was calm rational europeans who shot the innocent man, not triggerhappy psychotic Americans.

Tones of UK doesn't it? I'd probably wait for a greater level of investigation to determine whether the initial reports deviate even more or not. In the meantime, I wonder if the air marshals are being put off duty for the duration of the investigation? I heard that UK does it for their enforcement agents if they discharge their weapons with intent to kill but not sure about US.

It seems that the only people all of these anti-terrorism laws can protect us from are those people who threaten us with the immediate danger of mistaken identity.

Y'know if we didn't retaliate and invade random Muslim countries. We might not have to shoot people who were mistaken to be a threat. This is the second incident of its kind. Don't they make something called a tranquilizer gun that won't kill if it misses the target.
You know, if we didn't retaliate there would be constant terrorist attacks against us. Nobody respects weakness.

Does the name 'Jean Charles de Menezes' ring any bells?
Only Brazilian churchbells at his funeral.

Passengers: Alpizar Didn't Say 'Bomb'
AP - 2 hours, 17 minutes ago

MIAMI - The airline passenger shot to death by federal marshals who said he made a bomb threat was agitated even before boarding and later appeared to be desperate to get off the plane, some fellow travelers said. One passenger said he "absolutely never heard the word 'bomb' at all" during the uproar as the Orlando-bound flight prepared to leave Miami on Wednesday. Federal officials say Rigoberto Alpizar made the threat in the jetway, after running up the plane's aisle from his seat at the back of the jetliner.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/business/aviation_security
Firstly, shooting an unarmed man on an airplane just because he's raving about something or other is insane. That said, you're implying that unless everyone on the plane heard what he said, he must not have said it, while I would argue that just *one* person hearing it would be cause enough for concern. Let me reiterate that the shooting was completely wrong in every way and that I hope it leads to some legislation limiting what an air marshal can do to an unarmed man.

Firstly, shooting an unarmed man on an airplane just because he's raving about something or other is insane. That said, you're implying that unless everyone on the plane heard what he said, he must not have said it, while I would argue that just *one* person hearing it would be cause enough for concern. Let me reiterate that the shooting was completely wrong in every way and that I hope it leads to some legislation limiting what an air marshal can do to an unarmed man.
A man raving about a bomb on an airplane, if he's serious and is given a couple of seconds of time, could concievably kill all the passengers and crew of the airplane. If the sky marshals did hear him claim to have a bomb they were supposed to shoot him. If he did say he had a bomb they did the right thing.

A man raving about a bomb on an airplane, if he's serious and is given a couple of seconds of time, could concievably kill all the passengers and crew of the airplane. If the sky marshals did hear him claim to have a bomb they were supposed to shoot him. If he did say he had a bomb they did the right thing.

I agree with this completely, if he says he has a bomb you can't wait for him to prove it.

However, evidence has called that if into question.

You know, if we didn't retaliate there would be constant terrorist attacks against us. Nobody respects weakness.
No one respects your* foreign policy either...epecially since it doesn't respect the soveriengty of other nations. And fuck Iraq...it's hardly the first time.

*your in this case is the impersonal, not the direct...I'm not blaming you is what I mean.

You know, if we didn't retaliate there would be constant terrorist attacks against us. Nobody respects weakness.

By weakness, you mean restraint?

Take a look at the world. Who's respecting our supposed strength, besides Republican Americans?

If the sky marshals did hear him claim to have a bomb they were supposed to shoot him. If he did say he had a bomb they did the right thing.

true. but i rather doubt he did.

the safe bet is to always assume the agents of the state are lying to make themselves look better until evidence is presented that shows otherwise.

No one respects your* foreign policy either...epecially since it doesn't respect the soveriengty of other nations. And fuck Iraq...it's hardly the first time.

*your in this case is the impersonal, not the direct...I'm not blaming you is what I mean.
The attack on Afghanistan destroyed most of al quaeda's training facilities and eliminated a state sponsor of terrorism. It was justified. I'm not trying to defend Iraq or the various interventions in Latin America, just theretaliation for 9/11. That was totally justified and long overdue.

The attack on Afghanistan destroyed most of al quaeda's training facilities and eliminated a state sponsor of terrorism. It was justified. I'm not trying to defend Iraq or the various interventions in Latin America, just theretaliation for 9/11. That was totally justified and long overdue.
You are trying to provoke us?

A man raving about a bomb on an airplane, if he's serious and is given a couple of seconds of time, could concievably kill all the passengers and crew of the airplane. If the sky marshals did hear him claim to have a bomb they were supposed to shoot him. If he did say he had a bomb they did the right thing.

You are absolutely correct. Which begs the question: why didn't they shoot him when he was on the plane, exclaiming that he had a bomb?

You know, if we didn't retaliate there would be constant terrorist attacks against us. Thats why there is constant terrorist attacks against.. Canada.. Swizerland.. CostaRica.. Sweeden.. Norway.. Finland.. etc [/sarcasm]

You are absolutely correct. Which begs the question: why didn't they shoot him when he was on the plane, exclaiming that he had a bomb?

Well if they did that and the bullets exited the person hit, they would go on to injure innocent civilians. I think the air marshalls did the right thing, when he reached into his bag. If he had a bomb and they did not shoot then he could of got the bomb off. All of the questions in the aftermath are an "if" statement, and I dont think air marshals would randomly shoot a man because he is tan. If that was abundantly obvious then wouldnt these marshalls be in jail right now?

I think it might be a good idea to record audio and video in the cabins of all passenger planes starting ASAP.

I dont think air marshals would randomly shoot a man because he is tan. If that was abundantly obvious then wouldnt these marshalls be in jail right now?

not if history is any guide

Passengers: Alpizar Didn't Say 'Bomb'
AP - 2 hours, 17 minutes ago

MIAMI - The airline passenger shot to death by federal marshals who said he made a bomb threat was agitated even before boarding and later appeared to be desperate to get off the plane, some fellow travelers said. One passenger said he "absolutely never heard the word 'bomb' at all" during the uproar as the Orlando-bound flight prepared to leave Miami on Wednesday. Federal officials say Rigoberto Alpizar made the threat in the jetway, after running up the plane's aisle from his seat at the back of the jetliner.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/business/aviation_security

About 10-15% of the passengers on any given flight are cocksnots. I don't know why, but it's a well acknowledged phenomenon in the industry.

I would imagine that Mr. "absolutely never heard the word bomb at all" falls into that catagory. He probably wasn't close enough to hear any dialogue.

any serious person with a bomb on a aeroplane is not going to be running about screaming that they have one. they will simply detonate it.

someone who is not a suicide bomber will attempt to negotiate and will want everyone to know about the bomb they may or may not have. you can shoot them at that point.

they are certainly not going run off the aircraft to threaten to detonate it in the jetway. that's plain stupid.

sorry, logic ditates the marshals are at fault. they killed an innocent man for no reason and are attempting a cover-up to hide their incompetence. they should be punished for misuse of their power and violation of public trust.

About 10-15% of the passengers on any given flight are cocksnots. I don't know why, but it's a well acknowledged phenomenon in the industry.

I would imagine that Mr. "absolutely never heard the word bomb at all" falls into that catagory. He probably wasn't close enough to hear any dialogue.

it's not just one guy. in fact, nobody but the people who shot an unarmed man that had already gone through airport security (which freaked out when i went through with patches on my jacket held on by safety pins) has claimed that he looked dangerous in slightest or that he made any sort of a threat at all.

Thats why there is constant terrorist attacks against.. Canada.. Swizerland.. CostaRica.. Sweeden.. Norway.. Finland.. etc [/sarcasm]
None of those nations matter to the terrorists because none of them support any of the Arab regimes that the terrorists want to topple and replace with radical islamist leaders.

About 10-15% of the passengers on any given flight are cocksnots. I don't know why, but it's a well acknowledged phenomenon in the industry.

I would imagine that Mr. "absolutely never heard the word bomb at all" falls into that catagory. He probably wasn't close enough to hear any dialogue.

Nice statistic lol

Why would you be so quick to take the word of an air marshall over the word of 7 passengers from different parts of the plane?

Are air marshalls immune to poor judgment?

Well, the evidence is certainly piling up rather rapidly. I guess the key fact is to whether the man actually claimed he had a bomb as the Marshalls said he did. If he did indeed say so, then the act was justified in my opinion, as you can't let a man claiming he has an explosive device run around freely, especially if he ignores warnings - and of course the AMs had no idea he was mentally ill.

However, the evidence would seem to point to him not saying anything. But then, the question begs to be asked, if he didn't say anything like that, why was he shot? Say whatever you want about Americans and recklessness, but I don't think an AM would shoot someone just because he was running around - surely the aircrew could restrain him.

Are air marshalls immune to poor judgment?

No, of course not. But given what I know about passengers, I am surprised more people aren't shot.

it's not just one guy. in fact, nobody but the people who shot an unarmed man that had already gone through airport security (which freaked out when i went through with patches on my jacket held on by safety pins) has claimed that he looked dangerous in slightest or that he made any sort of a threat at all.

Airport security is a joke. Especially in parts unknown. Seriously, they do shit like hassle you for your safety pins, but you can't make someone remove religious headgear, even if they set the metal detector off.

No, of course not. But given what I know about passengers, I am surprised more people aren't shot.


touche :p

You are absolutely correct. Which begs the question: why didn't they shoot him when he was on the plane, exclaiming that he had a bomb?
Actually, the feds never claimed he said he had a bomb on the plane. That was one of the Maimi-Dade police flunkies. The feds said he said he had a bomb on the jetway.

sorry, logic ditates the marshals are at fault. they killed an innocent man for no reason and are attempting a cover-up to hide their incompetence. they should be punished for misuse of their power and violation of public trust.

I disagree. Whether the man had a bomb or not, he was told by Air Marshals to stop moving. He had a gun pointed at him, and was told not to moved or he would be shot, and he reached into his backpack. The Air Marshals were working on their training and instinct, and reacted well.

My only question is: If this entire episode was caused by the man not having taken his medications for bipolar disorder, why wasn't he on his meds? Especially if he knew he was going to be on an airplane.

He had a gun pointed at him, and was told not to moved or he would be shot, and he reached into his backpack.

or at least that's the story of the guy who shot an unarmed person that nobody else seems to have thought particularly threatening. and when would agents of the state ever lie about this sort of thing?

or at least that's the story of the guy who shot an unarmed person that nobody else seems to have thought particularly threatening. and when would agents of the state ever lie about this sort of thing?

The guy was a dick. Here's the thing: gone are the days that you can behave like a douchebag on US carriers. It will get you killed/incacerated for a very long time.

That's the way it is. You want to fuck around on board, fly El-Al. They don't give a shit about this sort of thing. But then again, they do their own passenger screening/security, and conduct it in such a way that exactly the same people who complain about Air Marshall's would bitch about El-Al type security screening.

My recomendation to people who don't like what happened with the air marshall. Fly Avianca.

or at least that's the story of the guy who shot an unarmed person that nobody else seems to have thought particularly threatening. and when would agents of the state ever lie about this sort of thing?

I think the questions begs to be answered - why did the AMs shoot and kill this man if he wasn't saying anything or a threat?. Say what you will about AMs and american recklessness, I don't think AMs shoot people fopr the fun of it - if the man said nothing about a bomb, then why shoot him? Aircraft crew could have restrained him.

I think the questions begs to be answered - why did the AMs shoot and kill this man if he wasn't saying anything or a threat?. Say what you will about AMs and american recklessness, I don't think AMs shoot people fopr the fun of it - if the man said nothing about a bomb, then why shoot him? Aircraft crew could have restrained him.

similarly, why did jean charles de menezes get shot? was it becasue, as the police claimed at the time, he was a known terrorist who was dressed and acting suspiciously when he ran into the subway and jumped a turnstile and reached for his bomb when confronted? or were the cops lying to cover their incompetent asses?

always assume the state and its agents to be lying until presented with solid evidence to the contrary. it saves time.

I think the questions begs to be answered - why did the AMs shoot and kill this man if he wasn't saying anything or a threat?. Say what you will about AMs and american recklessness, I don't think AMs shoot people fopr the fun of it - if the man said nothing about a bomb, then why shoot him? Aircraft crew could have restrained him.
I don't know - why did London police shoot Jean Charles de Menezes when he wasn't a threat?
Cops and air marshals aren't immune to cock-ups any more than anyone else.

I don't know - why did London police shoot Jean Charles de Menezes when he wasn't a threat?
Cops and air marshals aren't immune to cock-ups any more than anyone else.

Probably because in this day and age it's implied that Brown Skin = Terrorist. Which would probably explain why it took so long to catch McVeigh and Nichols after Oklahoma City.

None of those nations matter to the terrorists because none of them support any of the Arab regimes that the terrorists want to topple and replace with radical islamist leaders.so...I your opinion... Bush supports the Dictatorships of Kuwait.. Saudi-Arabia.. UAE.. Jordan.. and that is why the peoples of those countries are waging war against US?

I disagree. Whether the man had a bomb or not, he was told by Air Marshals to stop moving. He had a gun pointed at him, and was told not to moved or he would be shot, and he reached into his backpack...this is indeed a very likely scenario...the man did not say Bomb...and was "taken-out" because he would not obey the AMs when they screamed "Freeze!!" at him... even when he saw thay had guns pointed at him.

I think the questions begs to be answered - why did the AMs shoot and kill this man if he wasn't saying anything or a threat?. Say what you will about AMs and american recklessness, I don't think AMs shoot people fopr the fun of it - if the man said nothing about a bomb, then why shoot him? Aircraft crew could have restrained him.
This is the critical question. News reporting is at least once removed from the action and while not biased, necessarily, certainly not complete. The best we can hope for is a thorough investigation, a publicly released report, and corrective measures where they are needed.

this is indeed a very likely scenario...the man did not say Bomb...and was "taken-out" because he would not obey the AMs when they screamed "Freeze!!" at him... even when he saw thay had guns pointed at him.

Rule Number One:

Whether they are police, military, terrorists, etc., if two people are pointing guns at you at close range and they tell you to do something, don't waste time thinking of something else to do, and do what they tell you.

If you don't do what they tell you, you're taking the chance of ending up dead. And, even if later their actions are found to be wrong, you'll still be dead.

It's my personal theory that he hadn't been taking his meds for several days, and being bipolar, he was having a depressive episode and has probably just had an argument with his wife. On the spur of the moment, he then runs out and commits "suicide by cop".

You don't have to say anything. You just have to reach for something when they tell you to freeze.

It's my personal theory that he hadn't been taking his meds for several days, and being bipolar, he was having a depressive episode and has probably just had an argument with his wife ...and commits "suicide by cop".
You don't have to say anything. You just have to reach for something when they tell you to freeze.I agree with that... but he didn't suicide, because he didn't know what he was doing... mentally ill (bipolar?) + out of medication, remember?

Rule Number One:

Whether they are police, military, terrorists, etc., if two people are pointing guns at you at close range and they tell you to do something, don't waste time thinking of something else to do, and do what they tell you.

If you don't do what they tell you, you're taking the chance of ending up dead. And, even if later their actions are found to be wrong, you'll still be dead.me and you know that... but we are not bipolar. (whatever that is)

I agree with that... he didnt comite suicede... because he didnt know what he was doing... bipolar + out of medication, remember?

me and you knoe that... but we are not bipolar. (whatever that is)

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/bipolar.cfm#bp2

You can swing wildly from feeling GREAT to feeling like it's the end of the world in a few minutes or a few seconds. There are many psychologists and psychiatrists who will REFUSE to treat you because the prognosis is generally so bad - in most cases, even with therapy and drugs, you never really get better. And if you go off your meds, you can end up killing yourself.

You DO know what you're doing when you're bipolar and committing suicide. It's still an intentional act.

You DO know what you're doing when you're bipolar and committing suicide.WOW...did you just say: lunatic people Know what they are doing. :confused:

dude...

I think you are simply trying to say it was his Fault..(the mentally-ill passenger fault) ... In order to deflect responsibility from the Cops faulty Judgment.

I do not agree...

I think you are simply trying to say it was his Fault..(the mentally-ill passanger fault) ... In order to deflect responsability from the Cops falty Judgement.

The marshals followed their training exactly.

I teach self-defense courses for firearms - would you like a quick class on when you can use deadly force?

It was a tragedy, certainly. And in hindsight, a real tragedy. But in the few seconds that the officers had to react, all they could do was follow their training.

- would you like a quick class on when you can use deadly force?No.. I just want you to tell me:
Did the victim say "Bomb"?

Seriously, more and more people are being defined now as mentally ill. Why? Because they're not consuming on their own. But as patients, they become consumers of mental health care. And this gives the so-called sane people work!

Rigoberto Alpizar may have just been scared.

As more details emerged about Wednesday's anxious moments aboard American Airlines Flight 924, it became increasingly apparent that the Maitland man killed by federal air marshals may have been fleeing in panic as he suffered the symptoms of bipolar disorder.

To grieving relatives, two air marshals acted rashly and an innocent man died -- one whom at least seven passengers said they never heard say anything about a bomb.

"With all the advances that the U.S. has supposedly made in their war against terrorism, I can't conceive that the marshals wouldn't be able to overpower an unarmed, single man, especially knowing he had already cleared every security check," Carlos Alpizar said Thursday of his brother's death, in a telephone interview from Costa Rica.
Yeah, except that people with bipolar disorder don't carry signs saying, "Please don't shoot me! I have bipolar disorder." Neither do those with concealed weapons reveal that they have them; that's why they're "concealed." :rolleyes:

Seriously, more and more people are being defined now as mentally ill. Why? Because they're not consuming on their own. But as patients, they become consumers of mental health care. And this gives the so-called sane people work!
Is that anything like "restless leg syndrome?" LOL! :rolleyes: :headbang:

No.. I just want you to tell me:
Did the victim say "Bomb"?
Some of those on the flight say "yes!" Some on the flight say "Don't know."

No.. I just want you to tell me:
Did the victim say "Bomb"?

He doesn't have to say it. If you're carrying a small backpack, and you reach for it after I tell you to freeze...

And some people heard him say he had a bomb. You'll recall that he was shot out on the jetway, where there were NO passengers.

Some of those on the flight say "yes!" Some on the flight say "Don't know."We have names of some of the passangers that say "nobody said Bomb"... There is newspapers printing some names...

But so far I have yet to hear of a name(any one name) of a witness saying he heard the word "Bomb"...

on top of that Government Officials have already contradicted themselves as for when.. and where.. did the Victim said the word "Bomb"

We know the names of the ones that say "nobody said Bomb"... There is newspapers printing their names...

But so far I have yet to hear of a name(any one name) of a witness saying he heard the word "Bomb"...

on top of that Government Officials have already contradicted themselves as for when.. and where.. did the Victim said the word "Bomb"

Newspaper accounts are not sworn testimony. Nor are comments at the press conferences of government officials.

I would wait for sworn statements from an investigation before I made the assertion that no one said "bomb".

It's entirely possible that he said it out on the jetway - where no passengers would have heard it at all. So? It's not like air marshals go around looking for people to shoot for the hell of it. Which is what you are insinuating.

We have names of some of the passangers that say "nobody said Bomb"... There is newspapers printing some names...

But so far I have yet to hear of a name(any one name) of a witness saying he heard the word "Bomb"...

on top of that Government Officials have already contradicted themselves as for when.. and where.. did the Victim said the word "Bomb"
I saw one woman on the news who said that she definitely heard the word "bomb" shouted by the passenger. I'm sure that it will all come out in the investigation.

It's not like air marshals go around looking for people to shoot for the hell of it. If he did not say the word "Bomb"...they should not have killed this one... even if he did not "Freeze" when they screamed at him...

Why? because he was already cleared by US Airport security checks (the most expensive security in the World by far)

Tehy should have used "tasers" on him. (electric stunt gun)

If he did not say the word "Bomb"...they should not have killed this one... even if he did not "Freeze" when they screamed at him...

Why? because he was already cleared by US Airport security checks (the most expensive security in the World by far)

Tehy should have used "tasers" on him. (electric stunt gun)

So, you have witnesses that say he never said bomb out on the jetway?

There were only Air Marshals out on the jetway - no passengers.

We have two witnesses - you have none.

I saw one woman on the news who said that she definitely heard the word "bomb" shouted by the passenger. I'm sure that it will all come out in the investigation.what was her name?

TV do usually write the names at the bottom of the screen...when its a public statement...

I agree with this completely, if he says he has a bomb you can't wait for him to prove it.

However, evidence has called that if into question.

If he says he has a bomb then he's looking to talk. If he just wanted to blow up the plane he woulnd't be announcing it. If he's trying to use the bomb as a threat then he'd probably have it on one of those "deadman's trigger" setups. It didn't take the IRA long to start making bombs that only go off when you try to disarm them, how long would it take for Al-qaeda to start sending suicide bombers with bombs that go off when you shoot the carrier?

The shoot-first-pick-bits-of-shrapnel-out-of-the-corpses-later approach is a bad one whatever the circumstances.

So, you have witnesses that say he never said bomb out on the jetway?

There were only Air Marshals out on the jetway - no passengers.

We have two witnesses - you have none.basically what you are saying is that the only people who heard the Victim say "bomb"...are the very two people that killed him.

If he says he has a bomb then he's looking to talk. If he just wanted to blow up the plane he woulnd't be announcing it. If he's trying to use the bomb as a threat then he'd probably have it on one of those "deadman's trigger" setups. It didn't take the IRA long to start making bombs that only go off when you try to disarm them, how long would it take for Al-qaeda to start sending suicide bombers with bombs that go off when you shoot the carrier?

The shoot-first-pick-bits-of-shrapnel-out-of-the-corpses-later approach is a bad one whatever the circumstances.

If he's looking to talk, he doesn't continue to reach into a bag after he's been told to freeze.

You've obviously never had any self-defense training for people who carry firearms.

what was her name?

TV do usually write the names at the bottom of the screen...when its a public statement...
Sorry. I don't make that a practice, and besides, I was paying attention to NS General at the time. :D

Sorry. I don't make that a practice, and besides, I was paying attention to NS General at the time. :DLOL...
good reply Eut.

I think firearms training should teach people how to aim. Any asshat with a gun can shoot at someone and kill them.

I think firearms training should teach people how to aim. Any asshat with a gun can shoot at someone and kill them.

Care to make a bet? I take people's money on a regular basis who believe this.

Care to make a bet? I take people's money on a regular basis who believe this.
Any asshat with a gun can shoot at some one and kill them.

LOL...
good reply Eut.
Hehehe! Thanks.

Actually, I could make that statement at just about any given point in time! :D

Any asshat with a gun can shoot at some one and kill them.

I've let people shoot at me who believe this. No one has hit me yet.

If that's true, why is there any firearms training at all? And why, after firearms training, do police, on average, miss with 5 out of 6 rounds fired?

If it's so easy, why aren't you a recognized world pistol champion?

or at least that's the story of the guy who shot an unarmed person that nobody else seems to have thought particularly threatening. and when would agents of the state ever lie about this sort of thing?

You assume he's unarmed because he passed through the laughable farce that is airport security? IF the bloke reached into his bag AFTER being told AT GUNPOINT NOT TO MOVE, that's his own lookout. While it is a shame that he was shot, there are things you just don't do when confronted with armed agents who are relying EXCLUSIVELY on their training because that's their JOB.

If the guy was off his meds, again, that's his problem and he paid for it. Did he deserve to die? Certainly not, but that's why they call them accidents. It's no different to deliberately or unintentionally test the training of a gun-wielding professional than it is to, say, "wonder what THIS button does" and suffer the consequences. If the guy was so rattled, why on EARTH did the wife go back for a simple piece of carry-on luggage that could EASILY have been retrieved AFTER she explained why her husband was freaking out?

I do not believe the shooting was justified, but neither do I believe it was a "typical case of US gun-happy paranoia."

[ Runs through the thread screaming ] Bomb! Bomb! I've got a frakking BOMB!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4508432.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4509516.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TRAVEL/12/08/air.marshals.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/12/07/transcript.thu/index.html#first
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/07/air.marshal/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/08/thursday/index.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10367598/from/RSS/

So far, nothing much else has been said by the BBC or by CNN.
From the statements of three passengers that they did not hear a person who was admittedly acting completely erratically say explicitly "I have a bomb!" we suddenly have a "The marshalls are lying/corrupt/evil/murderers," thread.

If he's looking to talk, he doesn't continue to reach into a bag after he's been told to freeze.

True, and a good point.

You've obviously never had any self-defense training for people who carry firearms.

Uh...VERY few people have, and that's a completely irrelevant point. It's like saying "you've obviously never had bomb disposal training" to someone whose husband was killed by a bomb. Well no shit, Sherlock.

You're making good points here, DK, don't muddy them with patently meaningless statements like that -- it weakens your case.

this is indeed a very likely scenario...the man did not say Bomb...and was "taken-out" because he would not obey the AMs when they screamed "Freeze!!" at him... even when he saw thay had guns pointed at him.

And so what? A person in law enforcment aims a gun at you and tells you to freeze, and you approach/away/reach for something, you are going to get shot.

I've let people shoot at me who believe this. No one has hit me yet.
That is shooting towards, then there is shooting at. You come visit me and we will see who can't shoot.

If that's true, why is there any firearms training at all? And why, after firearms training, do police, on average, miss with 5 out of 6 rounds fired?
Unwillingness to kill or inability to aim.

If it's so easy, why aren't you a recognized world pistol champion?
There is aiming, then there is marksmanship.

And so what? A person in law enforcment aims a gun at you and tells you to freeze, and you approach/away/reach for something, you are going to get shot.then he fully deserved to Die...The Marshall had to kill him...

You are rigth, I am wrong. --what else can I say--

I've let people shoot at me who believe this. No one has hit me yet.

Bullshit, you've never let anyone shoot at you with the intention to kill you.

Liar.

You come visit me and we will see who can't shoot.
Now you're scaring me! :eek:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1663231,00.html

"The wife of a passenger shot dead after apparently claiming he was carrying a bomb on a plane desperately tried to tell air marshals her husband was mentally ill and had not taken his medication before they opened fire, killing him."

Hmm...

You know, if we didn't retaliate there would be constant terrorist attacks against us. Nobody respects weakness.

You know, if the US did not retaliate, and in invading Iraq using the excuses of 1. Iraq WMD's that no longer ceased to exist, 2. a dictatorial regime when there are plenty the US support who are just as bad, 3. and Al-Qaeda in Iraq when Saddam was actually on Osama's 'Bad muslim' list, America may not be at the risk of another attack on the same threat as it is now, coalition soldiers and Iraqi civillians would still be alive.

You know, if the US had not supported regimes that oppress muslims in The Middle East and North Africa and asia, and had intervened in The Balkans sooner to prove that it did care for muslims, instead of intervening when it was far too late, the US may not have been attacked at all, the hijackers not having a reason or given one by people like Bin Laden (supported, financially aided by the US against the Soviets in Afghanistan let's not forget) to attack the US.

Just remember, you are not at war with every one of the 1 billion muslims.

But keep lashing out, keep invading, keep killing muslims like the way America is now and supporting the regimes who do this also, and you may well find a one billion Jihad on your hands.

And eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Blood for blood leaves the whole world bleeding to death.

[ Runs through the thread screaming ] Bomb! Bomb! I've got a frakking BOMB!

Not funny. Not only do you raise images and memories of outrages, but you mock a ill man too, who lost his life, which this thread is about.

Grow up.

so...I your opinion... Bush supports the Dictatorships of Kuwait.. Saudi-Arabia.. UAE.. Jordan.. and that is why the peoples of those countries are waging war against US?
Yeah. The US has supported those dictatorships because they kept the region stable, but Al Quaeda sees them as a major obstacle to imposing theocratic rule and their form of Sharia law on the middle east and elsewhere.

Yeah. The US has supported those dictatorships because they kept the region stable, but Al Quaeda sees them as a major obstacle to imposing theocratic rule and their form of Sharia law on the middle east and elsewhere.

Stability in this case being, things how we want them.

You can moor a boat so it'll never move but when the sea is strong enough to rip the moorings away the boat will be torn apart. If you let the boat sail, it might get somewhere (or be shipwrecked but if you never leave the port you'll never reach the tropics either).

Look at Iran. It went it's own way (eventually) and is evolving a liberal democracy. Granted it's not perfect but then neither is any other democracy but Iran is sailing on to whatever comes next. Iraq was pinned down and then got hit by a tsunami, they'll be patching and holding it together with their bare hands for years before they make it anywhere.

Stability in this case being, things how we want them.

You can moor a boat so it'll never move but when the sea is strong enough to rip the moorings away the boat will be torn apart. If you let the boat sail, it might get somewhere (or be shipwrecked but if you never leave the port you'll never reach the tropics either).

Look at Iran. It went it's own way (eventually) and is evolving a liberal democracy. Granted it's not perfect but then neither is any other democracy but Iran is sailing on to whatever comes next. Iraq was pinned down and then got hit by a tsunami, they'll be patching and holding it together with their bare hands for years before they make it anywhere.
I agree with you to some extent. We should have pushed for democracy, not stability in that region before radical Islam took hold. They might be more like Turkey now.

I disagree that Iran is moving toward liberal democracy. Their president is a hardcore conservative who replaced a more moderate guy. Their mullahs decide who can and can't run in elections. I think they're going to stay pretty much as they are for the forseeable future.

I disagree that Iran is moving toward liberal democracy. Their president is a hardcore conservative who replaced a more moderate guy. Their mullahs decide who can and can't run in elections. I think they're going to stay pretty much as they are for the forseeable future.

I never said it was going to happen right now.

Britain took well over 900 years to evolve to what it is (counting from William 1, if we want to trace it right back we'd be looking past Athens...) and still isn't particularly democratic (IMO), the US wasn't exactly democratic itself from the start (you can vote if you are white, male and over 30 or something like that at the start wasn't it?).

But if you look at Iranian society it is steadily liberalising and the political system will follow, sooner or later. There will be clashes, violence and problems, many of them but both our nations worked past them, what's to say the Iranians can't?

There will be clashes, violence and problems, many of them but both our nations worked past them, what's to say the Iranians can't?

I have two answers to this, one from each side of the 'Is The US Doing The Wrong Thing?' argument.

1/ Who is to say the Iranians can't? The United States, because it believes that it has a monopoly on telling people how to run their countries. If Iran comes up with a solution different to US-style democracy, they're looking at an invasion unless they can rapidly make themselves too much of a threat to be safe to invade.

2/ Who is to say the Iranians can't? Everyone who grew up (in the sense of finding a stable form of government that doesn't result in psychotically agressive policies) earlier. Because yes, the UK and US and various others managed to get there. In the UK's case, it was centuries of territorial wars coupled with a couple of revolutions that got us there. The US took less time - but had a basic pattern to start from - and still had at least one major internal war (couldn't say whether anything other than the Civil War counts in this equation). That was all with weapons that seem, now, horribly out of date. Iran has modern weapons, or close enough. Letting them take the same path as we did won't result in much Iran being left... or much world.

Doubtless there are many other possible answers, but these are the two that struck me straight off the mark.

1/ Who is to say the Iranians can't? The United States, because it believes that it has a monopoly on telling people how to run their countries. If Iran comes up with a solution different to US-style democracy, they're looking at an invasion unless they can rapidly make themselves too much of a threat to be safe to invade.Exactamente...

A Democracy is a Democracy ... Does not have to be "liberal" Democracy...

The US Arab "friends" in the Region are all Dictatorships... they are not even close to the Democratic elections of Iran, Israel or Singapore.

I've let people shoot at me who believe this. No one has hit me yet.

If that's true, why is there any firearms training at all? And why, after firearms training, do police, on average, miss with 5 out of 6 rounds fired?

If it's so easy, why aren't you a recognized world pistol champion?

Let me get this straight. You let people without gun training shoot at you? It only takes one lucky (unlucky) shot.

I'm with the other poster. I think you just exposed yourself as a complete charlatan here. Sorry.

Let me get this straight. You let people without gun training shoot at you? It only takes one lucky (unlucky) shot.

I'm with the other poster. I think you just exposed yourself as a complete charlatan here. Sorry.

Nope. I've stood at 100 yards and let people take a shot with a rifle - people with absolutely no training or familiarity with weapons.

It's far harder than you think. And shooting with a pistol is even harder, even at closer ranges.

Most people, even trained police, miss most of the time at ranges under 8 feet.

It is a myth that using a gun in a combat situation is "easy". A complete myth.

Anyone who has some skill and training, as opposed to "anyone who just picked up a gun" is far, far more deadly.

They do a similar demonstration in infantry basic training during your basic rifle marksmanship training - except that they use a human silhouette at 100 yards. They let roughly 20 people blaze away - before training - on semi or full auto - and the target is NEVER hit. That's NEVER.

Conditions are far, far more lethal if the person behind the rifle actually has been trained.

I gatta back up DK on the gun issue. It's alot harder to hit a target in real life then in Hollywood.

You know, if we didn't retaliate there would be constant terrorist attacks against us. Nobody respects weakness.

This I disagree with. It's because we attack and dominate people that we are hated. Terrorists don't just look for the weekest country to attack. If that were the case, Holland, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, all those little countries with little to no military strength an the inability to carry out a forgien war would be getting hit constantly. Terrorists attack because they have a reason to hate. The the US just keeps giving them new reasons every day.

Peace brings peace, not war, in my opinion.

They let roughly 20 people blaze away - before training - on semi or full auto - and the target is NEVER hit. That's NEVER.
Yeah, I highly doubt you are going to hit shit at 300 feet on full auto.

Looks like they lied to cover their ass, now they're discovering that the lie is a world of pain worse than the act. Just like in London.

A Democracy is a Democracy ... Does not have to be "liberal" Democracy...

Actually, Iran isn't a democracy. The last run of elections were greatly falsified, and the truly liberal candidates were not allowed to run. Instead two puppet candidates were put up, one a hardliner, one a 'softie'. The kept extending the elections not because, as they said, extremely heavy voter turnout, but rather because turnout was so low that they needed time to falsify the election results. There are plenty of photos around the web of the various polling stations on the election days and they are mysteriously empty or almost empty, odd considering it's the middle of the day.

Looks like they lied to cover their ass, now they're discovering that the lie is a world of pain worse than the act. Just like in London.
Once again, the feds never claimed that he said the word bomb on the plane. That was a Miami Dade police lackey. Not exactly the most reliable source.

The attack on Afghanistan destroyed most of al quaeda's training facilities and eliminated a state sponsor of terrorism. It was justified. I'm not trying to defend Iraq or the various interventions in Latin America, just theretaliation for 9/11. That was totally justified and long overdue.
Oh yes and us now in Iraq is doing....what? Oh that's right getting people killed which is making more people become terrorists. Soldiers have killed many innocent people there which is making many people there turn into terrorists. I wish it wasn't true.

Yeah, I highly doubt you are going to hit shit at 300 feet on full auto.

I remember when I was in Iraq in the old days (first gulf war), Iraqis couldn't hit anything with an AK-47 even when they got as close as 50 yards. Technically, that counts as "letting people shoot at you". They didn't hit anyone I was with, either.

Skill seems to make a huge difference. We were in essence shooting at men (and killing them) who had no real chance at all of hitting us.

Few people can hit anything with a pistol consistently. And missing is the rule in close combat with a pistol, even when you're just out of arm's reach.