Reality Check- Ref the Florida Airline shooting

I think it is important that we put the blame where it belongs. The dead man and his wife are to blame. He didn't take his meds. I will repeat, he didn't take his meds. His wife knew he was unstable. An unstable man has no business getting on an airliner. That is dangerous to himself and the fellow passengers.
The Air Marshals did what they had to do. If he said "bomb" or they thought they heard the word "bomb" they had little leeway. A bomb is unlike a gun or a knife. With a gun, unless it is pointed as someone is not a danger, a knife is even less threatening. A bomb on the other had has a million different ways to be dentonated. So from the Marshal's point of view as long as that person is free to move in anyway, there is a serious threat. They don't even know how big of threat because they Marshals have no way of knowing how much explosives are involved.
Because of that, the Marshal's responsibilities are to get the man out of the plane (to try and protect the passengers as much as possible) and then subdue the man as quickly as possible (this may mean killing him if he does not immediately cooperate) as he is still a danger to at least the Marshals and likely others.
Now a thorough investigation may reveal that the Marshal made a mistake, but don't until then try not to judge their actions too harshly. Remember these guys get extensive training, but they don't get much practical experience. Anyone in law enforcement or similar fields will tell you there is no substitute for experience. Also remember that these Marshal's motives were to protect the passengers in their charge as well as themselves. If there was a mistake, it was an honest mistake. They are human just like the rest of us and they can make mistakes like the rest of us.

...If it was an honest mistake and they heard the "B" word, why did they shoot him and put themselves into mortal danger?

Whatever - let's give em a medal and move on.

An airliner is a special travel situation. If you are planning to fly you must take your meds. 20,000 feet in cramped compartment is no place to become unstable.

As for shooting him, Israeli security experts will tell you a quick kill is the safest way to deal with someone with a bomb.

Why did they put themselves in mortal danger - did you see the distance they shot from? Tell me if there was a bomb they wouldn't have been harmed. Or is that too much of a "Reality Check"

That means the bomber has some sort of trigger they need to activate. If they kill the bomber (preferably with a head shot), then that trigger isn't set off. The odds of the gun shot trigger the explosives is extremely slim.

I call bs. There were doors on both sides that could be shut. Would you bet your life on that deduction? I doubt it. If you use your deduction skills that you are assuming the marshalls used, then perhaps you would have noted he appeared to be having a manic episode like his wife was screaming. Perhaps the doors to the airport would have been shut, and the doors to the airplane shut? Ooh check it out, no one would have died. Perhaps that is asking too much in a day of convienence - WTF why wait for the professionals? It's far easier to say bomb and kill someone, far less expensive too - We are sooo disposable.

I guess you don't appreciate the time issue involved. You are talking actions requiring seconds. You do not have time for a 10 minute debate. How are all those other doors going to be shut? You think the Air Marshals have the power to have them shut instantly? I don't think you appreciate what these types of situations are like.

I seem to recall nice airlines workers manning the doors - or wait, how do they open? ESP?

the doors. It will take a minute or two to communicate to the person manning the door and to convince them you have the authority to order them shut and locked. Besides that the door will not stop a bomb from doing major damage, and killing people on the other side of the door.

By shooting him.

Buy a clue.

Dead men can not detonate bombs.

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Explosive_material

But I forget - you have ESP on your side, as did the marshals.

Shooting to maim or injure — rather than kill — is not an option for federal agents, said John Amat, national operations vice president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, which includes air marshals in its membership.

"The person was screaming, saying he would blow up the plane, reaching into his bag — they had to react," Amat said.

"The bottom line is, we're trained to shoot to stop the threat," said Amat, who is also a deputy with the U.S. Marshals Service in Miami. "Hollywood has this perception that we are such marksmen we can shoot an arm or leg with accuracy. We can't. These guys were in a very tense situation. In their minds they had to believe this person was an imminent threat to themselves or the people on the plane."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051209/ap_on_re_us/airplane_shooting;_ylt=ArWqnAL5AEinog3EYUfSZ0VvzwcF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

They placed themselves in mortal danger if they indeed heard the "b" word.

There were other options available, and a witness telling them he was mentally ill.

Feel free to buy the propaganda - I try to use my critical thinking skills. I doubted the bomb threat the moment I saw where and how they shot him.

They are shooting to reduce the chance the bomb will detonate. That is what the experts say is the safest coarse of action.

I provided the different types of bombs - We are up to 7 witnesses saying there was no "bomb" threat, 0 minus the marshals and one wife who said he was mentally ill.

Keep up the hate - desensitize death - humans are disposable.

he had a bomb or not:

James Bauer, the special agent in charge of federal air marshals in Miami gave this statement on Wednesday:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/july-dec05/mia...

"JAMES BAUER: At approximately 2:10 this afternoon, American Airlines Flight 924 was boarding at Gate D.-42 -- it was in the boarding process. An individual later tentatively identified as Rigoberto Alpizar, age 44, was boarding that aircraft as well.

At some point, he uttered threatening words that included a sense that, in fact, that he had a bomb. There were federal air marshals on board the aircraft. They came out of their cover, confronted him, and he remained noncompliant with their instructions.

As he was attempting to evade them, his actions caused the FAM's to fire shots and, in fact, he is deceased."

So we have one spokesman quoting the man as saying he would blow up the plane yet another spokesman says only a 'sense' that he had a bomb.

And yet another version from another spokesperson:

"Dave Adams, a spokesman for the Federal Air Marshal Service, said Alpizar had run up and down the plane's aisle yelling, "I have a bomb in my bag."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/08/airplane.gunshot/index.html

It is interesting, to say the least, that the officials in this case seem to less than clear on the facts.

You will find they try to keep the counter terrorism plans and actions off the internet. They don't want to aid the terrorists by teaching them how they operate.

The difference between homemade and professional ones? It was my understanding it's a crapshoot as to the stability of a bomb. :) Of course since we *are* working on the ESP angle you are correct in your own mind.

that hasn't been invented yet or faxed to the press! It takes a LOT of skill at close range.

Be prepared to be flamed. :-(

Air Marshals must pass tough psychological tests, tougher than what the average cop takes. The was out rate of in their training academy is pretty high. So I seriously doubt there are many of these officers with blood lust. Besides if you did have a blood lust, Air Marshal is not the job for you as there is little gun play in a job like that.

Try to be fair, huh.

you get back to us on this, 'k pal?

arguing with his wife...arguing with his wife?....possibilty?

up in the air:

GAO: Congress Nixed Costly Terror Training

WASHINGTON - Efforts to train thousands of federal agents to protect commercial flights during heightened terror alerts were quietly abandoned more than a year ago because Congress objected to the cost, government investigators said Tuesday.

The Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, reported that the federal air marshal service suspended its efforts to develop such a "surge capacity" by training customs and immigration agents to protect passenger airliners.

snip

By October 2004, Homeland Security had cross-trained some immigration and customs agents, but stopped because of congressional concerns that it was "an ineffective use of resources," the report said.

more

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051130/ap_on_go_co/air_marshals

Edited to add:

I agree that tragic mistakes are made which is why an independent investigation should occur when incidents like this happens. It is the attempt to cover up those tragic mistakes, which is all too common, that is indefensible, imo.

The lack of confirmation from passengers regarding the 'bomb' aspect leads one to ask if a cover-up was underway immediately after the shooting. The contention that the man said he had a bomb was first stated by an "anonymous senior official" which strikes me as odd to begin with.

That was traing to increase their numbers.

AM's was part of the original force how?

on this plane were hired and trained prior to the suspension in 2004 or hired after the suspension and, therefore, did not receive the training prior to the suspension. Surely there were air marshals hired after the 2004 suspension of funding?

Did become Air Marshals.

otherwise I read your post as confirming the marshals were untrained which, given your OP, seems unlikely.

They cut funding to train more. They wanted to have more Air Marshals available during times of hightened alerts. Thanks to budget cuts that didn't happen.

since the suspension of funding? Do you know for a fact that both Air Marshals on the flight were hired prior to the suspension of funding for training? Please cite your source for this if you have one, it would be appreciated.

Both air marshals were hired in 2002 from other federal law enforcement agencies and were placed on administrative leave, said Brian Doyle, spokesman for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051209/ap_on_re_us/airplane_shooting;_ylt=ArWqnAL5AEinog3EYUfSZ0VvzwcF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

...the London "OOPSY, WE FUCKED UP" shooting redux...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5553033

I have no confidence in the government telling the truth. When it first happened I thought about the London shooting. It was two months later when we found out how much misinformation (lies) that the officials released, the heavy jacket in July turned out to be a denim jacket, he never jumped a turnstile, etc. Why is it the authorities think they can lie when there are eyewitnesses who will eventually tell us what happened? Even if it comes out the marshalls acted inappropriately, one thing everyone knows, there is zero tolerance in a airport nowadays.


AValdoux

Yeah the government should be more honest. What I am concerned about is that there are people that are being unfair to the Air Marshals. They are either ASSUMING the worst. They are judging their actions too harshly as well.

and only THEY heard the word bomb.

would that be a good thing? Remember a man with a bomb is dangerous untill subdued.

Lots of people who should be taking meds, don't take meds. Happens everyday. It is no crime. The blame talk is bunk IMHO.

Why did the killers think he had a bomb?

Many crimes are committed as a result of people deciding there is no harm not taking their meds. This time it was made a thousand times worse by getting on an airplane. As for the bomb issue the guy had a back pack and fanny pack in front of him and acting crazy. From their training that would put him in the catagory of a potential bomber. So they would be suspecting it just from that alone.

The government should totally be in charge of medication and believe me, we would stop arguing and there would be peace in America. Wow. I HAVE A DREAM!!

Got into the cockpit and crashed the plane, that would be OK? I mean it wasn't like he broke the law by not taking his meds, and since he didn't take them he wasn't in his right mind. So he would be innocent by reason of insanity.

Please.

They are not that strong. He could take a hostage, he could rush it because one of the crew comes out. A plane is a place people need to behave or all can die.

You REALLY think this could happen in this day and time?

What if... What if... If we fell victim to all "what if's" then I should shoot to kill any man who looks at me after dusk. "What if he kills me?"

You can "What if" all day long. The facts are that the plane was on the ground, the man was trying TO GET OFF and was shot OUTSIDE THE PLANE.

Now, you tell me what brilliant terrorist would enter a plane with a bomb, the start to argue with his "accomplish" (Wife), then get up, yelling that he had to get off the plane, TAKE THE BOMB WITH HIM, pass some AM's and then detonate the bomb?

That is one devious terrorist. :sarcasm:

Mentally disturbed certainly doesn't always mean harmless.

Let's go with our blanket statements and make it right to kill the mentally ill!

I am an EMT and treated many people harmed by non complaint med people. They must have missed your memo on the topic. Still someone makes the free choice not to take their meds. Gets on a plane then acts irrational, the blame goes to the one that made the choice. Not, the law enforcement offical stuck dealing with the consequences of that choice.

Someone that is not rational is often far more dangerous than a rational person.

all people with mental health problems are fair game everywhere. Terrorism doesn't only happen at airports. So screaming in public should be met with deadly force?

know that they need to take their meds in order to remain stable. Its the rational thing to do, and of course we know all mentally ill people are very rational, right?

I mean she was with him, knew he didn't take his meds and encouraged him to stay on board.

details that come out of this, if indeed we are ever privy to them. I made my comment thinking of my sister who suffers from mental illness. Its easy to say a mentally ill person should somehow be rational enough to know to take their meds because they are mentally ill, whatver that means. My sister often flushed hers or hid them. She thought my mother wanted to poison her and went though phases where she would make my mother taste her food before she ate it. We also once found a hit list she had made and my mom's name was at the top of the list. We had a drawer with a lock where all the knives and scissors were kept because she was sometimes prone to becoming violent. When she refused to take her meds and became really unstable, yes, we knew it. But try pinning down a mentally ill patient who's adrenalin is going full blast sometime and see how easy it is to make them take their meds. In addition, my sister could go for months at a time acting relatively normal and calm and then be set off seemingly without provocation. (We almost never knew what it was that had set her off). What is the wife supposed to do? Stop living? Stay permanently in a country where she doesn't live because her husband might get unstable? Leave the husband behind? I don't know all the facts of this case. It could very well be that you are right. I just refuse to swallow the Gov. version hook, line and sinker without knowing all the details. Not only because of who is in charge these days, but also due to the fact that I lived with a mentlly ill person for many years and know that there is a lot that is easier said than done.


spelling

From witnesses:


Some passengers said they noticed Alpizar while waiting to get on the plane. They said he was singing "Go Down Moses" as his wife tried to calm him. Others said they saw him having lunch and described him as restless and anxious, but not dangerous.

"The wife was telling him, 'Calm down. Let other people get on the plane. It will be all right,'" said Alan Tirpak, a passenger.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051209/ap_on_re_us/airplane_shooting;_ylt=ArWqnAL5AEinog3EYUfSZ0VvzwcF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

based on my experiences with my sister she could be totally ok or seem that way and all of a sudden start behaving erratically. Maybe this is what happened with him. Maybe he had been acting ok and started acting up in the plane. Like I said, I don't know all the facts. And I won't side with the Gov. version until I know the facts and feel they are right.

Witnesses said he was aggitated prior to boarding the plane. Witnesses say the wife was already trying to calm him down.

that you could sometimes calm my sister down and she'd be okay. I could change my mind on this case depending on how the facts come out (and if we ever know them). You are obviously 100% behind the Gov. version and that is your perrogative. I choose to wait for further information.

(somewhere) that jet-lag can trigger certain imbalances in people.

just an extra to consider

when I fly. Especially if I have a chatty person next to me who didn't bring a book, doesn't rent the movie and expects me to entertain them. Guess I will have to be very careful now...:eyes:

It's OK for him to get on a plane with out taking his meds. When he becomes unstable and runs into the cockpit and crashes the plane, he is innocent. After all with out his meds he is insane and not responsible for his actions.

THAT IS PARKED AT THE GATE?

If you get on a plane without taking your meds, you will only become unstable when it's on the ground?!?!

You should shoot and kill mentally ill people who haven't taken their meds?!?!

If a person decides not to take their meds and they are with a sane spouse that allows them to board an airliner and because of that non complaint you become irrational and create a disruption, the blame lies with the person that made the choice not to take the meds, not the law enforcement person that has to deal with them.

You are so right, this is BIGGER then this debate - KILL ALL DISRUPTERS!! You either tow the line or die. We'll be good germans, er, americans.

are giving goose step lessons? :crazy:

The facts are a man is dead, shot by AMs. You justify it by saying he could have run into the cockpit and crashed the plane.

So I asked, how can he crash a plane that is parked at the gate?

We are talking about this specific incident, or do you want to have a policy that says, that mentally ill people are not allowed on planes, buses, trains or in traffic in general, because they could all, potentially, crash said plane, bus, train or car?

He was on the jet way .. (show much for protecting the passsengers) there are security doors at the end of the Jet way, close the doors and he is trapped, and if the jetway was crowed as some suggest, why would you fire into a crowd? The story we get does not make sense.

They fired into the potential bomber. Secondly how do you get those doors closed before he runs out? You can't expect the doors to be shut and locked instantly because a bomber suddenly appears. The Marshals can not expect the doors to be locked instantly. They need to secure him and the situation. Unfortunately the only option, failing cooperation, is to shoot the potential bomber.

be boarded by all passengers, there could only be a few people on the jet way, ( not many people were endangered) the doors are always attended too by at least 2 attendants when they are OPEN ,they would have closed the doors.

so far of what is coming out is weakening your position in my eyes. This is not a flame as I'm waiting for confirmation from all accounts. I still haven't made my mind up if this was handled in a reasonable manner devoid of unreasonable fear. I need to know WHY they suspected this passenger of being a terrorist and his wife a terrorist conspirator. It's got to pass the smell test for me and not be a debate of operating procedure AFTER they decided he was a threat.

I fired off a rant in another thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5543248&mesg_id=5555009

I feel bad about it, but sometimes DU bullets do pierce my "thick skin" too :(

First of all, people who aren't taking their meds when they should fly all the time, and they have every right to. Unless the person has been ordered by a judge, nobody can be forced to take their medication. And thus, there are many people who don't. And yes, they've acted out on planes before, and were not shot to death because of it.

In addition, the vast majority of law enforcement agencies train their officers to spot the difference between a real threat and somebody who is having a psychotic episode. Either these officers never had this training, in which case the FAM program is negligent, or the officers simply didn't heed the training they received, in which case the officers are negligent.

And frankly people get riled on a plane for various reason all kinds of reason. Mentally retarded/developmentally disabled, diabetic low on insulin, hyperglycemic low on sugar, epileptic seizure, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Hell some people hate to fly and sometimes act out because of that. Does that me we should shoot them all? Hell no!

Sorry, but this was an act of gross negligence by the FAMs, even if you do buy into their official story. But it becomes even more so as more and more eyewitness accounts leak out and the official story starts to fray around the edges. Sorry friend, but much like the innocent life taken in London, this shooting is indefensible. That so many wish to do so is a measure of how much fear and loathing has taken a grip on our society in the past few years. Sad, very sad.

No amount of training allows a person to instantly detect dangerous and non dangerous people. Reality is it doesn't work that way. It take TIME to determine that and a bomb doesn't give you that sort of luxary. So there is doubt and when it doubt you need to error on the side of caution. In this case if you suspect a bomb, the most safety is achieved by disabling the bomber ASAP.

As for the Meds I have discussed that in other responses.

I worked with the mentally ill, and the mentally retarded/developmentally disabled for years. I can spot a person in either one of those catagories a mile away, and most people who have been properly trained can do so also.

Even before I worked in the profession, before I received any training, I could generally do so. I lived with a bi-polar father growing up, and such illnesses always have set off my radar. I also have several family members in law enforcement who have received the training that I mentioned, and they have used it effectively several dozen times over the years. If this sort of training wasn't effective, if it took as long as you claim, then we would have had thousands of the mentally ill already shot dead by now, and this poor gentleman's death wouldn't be such a shock. Instead, police officers and other law enforcement officials have successfully and non-lethally dealth with the mentally ill for decades now, with few fatalities.

As for as this man's meds go, how do you know that he hadn't run out? He was, after all, doing missionary work in his home country for a long time, perhaps he ran out, and was trying to make it home? What, we should mandate meds for everybody who has been labeled "mentally ill". Damn, sounds like Soviet style tactics to me friend, but the last I know of, we're still in the US.

And your possible scenario with this man taking over and/or threatening the cockpit, well gee, that is supposedly what we have AMs for, isn't it. Besides, this sort of situation has come up before in airline history, and was dealt with non-lethally. If it has been done before, why couldn't it have been done this time? Especially since the man's wife was right there, telling these AMs what was going on. But no, they ignored her, ignored the obvious signs of mental illness, and instead opted to shoot this innocent in cold blood. Welcome to America, post 911, where indeed everything has changed, and Osama, who hated us for our freedoms, is indeed winning, for we are quickly becoming a police state, shoot first and CYA later:scared:

You apparantly never have been trained in or associated with anyone in law enforcement. As for your magical powers to spot a mentally ill person from a mile away... BRAVO! You have a unique talent.

Fortunately I was lucky enough to be involved in a project for SoA regarding LE and Mental Health. There IS training going on in LE. How we treat the elderly, the weak and the ill is an indictment against us as a civilization.

Like where I said that I have many family members who were in law enforcement, and that all of them had been trained to spot, and deal non-lethaly with, the mentally ill.

And no, it isn't a unique talent, it is training, exposure, training, and an attitude of wanting to help people rather than shoot first and CYA later.

And yes, the mentally ill are fairly easy to spot if you know how. It is in their movements, looks, mannerisms, speech, eyes, etc. Herky jerky, nervous, inappropriate vocalizing, etc. etc. Don't believe me, go get the training yourself.

so if it comes out he never said the word "bomb" will you then justify the killing by saying he should have taken his meds?

Why are some posters who are so indignant over criticism of the air marshals so quick to blame the dead man and his wife? In your OP, you state that it was OK for the air marshals to make a mistake, but your empathy for human error apparently does not extend to the man with mental illness and his wife. I find that sad.

A number of posters have described the incredible difficulty in dealing with family members with mental illness. I have friends who are going through this struggle, and they sure wish it were as simple as some of you make it sound. Finding the appropriate medications is usually a very long process and drugs that once worked can stop working or can cause horrible side effects. Sadly, there is no magic formula to ensure that people are properly medicated at all times. And then throw in the incredible mess of insurance and access to mental health services, and you are dealing with challenges that overwhelm even the strongest families. Please take the time to read some of the posts made by DU'ers who are facing these problems. You may learn that it is not as simple as you think to make sure that a family member takes their meds IF they are even lucky enough to have found meds that work for them.

There is a man dead who had no bomb and there are a lot of unanswered questions, and I cannot help but think back to all of the intentional disinformation that was out there in the MSM after that poor Brazilian man got shot in London. I don't understand the eagerness of many here to quickly accept the government's explanation of what occurred, and place all of the blame on the dead man and his wife.

that are really making this place start to suck.

BTW: We had a whole thread yesterday about the same exact thing. I don't see why we need a new one?

With the Air Marshals being dragged through the mud???

I do wish that the mods would consolidate threads that are about the same exact thing or that posters would be more careful about starting new ones when there are already multiple threads going but that seems to be difficult around here.

OK I get the logic..:crazy:

Bombs give people seconds to act. In Iraq we had the luxary of months or years to act. Tell me why create such a poor analogy?

seeing what we create. the environment of fear and overwhelming control and authority we have given in airports are creating enough anxiety for the most normal of people to have panic attacks. let alone anybody with any kind of already anxieties. so as you point the finger at this person, you are feeding to and helping to create an even greater loss of control for the average person. ergo an escalation of these events.

the whole psychological phenomenon that has taken place in the "airport" the mass of mankind in a small space, the thoughts of death in explosions and planes falling out of sky.... wow, just makes me not want to go into that mess even more.

then the damn smoker, looking for a place, for just one ne one puff, oh god, i need just a puff. yup

man, i have to go in in march. really really dont want to

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.' "

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-planefolo0905dec09,0,3421926.story?page=1&coll=orl-home-headlines

I find it interesting that by my count seven passengers have now gone on record as stating that they heard NO talk of a bomb. Has anyone read of an account where a passenger has gone on record as stating that they DID hear Alpizar saying he had a bomb? Have I missed something? Anyone have articles where NAMED passengers have made such a statement?

I am actually impressed by the people that did not buy into the general "yay! he's dead - good job - too bad he was mentally ill." More critical thinkers.

unnamed "senior officials" have stated that he did. That's just as good, right?

unnamed "senior officials" over the word of actual passengers that have been identified. :eyes:

That is exactly the right attitude to have in Bush's America. "Officials" = "right" - we really don't need the passengers' testimony at all, do we?

I know I need to start practicing when DU starts sounding like a right wing board.

Hey, thanks for the article link. I stole it from you on another thread! I thought it needed to be injected into this discussion.

I'm glad you thought it could help. It seems like the more we can get the facts out, the better.

from the article 'His response, she said, was "I have a bomb." Do flight attendants not count as witnesses?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-12-08-marshals-defense_x.htm

With the caveat that in the linked article it is flight attendant spokesperson Lonny Glover who says she said he said.

In any event, federal air marshall spokesperson James Bauer said: "At some point, he uttered threatening words that included a sense that, in fact, that he had a bomb."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/july-dec05/miami_12-7.html

Here is the bomb threat account from USA today:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-12-08-marshals-defense_x.htm

Rigoberto Alpizar, 44, made the bomb threat after a flight attendant blocked him from exiting Flight 924 just minutes before the plane was scheduled to leave for Orlando, said Lonny Glover, national safety coordinator for the Association of Professional Flight Attendants.

"As the man came forward it was obvious that he was upset," Glover said. "That's when one of our attendants at the front of plane told him, 'Sir, you can't leave the plane.' His response, she said, was 'I have a bomb.' It was at that point that the air marshals gave up their cover and pursued him out the door and up the jetbridge."

He was trying to leave the plane voluntarily.

Now, why would he do that if he was intent to blow up the plane?

My guess is, and yes, this is purely a guess, that there is a sense in law enforcement, that every person is a potential threat. That they are told that terrorists are every where and are just waiting to strike. And that this impression clouds rational judgment. If you view every situation as a threat, you cannot react rationally. Every person acting up becomes a potential target.

Apparently he did not run down the aisle saying "bomb, bomb, bomb...". The passengers did not witness his behavior after he got out of the plane.

Of course, we're talking about State sanctioned medications, those produced at great profit to corporations that fund political campaigns. All other drugs are prohibited.

Taking away free will does that.

that's why they call it an accident. As satisfying as it is to place blame in a tragedy, sometimes stuff happens that's nobody's fault.

What the hell am I thinking? How dare I demand accountability - Sheesh thanks for the wakeup call. These things "just happen"

Unfortunately there's a lot of hysteria and misinformation on this board about this topic. I wish more people had the clear sense that you do!

This place had gone completely off the rails lately.

What I am upset about, and what every citizen should be upset about, is that the official story keeps changing. It keeps changing, because witnesses come forward a call bull shit on the previous version.

Why did they claim anything about a bomb as part of the first official statement?

Now, apparently, he made a statement about a bomb, in the gangway! And not on the plane.

It is a tragedy. And I'm sure the marshals were doing what they thought was best. But the fact is that they made a mistake & a man died because of it. I really do understand what a difficult position the air marshals were in, but I wish they would simply tell the truth about it - apologize if necessary, call it a tragic accident if that's what it is. It's the lies & constant spinning that really bothers me - it suggests that maybe someone is at fault here.

I am so sick of people trying to assign blame to one side or another in this tragic situation


Hey you want a real reality check? How about waking up to the fact that our government, the US government, is creating a situation in which everyone in this nation is being made to be afraid of something. We have dumb asses making policies to protect against all of these unseen dangers and they can't think their way out of a paper bag.

Listen, I don't blame the air marshall and all of this "jack booted thug" shit needs to stop unless proven otherwise. He's was probably a normal guy who was going to work and then this shit happened. I don't know what went down and it seems from a lot of these threads that no one really knows what went down. So your plea for understanding for the air marshall falls upon receptive ears here.

But your assigning blame on the dead man and his wife is disgusting. I have a mentally challenged 30 year old Autistic stepson. He's polite in company, hard working and just a sweet guy. But he also rolls his eyes and sucks his teeth when you ask him the simplest of questions. Has no ill intent at all. Just a symptom of his illness. After 30 years, his dad has decided to become a part of his life. WHich means that my wife and I have to put him on a plane for the holidays. We've done it before. A good thing. We want him to become more independent. So what, according to your theory, we shouldn't put him on a plane? Hey while your at it , why don't you build a few soulless institutions and just lock all of these "unstable" people away? Then we wouldn't have situations like this. And what the fuck is the definition of unstable anyway? I've seen "normal" people who were assholes that seemed pretty unstable to me.

If you really want to make a point place some blame at the feet of a federal government which believes that if you act just a little bit strange, you're a danger. Here's another reality check: There's probably more mentally "unstable" people in this country than terrorists. And it seems to me than any well thought out security policy would have taken this into account and have a procedure to account for just this very situation. Jeez, you think our government would have factored it into their procedures. Naw: The SOP is probably just shoot the son of a bitch and we'll sort it out later.

I don't blame the air marshall one bit. In fact, I bet this guy is all fucked up about this right now. But blaming the victim in this case makes no sense either. You ever have to travel with someone who is mentally ill? That poor woman's only thought was to try to get home ASAP.

Unbelievable

But you probably also believe that:

What happened to the Katrina victims was their fault.
That it's ok to taser old ladies and kids.
And that GWB found Christ

edited for spelling