Australian news: "Airline bomb claim unravels" re: Air Marshal shooting

Australian article presented for interest's sake. I sympathize with the marshals doing their job in a gray area at the heat of the moment as well as for the widow; however, facts should come out, not the "Baghdad Bob" press version. Scotty McClelland has already opined that "these marshals appear to have acted in a way that's consistent with the extensive training that they have received." And Rep. John (R-Fla), chairman of the House aviation subcommittee says: “The system worked exactly as designed. Right now we are on edge about anyone having a bomb.” I hope the facts are uncovered and again feel for both "sides" here, especially remembering the South American who was shot in the London tube after also having been portrayed as "having a bomb" last summer...

==

THE man who was shot and killed by US air marshals in Miami on Thursday appeared to suffer a panic attack and never spoke of a bomb, says a passenger who watched Rigoberto Alpizar dash up the plane's aisle...

"He threatened that he had a bomb in his backpack," Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Doyle said. But the incident is now being compared with July's shooting of an innocent Brazilian electrician on the London Underground. "He just wanted to get off the plane," said passenger John McAlhany, who was sitting in the middle of the Boeing 757....

Mr McAlhany told Time magazine he was sitting in the middle of the plane when he heard Alpizar arguing with his wife, saying: "I have to get off the plane." She said: "Calm down." Alpizar, who was sitting near the back of the plane, ran down the aisle, his wife close behind.

"She was running behind him saying, 'He's sick. He's sick. He's ill. He's got a disorder,' " Mr McAlhany recalled. "I don't know if she said bipolar disorder (as one witness has alleged). She was trying to explain to the marshals that he was ill. He just wanted to get off the plane. "I never heard the word 'bomb' until the FBI asked me: 'Did you hear the word bomb?' " The authorities would not mention the word "bomb", Mr McAlhany said. "They asked: 'Did you hear anything about the B-word?' "That's what they called it." ....

http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,17514303%255E954,00.html

Truly, I think the mystery of whether marshals may or may not be on board do deter terrorism. My big argument here is the government immediately stepping in to call it a 'clean shoot' before even investigating all the facts because of the anxiety that anything an official does might ever be wrong.

She said 30 passengers said that the man said nothing of the 'b' word.

and she also claimed that the passenger came from Medillin, he came from Ecuador. I would like to know what Randi has to say about what the crew has to say. Rhandi Rhodes had many many many inacuracies, she was going on about how the air marshals are thugs who could not get a job elsewhere and they were rejects, that is only not true but it is irresponsible. I have flown and worked along side of some of these air marshals. So many here are ready to believe every single thing any passenger said, but who has any interest in holding off and waiting until we hwear from the crew, from the agents, from the flight attendants. They are prohibited by law from making any comments and we can speculate about the agents all we want and call them thugs, druggies and rejects?

It does not make a difference what his wife was yelling, she could have been what they call a distraction, to a lesser degree of an example, the guy in front of you bumps into you or knocks you down and their partner robs you while helping you up. There are many instances of distraction. It was a horrible situation and I am not saying the agents were justified, but we don't know enough of what happened to come to a conclusion, so to malign these people without knowing all the facts is wrong.

There is two sides to every situation. before we vilify the agents can we at least wait until we have heard their side, or have we already made up our minds? I find it very curious as to how come all of a sudden the MSM is telling the truth? It is still the same old CNN etc that is reporting the witnesses?

We've heard the air marshalls say they told the guy to get down, that the guy said something to the affect of having a bomb, and they shot him 5 times.

We've heard at least 7 witnesses say he didn't say anything about a bomb.

It's still a free country and last time I checked, people could get on and off of planes any time they want to. His mental illness isn't even relevant, she could just as well have been saying her husband was having a recurrence of a flu bug and decided to get off the plane. "He's sick" really could have meant anything. Going to shoot sick people all over the country now?

"...but who has any interest in holding off and waiting until we hwear from the crew, from the agents, from the flight attendants. They are prohibited by law from making any comments..."

If the authorities were interested in the public hearing the truth, the crew and flight attendants would be allowed to comment. That they are prohibited from commenting speaks volumes.

it was his wife, not "what they call a distraction" and that does make a difference.

of it, showing how "prepared" they have made the airlines for real bombers.

... about this in the context of terrorism, and its intentions. In this case, as with the Brazilian electrician in London, there has been an instantaneous execution, followed by official attempts to justify it.

No one seems to be saying the obvious: in a different political environment, there would be an immediate inquiry and the obvious conclusion would be that the marshals overreacted to a commonplace situation. The reason why that has not happened (and why even people here, supposedly open-minded, approve of the arbitrary killing of an innocent person) is that there was a presumption of potential terrorism on the part of the people doing the killing, and that excuses, in the minds of many, the act itself.

This is precisely what happens when the country, led by a manipulative government, succumbs to fear. This is how the terrorists have won. It's not a matter of thwarting them, of "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here," as the demagogic Bush would say. We are now fighting and killing each other out of fear.

We are now less free than we were, because people continue to believe that, because of terrorism, we must sacrifice liberty for security. This is an object lesson in how far we've gone down the wrong path.

that this incident proves how effectively homeland security is performing.:rofl:

... the slack:

http://jameswolcott.com/archives/2005/12/killer_portfoli.php

Most of us know that it's bad practice for an investigator to "suggest" facts to a witness, hence the possible use of B-word instead. However, there's no practical rhetorical difference between "B-word" and "bomb" when questioning a witness to this event. In effect, the investigators were being suggestive. At least according to McAlhany, who contradicts himself in his account.

"I never heard the word 'bomb' until the FBI asked me: 'Did you hear the word bomb?'"

Of course, that may just be evidence of the lack of rhetorical difference between "B-word and "bomb" in this circumstance.

I'm still waiting for more info from witnesses before forming a more certain opinion.

and it sums up my feelings about the heavy handed authority in this country. The word is Bullshit

It's possible to be on the correct side with reason, ya know. :)

If it was in the back, that would IMHO point to an execution shooting..

Orlando paper has 7 passengers that said he did not say anything about a bomb.

:sarcasm:

covered up?

Not one word about it on the corporate media.