Air marshals' shooting of passenger in December justified

[Wretched Wrench]

The system in this instance worked. They did everything right and gave the man multiple chances to stop and comply. He refused to do so.

So, he was killed for "refusing to comply"?

Yeah, I don't think you really mean that, but there is too much of killing someone because of "I thought he was reaching for a gun" or something. Or, in your words "he could have grabbed a gun". Of course, only law enforcement can do that. I remember a deaf mute shot by police as he reached for his "I am a deaf mute" card so they could read it. Yeah, they thought he was reaching for a gun. If a civilian, in fear of his life, does the same thing, he is held to a much higher standard, both in criminal and civil law. I am waiting for a person to be shot for reaching for his cell phone. Some people scare me with their quick-draw cell phone-grabbing.

I know the air marshals have a tough call to make, and this one was a tough one. But he guessed wrong, and a man died. The marshal is not a criminal, but he should never carry a gun again. I believe law enforcement in general needs to be held more accountable for their mistakes, particularly their fatal mistakes. In some jurisdictions, there are more unarmed people than armed killed by police.

 

[FA Mikey]

So, he was killed for "refusing to comply"?

Yeah, I don't think you really mean that, but there is too much of killing someone because of "I thought he was reaching for a gun" or something. Or, in your words "he could have grabbed a gun". Of course, only law enforcement can do that. I remember a deaf mute shot by police as he reached for his "I am a deaf mute" card so they could read it. Yeah, they thought he was reaching for a gun. If a civilian, in fear of his life, does the same thing, he is held to a much higher standard, both in criminal and civil law. I am waiting for a person to be shot for reaching for his cell phone. Some people scare me with their quick-draw cell phone-grabbing.

He was, at that second a threat to himself, the passengers, the crew, the aircraft,the terminal and the agents themselves.
How many people are shot reaching for deaf mute cards,VS how many police and federal agents are shot and killed each year, in the line of duty?

Law enforcement routinely show and have incredible restraint in using lethal force. It doesn't make the paper when an officer doesn't shoot, and may have had right to. Too many people put themselves in these stupid and dangerous situations, get hurt or even killed, and believe the law enforcement should have waited to see if it really was a gun. In a country where the NRA and other groups have sought to get concealed guns on more and more people. Law enforcement has to assume for there own safety someone is potentially armed.

With guns pointing at you and repeated attempts to get someone to comply with a basic command, and you don't. Then reach around to your side, or in a bag, one has to assume you are going for a weapon. If he had partially complied with the officers, then the dynamics would have changed and perhaps a tragedy would have been avoided.

In the case he made no attempt to comply and then made movements that were interpreted and rightfully so as threatening.

If some simply reached for a cell phone fast, why would they be fired on? Unless they are in a situation here they are being told to get down, continue to resist and reach under a jacket. If a FAM or cop saw this and then a flash of metal. What would your guess be? Oh he must be reaching for his phone, everyone put down your guns while the suspect takes a call.

I know the air marshals have a tough call to make, and this one was a tough one. But he guessed wrong, and a man died. The marshal is not a criminal, but he should never carry a gun again. I believe law enforcement in general needs to be held more accountable for their mistakes, particularly their fatal mistakes. In some jurisdictions, there are more unarmed people than armed killed by police.

Law enforcement is held accountable. In any case with the discharge of a weapon they are put on leave or a desk job pending an investigation by the department and the local D.A. basically guilty until proven innocent.

In far more jurisdictions more police killed than armed people

 

[PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH]

What were the officers supposed to do? The guy said he had a bomb. The guy had a backpack with him. The guy was acting in a "crazy" manner(alot of bombers are crazy aka "THE UNAMAILER,oops I mean UNABOMBER"). The guy refused to drop the backback and even reached into it. What if the "crazy man" did have a bomb and it exploded? People would then be saying "Why didn't they shoot him when they had the chance?". If I ever encounter someone chanting "I have a bomb", I'm going to believe them until after I blast them with my shotgun to prove otherwise.

 

[Bob Owens]

He was, at that second a threat to himself, the passengers, the crew, the aircraft,the terminal and the agents themselves.

How was he a threat when he had no weapons?

In a country where the NRA and other groups have sought to get concealed guns on more and more people. Law enforcement has to assume for there own safety someone is potentially armed.

Fine, and thats why they had their guns drawn, they are not supposed to shoot unless they see a gun or weapon, thats how they are trained. Law enforcement officers are supposed to be trained to study behavior and to take into account that sometimes people who are upset do not comply, I agree that its a tough job, but they are not supposed to use deadly force unless there is no other option and they are trained to subdue people. This guy was in a confined area, therefore no longer a threat to passengers, his only way off the jetbridge was back on to the plane.

The fact is that those guys screwed up. Maybe they werent trained properly. Its not all that uncommon for people who have a fear of flying to freak out and run off a plane, it happens all the time, and his actions were consistant with a panicing passenger, not a terrorist. Most of the cirmstances point towards a panicing passenger, not a terrorist. Its not like they guy was in a dark alley in a rough neighborhood where cops are at great risk, he had passed through security,(granted its not perfect) was in a well light corridor with no way out, and was shouting and making his presence clear. You say maybe he was going to set off a bomb in the terminal, well that doesnt stand up to logic either, if that was his intent then why would he pass through the terminal, no doubt wait for an hour or so there, board the plane, then, while drawing attention to himself go back to the terminal? The fact is that all his actions point towards what you could expect from someone who is mentally unbalanced and freaking out, not someone who is carrying out a planned terrorist attack.

 

[eolesen]

Bob, you'd better stick to a job where you do something like follow the GPM verbatim. You don't obviously have much of a stomach for having to make split second decisions, nor do you have any respect for those who have to make split second decisions based on what they see in front of them...

The FAM's gave this guy plenty of time to get down on the ground. He didn't. Instead, he repeatedly ignored commands from LEO's.

Reaching into the backpack could signal his reaching for a weapon, a grendate, or pulling the trigger on a suicide bomb. A ham sandwich? Please. I know you're not that ignorant. Or at least I hope you're not.

I managed to get test grenades and a test bomb thru the checkpoints at MIA without them being detected (they were encapsulated in Lucite), so don't give me any crap about the TSA having screened his backpack.

I don't rejoice in anyone's death, but I also don't second guess law enforcement for making what they feel was a justifiable use of force.

More cops are killed by hesitating to use force when it is justified than are civilians by cops using force when it is not justified.

 

[Wretched Wrench]

More cops are killed by hesitating to use force when it is justified than are civilians by cops using force when it is not justified.

That's quite a statement. Whose criteria are you citing when you say "justified".

Here in El Lay, the shooting of an unarmed person by police is common, but is always "justified" when the LAPD investigates itself.

And, like the incident in question, they also shoot people for not getting down on the ground, a death penalty offense here, too.

 

[FWAAA]

That's quite a statement. Whose criteria are you citing when you say "justified".

Here in El Lay, the shooting of an unarmed person by police is common, but is always "justified" when the LAPD investigates itself.

And, like the incident in question, they also shoot people for not getting down on the ground, a death penalty offense here, too.

Exactly. Even better, wasn't it just a few months ago that the Iraq War veteran was nearly executed by the deputy sheriff thug in Riverside or San Bernadino County for apparently COMPLYING with the deputy's repeated demands to "GET UP"?

About Mr Alpizar: Only the truly paranoid would believe a deranged man's claims and think he had a real bomb on a MIA jetway. Real bombs are simply detonated, not announced by obviously mentally ill men (whose wives are screaming that they didn't take their meds).

Of course the slugs at the TSA might miss a gun or bomb. But odds are, they won't. And in this case, they didn't.

But all's well that ends well. Mentally ill man executed - that'll teach all those mentally ill citizens to neglect their meds or have a panic attack on an airplane. And the cheerleaders for Sky Marshals have yet another "atta boy" incident justifying the existence of the sky marshals.

Call me when the marshals actually prevent an airplane from flying into a skyscraper instead of holding an entire airplane at gunpoint (several DCA 30 minute rule violations or the SLC Olympic 30 minute rule violations). Yes, September 11 happened. It was horrible. But it's over, and our nation's collective refusal to "stand down" with respect to airplanes is ridiculous.

 

[Wretched Wrench]

Let me clarify a little. I am totally in favor of sky marshals. In fact we need more of them protecting passengers rather than acting as bodyguards for politicians. And, sadly, misjudgments will happen. They are human. But they need to face the same consequences for their misjudgments as I do. No more, no less. Being human, if they know they will actually face some serious consequences for fatal misjudgments, they will be more careful and exercise better judgment. And, yes, too much caution will get you killed. Too little will kill unarmed people. Now and then, one of them has to make a tough call. They have high civilian pay and civil service protection, benefits and retirement you or I would kill for. Compare them to our soldiers today who are at far greater risk and make those decisions hourly.

The only real threat we have is explosives. Either enough to blow a BIG hole in a fuselage or a skillful application to the cockpit door. Guns, knives or backpacks in jetways are not threats.

You will note I said BIG hole in fuselage. How big is BIG? I was Army, so didn't get close up measurements of AF holes, but maybe some Air Force VN vets can comment on just how large a hole an airplane can withstand. I remember it is pretty big, but would be interested in specific information from a vet. I have read that the shoe bomb would not have brought down the airplane. I do know that AA had a bulk cargo door open on a DC10, and the major malfunction was the decompression and the rush of air caused the floor to buckle and jam tail control cables. Pretty big hole, that door. I don't remember how much it opened, but it was enough to let a coffin pass.

 

[QA4Jet-A]

Let me clarify a little. I am totally in favor of sky marshals. In fact we need more of them protecting passengers rather than acting as bodyguards for politicians. And, sadly, misjudgments will happen. They are human. But they need to face the same consequences for their misjudgments as I do. No more, no less. Being human, if they know they will actually face some serious consequences for fatal misjudgments, they will be more careful and exercise better judgment. And, yes, too much caution will get you killed. Too little will kill unarmed people. Now and then, one of them has to make a tough call. They have high civilian pay and civil service protection, benefits and retirement you or I would kill for. Compare them to our soldiers today who are at far greater risk and make those decisions hourly.

The only real threat we have is explosives. Either enough to blow a BIG hole in a fuselage or a skillful application to the cockpit door. Guns, knives or backpacks in jetways are not threats.

You will note I said BIG hole in fuselage. How big is BIG? I was Army, so didn't get close up measurements of AF holes, but maybe some Air Force VN vets can comment on just how large a hole an airplane can withstand. I remember it is pretty big, but would be interested in specific information from a vet. I have read that the shoe bomb would not have brought down the airplane. I do know that AA had a bulk cargo door open on a DC10, and the major malfunction was the decompression and the rush of air caused the floor to buckle and jam tail control cables. Pretty big hole, that door. I don't remember how much it opened, but it was enough to let a coffin pass.

IMHO, the only mis-judgement was in the behavior of the demised pax. If you act erratically, state you have a bomb and refuse LEO's orders, then reach into a suspect bag, you deserve what you get. That was plain and simply stupid.

 

[local 12 proud]

IMHO, the only mis-judgement was in the behavior of the demised pax. If you act erratically, state you have a bomb and refuse LEO's orders, then reach into a suspect bag, you deserve what you get. That was plain and simply stupid.

Exactly!

 

[PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH]

All the bleeding hearts on this billboard need to get a job in law enforcement and find out what it is like to face tough situations,make split second decisions,and then be critized no matter what decision they make. These air marshalls were damned if they did, damned if they didn't.

Crazy man didn't didn't take his medicine. Wife of crazy man didn't make sure crazy man took his medicine. Yet,some people on this board think it was the Air marshall's job to make sure crazy man had took his medicine? Why was this crazy man allowed on the plane to begin with? Why are the "normal" passengers forced to put up with "CRAZY" people on the plane anyway?

 

[j7915]

All the bleeding hearts on this billboard need to get a job in law enforcement and find out what it is like to face tough situations,make split second decisions,and then be critized no matter what decision they make. These air marshalls were damned if they did, damned if they didn't.

Crazy man didn't didn't take his medicine. Wife of crazy man didn't make sure crazy man took his medicine. Yet,some people on this board think it was the Air marshall's job to make sure crazy man had took his medicine? Why was this crazy man allowed on the plane to begin with? Why are the "normal" passengers forced to put up with "CRAZY" people on the plane anyway?

Ever ride in front of some old foggy who didn't like the beer selection on board? Sounds crazy too doesn't it? And this guy's wife was trying to make him be reasonable too.

The pax the air marshall shot was no threat to the airplane anymore, he might have been a threat in the terminal. Air marshalls are supposed to fly icognito, these two idiots just gave their ID away to any of a number of potential hijackers casing flights.

The split second decision these two marshalls made was that they forgot what their mission is, and law enforcement ranks way below counterterrorism. Which is why the FBI is not very good at counterterrorism and counterespionage, job one is to prevent the action, job two build a legal case.

With cell phone cameras, one could easely build a picture record, starting with these two and all the folks they talks too...

Kind of like the Valerie Plame outing, outed everyone she met during her work for the CIA.

 

[FA Mikey]

How was he a threat when he had no weapons?

No one at the time knew he had no real weapon. Just because someone doesn't posses a weapon does not mean they are not a threat. Every instance is different.

Fine, and thats why they had their guns drawn, they are not supposed to shoot unless they see a gun or weapon, thats how they are trained.

In certain situations. Not all situation will be alike. In Florida as well as most other states, use of deadly force is justified in an attempt to take, steal, or wrestle away an officers gun, mace or radio.

Law enforcement officers are supposed to be trained to study behavior and to take into account that sometimes people who are upset do not comply, I agree that its a tough job, but they are not supposed to use deadly force unless there is no other option and they are trained to subdue people.

Explain how you would subdue someone in this situation.

This guy was in a confined area, therefore no longer a threat to passengers, his only way off the jetbridge was back on to the plane.

Or in to the terminal, either one posed the potential for a large loss of life.

The fact is that those guys screwed up.

Dept. of homeland security and the Local D.A. say you are wrong. They have all the facts and statements from all the witness. All the facts to the case. You are just going on media reports and a personal bias, to law enforcement.

Its not all that uncommon for people who have a fear of flying to freak out and run off a plane, it happens all the time, and his actions were consistant with a panicing passenger, not a terrorist.

Says you. But being a flight attendant and having been with passengers from boarding to deplaning for the last 15 years. I have NEVER seen someone run off the plane. I challenge you to show us how frequently it happens as you say.

His actions were consistent with that of a panicked passenger and not that of a terrorist? Are you serious? How many other panicked passengers have airlines had that ran up the aisle of a plane yelling bomb and refusing to stop when confronted by armed law enforcement? He was rightfully viewed as a potential terrorist

Most of the cirmstances point towards a panicing passenger, not a terrorist.

Its not like they guy was in a dark alley in a rough neighborhood where cops are at great risk, he had passed through security,(granted its not perfect) was in a well light corridor with no way out, and was shouting and making his presence clear.

So only bad things happen in dark alleys?

Bob gone are the days when villains wore dark capes top hats and twirled their mustaches. Today you cannot spot a terrorist or someone out to do you harm. Just the same way wars cannot be fought the same way. No longer we fighting countries, but fighting ideology and people with no uniform or allegiance to a country or place.

You say maybe he was going to set off a bomb in the terminal, well that doesnt stand up to logic either, if that was his intent then why would he pass through the terminal, no doubt wait for an hour or so there, board the plane, then, while drawing attention to himself go back to the terminal?

Bob you cannot use logic in trying to determine the mind of a psychotic, of someone who has chosen to use there body to destroy the lives of others. Logic has no place in calculating there actions.

The fact is that all his actions point towards what you could expect from someone who is mentally unbalanced and freaking out, not someone who is carrying out a planned terrorist attack.

None of his actions point more toward panic over terrorist.

That's quite a statement. Whose criteria are you citing when you say "justified".

Here in El Lay, the shooting of an unarmed person by police is common, but is always "justified" when the LAPD investigates itself.

And, like the incident in question, they also shoot people for not getting down on the ground, a death penalty offense here, too.

The DA investagates all deathes by police.They are cleared by two different bodies of the law. Dont know about LA but most cities also have a citizen review board.

So lets see the facts on your death penalty offence of not getting on the ground.

 

[eolesen]

Mohammed Atta wasn't a threat either, until he and his cohorts started killing people with items that were legal to be carried onboard an aircraft.

I don't know about you, but I want my law enforcement officers to be paranoid and alert. This ain't Pleasantville or Mayberry RFD.

 

[FA Mikey]

The only real threat we have is explosives. Either enough to blow a BIG hole in a fuselage or a skillful application to the cockpit door. Guns, knives or backpacks in jetways are not threats.

The box cutters that slit the troats of the FA's and pilots were and continue to be a threat.

You will note I said BIG hole in fuselage. How big is BIG? I was Army, so didn't get close up measurements of AF holes, but maybe some Air Force VN vets can comment on just how large a hole an airplane can withstand. I remember it is pretty big, but would be interested in specific information from a vet. I have read that the shoe bomb would not have brought down the airplane. I do know that AA had a bulk cargo door open on a DC10, and the major malfunction was the decompression and the rush of air caused the floor to buckle and jam tail control cables. Pretty big hole, that door. I don't remember how much it opened, but it was enough to let a coffin pass.

I believe it was NASA and the FAA who used 2 scraped 720's to test bomb and explosive decompression. One bomb placed in an OH bin blew out a huge hole one they determined was unsurvivable for the AC. Using a second one they placed near a door. The door gave way and absorbed most of the blast. It produced no major damage to flight controls and was determined to be survivable. Might explain How the DC10 cargo door saved the day.

The show bomber was next to the window and I believe the emergency exit, which puts him next to the wing and a fuel cell. How that would have play out hard to say.