Air Marshal Shoots Passenger on Jetway
 

Well that didn't take all that long to happen. It was inevitable to happen...

If you are requested to stop by an officer, you should stop.

Think of it like FREEZE.... it means FREEZE, not cool down to a stop, it means stop immediately.

tough choice for the marshall to make.. but it's what he's paid to do. Better safe than sorry I suppose


oh and cyn.. can you take out the ads in your article :D

Good to hear it! I don't care if the guy was mentally ill... If you make a threat like that and then run away from law enforcement, you should be shot. I'm sure some civil liberties group will have a field day with this... damned liberals!

i'm glad the air marshall did what he did. i just hope the family doesn't come back and sue him and the bureau. who cares if the guy was nuts, he has to pay for his actions. sorry.

So much for your desire to be a centrist... :lol:

:) cut and paste, and ad blocker :) wheee!!!

Haha Charlatan... being a centrist doesn't mean being 100% neutral on 100% of the issues. :-p

If the fellow was mentally ill, I feel very badly for him and his family, but I agree, at first blush, it seems the marshall had to do what he did.

The comment "he has to pay for his actions" from radioguy, however, makes little sense.

it doesn't? why not? what does make sense?

It sounds justified, assuming the initial reports that we are hearing are true. However, I can't help but think of the guy shot on the London underground, which sounded justified at first, then more and more negative information was released.

the deceased claimed he had a bomb and ran off. he didn't stop and comply with the marshalls demands. those actions are what he is paying for.

there is some ugly posting here. deserved it? paying for it?

mental illnesses are just as organic as heart disease or cancer. unless you're argueing for eugenics, there's no sense in saying that someone deserved to die because of their disease.

hightheif got it right.

You might as well say "that tornado killed my family! I'm gonna make it pay for its actions!".

Doesn't that sound silly? It's the same thing.

IF the guy was out of his head, you're not "making him pay" for anything. You might be stopping him from doing something that endangers others. You might leave his family with a giant hole in their lives. You may even be doing the right thing. But you are not "making him pay". That would require that the guy understood what he was doing was wrong and somehow could have avoided the situation entirely.

It's about time part of our homeland security plan works.
Civil liberties don't include saying "I have a bomb"
then take of running.
The person with him said "he was mentally ill"
Her interview on the news tonite she said "he stopped takeing his med's"
That excuse is comparable to "the devil made me do it"

I agree that the marshal made the right decision.

If the man had bipolar disorder, then I have to ask why he was off his medication and why was he traveling without them? There just isn't enough information in that article for me to come to any conclusion aside from agreeing with the marshal's actions.

just for the sake of information...

many persons with bipolar disorder have trouble with their medications. most of the common choices for treatment induce Tardive Dyskinesia, a chemically induced version of Parkinson's disease. other effects can include a feeling that one's life is muted, slowed thinking, and feelings of isolation.

it's a serious illness, and the medication is pretty damn serious, too. choosing to be off medication is quite a risk, but it's not simple willfullness or stupidity that make people stop taking their medication. the disease itself contributes to feelings of wellbeing and invincibility, and tricks a lot of folks into thinking that they've recovered and no longer need medication. with such significant side-effects, it's often a very difficult argument to ask someone who feels better to continue on pills that are making them sick, even lose control of their body.

Thanks martin. My brother was often off his meds before he died. His meds made him constantly fatigued, gain a lot of weight, caused sleep problems, and after he was on them for awhile and felt better, would quit taking them because of the awful side effects. After he was off of them, it was hard to get him back on them because he would be delusional and wouldn't think he was sick...he would think the medicine was poison or something. (He was schizophrenic). I feel bad for this man and his family. Being off his meds isn't equal to the devil making him do it...it was a very unfortunate, sad incident and the air marshal did what he had to do.

If this is true, this is very, very sad. I fell horrible. Very sad situation.

So Is a law enforcement officer supposed to yell
"STOP or I'll shoot...unless you are mentaly ill"
And if the suspect is still running, assume mental illness,
and let him/her go?

With all the abuse of power and authority today
It seems we should praise the Law enforcement
community when they do their job right.
We should save the criticism for when they are in the wrong.
ie. tasering an old lady on camera in a police station
in Ohio, or the 9 year old in flordia.

Thank you for the information, martin. I'm somewhat familiar with bipolar disorder but was not aware how serious the medication was or the issues surrounding why someone might go off it. I take zoloft for panic attacks and if I miss a day or two, I feel a little off, but the effect is relatively minimal.


Alpha phi,

I don't think anyone here is arguing that the marshal shouldn't have shot the man. I think everyone is in agreement that the marshal made the right choice. What some of us are saying (myself included, even though I didn't mention it in my earlier post) is that it wasn't as if the man was deserving to die. There's a huge difference in understanding the marshal's actions and saying that the man got what he deserved.

What we're saying is that it's a very sad incident that a man lost his life and that another man was put in a position where he had to take another's life. There are no winners in this situation.

Well said. If any is going to pay for it, it will be the marshalls who shot the man. They have to live with the choice they made in the face of the awful dilemma put in front of them. I don't think any marshall, not matter how well trained, could not feel guilty (emotionally, not rationally) for shooting a person not in their right mind.

i guess my words "he payed for his actions" was a little harsh, but i don't see how someone doesn't know to NOT SAY I HAVE A BOMB in an airport. i don't care if he was bipolar. i'm not trying to sound callous (i have little experience with bipolar stuff), even a mentally challenged person knows what to say and what not to say in most instances. i do have experience with that. sorry if i used such strong words for some. just sharing my thoughts.

I think what would have been a more appropriate choice of words would be "His actions begot rational reactions". I think the real question here is, is it just to punish this man with death, seeing after the fact that he was actually only complicit in lower crimes that wouldn't have required his death. I am not asking if he was right in shooting him, it was the correct choice(based on this info), I am asking is this justice?
Before you answer consider this case, a man is convicted of a crime he did not commit, and is punished, is this just? Was it the right thing to do?

While the air marshal made the "correct" decision, it is still a tragedy nonetheless. Not sure I agree that he "deserved to die" or needed to "pay for his actions".

Still, the air marshals did their job, which cannot be an easy one.

This has nothing to do with justice. This is like walking into a building a few seconds before they demolish it. Whether it was the result of mental illness, alcohol or stupidity it was his actions that got him killed. It's sad, very sad but unless there are some details the Marchals are not putting forward (very likelly) this is no fault of theirs. This is more like fate, is fate just?

Mantus I don't think those situations are quite comparable, your situation is an accident, this one wasn't. Also, I think that no one here would disagree with you when you said that it was not the Marshal's fault. If I am not misreading no has said this.

The thing i'm still hearing from a lot of people ignores this simple fact: it doesn't matter if he's mentally ill, it doesn't matter if he's perfectly normal, or any other excuse you can come up with.

When it happens, at that very moment, when you're asked to stop and surrender to authorities because of your actions- saying you have a bomb in your bag- and then you reach for your bag, you will, and should be shot. At that moment, there is no way of knowing if you're bluffing, if you're serious, if you're mentally ill, etc.- their job is to protect and save lives, and if you reach for a bag you just said contains a bomb, you will be put down, no questions.

I don't understand how anyone can take issue with this. Medication or not, illness or not, the actions taken were REQUIRED for the safety of all those on the plane, and at the airport.

And that's all there is to it.

I disagree. The job itself requires mental conditioning that justifies the actions taken necessary to quell a dangerous situation. Given all the factors, I don't think they'll have any "guilt" or second-guessing at all. They did what they had to do- finding out he's mentally ill, either before or after he was shot, has no bearing on his actions and their effect. They did their job well.

okay, heres my take on this.. If this man did in fact have a mental illness and he was "off his meds" then I can see that he did not understand what he was doing and therefore should not have been shot.. but.. under the circumstances.. you cannot tell within seconds/mintues if he is mentally ill and therefore must make a decision to secure the situation... you cant exactly go.. "okay mr crazy man.. just sit down so we can discuss if you are bipolar while you may have a ticking bomb in that bag.. but we dont want to jump to conclusions or hurt you, so if you could anser a few questions....." No this doesnt work.. I commend the marshall for his actions and hope he would do it again if need be.

In my home town, Minneapolis, we had one of the highest rates of police shooting mentally ill persons. First, any time an officer has to draw a gun, chances are, there may be serious consequences. People in cross fire, officer wounded, it's not just about the offender. And it was causing huge problems with community trust. Folks assumed that the cops were the ones who just showed up to shoot their friends and relatives for no reason, and not when they were needed.

Things are finally on the mend, but one of the most important things they did was to train a squad of officers who are knowledgable about mental illness, and better able to assess the threat in a given situation.

The plane was already landed...the moment of highest threat passed. i assume from my reading that the officers were at least aware of the claim that this man was ill...which may have made them more likely to believe that this person was actually dangerous, a innacurate stereotype. i know they have to take this seriously...i don't suggest for a moment that they don't. But the intersection of mental illness and police cannot just be assumed to be a fatal reaction. The cost is simply too high.

If the "bomber" hand't been stopped/shot, and had run on to blow up a plane, there would have been justifiable criticism from everyone.

Air Marshals are hired for this reason. If they aren't going to shoot self-proclaimed bombers when they refuse to acknowledge orders, there is no point in hiring them in the first place.

Furthermore, I am not sure I understand why mental retarded individuals should be exempt from authority, and permitted to run unimpeded from authorities. If someone claims to have an explosive device, and then ignores orders to stop, they should be shot. Yes, it's more tragic and sad if they turn out to be mentally retarded, but I don't think such a state exempts them from being restrained/stopped from performing terroristic acts.

First off, don't over state what is happening in Minneapolis. There were a few high profile incidents, namely the shooting of that one somalia resident. Somalian residents compromise a big minority population here, there was much damage control to be run. Again do not overstate what is happening here in Minneapolis, you are doing the whole Twin Cities metro area (2 million people) a disservice.

You cannot have police hesitate, especially when a suspect is claiming they have a bomb. SO what if he is no longer 30000 feet in the air? Because someone shouted he has a mental illness, does not give him a pass. Also, it is not like the cops were sniping for his head, you are trained to shoot for the broadest easiest target, the torso, not 100% becoming of a fatal wound.

For the place and time, this suspect was deserving of what happened, mental illness or not.

it may have been the highest but ANYTHING plane related makes people stop and think about 9/11.

In this case, I'm all for the needs of the many outweigh those of the one. Your "cost is simply too high" works both ways.

Look at it this way: Would the air marshall deserve to die? Because he couldn't really tell the differences between radical muslim and mentally ill person?

"Oh great, another retard guy acting like he has a bomb"




Disclaimer: I picked "radical muslim" because at this time in history, they're really crazy

Whether or not the guy had a bomb, whether or not he was retarded you can't say bomb on a plane or in an airport anymore, thats just the way it is. In this situation you have a lot of people in a very small space (terminals, cabin etc), its a good target. While situations may cause people to act silly and say they have a bomb (not saying mental illness = silly, but for the general case saying you have a bomb is stupidity), if you disobey an order like freeze and you are the only running person around/guy holding a gun then frankly if you don't you are asking for trouble... in Britain its often called Death by Cop. The officers don't want to risk themselves or others, however if it comes down to it you are a suspect and they are the law (and other civillians), they should generally take the rule that 1 < many and attempt to stop you in whatever way is necessary (especially in bomb/firearm cases).

How was Xepherys' comment political...and how was it extremist, as your comment implies?

IMHO, "paying for" an action implies PUNISHMENT. There is no punishment in getting killed. The man was killed to protect the innocent passengers on the plane, the innocent travelers on the concourse, and the lives of the Air Marshals. This wasn't punishment, it was a consequence.

It was tragic that the man was unarmed and mentally unstable. However, it is equally tragic that the Air Marshal who pulled the trigger will have to live with the doubt of whether or not his actions were justified for the rest of his life.

Personally, I hope they don't crucify the Air Marshal or the Air Marshal program in the press/congress - doing so will only bolster those who really DO want to take down planes.

I was taking the piss out of Xepherys based on his other thread... he got the joke. Move on, nothing to see here.

Who are these "lots of people"? Virtually everyone seems to agree the marshall did what he had to.

Analog,

I'm afraid I must disagree with your disagreement. While in the Air Force, we responded to a domestic dispute in base housing. A wife had found out that her husband had been cheating on her. They had both been drinking and the wife had a knife. She ignored our repeated demands to drop the knife. She claimed that she was going to kill her husband and if we got in her way, she'd stab us, too. The ranking person at the scene made the split-second decision to shoot her after she charged us with the knife. She shot her in the leg.

She was one of the most professional NCOs in our squadron with 16 years in service. Air Force Security Police (I think they're called Security Forces now) are highly trained with their weapons and on the conditions of when deadly force may be used. Even though she received commendations for her actions for diffusing the situation, saving the life of the husband and not seriously wounding the wife, the fact that she shot another person affected her to the point that she could no longer carry a weapon.

What I'm saying is that even though people are highly trained, actually shooting a person can have serious consequences for someone with a conscience about that sort of thing. Granted, my story is only an anecdote, but I think it illustrates that even a highly trained person can be affected by being forced to shoot another person.

In this case, the shooting resulted in the death of what turned out to be an unarmed person. Even if he believes he was justified in shooting this man, I am certain he will be dealing with his decision. A criminal may not have a conscience about shooting and killing another person, but an honest man most likely will.

This is mainly why I stated earlier that there are no winners in this situation.

Now, feel free to disagree with my disagreeing with your disagreement. :p

JJ I was thinking much along the same lines (only I didn't have an anecdote to back up my claims).

All around this whole scenario sucks and I don't think anyone should be too pleased about the inevitability of the outcome.

good for them...

finally someone does their job without worrying about what people will think.

Thats waht they were trained to do, i dont care if the guy was mentally or physically handicapped, he did not comply and was talking about a bomb. He reaches into a bag... hes a dead man.

I congratulate the marshalls on a fine job.

You know if they didnt shoot the guy... people would be all up in arms about "well why the hell are the marshalls there if they arent gonna do nothing?"

you cant win in this fucked up lawsuit happy politically correct world.

Then she should have never been carrying a weapon in the first place. She was not fit for the job.

I'm not pleased and I'm not upset, it was simply unfortunate but understandable and justified.

Interesting thought, replace United States with Israel, and no one would blink at the idea that a marshal shot the person.

From all the information I've gathered so far, I think this shooting was justified. It sucks that the first person shot wasn't actually a terrorist, but he made said he had a bomb so he was an immediate threat to everyone in the building. The same thing would happened if you told an officer you had a gun then whipped out your cellphone and pointed it at him.

Fair enough - didn't see his reply, and didn't get the out of context joke.

Sorry for any inconvenience...sticking up for a buddy of mine. (Xeph & I go way back, and he turned me onto TF Project)

I never suggested it wasn't.

I guess my question is....did they have to kill him? why couldnt they shoot him to disable him, say in the arm or leg or something

Re-read the posts... no one here is suggesting the outcome should have been any different. The only difference in the posts is that some are showing compassion for both a man who has to live with killing someone who ultimately wasn't a terrorist with a bomb and a man who was killed because he was mentally unstable and probably not 100% in control of actions.


It is an unfortunate situation that probably couldn't (and probably shouldn't) have ended any other way.

If he actually had a bomb? No. Shoot to kill is the only option. There are very few scenarios where the guy gets out alive without giving up.

You can't - if the guy has a finger on a trigger or inches away from a trigger, the marshall simply cannot take the risk he might activate it.

And, in combat situations, with a handgun, even hitting center body mass is not a given. A lot of cops, good on the range, miss completely from even 15 feet away under the stress of firing on another human being.

Yeah, all those cops and firefighters who quit after traumatic events like 9/11 are a bunch of wimps that should never have been hired in the first place.

:rolleyes:

mojo...it was not just one incident. i can remember four off the top of my head, and i know there were more. even Olsen, the heartless bastard, admitted that the problem was serious. so, yeah.

Also, the plural is "Somali" not "Somalian." :hmm:

Because 9/11 applies exactly to this situation.

If your job is to serve and protect, and to do that, you may have to shoot and kill another human being and you can't handle that, you shouldn't be doing that job in the first place. If you are doing that job, you could freeze up in the moment that decides whether a whole plane full of people lives or dies and that's not a risk worth taking with some one who isn't completely mentally able to do their job.

We recently had a nearly identical situation in my agency. The guy's mother thought we didn't have to shoot her son dead. Unfortunately, we only hit him once but it was an immediately fatal round, the man was shot with a shotgun slug that went under his left arm, went through both lungs, severed his spinal cord and exited under his right arm. A pretty stiff penalty for the behavior associated with mental illness. For what it's worth, to read the story it's here: http://www.greatfallstribune.com/app...512060303/1002

The mother is mad at US because her son did something that made these two agents afraid for their safety and they were forced to act to defend themselves. This is what I am afraid for for this Air Marshal, but it appears that people understand that, sometimes, we are left with no choice because we are NOT trained to recognize and deal with mentally ill people in less than one second.

I think the point being made is that you can train and train and then train some more... but until you actually kill someone, or witness bodies falling like sacks of wet cement, etc. you really don't know how you will react.

I don't care who you are or how "badass" you might think you are... you will react how you will react and all that training can do is give you some tools to help cope with your reactions.

One quote not in the OP:

“She said it was her fault that he was bipolar,” Mike Deshears, a Flight 924 passenger who works for a vacation club in Orlando, said. “He was sick and she had convinced him to get on the plane.”

Frankly, I have to agree with most here, the marshalls did what they had to do (in a Hawaiin shirt no less), but that sentence broke my heart. The poor guy was probably stressed far beyond his limits and his wife, probably meaning well, talked him into getting on a plane.

People who are OCD shouldn't even get on a plane, let alone bi-polar.

Within a matter of seconds, every life involved is dramatically changed for the worse. A woman loses the love of her life right before Christmas, the marshalls deal with the doubts that will likely plague their thoughts (not that they were wrong, I think they did what they had to do, but we all have to live in those tight, airless places called our minds), and we all have our first post 9-11 demonstration of our recent loss of of innocence.

Exactly - all the armchair Jack Ryans and James Bonds who think otherwise are living in a video game. Cops, firefighters, doctors, military personnel, nurses - these people see horrible things, and have to make even more horrible choices about who lives and who dies, and not one of them, unless they are a complete psychopath, knows how they will react when they have to deal with such things.

Even hardened veteran soldiers, who may have killed several times, have been known to "fall apart" for lack of a better term, on their next mission. Or turn to the bottle or pills for what they've had to do.

She shot someone in the leg, who lived, and was emotionally unable to continue.

That means she was never fit for duty, period.

Ustwo... the point is that noone could know that until she took the shot.

I won't dispute that going forward she isn't fit for the job.

So all the cops and firefighters who cracked after the Twin Towers fell were never fit for duty either, I guess. They lived, what have they got cry about? Shouldn't have been wearing the uniform at all. What a bunch of wimps they were.

:thumbsup:

Are you seroiusly comparing a terrorist attack that killed nearly 3000 people the same as shooting a person who's threatening to bomb a plane?

:confused:

No he is comparing them to someone who shot someone in the leg (and they lived).

Kumasan - Good to see you around buddy!

As for the punishment aspect, I sort of disagree. It was death as a consequence of actions... that seems like punishment to me. And correct punishment in this case. He may have been out of his right mind, but that doesn't really mean much to me. Mental illness is of no fault to the victim, usually... but murderers and rapists are mentally ill in many respects as well, that fact doesn't make me feel badly for them. Maybe he WAS a violent loon that had planned to have a bomb in his bag and just forgot it at home. Nobody knows... no sense crying over spilt milk, so to speak. Whether or not he meant intentional harm is irrelevant in this case.

In my Law Enforcement Administration class, we discussed exactly this issue. Law enforcement officers of all types (federal, state, local, military) are trained to shoot to kill. If it gets to the situation whey they draw their firearm, they intend to use it to kill someone. They are not trained to shoot to wound, trained to shoot guns out of people's hands, or anything else.

I think the only people trained with weapons that ARE trained to wound are infantry. Realistically, a dead man takes one man out of battle. An injured man takes 2 or 3 out of combat. But yes, otherwise, shoot to kill is the lesson learned.

Well plus they shoot for the high percentage areas, namely the torso.

I'm not sure why you say this. OCD very rarely manifests itself in outwardly hostile activity...even if it can look very "odd" to outsiders.

Bipolar disorder ranges in severity...some of my friends have it, and study at university, lead normal lives, and work around the side effects of the medication they need. Some folks i know are more or less permentantly disabled by it.

Clearly, this man was not ready for that kind of stress. But it's not a blanket thing where "crazy people shouldn't fly." I've been pretty ill before, locked wards and all that. I have around 20,000 in air miles logged so far this year...and i'm probably going to end up with a silver elite card next year. I always carry emergency medication (xanax or equivalent) in the event that i need it. knowing your personal limits is the key...most of the time, persons with mental illness are living pretty normal lives. the real shame is that trying to push for that normalcy can have tragic consequences in some situations.

I'm comparing one person doing a tough job with another (group of people) doing a tough job. Both are traumatic situations - firefighters, for example, die all the time when buildings go on fire and fall on them. It is a basic component of the job. You should be able to "handle it" no? Whether one dies, 6 die or 1000 die. But hundreds quit, went on leave, or ended up on pills after not only 9/11 but many other tragic situations. They were never unworthy of the job, as some here contend. You don't know until it happens.

As one of the few people here to have, for several years, carried a gun on the job, I can honestly say I think i would have dealt with it OK, but I don't know for sure, especially if I had had to shoot someone, as the marshall did, who at the end of the day was not an actual threat and who may have been out of his head. Thankfully, I never had to find out.

But I'm sure all the computer drivers here know what bad-ass, stone-cold killers they are. I'm surprised they aren't all in the CIA or something, capping bin Laden and Al-Zaqari all day long.

Actually, in general, you are not trained to "shoot to kill" unless you are a sniper or special forces or in a very specific situation (bomber with finger on trigger). Most cops are simply trained to aim for center body mass - the torso, the largest target available. Double tap, and if he keeps moving, keep shooting. The usual result is, indeed, a dead suspect, but shoot to kill is not the usual description.

I think the Air Marshal made a good call. After everything that has come to pass as far as security in the airports, you should be held completely liable for everything you do.

You say bomb, you get shot.

Martinguerre, I say what I said about OCD sufferers not because they are prone to violence, but prone to STRESS. Such as when the announcement is made to put tray tables and seatbacks up and ONE person doesn't.

Don't you realize the plane can't land until that seatback is up?

Welcome to my world.

poppinjay...that actually makes a whole lot more sense now. thank you.

Not to needlessly argue semantics, but that is shooting to kill. In fact, that's part of the "use of force continuum" - deadly force with a firearm. There is no non-deadly force with a firearm element, because firearms deal with deadly force (which may or may not cause death). The intent is to kill or otherwise completely and totally incapacitate the subject. That doesn't mean if he's on the ground, in a pile of blood, you walk up and put a bullet in his head to finish the job - just that you're intending to kill him.

Time Magazine has released a story with a different take

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...138965,00.html

Just a thought....
Could this incident have something to do with
the 911 comission report being released
a few days back, giving homeland security a failing grade?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120500097.html

No. You say bomb, you get arrested.

You say bomb and run or reach for your bag when you've been told to stop... you get shot.



I know a guy that made a joke about hijacking a plane while waiting in line (this was in the 80s)... he was arrested.

i think he did it purposely to die. i'm wondering how many suicide attempts he had before this.

out of the big three, depression, schizophrenia and bipolar, bipolar are one of the most likely to go off of their meds because mania feels good, better than normal human and especially on meds with the horrible side effects. But it can swing very hard the other way. gravity is still in effect, what goes up may come down very very hard. I think it may have swung on him, he couldn't see out of the depressive mood he was in, that it would pass like all moods do, and he went to the extreme. I'm not sure if it was an impulse suicide when his mood swung or if he planned this death.

i think the air marshall that shot him will regret it very much if he ever gets mental illness training especially. Because some people use others to kill themselves.

Just really really feel badly for all involved with this.

I heard about this, and I wanna know exactly what he was shot with, caliber, bullet weight, brand, where he was hit and how man shots dropped him, and how long it took him to die.


in case this is unclear, I really dont think it was a bad thing that he was shot, unless what time is reportijng is true, and he never mentioned anything about a bomb.

does anyone have a pic of this guy, unless he at least LOOKS like hes of middle eastern descent, well, lets just say this, I feel that people who fit the physical description of terrorists should be the ones who get the most wayward eyes, our society says profiling like that is wrong, but whatever.

Before I go into this, let me preface my comments by saying that I fully back the actions of the Air Marshall. He did what needed to be done.

Punishment implies that the person being punished learns from his actions. In an action like killing this individual, there is no learning (unless you believe in reincarnation)...just the action itself.

Unless the wife was being punished?

I may prove myself wrong with this, but....

From M-W:

Main Entry: pun·ish·ment
Pronunciation: 'p&-nish-m&nt
Function: noun
1 : the act of punishing
2 a : suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution b : a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure
3 : severe, rough, or disastrous treatment

I guess according to that, punishment is more retribution...but was the man killed for retribution, or to protect?

I still think this is a good question........ yes I know bombers have to be stopped on the instant and not even have a minor chance of "pulling the trigger" on the bomb, but....you can't help but wonder.

I think it was justified and it's unfortunate for everyone involved that it turned out that the guy was just mentally unwell. But some situations are clearly no-win. The Marshal had no choice.

while I do agree that the majority of people are of Middle Eastern, Indonesian Muslims do not look like Middle Easterns except for the way they dress.

and now you have to add people like the Belguim born lady... she looks nothing like Middle Eastern.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...hetiq/vert.jpg

Such is the path to tilted paranoia.

We have another witness saying that he never said bomb.

Also, lets not forget that this is the same city that just a few days ago said it would carry out preemptive anti-terrorism drills on its on citizens in public places.

So far what I know is that we have two seperate witness accounts of them not hearing the word bomb, and we have second hand accounts of federal officials who weren't there saying he did say bomb. Miami has also said it wants to carry out un-announced terrorism drills on it's own citizens to keep the terrorists guessing. Passengers said they were more afraid of the police who were pointing shotguns at their head than they were afraid of the guy who supposedly said the word bomb. I think it's naive to just accept the "official" account of him saying he had a bomb and that the air marshalls where just acting accordingly when the facts show that it might be much more involved than that. I think it's very possible that this kind of over the top anti-terrorism strategy escaletes otherwise easy to handle situations. We have a group of gung ho cops in Miami who can't wait to use their anti-terrorism training and have planned to "drill" on their on citizens.

Hindsight is always 20-20. The Air Marshalls are highly trained officers of the law. But here's the thing - if you are a marshall, and you have someone threating to blow up a plane, and then running away - what do you do? Honestly? Ask him to stop running, and see if he's on meds?
IMO - The marshalls did their job. They are probably guys that suffered through 9/11; served in Iraq, and have friends still serving there. They aren't there to second guess anything. If it would have been a real threat, this wouldn't even be a discussion.

william: highly trained may not include recognizing persons who are mentally disturbed.

that was the case in Minneapolis....some damn good cops were forced to shoot persons who were suffering from mental illness because they didn't know how to respond otherwise or de-escalate the situation.

That's kind of the point - what terrorist is not mentally disturbed? I kill (?) for my allah, so that your life may be saved? I jump onto a bus of my followers, to kill them, so that my faith may go on? Extremists are extremists are extremists - just as a rose is a rose is a rose. If all of these higher-knowledged people of God(?)were part of his plan, then wtf are they doing killing each other? Not just the infadels (?) as they see them, but the inocents as well? Killing is one of the original sins.

i'm sorry...but that's just bullshit.

bipolar disorder is an organic brain disease. it's a lack of regulation on certain neuro-chemicals, and causes mood problems....highs and lows beyond the normal range of emotion.

there is NO comparision with the moral decrepitude of thinking God wants you to bomb innocent people.

Thank you, martinguerre, for accurately describing bipolar disorder... it was frustrating as I read through, seeing people refer to it as mental retardation. Retardation and bipolar disorder are quite different.

Did the air marshall respond in a way appropriate to the situation? Looking back, it seems excessive. However, in the moment, I'm sure that the marshall was under a great deal of pressure, and probably made what seemed like the best decision in the moment.

More than anything, this seems to me to be a tragedy. An innocent man, who had mental issues, was shot and killed due to a misunderstanding. Based on the varying accounts, it is difficult to tell whether or not Alpizar actually said he had a bomb. The air marshall had no way of telling that he was mentally unstable, and made the call. It's unfortunate. Did Alpizar deserve to get shot? No. He was not in his right mind. Unless you suffer from bipolar, or are close to someone who does, it can be extremely difficult to grasp this. The whole thing is tragic.

And I also feel sorry for that air marshall... i know people who have killed "bad" men, and are still haunted by that. So killing someone who turned out to not be a threat must be worse. And regarding the comment that the officer who shot the woman in the leg, then was unable to continue carrying a firearm--she was fully capable of performing her duty. She performed it. If she was incapable, she wouldn't have shot in the first place. And, she also shows that she knows her own capabilities, and recognizes the fact that she would not necessarily be able to make the same decision if faced with a similar situation, so she's not putting herself in that sort of a situation. That doesn't seem like weakness to me, that seems like intelligence.

In my local paper I read that the eyewitnesses never heard him say he had a bomb. They said he looked like he was going to be sick. His wife said he was afraid there was a bomb on board and panicked trying to deplane. All in all I see that every aspect of this situation is an indication of the overwhelming amount of FEAR we live in. The poor bipolar man, his wife, the marshalls and the public reading about it. We're all running around in a panic, ready to bolt or shoot. Fuck. Maybe the terrorists have already won.

Yes, that's what I was trying to get at. I found two news reports of two different passengers saying they never heard bomb and felt in no way threatened by him. Passengers said they felt more threatened by the officers pointing shotguns at them than from Alpizar. On the other hand the only people saying he said the word bomb are the DHS officials who weren't even there (that I have seen anyway). Does anyone have a news report of a passenger actually saying that this man said the word 'bomb'?

Anyone who has ever seen the 'eye witness' type of experiments knows how little this means. Very honest and credible people will swear something is the truth, and to them it is, but it didn't happen that way. People are so bad at it, that its almost comical until you think of the consequences. The same goes to the Marshall, he may well have thought he heard the guy say he had a bomb, when in fact he did not.