shoot fired on plane in miami

xpost

Sounds like he actually shot the passenger.

:-(

This story pisses me off and I didn't even lose luggage. It's sad and miserable.

* I don't know how much control she had over him.

Considering the way airlines handle lost/damaged luggage complaints, I'd guess the answer is "very unsatisfactorily".

I know bi-polar people who, even unmedicated, would not ever behave like that. Which is only to say, any "guarantee" of such an incident is tied to the specifics of the patient.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-12-07-air-marshals_x.htm

At least it didn't seem like there was any problem in this area.

I haven't heard this anywhere else. I have been waiting for it, though. However, I bit my tongue yesterday, rather than to go on about "was he wearing a padded coat? did he jump the jetway turnstile? did he emerge from a suspected den of terrorists?"

I keep thinking about the scenario as represented in the media, and piecing together what I've heard about the marshall program, which is that they are drilled in specific procedures, and it apparently is hoped that response becomes so "instinctive" that no thought is necessary in the procedure's execution. I don't know if that's even POSSIBLE, but assuming it is, and also assuming that whatever "trigger markers", like an explicit bomb threat, were present, the marshall did the correct thing w/r/t to procedure.

But I also keep trying to envision this scenario as it played out (which is ridiculous, given my dearth of actual information), wondering if the guy was really a credible threat as a bomber or otherwise. And, whether the credibility should matter for the purposes of the marshall. And, if there is a way to make it matter, and still protect people adequately. I've seen some commentary lamenting the existence of an intermediate step, like tasers. Would a taser on a plane be effective if all a guy has to do is press a button? I know they sometimes kill, but I've read that they sometimes don't disable.

using a taser makes a lot more sense than a handgun, which could puncture the fuselage and depressurize the plane.

All in all: this story sucks. My suspicions are leaning towards suicide-by-cop, but who really knows? The truth will out, one hopes.

uh, hrm, yeah, it's hard to believe that a fictional show would make something up, uh huh.

xpost

wasn't the marshall's account (one of them, anyway) that he "reached for his bag" or something?

yeah, it was a split second after he made his way down an aisle with people in it, got off the plane, headed down the jetway, stopped, turned around, said something, and walked towards them

Shortly after boarding, Mr. Alpizar left his seat and exited the aircraft with a backpack strapped to his chest, yelling that he had a bomb.

Air Marshals who were assigned to the flight, followed him out the jetway, identified themselves as Federal Air Marshals and ordered Mr. Alpizar to surrender himself. Mr. Alpizar then walked towards the Marshals, causing them to retreat towards the entrance to the aircraft. Meanwhile, Mr. Alpizar yelled that he had a bomb and would use it. Mr. Alpizar continued to disregard the Marshals' orders to surrender and began to place his hands into the backpack. At that point, the Marshals discharged their firearms at Mr. Alpizar, who expired at the scene from his wounds.

But in case you don't want to, here's some advice: if you're ever getting on the subway and marshalls are shouting at you to "Stop!" and ordering you to surrender after you've claimed that you have a bomb and will use it, get your hands out of your backpack and put them into the air.

what's your source on this?

No, I think it's been pretty well publicised that there was reason to think that Alpizar constituted some sort of threat. And saying they killed him because it's their job is ludicrous. I assume these guys have been armed on other flights and have managed to restrain themselves from pumping bullets into innocent passengers posing no threat to others. They are trained to kill WHEN NECESSARY. There's a great big difference.

Nobody even knows who you are until you kill somebody.

i suppose we shouldn't consider drawing any negative inference from the fact that the marshals in question have been placed on leave?

we probably shouldn't, i'd bet that's s.o.p. for most law enforcement in this country, whether shootings were "justified" or not.

(xpost, it is in the UK, anyway I thought marshals weren't police so maybe they have it in their employment terms)

hard as it may be for you to believe, gabbneb, I imagine this incident was somewhat upsetting for the air marshals.

yes, i'd think it is. i could be wrong, tho.

I'm sure many people are looking at this closely and asking a lot of questions (media, police, federal types, airlines, etc.).

I think most of the reaction on this thread is based on a) the facts we know about this case, b) the issue of security of airlines makes many, if not most people, paranoid enough to trust what we have been told. Gab, your posts have had a noticeable degree of conspiracy sniffing rather than facts that point to unanswered questions, unless I should assume that you are very familiar with Miami-Dade leave-granting guidelines.

But I do admire your being suspicious of Tha Police. You're that much closer to being suspicious of the rest of the government!

why do you assume this is hard for me to believe? in fact, i assume that the marshals are upset. perhaps, you know, because this is such a gray area?

is there somewhere on this thread that i have distrusted what i have been told?

my posts have a noticeable degree of interest in a lawyerlike consideration of every side of the question

i'm not suspicious of the police. i'm suspicious of those who would refuse suspicion.

Pretty sure it's SOP to put cops on leave when someone dies. Any time someone gets killed by a gov't agent ('cept, like, in wars and stuff), they'll mount an investigation, even if it's cut and dried.

fwiw.

i'm not suspicious of the police. i'm suspicious of those who would refuse suspicion.

You seem more suspicious of people on this thread whose suspicions don't go nearly as far as your do, which you attribute to your lawyerness or, obliquely, an implied lack of intellectual curiosity in others' posts. Sometimes lawyering your way around everything doesn't make you seem intellectually impartial, it makes you seem like you're hiding your feelings on something.

(hint: i don't have any!)

and that's exactly my point--that you think you don't have feelings on this, but everyone else thinks you do! It comes with the territory I suppose, or at least with the career for lots of people in your line of work, right?

Alisa, my point in all this is that two police officers shot and killed one man who, in fact, was no threat whatsoever. If my understanding is correct, they also shot him on a jetway, which is one of the LEAST crowded places you'd find in an airport. There are many reports (and film) of him acting erratically and/or sick.

Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but in effect we have a man who was killed because he didn't stop when law enforcement asked him to. I'm sure the marshals are disturbed by what happened. Part of the situation with the London shooting was that there was a "shoot to kill" policy in place. That environment was one of the enabling factors for the incident. What kind of environment do the marshals work in? What kind of training do they have?

I'd just feel a lot better about this if someone besides the people who shot the man had heard him say he had a bomb. Imagine what might have happened if the plane had taken off? Killing someone should be a LAST resort.

The other point is the one I made upthread, which gabbneb echoed--is there any room in the marshal's prescribed response for any kind of assessment of the credibility of the threat presented? should there be?

i suppose some here aren't exactly happy about this, but have read the evidence of what occurred and decided this is the price for the safety of the majority -- there are split-second decisions that must be taken, and the few times those decisions are wrong are worth all the times they are right. (what are those times when they are right? when someone was shot to death on the tarmac and it turned out they were going to blow up the plane)

the only people who have given the "bomb" story are the very people who have everything to gain from the man saying it, and everything to lose if he hadn't said it. anyone who wouldn't wonder about this would make a very bad policeman and a very bad lawyer.

i am not with those who say being an air marshal is a thankless job. on the contrary, it is a job that garners the highest sorts of praise for the very things most men and women dream of possessing: courage, tenacity, toughness and patriotism. they hear it all the time, couched in terms both pious and sincere. they are a very well-thanked group of people.

no one can be perfect at their jobs. when your job is to enforce laws with violence if necessary, you'd much rather make a mistake that kills one person than a mistake which kills 100, i'd imagine (not ever having been in that position). there must be situations in which everyone is genuinely confused about what's going on, and wondering if there is one more second to spare or not. this appears to have been one of those situations. the result of this situation is that an innocent man was shot to death. my preference would be to find out why, and see if it's possible to make sure this doesn'r repeat itself a week or a month or a year from now. such an investigation requires knowing all the facts, and knowing all the facts necessitates a healthy skepticism of all the testimony, especially from those who stand the most to gain or lose from them. the unwillingness to go down this road by some posters here is very disturbing.

i see some of my points have been cross-posted by the elite squadrons of ilx

this has already been seriously brought into question

xpost i currently have my shoes strapped aggressively to my feet