Man Making Bomb Threat Shot

[Patriot_1776]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10367598/


NBC News and news services
Updated: 3:46 p.m. ET Dec. 7, 2005
MIAMI - A passenger who claimed to have a bomb in a carry-on bag was shot to death in a confrontation Wednesday on a jetway at Miami International Airport, NBC News reported.

Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Doyle said the plane had just arrived from Medellin, Colombia, when a passenger indicated he had a bomb in his carry-on bag.

Air marshals confronted the man, who ran into the jetway and ordered him to get on the ground. The passenger did not comply, then was shot when apparently reaching into the bag, Doyle said.

Federal officials told NBC News' Pete Williams that the man was shot to death.

Mary Gardner, a passenger on the plane, told WTVJ the man started “running crazily through the aisle” after the plane landed in Miami. Gardner said a woman seated with the man ran after him, yelling that her husband was bipolar and had not taken his medication. Gardner described the woman as “hysterical.”

The plane had just arrived from Colombia and was headed on to Orlando.

Airport and Miami-Dade County police officials said they had no immediate comment. American Airlines officials confirmed the shooting was on a jetway. Shortly after the incident, Miami-Dade reopened the concourse and resumed normal operations.

NBC NewsÂ’ Pete Williams said authorities searching the man's carry-on bag did not find a bomb.

A federal official told NBC that it was the first time since Sept. 11 that a marshal had fired a gun in or near a plane.

Martin Gonzalez, spokesman for Colombia’s civil aviation agency, said he had no information regarding the incident. “The flight left normally with no problems,” he told The Associated Press in Bogota.

He said he did not have a list of passengers who were aboard the plane.

Air Marshals are trained to shoot to kill. They have the most stringent small-arms training standards among law enforcement agencies.

NBC News, MSNBC.com's Brock Meeks and The Associated Press contributed to this report.


As far as I'm concerned, these guys did their job.  They handled the situation according to the circumstances presented, and the man's death was his own fault.  

Gardner said a woman seated with the man ran after him, yelling that her husband was bipolar and had not taken his medication.

Why, when he was confronted, was he apparently acting on his own?  If his wife had followed all the way to the scene of action, she could have made that statement known as well.  Either way, it is impossible for the marshals to have made that distinction.  A bomb threat at this point and time is to be considered a very serious matter.  If what took place could be considered grounds for legal action against the marshals, then let's just assume anyone making a bomb threat is "bipolar" and has not taken their medication.   :roll:


-Patriot

[Nightrain52]

Bi-Polar is a fancy name for several different mental problems that the whitecoats lumped under one name. If They stay on their medication they can usually function normaly. If their medication gets out of whack or they forget to take it these people are capable of doing just about anything and not to be trusted. In the last 10 years I have lived in the same apartment complex where their were several of these people living. One tried to beat his mother to death with a baseball bat, another tried to set a 9 story housing unit on fire and succeded in burning up most of the second floor in the building and putting several tenants in the building in great danger, and another held his girlfriend hostage at gunpoint. The Air Marshalls did the right thing.

[jgalar]

The FAMs did exactly what they were trained to do and handled the situation well. The man (with woman chaseing him) could have been only a diversion with the real threat being someone or an IED still on the plane. The FAMs entered the plane to check out all the passengers and all the baggage on board was also checked by bomb sniffing dogs.

Remember these passengers and baggage were cleared by Columbian authorities, not exactly a top notch security inspection.

[Brett]

He wasn't a terrorist he was just plain crazy.'  Like that makes a difference.

'Mr. Jones this is Sgt. Murilio with the Miami PD... I'm afraid I have some good news and bad news for you.  The bad news is your wife and daughter were just blown up by a lunatic.  The good news is the bomber wasn't a terrorist, he was just some nut who forgot to take his med's.'  :?

[Patriot_1776]

I agree with you guys.  It would seem his wife too is responsible; she should have insured he took his medication regularly if that was the case.  What jgalar said was similar to my other point.  I removed it at the last minute, but here it is: even if she told the Marshals that he had some major problems, it would still have been very hard to make any decision.  He said he had a bomb, he's NOT dropping the bag, and now he's reached into the bag, possibly for a detonator.  If not that, then the real bombing could have been on the plane.  It was a flight from Colombia, so that presents something unknown in of itself.  Notion being is this couple could have been a distraction.  Even still, his reaching into the at-the-time alleged "bomb bag" didn't help him any.  These might be some pretty twisted scenarios that the Marshal's might encounter out there.  I commend them for the risks they take, as I see it can be quite a dangerous job.  But it has to be done.  God bless them; a good group of folks to remember in your prayers every night.

Also, thank God this was not a more serious situation than it was (meaning an actual bomb detonation with many people killed or injured).


-Patriot

[Savage .250]

The system was tested....................and it works.

 " The best part of the hunt is not the harvest but in the experience."

[FWiedner]

Everyone forgets to take a pill every once in a while.

It's a shame that this fellow's forgetfulness ended up costing him his life because his condition got the best of him.  

The feds did what they have been given authority to do.

I don't see the point in dancing on the guys grave.

 :?

[jgalar]

His threatening to blow up a plane and kill innocent people is what got him killed!

[FWiedner]

His threatening to blow up a plane and kill innocent people is what got him killed!

I'm not sure that he did either of those things directly.  But maybe the whole "story" isn't out yet.

He did say he had a bomb.

I suppose that qualifies as an implied threat.

Personally, I think he was just lucky enough to run into a couple of over-zealous sky-cops who were champing at the bit to make an example of some uncoperative dope so they could call themselves heros and parade around acting like they actually get paid to do something useful.

But that's just my opinion.

 :?

[jh45gun]

But that's just my opinion.   :roll:

[Patriot_1776]

FW wrote:

Personally, I think he was just lucky enough to run into a couple of over-zealous sky-cops who were champing at the bit to make an example of some uncoperative dope so they could call themselves heros and parade around acting like they actually get paid to do something useful.

So what  to you constitutes the time of proper use of lethal force...immediately following the possible explosion of a bomb? You might be dead by then; is it worth dying than being so-called "over-zealous"?  I'd call that fearing for one's life and others more than anything else in the presented situation.

Maybe during the brandishing of a detonator?  What is proper in your opinion?  FW, I'm not trying to be a smart you-know-what, I'm asking in earnest.

The man, as the story says, "...indicated he had a bomb in his carry on bag...".  Well, he indicated he had one.  That is as good as saying openly "I'm gonna blow you all up!"  That could range from openly announcing the contents, or implying the plane is going to blow any minute now.  We don't know, but the marshals knew what was going on and what to do, and when to do it.  It was a matter of whether he implied to carry out the ordeal.  It was safe to assume under those circumstances that he was already implying an imminently dangerous act to those around him as well.  

Just because a post mortem search uncovered no such device, that does not relinquish the man's responsibility for his threats and actions.  It does NOT automatically and immediately constitute innocence and damn those "sky cops" for killing him.

If he did not want to die, he could have simply dropped the bag when ordered, fall to the ground, and submit himself to the authorities.  No, he completely disobeyed given orders, and on top of that put his hand into the bag.  I would have shot him in the same situation; and I MYSELF would expect the same thing if I stuck my hand into a container I touted as carrying a bomb.  


-Patriot

[FWiedner]

Patriot;

You inject a lot of hypotheticals into your scenario, but that's not what really happened is it?

He indicated that he had a bomb.  He had already been through security.  His bags had already been checked.  He had already been on the plane.

He got off of the plane.

The fellow was mentally ill, he acted out, and got killed for his trouble.

And then they detonated his underwear.

As I said earlier, The feds did what they have been given authority to do.

They made an example.

 :?

[powderman]

The news just said that the guy ran from the plane,  then turned around and ran back towards it shouting that he had a bomb and would use it, then reached inside the bag, the air marshals then shot him. They acted appropriately.
There have been several instances where guns, etc have been found AFTER going through various airports and security did not find them. He could have well had a bomb and it not been found.
Now, the libbies and other dumcraps will whine and moan about trigger happy air marshals. Had he had a bomb,and exploded it, they would whine about how we need more security and armed guards. With the libbies, the rest of us sane folks don't have a chance. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Any person claiming to have a bomb on a plane deserves to be shot. POWDERMAN.  :evil:  :evil:  :evil:  :evil:  :evil:  :evil:

[FWiedner]

Liberals and Democrats?  Uhhh..., right.

I know it's hard to focus on the subject, but let's try anyway.

He didn't have a bomb, and he wasn't on a plane when he said he did, if he said he did.  The only witnesses to the supposed bomb threat were the sky cops.  Funny how that works out for them.

I think this new policy of killing (mentally-ill) people for saying the wrong thing in the wrong place might be useful.

I mean, it's been used by more than one successful government in the last 100-years, so why not this one?  It's a time tested and proven technique!

By Jove, Powderman.  I think you've discovered the way to make America "safe"!

 :-)

[powderman]

fweidner. He was running back towards a plane full of PEOPLE, reaching into the bag and saying that he had a bomb and would use it, he was shot. No way could he have been allowed back on that plane. If he'd of blown all of those people up, you would be whining about the air marshals being too wimpy  to do their job. You're wrong on this one, but you proved my point about dumcraps and libbies. POWDERMAN.        

[Brett]

FWiedner;

Let me ask you a hypothetical question.  Say you and your family are enjoying an early evening stroll when a man suddenly jumps out of a dark alley brandishing a tire iron, and screaming obscenities runs toward you.  Would you...

A: Instruct your family to run while you tackle the man.

B: Shout 'Stop, please, or I'll be forced to call my union representative.'

C: Calmly inquire if the gentleman has a flat tire and needs assistance.

I know which I would do.

[FWiedner]

FWiedner;

Let me ask you a hypothetical question.  Say you and your family are enjoying an early evening stroll when a man suddenly jumps out of a dark alley brandishing a tire iron, and screaming obscenities runs toward you.  Would you...

A: Instruct your family to run while you tackle the man.

B: Shout 'Stop, please, or I'll be forced to call my union representative.'

C: Calmly inquire if the gentleman has a flat tire and needs assistance.

I know which I would do.

D.  None of the above.

I believe that I'd shoot him in the head, take his wallet , and then resume my walk.

I might pull his gold teeth for my kids and take a leak on his head, depending on the weather and if I have my Leatherman tool with me.

 :wink:

I'm not sure what all of these fantasy situations have to do with the likely fact that federal officers killed a man in medical distress and then concocted a story to justify their actions.

Like I've already said twice, they did what they've been authorized to do.

It warms the heart to see the American public stand behind law enforcement doing their job.  Does it not?

 :-)

[jh45gun]

FWED just likes to argue if it was sunny and 90 out he would say it was rainy and in the 40's  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

[fe352v8]

I think these sky marshals did a standard threat assessment in determining to use deadly force, proximity is he close enough to cause harm, ability, does he have the means to carry out the threat, and intent.

If a person has a knife and says heÂ’s going to kill you, he has the ability and heÂ’s stated his intent, but if heÂ’s 100 feet from you, he lacks proximity, and thus he can be disabled instead of using deadly force.

However if a persons states a he has a bomb, he has covered all 3 elements of a threat assessment simultaneously that indicates the use of deadly force, couple that with not having an unobstructed view of his hands or a sudden movement, and a person charged with the security of the public has little choice.

My condolences to the deceased man's family, and to the marshals, there were no winners here, just 2 officers doing their duty with a second to make a decision.  If the scenario is as reported they only had one choice, and it was the one they made, the risk was too great to make any other.

Life is no joke but funny things happen

jon

[williamlayton]

FWED is suffering a bit from cabin fever, this thread will help him pass this phase  :-) .
IF, if and butt's were candy and nut we would all have a Merry Christmas.
I agree with the dancing on the grave thought.
Has anyone thought about the fact that this investigation is on-going and has not been concluded???
I doubt that it will be concluded even after the investigation. Sounds to me that American Airlines will have need to defend this in a court of law until the Lord returns.
Blessings to you F. and have a merry Christmas.
Blessings

[Brett]

My condolences to the deceased man's family, and to the marshals, there were no winners here, just 2 officers doing their duty with a second to make a decision.  If the scenario is as reported they only had one choice, and it was the one they made, the risk was too great to make any other.

jon

Jon, You have made the most sincere and rational statement in this entire thread.  My hat is off to you.   :toast:

[powderman]

FWED just likes to argue if it was sunny and 90 out he would say it was rainy and in the 40's  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

JIM. Ya got that right. Only thing fwed suffers from is libbyitis. POWDERMAN.    

[FWiedner]

Here's a bit from CNN:

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."

However, no other witness has publicly concurred with that account. Only one passenger recalled Alpizar saying, "I've got to get off, I've got to get off," CNN's Kathleen Koch reported.

Alpizar's wife, Anne Buechner, tried to help her husband.

"She was just saying her husband was sick, her husband was sick," said passenger Alan Tirpak. When the woman returned, "she just kept saying the same thing over and over, and that's when we heard the shots."
 
Tirpak said he didn't hear Alpizar say anything.

Another passenger, Mary Gardner of Orlando, said she also overheard Buechner. "I heard her say, 'He's bipolar. He doesn't have his medicine,'" Gardner recalled.

Ellen Sutliff, who said she sat near Alpizar on the flight into Miami from Quito, Ecuador, described him as agitated even then. His wife kept coaxing him, saying, " 'We just have to get through customs. Please, please help me get through this,' " according to Sutliff.

" 'We're going to be home soon, and everything will be all right,' " Sutliff quoted the wife as saying.

Passenger Mike Beshears recalled Alpizar running off the plane clutching a bag, chased by a man in a Hawaiian shirt.

That man turned out to be one of the two air marshals.

Like Tirpak, Beshears said he did not hear Alpizar say anything. "He just was in a hurry and exited the plane," he said.

After Alpizar ran off the plane, his wife pursued him part of the way down the aisle, then returned to her seat saying her husband was sick and she needed to get his bags, Beshears said.

"After she passed back toward her seat ... a number of shots rang out -- at least five, up to six, shots rang out," Beshears recalled.

"From what we know, the team of air marshals acted in a way that is consistent with the training that they have received," White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan told reporters at Thursday's briefing.

The two air marshals said Rigoberto Alpizar had made a bomb threat.
"It appears that they followed the protocols and did what they were trained to do,"

So again, nobody but the sky-cops heard any bomb threat.

fe352v8, I must respectfully disagree.  I don't believe that any threat assesment at all was done, and if it was, it was ill-informed.   The sky-cops had no limitations whatsoever on the choices available to them with which to deal with either the man or the situation.

The sky-cops followed their training protocols, which apparently call for them to kill disobedient civilians who impatiently disobey airline disembarkation guidelines.

To those who would shield these men by using the excuse that I expect too much from these men who were forced to make a fast judgement in a tense situation, I can only say that if you as a citizen are just going to give these men the power of life and death over average people who are simply going about their business (that includes yourself), then don't you think that you have a right to expect more from them and to question their every official action?

I really think that you should consider this situation with a bit more gravity.

 

[jh45gun]

Just for the record Jon the cops are taught that a guy with a knife even at a distance is dangerous as by the time a officer gets his gun out of the holster and ready the guy at a reasonable distance can be on the cop and stabbing him. Most cops are not fast draw artist so by the time they get a gun out and ready they could have a knife in them if the guy is at a reasonable distance and that distance is supprising. I do not remember the exact distance, but I was supprised on how far it was when told this by a state trooper.

[jgalar]

FAMs do not mess with drunks or misbehaving passengers, the only thing they are concerned with is the safety of the plane and persons on it. If there is a fight on board an airliner as long as the flight is not in danger the FAMs will not reveal themselves. If they determine that the plane is in danger they shoot to kill.

Just because the bags and persons boarding the plane have gone through security does not mean there isn't a threat. With our present technology and procedures there is no way to prevent forbidden items from getting on board. What we have now is a deterrent only.

[powderman]

JH45GUN. The distance, I believe, is 7 yds, or 21 ft. I've heard that a man proficient with a knife can kill you unless you are really good with your gun.
fweidner. I'll try and be sure to never get in a dangerous situation with you watching my back. Wouldn't feel comfortable at all. Jh 45 GUN, I'd feel comfortable with, as well as some others. POWDERMAN.    

[jh45gun]

Thanks Powderman I would feel the same with your covering my back as well!  :wink:

[FWiedner]

Deleted as grossly out of line by Graybeard. Contact me if you have any doubts you were out of line.

Maybe you fellows are OK with allowing government agents to murder American citizens at their whim, without oversight, using flimsy and ambiguous reasoning, but I believe that support of such draconian police actions puts this country on a path to disaster.  Even apathetic dismissal of such events because one is not directly affected is taken as approval.

This is a test of what the American people will tolerate.  How much pressure from the boot on the neck will The People take before they start to complain about not being able to breathe?

You would gladly give the secret police permission to kill unarmed people in public places for causing a scene or not acting to give unquestioning obedience to agents of the state.

Sorry, I don't feel the same way.  I'm not saying they should be prosecuted, or even that they did anything wrong given the circumstances, but the actions and processes of these sky-cowboys should be reviewed in minute detail by someone other than the government.

America is not a country where we should excuse the execution of innocent people who have done no harm to any person just because they are annoying or uncooperative.

 :?

[jh45gun]

fwed any cop would have done the same and been justified. When some one says they have a bomb you do not mess around and any thing pulled out of the bag could be considered a trigger device.

[FWiedner]

Given the situation and political atmosphere, I agree that their actions and choices can be excused.

I cannot agree that their actions can be justified.