I'm surprised this hasn't happend before....

I would have shot the guy also, but seems kinda iffy since he didn't shoot him on the plane (if I read that correctly).

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

Sounds like they gave him ample time to comply, and to get clear of the crowd of innocent bystanders before shooting him. Guess you really shouldn't say the word bomb in an airport any more huh...

OH hey i have a bomb in my carry on luggage!!!

Oh shit, air marshalls... /RUN into a busy turminal after being told to stop and drop your bag. While running, lets reach into the bag I screamed I had a bomb in, sounds like a great idea.

Sorry, but after 9/11 when someone does shit like this, you have to shoot first and ask questions later if they won't comply. I hate that he had to die for being a moron, BUT everyone knows you can't get away with shit like this anymore.

The idiot had to have a death wish to do what he did. The people I feel the most sorry for are the Marshalls that fired upon him. Neither of them had to use their weapons in the line of duty before, and they'll have to live with the fact that they killed an unarmed man. BUT they did the right thing.

"After the shooting, investigators spread passengers’ bags on the tarmac and let dogs sniff them for explosives, and bomb squad members blew up at least two bags."

"NBC News confirmed that authorities searching the man’s carry-on backpack did not find a bomb."

I'd be so fucking pissed if they blew my suitcase up when I had nothing to do with the episode that guy had.

Yeah me too Kelraz.

The man was retarded and didn't take his medication. The Marshalls who killed him will live with that fact forever! It's sad that the airmarshall's didn't recongize his problem when he went yeeeee..yeeeee. yeeeee and started bobbing his head up and down like a retard, His wife was even screaming that her husband was bio polar and didn't take his medications. I think they might have shot a little to quick from the way it sounds but again those people who pulled the trigger will need counseling for a long time to come. It's sad.

The man was retarded and didn't take his medication. The Marshalls who killed him will live with that fact forever! It's sad that the airmarshall's didn't recongize his problem when he went yeeeee..yeeeee. yeeeee and started bobbing his head up and down like a retard, His wife was even screaming that her husband was bio polar and didn't take his medications. I think they might have shot a little to quick from the way it sounds but again those people who pulled the trigger will need counseling for a long time to come. It's sad.

No, they did not shoot too quick.

They followed their training, and did as they were supposed to do. The woman screaming about his condition and medication was irrelevant, as it is not exactly beyond imagination that an accomplice to a bomber might try to provide a distraction. The actions of the individual met the criteria that was required to initiate action, and he alone was responsible for his death. He did not take his medication; the marshalls did not keep him from taking it, so that should be a moot point.

If this was a news story about a bomber blowing up a plane while his wife/accomplice distracted authorities with cries of his being sick, how many fingers would be getting pointed at the marshalls for not doing their jobs?

They did as they were trained to, and should not have to feel guilty.

I see your point but right or wrong anyone who takes a human life will always carry around a heavy heart regardless. It's still sad.

I see your point but right or wrong anyone who takes a human life will always carry around a heavy heart regardless. It's still sad.

And had the Marshall's allowed the guy to go on, and he'd had a bomb, their hearts would've been approximately 125 times heavier.

The man was retarded and didn't take his medication. The Marshalls who killed him will live with that fact forever! It's sad that the airmarshall's didn't recongize his problem when he went yeeeee..yeeeee. yeeeee and started bobbing his head up and down like a retard, His wife was even screaming that her husband was bio polar and didn't take his medications.
There is nothing about bi polar that could be mistaken for yeeeee-yeeeee, head bobbing retarded.

Just in case anyone here is applying the kitty cat belly button thing to bipolar disorder, here (http://www.psycom.net/depression.central.bipolar-screening.html) ya go.

Fuck...I think everyone would be Bi-Polar if that questionaire was accurate.

I know very little about Bi-polar Disorder...and I'm not going to google it, damnit!

I was just thinking, Suicide by Proxy?

It's a couple little big words for manic depression. It's referred to as bi-polar because the person alternates between the two "poles", mania:D being the highs and depression:( being the lows. My best memory from our psych studies in school has to be when one of our instructors acted out manic depression for about a week. One day he would come into class dressed to the nines, smiling from ear to ear, singing, dancing, whatever. We thought he had OCD and a rather nasty addiction to nose candy. The other days, well, it was as if he would pull a gun from his briefcase and off himself, raking us all out with him. At the end of the week, he'd shown us the clear difference in extremes regarding manifestation of manic or depressive states. The respective characteristics, however, cannot be measured or expected to last a set amount of time. Either of the 2 can last hours, days, weeks, even months. Also, manic depression differs from clinical depression because of it's characteristic severity in change from high to low.
Hypomania is characterized by especially energetic of irritable moods, and any or all of the following signs: unusual confidence, less need for sleep, being unusually talkative, thoughts racing, easy distraction/trouble concentrating, being more goal-oriented, greater involvement in pleasurable or high-risk activities, doing or saying things out of character.
Bipolar I disorder is characterized by one or more manic episodes or mixed episodes (symptoms of both a mania and a depression occurring nearly every day for at least 1 week) and one or more major depressive episodes. Bipolar I disorder is the most severe form of the illness marked by extreme manic episodes.
Bipolar II disorder is characterized by one or more depressive episodes accompanied by at least one hypomanic episode. Hypomanic episodes have symptoms similar to manic episodes but are less severe, but must be clearly different from a person’s non-depressed mood. For some, hypomanic episodes are not severe enough to cause notable problems in social activities or work.
Cyclothymic disorder is characterized by chronic fluctuating moods involving periods of hypomania and depression. The periods of both depressive and hypomanic symptoms are shorter, less severe, and do not occur with regularity as experienced with bipolar II or I. However, these mood swings can impair social interactions and work. Many, but not all, people with cyclothymia develop a more severe form of bipolar illness.
There is also a form of the illness called bipolar disorder not otherwise specified (NOS) that does not fit in to one of the above definitions.

It's important to keep in mind that these are very general signs and symptoms. I honestly believe every morning person I've ever met to be terminally manic.

**partially borrowed from American Psychiatric Association articles**

And to answer
I was just thinking, Suicide by Proxy?
I prefer to call it thinning the herd.

It's a couple little big words for manic depression. It's referred to as bi-polar because the person alternates between the two "poles", mania:D being the highs and depression:( being the lows. My best memory from our psych studies in school has to be when one of our instructors acted out manic depression for about a week. One day he would come into class dressed to the nines, smiling from ear to ear, singing, dancing, whatever. We thought he had OCD and a rather nasty addiction to nose candy. The other days, well, it was as if he would pull a gun from his briefcase and off himself, raking us all out with him. At the end of the week, he'd shown us the clear difference in extremes regarding manifestation of manic or depressive states. The respective characteristics, however, cannot be measured or expected to last a set amount of time. Either of the 2 can last hours, days, weeks, even months. Also, manic depression differs from clinical depression because of it's characteristic severity in change from high to low.
Hypomania is characterized by especially energetic of irritable moods, and any or all of the following signs: unusual confidence, less need for sleep, being unusually talkative, thoughts racing, easy distraction/trouble concentrating, being more goal-oriented, greater involvement in pleasurable or high-risk activities, doing or saying things out of character.
Bipolar I disorder is characterized by one or more manic episodes or mixed episodes (symptoms of both a mania and a depression occurring nearly every day for at least 1 week) and one or more major depressive episodes. Bipolar I disorder is the most severe form of the illness marked by extreme manic episodes.
Bipolar II disorder is characterized by one or more depressive episodes accompanied by at least one hypomanic episode. Hypomanic episodes have symptoms similar to manic episodes but are less severe, but must be clearly different from a person’s non-depressed mood. For some, hypomanic episodes are not severe enough to cause notable problems in social activities or work.
Cyclothymic disorder is characterized by chronic fluctuating moods involving periods of hypomania and depression. The periods of both depressive and hypomanic symptoms are shorter, less severe, and do not occur with regularity as experienced with bipolar II or I. However, these mood swings can impair social interactions and work. Many, but not all, people with cyclothymia develop a more severe form of bipolar illness.
There is also a form of the illness called bipolar disorder not otherwise specified (NOS) that does not fit in to one of the above definitions.

It's important to keep in mind that these are very general signs and symptoms. I honestly believe every morning person I've ever met to be terminally manic.

**partially borrowed from American Psychiatric Association articles**

And to answer

I prefer to call it thinning the herd.

Kris thanks for pointing this out. I once dated a girl that was bi polar and this was how she acted.

I just ended a friendship with someone over this stupid story. She for some reason couldnt grasp the man was responsible for what he did, wether it was by not taking his medicine or being an idiot.

She had it in her head that bi polar makes you believe things, like it could make you think you are a troll instead of a person. Not sure how she came up with this insanity. She then proceded to tell me I knew nothing about bi polar because of this.

Ah well i tried to rep you, but i need to spread it around :devil Hope work is ok.

And yes its sad he had to die, but the marshals did nothing wrong and the only one to blame is that man and possibly his wife.

Sad as the result was, the airmarshal did exactly what he should have done.


Fandros

All I can say is I'm sorry for the loss of life but I sure as hell feel allot better about flying now. If this guy was "that" mental he didn't belong on a plane to begin with. Law enforcement can't take chances the marshall did his job.

I would like to know more about the situation....

1. Did he have his medication with him?
2. Was he prevented from taking it? (Was it an injection and had his syringes taken from him when he tried went through security... more on this later)
3. Was the flight long enough that any meds he took would have had time to wear off?
4. Why didn't the wife try to tackle/wrestle with him as he went running up the aisle?

The last time I went through airport security I saw a man who was attempting to board the airplane with a couple of syringes.

This guy appeared to be about 198 years old, one foot in the grave, the other on a banana peel and sliding fast. He had a small case with him that had his insulin in it (including one of those refreezeable keep-cold packs to keep the insulin cold). He was accompanied by his wife and they were being told that he could not take the syringes on the aircraft with him.

This was going to be a five hour flight and he had to have his insulin every three to four hours, especially if there was a meal served.

They finally got one of the aircraft crew (pilot, co-pilot etc) to come down and take his syringes. He was given one of the syringes on the aircraft to take his medication in-flight. Had this not been done, I'm sure there would have been a lawsuit for wrongful death... etc. etc....

I mention this because I'm sure there will be a lawsuit arising from this situation. Even though the air marshals reacted according to their training, and were well within what the law stipulates for using deadly force, there will still be a lawsuit.

Sadly, the loss of human life is regrettable. I just hope that people use some common sense when looking back on this in retrospect.

An unfortunate incident, but the air marshals did what they had to do.

Honestly, I don't want to know. I don't care about his meds or his condition. If it is that bad he shouldn't be flying period. Travel is a privlidge not a right. There are other means, less cost effective? sure. Longer? possibly. The airline or anyone else's problem? no. I am so freaking sick of people trying to make thier issues and problems someone else's. Yeah I'm sorry you're sick buddy don't make my life or experience miserable because of you.

That sky marshall had seconds to make his choice and make his choice is exactly what he did. There's a whackjob who says he has a bomb, do I wait for him to stick his hand in there and detonate it or do I squeeze the trigger and eliminate him? One life is a better trade than the uncertainty and possibility of 100+.

As I said before, I feel safer flying now than ever before. If you follow the rules you're going to be okay. You never hear of someone who follows the rules getting shot for following the rules. You hear about people who don't.

The insulin thing is tricky but it's not the airlines fault is it? He doesn't need to fly IMO. My mom is a diabetic and she would choose a different method I'm sure. People think everyone owes them something......GAH.....

/climbs down off soapbox :(

From a radio interview I heard this morning, the guy was off his meds for quite some time. As it was explained, the medication is a long-term thing that even if he had popped his pill before getting on the flight, it would not have done any good. It takes awhile to build up in your system before it regulates the disorder. Apparently, he and his wife had spent quite a bit of time in Columbia, so maybe he ran out but stayed anyway...

Anyway, he ran up the aisle screaming "I have a bomb! I have a bomb in my backpack!" The air marshaled followed, and in the jetway after the guy reached into his backpack, the marshal shot him. Pretty straightforward and the right thing to do... if it's all accurate.
Also in the interview, it was claimed that after he was shot and killed, his wife was forced to return to the plane and wait with everyone else while they searched for explosives. Through this time, she profusely apologized to everyone around her for his actions.

All I can say is I'm sorry for the loss of life but I sure as hell feel allot better about flying now. If this guy was "that" mental he didn't belong on a plane to begin with. Law enforcement can't take chances the marshall did his job.

AMEN!

someday I'd like to hear about someone standing up suddenly on a plane and screaming "REDEEMER!!!!" then running to the other end of the aisle and dropping to the floor.

I happened to turn on the Today show while warming up the car to leave for work, and was completely disgusted by Katie Couric pushing the spokesman for the Federal Air marshalls about why they could not have shot to wound, or used other options.

Gee, I am sure glad we have this former cheerleader available to bring some journalistic integrity to these situations:rolleyes:

Seriously, she would be badgering them just as bad if the plane had blown up and we had 126 deaths instead of one. She would be wanting to know why they were not faster to take out the bomber.

She is as much of a joke to journalism as John Gibson is on the other side.

/salute Air Marshals

Seems they can't get any of the passengers to corroborate the marshall's story of the man saying he had a bomb in his bag......Here we go again. In all honesty, in this time where everyone is on edge and law enforcement personell are on high alert/hair trigger status, it is surprising that there have only been two of these situations in four years.

Doesnt seem as cut and dry as it initally looked. Pulled from this article (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/08/airplane.gunshot/index.html):

"The marshals say Alpizar announced he was carrying a bomb before being killed.

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."

So, only Air Marshal's word on that 'vocal bomb threat' (so far). Note this from later in the article:

"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." " (bold by me)

So, somehow, this guy was yelling, on the plane that he had a bomb, and no passengers can corroborate that? Odd.

Also, the point was raised in this thread that they did what they had to to keep the guy from getting on the plane - well since he was already on the plane, and exited, then was shot, it leads to the question as to whether deadly force was needed to protect anyone. Not saying they were wrong or right, but it's not cut and dry, and the reasoning that 'they had to protect the passengers' doesnt make much sense.

Finally:

"The marshals fired two or three shots when Alpizar appeared to reach into his bag, Adams 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."

Differing reports, and there's definitely a big difference between 2 or 3, and 5 or 6. Obviously this could be cleared up with a quick inspection of his body.

Note that I'm not saying that the Air Marshals are right or wrong, just that there are things that arent adding up with the news that's been reported so far, and I certainly dont feel that it's a clean-cut "they did exactly what they were supposed to do" yet.

Jensae let me know how many negative reps you generate from that post. I got 9 from my last post in this thread several came from the biggest dork around...ELE (the angry veterinarian)....lol.... who believes all law enforcement officers can do no wrong! I do however regard his opinion very highly on this situation because his behavior characteristics seem to compliment the same genetic composition of the deceased.....Birds of a feather flock together!

I don't know exactly how many times I went through the exercise in college classes where an event would be sprung on the class, and then questionaires distributed to elicit witness descriptions.

Invariably, there would be discrepancies in the witness accounts.

All second guessing aside, I am still putting my money on the Marshals. It is exactly this kind of second guessing and Monday morning quarterbacking that will keep us from ever being able to be truly ahead of the freaks that want to cause us harm; these handwringers are doing nothing more than handcuffing those trying to protect them.

In blunt language, the man had no business being on that plane if he was suffering a mental disorder and not on his medication, and his wife is as much at fault as anyone for his death, as she had knowledge that he was not on his medication and the potential was there for him to behave abnormally. How about Katie Couric grills her about her options and what she could have done differently to avoid the tragedy, instead of making the marshals look like bad guys.

If it is that bad he shouldn't be flying period. Travel is a privlidge not a right. There are other means, less cost effective? sure. Longer? possibly. The airline or anyone else's problem? no. I am so freaking sick of people trying to make thier issues and problems someone else's. Yeah I'm sorry you're sick buddy don't make my life or experience miserable because of you.

Fildien, this seems a bit short-sighted. It's pretty easy to say that he should have taken his medication, and that he shouldn't have flown. However, if the guy's judgement is so poor that he's going to run around claiming to have explosives, I somehow don't think he'd have the foresight to sit down beforehand and decide if he's fit to be on a plane.

If you're trying to say that someone else should have made that decision for him, I think you should consider the ramifications of instituting a policy about that. How exactly would it be enforced? For one thing, diagnosing mental illness is difficult, and is rarely entirely conclusive. Also, mental illness is very common; I'd imagine nearly every fully-booked plane has at least a few people on it with mental illness.

Edit: If i'm reading too far into what you're saying, I apologize; I just can't help but take a little offense with these sorts of things.

I don't know exactly how many times I went through the exercise in college classes where an event would be sprung on the class, and then questionaires distributed to elicit witness descriptions.

Invariably, there would be discrepancies in the witness accounts.

All second guessing aside, I am still putting my money on the Marshals.
Whilst I agree that no 2 people who witness an incident will ever agree on all the details, which can explain several of the listed discrepencies, the fact that NO passengers on the plane have corroborated (yet) the "yelling he had a bomb" statement raises several doubts. If no others are able to be found that can back up the Marshal's statement about the declaration of the bomb, then in my mind there is doubt cast on other statements made by them.

That's an if, because I do recognized that it is early in the investigation, and I seriously doubt that the Federal Air Marshal Service (as well as other authorities) are releasing too many details as of yet, until they get as much of the story as they can (which is as it should be).

It is exactly this kind of second guessing and Monday morning quarterbacking that will keep us from ever being able to be truly ahead of the freaks that want to cause us harm; these handwringers are doing nothing more than handcuffing those trying to protect them.
Are you saying we shouldn't analyze and question the authorities when events like this occur? We should put absolute faith in the authorities when a death occurs, just because 'they were trained'? Asking the questions to find out what exactly happened, and exploring discrepencies to determine why there is a discrepency is not the same as accusing someone of doing wrong.

I used to do this sort of investigating all the time when I was in the military due to the fact that I worked with a politically sensitive discipline (nuclear reactors). Anytime anything happened that wasnt expected, we did a formal in-house investigation to determine why. We weren't out for blood, we just wanted to know why it didnt do what it was supposed to do so we could learn from it, and correct it if it was an error on our part. Given that things NEVER go as planned (on anything that has any modicum of complexity at all), these investigations were frequent occurances. If it was a semi-major incident, then an outside agency (outside of our command) would come in and investigate as well. Obviously if it were a truly major incident (like causing a death, or releasing fission decay products to the environment), then many agencies (outside of the Navy itself) would be investigating, likely to include the media.

This is a normal thing in any organization (especially governmental), and for major incidents it's normal for outside agencies to investigate, including the media. Knowing that there's others looking helps keep people honest. As much as we'd like to believe that those designated to protect us will be honest at all times (as well as their bosses behind the desks), the fact is that there are quite a few people that would 'sweep it under the rug' if they thought they could get away with it - especially when you know how much of a headache admitting that you (or your guys) screwed up is going to be, and knowing that it was just a mistake.

Again, there isnt anything conclusive out there yet, and it is still very early in everyone's investigation (media, Air Marshals, etc.) to say anything conclusive - meaning it cannot be said that they did wrong by shooting him at this time, but also that it cannot be said that they weren't negligent either.

Heya, Jen! :)

Doesnt seem as cut and dry as it initally looked. Pulled from this article (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/08/airplane.gunshot/index.html):

"The marshals say Alpizar announced he was carrying a bomb before being killed.

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."

So, only Air Marshal's word on that 'vocal bomb threat' (so far). Note this from later in the article:

"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." " (bold by me)

So, somehow, this guy was yelling, on the plane that he had a bomb, and no passengers can corroborate that? Odd.

Also, the point was raised in this thread that they did what they had to to keep the guy from getting on the plane - well since he was already on the plane, and exited, then was shot, it leads to the question as to whether deadly force was needed to protect anyone. Not saying they were wrong or right, but it's not cut and dry, and the reasoning that 'they had to protect the passengers' doesnt make much sense.

Finally:

"The marshals fired two or three shots when Alpizar appeared to reach into his bag, Adams 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."

Differing reports, and there's definitely a big difference between 2 or 3, and 5 or 6. Obviously this could be cleared up with a quick inspection of his body.

Note that I'm not saying that the Air Marshals are right or wrong, just that there are things that arent adding up with the news that's been reported so far, and I certainly dont feel that it's a clean-cut "they did exactly what they were supposed to do" yet.

This can all be pointed back to Clinton and how the Federal Air Marshalls were not funded properly by that administration. There are certain facts that the liberal media has overlooked here:

1-) The plane was in Florida. This is where the brother of the President lives. There is a high probability that the passenger in question had all intentions of running to the governors mansion and was going to make an attempt at holding Jeb Bush and his family hostage. The implications of this are horrific. If this were to happen Bush would not be able to run for the presidency in 2008 thereby allowing a possible liberal or even middle of the road candidate to enter the presidency. This has the potential of exposing national security documents involving Sadam Hussein and the WMD's he had threatened to use against American troops as he attacked them in the Iraqi desert back in 2003.

2-) Vice-President Cheney had been in the south recently to give a speech on the merits of intensified physical interrogation (this is what liberals call torture). The theory is that perhaps the bomber had just simply had the date wrong causing him to run off the aircraft in order to hide his identity when he realized there were in fact Federal Air Marshalls on the plane who had been trailing him based on the information gained through the new police intelligence abilities allowed by the Patriot act.


3-) There is also the theory that this was a plot hatched by the Kerry - Edwards campaign to use a mentally ill person in a veiled "suicide by cop scenario". This was actually hatched on the eve of the lost election by a jealous Kerry when he realized that over 50 million patriotic americans did not buy into the liberal version of George Bush's patriotic service in the ANG where he spent years protecting our airspace from the impending attack by Soviet bombers. It has been said that the Kerry campaign and its liberal leaning quasi communist ideas had implemented this scenario as an "I told you so" slap in the face to the American people.

There is also a theory that is "out there" whereby the possibilty was brought up that this was a man suffering from mental illness and who for one reason or another had not been taking the medication prescribed for him causing a psychotic reaction that was perhaps sadly mis-interpreted by the Air Marshal's on the plane. But that theory is most definately liberal based as it is well known that these highly trained law enforcement officers are also trained to not make any mistakes. I believe this version is being spread by the liberal media in an effort to discredit the patriot act.



.

(The above post was not intended as flame baiting and was simply posted in an attempt to "humor" a very tragic accident. This situation is tragic for both the family of the gentleman who was killed and the Federal Air Marshals involved as the Christmas and Holiday season will no longer be a time of happiness but forever be a time of sadness and mourning for all involved)

Are you saying we shouldn't analyze and question the authorities when events like this occur? We should put absolute faith in the authorities when a death occurs, just because 'they were trained'? Asking the questions to find out what exactly happened, and exploring discrepencies to determine why there is a discrepency is not the same as accusing someone of doing wrong.


I am saying that the media folks (like the pseudo-journalists on the morning shows and Fox) have no place in the investigation, and discussing the matter as though they were the experts.

It should be investigated, of course, the same as any shooting death is investigated in any law enforcement agency. If mistakes were made, they need to be found out and appropriate actions taken. But that is something that should be left to the appropriate people to do, and not have it done on the morning talk shows where it is used more for ratings.

All things aside its a tragedy but this is new times people. When I go to the airport its all business these days. No screwing around and if you are with people who have issues you best keep it under control. Personally how in the world could one tell the difference between someone with metal issues and a terrorist..are they not mental themselves?

Sit down, shut up, and walk when exiting. Pretty simply procedures to follow..if you can't, then take a bus.

All things aside its a tragedy but this is new times people. When I go to the airport its all business these days. No screwing around and if you are with people who have issues you best keep it under control. Personally how in the world could one tell the difference between someone with metal issues and a terrorist..are they not mental themselves?

Sit down, shut up, and walk when exiting. Pretty simply procedures to follow..if you can't, then take a bus.


Right. A psychiatrist couldn't diagnose this man in 12 seconds and at 20 feet much less an Air Marshall..... Plus throw in the "I have a bomb" statement and the outcome is what I would expect/want. Its not a three strikes your out.... its a ball one! your out!

I would have shot him to in those circumstances.

The net result of this will most likely be even further reduced ticket sales for the airlines. If people start to think that all security forces in airports, trains, etc are on edge hair triggers, they will avoid those places. I certainly will. We have been making jokes at work lately because when we design products we have to create a BOM, bill of materials. We are joking that we shouldnt say bom anymore because someone might shoot us. Its funny but not really. Remember, people who will trade liberty for safety, deserve neither. It all goes back to the fact that somehow 2 guys with box cutters managed to subdue an entire plane load of people. What a bunch of cowards. A box cutter? If Americans in general would toughen up and be more assertive things like this wouldnt happen. The story says that the man boarded the plane in miami to fly to orlando. It also quotes a woman who sat next to him on the flight from ecuador to miami. So I guess he got off the first plane and then got on the second plane and the incident occured when the airplane was boarding? Anyway, if the man had a bomb and was already on the plane and would obviously be planning to suicide, if he thought he was busted why would he run out of the plane instead of blowing the bomb? It doesn's make sense that the marshalls would think that is behavior consistent with someone who was planing a suicide bombing. One only look at iraq to see what a bomber does when he is caught, or the latest bomb in Israel. I am not so much bothered by the person being killed for very suspicious behavior in a bad place to be suspicious. I am bothered by the fact that the marshalls (if its true) are attempting to demonize this person with lies, much the same way the british police did. If they killed an innocent man in a very unfortunate situation, then so be it, but dont lie and demonize and make it worse.

It all goes back to the fact that somehow 2 guys with box cutters managed to subdue an entire plane load of people. What a bunch of cowards.

Words can not fully describe the utter disgust I have for this statement of yours. Your are a fucking whack job.

At one point you say this:
A box cutter? If Americans in general would toughen up and be more assertive things like this wouldnt happen.
But then go on to say that the marshals shouldn't have acted. It's very easy to write a few paragraphs (okay, what should have been a few paragraphs) about planning, behavior observation, and what a "sane suicide bomber" would or would not do. It's quite another thing to actually be there rendering judgments as it's happening.

Assuming that the scenario played out as initially described -- with the deceased insinuating in some way that he had a bomb (as a mentally ill person might) -- then the marshals acted properly. What doesn't make sense is the idea that marshals made up the "bomb-speak" to justify shooting a guy with dozens of witnesses potentially in the line of fire without cause.

EDIT: added "ill"

It all goes back to the fact that somehow 2 guys with box cutters managed to subdue an entire plane load of people. What a bunch of cowards


I guess you missed that story about the plane crashing in PA on 9/11

Yes, I know that one of the 9/11 planes had some heroic people on it that were not afraid of a box cutter and made an effort not let their plane kill another 1000 people. I'm sorry akipt that you are afraid of a box cutter and would have been one of the people paralyzed with fear over a box cutter and not done anything while you watched yourself fly into a building. Remember the story of Teresa Saldano (sp) ? Yes, it is a fact that most americans are pathetic spineless do nothing worms. All this new found patriotism in america supporting our troops overseas but yet people here are still a spineless as ever.

Thor, I never said the marshalls shouldnt have acted. Maybe you inferred that from my tone?

I believe the hijackers told the passengers they'd be safe if they didn't do anything, playing it up to be a hostage/ransom type situation. It's understandable that they chose not to act, given that they did not know the intentions of their captors.

I believe the hijackers told the passengers they'd be safe if they didn't do anything, playing it up to be a hostage/ransom type situation. It's understandable that they chose not to act, given that they did not know the intentions of their captors.

Or there were just alot of democrates on board that plane.

I'm sorry akipt that you are afraid of a box cutter and would have been one of the people paralyzed with fear over a box cutter and not done anything while you watched yourself fly into a building.

Until 9/11, exactly how many planes have been hijacked and flown into buildings. Answer..0, none, nada. How many were hijacked to other airoports etc. countless numbers.

To assume these people should have known the terrorists were going to fly the plane into building is ignorant. Hindsight is 20/20, I doubt a boxcutter would stop many people from wipping the floor with any would be terrorists now.

Yes, I know that one of the 9/11 planes had some heroic people on it that were not afraid of a box cutter and made an effort not let their plane kill another 1000 people. I'm sorry akipt that you are afraid of a box cutter and would have been one of the people paralyzed with fear over a box cutter and not done anything while you watched yourself fly into a building. Remember the story of Teresa Saldano (sp) ? Yes, it is a fact that most americans are pathetic spineless do nothing worms. All this new found patriotism in america supporting our troops overseas but yet people here are still a spineless as ever.

Thor, I never said the marshalls shouldnt have acted. Maybe you inferred that from my tone?


From what I understand the 9/11 hijackers not only used box cutters as a threat of physical force on the stewardesses to gain entry into the cabins of the aircraft but had also pretty clearly stated that they had bombs and would set them off if anyone became uncooperative.

The passengers on the plane in Pennsylvania had decided to defend themselves after it was known by them (through cell phone conversations) that the intent of the high jackers to crash the planes regardless of the cooperation level of the passengers.

I think in most cases like that people (no matter how tough) will subdue to their captors as the threat of a bomb detonating can be a bit of a mess compared to the damage of a box cutter.

It is most certainly quite easy to place a theoretical value on reaction to any given circumstance. I assure you that once reality sets in most do not react as they thought they would.

From what I understand the 9/11 hijackers not only used box cutters as a threat of physical force on the stewardesses to gain entry into the cabins of the aircraft but had also pretty clearly stated that they had bombs and would set them off if anyone became uncooperative.

The passengers on the plane in Pennsylvania had decided to defend themselves after it was known by them (through cell phone conversations) that the intent of the high jackers to crash the planes regardless of the cooperation level of the passengers.

This is the way I remember it happening also.... I think Phel just, by reflex, has to respond in the opposite opinon when Bylimet Akipt and Fandros post something.... forgive him.

(edit: Spelling error)

The net result of this will most likely be even further reduced ticket sales for the airlines. If people start to think that all security forces in airports, trains, etc are on edge hair triggers, they will avoid those places. I certainly will. We have been making jokes at work lately because when we design products we have to create a BOM, bill of materials. We are joking that we shouldnt say bom anymore because someone might shoot us. Its funny but not really. Remember, people who will trade liberty for safety, deserve neither. It all goes back to the fact that somehow 2 guys with box cutters managed to subdue an entire plane load of people. What a bunch of cowards. A box cutter? If Americans in general would toughen up and be more assertive things like this wouldnt happen. The story says that the man boarded the plane in miami to fly to orlando. It also quotes a woman who sat next to him on the flight from ecuador to miami. So I guess he got off the first plane and then got on the second plane and the incident occured when the airplane was boarding? Anyway, if the man had a bomb and was already on the plane and would obviously be planning to suicide, if he thought he was busted why would he run out of the plane instead of blowing the bomb? It doesn's make sense that the marshalls would think that is behavior consistent with someone who was planing a suicide bombing. One only look at iraq to see what a bomber does when he is caught, or the latest bomb in Israel. I am not so much bothered by the person being killed for very suspicious behavior in a bad place to be suspicious. I am bothered by the fact that the marshalls (if its true) are attempting to demonize this person with lies, much the same way the british police did. If they killed an innocent man in a very unfortunate situation, then so be it, but dont lie and demonize and make it worse.

I think the net result is that people won't screw around and do stupid shit like act crazy or hint there may be a bomb in their pants.... sure a mentally ill person may do it but then after he is dead it won't happen again.... I'm not so sure mentally ill people need to be at 60000 ft on the same plane I am on anyway.... Stay the fuck home if you have terets or I'm gunna choke you out.

Tourette Syndrome is not a mental illness, and it's probably the least of your worries.

Unless they yell "bomb" instead of "Shitfuck"....

Then they get moved to the top of my list....

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone yelling about a bomb as the result of Tourette's. More often than not, the disorder is characterized by motor tics (often only facial). Coprolalia - the involuntary vocalization of obscenities - is probably the manifestation you're thinking of, but it's a rare occurrence even in people with TS; it's just received a disproportionately large amount of media attention.

I don't mean this as a slam against you, Bise, or any of the others who have brought up the issue of mental illness and how that should effect someone's permissions, but I find this a little disturbing:

I am saying that the media folks (like the pseudo-journalists on the morning shows and Fox) have no place in the investigation, and discussing the matter as though they were the experts.

Perhaps it should be left to the mental health experts to reach conclusions on the matter. At the very least, you should do some research before making such claims.

Unless they yell "bomb" instead of "Shitfuck"....

Then they get moved to the top of my list....

That was hilarious.

Roliel, No offense taken but. I wasn't picking on anyone with a mental condition per se. I was mainly trying to emphasize that if you do something that scares people on a plane, in the world we live in today, you should expect some sort of response (be it lethal or not).

Or there were just alot of democrates on board that plane.

How about you wake up? Everyone knows that democrates are kept below in the cargo area.

For the preceding twenty years, since the rash of hijackings to Cuba, the official instructions were always to do nothing to antagonize the hijackers and risk loss of life or injuries. Passengers were seldom injured/killed in hijackings as long as they followed the hijackers instructions.

It is extremely asinine for folks to imply that the passengers knew what the weapon arsenal was amongst the hijackers, or whether they had explosive devices that could bring down the plane.

And, Phel, were you actually there? Please enlighten us on the scene as the *victim* and marshalls saw it....like, number of people at the other end of the walk, in the terminal, proximity to the situation, potential victims in blast range, etc. You speak like you know as much or more then what the marshalls on the scene did.

If he had a bomb and wanted to maximize damage, a plane on the ground would not necessarily be the best place, but outside the confines where the shrapnel could disperse to more victims would be more likely.

Well, it's not much fun to agrue on ye ol' intraweb if you AGREE with the police for acting as trained, now is it?

This whole monday-morning-quarterbacking with "shoot to wound" and "make absolutely certain he's not just insane" stuff is crap. The marshall seems to have done what he was supposed to do -- put a couple rounds in his 10-circle.

I feel bad for the guy's family if he was just one of those guys who should be wandering downtown listening to his hasn't-worked-for-20-years radio talking aloud about how the CIA is monitoring his thoughts through his dental fillings. Shame he had to be shot because he took the pills from the wrong box on his pill case this morning; but if nobody's noticed, they're not fucking around at the airport any more.

This is the way I remember it happening also.... I think Phel just, by reflex, has to respond in the opposite opinon when Bylimet Akipt and Fandros post something.... forgive him.

(edit: Spelling error)

LOL, I almost choked on my beer when I read this, thinking of the amount that Akipt and Fandros and I argue with each other's opinions at times. But then, we do tend to try to give good arguments, and what Phel has posted in this thread does not meet that level of discourse.

I am actually somewhat surprised, as he has shown the ability to think things out before this; I don't believe the crap he has posted here was given any more thought than "How can I piss off some folks today".

I find this a little disturbing:



Perhaps it should be left to the mental health experts to reach conclusions on the matter. At the very least, you should do some research before making such claims.

Roliel, I am perplexed. Following the 'disturbing:' above, you quoted where I said the "pseudo-journalists" from the morning shows and Fox should stay out of the investigation, and not talk about it like they were the experts. You then finished with the statement on mental health experts and doing research before making claims. Again, I am perplexed.

Are you saying there is something I need to research in particular regarding the Katie Courics and Matt Lauers (sp) and John Gibsons (the morning show hosts and Fox personalities), etc, before I state they should stay out of the investigation and stop talking like they are experts? Or were the quotes and your statement in a different context?

I am admittedly ill-informed on whether any of these media personalities have any background in the mental health field, or whether they have had any training along the lines the Air Marshals received, so maybe I should not be so quick to want to smack them for what seem to me to be asinine questions they are putting to the varied spokespeople regarding this incident. But, like I said, I am perplexed.

It's worth pointing out that most police-groups, air marshalls included, train their folks to shoot to kill. There is none of this shoot-to-wound stuff. At the point where a firearm is deemed necessary there isn't a whole lot of time to worry about the inaccuracy of a pistol. A threatening action - especially reaching into a concealed position - is usually considered grounds for firing first. Oh, there's none of that wait-to-be-shot-at-first nonsense either, in the real world you're already dead by then.

This is one of those areas which, except for extreme cases, I'll almost always side with the police-figure. If that Marshall felt there was a significant risk of life then he did what he needed to do. The facts will be endlessly debated by those who weren't in the hot spot at that moment and didn't have to make a tough call.

Who knows? Maybe the shooter has a history of unnecessary agression and he was out of line. Maybe he was high at the time. Maybe before all of this started the passenger cut the guy off in line and stole his drink. I'd be more concerned about those facts than the witnesses not quite having the same story. Authority figures need at least a little freedom to carry out their job without worrying about a world of lookiloos crying foul.

It sucks the guy died, especially since he wasn't actually a threat. I certainly don't want to make light of the loss of human life, but I worry a lot about the backlash that the loss of one life might make, when pitted against the possible threat of a repeat of 9/11. When you give cops guns and ask them to carry out a job, things like this will happen.

This (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6448213/did/10385067/?GT1=7516) looked pretty interesting, though not interesting enough for an entirely different thread. I also deemed it pertinent in my sleep-deprived state of euphoria.;)

Fildien, this seems a bit short-sighted. It's pretty easy to say that he should have taken his medication, and that he shouldn't have flown. However, if the guy's judgement is so poor that he's going to run around claiming to have explosives, I somehow don't think he'd have the foresight to sit down beforehand and decide if he's fit to be on a plane.

If you're trying to say that someone else should have made that decision for him, I think you should consider the ramifications of instituting a policy about that. How exactly would it be enforced? For one thing, diagnosing mental illness is difficult, and is rarely entirely conclusive. Also, mental illness is very common; I'd imagine nearly every fully-booked plane has at least a few people on it with mental illness.

Edit: If i'm reading too far into what you're saying, I apologize; I just can't help but take a little offense with these sorts of things.

Actually I was referring to the diabetic patient. But to dig a little deeper here. I'm not saying it should be the airline or anyone else's responsibility but the individuals. If that person doesn't have the mental faculties to make his own judgements and do them correctly then in my mind he should be instituted. If someone is sick and can't follow the rules then they need to be some place where they don't pose a threat to others. It should not be left to the airline to determine your mental state and whether you're safe to fly, it's your own. Too many times in this day and age people look to pass blame instead of accepting responsibility.

The man was retarded and didn't take his medication. The Marshalls who killed him will live with that fact forever! It's sad that the airmarshall's didn't recongize his problem when he went yeeeee..yeeeee. yeeeee and started bobbing his head up and down like a retard, His wife was even screaming that her husband was bio polar and didn't take his medications. I think they might have shot a little to quick from the way it sounds but again those people who pulled the trigger will need counseling for a long time to come. It's sad.

If you don't work in law enforcement you would never understand the split second decision ... they did the right thing ... If he did have a bomb and your loved one was killed by him ... you would be singin a different tune.

kk thanks =)