Well, to be fair, the guy on the right does have his hands behind his back. How is the poor guy with the gun supposed to know that he isn’t reaching for a thermonuclear device? Safety first, people!
Anyways, the officers in that case were acquitted of all charges.
And the police department settled for $3m (the original amount requested by the family was $81m) so I don’t think there’s any real evidence the officers acted inappropriately.
Then again the bag could have been rigged so that it was set to fire by a momentary off switch. When the guy lets go of the bag (death for example) the bomb explodes. I’m sure we could imagine all kinds of events that could have occurred.
It seems to me AuntiePam may have the right answer.
What bothers me is that on “Good Morning America”, they said that the exact number of US Air Marshalls is classified but it’s probably around 3,000 and since September 11, 2001, they always work in pairs. That’s a story that had to be told huh? What tactics do they use, what firepower do they pack, what are their names, where do they live? Enquiring minds want to know. :rolleyes:
So far, nobody on the plane has backed the Air Marshals’ statement that he said he had a bomb. I’m starting to wonder if they may have overreacted to his panic and attempt to run away from the plane, and then one thing led to another too fast. The fact that they’ve both been placed on leave also makes me suspicious.
This pre-emptive pitting would look kind of bad if this story unravels.
What if the guy is a deaf-mute or something, and going for a card that says so ( IIRC some police departments use this scenario in training ) ? What if you’ve scared him so much he’s just had a heart attack ? Yes it’s risky, but a willingness to take risks to protect the innocent is part of what is supposed to make cops the “good guys”. If they shoot innocent people “just to be safe”, they aren’t the good guys any more.
Please tell me I’m being whooshed and you’re not actually implying that GMA did something wrong here.
It’s standard operating procedure for every police precinct that I’ve heard of that when an officer shoots someone in the line of duty the officer is put on paid leave while the incident is reviewed. I’m guessing whatever agency/organization runs Air Marshalls has a similar operating procedure.
Also, none of the other passengers is saying that Mr. Alpizar was not claiming he had a bomb. From all accounts I’ve seen the passengers were confused and distressed throughout the incident. And the shooting apparently happened outside the plane outside the view of the passengers. So it’s highly likely they wouldn’t have any idea what he said or did before he was shot.
To add to my last post (sorry forgot to include this.) If you check out the CNN.com FrontPage story on this the passengers that have come forward and spoken to the media all have conflicting stories. One passenger said he did not observe Mr. Apliraz saying anything. Another said he observed him screaming “I need to get off, I need to get off.” In general one has to realize how fallible eye witnesses can be, or how some individuals may not be very observant or have trouble remembering things in the confusion while others may remember everything that happened
The use of force should always be a last resort. But even a deaf mute should, in general, have a good idea what’s going on when 4 police officers have guns pointed at his torso, common sense tells us the last thing you need to be doing is reaching for anything inside your jacket.
So, is it your opinion police should be expected to put themselves in mortal danger, on the off chance that someone is reaching into their jacket for an innocuous object? Police officer’s are people too, and shouldn’t be required to put themselves into ridiculous amounts of harm when they can avoid said harm via commonly accepted standard procedures.
There’s a difference between being willing to accept some degree of risk in your job if you’re a law enforcement officer, and putting yourself into unacceptable degrees of risk.
Oh, come off it. Asking such “what ifs” is virtually pointless. For example, what if the bomb was on a timer and he was reaching in to the bag to turn off? In both your case, where the officer doesn’t fire, and mine where he does, the answer is the same: BOOM! But, I’ve heard too many stories where an innocent, unarmed person was shot and killed by police who believed he may have been reaching for a weapon when, in fact, he wasn’t even armed to believe that training law enforcement officers to hold off until a reasonable determination that a weapon is actually present wouldn’t have some positive benefit. I don’t mean that he should wait until it’s absolutely 100% clear that the officer is actually staring down the barrel of a loaded .45 automatic with the hammer pulled back, I just mean he should be a little more sure than just a hunch.
Well, I think we should use the standard that if someone is dumb enough to reach into their jacket when armed law enforcement officers yell “don’t move!!, hands in the air!!” they don’t deserve extraordinary protection when if said protection were an SOP it would result in officers being forced into extra-dangerous situations if a perp WAS reaching for a gun.
As i said before, i think the pre-emptive pitting looks bad, no matter what happens to the story. The pre-emptive aspect is simply indicative of small-mindedness, a desire to rant against an argument that no-one even made.
Totally.
Air marshalls never travel alone - there are always at least two on board, if there are any at all.
No, he was actually a VietCong officer, dressed in civilian clothes, who had just killed 8 South Vietnamese. He was legally executed by the South Vietnamese National Chief of Police in this photo.
And I forgot the cite. :smack:
Lok
By saying he said something else, aren’t they saying he DIDN’T say “I have a bomb?” If the passengers had told reporters that he said that, it would appear in the stories. So far, that hasn’t happened.
I thought the initial story was that he had run down the aisle of the plane screaming that he had a bomb. Thus, if he’d said it at that time, you’d think some of them would have heard it. But we only have partial information at this time, obviously. Still, I’m starting to think it’s possible that the marshals reacted more to the tension of the situation - guy has a fight with his wife on the plane, then runs out and doesn’t listen to what they’re saying - than anything else.
Ninja Chick
No, you are not being wooshed. I am not specifically blaming “Good Morning America” but I think some facts should be kept strictly classified and no news agency should have any access to it. (and I’m one of the most liberal posters on this board).
As a matter of fact, the guest on Good Morning America was Jamie Smith, an instructor and consultant to the Federal Air Marshal program.
Granted, the government was trying to do some Public Relations regarding the shooting incidient but I learned the following useful information:
• Usually air marshals sit in the front of the plane, according to Smith.
• “They can sit anywhere in the aircraft that they choose, it is up to the air marshal, but it’s the pilot they are trying to protect,” Smith said.
For more Air Marshal strategy here’s the link:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1385143
We now know that’s not true, though it’s true that eyewitnesses don’t always get the whole story.
wolf_meister, that stuff is common sense. They’re trying to prevent the plane from being hijacked, which necessitates that they focus on the pilot. I fail to see how knowing that, or the fact that there are at least two of them on a plane, would help you hijack the aircraft. As Americans who are paying for and (at least supposedly) being protected by them, we’re entitled to some knowledge of how this system works. If people who work for or with the Air Marshal Service are sharing this information with the press, obviously they do not think it will be a problem for the marshals or passengers.
Marley 23
Well if I were a terrorist, I would act accordingly by planting at least one other confederate (“sleeper” if you will), to deal with the second Air Marshal. Maybe it could even prompt terrorists into planting a 3rd “sleeper” and so on. I just feel it’s information that is better off not being public knowledge.
Then again, I’m willing to admit I could be over-reacting and now that I think of it, I am definitely getting off topic.