Are you joking about this? I think you are, but it isn’t humorous.
If not, why do you think our screeners are perfect?
That would seem to be impossible.
Jim
Since the British security police shot that guy in the train station, I think it is on the minds of a lot of people. I have not come to a conclusion, but I won’t give the feds a pass until I see the results of the investigation.
Yes, and reasonable.
Certainly the innocent dead expected better.
Why shouldn’t we take the passengers at their word. The air marshalls have a reason to lie, the passngers don’t.
You’re also pretty naive if you think at least some of these guys are not just waiting around hoping they’ll get a chance to shoot somebody. Law enforcement attracts more than it’s fair share of psychopaths.
Why is it that every time law enforcent blows away somebody for grabbing his wallet or his comb somebody always trots out that stupid phrase “split-second decisions?” If somebody is so shit-scared of doing his job that he’s going to kill somebody he KNOWS cannot POSSIBLY have a weapon, then he needs to find another line of work.
I think the chances that anyone could actually get a bomb onto a plane in a carry-on bag is non-existent. Missing a knife or a box-cutter is one thing. Missing an entire bomb in a carry-on bag stretches credulity to the breaking point.
Just out of interest, what conclusion should we draw if not one single passenger confirms the story about the bomb?
That these particular marshalls have really bad hearing? That the passengers are involved in some sort of conspiracy to get them fired?
This has nothing to do with expecting them to be “omnipotent,” or with “sit[ting] back in our comfortable armchairs.” It has to do with whether the people we put on planes with guns are sufficiently professional in the performance of their job.
Again, i’m not talking just about this particular case, but about a general principle regarding law enforcement officers. I find it rather troubling how many people are willing to take the marshalls’ word about this incident with absolutely no question, and to dismiss out of hand the testimony of other people on the plane.
Sure, it might well turn out that the marshalls did exactly the right thing, but it would be nice if we reached that conclusion after getting all the evidence, rather than before.
Nobody’s suggested that. But if they did get it wrong - which would probably be because of anxiety or the confusion that this situation caused, not their eagerness to shoot someone - they’d have a reason for getting it wrong. And they wouldn’t just come out and say they blew it.
I’ll I’m asking is that they don’t kill innocent people unless it’s absolutely unavoidable. When this story broke, I felt this was one of those tragic cases where they had no other options. Now I’m not sure.
Some passengers are reporting they were held at gunpoint by marshals after the shooting:
I don’t think we should assume anyone is lying. Eyewitness testimony is not always reliable, especially if ther scene was confused and everyone was in a panic. It’s entirely possible the marshalls were better able to hear what the victim was saying than the other passengers were.
Sure. There are nuts in every walk of life.
It’s not a matter of being scared, it’s a matter of reacting according to your training. If this guy really said he had a bomb, the marshalls acted perfectly appropriately when he reached for his bag.
Nor do I think it’s fair to demand that an officer/marshall wait to see what the suspect is drawing out before defending himself and others. If you wait, and the object is a bomb, you, and possibly a shit-load of innocent people, * die*.
And I disagree wholeheartedly that the officer KNEW the suspect could not POSSIBLY have a weapon. What the fuck are they there for in the first place if airline security is so perfect?
Unless the man was strip-searched, X-rayed and anal-probed, with his bags gone over by bomb-sniffing dogs, X-rays and chemical-trace detectors, I would not make such a bold statement as claiming he could not POSSIBLY have a weapon or bomb, and even then, it’s possible. The Number One mistake in security is assuming your measures are unbeatable.
We talk a lot about the responsibility of officers, but what about the responsibility of suspects? It may turn out that a suspect was innocently reaching for his comb when the officers commanded him to hold up his hands, but the officers did not know that. The suspect may be a sweet, gentle person who loves puppies and never forgets to call his mother, but the officers don’t know that. All they see is a man refusing to raise his hands reaching back to a place where people carry weapons. An officer would have to be an idiot to decide to wait and see if he’ll get shot or not before reacting.
I don’t expect an officer to assume I’m not dangerous if I’m acting like I am. I may be reaching for my comb, but *why the fuck am I doing that *after I was commanded to put my hands in the air? People may condemn the officer for shooting me, but shouldn’t a little of that condemnation fall on me for refusing to obey an order from a law officer and acting like I’m about to draw?
And my reaction is different: I assume there was no wrong-doing unless proven otherwise. I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt to highly-trained professionals who are dedicated to public safety.
As for the testimony of others, as I said, it may be that they simply didn’t hear the suspect-- just because something wasn’t heard by some witnesses doesn’t mean it wasn’t said. Secondly, it’s likely they were all talking the incident over before they were interviewed, possibly tainting their recollections. Thirdly, we’re basing this entire conversation off of media reports, and the media wants to make this as sensational and shocking as possible.
I’ll reserve judgement until the offical reports are done, as should everyone. If the marshalls were wrong, they will be punished/prosecuted in due course. But I don’t think we should try them based on media reports and hang them in effigy when we don’t know the whole story.
Acknowledging that somebody has reason to lie isn’t the same as assuming they are lying.
So far, as noted, nobody who has spoken to the media has said they heard him say “I have a bomb.” The initial claim was that he ran up and down the aisles yelling that he had a bomb, so unless the passengers - and some of them are now actively refuting that he said it - just happened to be in a position where they could hear other things he said but not this, it becomes a little suspicious.
Wouldn’t that cause them to say the same thing?
If somebody was telling reporters that he heard Alpizar yell “I have a bomb,” it’d get reported.
Yes.
I’d like to see some CCTV evidence. Don’t airports have cameras everywhere?
Good point. I’ll bet if they were in that area, the recording will be “missing”, “damaged” or the cameras were “inoperable”.
For what it’s worth, this is from the New York Times article today about this:
(The bolding is mine.) So this is the first hint of someone other than the air marshalls saying Mr. Alpizar made a threat. Here is the link to the full article: Fretful Passenger, Turmoil on Jet and Fatal Shots
I didn’t say we should assume the AM’s are lying, I’m saying that their testimony conflicts with the passengers,’ that the AM’s have a reason lie (which is not the same thing as saying they are lying*) and that we shouldn’t just take them at their word.
They said the guy was running up and down the aisles of the plane yelling, “I have a bomb.” I find it very hard to believe that not a single passenger would have noticed that. In the post 9/11 world it is simply not credible that a plane full of passengers would FORGET that a crazy guy was screaming that he hads a bomb in his bag. If anything, overheated imaginations would exaggerate the accounts, not downplay them.
And if he DIDN’T say he had a bomb, then what? What kind of evidence do you think should be required to satisfy the claim that he did say it? Are you willing to say that the AM’s word for it is all it should take? Should all law enforcement officials have a free get out of jail card for any shooting as long as they say the magic words, “he said he had a bomb?” Is the mere say-so of the shooter good enough for you? If their claims about “the B-word” cannot be corroborated, what do you think should happen?
They knew he couldn’t have had a bomb.
They’re there for PR, mostly. That and to try to put a little doubt into the minds of any more would be hijackers. Mostly, though, it’s just to make the passengers feel better about buying tickets.
And airport security might not be perfect but it’s good enough to catch a fucking bomb in a carry-on bag.
You’re assuming a lot of facts not in evidence. There is not yet any corroboration for the “bomb” thing besides the word of the shooters.
[quote]
And my reaction is different: I assume there was no wrong-doing unless proven otherwise. I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt to highly-trained professionals who are dedicated to public safety.]/quote]
That’s an extremely scary attitude when it comes to law enforcement officials killing people. I think that when a human life is taken, the burden automatically shifts to the killer to prove it was justified. They should not get special consideration just because they were wearing a uniform.
See above. People don’t just forget they heard a bomb threat on an airplane and talking things over tends to provide more exggerated claims, not fewer.
But you’re willing to try the victim and say he wasn’t a “responsible suspect” and that you’re going to assume he deserved to die based on nothing but the word of those who killed him. I think that’s a very irresponsible attitude.
Who says a bomb couldn’t be placed in a carry-on bag between secuirty and the plane? Or brought onboard in pieces?
Why DtC did and he must be right, didn’t you see his earlier pronouncements?
Jim
Between security and the plane? You think somebody might be huddled in the boarding tunnel handing out bombs?
In pieces? What kind of pieces and how did the pieces get past security? How did this bomb get assembled?
This is all just bending over backwards to give the shooters any possible benefit of a doubt, no matter how improbable. Realistically, there is no way someone is getting on a plane with a bomb in a carry-on bag.
Yeah, airport workers. Are we certain that all airport employees are who they say they are and are checked routinely? As recently as two years ago, they weren’t.
And you’re really saying that the air marshals shot him because they were considering this possibility?
Everybody’s somewhat right, and this is getting stupid. The marshals should not assume the airport security will catch any threat. If they did assume that, they could probably just watch the in-flight movie and go to sleep. That said, unless Alpizar was shouting that he had a bomb, there was no reason to think he had a bomb and then shoot him.
You know, prior to 9/11 I felt perfectly safe traveling through airports and flying on planes.
Now I’m scared. Not of terrorists. I’m scared someday I’m going to have a bad case of diarrhea, run for a bathroom and get shot by some guy wearing a Hawaiian shirt who will then claim, “he was carrying a bag. Oh, and he said the b-word.”