Breaking News
Comcast Close To Buying NBC
Man, I don’t get some of the Monday Morning quarterbacking going on in this air marshal shooting in Miami. I feel bad for the guy and his family, but someone starts saying they have a bomb and then doesn’t listen to law enforcement on the plane? You are going to be taken down. The kind of labored thought process people are foisting on law enforcement is a perfect recipe for getting people killed, quite frankly.
Kristy Sanchez-Trujillo
T-Mobile Outage
T-Mobile
Megan Gale
Sylvie Van Der Vaart
Clash Of The Titans
Ashley Neufeld
Afton Williamson
Kyrstin Gemar
Tesla Coil
Xperia X10
Cany Vossough
Reza Vossough
Ninel Conde
Julia Louis Dreyfus
Guardians of Childhood
Botox
Chase Utley
Prince Of Persia Sands Of Time
Cherokee
Christopher Lee
Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince Harry
Cleveland Browns
Ernie Accorsi
Reina Flynn
Reid Gray
Cole Hamels
Brett Myers
Quinn Gray
SEPTA
Burlington Northern
Star Wars The Old Republic
Nightmare On Elm Street
Gerard Butler
Amrit Dhaliwal
Louise Linton
Gwen Stefani
Curtis Lavelle Vance
Anne Pressly
H1N1 Vaccine
Melody Ross
Oasis Of The Seas
Disney Cruise
Selita Ebanks
Anthony Sowell
JJ Redick
Axe Body Spray
Christopher Walken
Dragon Age Origins
Ah yes, linkage:
“Several of the 113 passengers who arrived in Orlando from Miami, however, said Alpizar may have been delusional and may have run out of the plane only because he feared a bomb was on board.
“I can tell you, he never said a thing in that airplane; he never called out he had a bomb,” said passenger Jorge Borelli, an Orlando architect.”
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/sfl-sairplane09dec09,0,1860656.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines
The whole thing hinges on whether the guy asid he had a bomb. If he did, then it was justified. If the Air Marshalls shot him for acting erratic, then it was not, and we need to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
Incidentally, this is playing out like the shooting in the Underground of the Brazilian man. The London cops made all sorts of claims that were later proven to be absolutely untrue. It’s too early to tell if that is the case here, but why would anyone be surprised?
I heard this morning that no one else on the flight remembers hearing that the guy said he had a bomb. So far, only the Marshalls are saying that. They only agree that he was acting erratic.
If true, would that change your stance?
Except the only people claiming the guy was shouting about having a bomb are the air marshals. That story has not been confirmed by anyone who doesn’t have a vested interest in it.
If this person said he had a bomb and then started running, there are serious concerns about this person and it may be understandable that he was shot.
If air marshalls shot someone and then made up a story to cover it, there are serious concerns about the air marshalls and criticism of the air marshalls is understandable.
Or perhaps the truth is somewhere in between. This certainly needs to be investigated, but this should be settled by a serious investigation and not by debating what happened on the blogs before all the facts are known.
Hmmm….certainly getting more convoluted as we go.
Remember the guy in London. If I am recalling correctly a lot of what the authorities claimed turned out simply not to be true.
- He wasn’t wearing the jacket they claimed the suspect was wearing.
- He wasn’t “running” or “refusing to obey”, he was seated when shot.
This recent Air Marshal shooting seemed pretty straightforward at first, but if these passengers are correct, then we’ve got a problem.
The air marshals say he didn’t claim to have the bomb while on the plane. The official story is that he was acting erratic on the plane then ran to the back of the plane and got off. He was confronted by air marshals on the jetway, and that’s when he made the threat.
And, actually, I trust the version of trained officers more than panicky passengers.
The facts are not all in, but not a single passenger interviewed yet as said the man claimed he had a bomb. Who said he claimed he had a bomb? Was it the air marshals, or was it idle media speculation?
“I never heard the word ‘bomb’ on the plane,” McAlhany told TIME in a telephone interview. “I never heard the word bomb until the FBI asked me did you hear the word bomb. That is ridiculous.” Even the authorities didn’t come out and say bomb, McAlhany says. “They asked, ‘Did you hear anything about the b-word?’” he says. “That’s what they called it.”
The truth is that most us who fly feel better now that this has happened. Not because this probably sick man is dead but becasue the air marshalls acted fast and with force. Unspoken in all of this is the message sent to would be terrorists: the air marshalls are there and they don’t mess around.
Dugger
Good God, Oliver agrees with me. He’s actually talking sense.
Someone call him at work and tell him his site’s been hijacked and someone’s posting SANITY under his name.
BTW, to those who say that since he was off the plane and therefore not a threat, aren’t there a hell of a lot more people inside the terminal than in the plane? He wasn’t running out into the desert, folks…
J.
mr. curmun … pionar details exactly what happened .. the suspect was running to or was at the jetway, therefore none of the passengers could have heard the bombthreat.
Thank you Oliver for giving rational thought to this. TV bimbos like Katie Couric were upset that he was shot and killed and asked an air marshal couldn’t they have shot anywhere else! Other than the fact that AM’s are trained to shoot to kill, shooting a gun is not as easy as it looks. You can’t just shoot the guy in the arm or even harder, his hand. But the fact is this was a time sensitive situation, the AM’s don’t have time to think about other possibilities. But my question here, why are the liberals [not you Oliver] not defending the AM’s decision?
Quaker, you don’t think this was a good thing? I’m sorry the AM’s are not as bright as you can tell if the man had a bomb or not — I mean it’s like he didn’t threaten them.
Well, with the exception of the man’s family. Sorry for the inconvenience folks, but we all feel better.
Sheesh.
“Unspoken in all of this is the message sent to would be terrorists: the air marshalls are there, don’t run around telling people you have a bomb.”
And a lot of the passengers apparently were suspected of smuggling cell phone guns onto the plane.
Bombs in carry on luggage, that ought to be trivial to get through security in Miami. Cell phone guns? Why not?
And, if the guy never mentioned the bomb on the plane, why is the FBI asking about the B-word.
I don’t know what happened here anymore than any of the bloodthirsty among us; I know enugh not to accept ANY story at face value.
And, you know what, I don’t feel safer flying knowing that the Air Marshalls are sure you can get a bomb onboard in your carry on.
THAT doesn’t inspire.
“The truth is that most us who fly feel better now that this has happened.”
Um, supposing the guy actually had a bomb, that would mean he got through airport security and on the plane with it. If he had actually had a bomb, at that point all he had to do was act as calm as possible and he could have set it off once the plane was in the air. The only reason why anyone should feel reassured by this incident is the fact that he didn’t have a bomb. Which kind of complicates the shooting. I don’t fault the air marshalls, they were doing their jobs. But let’s face it, this story is not a straight up success for any agency involved. What’s the real message here? We’re keeping you safe — just as long as every terrorist intent on bombing a plane freaks out and starts yelling “I have bomb”? Ya, I’m totally reassured.
An unarmed, mentally ill man is mistaken for a terrorist and shot dead in front of his wife?
Excuse me if I don’t see cause to “feel better.”
Quaker you’re Monday Morning QBin’ this … we didn’t know that before hand. What if he did have a bomb?
Re: Frameone
So if he had a bomb and got through security he should be allowed to blow it up? Just following your logic
I might add that I think the Air Marshals, based on the facts we now have, did their jobs correctly when they shot this guy. But that doesn’t mean the incident means we can all breathe a sigh of relief, as Dugger seems to suggest. Again, it raises more questions than it settles.
jadegold has, as it his wont, already arrived at the determination that this was murder.
“I have yet to see or hear of a passenger on that plane who said they heard the victim mention a bomb”. I guess ignoring the fact that the formerly living gentleman ran from the plane, into the jetway, and was no longer in the presence of the other passengers might, just might account for the fact that none of them heard that, since they were not in a position to.
Jadegold:
“murdered”? This was undeniably a tragedy for all involved, but to portray the AM’s as bloodthirsty killers is way over the top. I vote (a) for you as well.
Wrong again Ian. Only Republicans, or conservatives, at least, seem to take this incident as evidence that airport security is working to keep us safe. If it had been discovered that the the guy had a bomb it would have meant that he got through airport security with it, which further indicates that, even if the air marshal’s shot him, there is a serious problem with airport security in Miami. Think of all the planes that take off without air marshalls and that’s a pretty frightening scenario.
Furthermore, what if they guy had a bomb and wasn’t acting erratically? I understand air marshall’s are trained to spot suspicious behavior, but surely terrorists intent on blowing up planes undersstand this as well. Surely its a game of cat and mouse in which neither the mouse nor the cat knows which is which. Again, even if this guy actually had a bomb, it’s not very reassuring to know that the air marshalls only got wise to him because he was running around on the plane. Or does anyone have a report that the air marshall’s noticed that he was sweating visibly or some other more subtle bit of odd behavior?
Either way, if the guy had a bomb and he got on the plane, that’s a huge breach of security that the presence of air marshals does nothing to mitigate. Because again, think about how many planes take off from that airport without them.
Only conservatives seem to think that just shooting some guy is evidence that we’re safer. If you actually think the scenario through, it doesn’t indicate anything of the sort.
Zorro,
“Jadegold:
murdered ? This was undeniably a tragedy for all involved, but to portray the AM s as bloodthirsty killers is way over the top. I vote (a) for you as well. ”
Perhaps you don’t read here very much. Othrewise you would not have bothered.
Dugger
I vote (a) on Ian.
I’ve yet to see or hear of a passenger on that plane who said they heard the victim mention a bomb. In fact, I’ve not seen a passenger who said they were distressed or fearful of the victim’s behavior.
Additionally, let’s remember where the victim was murdered. It wasn’t on the plane.
That’s exactly why he was shot. Look, we didn’t know if he had a bomb or if he did have a bomb but all we knew is that he may have had one. Suspects acting crazy is probably one of things that AM’s are trained about. The sad thing is that this argument has turned into a Democrat v. Republican situation. Only the Republicans agree with the actions of the AMs or atleast give them the benefit of the doubt.
Re: jadegold
Right back at you, I vote (a) for you being on hte side of a suspected bomber.
No Ian, you aren’t following my logic at all. Indeed, there’s no way you could have arrived at that conclusion after reading what I wrote unless you’re either a) an idiot or b) a hack. Which is it?
The Air Marshalls were on this guy because, apparently, he was acting erratically. When he siad he had a bomb and resisted arrest, they shot him. Now if he really had a bomb but played it cool, acted normal the chances are much, much greater that could have detonated the bomb at his convenience once the plane was off the ground.
My argument is that the only reason, in this case, the guys was confronted and subsequently shot, was because he was acting visibly crazy. That’s not very reassuring: We’ll only be able to catch the freaked out terrorists, or the ones that had too much coffee.
I’m sure air marshalls are trained to pick out people acting oddly, but once the guy got to his seat and sat down with his carry on under his seat, how would the air marshalls have been able to stop him from detonating the bomb?
Not to mention the fact that we don’t have air marshalls on every plane. Which means the only reasuring thing about this caseis that the guy didn’t have a bomb. If he did have a bomb the problem would be a hell of a lot bigger than a simple line of duty shooting. It would have meant he got on to a plane with a bomb — something we wait in hour long security lines to prevent.
We better think of something else, like not say “I have a bomb.”
BTW, this back and forth symbolizes the differences between liberals and conservatives. The liberals identify with the miscreant, second guess the ‘police’ going so far as to imply murder, and politicize the whole event.
But again, some place terrorists took note: “they have Marshals on those planes that will shoot guns. We better think of something else.”
Dugger, A Marshal can’t scr*w around with sociological platitudes when the potential life and death of 200 airline passengers is at potential immediate risk.
BTW, this back and forth symbolizes the differences between liberals and conservatives.
Exactly. Conservatives take the word of authority as gospel truth. Liberals have an innate aversion to power and are more cautious in authority’s proclmations.
You know, I’d really wish you’d give us the address of the blog you’re reading. It ain’t this one.
Recap:
Dugger: People who fly feel better.
Quaker: Except for the guy’s family.
Ian: Don’t you think this was a good thing?
Quaker: I don’t “feel better.”
Ian: Monday morning quarterback!
So far, I haven’t said jack about the air marshalls or their decision to shoot. All I’ve said is: I don’t “feel better” because somebody who was not a terrorist got killed.
Leave it to frameone to find a way to make this out to be something that those evil “conservatives” are doing wrong. And just when I was starting to feel a little bi-partisan today …
Where did this guy get on the plane ?
Big gay al claims that the party of super huge gigantic, “the government can take care of that for you” government has an innate aversion to power. Priceless. Give me an example of any politician and any political party that has an aversion to power, and I will show you a liar.
Bit of a generalization? So far, I count one person who has characterized it as murder.
BTW, Zorro, if you flown recently–you’ll note your shoes are often examined by TSA. So we could also assume the victim had his shoes inspected.
Again, the facts are what they are: facts. This apparently bothers many conservatives who like to pretend facts are no different than their wild delusions.
Let us review the facts that are undisputed:
1) the murder victim had no bomb. In fact, he had nothing that could be construed as a weapon.
2) no passenger heard the murder victim mention a bomb or issue a threat against the plane.
3) passengers did hear the murder victim singing and they heard his wife say he was ill and was off his medication.
4) the victim was murdered off the plane.
These are facts. Not in dispute.
We can also surmise several things with confidence. The murder victim and his carryon (a fannypack) were searched prior to boarding the aircraft.
Jadegold:
So what do you conclude from the following statement?
“We can also surmise several things with confidence. The murder victim and his carryon (a fannypack) were searched prior to boarding the aircraft.”
The so-called “shoe bomber” was also searched before boarding, so what? Are you saying that we should stop putting AM’s on the planes because everyone has been searched/passed security prior to boarding?
If so, your comments make you look ridiculous. However, from previous lurking, I see that fits your M.O.
What are your conclusions from this tragedy Jadegold? You seem to want to say something but I feel that you are afraid to post it? Are the AM’s cold blooded murderers? You seem to have more that the usual aversion to authority than most liberal posters here; someone didn’t make you their “bitch” in the “pokey” did they?
“We can also surmise several things with confidence. The murder victim and his carryon (a fannypack) were searched prior to boarding the aircraft.”
Which may be the single most telling fact in this incident. Should the air marshals assume that weapons such as bombs and guns can never get through airport security when they asses a situation on a plane? That is, if someone says “I have a bomb” is it reasonable for air marshalls to assume that the guy must be crazy because there’s no way anyone could get a bomb through security? I don’t think that holds up. The air marshal’s have to assume that they are the last line of defense. But even they can fail: What if the passenger has a bomb but doesn’t behave erratically as this passenger clearly was? What level of “odd” behavior triggers an air marshal’s attention? It seems to be the case that this guy was acting visibly weird. Is weird behavior the same as threatening behavior? I think all of these questions is why they have investigations of these incidents and why we should all probably wait until all the facts come out.
But does the incident as reporter make me feel safer? Not by a long shot.
“Leave it to frameone to find a way to make this out to be something that those evil conservatives are doing wrong.”
JD, I was responding to Ian’s ridiculous assertion that somehow liberals and conservatives were clearly divided on how to judge the actions of the air marshalls. Since I and others here happen to agree with the actions of the air marshalls, that clearly isn’t so. But so far I’ve only seen conservatives interpreting the incident as a whole as evidence that we are safer in the air. That interpretation just doesn’t hold up under even the most cursory consideration of the facts. I think it’s pretty reasonable to conclude that conservatives are easily impressed. A little “Bang, bang splat, splat” and they’ll cheer every time regardless of the facts — even in the face of the facts.
The so-called shoe bomber was also searched before boarding, so what?
Again, you have difficulty with facts, Zorro. The FAM is said to have opened fire when witnessing the victim reaching for his fanny pack.
Re QinaB:
Exactly right .. the AM said he heard the bomb threat and then shot. To say/think otherwise meant he wanted to kill the guy, a person whom he never met. There is no reason to second guess the AM, or atleast I haven’t seen one.
1) the murder victim had no bomb. In fact, he had nothing that could be construed as a weapon.
** We didn’t know that before hand. He acted as if he did. Would you have wanted to waited? I bet if you were on the plane, then you wouldn’t.
2) no passenger heard the murder victim mention a bomb or issue a threat against the plane.
** Actually no. The media is reporting those who said he did not say it. They did not say that no one heard it. But the way I read it is he didn’t say he had it until he was running off.
3) passengers did hear the murder victim singing and they heard his wife say he was ill and was off his medication.
** And? the AM didn’t hear that.
4) the victim was murdered off the plane.
** “Murdered” .. defending potentional terrorists, that’s a liberal for ya.
But really, the thread is still poses on or off the plane. It’s not as there are no people in the concourse near the jetway.
There’s nothing to be gained from overstating the case here.
First, it wasn’t “murder.” That term requires a specific intent and state of mind on the part of the killer. There’s no indication that either played a part in the death of Mr. Alpizar.
Second, it has been reported that the air marshall heard Mr. Alpizar say he had a bomb. The air marshall has to decide whether to believe him or not. No other choices. The air marshall doesn’t get the opportunity to know with certainty what’s in the knapsack. Although precautions, such as searching carryon luggage, are taken, an accomplice with security clearance could concievably smuggle a bomb or weapon on board.
I’m surprised, sort of, that some of our regular commenters are applauding this action as if the air marshall thwarted a genuine terrorist attack. Even if the air marshall followed his training to the letter, the result is an error. Mr. Alpizar wasn’t a threat.
That’s nothing to celebrate.
Jadegold,
“Again, you have difficulty with facts, Zorro.”
Pray tell me what “facts” I have trouble with. I haven’t refuted a single “fact” from your earlier posts.
“BTW, Zorro, if you flown recently you ll note your shoes are often examined by TSA. So we could also assume the victim had his shoes inspected.”
I have flown recently (in the past month) and have encountered inconsistent screening. Shoes are NOT routinely checked in all US airports.
However, I say again, so what? Is it your assumption that screeners/security are infallible? You are either naive or foolish and I really don’t see you as being naive. You have posited several “facts” while using the terms “murdered” and “victim” but you draw no conclusions. We’re waiting…
Zorro, once more; the murder victim–in no account–was attempting anthing suspicious with his shoes.
The facts are what they are.
I want to make it very clear that I do NOT consider this incident a good thing in any way. However, we MUST continue to learn, even from tragedies such as these. Mrs. Alpizar surely cannot take any confort in this, but we do have to be realistic about the state of security in this country, taking into account the huge amount of air travel traffic and the confusion that is instigated by an incident of this type. I’m sure the AM’s are sick to death that they killed an innocent man and certainly will carry the pain of this aroung with them the rest of their lives. I, for one am extremely grateful that the AM’s are on board many flights (although we and any potential terrorists don’t know which). As with any preventative law enforcement technique, it is the idea that you might get caught in the act that is the basis of the idea.
jadegold continues to trot that “the other passengers did not hear anything about a bomb” despite yet another one of those pesky facts that it is not alleged that he was screaming bomb in the plane. The Air Marshall heard him in the jetway. You do not need to hear jadegolds conclusions – you already know what they are due to his use of the term murder.
JD:
Perhaps you’re right .. I’ll correct that and say extreme left-wingers.
frameone says:
That’s what I said …
Quaker says:
That “?” to me symbolizes you questioning the decision. Gee I don’t know where I got the idea you were questioning something …
I’ll tell you where you got it. You made it up.
oh nice retort, ian. What fucking joke.
I just find it funny that Jadegold calls this “murder” yet probably supports abortion.
Why should we believe the FAM?
Of course, Jade isn’t disputing that Alpizar ran up the jetway and ignored orders from the FAM’s to stop.
Whether or not you have a bomb, if you’re acting irrationally, you have any kind of a fannypack/backpack, and you fail to obey orders from a law enforcement official to stop, you’re pretty much leaving your life in their hands.
Also, the fact Alpizar didn’t take his meds didn’t help his situation, either.
Funny how Jadegold also left that fact out.
Frame .. I corrected my self after I said that .. I said the far-left, which is true. Jademoonbat not only thinks we should question the FAM, but we shouldn’t believe them either.
Jade:
Because the only ‘fact’ in dispute right now is whether or not Alpizar yelled that he had a bomb or not.
Remember, he put the FAM in the position to, unfortunately, do what they did.
“That s what I said & ”
But, Ian, that isn’t what you said. You said this:
“Only the Republicans agree with the actions of the AMs or atleast give them the benefit of the doubt.”
That’s totally different from whether or not this incident indicates that we are safer in the air.
You’ve got to be pretty desperate to make a point when you’re reduced to to misquoting yourself.
We didn’t know the guy was mentally-challenged .. you’re the mentally-challenged one here.
On a side note, who was for the killing of Terri Schiavo, a mentally-challenged person?
Brandi inadventently puts his stubby finger on the problem. Nobody heard the murder victim claim he had a bomb. Nobody.
OTOH, we do have a number of passengers who claim not to have heard the victim say or yell anything about a bomb.
Again, this issue shouldn’t be a left or right thing; however, whenever the rightwing hears ‘terrorism,’ they instinctively excuse any behavior no matter how bad. Whisper ‘terrorism’ and they’re willing to give up civil rights, support torture, and support the wanton killing of mentally-challenged people.
“I corrected my self after I said that …”
Ya, on the wrong point.
Dugger: BTW, this back and forth symbolizes the differences between liberals and conservatives. The liberals identify with the miscreant, second guess the police going so far as to imply murder, and politicize the whole event.
Turns out the fellow wasn’t a miscreant. Turns out the conservatives could care less, so long as someone is dead they’re feelin’ safe.
We don’t know what happened, his wife claims she told them he was not taking his meds. Maybe she did. Maybe she didn’t.
I know the story keeps changing, He was on the tarmac, no in the jetway.
He claimed to have a bomb on the plane, no it was in the jetway where, conveniently (whether true or not) we can only go with the word of the person or persons who killed him.
What we know is a non-miscreant is dead, and that has woodies sprouting all over wingnuttia.
“…so long as someone is dead they re feelin safe.”
And that’s what this boils down to. Everytime this happens, like the guy who got killed in London, this gleeful, gloating ensues even well beyond the point when we learn that the person who was killed wasn’t a terrorist or even much of a real threat. But to some of you it doesn’t matter if they guy wasn’t a terrorist. He’s dead so we’re safe. How sad. None of this means that the air marshalls were at fault or did anything they shouldn’t have done. But neither does it mean that were any safer because an innocent man is dead. Shit, you know what message that really sends to the terrorists, Dugger? It tells them that their tactics work: All they needed was one massive, tragic attack and we’ll be killing ourselves for years to come — and applauding when we do ti. Fantastic.
“On a side note, who was for the killing of Terri Schiavo, a mentally-challenged person?”
Ian, please, will you stop? There’s no comparison.
“That s nothing to celebrate.”
Exactly.
Wasn’t the guy the AMs shot at least brown-skinned? If you’re gonna shoot a guy, at least make certain he has the right skin color. After all, you want to make people feel safer when they fly.
16,
Actually he was a miscreant. He had done enough wrong to be a “miscreant”. That is not mitigated by the contention that he ultimately was not a bomber and may not have likely said he had a bomb. He had already doen a number of wrong things.
AS far as I am concerned, this is a sad event but the air marshall had a split second to decide and make a major life or death decision and I think he made the right decison and I believe a message has been sent to the Ts.
Dugger, Do liberals want air marshalls who won’t use deadly force?
mtgl ifbpugvz ichqm muoxnsvek omurt lfgxrc zpwmol
leyb gohsv ynkquz pmcolxf xzgrjd rmtzxndy qosegknid http://www.ijcmer.nbgj.com