# Marshal shoots passenger Miami airport



## Ping898 (Dec 7, 2005)

Some idiot is trying to screw it up for the rest of us, just in time for the holidays.....  It is a breaking story but apparently some guy claimed he had bombs and was shot and killed in the jetway going to a plane...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/07/airplane.gunshot/index.html

"A federal official told CNN that the passenger was shot by a federal air marshal, who felt the passenger was acting in a threatening manner. A senior administration official added that the passenger claimed to have a bomb in his carry-on luggage. 

An air marshal told the passenger to stop, and he did not, the official said, adding that the marshal fired after the passenger reached into his carry-on bag."


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 7, 2005)

Certainly, TSA does not have a sense of humor. Federal Air Marshalls should not have a sense of humor. 

Making statements about having a bomb on a plane should be considered a request to get shot.

It is odd that the reports of the person having a bomb are coming from "senior administration officials".



> A federal official told CNN that the passenger was shot by a federal air marshal, who felt the passenger was acting in a threatening manner. A *senior administration official *added that the passenger claimed to have a bomb in his carry-on luggage.




This story will bear watching as it unfolds.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 7, 2005)

So far it sounds like a "good shoot" to me. Although the article says wounded, not killed. Im awaiting the 3-ring circus thats sure to follow however. I can only hope that the guy was some "average middle class white guy". Because there always seems to be some racial issues in these sort of things lately. The Brazilian guy in London being forefront in my mind....


----------



## Kreth (Dec 7, 2005)

I find it odd that the article doesn't mention whether he did in fact have anything in his carry-on that would be considered an explosive device. And, this is just a guess, but I'm guessing that the "senior administration official" refers to the Federal Aviation Administration. Sorry, conspiracy theorists...


----------



## Ping898 (Dec 7, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Certainly, TSA does not have a sense of humor. Federal Air Marshalls should not have a sense of humor.
> 
> Making statements about having a bomb on a plane should be considered a request to get shot.


 
I agree, but I think there has to be another way to protect everyone in the instances when someone is mentally unstable and making false claims.  I don't know what they way is, but I have to think there is another solution out there that can disable someone without killing them....
Based on the evidence reported so far it sounds like the air marshalls did what they were trained to.....hopefully further evidence will support what they did and this won't be a huge mistake


----------



## Tgace (Dec 7, 2005)

Kreth said:
			
		

> I find it odd that the article doesn't mention whether he did in fact have anything in his carry-on that would be considered an explosive device.


 
Wouldnt really matter as long as the Marshal reasonably believed the guy was a threat.


----------



## Ping898 (Dec 7, 2005)

Kreth said:
			
		

> I find it odd that the article doesn't mention whether he did in fact have anything in his carry-on that would be considered an explosive device.


 
I don't think they know yet....still a breaking story....


----------



## Tgace (Dec 7, 2005)

Ping898 said:
			
		

> I agree, but I think there has to be another way to protect everyone in the instances when someone is mentally unstable and making false claims. I don't know what they way is, but I have to think there is another solution out there that can disable someone without killing them....
> Based on the evidence reported so far it sounds like the air marshalls did what they were trained to.....hopefully further evidence will support what they did and this won't be a huge mistake


 
The guy said he had a BOMB not a knife. Do you recommend we wait for the BOOM! To see if its legit? If the guy says hes has a bomb does he really have to have one for the Marshals actions to be justified in your opinion?


----------



## arnisador (Dec 7, 2005)

I wonder if we'll learn that the individual had mental problems. I can't question the decision to shoot, based on a man who claimed to have a bomb reaching into a bag; but, would a person who really intended to bomb something do that? I suspect we're looking at a case of 'suicide by cop' as they say.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 7, 2005)

When you have to make the decision, you have to go with whats presented to you. Do you just assume that a bomber wouldnt say he had a bomb and not shoot? Then if he goes off (and you live) you will be questioned as to why you didnt shoot.


----------



## MJS (Dec 7, 2005)

Kreth said:
			
		

> I find it odd that the article doesn't mention whether he did in fact have anything in his carry-on that would be considered an explosive device. And, this is just a guess, but I'm guessing that the "senior administration official" refers to the Federal Aviation Administration. Sorry, conspiracy theorists...


 
I'm watching CNN/MSNBC right now and as of yet, I havent heard anything about a bomb.  They're saying that he may have had some mental problems, but it still amazes me as to how many people STILL, even after all the beefed up security, etc., that people still find it funny to make bomb comments.

I'm sure it'll be a matter of time and we'll hear people say, "Why did he have to shoot and kill him? Why didn't he shoot him in the leg?"  Its people that like that I just wanna :whip:  because they do not have a clue!

Mike


----------



## MJS (Dec 7, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> When you have to make the decision, you have to go with whats presented to you. Do you just assume that a bomber wouldnt say he had a bomb and not shoot? Then if he goes off (and you live) you will be questioned as to why you didnt shoot.


 
I give alot of credit to the LEOs.  This Marshal had to make a split second decision, and IMO, he made the right one!  The fact of the matter is, is that this guy made a comment, acted aggressively, ran, made a movement towards his bag, giving a very strong impression that he was going to do something.  Better to take the guy out than have him blow up the plane and take X number of people with him.

Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 7, 2005)

Kreth said:
			
		

> I find it odd that the article doesn't mention whether he did in fact have anything in his carry-on that would be considered an explosive device. And, this is just a guess, but I'm guessing that the "senior administration official" refers to the Federal Aviation Administration. Sorry, conspiracy theorists...


 
As the articles are updated, the 'Senior Administration Official' attribution is being updated. Now there is a name for a Department of Homeland Security official. 

However, 'Senior Administration Official' *is not* an FAA official.This attribution generally refers to secretarys and deputy secretarys.

There was an article in 'Slate' that described this attribution ... and says there are perhaps 100 people who can be so attributed as 'Senior Administration Officials'.


----------



## MJS (Dec 7, 2005)

Ping898 said:
			
		

> I agree, but I think there has to be another way to protect everyone in the instances when someone is mentally unstable and making false claims. I don't know what they way is, but I have to think there is another solution out there that can disable someone without killing them....
> Based on the evidence reported so far it sounds like the air marshalls did what they were trained to.....hopefully further evidence will support what they did and this won't be a huge mistake


 
A few things to take into consideration here.

1: How can we tell what the mental capacity of someone is?  

2:  When a LEO is faced with the choice to shoot, and any LEO out there, please correct me if I'm wrong, but they're going to be aiming for center mass, not the legs, etc.  

Mike


----------



## Tgace (Dec 7, 2005)

The handgun is not a "less lethal" weapon. Shooting for center mass and even the head is not 100% effective, depending on incapacitating someone with a pistol is a non-starter. Its center mass till the threat is no longer a threat.


----------



## Michael Billings (Dec 7, 2005)

Good call if the man was acting as reported.  Mental health issues aside, you cannot necessarily evaluate that at the time the threat or terroristic action is started.  You do your best with what you have at the time.  THAT is what makes any LEO's job so tough.  Hindsight is always 20/20.

-Michael


----------



## rutherford (Dec 7, 2005)

Just a quick update: fatal shooting.

You know, of anybody the air marshals would definitely be the people I want trained to shoot center mass.  Lots of people and plane parts that could easily be hit by stray shots.


----------



## MJS (Dec 7, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The handgun is not a "less lethal" weapon. Shooting for center mass and even the head is not 100% effective, depending on incapacitating someone with a pistol is a non-starter. Its center mass till the threat is no longer a threat.


 
I agree!  Considering the ongoing threats, the war, etc. I really dont see Marshals using LL weapons.  When they're faced with a deadly situation, I would hope that theyd continue to use whatever force necessary.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Dec 7, 2005)

rutherford said:
			
		

> Just a quick update: fatal shooting.
> 
> You know, of anybody the air marshals would definitely be the people I want trained to shoot center mass. Lots of people and plane parts that could easily be hit by stray shots.


 
Exactly!!!  This plane was on the ground, but imagine if it was in the air!!  Taking out a window would lead to a worse situation.

Side note: I heard that there were no explosives found.  It'll be a matter of time before the 'fun' begins.

Mike


----------



## arnisador (Dec 7, 2005)

Michael Billings said:
			
		

> Good call if the man was acting as reported. Mental health issues aside, you cannot necessarily evaluate that at the time the threat or terroristic action is started. You do your best with what you have at the time.


 
Absolutely. There's no way of knowing the whole story when there are only minutes or even seconds to react.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 7, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> When you have to make the decision, you have to go with whats presented to you. Do you just assume that a bomber wouldnt say he had a bomb and not shoot?


 
I'm not arguing against the decision to shoot. It seems like the right decision to me.

But I'm also not surprised that there was no bomb, and I expect we'll learn that the person was suicidal, not a terrorist.

There's no winning. The marshall must shoot.


----------



## Kreth (Dec 7, 2005)

I agree with arnisador. I'm not questioning the decision to shoot, I just thought it was odd that the article didn't mention whether there were any explosives found.


----------



## INDYFIGHTER (Dec 7, 2005)

Ping898 said:
			
		

> I agree, but I think there has to be another way to protect everyone in the instances when someone is mentally unstable and making false claims. I don't know what they way is, but I have to think there is another solution out there that can disable someone without killing them....
> Based on the evidence reported so far it sounds like the air marshalls did what they were trained to.....hopefully further evidence will support what they did and this won't be a huge mistake


 
I just read yesterday where a Israeli policeman was killed stopping a suspected bomber.

From the article-

*Crowded station*
Sundays attack occurred in a dirt parking lot about 100 yards from the bus station, which was crowded with morning rush-hour travelers. Witnesses said two security guards halted the bomber, preventing a much larger attack. The guards were critically injured with burns and shrapnel wounds.
Taxi driver Itzik Ohana said he was waiting for customers in the lot when he saw the bomber, a man about 20, who had short hair and was dragging a heavy bag and sweating. The man frequently stopped to put the bag down and rest.
Ohana said he told a security guard about the suspicious-looking man and called the police. While I was talking to the police there was an explosion, he said.

If the facts so far are true and the man claimed he was carrying a bomb then made an attempt to reach into the bag than the marshall was in the right.  If you shot this suspect with a taser and missed and he does have a bomb and sets it off then the loss of life could have been a heck of a lot more.  Terrorist have taken some of our freedoms but I don't think anyone expects to have the freedom to yell "BOMB" on an airplane without getting someones attention.  If the man was mentally ill and shouldn't have been traveling than let's blame his doctor not the man whose incharge of the saftey of every passenger on that plane and the terminal that day.  With the given facts it sounds like he did his job.


----------



## MJS (Dec 7, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I'm not arguing against the decision to shoot. It seems like the right decision to me.
> 
> But I'm also not surprised that there was no bomb, and I expect we'll learn that the person was suicidal, not a terrorist.
> 
> There's no winning. The marshall must shoot.


 
I'm hearing now that he was in an argument with his wife.  He stood up, grabbed his carry on bag and start making his way to the front of the plane.  In efforts to get from the rear to the front, he was yelling that he had a bomb.  He was then confronted by the Marshal.  They're saying that it was at that time when he reached into his bag, giving the impression that he was going to activate the bomb.

Mike


----------



## Ping898 (Dec 7, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The guy said he had a BOMB not a knife. Do you recommend we wait for the BOOM! To see if its legit? If the guy says hes has a bomb does he really have to have one for the Marshals actions to be justified in your opinion?


 
No, I do not suggest that, but that doesn't mean I don't wish there was another way to deal with it than killing the guy.  I also said I didn't know what that answer was, but it doesn't mean there isn't another way out there.  I see nothing wrong with what was done in this instance at the moment, but I just wish in the future there was another way to deal with this situation other than killing the man


----------



## arnisador (Dec 8, 2005)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051208...wvbdQQB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl



> No bomb was found, and federal officials later concluded there was no link to terrorism. Witnesses said his wife, Anne, frantically tried to explain he was bipolar, a mental illness also known as manic-depression, and was off his medication.
> 
> "She said it was her fault that he was bipolar," said Mike Deshears, a Flight 924 passenger who works for a vacation club in Orlando. "He was sick and she had convinced him to get on the plane."
> 
> ...



So, it appears that mental illness is indeed the explanation. I still don't disagree with the decision to shoot--it seems like it was the only option--yet, what a shame!



> Investigators closed the concourse at the airport for half an hour and spread passengers' bags on the tarmac. Dogs sniffed them for explosives, and bomb squad members blew up at least two bags. No bombs were found.
> 
> The remaining passengers were kept on the plane for an hour, then police told them to leave with their hands behind their backs, said Lucy Argote, 15, of Codazi, Colombia. They had to leave their possessions behind.



I am soooooo ready to see Osama bin Laden in custody. (Ours, or Satan's--I don't much care which.) I miss 10 September 2001.


----------



## rutherford (Dec 8, 2005)

It's worth making special comment about the fact that the guy was yelling "I've got a bomb" to move through traffic as the plane was already landed and the jetway was attached.

I assume that at this point, he was not aware there were Air Marshalls on the plane.

So, at the moment I've got checkmarks in the stupid and crazy columns, but probably not suicidal.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 8, 2005)

rutherford said:
			
		

> It's worth making special comment about the fact that the guy was yelling "I've got a bomb" to move through traffic as the plane was already landed and the jetway was attached.
> 
> I assume that at this point, he was not aware there were Air Marshalls on the plane.
> 
> So, at the moment I've got checkmarks in the stupid and crazy columns, but probably not suicidal.


He was bipolar - when he yelled "I've got a bomb" it probably meant he had to go poop.  Seriously, he clearly panicked and ran.

Another mentally ill person bites the dust in the interest of national security.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 8, 2005)

Id have shot him pre 9/11...a man is yelling "Ive got a bomb!" Are we to wait and see if hes telling the truth?


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 8, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Id have shot him pre 9/11...a man is yelling "Ive got a bomb!" Are we to wait and see if hes telling the truth?


When someone else running right along with you is yelling, "HE'S BIPLOAR! HE'S BIPOLAR!" why not use that taser? :ultracool


----------



## Kreth (Dec 8, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> When someone else running right along with you is yelling, "HE'S BIPLOAR! HE'S BIPOLAR!" why not use that taser? :ultracool


Because nothing rules out him being bipolar AND having a bomb, unfortunately.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 8, 2005)

Kreth said:
			
		

> Because nothing rules out him being bipolar AND having a bomb, unfortunately.


Nothing rules anyone else on the plane out either. Nor the wife who could have been creating a distraction - why wasn't she arrested or shot?


----------



## Kreth (Dec 8, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Nothing rules anyone else on the plane out either. Nor the wife who could have been creating a distraction - why wasn't she arrested or shot?


No one else on the plane was screaming, "I have a bomb!" I think the marshall made the correct choice given the circumstances.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 8, 2005)

You can't just start shooting everyone around. You take out the immediate threat. If the wife had jumped over his body and grabbed for the bag, she probably would have been shot as well.

Seems she wasnt arrested because she wasnt creating a distraction. Its sad, but at the risk of soundig harsh....the downside to being mentally ill. I dont care what your yelling at me if someone screams they have a bomb and make an aggressive move, you simply can't jeopardize the lifes of others to see if he's bluffing....an air marshal doesn't get that luxury.


7sm


----------



## rutherford (Dec 8, 2005)

And the whole plane was detained and questioned.  People univolved with the incident had their luggage blown up outside on the concrete.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 8, 2005)

Some 3rd party yelling "HES BIPOLAR" is probably why the officer didnt immediately shoot. From what I heard they proned the guy out and he then went for his bag. I think that not immediately shooting the man was taking enough of a chance, when he reaches into the bag its crunch time. Do YOU trust some unknown person yelling at you?

Bottom line is if there was some sort of weapon in the bag the guy would be a Hero. And the fact that there wasnt is the only reason the guys actions seem to be in question.


----------



## Ping898 (Dec 8, 2005)

rutherford said:
			
		

> And the whole plane was detained and questioned. People univolved with the incident had their luggage blown up outside on the concrete.


 
So I read the 2 bags were blown up for whatever reason...I am wondering though, what kind of compensation do ya get if they decide to blow up your bag and there was nothing in it, but say your cd player, camera, 2 laptops, some dvds and a pda (a typical carry-on bag for me)....is the government under any obligation to replace your stuff once they find out they blew up your bag for the hell of it....?


----------



## Tgace (Dec 8, 2005)

Probably. Either them or the airline.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 8, 2005)

Are they obligated to replace it? If the police slice open the fabric on your car seats to search for drugs and find nothing, must they pay to have it repaired?


----------



## Tgace (Dec 8, 2005)

If you make a valid claim the town typically pays up here. They pay to fix doors we kick down too.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 8, 2005)

You know the old story about how if they search your car on the Peace Bridge they can take it totally apart and then leave it like that, right? I heard it often in Buffalo. It had always happened to a friend's friend. That's international--but a flight to Miami may well have been the same.

I don't know how it works!


----------



## Tgace (Dec 8, 2005)

Taking something apart is different from damaging it.


----------



## MJS (Dec 8, 2005)

I'm wondering why the wife allowed him to go without his medication?  

I did catch something last night on CNN, unfortunately, I didn't completely hear what they were talking about, but it was along the lines of discussing a less lethal approach, and would he have still been able to activate the bomb, if there was one.  

My guess is, with the Taser, you're limited as to how many people you can deal with, whereas with the gun, its easier to get off more rapid shots.  For example, take 9/11.  With multiple terrorists on board, would the Taser have been as effective as if there was an armed Marshal on board?

Mike


----------



## Tgace (Dec 8, 2005)

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=7...c-ee780fcefd0b&t=c155&f=06/64&p=News_Top News

I cant believe how many people buy into this "couldnt the police have shot to wound and not kill" ****.


----------



## MJS (Dec 8, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=71e94f8b-1d64-478e-918d-2bff61a6ccb2,23c93754-bb6e-4b82-a7dc-ee780fcefd0b&t=c155&f=06/64&p=News_Top%20News
> 
> I cant believe how many people buy into this "couldnt the police have shot to wound and not kill" ****.


 
Thank God Tony was interviewed to give some expert advice, because Mary and Katie don't have a clue!!!  Here you have Mary saying that she did not hear anything about a bomb.  Ok, so now you're going to put some doubt into peoples mind as to if he had a bomb or not.  Then she goes on to tell other passengers that there are Marshals on board.  Ok, and how does she know that the person she is sitting next to isnt a terrorist??

Then we have Katie asking what about shooting the knee??? Give me a break!!  I'd like to see her shoot a moving target, under extreme stress, in the knee!!  

Even if hitting the knee was a possibility, which its highly unlikely, whats to say that that would stop him from setting off the bomb?

Mike


----------



## Mark L (Dec 8, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> When someone else running right along with you is yelling, "HE'S BIPLOAR! HE'S BIPOLAR!" why not use that taser? :ultracool


Would you bet your life, and a 100 or so others, on it?  Threatening with a bomb on an airplane, followed up by an agressive move towards the implied threat, justifies the action taken, no excuses.  A third party saying _anything_ doesn't matter, they could just as easily be an accomplice, running interference on the marshall.  

If you look around on the web you can readily find video of LEOs voluntarily subjecting themselves to taser shots, often multiple shots.  They quite clearly cause extreme discomfort, but also quite clearly don't always render the victim immediately incapacitated.  You might argue that neither do gunshots, but I'd bet on a couple of ounces of lead through the heart over 50,000 volts across a bit of skin.

I hope the feds make a thourough investigation of the incident, then pin a great big medal on the marshalls' chest.  I'm sorry the guy is dead, but his death was the direct result of _his_ actions, _his_ illness.  Responsibility's a *****, sometimes.  I'm also sorry the marshall has to carry the experience with him for the rest of his life, but I am grateful that he fullfilled his responsibilty.


----------



## JAMJTX (Dec 8, 2005)

If the Marshal did not shoot him and a bomb went off, those same people whining about the shooting would be whining that he should have shot him before the bomb went off.
Law Enforcement Officers can never win with liberals and neither can America.  It's always, liberal sgoob America/Law bad.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 8, 2005)

JAMJTX said:
			
		

> If the Marshal did not shoot him and a bomb went off, those same people whining about the shooting would be whining that he should have shot him before the bomb went off.
> Law Enforcement Officers can never win with liberals and neither can America. It's always, liberal sgoob America/Law bad.


 Most definitely.  The Air Marshall made the right decision, if everything I hear is accurate.  If someone says they have a bomb, and you're surrounded by people, you error in the side of the innocent by-standers.  

This guy may have been bi-polar, crazy, or suicidal (of course, no one who's bi-polar, crazy or suicidal would carry a bomb?!), but all that is irrelavent.  All that is, in essence, his own problem.  The Air Marshall has to protect everyone else, and he did.  Whether or not the man had a bomb, this is a clear cut case of suicide.  

What's more, to the suggestion about "Tasering" the gentleman, I'm a certified Taser instructor, and have been for 5 years.  I teach every officer that the Taser is not a substitute for lethal force.  It can help prevent the need for lethal force in certain situations, but at the moment of truth, when a lethal threat is imminent (say, when someone is reaching for a bomb) it is NOT the option of choice.  

The Taser, being an electronic device with a CO2 charged dart system, is far less reliable and with a much more limitated range (21 feet) than a firearm.  In other words, consider a Taser as reliable as a computer or a cellphone.  There are simply too many variables that can fail with a Taser...The batteries can be dead, the cartridge can fail, the Taser itself can malfunction, the darts may penetrate, it may not stop the subject, etc.  

A firearm, on the other hand, is relatively simple and straight forward.  So, at the moment of truth, it's what you rely on.  Had the man not been near his bags, and was running toward them, a Taser might be the choice.  If his hand is moving toward a bag in reach, the firearm is the only reasonable option.

Would you want the lives of your family and friends dependent on a cellphone dialing out on the first try?  I didn't think so.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 9, 2005)

If someone claims to have a bomb, are we to assume they are 'kidding'?  Are we to only shoot if they are 'sane'? Is the presumption being that only a sane person would carry a bomb on a plane?  Is the assumption that mentally ill equates to harmless?  Or are we just saying that, even if they ARE a threat, being mentally ill makes them immune to considerations of lethal force in self-defense and defense of others?

It seems that the second guessing of the Air Marshall's is a knee jerk emotional reaction to the knowledge that he did not, in fact, have a bomb as he had stated.  Those that are second guessing are wanting to judge the Air Marshalls' behavior based on knowledge only knowable AFTER the incident (as is typically the case involving police related incidents).  

The only objective criteria is what the Air Marshall knew at the time of the shooting, and what a reasonable, trained Air Marshall would surmise about the best course of action.  I think they met that standard from everything i've heard.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 9, 2005)

See, after arguing on the taser threads and reading comments like, "Would you rather the patient have been shot? No. That's why he was tased," the continued arguing for lethal force just leaves me cold.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 9, 2005)

.....


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 9, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> See, after arguing on the taser threads and reading comments like, "Would you rather the patient have been shot? No. That's why he was tased," the continued arguing for lethal force just leaves me cold.


 It leaves you cold because you really don't understand the dynamics of this type of situation.  You also don't understand the kind of situation in which the Taser is useful as opposed to a situation in which it is not.  

I think I covered why the Taser is not a magic bullet.  I teach officers that a Taser is not a substitute for lethal force, HOWEVER, it serves to end incidents before lethal force is necessary.  For example, a man says he's going in to his house to get a gun when the police show up.  The Taser can prevent him from reentering the house, and avert a lethal force response.

The Taser, however, is not meant to be used when the man is pointing a gun at you.  It also is not a substitute for lethal force when the guy is reaching INTO the bag to detonate a bomb.  These are situations in which there is no substitute for lethal force.  What's more, when it comes to bombs, a device that sends out an electrical charge is an asinine choice.  Most explosives are electically detonated.  An electrical charge might just set off the bomb.  That's why you don't Taser someone who has doused themselves with gasoline and you don't Taser someone who is holding a bomb.  

So, again, knowing what the Taser WILL and WON'T do is kind of important.   It had no real role in this situation.  If the man had had a knife, and the officers had lethal force cover, the Taser might have been a useful tool.  Not in this circumstance.

So, rather than me explain why these Air Marshall's did the right thing, why doesn't someone explain to me, in detail, how they did the wrong thing and what they, themselves, would have done differently, in the same situation, knowing only what the Air Marshall's knew at the time they made the decision (that means you don't get the benefit of 'hindsight').

I'll make the scenario easy.  A man says he has a bomb in his bag.  You point your gun and tell him to lay face down on the ground.  You are surrounded by innocent bystanders.  He then reaches in to his bag.  What do you do...What do you do?  This has been played out before, and the bag isn't always empty.  You make the call.  

I'll give you a hint...He knows more about what's in his bag than you do.  I'd take him at his word.

Those who picked "A: I'd eliminate the threat with the least risk to innocent bystanders as quickly as possible", move to the head of the class.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Dec 9, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I am soooooo ready to see Osama bin Laden in custody. (Ours, or Satan's--I don't much care which.) I miss 10 September 2001.


 
So do I! What a world that was lost on September 11, 2001.

This appears to be an unmitigated tragedy. I am familiar with Bipolar Disorder and I have nothing but sympathy for the family of the man killed as well as the Marshall who acted in the only way possible under the circumstances.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 9, 2005)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> So do I! What a world that was lost on September 11, 2001.
> 
> This appears to be an unmitigated tragedy. I am familiar with Bipolar Disorder and I have nothing but sympathy for the family of the man killed as well as the Marshall who acted in the only way possible under the circumstances.


 Yeah, remember when you could yell "I have a bomb!" on a crowded airliner without repercussions.  Oh how the world has changed.

Honestly, i'm not so sure that pre-9/11, had you yelled "I have a bomb in my bag!" and then stuck your hand in it in front of armed men, you'd have walked away.  The only reason you might have gotten away from it pre-9/11, is that there would have been no law enforcement lurking around to stop you.  

That this is a direct result of 9/11 is only true in the number of Air Marshalls available.  The response, however, isn't new at all.  There were bombs WAY before 9/11, and people insane enough to use them.  A madman with a bomb is a scenario played out in airports and airplanes for decades.

This is just a matter of elemental stupidity on the part of this gentleman (or if we want to write it off as mental illness, so be it).  

This is a very sad situation, but I look at the law enforcement response as being like a mechanism.  He set it in motion, and it ended up the only way it could have.  It would have been no different if he had run out on to the tarmac and gotten struck by a plane, the fault was strictly his own.  

The fact that this may have been a result of mental illness in no way causes the fault to suddenly shift to someone else.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 9, 2005)

sgtmac, I do understand the gravity of the situation, I DO understand when tasers vs guns are used.  My intent here is to keep you thinking.  I'll never stop saying that when these kinds of situations become black and white, then you've stopped thinking.

If an LEO refuses to keep thinking and re-evaluating situations played out such as this one with a clear head, even post-resolution, then you've stopped thinking as a cop. That's a dangerous point in an officer's career.

And you haven't asked what I would have done in the situation. I think the answer would surprise you.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 9, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> sgtmac, I do understand the gravity of the situation, I DO understand when tasers vs guns are used. My intent here is to keep you thinking. I'll never stop saying that when these kinds of situations become black and white, then you've stopped thinking.
> 
> If an LEO refuses to keep thinking and re-evaluating situations played out such as this one with a clear head, even post-resolution, then you've stopped thinking as a cop. That's a dangerous point in an officer's career.
> 
> And you haven't asked what I would have done in the situation. I think the answer would surprise you.


 That I fully understand the tools and tactics and limits of those tools and tactics is illustrative of the extent to which I 'think' about these situations.  The time to think about them is not WHEN the decision is in front of you, if you wait until then you've already lost.  That's why law enforcement officers train and train, and play the 'what-if'/'if-then' game

You don't have time for an ethical, moral and legal debate, complete with dissenting points of view, in the 2.4 seconds between when you point the gun at the potential bomber and tell him to lay face down on the ground, and he shoves his hand in to his backpack.  You also don't have time to convene a committee.

And I think I did ask you what you would do in the same situation.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> So, rather than me explain why these Air Marshall's did the right thing, why doesn't someone explain to me, in detail, how they did the wrong thing and what they, themselves, would have done differently, in the same situation, knowing only what the Air Marshall's knew at the time they made the decision (that means you don't get the benefit of 'hindsight').



You've got my undivided attention.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Dec 9, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> This is just a matter of elemental stupidity on the part of this gentleman (or if we want to write it off as mental illness, so be it).
> 
> This is a very sad situation, but I look at the law enforcement response as being like a mechanism. He set it in motion, and it ended up the only way it could have. It would have been no different if he had run out on to the tarmac and gotten struck by a plane, the fault was strictly his own.
> 
> The fact that this may have been a result of mental illness in no way causes the fault to suddenly shift to someone else.


 
This is apparently a "no fault" situation. If you mean by fault, blame, then I think that you misunderstand the nature of Bipolar Disorder. This poor, afflicted man, if  the reports are correct, truly did not act of his own will. The disorder robs a person of their will, their opportunities and their future. My sympathies are with BOTH the officer, who by all credible reports acted in the only way possible, and the victim of this terrible disease that robs the individual of both their judgement and will.

Despite the multitude of individuals who have tried an insanity defense to escape the consequences of their actions, there is such a thing as mental illness. It is real and its victims suffer beyond the imagining of those not so afflicted. As my Abnormal Psychology professor used to remind us; "... but for the grace of God, there go I".


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 9, 2005)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> This is apparently a "no fault" situation. If you mean by fault, blame, then I think that you misunderstand the nature of Bipolar Disorder. This poor, afflicted man, if the reports are correct, truly did not act of his own will. The disorder robs a person of their will, their opportunities and their future. My sympathies are with BOTH the officer, who by all credible reports acted in the only way possible, and the victim of this terrible disease that robs the individual of their judgement and will.


 When I use the word 'fault' I use it in the sense of the individual with the responsibility for creating the situation.  I use it in the legal sense of who is responsible for setting the mechanism of this tragedy in motion.  That rests solely on the individual who created this situation.  I don't mean it in the sense of blame, as in 'blame the dead guy', but only in the sense of he who is responsible for what has been created.  This guy set the mechanisms for his own death in to play.



			
				Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> Despite the multitude of individuals who have tried an insanity defense to escape the consequences of their actions, there is such a thing as mental illness. It is real and its victims suffer beyond the imagining of those not so afflicted. As my Abnormal Psychology professor used to remind us; "... but for the grace of God, there go I".


 Yes, and this would be no different than if he had wandered in to traffic.  That he is dead is a tragedy...but it is one of his own making.  That he was plagued by mental illness is unfortunate, but that it was his behavior that resulted in his own death is without question.  None of us will ever know what was going on in his mind, but lets never make the mistake of believing that the consequences of this situation rested on anyone's shoulders but his.

I stress this because there seems to be a tendency when dealing with mental illness issues that, because we have pushed 'it's not their fault' so much, people automatically assume that, because it isn't THEIR fault, it must be someone elses' fault, in this case the Air Marshalls' fault.  

I know you aren't making that point, but others have attempted to, including a couple of Mental Illness advocacy groups.  The point they're making, apparently, being 'if you're mentally ill, then the rules suddenly change'.  As if only mentally healthy people blow up airplanes or only mentally healthy people are dangerous.  

It doesn't seem reasonable to create a circumstance where you have to perceive a threat AND decide the person isn't mentally ill in order to defend yourselves or others.  So, when I say 'fault' I mean the person that bears primary responsibility.  If you do something that is YOUR fault, you can't blame others for the consequences.  

If we want to blame mental illness, then we are forced to say he died as a result of his mental illness. Whatever drove him to commit this action is what is responsible for his death.


----------



## MartialIntent (Dec 9, 2005)

I'm all for debating these type of situations but I think a few of the posts here are _completely_ missing the bigger picture... I mean, would we all be so quick to give this guy the benefit of the doubt were we standing in the terminal waving au revoir to *one of our family* about to board the same flight as him? I wonder.

I think this was a courageous decision taken by the marshall. I think he should be applauded not harangued by a media whose only mandate is to serve out ever more sanguinary and inane stories to satiate advertising remits... sorry.

This guy had a mental handicap - how the situation developed - or would have done in different circumstances - is obviously the matter we and others are debating. He is entitled to the same rights as the rest of us. He may have a family left behind too. But by the same token, were I to get myself drunk or stoned and wander onto the aircraft mouthing off, acting suspiciously, maybe abusive and shouting that I had a bomb in my bag, would our opinion of the marshall shooting _me_ be different from the mentally handicapped guy? I daresay.

The marshall's split-second decision was this: shoot and wound or kill a person who may be innocent or do not shoot and watch 100 innocent passengers [including himself] die.

That's a helluva decision to be made by the marshall. Citizens the world over delegate authority to our varied LEOs. I say quit sitting there in your armchair whining and let them do their job - or *get out there and do it yourself if you think you can do better*! But I for one would be reassured to have this kind of protection for myself and my family.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 9, 2005)

I dont think any stoned person would be shouting and getting irate. Everything would be cool, man.

:ultracool 

7sm


----------



## Mark L (Dec 9, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> You don't have time for an ethical, moral and legal debate, complete with dissenting points of view, in the 2.4 seconds between when you point the gun at the potential bomber and tell him to lay face down on the ground, and he shoves his hand in to his backpack. You also don't have time to convene a committee.


 
Actually, 2.4 seconds is a long time.  I think any moderately intelligent individual can readily process the situational information in that time and arrive at a reasoned response.  Based on the available data, that is exactly what the marshall did.  You are of course correct in excluding debate and committees, I wonder what effect the stress of the encounter & adrenalin dump might have on the processing.  

It looks like the feeding frenzy has begun.  Reports on the radio this morning are questioning whether the guy said anything about having a bomb, and some of his freinds and family are claiming no knowledge of him being diagnosed with mental illness.  I do hope the truth comes out, without media bias or political overtones.


----------



## MJS (Dec 9, 2005)

Mark L said:
			
		

> It looks like the feeding frenzy has begun. Reports on the radio this morning are questioning whether the guy said anything about having a bomb, and some of his freinds and family are claiming no knowledge of him being diagnosed with mental illness. I do hope the truth comes out, without media bias or political overtones.


 
Of course.  I'm sure it has something to do with the NEWS talking to people who claim that they didnt hear him say anything about a bomb.  Thats what amazes me....they base an opinion off of limited info.

Friends and family saying he's not mentally ill, but his wife runs down the plane saying he's bi polar?  

I too hope that the truth comes out, because this is taking the usual turn...LEO does his job and is wrong, no matter what the outcome.

Mike


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 9, 2005)

Mark L said:
			
		

> It looks like the feeding frenzy has begun. Reports on the radio this morning are questioning whether the guy said anything about having a bomb, and some of his freinds and family are claiming no knowledge of him being diagnosed with mental illness. I do hope the truth comes out, without media bias or political overtones.


Yes, I saw this and I'm going to refrain from debating further until we have more info (as much as we can outside of the situation and at the mercy of the press, anyway).

sgtmac, when I read your question "what do you do?" I was caught up in the point you were trying to make and didn't take the question literally.  I would have fired aiming for center of mass.



> If we want to blame mental illness, then we are forced to say he died as a result of his mental illness. Whatever drove him to commit this action is what is responsible for his death.


The only problem I have with this statement, really, is that it makes people stop thinking. Using the illness as a blame bucket will always concern me.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 9, 2005)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> This appears to be an unmitigated tragedy. I am familiar with Bipolar Disorder and I have nothing but sympathy for the family of the man killed as well as the Marshall who acted in the only way possible under the circumstances.


 
Agreed. I sympathize with the family of the man killed and also with the marshall who was put in this no-win situation and followed the only reasonable course of action. He must have known there probably wasn't a bomb, too...but he also knew he couldn't take that risk on behalf of all present. This is a one big lose-lose situation.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 9, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> This is just a matter of elemental stupidity on the part of this gentleman (or if we want to write it off as mental illness, so be it).


 
That's a really inappropriate comment. It bothers me to think that a LEO would conflate mental illness and stupidity. Unless you're questioning the accuracy of the news reports indicating that he was seriously mentally ill, I think some degree of sympathy is in order.



> The fact that this may have been a result of mental illness in no way causes the fault to suddenly shift to someone else.


 
I agree with this and the rest of what you wrote. In the heat of the moment there is no way to know the person's condition and intention, and knowing that he was mentally ill probably couldn't have changed things as he might still have had a bomb. There seems to be wide agreement that the marshall's actions were proper, perhaps inevitable.

But just as the blame doesn't shift to the marshall, the tragedy doesn't leave because the marshall acted as he should have. What is more tragic--I think of instances in literature and film--than knowing that two people who mean no harm to anyone are going to collide in a way that will cause lives to be changed forever? Here we have a marshall who will surely second-guess himself despite reassurances, a dead man returning from a missionary trip abroad, and a widow, let alone terrified passengers on the plane I imagine. This is, as stated before, an unmitigated tragedy.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 9, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> That's a really inappropriate comment. It bothers me to think that a LEO would conflate mental illness and stupidity. Unless you're questioning the accuracy of the news reports indicating that he was seriously mentally ill, I think some degree of sympathy is in order.


Sympathy is in order, but its so often that sympathy turns to neglectful blaming and then the fault begins to turn on someone who is completely innocent of blame. Regardless of mental illness....to the air marshal it must have seemed quite a stupid thing to do. Its a tragedy, but responsibility must lie with him...no one else. Otherwise we should start questioning the wife as to why she allowed him off the medicine and into that type of situation. 

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Dec 9, 2005)

Mark L said:
			
		

> It looks like the feeding frenzy has begun. Reports on the radio this morning are questioning whether the guy said anything about having a bomb, and some of his freinds and family are claiming no knowledge of him being diagnosed with mental illness. I do hope the truth comes out, without media bias or political overtones.


 
Yeah, these things always look different after the dust settles. I'll be curious to see what the final analysis is. It's easy for me to believe that some peopel didn't know about his illness, and that some passengers missed the whole ruckus and didn't know what was happening...we'll see what's what in a week or two, probably, when some national paper or newsweekly does an in-depth story on it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 9, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I dont think any stoned person would be shouting and getting irate. Everything would be cool, man.
> 
> :ultracool
> 
> 7sm


 Not unless they ran out of snack food. :erg:


----------



## arnisador (Dec 9, 2005)

Two articles that discuss the marshals' actions:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...ec09,1,6576951.story?coll=la-headlines-nation



> And in the immediate aftermath, federal officials said it appeared the marshals had followed established procedures and done exactly what they were supposed to do in bringing down a man who said he had a bomb.
> 
> But given the circumstances of the case &#8212; the man authorities killed turned out to be an unarmed mental patient with no explosives &#8212; security experts in and out of government are beginning what probably will be a long and careful examination of difficult questions: Can the system be refined to protect travelers while building in greater safeguards? Or does the price of safeguarding air travel include the possibility that innocent Americans will die?



http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2326&ncid=2326&e=5&u=/csm/20051209/ts_csm/amarshals_1



> Few security experts question the actions of the air marshals who fired on Rigoberto Alpizar after he behaved erratically and reportedly said he had a bomb in his backpack. Within the context of their training, they say, the marshals acted appropriately.
> 
> But many question the training itself - as well as the way the federal government has handled the Federal Air Marshals Service (FAMS) since 9/11, when the small security agency with fewer than three dozen marshals was ramped up to several thousand in a matter of months.



The theme of most discussions seems to be support for the two marshals who did as they were trained, but questions about that training. The first article also cites the marshals' general distrust of the quality of TSA's screening procedures.


----------



## Kreth (Dec 9, 2005)

"Innocent Americans" do not yell, "I've got a bomb!" I love the way the media spins this stuff. You can almost see it a la the old 50s newsreels showing the newspaper headlines:
"Will innocent Americans Die?"


----------



## samurai69 (Dec 9, 2005)

> The theme of most discussions seems to be support for the two marshals who did as they were trained, but questions about that training. The first article also cites the marshals' general distrust of the quality of TSA's screening procedures.


 

The israelis have had air marshals for a number of years with out this sort of incident happening, i would certainly ask some questions regarding training, employee screening procedures too,


----------



## MJS (Dec 9, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> The theme of most discussions seems to be support for the two marshals who did as they were trained, but questions about that training. The first article also cites the marshals' general distrust of the quality of TSA's screening procedures.


 
IMHO, they're only questioning the training, because this is the first time, so they say, that something like this has happened.  If Air Marshals fired shots on a plane on a regular basis, then I'm sure they'd look at this as just another day, but because the pattern of inactivity was broken, the question marks begin to float above their heads.

Mike


----------



## kelly keltner (Dec 10, 2005)

I'm gonna kinda wade into this one from the perspective of the reports of some passangers hearing if the man who got shot said he had a bomb or not. My thoughts are this if you have 30 witnesses you are going to have 30 different statements as to what went down. The statments are problably going to have more in common than not. In a crowded plane I would not expect someone who is sitting in row 23 to be able to tell me word for word what was being said in an altercation in row one. So it is natural to assume that we are going to have reports that differ somewhat regarding if the suspect used the word bomb. So let's not be too quick to judge until a lot more of the facts come out.
Kinda on a side note I saw one of the passengers being interviewed on FOX news and he was saying that he had his head down while this was going on and was talking to his brother on his cell phone. He said an officer came up an karate chopped him in the neck causing him to drop his phone. A word to the wise, when in a possible explosive device situation do not use cell phones or walkie talkies. They might transmit on a frequency that could set the device off and law enforcement may not have the time to stop and explain that properly. Hence, causing a karate, Judo, or pork chop to parts of your body to potentially keep everybodies body in one piece instead of a bunch of tiny pieces eliminating the need for more bodybags than are neccesary.

kk


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 10, 2005)

> That's a really inappropriate comment. It bothers me to think that a LEO would conflate mental illness and stupidity


 
He did do something stupid (stupid=not intelligent), if you can show me how this was an intelligent deciscion on his part I'd be happy to hear it.  Smart people do stupid things sometimes.

I work in LE and have known many people to be bipolar both in and out of the job (only his wife has said he was bipolar, the rest of the family has said he has no mental illness).  I can't even count the times I've been in the court rooms and hear the defendants claiming that all their crimes (no matter what they are and I'm only in court if it's a felony) are because they are bipolar.  I guess some of us in LE get a little jaded when we see alot of mental illness from people and know it as such and someone just being a jerk and acting out and blaming it on bipolar.



> The israelis have had air marshals for a number of years with out this sort of incident happening, i would certainly ask some questions regarding training, employee screening procedures too,


 
That's because the people in Israel have soldiers with automatic weapons on the street corners ready to shoot someone that is a threat and the people there know that to yell "bomb", or act like you have one is a fast ticket to the grave.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 10, 2005)

You know, having backed off a bit and mulled more things over, there really are SO many possibilities here. He might have said "I have a bomb" or "It's not like I have a bomb." or "I have to have a bong hit" and in that cabin where people's thoughts are on luggage, transfers, hot words, it could have sounded like "I have a bomb." I'm sure some people think that's reaching, but I really don't think so.

The bipolar thing, yeah, I see how LEOs can be jaded at this point, but ya know, my entire point behind the devil's advocate thing is that you just can't allow that kind of thing to make you stop thinking.  When you don't have time to think and you have no other alternative then you must fall back on your training which is what this officer did.

The family denying bipolar, well, that really doesn't mean anything.  They honestly might not know - maybe he was diagnosed in adulthood during his marriage and it's not something he wanted known. They could be in denial. We don't know what kind of family dynamics are going on there nor have they confirmed yet (I believe) whether he was or not.

We'll see, I guess.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 10, 2005)

I dont think I would say it was a lack of thinking on the marshals behalf. His training encourages thinking, and thats exactly what he did. The problem is in a lethal situation less lethal force just isn't the answer. You have to match force. It sucks, it means people die, and its harsh, but its the way the world is. In the case of an explosive devise (which is what the marshal believed) you *must* end the threat completely. You can take no chances of failing. He _was_ thinking, thinking about the lives of all the innocent people around as well.

7sm


----------



## Tgace (Dec 10, 2005)

So does being bipolar mean that the chances that this guy had a bomb was higher or lower? The fact seems to be presented so as to say "the guys bipolar he doesnt REALLY have a bomb". I dont think that that is a point that should slow down an officer at all in a situation like this. If anything it may even be argued that the officer was even more concerned because of that fact.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 10, 2005)

NO NO NO - his being bipolar doesn't necessarily decrease his risk in having a bomb.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 10, 2005)

Dont get me wrong Geo. I see where you are coming from and I didnt mean to imply that you said that. Im just talking about some of the media spin Im beginning to see. While not outright stated the whole "someone said hes bipolar so the Marshal shouldnt have shot" seems to be rumbling around....


----------



## tshadowchaser (Dec 10, 2005)

Sorry to say but if the man said he had a bomb and reached for anything  the marshal did the thing he is trained to do  Save LIVES by eliminating the threat.  Im glad the man was a good at his job it could have been a threat if if the other person was bipolar
As far as those that say the marshal should not have shot "how the hell was he supposed to know if the threat was real or not" he acted to protect lives


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 10, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Sympathy is in order, but its so often that sympathy turns to neglectful blaming and then the fault begins to turn on someone who is completely innocent of blame. Regardless of mental illness....to the air marshal it must have seemed quite a stupid thing to do. Its a tragedy, but responsibility must lie with him...no one else. Otherwise we should start questioning the wife as to why she allowed him off the medicine and into that type of situation.
> 
> 7sm


 Thank you for making my point.  So often does 'mental illness' become a deflection of who own's responsibility for the event.  It becomes "OH NO, we can't blame the poor mentally ill man, because that will make us look 'insensitive'....It must be the fault of those MEANIE police officers"

The only person that owns this event is the one who ultimately died as a result of it.  Anything else is blame deflection in the name of 'sensitivity'.  

When the need to appear sensitive overcomes reason and rationality, then, as Shesula has been saying, 'You've stopped thinking'.  I'll look insensitive before I allow emotionalism to do my thinking for me.  I really don't know what to say to anyone who is offended by that.  I prefer to deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it had been after the event.




			
				samurai69 said:
			
		

> The israelis have had air marshals for a number of years with out this sort of incident happening, i would certainly ask some questions regarding training, employee screening procedures too,


 Are you seriously suggesting that if you climbed on a Israeli airflight and yelled "I HAVE A BOMB" and then stuck your hand in a bag, they wouldn't SHOOT you?!  I don't suggest you test that theory, unless you've got a death wish.  You'll have so many bullet holes you'll look like a spaghetti strainer.

The Israelis are far more trigger happy when it comes to suicide bombers than we will ever be (Suicide bombings are a daily event).  Anyone who thinks the Israelis have tolerance or a sense of humor for someone claiming to have a bomb, is sadly mistaken.

It's possible that the only people crazy or moronic enought to claim to have a bomb in Israel is someone who really does.  

An interesting side note about Israel, for several years now parents and teachers in schools in Israel have volunteered to go through training to be monitors.  In Israel, however, that consists of firearms training.  They all get trained to carry concealed weapons, and their job is to patrol the halls of the schools watching for gunmen and potential suicide bombers.  There are a great many places in Israel one could get shot for yelling "I HAVE A BOMB!".  

Bottom line, if a man says he has a bomb, i'll take him at his word.  Grown adults should know better than to yell certain things and engage in certain acts, especially in public, MOST especially in circumstances where it should be obvious that there will be a quick and certain response.  

If we as a culture are so sensitive as to believe that we should excuse certain obviously dangerous behaviors that end up resulting in, what is more, predictable death or injury, and consider it a tragedy owned by anyone other than the perpetrator, then we have a problem with responsibility as a culture.  

To call this a tragedy makes it appear as though something should be changed to prevent it in the future.  Perhaps there should be a warning sign when you get on board the plane.  Warning:"Don't yell 'I HAVE A BOMB!'"  We've got warning signs for other obviously stupid activities, why not this one.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 10, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> So often does 'mental illness' become a deflection of who own's responsibility for the event.



But someone who is mentally ill might not be responsible for his own actions (e.g., the insanity defense). Maybe no one is responsible here, and it's just a pure tragedy.

I've bought the NY Times the last few days and have only noticed one letter to the editor about this issue--and it was critical of the sky marshals' service and its training. I'd like to see more balance.

I have not seen anyone, anywhere, suggest that the marshals erred in doing what they did. (Marshals, plural, as apparently both fired on the person.) But just as you seem concerned that they not be blamed--it simply doesn't follow that the person who died is to blame. Perhaps he was competent, but perhaps not. It can happen that tragedies befall us that are simply not anyone's fault, even though someone will surely get sued over them.

It is not yet clear to me that the man who died on that runway was 'responsible' for his actions in any useful sense of the term. We will see.



> Bottom line, if a man says he has a bomb, i'll take him at his word. Grown adults should know better than to yell certain things and engage in certain acts, especially in public, MOST especially in circumstances where it should be obvious that there will be a quick and certain response.
> 
> If we as a culture are so sensitive as to believe that we should excuse certain obviously dangerous behaviors that end up resulting in, what is more, predictable death or injury, and consider it a tragedy owned by anyone other than the perpetrator, then we have a problem with responsibility as a culture.



No, we have a problem with perceiving mental illness as a 'real' illness as opposed to just a matter of being weak-willed. Some grown adults are mentally impaired. Would you apply your logic to someone with Downs syndrome? Tourette's? Grown adults should simply know better than to engage in the echolalia and profanity of a person with Tourette's?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 10, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> But someone who is mentally ill might not be responsible for his own actions (e.g., the insanity defense). Maybe no one is responsible here, and it's just a pure tragedy.


 Why he did what he did is irrelavent from the perspective of the response.  That is my point.  The tragedy may ultimately be that he didn't have his medication under control.  But that tragedy is not the responsibility of the Air Marshalls.  Why he did what he did is in despite, THAT he did what he did is pretty clear.  

I'm not belittling those with mental illness, however, I really don't see how that is really the issue here.  If we want to discuss how people can better control their mental illnesses, that's a fine point.  We aren't really discussing that so much as the Air Marshall response to the situation.



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> I've bought the NY Times the last few days and have only noticed one letter to the editor about this issue--and it was critical of the sky marshals' service and its training. I'd like to see more balance.


 Love to see more balance.  However, there is an element of our society that responds to issues purely from the emotional.  They fail to remotely consider cause and effect in their processes.  They see 'Tragedy' and immediately look for someone to blame.  That usually ends up being the most competent person involved in the situation.....usually the police.  They feel the police should have done 'something' different, even if they can't quantify what they would have been.



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> I have not seen anyone, anywhere, suggest that the marshals erred in doing what they did. (Marshals, plural, as apparently both fired on the person.) But just as you seem concerned that they not be blamed--it simply doesn't follow that the person who died is to blame. Perhaps he was competent, but perhaps not. It can happen that tragedies befall us that are simply not anyone's fault, even though someone will surely get sued over them.


 'Blame' in the sense of the word used, is solely in the realm of who owns the event.  Who, if not him, owns the consequences of the event?  He has sole ownership of the consequences of the event, and hence, his own death.



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> It is not yet clear to me that the man who died on that runway was 'responsible' for his actions in any useful sense of the term. We will see.


 Well, it is clear that his actions led to his death.  If someone wants to argue he wasn't responsible for those actions, then that is an argument that could be made.  Clearly, however, his actions are responsible for his death.




			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> No, we have a problem with perceiving mental illness as a 'real' illness as opposed to just a matter of being weak-willed.


 Ok, bi-polar disorder caused this mans death.  No one said anything about this man's weak-will causing his death.  His actions caused his death.  We can blame whatever you feel is responsible for his actions, if you desire.  If you say that is bi-polar disorder, then we'll say bi-polar disorder resulted in his death.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 10, 2005)

Im no psych. major, but I dont believe bi-polar disorder allows someone to be non-responsible for their actions.....


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 10, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Im no psych. major, but I dont believe bi-polarism causes someone to be non-responsible for their actions.....


 It doesn't.  There are a few organic diseases of the brain that can cause someone to be completely non-responsible for their actions, but bi-polar disorder isn't one of them.  They may act impulsively when they are manic, but that doesn't equate to psychotic.  

I've heard of some 'delusional' thinking as the result of bi-polar disorders, but i've never actually seen those manifested.  Those usually take the form of imagined slights or behaviors by loved ones.  

I've never heard of one involving the mistaken belief that you are carrying a bomb.

Conversly, the man could have been in a depressive state, and this could have been an act of suicide, I suppose.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 10, 2005)

read this ****

http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?nav=messages&tsn=4&tid=40890&webtag=ab-bipolar



> I don't think that is what the story said.
> 
> It said his wife reported he was bipolar, had stopped his meds, and was acting strangely. What I find sad is why the sky marshall shot a guy whom he knew was mentally ill and in the midst of an episode. That is the question we should be asking. Why was this man shot when his wife was screaming that he was a bipolar off of his meds and other passengers on the plane sitting right next to the air marshall heard her, but he killed him anyway?
> 
> ...



This is the type of **** floating around out there that Im talking about.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 10, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Why he did what he did is irrelavent from the perspective of the response.



Agreed. The response was appropriate.



> Well, it is clear that his actions led to his death.  If someone wants to argue he wasn't responsible for those actions, then that is an argument that could be made.  Clearly, however, his actions are responsible for his death.



I agree with this. What's less clear is whether he was responsible for his own actions. That's my point, which appears to be orthogonal to yours.




> If you say that is bi-polar disorder, then we'll say bi-polar disorder resulted in his death.



Of course, it's too soon to know if that's the case. I agree that his actions caused this to happen. But possibly something outside of his control caused those actions...it's too soon to assign blame to him (or his wife, or physician, or what have you). The fact that the marshals acted properly doesn't immediately shift the moral blame to the man who was shot. His actions set this in motion, but _responsibility _is a strong word, and with the spectre of mental illness in the air, a premature one. I feel.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 10, 2005)

http://www.mydna.com/health/mental/bipolar/news/news_20051130_bipolar_case.html



> Bipolar: Is wrong right?
> Wed 30 Nov 2005 08:00 AM CST
> WASHINGTON DC (myDNA News)
> 
> ...


----------



## arnisador (Dec 10, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Im no psych. major, but I dont believe bi-polar disorder allows someone to be non-responsible for their actions.....



I honestly don't know the answer. Perhaps he was, indeed, responsible for his actions. I wouldn't be surprised to find his estate sued by fellow passengers...we'll see what the courts decide.

The teacher example is...unconvincing to me. I don't know enough about bi-polar disorder to know what the effects are, so I am withholding judgement. Suicide seems unlikely to me (how would he know a marshal was on board?). Delusion is a possibility, but panic seems to fit to my mind.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 10, 2005)

According to what i've read, the wife wasn't even near Mr. Alpizar when he was shot, she was still on the plane.  The Air Marshalls were confronted by Alpizar, alone, saying he had a bomb, with his backpack turned around toward the front.  He then refused orders to lay down on the ground, and placed his hand in to the backpack (clearly a provocative and threatening jesture, considering he just said he had a BOMB).


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 10, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I honestly don't know the answer. Perhaps he was, indeed, responsible for his actions. I wouldn't be surprised to find his estate sued by fellow passengers...we'll see what the courts decide.


 When we say 'responsible' arnis, we are referring to who's actions are responsible for the incident.  To the much more complicated and philosophical debate about how responsible someone truly is for their own actions, i'll defer to others.  We are debating who's ACTIONS are responsible for causing the event.  I think it would do good to split those two issues in to two seperate issues.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 10, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Conversly, the man could have been in a depressive state, and this could have been an act of suicide, I suppose.


 
That I can believe and blame on bipolar disorder.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 10, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> That I can believe and blame on bipolar disorder.


 I'm quite frankly surprised that no one has brought up that possibility.  Bi-polar disorder, by it's nature, has a manic AND a depressive state.  While his pre-shooting behavior is indicative of a manic state, it's always possible that this was a desperate act of suicide.  The behavior itself has every indication of a suicide-by-cop.  He claims to have a lethal weapon, and places armed officers in a situation where a reasonable person would believe they would shoot.  That he did this with the intent of forcing them to shoot makes far more sense than any other explaination i've heard.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 11, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> When we say 'responsible' arnis, we are referring to who's actions are responsible for the incident.  To the much more complicated and philosophical debate about how responsible someone truly is for their own actions, i'll defer to others.  We are debating who's ACTIONS are responsible for causing the event.  I think it would do good to split those two issues in to two seperate issues.



Responsibility is not merely a philosophical issue here. If there is a civil suit, or if he had survived and charges were pressed against him, there would be the issue of _legal _responsibility as well. It's not an 'academic' issue.

As to suicide by cop...I know this is a real phenomenon, but given that there was no guarantee that a marshal was on the plane with him, I must wonder if that was his goal.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 11, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Responsibility is not merely a philosophical issue here. If there is a civil suit, or if he had survived and charges were pressed against him, there would be the issue of _legal _responsibility as well. It's not an 'academic' issue.


 IF he survived.  As he is not being held responsible for his actions.  We are merely judging his actions in proportion to the ultimate impact those actions took. 

Again, you completely misunderstand my point.  As the gentleman is DEAD we will never know his mindset, thus it is purely academic.  Further, we're not judging HIS mindset, as he is dead, but who is responsible for the outcome of the circumstances.  

As his actions are those that precipitated the events, we are only judging what we CAN know (i.e. what his actions WERE and what his actions resulted in).  

Discussing his mindset is a PURELY philosophical undertaking as it is IMPOSSIBLE to know what his mindset was.

My only concern are what actions he took and what actions the Marshalls took, and how those converging actions resulted in the situation we have currently.  Those are the only perameters we have available to us.  

It is anyone's best guess what his mindset was at the time he was shot, and anyone's guess is as good as another.

Therefore, we can only judge his ACTIONS not his MINDSET.  As his actions were apparently responsible for his death, we have to determine that the fault of his death rests with him.

What's more, as no adult is responsible for another adult, there is no one to sue in this circumstance.  We certainly can't sue him.  We also can't sue his wife, unless she could be somehow shown culpable, but I don't know how that could be.  His estate is no longer his, it passed to his wife.  So, all of this talk of his mindset is purely academic.  



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> As to suicide by cop...I know this is a real phenomenon, but given that there was no guarantee that a marshal was on the plane with him, I must wonder if that was his goal.


  You misunderstand.  I never claimed he premeditated suicide.  Only that, when confronted by obvious lethal force, he took the two actions almost guaranteed to get him shot 1) Claiming to have a bomb in the bag that he had turned around backwards on his chest and 2) Thrusting his hand in to the bag when confronted.

Taken together, this appears almost to be an act of suicide.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Dec 11, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I'm quite frankly surprised that no one has brought up that possibility. Bi-polar disorder, by it's nature, has a manic AND a depressive state. While his pre-shooting behavior is indicative of a manic state, it's always possible that this was a desperate act of suicide. The behavior itself has every indication of a suicide-by-cop. He claims to have a lethal weapon, and places armed officers in a situation where a reasonable person would believe they would shoot. That he did this with the intent of forcing them to shoot makes far more sense than any other explaination i've heard.


 
Given my unfortunate familiarity with bipolar disorder (family member has it), I think that this is a very possible scenario. Individuals suffering from severe forms of this disease (there are four levels) are in such constant pain that such an ending is very possible. Given the circumstances as reported, this is far more likely the truth than that the Marshall acted incorrectly. In fact, the Marshall is also a victim in this circumstance, IMO.


----------



## MJS (Dec 11, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Dont get me wrong Geo. I see where you are coming from and I didnt mean to imply that you said that. Im just talking about some of the media spin Im beginning to see. While not outright stated the whole "someone said hes bipolar so the Marshal shouldnt have shot" seems to be rumbling around....


 
What I don't understand is, is how anyone is supposed to know the medical history of anyone just by looking at them??  Its no different than a Taser.  We could Tase someone and next thing we know, his family is saying he should not have been Tased due to a heart condition!  And I can tell that how??  

Seems to me that the media is playing on this disorder as an excuse to why he should not have been shot.  

Mike


----------



## MJS (Dec 11, 2005)

samurai69 said:
			
		

> The israelis have had air marshals for a number of years with out this sort of incident happening, i would certainly ask some questions regarding training, employee screening procedures too,


 
I'm afraid I can't buy fully into this.  Are there links you can post to back this statement up?  I dont know about you, but I'm reading all the time in the paper about suicide bombers in these countries.  

I have to agree with Sgtmac on what he said.  If this happened there, we would have seen the same results.  

Mike


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 11, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> What I don't understand is, is how anyone is supposed to know the medical history of anyone just by looking at them?? Its no different than a Taser. We could Tase someone and next thing we know, his family is saying he should not have been Tased due to a heart condition! And I can tell that how??
> 
> Seems to me that the media is playing on this disorder as an excuse to why he should not have been shot.
> 
> Mike


 Well, you've hit on a public phenomenon, based mostly on the ignorance of the public on the complexities of such situations and a general misunderstanding of cause and effect.

The general public gets their information via some sort of news outlet.  The news outlets examine and tear apart issues like this ad nauseum.  The general public, most of whom have absolutely no experience being forced to make split second decisions, suddenly fall under the illusion that these are topics that are debated at length before a decision is made.  Most haven't the slightest idea of the extremely narrow period of time that these decisions are necessarily made in.

Moreover, they are bombarded by irrelavent issues. "The suspect had a heart history, the suspect had a mental illness, the suspect's gun wasn't loaded" all of which are irrelavent because they were unknowable quantities to the officer on the scene.  Yet, the media and public opinion uses these irrelavencies to crucify the officer.

That is why, so often, public opinion conflicts so sharply with what happens following an investigation of the use of force.  The force fed irrelavencies only appear damning to those who fail to realize that they have absolutely nothing to do with the officers decision.  The investigation, and any legal action, are required to only deal with information available to the officer at the time of the incident.  Everything available only after the fact is irrelavent.  

Moreover, when media start using the word 'tragedy', the public is conditioned to automatically start looking for blame.  Since we are conditioned not to 'blame the victim' (As we can see evidence of even in this conversation), we can't very well blame the behavior of the deceased as having resulted in his death.  Therefore, we start looking for the most competent person who 'should have done something different' and 'failed' to blame.

Most of this type of monday morning quarterbacking is cured easily enough.  Simply place the critiquer in a similar (albeit controlled) situation, and tell him to solve the problem.  Most of the time, I see a sudden dawning realization come on the formerly opinion citizen, and they realize 'Hey, maybe I didn't have as firm a handle on this situation as I first thought'.  

Some of the best responses to media criticism of shooting incidents has come from putting media and citizens through F.A.T.S (Firearms Training Systems) Training simulators and other tactical training simulations that put them under pressure to make decisions.

I've seen many a reporter or citizens find themselves at a loss on how to deal with a situation that they would have formerly felt no compunction generating an opinion on, when placed on the pressure to make split second decisions about 'life and death' in a simulated setting.  It's overwhelming for most people.


----------



## MJS (Dec 11, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Well, you've hit on a public phenomenon, based mostly on the ignorance of the public on the complexities of such situations and a general misunderstanding of cause and effect.
> 
> The general public gets their information via some sort of news outlet. The news outlets examine and tear apart issues like this ad nauseum. The general public, most of whom have absolutely no experience being forced to make split second decisions, suddenly fall under the illusion that these are topics that are debated at length before a decision made.
> 
> ...


 
You're absolutely correct!  The problem is that like many things, is that people with little to no backround in a given situation, make judgement calls on what is right/wrong.  Unless they are currently or have been a LEO, people (the meadi and public) should not be casting such a harsh judgement.  That will never change though.



> Some of the best responses to media criticism of shooting incidents has come from putting media and citizens through F.A.T.S (Firearms Training Systems) Training simulators and other tactical training simulations that put them under pressure to make decisions.
> 
> I've seen many a reporter or citizens find themselves at a loss on how to deal with a situation that they would have formerly felt no compunction generating an opinion on, when placed on the pressure to make split second decisions about 'life and death' in a simulated setting. It's overwhelming for most people.


 
I had the chance to use one of these simulators and I have to say that again, you're correct.  The pressure and split second decisions is amazing!  Granted, when the 'bad guy' is shooting at you, you're not really going to die, but you need to go in with an open mind, and realize that the feelings of pressure, stress, etc. at 10 fold when a cop is faced with situations like this in real life.

Mike


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 11, 2005)

Responsibility is being argued here, but we must also realize that even those mentally ill (as in the insanity defense) are still held responsible for their actions. A mentally ill person kills a child and while they may not get the death penalty they are not sent back to work in a day care either. Temporary insanity is the worst thing to happen to our legal system in my opinion, but thats a different thread. 

Bottom line, his actions resulted in his death....responsibility lies with him regardless of why he acted that way. It is a tragedy, but we cannot say no one is responsible...thats where we start compromising reality for the sake of being politically correct.

7sm


----------



## ed-swckf (Dec 11, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Bottom line, his actions resulted in his death....responsibility lies with him regardless of why he acted that way. It is a tragedy, but we cannot say no one is responsible...thats where we start compromising reality for the sake of being politically correct.
> 
> 7sm


 
I wouldn't call that being pollitically correct personally but what i want to know is would say a doctor/pschologist who misdiagnosed his insanity have any share of responsibility for his instability?


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 11, 2005)

I dont think bi-polar disorder is really categorized as insanity.....anyone know?


----------



## ed-swckf (Dec 11, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I dont think bi-polar disorder is really categorized as insanity.....anyone know?


 
I'm pretty sure it would qualify along with proof, its not clear cut but a manic depressive episode could justify a mental disorder defence.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 11, 2005)

Its also known as manic/depressive disorder.....not really "insanity" as I understand it, but the "highs" and "lows" can be extreme and while most (if not all) know the difference between right and wrong, the extremes in mood can make them not care so much.

My personal thing about "not knowing right from wrong". If the person truely didnt know something was wrong than why do so many run, hide, fight and try to avoid being caught? If you didnt know it was wrong wouldnt you just say, kill someone, and then cross the street and order some food and sit down? If you run because you know the police are going to arrest you I would then believe you knew you did wrong.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 11, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> My personal thing about "not knowing right from wrong". If the person truely didnt know something was wrong than why do so many run, hide, fight and try to avoid being caught?


As difficult is it may be to grasp or accept, the individual might not associate the idea that they are being pursued with the act they just committed IF they are legitimately ill or disabled.  This is the nature of left-right brain (bipolar) disorders and developmental disabilities.


----------



## OULobo (Dec 11, 2005)

Well, here is my question, if the man never mentioned a bomb, but the situation played out otherwise the same, would the Marshals still be justified in shooting him. It may sound a little bit conspiricyish, but some reports say that only the Marshals heard him say the b word and they were alone when they heard it. If they shot him unjustly and needed a "get off the hook free card", saying he yelled he had a bomb gives one to them.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 11, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> As difficult is it may be to grasp or accept, the individual might not associate the idea that they are being pursued with the act they just committed IF they are legitimately ill or disabled. This is the nature of left-right brain (bipolar) disorders and developmental disabilities.


 
Which may be true.  However I still find it hard to swallow when some guy hides the body, makes up lies for his whereabouts, goes on the run, hides/fights/runs from the police etc. Then conveniently at trial the "he didnt know right from wrong" argument comes up. Why not just stand over the body picking your teeth if you thought your actions were OK? Or is the argument that he didnt know right from wrong when he committed the crime but it all came back to him after the fact? (not you saying that Geo just a general ?)


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 11, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Which may be true.  However I still find it hard to swallow when some guy hides the body, makes up lies for his whereabouts, goes on the run, hides/fights/runs from the police etc. Then conveniently at trial the "he didnt know right from wrong" argument comes up. Why not just stand over the body picking your teeth if you thought your actions were OK? Or is the argument that he didnt know right from wrong when he committed the crime but it all came back to him after the fact? (not you saying that Geo just a general ?)


To answer that, I'm reaching into how these minds might possibly work, so bear with me _in that vein_, okay?

For people with bipolar disorders and certain other mental illnesses and developmental disabilities, actions happen in sequences - rather concrete ones.  Whenever the subject of murder or crime is visited, what follows? Cover-up, flight and pursuit. It's a repeating pattern which is comforting to people with brain disorders.  They LIVE pattern, they EAT pattern, they WALK pattern.

Bearing with me, here - IF (again, that is a big, huge, argumentative IF) - there exists a definite brain disorder, it really is possible for them to even hurt someone in self-defense and think, by nature of pattern, that the next step is what's appropriate to do - not necessarily right or wrong, but the _next thing to do_.

That said and these specifics aside, it could very well be argued that ALL criminals are mentally ill to some degree (friggin' duh - why else do the crime?) but does this mean they get off scot-free? I don't think so.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 11, 2005)

You may be right, but the whole "step by step" thing I just cant swallow. Sounds like psychobable rationalization to me. But then my take is on a different angle.......

I would think (again just throwing this out..) that if you asked one of these people why they ran/hid/fought etc. they would say "because the cops were coming for me"...."why were they coming for you?"..."because I killed that person". So while they may not have thought it was "wrong", they knew that "society" did and that they were going to be punished for it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 11, 2005)

All this is rather irrelavent in this particular circumstance.  We're not judging whether this gentleman should be held culpable, criminally, for his actions, as he is dead.  

We're judging whether his actions, regardless of their root causes within his mind, are what resulted directly in his death.  Therefore, it is necessary to seperate causation, in terms of cause and effect of his actions, from internal causation.  The discussion of his internal causation is a red-herring issue.  

Furthermore, it is actually part of a far larger discussion of mental illness, which psychologists and other researchers have been debating for decades, and doesn't lend much to the ultimate question here.

Put simply, does the answer yes or no, to whether he was in control of his actions, actually change whether or not the Marshall's were justified?  The answer would appear to be no.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 11, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> You may be right, but the whole "step by step" thing I just cant swallow. Sounds like psychobable rationalization to me. But then my take is on a different angle.......
> 
> I would think (again just throwing this out..) that if you asked one of these people why they ran/hid/fought etc. they would say "because the cops were coming for me"...."why were they coming for you?"..."because I killed that person". So while they may not have thought it was "wrong", they knew that "society" did and that they were going to be punished for it.


 When you say "rationalization" I think you're saying I'm trying to reach for an excuse. Not so.  You can either accept the way their brain works or not, makes no difference to me because you're going to do what you're trained to do no matter what and I realize that.  

And what you still don't see (though this is indeed all irrelavent, but since you asked) is that though they follow the pattern, they might not understand it or even really mean to do it.  Also, once the pattern is started, pattern-driven people are compelled to continue the pattern regardless of the 'meaning' of the circumstances because they don't see them as circumstances - only part of the pattern.

I really hate it when LEOs say they "reject" or "don't accept psychobabble rationalization" because to me, this is revealing of a general attitude that is no better for a cop to have than disrespect is for a criminal to have. IMVHO.

So, I suppose the difference between you and I, Tom, is that I accept that you are going to chase down a man like my kid because he's in a pattern he can't escape from and you see only a set of circumstances because that is what you are trained to do.  And you won't (choice here) accept that men like my kid who are indeed legitimately ill can't understand that what they are doing is illegal, immoral and against the law.  I accept your policy, you don't accept mine. I'll accept it, but nothing says I have to like it.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 11, 2005)

Im sorry if you thought my posts were directed at you or your posts Geo because they are not. Im just posting my opinion on the matter and in this case its different from yours.

The difference is that I HAVE TO run them down and catch them. Its not a matter of my training, its not "my policy", its what society expects of me. I arrest on probable cause that a crime has been committed. I dont judge, sentence or determine punishment for them. So my belief or disbelief in the insanity defense doesn't really matter. If, God forbid I ever had to arrest your son it would be in the most professional and least forceful manner as possible. As to my belief in his mental culpability, that isnt mine to decide or argue. There are varying degrees of mental illness. There are some cases where its undeniable that a person has a serious disorder that causes them to act out of their control (I have had to escort mental health services into the homes of a few). If that were the case I would hope the DA would forego charges in leu of medical attention.

However, like it or not, I also believe that many people are using it as an increasingly effective excuse for their actions. Again Im sorry if my opinion offends you, but it is what it is, and I guess I will leave it at that.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 11, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Im sorry if you thought my posts were directed at you or your posts Geo because they are not. Im just posting my opinion on the matter and in this case its different from yours.


Actually, I felt we were arguing points rather productively, and sorry if I did not convey that accurately.



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> The difference is that I HAVE TO run them down and catch them. Its not a matter of my training, its what society expects of me. I arrest on probable cause that a crime has been committed. I dont judge, sentence or determine punishment for them. So my belief or disbelief in the insanity defense doesn't really matter.


Yes you do have to, and I understand.



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> If, God forbid I ever had to arrest your son it would be in the most professional and least forceful manner as possible. As to my belief in his mental culpability, that isnt mine to decide or argue. There are also varying degrees of mental illness. There are some cases where its undeniable that a person has a serious disorder that causes them to act out of their control (I have had to escort mental health services into the homes of a few). If that were the case I would hope the DA would forego charges in leu of medical attention.


I think the question becomes, then, even if it is not for you to judge, does your opinion affect your ability to think to the full range of your capacity in the moment (such as you can, I realize, believe me)? or do you feel this is a luxury you do not have?



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> However, like it or not, I also believe that many people are using it as an excuse. Again Im sorry if my opinion offends you, but it is what it is.


No, I  completely concur, hence my repeated caveats of "IF."


----------



## Tgace (Dec 11, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> I think the question becomes, then, even if it is not for you to judge, does your opinion affect your ability to think to the full range of your capacity in the moment (such as you can, I realize, believe me)? or do you feel this is a luxury you do not have?


 
I dont really know what you mean by this. If you are asking if I stop and consider if every person I deal with has a mental illness and isnt responsible for his actions than I would have to say no. I do not have the luxury to deal with anything other than what I am observing at the time. If the person has committed a crime or is going to be a threat to me, another or the public at large than I have to act regardless of what issues the other person has.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 11, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I dont really know what you mean by this. If you are asking if I stop and consider if every person I deal with has a mental illness and isnt responsible for his actions than I would have to say no. I do not have the luxury to deal with anything other than what I am observing at the time. If the person has committed a crime or is going to be a threat to me, another or the public at large than I have to act regardless of what issues the other person has.


:asian:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 11, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I dont really know what you mean by this. If you are asking if I stop and consider if every person I deal with has a mental illness and isnt responsible for his actions than I would have to say no. I do not have the luxury to deal with anything other than what I am observing at the time. If the person has committed a crime or is going to be a threat to me, another or the public at large than I have to act regardless of what issues the other person has.


Mental illness and it's treatments are an issue for mental health professionals, not for law enforcement.  A casual understanding of the disorders and how they manifest is useful to the first responding officer, just as a knowledge of CPR and first aid are useful.  Those in mental health crisis can benefit from some knowledge on the part of law enforcement arriving on scene.  

However, none of that applies in this circumstance.  What's more, considerations of whether or not the individual is mentally ill has NO bearing on lethal force scenarios.  A mentally ill suspect can kill someone as quickly as someone mentally healthy (whatever that means).  What's more, it's easily argued that a mentally healthy person doesn't engage in violent acts that result in the deaths of innocent people.  

I just started my Masters degree in psychology (A bachelors degree being just enough to know you have no idea what you're talking about).  

I don't plan on going in to the realm of clinical psychology, for no other reason than that i'm not entirely convinced that the bulk of the 'disorders' we are taught exist, are nothing more than aspects of a given persons personality.  

Most especially so with the many personality disorders, i.e. borderline personalities, histrionic personality disorders, narcissistic personality disorders, at some point I start to feel that 'disorders' aren't really disorders at all, but what a person IS.  

I much prefer dealing with the realm of social psychology and it's study of common factors relating human behavior and social influences.  

There are several 'organic' brain diseases that result in behaviors outside the realm of control of the individual.  This can range from tumors to brain damage caused by external mechanisms.  The bulk of the 'disorders' however, are still debated as to the degree of which they are the result of organic influences in the brain, or issues of faulty thought processes.  

Depression, for example, can result from issues having nothing to do with the organic processing of the brain.  Hence, it begins to be something wrong with the 'thinking' processes.

At any rate, we can debate the given merits of a given disorder classification all night.  I still have yet to hear how it pertains, directly, to the given question.


----------



## MJS (Dec 12, 2005)

OULobo said:
			
		

> Well, here is my question, if the man never mentioned a bomb, but the situation played out otherwise the same, would the Marshals still be justified in shooting him. It may sound a little bit conspiricyish, but some reports say that only the Marshals heard him say the b word and they were alone when they heard it. If they shot him unjustly and needed a "get off the hook free card", saying he yelled he had a bomb gives one to them.


 
See, this is the problem we're starting to face.  In the initial reports, everybody was saying that this guy said 'I have a bomb' while he was running down the aisle of the plane.  The news found a few people that heard nothing and this is what they're jumping on.  My question is:  I think its important to get * all * of the facts before they start running around saying "he said this and he said that."  Seems to me that they're running with the fact that because a handful of people didnt hear anything then he must not have had a bomb.  Thats bull if you ask me, but so typical of the media.

I would think that if he said nothing about a bomb, but his behavior was like it was, that the Marshals or someone would have done something.  I dont know about anyone else, but if I was on a plane and there was someone acting like a nut, I would want someone to intervene.

Mike


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 12, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> See, this is the problem we're starting to face. In the initial reports, everybody was saying that this guy said 'I have a bomb' while he was running down the aisle of the plane. The news found a few people that heard nothing and this is what they're jumping on. My question is: I think its important to get *all *of the facts before they start running around saying "he said this and he said that." Seems to me that they're running with the fact that because a handful of people didnt hear anything then he must not have had a bomb. Thats bull if you ask me, but so typical of the media.
> 
> I would think that if he said nothing about a bomb, but his behavior was like it was, that the Marshals or someone would have done something. I dont know about anyone else, but if I was on a plane and there was someone acting like a nut, I would want someone to intervene.
> 
> Mike


There appear to be two or three passengers who have agreed to talk to the media, one of who is mad because he got his cell phone knocked out of his hand, who claim not to have heard him say the word "Bomb".  However, the Police Department interviewed ALL the passengers, and seem pretty confident about what has occurred.  Often, you get a couple of malcontents, who either weren't paying attention, or want their 15-minutes of fame AND they want to grind an ax against someone.

What's furthermore, none of them were present on the ground where the man was shot.  

What's more, I heard CNN say "No one has come forward claiming to have heard that he had a bomb".  That's outright dishonest.  They didn't say "No one has come forward 'to the media'" which is what they meant.  The Miami-Dade police department interviewed every passenger.  

At the time CNN announced "No one has come forward", they were referring to one guy who came to Time and said "I didn't hear it".  No one else had talked to the reporters.  I guess all witnesses must clear themselves through CNN first.   

"Miami-Dade police official Roy Rutland said the department has interviewed witnesses who confirm the marshals' report of hearing Alpizar speak of a bomb. Rutland would not say whether the witnesses were crew or passengers."

"Rigoberto Alpizar, 44, made the bomb threat after a flight attendant blocked him from exiting Flight 924 just minutes before the plane was scheduled to leave for Orlando, said Lonny Glover, national safety coordinator for the Association of Professional Flight Attendants. "  

"As the man came forward it was obvious that he was upset," Glover said. "That's when one of our attendants at the front of plane told him, 'Sir, you can't leave the plane.' His response, she said, was 'I have a bomb.' It was at that point that the air marshals gave up their cover and pursued him out the door and up the jetbridge."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-12-08-marshals-defense_x.htm?csp=34

So apparently he said it near the exit door, when he was blocked from exiting by the stewardess.  That would explain why some claimed they didn't hear it.  

In addition, "Passenger Natalia Cayon, 16, of Codazzi, Colombia, told USA TODAY that she saw Alpizar's wife run after him and say in Spanish: "He's sick. He has a problem."  So the wife apparently did yell this...but in Spanish.

"Cayon said she then heard the woman say in English, "Oh my God." Cayon next heard three to five shots."

Sounds more and more like a justified use of force.

Of course then you get this: "the shooting is likely to raise questions about the expanded presence of guns aboard commercial airplanes in recent years, as well as the marshals' training -- in particular, with people who appear to be mentally unstable."  So REAL bombers are stable, unstable people are 'fake bombers'?  What BS.  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/07/AR2005120701578.html

Apparently, the Air Marshall's gave him orders in both Spanish and English.  

"Mr. Adams said he did not know what language the air marshals had used to address Mr. Alpizar. But another marshal, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because air marshals have been threatened with dismissal for speaking to the news media, said he understood that instructions had been given in both Spanish and English."

"Mark Raynor, an American Airlines pilot and local union official in Miami, said an account he heard from the plane's captain had supported law enforcement accounts of the shooting."

"Mr. Raynor said the captain had been outside the cockpit at the time of the shooting and witnessed it, but the first officer had been inside the cockpit and had seen nothing."

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051209/ZNYT02/512090432

Again, what happened to this man is a sad turn of events, but it appears to be a turn of events caused by his actions.


----------



## MJS (Dec 26, 2005)

Just wanted to bump this thread a little.  I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't heard anything else about this subject on the NEWS.  Seems like they were talking about it non-stop and then all of a sudden nothing!

Mike


----------



## rutherford (Dec 26, 2005)

At some point it stopped being sensational news and started being a tragedy of human life.  No wonder people lost interest.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 26, 2005)

rutherford said:
			
		

> At some point it stopped being sensational news and started being a tragedy of human life. No wonder people lost interest.



Yes, I think that is exactly why the media stops covering stories.

7sm


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 29, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Yes, I think that is exactly why the media stops covering stories.
> 
> 7sm


 Well, when they can't milk it anymore is when they stop covering it.  You can always tell when a media story doesn't go the way they want it to go (i.e., in this case, toward a scandal), it suddenly just dies.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 29, 2005)

Yeah, I was trying my hand at sarcasm....heh

7sm


----------

