Passenger killed by air marshall

[CFLarsen]

Hehehehe......

 

[Freakshow]

Now, it can be argued that the presence of air marshalls acts as a deterrent to terrorism. There's a serious problem with this argument, in that deterrence relies heavily on rational actor theory: the hope is that terrorists won't try to smuggle on bombs if they know they're going to get caught in the act. But a rational terrorist would realize that there is no reason to announce that he has a bomb anymore, because there is nothing to be gained by it. The crew will no longer accede to the demands of terrorists, so he's better off quietly detonating his bomb.

And there's a serious problem with your argument, too. You are only looking at bombs, and not looking at other threats. Such as hijacking. That is something that an armed air marshall can do much to prevent.

Just because a solution is not perfect does not mean the whole solution should be discarded. You can find flaws in any solution. Nothing humans do is ever perfect. I'm not saying it can't be improved any more than it is. I am saying that a lack of perfection is not by itself justification for scrapping the whole idea.

 

[mumblethrax]

How about uniformed, armed guards on every flight? Putting aside cost for a moment, what would you think about the effectiveness of such a solution?

From the same speculative rational actor approach, it should make no difference.

Of course, I think rational actor theory is itself seriously flawed, so evidence that it does work and does minimize risks would likely change my mind.

 

[Mycroft]

We have a security system in place because we don't have a perfect world. The goal of that system is to stop evil doers and leave others alone.

Except leaving others alone isn't really the goal. I get stopped and searched every time I fly, yet there is no reason to think I'm any kind of threat.

Rather, we accept that many people will be bothered in order to pursue the goal of insuring everyone's safety.

This person made himself look like a threat and he was treated accordingly. It’s terrible that he died and nobody could say it was “fair”, but it’s also true that any system that would have spared him would also have put other lives in danger.

 

[Freakshow]

From the same speculative rational actor approach, it should make no difference.

Of course, I think rational actor theory is itself seriously flawed, so evidence that it does work and does minimize risks would likely change my mind.

There has never been a hijacking of an El-Al flight. Ever. That certainly is not for lack of desire on the part of the terrorists.

 

[mumblethrax]

And there's a serious problem with your argument, too. You are only looking at bombs, and not looking at other threats. Such as hijacking. That is something that an armed air marshall can do much to prevent.

Just because a solution is not perfect does not mean the whole solution should be discarded. You can find flaws in any solution. Nothing humans do is ever perfect. I'm not saying it can't be improved any more than it is. I am saying that a lack of perfection is not by itself justification for scrapping the whole idea.

As I said, hijacking is not likely to work anymore. Saying "I have a gun!" is no more likely to work than "I have a bomb!" And if you do manage to hijack the plane, the chances are pretty good that it would be shot down in today's world. 9/11 effectively ended that strategy for terrorists.

I'm not presenting a perfect solution fallacy here, I'm pointing out that air marshalls may actually be worse than nothing. I have seen no evidence that they do any good at all, although I'm open to the possibility that they do.

 

[Freakshow]

As I said, hijacking is not likely to work anymore. Saying "I have a gun!" is no more likely to work than "I have a bomb!"

And that is based on exactly what sort of police, security, or military experience?

Forget saying "I have a gun". How about shooting a passenger, a stewardess, and the first person that rushes the hijacker? He's making his way to the cockpit. Another person rushes him, he shoots him, too. He keeps making his way to the cockpit. Now what?

 

[mumblethrax]

There has never been a hijacking of an El-Al flight. Ever. That certainly is not for lack of desire on the part of the terrorists.

You're wrong. An El Al flight was hijacked in 1968.

Further, the point I'm making is that hijacking is no longer a viable strategy for terrorists. How many hijackings have there been since 9/11?

 

[Freakshow]

You're wrong. An El Al flight was hijacked in 1968.

Further, the point I'm making is that hijacking is no longer a viable strategy for terrorists. How many hijackings have there been since 9/11?

One was attempted on El-Al since 9/11/2001. He was subdued by the guards on the plane.

I stand corrected on the "ever" statement.

ETA: If we make it known that we no longer put any guards on planes, then the terrorists would start planning more hijackings. I would if I was them. And I do something very similar for a living. I have a degree in Law Enforcement. My work now is in computer/network security, though. Not physical security. Although I have some experience there, due to my educational background. My job is to look for security holes. Look at any system and say "How can I exploit this? How can I get through? How can I take advantage of it?" Part of what I get paid for is to think like a bad guy.

Saying "Ok, we give up. We are no longer every going to have any armed guards on flights." sets my alarm bells ringing, and gets my mind going on how I would work at exploiting that. I'm sure the terrorists would do the same.

 

[Perforatu]

I think the fact that it was an air marshall who shot the guy is a red herring. It could've been a security guard at the airport, or a police officer on the streets, and the outcome would still be the same. If an obviously agitated man screams that he's got a bomb in his bag, and reaches into his bag in spite of several warnings, the security guard and the police officer probably would've gone for the shot as well.

I agree that it's tragic that the man turned out to be innocent, though.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Google rules...

Bipolar Disorder

Bipolar disorder (also known as "manic depression") is often not recognized by the patient, relatives, friends, or even physicians. An early sign of manic-depressive illness may be hypomania -- a state in which the person shows a high level of energy, excessive moodiness or irritability, and impulsive or reckless behavior.

Another passenger, Mary Gardner of Orlando, said she also overheard Alpizar's wife. "I heard her say, 'He's bipolar. He doesn't have his medicine,'" Gardner recalled.

Bipolar Disorder

If left untreated, bipolar disorder tends to worsen, and the person experiences episodes of full-fledged manic episodes and depressive episodes.

Treatment

One medication, lithium, is usually very effective in controlling mania and preventing the recurrence of both manic and depressive episodes.

Most recently, the mood stabilizing anticonvulsants carbamazepine and valproate have also been found useful, especially in more refractory bipolar episodes. Often these medications are combined with lithium for maximum effect.

 

[mumblethrax]

And that is based on exactly what sort of police, security, or military experience?

It's based, as I said, on rational actor theory, upon which the theory of deterrence is predicated.

Forget saying "I have a gun". How about shooting a passenger, a stewardess, and the first person that rushes the hijacker? He's making his way to the cockpit. Another person rushes him, he shoots him, too. He keeps making his way to the cockpit. Now what?

He gets to the locked and reinforced cockpit door and fails to gain entry.

 

[Freakshow]

It's based, as I said, on rational actor theory, upon which the theory of deterrence is predicated.


He gets to the locked and reinforced cockpit door and fails to gain entry.

Now would YOU like to be a passenger on that flight?

 

[cbish]

As I said, hijacking is not likely to work anymore. Saying "I have a gun!" is no more likely to work than "I have a bomb!"

Fail to follow directions and act in a threatening manner to ANY Law Enforcement Officer and you'll wake up dead! Point a cell phone or a comb like it was a gun at a Law Enforcement Officer, guess what happens.

I can see your scenario now:
(Suspect reaches in backpack) "Partner! Don't shoot! He said he had a bomb! Let's analyze this. How likely is it a terrorist would actually have a bomb? Wouldn't he most likely have a gun? Wouldn't it be irrational for a terrorist today to announce he had a bomb? Wouldn't a gun be a more effective high-jack tool? Perhaps he's lying? Maybe he's mentally ill? Perhaps he needs medication? How many people really are in danger here? Are we really in danger here? Is my job necessary? Who do the Dolphins play this weekend?

 

[Freakshow]

It's based, as I said, on rational actor theory, upon which the theory of deterrence is predicated.

I think you are misunderstanding its meaning.

"Rational action theory does not assume that actors always choose "rationally" if that is understood to mean choosing in a dispassionate, cool, calm manner and correct manner. Individuals or groups of individuals may choose emotionally or from inadequate information. They may mistakenly calculate the outcome of a situation. And the actor may be internally divided. If the actor is a group, particularly if it is a large group, it may encounter internal problems which make it difficult for the group to even identify its common values and preferences. Sometimes individuals choose "irrationally" if only to demonstrate that their choices are not predetermined. Suicidal people sometime choose self-destruction, an outcome that a third party would not view as "value-maximizing." Rational actor theory does not assume that choices are "right", only that relative to a specific set of values and preferences the actor chooses among the available alternatives."
http://www.unm.edu/~gleasong/a/notes/topic2.html

 

[gnome]

There has been a "failure" in that someone who was not an actual threat was killed. But I don't think anyone has a complaint... he did act in a threatening manner, and did not follow directions. As liberal as I am, I'm comfortable with the choice made by the air marshall.

 

[mumblethrax]

One was attempted on El-Al since 9/11/2001. He was subdued by the guards on the plane.

By guards and passengers, notably.

Previously, the policy of the FAA had called for passive cooperation on the part of the crew, and now it requires active resistance. Passengers are likely to interfere, as well. I can't say, of course, what would have happened on that flight without the guards being there, but I think it's notable that there have been no successful hijackings since 9/11.

ETA: If we make it known that we no longer put any guards on planes, then the terrorists would start planning more hijackings. I would if I was them. And I do something very similar for a living. I have a degree in Law Enforcement. My work now is in computer/network security, though. Not physical security. Although I have some experience there, due to my educational background. My job is to look for security holes. Look at any system and say "How can I exploit this? How can I get through? How can I take advantage of it?" Part of what I get paid for is to think like a bad guy.

That's possible, but this is purely speculative without a behavioral model behind it. If I were a terrorist, I'd just blow up the plane. Too much risk in trying to hijack it these days.

Saying "Ok, we give up. We are no longer every going to have any armed guards on flights." sets my alarm bells ringing, and gets my mind going on how I would work at exploiting that. I'm sure the terrorists would do the same.

I'm not saying we should surrender to terrorism. I'm asking just what evidence we have that this policy is doing any good? I think that's a pertinent question where we know that it's at least doing some harm.

 

[Freakshow]

It's based, as I said, on rational actor theory, upon which the theory of deterrence is predicated.

Something else about deterrence...

In the security business, we use the term "attack surface" a lot. A higher attack surface means more opportunities for bad guys to exploit it.

As an example...imagine two houses. They are identical in every way. Except one has 1 door and 1 window, and the other has 5 doors and 12 windows. The house with more doors and windows has a higher attack surface. Now, if you had just 2 people to guard each house...which house is going to be more secure? It is going to be the one with the lower attack surface for the two guards to look over.

In our example of an airplane, we're playing a little fast and loose with the "attack surface" terminology, but it will do for this discussion. Having armed guards on every flight reduces the attack surface of the overall whole airline system. Does it make things perfect? No, not at all. But I can't think of anyone in the security industry that would say that an airline system that has armed guards on every plane does not have a smaller attack surface than an airline system that does not have any guards at all. As to whether or not the reduced attack surface is worth the cost...that is a different matter.

If I was hired by the airline industry to do penetration testing of their physical security, and I knew that they never had guards on planes...I know how I would approach it. It is something that has already been taken advantage of multiple time by (thankfully) people that were not terrorists. Made the news a few times, actually.

 

[mumblethrax]

I think you are misunderstanding its meaning.

That's consistent with my definition. The idea isn't that every actor is completely rational, but that given a certain mindset we can predict which choices the actor will make in different environments.

 

[CFLarsen]

There has never been a hijacking of an El-Al flight. Ever. That certainly is not for lack of desire on the part of the terrorists.

Wrong.

1968: The first Arab-Israeli hijacking, as three members of Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) hijack an El Al plane to Rome. Diverting to Algiers the negotiations extend over forty days. Both the hijackers and the hostages go free. This was the first and the only successful hijacking of an El Al flight.
Source