Passenger killed by air marshall

[thaiboxerken]

Given that several passengers who were directly interviewed did not make any mention of bomb threats, no.

None of them said that it wasn't said though, no one has disputed the TSA's story. The guy in the back of the plane probably didn't hear the word "bomb", but that doesn't mean it wasn't said. The security guys said it happened no on said it didn't happen. Some witnesses just didn't hear what was said.

 

[demon]

It has being reported uncritically in some quarters that Alpizar claimed he had a bomb:

quote:
The man, Rigoberto Alpizar, claimed to have a bomb in his backpack, and air marshals opened fire as he ran away, refusing to obey their orders to stop and put down the backpack, according to news reports.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/editorials/stories/MYSA120905.1O.airmarshal2ed.1bcbde2f.html

Same here:
http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=116059

In another report...
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/lo...dec09,0,443040.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines

...I note that is says:

"Witnesses in Miami airport shooting differ on whether Alpizar made bomb threat"

...and they don`t seem to be able to come up with a single witness that supports James Bauer`s (special agent in charge of the air marshalls in this case) or the other air marshalls claims.

Interestingly, in another report here...
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/july-dec05/miami_12-7.html

...Bauer has changed his story and now he is saying "At some point, he uttered threatening words that included a sense that, in fact, that he had a bomb."

I`d like to know what those words were.

Shades of the Menezes case.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It doesn't really matter if he said bomb or not. No witnesses dispute that this guy ran through the crowd and acted irrationally and disobeyed lawful orders of security.

 

[Skeptic]

If a terrorist planted a bomb on a plane quietly and successfully, why would they then run around like a mentally disturbed person telling everyone they had another bomb?

So the fact that the Air Marshalls shot someone who acted like a terorrist shows how evil they are, because they should have realized a real terrorist wouldn't act like that. But what if they shoot someone who doesn't act like a terrorist, claiming that, after all, it's the quiet ones who are the most dangerous? Well, then they're wrong, too, because they have no evidence that he's a terrorist in the first place.

So nothing anybody can do is, for Kevin, enough evidence that the person is a terrorist. By a shrewd "logical" argument, Kevin has "proven" that no matter what anybody does, Air Marshalls are wrong to shoot them, and that therefore they are evil and the whole program is a waste of money.

This, folks, is what Kevin Lowe calls "skepticism". In reality, it's "I've made up my mind, don't bother me with facts".

 

[thaiboxerken]

That's right, skeptic. When a person rests his case on a "true scotsman" fallacy, is he really a skeptic?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

That is not what I said. I said they could shoot anyone who appears to be presenting a significant and immediate threat to the safety of the public. That is different some saying someone who "could" be a threat.

Your personal definition of "appears to be presenting a significant and immediate threat to the safety of the public", however, in practise includes at least one person who presented no credible threat to anybody. Or to put it another way, you are just dressing up precisely the claim I attributed to you in more conservative language to camouflage the sheer lunacy of it.

Please note that official spokespeople are now hedging their words about what the deceased said and did very carefully, which is a sign that not all is well. First they said he said he had a bomb and he reached into his bag. Now they are saying "he uttered threatening words that included a sense that... he had a bomb", and there hasn't yet been any sign of an independent witness verifying even that much.

Can anyone point to a single instance of lives being saved from terrorists by the kind of post-9/11 snap police killings that claimed Menendez and Alpizar, outside Israel? I can tolerate lethal jumpiness in scenarios where people are facing a constant stream of suicide bombers, but given that absolutely no such threat exists, isn't this kind of self-destructive idioy exactly the wrong way to respond to terrorism?

 

[Skeptic]

I can tolerate lethal jumpiness in scenarios where people are facing a constant stream of suicide bombers,

Gee, thanks for the permission, Kevin. What would we do without you.

Please note that official spokespeople are now hedging their words about what the deceased said and did very carefully, which is a sign that not all is well. First they said he said he had a bomb and he reached into his bag. Now they are saying "he uttered threatening words that included a sense that... he had a bomb", and there hasn't yet been any sign of an independent witness verifying even that much.

But that proves he is a terorrist, doesn't it, Kevin? After all, by your own argument, no real terrorist would ever shout "I have a bomb!" and reach into his bag. Therefore, the fact that the man didn't do so proves he at least might have been a terrorist, doesn't it?

Oh wait; of course not. As I said in a previous post, you're using "damned if you do, damned if you don't" logic. In the beginning of this thread, when you believed it was established that he shouted he had a bomb, you claimed it was wrong to shoot him because no real terrorist would do that. Now that it seems unclear if he had shouted it or not, that, too, "proves" the air marshalls wrong because they had no clear evidence he was a terrorist--it's not like he shouted he had a bomb, or anything...

 

[CFLarsen]

That's kinda close to what I am getting at except for your use of the word "endowed". Why do you want to slip that in?

Because that's how Americans got their rights, remember?

ETA: In fact, folks from other countries could have more rights than US citizens (that's who we're talking about right?) because as I mentioned, our government has already taken away a lot of rights.

OK, I'm confused. Which is it? Do Americans have more rights or fewer rights than non-Americans?

 

[CFLarsen]

Cool. Here comes the US bashing.

Criticizing the US is US bashing?

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm surprised you can still type after all the spinning you've done in this thread. I've told you that the line you are fixated on is a rhetorical tool. If you see God in that, I'd say that says more about you than it does about the US founders.

Have you looked at the references I posted?

Do you have any references to show otherwise?

 

[CFLarsen]

No, but one of them (Thomas Jefferson) personally wrote the Declaration of Independence.

But those who backed it were generally religious.

You state directly that you reject a non-supernatural definition for "creator" because "People were generally religious to an extent we can hardly imagine today"

Which seems to imply that there were no atheists, or even people who acknowledged the possibility that God may not exist.

No, you read that wrong. Somehow, but you managed. I said specifically "generally religious", which is backed up by the references I showed.

I don’t think that’s supportable.

Since I don't claim that, it's hardly a flaw in my argumentation.

Your own links demonstrate a wide variety of religious beliefs in the Colonies, and among some of those belief systems there were active debates on the existence of God.

That's exactly what they do.

 

[CFLarsen]

The committee consisted of two New England men, John Adams of Massachusetts and Roger Sherman of Connecticut; two men from the Middle Colonies, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania and Robert R. Livingston of New York; and one southerner, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia. In 1823 Jefferson wrote that the other members of the committee "unanimously pressed on myself alone to undertake the draught [sic]. I consented; I drew it; but before I reported it to the committee I communicated it separately to Dr. Franklin and Mr. Adams requesting their corrections. . . I then wrote a fair copy, reported it to the committee, and from them, unaltered to the Congress." (If Jefferson did make a "fair copy," incorporating the changes made by Franklin and Adams, it has not been preserved. It may have been the copy that was amended by the Congress and used for printing, but in any case, it has not survived. Jefferson's rough draft, however, with changes made by Franklin and Adams, as well as Jefferson's own notes of changes by the Congress, is housed at the Library of Congress.)

Jefferson's account reflects three stages in the life of the Declaration: the document originally written by Jefferson; the changes to that document made by Franklin and Adams, resulting in the version that was submitted by the Committee of Five to the Congress; and the version that was eventually adopted.
Source

The DoI that you have today is not Jefferson's version.

 

[Perforatu]

So the fact that the Air Marshalls shot someone who acted like a terorrist shows how evil they are, because they should have realized a real terrorist wouldn't act like that.

Huh? If a real terrorist wouldn't act like that, then how could the air marshalls have shot him for acting like a terrorist?

I think it may indicate that the air marshalls need better training to distinguish between suspicious behavior and panicked behavior. (And only if the suspect didn't utter the word 'bomb', otherwise I agree they handled correctly.)

So nothing anybody can do is, for Kevin, enough evidence that the person is a terrorist.

I can't speak for Kevin, but if the initial reports turn out to be correct and this person actually did mention he had a bomb, that's important evidence for an air marshall. It doesn't mean the suspect actually is a terrorist, but the air marshall now has to operate from the assumption that he is.

 

[Skeptic]

Huh? If a real terrorist wouldn't act like that, then how could the air marshalls have shot him for acting like a terrorist?

Ask Kevin. He is the one who claims that if someone acts like we would expect a terrorist to act, it is evidence that he isn't a terrorist because a real terrorist wouldn't act like we'd expect him to. Of course, according to Kevin, someone who doesn't act like we would expect a terrorist isn't a terrorist, either, so it might make it slightly difficult to find someone who's a terrorist.

Quite apart from everything else, this "a terrorist knows we know he will act like a terrorist, so he won't act like one" has the slight problem of infinite regress. For if, as Kevin claims, someone shouting "I have a bomb" is evidence that he isn't a terrorist because a real terrorist wouldn't act this way, then all a real terrorist have to do is to shout "I have a bomb" and we would wrongly think he isn't one, wouldn't we?

It's like the scene in a satirical play I have forgotten:

JOURNALIST: They know your code.
AMERICAN GENERAL: We know; we pretend to have not been aware of it, in order to fool them by feeding them false information.
JOURNALIST: They know you know their code.
RUSSIAN GENERAL: We know; we pretend to believe the information that we get from their code, to make them unaware we know they know.
JOURNALIST: They know you know they know your code.
AMERICAN GENERAL: Yes, we know that. They think they have us fooled, don't they, into thinking they believe what we tell them?
JOURNALIST: They know you know they know you know...
RUSSIAN GENERAL (deeply worried): Really? Are you sure?!

 

[a_unique_person]

I think you are misquoting "Yes, Minister".

 

[WildCat]

The DoI that you have today is not Jefferson's version.

The DoI, as has been pointed out to you numerous times, is not a legal document. No law or policy is based on it, but you already know that. Like a pouting child denied his candy, you insist up is down and black is white. That brain of yours just spins out of control and overloads when the subject of guns, or armed Air Marshals is brought up.

Are you ever going to answer the question of who created you Claus? Was it a supernatural being? Or are only Americans created by a supernatural process? Either way, maybe you should claim Randi's $1 million...

 

[Freakshow]

Your personal definition of "appears to be presenting a significant and immediate threat to the safety of the public", however, in practise includes at least one person who presented no credible threat to anybody.

Correct. Congratulations, Kevin! You have discovered that nothing's PERFECT! What's your next trick?

 

[Mycroft]

Your personal definition of "appears to be presenting a significant and immediate threat to the safety of the public", however, in practise includes at least one person who presented no credible threat to anybody. Or to put it another way, you are just dressing up precisely the claim I attributed to you in more conservative language to camouflage the sheer lunacy of it.

The word "credible" means "capable of being believed." A "credible threat" isn't a threat that's capable of harming us, it's a threat we can believe is capable of harming us.

 

[CFLarsen]

Are you ever going to answer the question of who created you Claus? Was it a supernatural being? Or are only Americans created by a supernatural process? Either way, maybe you should claim Randi's $1 million...

Had you taken your time to actually read my posts, you would have found this (it was even a reply to you):

Your rights are not just something that floats somewhere in space. Your rights are dependent on the laws of the land. And those laws are made by humans.

Do you understand this?

 

[Mycroft]

But those who backed it were generally religious.

So because they were generally religious, you feel that's enough to conclude that nobody there was willing to allow for a non-supernatural interpretation of "creator" even though the language was purposefully crafted to include a multitude of interpretations?

Tell me, do you believe any of them might have questioned the existence of God?