Passenger killed by air marshall

And I disagree with you that this man "shouldn't be dead". If you mean that he wasn't a terrorist, sure; but if the reports are accurate, then clearly anybody who acted as he did should be shot dead, or the whole program isn't worth much.

Such programs are not designed to give the agents supernatural abilities to see into a man's heart and decide if he's a terorist or a lunatic, but to identify and forcefully react to terrorist acts. And this man clearly acted like a terrorist. Far from being a failure, this is precisely how things are supposed to work.

So I don't see where the criticism of the Marshalls comes in here, at all. What you really are saying is that since they cannot be trained to see into a man's heart and decide the difference between a lunatic pretending to be a terrorist and a bona fide terrorist in 15 second, somehow the whole program is worthless.

Then you add that it "did nothing", forgetting that the most essential point of such programs is to deter terrorists attacks, and that there were no such attacks since 9/11--precisely the point of this (and other similar) programs.

So you ignore what the program did, criticize it for doing exactly what it's shpposed to do, and say it's worthless because it cannot do the impossible.

I'd say that's bias against the program, wouldn't you say?
 
Skeptic said:
And I disagree with you that this man "shouldn't be dead". If you mean that he wasn't a terrorist, sure; but if the reports are accurate, then clearly anybody who acted as he did should be shot dead, or the whole program isn't worth much.
Click to expand...
Specifically, as an air passenger I insist that 100% of people who claim to have a bomb and then reach into their bags in the presence of armed officers be shot dead. If the facts currently being reported turn out to be correct, the only thing about the system that didn't work is that this guy managed to run past the marshals and disembark the aircraft at some point. He should have been shot dead before that.
 
Skeptic said:
Then you add that it "did nothing", forgetting that the most essential point of such programs is to deter terrorists attacks, and that there were no such attacks since 9/11--precisely the point of this (and other similar) programs.
Click to expand...
Did you miss the (very long) part of my post where I addressed this very issue, and pointed out that we have no evidence that it has deterred anything, because there are other imaginable causes for the dropoff in hijackings?

You are again simply boxing with phantoms. I agreed that if events transpired as described, the marshals acted properly, and then went on to express skepticism that the air marshal program is performing as we hope it would.
 
mumblethrax said:
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?
Click to expand...

It is a wonderfully viable strategy. Why would you say not?
 
manny said:
Specifically, as an air passenger I insist that 100% of people who claim to have a bomb and then reach into their bags in the presence of armed officers be shot dead. If the facts currently being reported turn out to be correct, the only thing about the system that didn't work is that this guy managed to run past the marshals and disembark the aircraft at some point. He should have been shot dead before that.
Click to expand...

The Scotch-Guarding is newer and therefore more effective on Jetway carpeting. Everything was planned.
 
mumblethrax said:
Did you miss the (very long) part of my post where I addressed this very issue, and pointed out that we have no evidence that it has deterred anything, because there are other imaginable causes for the dropoff in hijackings?
Click to expand...
So how DO you determine if something has a deterrent effect?

It is something hard to do, without some sort of expertise. Because if you are successful in deterring undesired behavior...nothing happens. The expertise comes in when you ask people that have some sort of experience on the other side of the deterrent. This is part of the "should you hire hackers?" debate in computer security. I fall on the "yes" side for a couple reasons. One is...um...I like having a job. :D Another is that any security system needs people that think like bad guys. Those are the ones that you need to ask if your deterrence is working. I have seen time and time and time again a system attempt to implement a security policy, work months or years on it, and have it compromised or diverterted for other purposes within days of implementation. Sony's recent CD copy-protection issue is a great example. They very obviously didn't have anyone on that project to give a hacker's perspective.

So, we can't always measure deterrence. But we can ask experts if it would deter THEM. We can ask people "How would you attack this system?" And adjust security implementations based on the answers.

If you have a suggestion for doing it another way (that doesn't involve even the possibility of someone always being able to say "Well, other things could account for that."), I would really like to hear it. We don't always have controls outside of the lab. The real world needs something other than just throwing up our hands when we can't perfectly measure something.
 
The air Marshall's work for the public. We have the right to question to examine what they do in our name. If they don't like that arrangement they can go work as security guards at a mall.
 
There's quite a lot of distance between the various accounts.
 
Time report:

"I was on the phone with my brother. Somebody came down the aisle and put a shotgun to the back of my head and said put your hands on the seat in front of you. I got my cell phone karate chopped out of my hand. Then I realized it was an official."


In the ensuing events, many of the passengers began crying in fear, he recalls. "They were pointing the guns directly at us instead of pointing them to the ground," he says "One little girl was crying. There was a lady crying all the way to the hotel."


McAlhany said he saw Alpizar before the flight and is absolutely stunned by what unfolded on the airplane. He says he saw Alpizar eating a sandwich in the boarding area before getting on the plane. He looked normal at that time, McAlhany says. He thinks the whole thing was a mistake: "I don't believe he should be dead right now."
Click to expand...
 
If this guy at any point stated that he had a bomb and then made a move toward his backpack ... Well, that's enough for me.

If not, then there's more to the story. But I'm sure that's the focus of the investigation. If he left the plane and was in a location away from other passengers, they may not have been in a position to hear what he said to the air marshals. Everyone on this board should know that just because one or two people were quoted not to have heard the "bomb" statement that doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't made.

As to another comment above, I agree that most dedicated suicide bombers probably wouldn't announce their plans -- they'd just blow up the plane. Keep in mind, however, that the plan still might be to seize control of the plane and the bomb, real or not, is the threat to keep people in their seats. Less effective after 9/11, perhaps, but still not beyond the realm of possibility. Do you really think that the same kind of people who hickjacked the planes in 2001 wouldn't try it again if they thought they could get away with it?
 
In the ensuing events, many of the passengers began crying in fear, he recalls. "They were pointing the guns directly at us instead of pointing them to the ground," he says "One little girl was crying. There was a lady crying all the way to the hotel."

EARTH TO INGRATE COWARD: Air Marshalls who think, for good reason, that some of the passangers might be terrorists that could blow the plane sky-high with a bomb have every friggin' reason to point their guns at the passangers.

What did you expect? A recreation--in reverse--of the scene from Monty Python's "Life of Brian", where the convicts go out to get their crosses?! ((gently) "Crucifixion?" "Yes." "To the right, one cross each." (gently) "Crucifixion?" "No, they said I can go home." "Oh, OK then.")

I can see it now:

Air Marshall (quietly, as to not scare anybody): "Excuse me miss, are you a terrorist?"
Ms. A: "Er, no."
A.M.: "Oh, OK then. Excuse me, Sir, are you a terrorist?"
Mr. B: "Er, yes, actually."
A.M.: "Thanks." (*blam!*)
A.M.: "Sorry I had to do that. Excuse me, mister, are you..."

I suppose that now we should have a new rule: "Air Marshalls would do anything in their power to neutralize terrorists who took over a plane, as long as said actions do not scare little girls into crying."

Really, this is pathetic beyond words.
 
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I've posted this before in that British incident, but I think it bears repeating. It's a game I like to play called "You're the Cop."
So.

You're the cop in the airport:

You see a man. He looks very agitated. He is behaving in a strange manner. He yells something about a bomb and reaches for a bag in a hurried fashion.

What do you do?










Too late. You thought about it, whatever was going to happen, is done. The window of opportunity has passed, and you, along with hundreds of others, are now goo on the tarmac, either that, or the guy was a nut and nothing happened.

Are you a betting sort? Enough to gamble with hundreds of lives?

Yes, I'm sure the reaction from airport security was a bit harsh by the standards of most people. Once again, you're the cop:

Some guy was just put down for shouting 'Bomb!'. What do you do?












Too late, his accomplice has just pasted you and everyone around you. Too bad. Thanks for playing.


Yeah, they're locking you down until the figure out what is happening. You're damned skippy they are, and if they aren't, then they're damned idiots and I don't want them armed. Sitting in an armchair a hundred miles away, it is easy to criticize. Try being in the situation. It's different, I assure you.


ETA: 15 second?! Are you people nuts? If you have more than 3, you're lucky. Most decisions are made in about .5 seconds.
 
Last edited:
clarsct said:
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I've posted this before in that British incident, but I think it bears repeating. It's a game I like to play called "You're the Cop."
Click to expand...

I have a game I also like to play, and mine is called "I'm a citizen".

I'm sitting in my society, and I have to decide whether or not I'm comfortable giving police officers carte blanche to kill citizens like myself if they think they heard the word "bomb", or I if am dark skinned and I am on a subway.

I ask myself whether I am safer with these guys, who are proven to make tragic mistakes, wandering around on a hair-trigger? Or would I be safer if those guys were on a shorter leash when it came to employing deadly force? What about innocent mentally ill people, drunk people, stupid people, teenagers and so forth who almost certainly outnumber terrorists?

What if, as has been proven in the subway case and may well yet turn out to be true in this case, the killers and their comrades lie like rugs about the circumstances of these incidents to cover up unlawful and unjustified killings?

That's the game called "I'm a citizen". Give it a whirl, Clarsct.
 
Perforatu said:
Hmmm... If that quote's accurate, it does significantly change my opinion about this incident. If it turns out to be accurate.
Click to expand...

One thing that was made abundantly clear after the Brazilian was shot on the London Underground is that what people see and hear under stressful conditions does not necessarily bear any resemblence to what actually happened.

Do aircraft cabins have any sort of recording devices, or is that just for the cockpit? Might there have been CCTV in the jetway?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom