NEWS: US Air Marshal Shoots Passenger on Flight from Columbia

Alpizar had boarded the plane in Colombia, Air Marshal Service spokesman Dave Adams said.

Alpizar was traveling with a woman and had arrived in Miami on a plane from Quito, Ecuador, federal officials said.

...Alpizar's mother-in-law, Stephanie Buechner, ...said Alipizar and her daughter, Anne ...were not in Colombia, which is where the plane had originated.

There were only 32 air marshals at the time of the Sept. 11 attacks. The Bush administration hired thousands more afterward, though the exact number is classified.


Mistaken identity? Bad intel? Or business as usual?

...and to think, for the first time since 9/11 flights inside the United State's had began to pick up for full steam.

Those pesky terrorists sure know how to do the most harm to the Western World and that is too hit is where the money is. Glad to see whoever this was, if they trully were a terrorist was stopped before more people died. Hopefully we can see more of this and less of the attacks - but well, we still have a few problems before that'll ever happen...

Originally posted by centurion1211

I would like you to think of the bigger picture before trying to critique the policies used in cases like this. From the experiences learned from dealing with suicide bombers in the ME

As for me, I can only speak from my own experience as an Israeli, military service is compulsory for both males and females. Unfortunately, we have to deal with suicide bombings and potiental suicide bombing threads in Israel for years and we have experience.

So I can say, I know to disable can be an option, of course this always depends on the situation. But you have to learn how to do it, no one could disable if he is only trained how to kill.

You've said, the U.S Air Marshalls are only trained to kill - and I find this is hard to believe.

And as said before: I think the Air Marshall did it right.


[edit on 7-12-2005 by Riwka]

Originally posted by soficrow
Mistaken identity? Bad intel? Or business as usual?

It just looks like a bit of confusion. The plane had come from Colombia to Miami, but the deceased was not aboard for that leg of the journey. He had flown in from Ecuador on a separate flight, went through customs, and was boarding the plane for its continuing service to Orlando.


[edit on 12/7/2005 by djohnsto77]

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Originally posted by soficrow
Mistaken identity? Bad intel? Or business as usual?

It just looks like a bit of confusion.

Alpizar had boarded the plane in Colombia, Air Marshal Service spokesman Dave Adams said.

American Airlines' parent company, AMR Corp., said the incident involved an air marshal who had been on the flight from Colombia


Erm. That's some pretty deadly confusion dontcha think?

During the briefing they also couldnt tell if the man spoke English or not. He must have spoke to tell them "I've got a bomb in here"

Originally posted by soficrow
Erm. That's some pretty deadly confusion dontcha think?

No. The confusion lies just in the press getting the story out. The air marshals weren't confused and acted completely properly IMHO (at least from everything I've heard so far).

For god sake he was yelling he had a bomb!
Some things can get you killed and yelling bomb threats is one of them.
Racist remarks on the worng side of town is another.
Go say something off color to the guy at the convience store and see if he doesn't shoot you.

The man said he had a bomb.
The marshal shot him.

Stupid is as stupid does.
This man was stupid.

Screw the war on terror, war on drugs, war on hate, war on war, etc...
I propose a war on idiots!

I have yet to see confirmation that any witness heard him say he had a bomb....I know that is what the marshals assert....

Witnesses have directly confirmed that his wife followed him through the isle shouting that he was mentally ill and not on his medication...

I agree with dgtempe that it is inconsistent to assert that he was shouting he had a bomb, and yet could not determine whether he spoke English...

I remain skeptical.... The death of an innocent person should never be taken lightly...nor blind faith in the government's exercise of power...

What's the problem folks? Can nothing be viewed skeptically where the "war on terror" is concerned??

Originally posted by loam
I agree with dgtempe that it is inconsistent to assert that he was shouting he had a bomb, and yet could not determine whether he spoke English...

dg says

During the briefing they also couldnt tell if the man spoke English or not. He must have spoke to tell them "I've got a bomb in here"

What this tells me is that the other passengers being briefed could not determine whether he could speak English. She concludes that he must have spoken English, at least enough to tell them he had a bomb.

Don't forget the other signs of erratic behavior from him, like running full blast down the aisle, and reaching into his bag when ordered not to.

You really need to look at both sides of the coin. Otherwise, your man will never be wrong, the feds will never be right.

Originally posted by loam
I have yet to see confirmation that any witness heard him say he had a bomb....I know that is what the marshals assert....

Witnesses have directly confirmed that his wife followed him through the isle shouting that he was mentally ill and not on his medication...

I agree with dgtempe that it is inconsistent to assert that he was shouting he had a bomb, and yet could not determine whether he spoke English...

I remain skeptical.... The death of an innocent person should never be taken lightly...nor blind faith in the government's exercise of power...

What's the problem folks? Can nothing be viewed skeptically where the "war on terror" is concerned??

View it skeptic all you want, running in an airport is suspicious and yelling you have a bomb gets you shot

Why would they shoot him otherwise?
Was he a major player in some conspiracy?
Probably not
Probably just some loonie who wasn't on his meds.
Didn't take his meds, went a little loopy, yelled bomb threats, got shot
War on terror or not, they would not have shot him unless they felt there was a potential threat.

I firmly believe in a person's rights, but if indeed he was yelling about a bomb he gave up those rights when he did so.
If you were to great your friend jack with the phrase "hi jack!" at the terminal you would be arrested.
Bombs are a little more high priority and as such get you shot.
It was his own fault he got shot, plain and simple.

BTW, you can not yell fire in a theatre either!
Inciteing panic is a big offence, espicially if it gets someone trampled or killed.


[edit on 7-12-2005 by mrjones]

I personally dont believe any of it. Maybe a man did die but to what extent did he actually impose a threat to others....if he did....I dont think that an AirMarshall is just going to shoot without a reason. If a innocent man did die then all that can be done is some deep sympathy towards the man wife...and if he did happen to lose his marbles even worst. I just dont understand how he forgot to take hs meds...along with all media I dont believe any of it. Unless I know for a fact,,,the news and media is just entertainment! on the other hand....
It's definetley a great way to show the public that Air Marshalls are ready and are effective in protecting people on planes... 2 thumbs up!! and an Atta Boy!!

Why would they shoot him otherwise?

Mistakes happen all the time....and where there are mistakes, there is frequently the attempt to hide or excuse them...

My entire point is that it is premature to assume this was "done by the books," as the feds so quickly assert....I seem to recall the Brits doing the same recently, no?

[edit on 7-12-2005 by loam]

Originally posted by loam

Why would they shoot him otherwise?

Mistakes happen all the time....and where there are mistakes, there is frequently the attempt to hide or excuse them...

My entire point is that it is premature to assume this was "done by the books," as the feds so quickly assert....I seem to recall the Brits doing the same recently, no?

[edit on 7-12-2005 by loam]

I agree Laom, exactly what i said in the other thread in "War on terrorism". I remember even saying it myself, if the guy on our tube was running from police officers in a tube station in the aftermath of 7/7, i'm not suprised he was shot, i'd have done it myself especially with all the intel they had on him. Look how that incident ended up.
A dificult call for the air marshall though, as it was for the firearms officers that day on the tube. If you are led to believe for whatever reason that a person is going to take out a lot of peopleand theres no other way than shoooting them.......not much else you can do apart from regret one death instead of hundreds.

CX.

[edit on 8-12-2005 by CX]

OK - let's say you are a Terrorist, and you want to blow up a Plane:

WHY Would you Yell across the Entire Passenger Bridge "I HAVE A BOMB!!!"? Where is the Logic in that? If You were a REAL Terrorist, you would shutup and blow yourself up, while nobody is watching without attracting any attention.

But HEY - I guess that Marshals know whats the "RIGHT" thing to do here: the only good "Terrorist Suspect" is a DEAD one...

:shk:

Well, it isnt very smart to yell this, and if this man was not sane, it still isnt the Marshall's fault, they have a to take the threat of what he said seriously and when it appeared the man was to endanger lives they responded with deadly force. sad, but the marshalls are hardly to blame, the blame could be more appropriately placed on the wif who knew he had no medication.

Hello,

We have to BAN weapons that kill. We should ban and destroy all of them. And we should make weapons which NEUTRALIZE people instead. By neutralizing people, i mean incapacitate and paralyse instantly so that he cannot move at all or put the person right asleep.

We have the technology to do so, we probably already have it. Not only it could make things easier for justice and inquiry as the possible suspect OR innocent is alive, but also, and before anything else, EVERY SINGLE LIFE on this planet has the right to live.

Of course, this can look utopian to some people, but just say to yourself that it is POSSIBLE. Mankind has its fate between the hands. We people have the possibility to change things, together. Keep this is mind.

[edit on 8/12/2005 by Musclor]

Another innocent life lost.
But congratulations on a job well done, that's one less terrorist suspect to deal with.

Originally posted by loam
[My entire point is that it is premature to assume this was "done by the books," as the feds so quickly assert....I seem to recall the Brits doing the same recently, no?

The problem with situations like this is that you often get one chance only to react; screw it up and hundreds may die.

If someone cannot understand or will not play by "the rules", which include acting appropriately in an airport, then they should stay out of airports.

You are looking under every rug to try to victimize this guy. Why? Don't you think the lions share of the responsibility belongs to him?

The Feds acted appropriately. Unfortunately, the "book" was not on your victim's reading list.

Originally posted by Musclor
Hello,

We have to BAN weapons that kill. We should ban and destroy all of them. And we should make weapons which NEUTRALIZE people instead. By neutralizing people, i mean incapacitate and paralyse instantly so that he cannot move at all or put the person right asleep.

Of course, this can look utopian to some people, but just say to yourself that it is POSSIBLE. Mankind has its fate between the hands. We people have the possibility to change things, together. Keep this is mind.

[edit on 8/12/2005 by Musclor]

Well, if the only weapons available were those that neutralize instead of kill, then all of this discussion would be pointless, wouldn't it, since the man would not have had a bomb in a bag?

All we need is some pixie dust and to click our heels together.
j/k

Thanks for the very refreshing view of life.