I'm sorry, but the Air Mashal did the right thing.

[Yollam]

I suppose I'm in the minority here for saying this, but I think that the air marshal in Miami behaved appropriately. Unlike the incident in London, this was not a case of an innocent man who never made any threatening gestures being killed as a result of complete incompetence on the part of police.

The guy on the flight had told the crew that he HAD A BOMB, was acting erratic, ran off the flight and ignored the officer's commands to stop.

Given that situation, I think almost any officer would have done the same. The priority is to protect the hundreds of innocent lives on the plane..

It's a shame that this was a mentally ill person and not a terrorists, but if you must assign blame, how about the man and his wife for a) not making sure he took his meds or even having him heavily sedated if air flight upsets him and b) not notifying the airline that the man had a potentially volatile condition.

You may say "well, how can you expect them to predict his acting that way when he usually didn't act like that?" To that I would reply, how do you expect an air marshal to make a snap diagnosis of a mental disease as opposed to a real terrorist threat.

Bomb threats on planes and in airports were taken very seriously even before 9-11. In the wake of 9-11, if you make bomb threats, this is about the best you can expect. The man got a warning. Too bad he didn't avail himself the chance to surrender.


EDITED TO ADD: BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TOLD. If the marshal was lying to cover his ass, it will come out, and my position will change.

[Thtwudbeme]

1. Were you there?

?

[WildEyedLiberal]

8. Were any of us?

I think his point is that it's impossible to judge such a sudden crisis reaction if you don't understand the immediacy of the threat they felt.

[Thtwudbeme]

31. Except....that his whole post is judging what those people did.

?

[dcfirefighter]

2. I agree n/t

[Pirate Smile]

7. Me too.

edit to add - based on what we know now. If the story changes completely like the London case, that is different - but that doesn't appear to be the case.

[Yollam]

27. 100% true.

If the marshal was lying to cover his ass, it will come out, and my position will change.

BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW.

[AX10]

56. I agree too.

[wryter2000]

3. I tend to think you're right

There may be some question about what the man actually said, though. I would only be upset if it turned out there had been other similar instances with non-brown people and they didn't shoot.

[RagingInMiami]

4. Please show me where he "told the crew he had a bomb"

Because all I've read so far is that the feds are the only ones who heard him say that.

[jeanarrett]

60. Really. I'm getting sick of the embellishments.

I haven't read or heard anywhere that he told the "crew" that. Just like he was also going against traffic to get off the plane and telling people along the way that he had a bomb. I'm reading in these threads embellishments that people are claiming to be fact when they just think it's a likely scenario. Stick to the facts, folks.

[soothsayer]

5. When the facts come out, that bomb claim will be proven untrue.

Remember the early hours and days for the London one and you'll recall all the trumped-up justifications for it that were ultimately shown to be not so.

[dcfirefighter]

17. Unless you have other information

lack of faith isn't enough for me to disregard reported evidence.

Air Marshalls are typically local police officers who wanted something different. They're generally pretty regular guys. The fact that there have been many thousands of flights since the inception of the program without incident points to the fact that they aren't going to draw down unless they have a reason to.

Shit happens fast. If I was paid to protect the people of a flight, and some dude starts acting erratically, pushing his way toward the front of the plane, with a bag, I may just shoot him too.

[soothsayer]

24. None of us really have any information yet. We'll see how it pans

out.

[Puglover]

39. If that's the case

I'm real happy you're not a FAM.

[moez]

57. If that's the case

I hope he becomes one.

[Puglover]

90. Your attitude

is a wonderful example of the paranoid post 9/11 "shoot them as long as I"m safe." I'm sure your president would be proud.

[sui generis]

71. great - always good to know that an air marshall

might kill you long before a terrorist does.

I get what you're saying though, but if I saw you pull a gun on a flight I would stop you and remove it from you. Where does it end?

[redqueen]

66. Exactly.

I believed the official justifications that time.

Won't happen again. I'll wait till more information comes in.

[Connie_Corleone]

6. I agree with you. nt

[wakeme2008]

9. The only thing I question is

did he really say he had a BOMB.. And did somebody other than the marshalls hear it. If he did, no problem they did their job. BUT like in the London shotting, what the police first said and what the truth was did not match.

[sui generis]

23. I agree - the truth will probably be disturbing, either way

It's just odd that someone would flip out and say he had a bomb, out of the blue, especially when he didn't.

For all the vaunted "training" an AM supposedly gets, I wonder if they have ANY training in how real people really are, and not just a boogaboo bomb toting stereotype. Does anyone here know an air marshall? What is your opinion of their motivation for being an air marshall? To be a hero? To rack up miles? Both? I'm terribly cynical, I know, but the air marshall program attracts a certain type, and I can say that without reservation because I know an air marshall in-law who has some disturbing ideas about the world.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

44. My son-in-law was an Air Marshal up until about a year ago

The guy is a tall, imposing figure that is a career civil servant. He went into the military straight out of high school. He has served all over the world and was in Gulf War I with distinction. After leaving the military he went to work for the U. S. Mint Gold Dispository at Fort Knox. From there he moved up the ranks pretty quickly and ended up taking a fairly high level position with the Mint in DC for four years before he, my daughter and grandkids decided they like small town life better. They were in DC during 9/11, the DC Sniper horror, etc. Anyway, right after 9/11 he left the Mint and went to work as an Air Marshal. He loved the job and hated it all at the same time. First of all, he left his job at the Mint because the money they were throwing at Air Marshals was obscene plus he wanted a job where he felt he could make a real difference (he is one of the few right wing, neocon nuts that is willing to put his ass where his mouth is). Despite all of his military training he spent several weeks (months?) on additional training for the special unique circumstances of protecting an aircraft.

The job is, by its nature, boring to the 10th degree. You spend long hours in airports (my own idea of hell), then board flights, crammed into unbelievable small seats (especially for a guy that is 6' 4" and all muscle) for anything from a series of one hour jumps through several cities to Atlantic crossings and overnight layovers in places you won't ever have time to explore or get to know. Then you get back on another flight and head back home, fill out endless reams of paperwork, head home for a short time only to do it all over again the next day. Of course, on all of these flights you aren't allowed to sleep - you job is to stay alert and ready for anything at anytime.

One of the few up sides to the job is you get to flash a badge and board the plane early - but that is also one of the downsides - you are instantly marked as a primary target should someone on the flight have "mischief" in mind (for some reason people in this administration always makes the false assumption that terrorists are stupid and won't figure out who is an AM on any flight). For the first year he was on the job it practically took an act of Congress to get the "powers-to-be" to finally acknowledge that forcing the guys to travel in a business suits was another red flag to all of the other casually dressed air travelers. We won't go into how hot it could be always wearing long sleeves and a jacket in a DC summer because you have to keep your weapon hidden from view.

The long and short of it, he felt it was a very necessary duty but one he truly did not like because he saw through all of the "safeguards" this administration tried to pretend was actually going to make a difference in aircraft safety. He knew that every single flight he got on was still rife with security lapses and while the administration's answer to everything was just throw money at it he felt he, and his many coworkers, was left with trying to save the Titanic by bailing it out with a teaspoon. He took another promotion, returned to the U. S. Mint and brought my darling grandchildren back to Kentucky.

I know this doesn't address the events that happened in Miami yesterday (SIL was called by the Today Show (he has been on before discussing security) and asked if he could be interviewed about yesterday's events. And I don't think we have all the facts about what exactly happened yesterday, I just know the AM's job is much more involved than just sitting on a plane waiting for something to happen.

I feel bad for the guy who died yesterday. With my innate mistrust of anything government my first thought was "did they really have to kill him?" Until I know more I am going to have to give them the benefit of the doublt. Just imagine if the guy was a bomber and they had hesitated even a second.

[sui generis]

51. I can't reserve judgement

The AM's said that he was running up and down the aisle saying he had a bomb in his bag. No witnesses corroborate that, although one says she thought she heard him say he had a bomb in his bag. I have a present from Mom in my bag.

You can't run up and down an aisle in an aircraft that's landing. The crew would notice for one thing. Before cross check completes SOMEONE would have heard him say he had a bomb in his bag if he'd been running and yammering. It just doesn't add up, unfortunately.

I know it's a hard, boring, and now thankless job that they do, but with his wife screaming "he's mentally ill, don't hurt him" and at least a tiny bit of faith in airport security I have to seriously wonder how realistic those AM's apprisals of the situation were, and if they are that far off, are those passengers really safe?

After all, it was an air marshall that killed a passenger, not a terrorist.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

55. It is a hard, thankless job. All any of us think about it seems are

the delays and hassle we all have to deal with on any flight because of 9/11 - not the behind the scene efforts that go into making us safer. That said - much more can be done but it is not in the hands of the individual AMs on each flight. It comes from the higher up who should commit time and money to make sure the cargo holes are safe, that all packages are screened, etc. and not cave into airline execs who don't want to address the problem. I'm not sure any of us would have done anything any different if we were in Air Marshal's shoes at the time. (Are there trigger happy people, yes, of course, but so far nothing I've heard indicates that the AM have a history of this behavior.) I'm not excusing anyone if there were mistakes made but do we automatically have to assume the guy who fired the gun was wrong now that there are conflicting reports of what exactly happened in the span of seconds? And could the AM really know, beyond any doubt that he was killing a tourist and not a terrorist at the time? The only thing we know for sure is that the guy was acting irrational and "weird" on a plane full of people - seems everyone agrees to that simple fact - after that it gets cloudy. I wish the whole situation hadn't happen but it did and Monday morning quarterbacking of some guy who was trying to do his job the best he could seems a tad big unfair - UNTIL ALL THE FACTS ARE KNOWN.

And my son-in-law was interviewed by Couric this morning. If you would like to see what he had to say, here is the link.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=71e94f8b-1d64-478e-918d-2bff61a6ccb2&f=copy

[sui generis]

70. thanks for the link -

and for your levelheadedness - appreciated. I'm not trying to be contentious either - just stating that like other professionals I also make snap decisions based on the information available to me, right or wrong remains to be seen.

BTW this is twice I've been obliquely accused of monday morning quarterbacking today - kind of funny ;). You do seem quite understanding and you are correct that there are more facts to be discovered about this.

What rubbed me wrong at 5:00 a.m. today was the interview with the passenger who said she was sitting next to a captain deadheading back to station who told her that the guy in front of her was an air marshall. All of a sudden things seemed a bit contrived, as I'm sure your son in law would explain; no personnel on an aircraft should be voluntarily pointing out the AMs. After that I just added a bucket of salt to what I was hearing, and who claimed to have said it.

It's a tragedy - doubtless. However, with Senator Kennedy from Massachussetts being barred from flying because he was on the terrorist watch list, and with my SO similarly detained on every flight for additional searching (and he's an aircraft carrier Navy Lt Cdr) I have to wonder about the effectiveness of the system that claims to be looking out for our best interests when it can make mistakes so easily and with so little recourse to correct them.

So I'm probably a little less neutral than I should be. As you basically said though, not all the cards are accounted for yet.

[jeanarrett]

63. The plane wasn't landing. It hadn't taken off yet.

[mmonk]

10. I reserve judgement

if for the only reasons being I'll will not condemn it without all the facts nor accept without thought that shooting someone to death should be ignored in today's environment because of terrorism.

[BJW]

19. Exactly--reserve judgment--don't play into the fearmongering!--eom

[catmother]

11. i agree with you. n/t

[SharonRB]

12. I agree with you.

They had to take into account the safety of the other passengers on the flight. If he really said he had a bomb, they definitely did the right thing. Had he not reached for his bag, he may still be alive today.

[Democrats_win]

13. Don´t blame the Air Marshal, but don´t you think he made the wrong choice?

Wasn´t the guy already off the airplane when they shot him? And what are the chances he had a bomb since he obviously went through security before the flight. Once off the plane, many security personnel would have been able to help subdue him as opposed to a threat that occurs in the air.

Ok, it´s monday morning quarterbacking, and that´s why I don´t really want to blame the Air Marshal, but this was not the best choice.

[Pirate Smile]

21. Regarding his having already made it through security, I have seen

news stories about weapons/bomb materials which the media was able to get through security so it isn't crazy for the AM's to think he could still have something threatening.

There have been stories about how airline workers could put weapons, etc. on planes.

The AM can't assume everyone is clean - no weapons or bombs.

[soothsayer]

26. yes, they should have kept him alive to torture him for info!

[MercutioATC]

28. What are the chances he had a bomb? Look here:

"Recent tests of airport security to determine whether screeners would discover concealed guns, knives, and simulated bombs had failure rates comparable to tests done in the 1980s and 1990s, says Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), who was briefed in April on the classified results. The earlier tests showed that screeners missed roughly 20 percent of the prohibited items at checkpoints and that screeners using X-ray machines to examine luggage missed 2 of every 3 bags carrying simulated explosives."

http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2004/07/06_400...

[leftstreet]

14. Do you have a link to that? "told the crew" he had a bomb

That's the first I've heard that. The agent in charge in Miami made a vague claim about a bomb, but didn't say who actually heard it.

http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/2005/12/08/ap/headlines/d8ec3o401.txt

"uttered threatening words that included a sentence to the effect that he had a bomb," said James E. Bauer, agent in charge of the Federal Air Marshal Service field office in Miami.

[ultraist]

15. You're jumping to conclusions

You don't have all of the facts. There are a lot of unanswered questions: Why didn't they restrain and cuff this guy before they landed? Why did the guy have a chance to run down the ramp?

They did NOT think he had a bomb when they landed, lest they would not have pulled up to the ramp. They would have landed the plane out on an isolated part of the runway. So, IF the guy threatened he had a bomb, it was way late in the incident.

It appears to me, they fucked up by not restraining and cuffing this guy as soon as he started flipping out.

IMO, on a plane, the minute someone starts to exhibits signs of being disorderly, they should be cuffed. That would prevent unnecessary shootings and would eliminate any risk of someone escalating and putting others in danger.

[Yollam]

30. All the people saying he was "murdered for being bipolar"...

...are also jumping to conclusions.

My first inclination is to believe the guy whose job was to protect the passengers. If the story turns out to be wrong, I will be the first to concede I was wrong.

In the London case, I felt the cops were wrong from the beginning, because even if the guy had been a terrorist, all he did was run into a train. There was no compelling reason to believe he was a threat to anyone.

[jeanarrett]

65. Jesus. The plane was not in the air. It had not taken off yet.

They were boarding!

[dkofos]

16. I don't

But until I am able to read all the passenger and crew interviews
I will not believe the official govt story.

I will say that I do not believe deadly force was necessary because the man
was off the plane and in a controllable space.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

18. If he said he had a bomb, then I agree

The thing is I'm not sure he didn't say "I don't have a bomb."

I mean, think about it. You get up and run out of the plane, you might called out "I don't have a bomb!" or something, almost in jest.

But I totally made that up and I wasn't there.

[Yollam]

32. That is the crucial point.

And I believe saying the word "bomb" in ANY context on a plane or in an airport can get you shot. Do NOT tell the people that you don't have a bomb. DO NOT SAY BOMB PERIOD, unless you are pointing out one that you've discovered on the floor.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

36. Indeed.

[Quixote1818]

82. Even if he didn't say "bomb" it was probably justified

People on the plane were scared shit-less by the guy and were getting down on the ground covering their heads. Witnesses said he was told to stop repeatedly then reached into his bag that was on his chest and was shot.

What got him killed was not stopping when he was told to and reaching into the bag. They had no idea WHY he was not obeying their orders and WHY he was reaching into a bag that could have ANYTHING in it. They had to shoot or they were putting the people in the area at risk even if the word bomb was never mentioned.

Probably what happened was the marshals said "They thought he had a bomb" and that got changed to "He had a bomb". Typical poor reporting.

[Quixote1818]

83. .

[sui generis]

76. I have to call Mom

My medicine, there's a BOttl'n'my bag

Where's your medicine? It's in the Bott'm of my bag.

yikes

They need new signs: DO NOT USE WORDS THAT SOUND LIKE BOMB, MOM, BOB, MOB, etc. at the airport.

[Quixote1818]

84. I bet the Marshall's said "I thought he had a bomb"

and that got misreported to say "He said he had a bomb". We all know how badly reporters can get statements wrong. They were probably getting it from a third hand source.

[tx_dem41]

20. I agree too.

Perhaps it isn't that small a minority. Perhaps its not a minority at all.

[Pirate Smile]

25. It actually doesn't appear to be a minority.

[pdxmom]

22. I agree with you, at this point. If the facts change, then I will have

to reassess.

[havocmom]

33. And if the facts change, we need to remember the AM had to respond

in an instant. Sadly, officers on a scene do not have the luxury of time for hindsight after much fact finding; they have to work with what info they have at THAT instant. They often beat themselves up more after than all of us armchair quarterbacks EVER could.

[pdxmom]

50. That's what I mean. I realize that they had to work with the information

they had. And they don't have the ability to "wait and see". They had to react to an imminent threat, based on what they were faced with.

By a change in facts, I mean information that calls into question whether they actually did have more information available. If, for example, it came out that the guy never said anything about a bomb. Scenerio: Guy acting weird, backpack on backwards, etc. Wife yelling that he's ill, etc. Guy NEVER says a word about bomb. To me, that could be a difference in facts that would have me reassessing my opinion.

[rucky]

29. Why'd the flight crew make the passengers stay on the plane...

if there was a BOMB on board?

[Yollam]

34. Because the "bomber" had run out of the plane?

...after making the threat?

[MercutioATC]

35. Because the alleged bomb had just left the plane???

The man said he had a bomb as he was running off of the plane toward the terminal. Seems like a good idea to not have passengers follow him up the jetway...

[rucky]

41. Conflicting stories as to where he was shot:

reuters: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-12-08T000416Z_01_RID771720_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-PLANE.xml

"Officials in Washington said he tried to flee, ignored an order to put his bag on the ground and was shot on the passenger gangway. But law enforcement officials in Miami gave a sketchier account, saying he was shot on the plane."

[aikoaiko]

37. I'm still waiting for more info, but I agree based on...

the majority of the info presented in most reports.

Some people on this board don't seem to realize that LEO might not have done anything negligently, but the death can still be considered a tragedy.

[Yollam]

40. Yes, it is sad.

The world can be dangerous for mentally ill people, especially off their meds.

[Walt Starr]

38. Yep, based upon what we knw, the Air Marshall is a true hero. n/t

[Puglover]

42. I've heard more then

once that FAM are crack shots. Okay, then if the point is to STOP them and not KILL them then why would it not make sense to shot the guy in the hand, arm, torso??? Also I totally agree with a poster above. If this guy was acting strange throughout the flight why in the flying fuck would the FAM not get involved sooner? They're not there only to protect us from bomb carrying terrorists. There are plenty of loons out there that don't fit that profile.

This whole thing smells. I'm not saying that the FAM was at fault because I don't know all the facts and hopefully they will come out. But I part company with some of the people on this board that think it's acceptable for a law enforcement individual to kill someone based on something other then solid facts. And then blame the victim for basically asking for it.

PS Ive worked on and around airplanes for close to 30 years and believe me if that were the case there would be a whole lot of dead nutsack passengers.
I'm reserving judgement until more facts come out. The crux of the thing lies on if the fellow actually said he had a bomb. So far no passengers have said they heard this.

[DKStreet]

43. This was a time bomb waiting to happen...

excuse the pun. Actually, he did what he was TRAINED to do..so he did the CORRECT thing. It appears to be a tragedy nonetheless, and one in which everybody involved will have to live with. Trust me, there will be more...it's the world we live in now.

[npincus]

45. I agree

my post at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5542625&mesg_id=5545801

[EOTE]

46. Another aspect to consider...

I heard on the radio that the wife was following the air marshalls as they were pursuing the man exclaiming that he was extremely bipolar and off his meds. I think they should have taken that into consideration as well as having non-lethal means of subduing a passenger like that.

[goodhue]

47. Why shoot to kill?

I fail to see the need to kill him for failing to stop.

[Balbus]

48. They're trained to aim for center mass,

and also an injured man can still detonate a bomb.

[goodhue]

54. What bomb?

[Balbus]

74. The bomb the air marshal thought he had.

[goodhue]

75. Why did the air marshall think he had a bomb?

[Balbus]

79. Because, according to him, he was told he had a bomb.

So, with the information that has been gathered so far, I can only assume he believe the person had a bomb and was posing a danger not only to himself but the other passengers as well. Maybe, after further investigation, it might be discovered that the air marshal killed Mr. Alpizar because he thought it would be fun. But until evidence comes out supporting that line of reasoning, I'm going to give the air marshal the benefit of the doubt and believe he acted in what he thought was the best interest of the other passengers.

Now, your original question was why didn't the air marshal shoot to injure instead of shoot to kill. And I'll answer the same way again. Law enforcement personnel are trained to aim for center mass because it is the largest target and poses less of a risk to other people around. And, if Mr. Alpizar really had a bomb as the air marshals are claiming he said at this point in time, he could still detonate the bomb with only a leg or arm injury.

edit: grammar correction

[goodhue]

91. Who told him that?

They thought he had a bomb, so they killed him.
They were mistaken about the bomb.
Why did they think he had a bomb?
Still not clear to me.

[Texasgal]

49. From what I have read and seen

SO FAR...okay...SO FAR....

I am in 100% agreement with the air marshal's.

[NVMojo]

52. You are fucking wrong and I hope you don't have a bipolar in your

family tree. they aren't safe to have psychotic breaks in this country.

[Yollam]

53. If I did, and I had any doubt about their behavior on a plane...

I would have them heavily sedated for the flight. The world is dangerous for the mentally ill, that's a fact.

[AlCzervik]

59. now an eyewitness is saying he never heard him say "Bomb"

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1138965,00.html

i'm sure the police in Britain thought they did the right thing too but in the end they didn't and an innocent man is dead. If this guy was unruly and didn't say he had a bomb then he could have been restrained much like they do with other unruly passengers.

[Xenotime]

58. This is wishy-washy at best...

he murdered in cold blood and should be removed from service. They should have just gotten the poor man some water and sat him back down. Geez.

[T Town Jake]

62. Since this post is obviously a joke, I feel compelled to point out...

...that you forgot the :sarcasm: tag.

[NYC Liberal]

68. Maybe not, given some of the posts I've seen.

[Endangered Specie]

61. Im waiting to pass judgement on this

until more evidence comes out.

[RadiDem]

64. I agree, and it's the FIRST shooting by Air Marshalls

EVER. ( I think ) How many millions have travelled on planes post 9/11, and how many hundreds of incidents of deranged, drunk or unruly passengers have their been?

People are shot by local cops all over the country all the time. I think the air marshall's record speaks for itself.

[FredScuttle]

69. His record does speak for itself

He's 1-for-1 in shooting unarmed bipolar passengers with no bombs. Huzzah!

"People are shot by local cops all over the country all the time"...a better justification for summary execution, I've never heard.

[sui generis]

72. and after 9/11 how many people have been killed by terrorists

and how many by air marshalls. Yup, they're one up, got the first lick in.

Collateral damage and all that. (I know I'm being snarky & a little sarcastic ;) )

[Bucky]

77. World-wide terrorism is actually on the rise dramatically since 9/11.

Not here, of course, but the Bush administration has done such a marvelous job recruiting for al-Qaeda that terror around the world is a growing threat to many countries. Do they want to attack us, too? Sure, now, more than ever, since for some reason we've been going around acting, like, well, a Great Satan...

[sui generis]

78. yeah but as it stands today

you have a 100% greater chance of being killed by an air marshall than by a terrorist on an American airplane.

odd thing that.

[Bucky]

73. Thank you. Of course the streets don't have metal detectors

The people the Air Marshalls deal with are much more contained and herded than the people city cops end up shooting. Still, the fact that there's only been one incident in three years says something.

[redqueen]

67. I reserve judgment. Your edit says it all.

I learned my lesson from the London execution.

Never trust the first reports. Wait for corraboration.

[sui generis]

80. one thing is certain

if it was as cut and dried as we are supposed to believe, there wouldn't be any loose ends in the story, we wouldn't have any doubts, and this would just clearly be an unfortunate confluence of events.

That fact in and of itself speaks volumes. Some shit is going on here - but I'll be happy to wait and see myself.

[Little Star]

81. So called air marshals are

rent a cops. Just read that on another thread here on DU. Fear is what is causing all this love of shooting people dead first and we'll find out if they really said that later stuff. Remember London???? There a so many versions of this story already just like London. When did anybody ever shoot a suspected bomber dead and ever find a bomb? I've never heard of that yet. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Every time I've heard of a shooting like this it turns out the person dead was innocent.

[SPKrazy]

85. I agree!

I don't know all the facts,

but I really don't believe that an Air Marshall would have shot the man without good reason.

He didn't obey the man with the gun

He reached into his backpack

I say if I'm flying I want the air marshall to protect me too!

[EFerrari]

86. The point you miss is, if you are flying, you are a potential target now.

Geezus.

There's no way to know what went down until witnesses come forward that aren't protecting their jobs.

[SPKrazy]

88. I'm not going to lose sleep worrying about that

geez

the guy was acting strangely (many witnesses have reported that)

I imagine that he didn't obey the command to stop and then reached into his backpack and now he's dead

won't be a martyr for me

[EFerrari]

89. Yes, if people "act strangely"

the best course of action is to kill thim. :sarcasm:

[Quixote1818]

87. I think the guy had a death wish

He was on the down side of his Bi-polar cycle and was probably suicidal so he ran out of the plane not knowing their were sky Marshall's. When confronted with the Marshall's he refused to listen to them and then I believe he said he had a bomb so they would kill him. With the guns pointed at him he probably saw death as a quick way out of his blackness. He reached into the bag to make sure they would fire.

Just my gut feeling.

[LaurenG]

92. Just for the record, I think you are on to something

Compassionate liberals will understand that given the circumstances most air Marshall's would have done the same thing. I am very sad that a human being has died. I am sorry that the circumstances weren't different.

Unfortunately too many lives were on the line and there was no time to gather information. I believe the air Marshall's acted according to their training. If there are any police officers or ex or current military here I am sure they will tell you how stressful it is to make a decision when a situation is escalating the way this one was.

It is always so easy to judge especially when the judges have no clue what a situation like this even remotely feels like.

How very sad, all of it.