When did it become OK to shoot someone who MIGHT have a gun

[Tactical Progressive]

If someone has a gun, and you can see that it's a gun - and not a cellphone or a wallet - then that's one thing. That brings the situation to a red-alert level where a split-second decision might be warranted. But MIGHT have a gun? Since when does someone reaching into their pocket or bag give license to shoot them? This question applies broadly and not just in this instance. Can a cop just shoot you through your side window as you reach in your pocket for your driver's license, because you MIGHT be reaching for a gun?

Second point: Rigoberto Alpizar was away from the airplane when they killed him. That's alot different than being on the plane or somewhere surrounded by people. That diminishes the danger to others, as regards the need to kill someone. You might be a threat in the midst of lots of people, you are far less so out by yourself, out in the middle of the street, out on the tarmac.

Third, same condition, different point: he was away from the plane and walking away when they shot him. Aside from his proximity to what may be potential victims, it also diminishes the exigency of the situation. Away from people means a split-second decision to kill someone is less warranted. At the very least it seems as if they could have shot him in the ass and taken him down. You don't think a nine-mil in the ass would take you down? Think again. And if one didn't, two or three surely would anyone. The point being the split-second use of deadly force has alot less weight when someone is away from others.

Now, we don't know exactly how this all went down, and I'm not making any judgements until we do know. Maybe he did say that he had a bomb. Maybe he was walking towards another crowd at the boarding gate. If both of those are true I could see the justification for the use of deadly force. But what we have alot of here is people immediately sanctioning the use of deadly force simply because it was used. Like it justifies itself. Sorry, but after we've seen five cops empty their clips into a guy sitting alone on a stoop for reaching for his wallet I'm alot less inclined to just say oh, he had it coming.

I think what bothers me most here is that the comments you see from people who are leaning towards this being an unwarranted killing are tempered by the desire to know more about the circumstances, while those leaning towards it being justified aren't just leaning, they are full-bore, no-question-about-it they have every right to kill someone dead even if they thought he just MIGHT have been a threat, irrespective of the circumstances like him being off the plane, away from others and the wife telling them that he was sick and off his meds.

[DS1]

1. Invalid argument

A bomb doesn't have to be pulled out of anything (coat pocket, bag, etc) in order to be detonated. The bomb could even be in an other area, and be remotely detonated by something in the bag.

[The Stranger]

6. Actually, it is a very valid argument.

The fact that a bomb doesn't have to be pulled out of anything does not eliminate the requirement that someone present some harm before they may be summarily executed.

[TahitiNut]

7. Yep. And he specifically wanted to target the jet ramp ...

... rather than the loaded plane he came in on. One helluva devious fella, huh? :eyes:

[SmokingJacket]

8. What if they had one of these?

"Dude, don't touch that suitcase, it has my Pyp-bomb in it!"

[Toots]

15. Pre-emptive attack just like Bush*

Only in both cases they were wrong.

[Tactical Progressive]

17. Not really

What, does reaching into your pocket give someone a license to kill you because you might have a detonator to a bomb in there? Does that apply to everyone, since the same life-in-danger laws apply to regular citizens as well as police? Does someone reaching into their pocket mean you can kill them because they might be reaching for a detonator instead of their business card?

[DS1]

21. After they've stated that they have a bomb in there

I believe shoot-to-kill is the appropriate response

[Thorandmjolnir]

26. But the scenario by the OP does not include that statement!

And apparently neither did the the real event. So far only US Officials have said he made any mentioning of a bomb. No witnesses have confirmed that claim.

As a matter of fact. The officials claim he said it in the plane, walking up and down the aisle. Yet not one passenger has said they heard him say anything about a bomb.

[Texasgal]

46. Are you privy to some sort of information WE don't know?

Are you sure that they haven't interviewed ALL of the passengers?

It appears that ONE person said that he didn't hear the "B" word.. but no one else...

So I ask... do you have some sort of inside info?

[NYC Liberal]

25. You're taking it out of context. Now take this scenario:

Someone is running from the police and screaming, "I HAVE A GUN! I HAVE A GUN!" and then reaches into his bag.

Now what do you do?

[DS1]

30. I'd make him look like Barbara Bush in that picture

well, it'll take about a week

[NYC Liberal]

39. LOL!

:P

[DBoon]

2. the same time it became ok to torture someone

who might be a terrorist

When we moved from catching and punishing criminals to catching and punishing people who might commit crimes

[burythehatchet]

20. Please use the correct terminology

Enhanced Interrogation Techniques

[NYC Liberal]

28. Let's say you were charged with protecting lives, as an air marshal.

Now a man gets up and starts running frantically around. You try to get him to calm down and stop, but he won't listen, and runs from you. Then he starts screaming, "I HAVE A BOMB!" and reaches into his bag. What would you do in the split second that you have to make a decision.

[Spazito]

3. At the same time it became okay to imprison people without

charge, torture them and, in some instances, murder them. Same mentality brought about both situations, imo.

[tx_dem41]

4. Shouldn't your title read "bomb" instead of "gun"?

Considering that they are two entirely different types of weapons.

[Tactical Progressive]

42. I should have said 'weapon'

I was making a generic point so I used 'gun' since that's the most common situation. My mistake.

[LaurenG]

5. Unless we were there how could we possibly know? nt

[The Stranger]

9. Even more the reason not to shoot people before imminent threat.

The man murdered by British agents months ago was originally said to be wearing a large coat that would presumably alert them that he was hiding a bomb.

As it turns out, this was a lie.

The man was also allegedly running and appeared to be ready to kill people.

As it turns out, this was another lie.

The man had been subdued and was lying on the ground when the agents pumped bullets into his head.

So you have all these lies and a murder. And it becomes easier and easier to excuse murder by making up claims about bombs after the fact, when the murder victim is lying on the ground.

[wixomblues]

10. By that logic,

we'd never know anything.

[sui generis]

12. shit stinks whether you are there to smell it or not

[NVMojo]

11. their security policy is FUBAR, shoot to kill no matter what!

I am on the west coast and when I first heard that they had shot a man at an airport, I immediately thought "bi-polar" as I heard he was yelling "bomb in my suitcase" or something like that. Now, if you know bi-polars or even paranoid schizophrenics, they can stew or fixate on something long enough that they believe it is going on, like gee, I'm on this flight, they made me take off my shoes, my jacket, my watch, xrayed me and my baggage ....what if someone put a bomb in my suitcase???? Stew on that for two hours and you're a bipolar off your meds ....well, you could believe it is true!!!

What pissed me off is that the wife was yelling probably louder then him that he was mentally ill before they killed him. I'd be suing holy hell. However, maybe the argument is she should have sat on him and forced his meds down his throat before traveling so he wouldn't have any psychotic breaks on the airplane cuz in America, we can shoot to kill you!!!!!!

Courtney Love and others who have flipped out on airplanes in the past better be damn careful traveling in the future cuz these air marshalls can kill anyone who flips out, loses a sense of reality.

By the way, does this mean the airport security xray machines don't really work????

[sojourner]

16. neh....Paris, Courtney et al can get away with whatever they want

and they won't get shot. Just don't you or I go doing any of that shit.

[xxqqqzme]

13. pre-emptive murder

saves the state all sorts of money....avoids costly trials...legal fees...messy juries...

[aquart]

27. No, but it sure makes a quick rich widow.

How to get rid of a mentally ill husband: take him on an airplane and let him do his stuff. What? She never heard him say "I've got a bomb!" before? Bet she did.

Come on, did nobody else's bullshit meter go off when you heard she was yelling that he was 'off his meds"?

[wixomblues]

14. Bomb or Gun, you're being to clinical in your analysis.

referring to the portion where you say

"Rigoberto Alpizar was away from the airplane when they killed him. That's alot different than being on the plane or somewhere surrounded by people. That diminishes the danger to others, as regards the need to kill someone. You might be a threat in the midst of lots of people, you are far less so out by yourself, out in the middle of the street, out on the tarmac."

In these situations, the life that is the most important is the law enforcement officer. If there is a threat, perceived or otherwise, they will and do protect themselves. You segway into him "shooting him in the ass." While I appreciate the value of a good ass shooting, it is not realistic. I was shouted down on another thread for suggesting that they shoot him in the leg. Apparently, and it makes sense, shooting to maim is not taught. Also, a non-lethal shot would just give him time to detonate the bomb.

Hindsight being 20/20, the best lesson you or I or anyone can get out of this is not to claim you have a bomb in an airport. Or, if you're traveling with someone who is bipoloar, keeping them on their meds or have them wear Kevlar.

[Tactical Progressive]

43. I was trying to be clinical

"the life that is the most important is the law enforcement officer"

That justification is diametrically opposite to the reasoning that everybody else is giving to justify this use of deadly force: that so very many people's lives were at stake there was no other choice but to shoot first and ask questions later. That's everybody's gut-level acceptance of this incident - so many others in danger.

Then we see, at least from what we know now, that he was away from everyone on the plane, and suddenly it's all about the officer's safety. Well, if hundreds of lives are now not at stake, the extreme exigency of the situation changes. You can't have it both ways. Either alot of lives were in the balance, allowing for no time to do anything but kill, or they weren't, allowing for both a less instantaneous reaction and/or a less lethal response.

Also your argument that shooting to disable is not realistic because you were shouted down for suggesting it, isn't an argument.

[wixomblues]

45. I'm not arguing about the needs of the many....

an officer will protect himself at the perceived threats expense. It doesn't matter if anyone else is in danger. Clearly, he felt there was a danger to himself, if not others.

Also, shouted down or not, it is correct to say that people are not trained to use a gun as anything other then a lethal insturment. There is no shooting to maim. I've taken a few firearm courses, and one of my co-workers is a retired police officer. It checks out. No one is trained to maim, or shoot in the ass. That's fun, action movie stuff, but not real life.

[burythehatchet]

18. Don't ya know, 9/11 changed everything.

I for one will begin to take President George W. Bush much more seriously.

[renate]

19. this was a tragedy, but in fairness,

it probably became legal to shoot someone who MIGHT have a gun on a plane after 9-11, if not before.

It's absolutely awful, and I haven't read any of the news reports so maybe there were circumstances that should have given the air marshalls pause (besides the wife saying "he's off his meds"--no fair asking air marshalls to make a split-second decision about a guy's medical status when their sole job is to protect passengers from guys who have guns or bombs), but I can't help being reassured knowing that there really ARE air marshalls on planes. I mean, what else has Homeland Security done to improve airplane security? Not much besides ban nail files.

[aquart]

23. "off his meds"!!! and she was traveling with him?

How incredibly irresponsible was that?

She brought a man "off his meds" onto a jet? WHY???

Did she tell the airline? The stewardess? Anyone?

And now I assume she'll sue claiming other people were incompetent, irresponsible, and derelict in duty.

Wow. A new way to get rid of an inconvenient husband.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

22. I've been thinking about this all day

and this morning I was closer to your point of view.

But I am beginning to think that if you are going to err, it would be a good thing to err on the side of one dead vs. dozens (which would include you, as the shooter.)

Bottom line: I teach school and I'm not an air marshall. Pretty much for this reason and I also throw up on planes.

[unblock]

24. for those who think the wife should have FORCED him to take his meds:

please understand that, without a court order, it is illegal to make someone take meds involuntarily.

even his wife.

call it f*cked up if you like, but it's hardly the only thing that makes dealing with mentally ill loved ones challenging under the american legal system.

[aquart]

29. Then you don't take him on a plane.

You do report it to his doctors. Maybe you have him committed. You do NOT endanger the lives of hundreds of people.

Sorry. I think the wife got the outcome she was fantasizing about.

[blueatheart]

32. she was his wife not his mother n/t

[unblock]

38. now you think the wife PLANNED this???!??

that's really out there :tinfoilhat: :eyes:

if bipolars with delusion are one thing, it's UNPREDICTABLE.

it's entirely possible that this guy NEVER did anything like this before, and you surely aren't suggesting that anyone who ever has delusions or mood disorders should be permanently barred from all forms of mass transit and crowded places?

note also that the family of bipolars don't always know when they go off their meds (although apparently the wife in this case did) and also that even when they ARE on their meds, they don't always work.


i'm amazed at the number of people who can't be bother to care for people suffering from mental illness, to the point where they think that just shooting them is the obvious solution.

[aquart]

49. had he been under care, he wouldn't have been shot.

And yes, since his wife knew he was off his meds, my next question would be was she familiar with his behavior under those conditions?

And WHY did she get on a plane with him?

Bipolars are unpredictable? That's your experience? Mine is so different. But let's say you're right, and the wife took a man with unpredictable behavior on a plane. An enclosed space with no exit once in flight. A man with unpredictable behavior.

And you recommend this?

[unblock]

57. well, we don't know the run up to the situation, but

my understanding was that they were returning home after a trip. he might have lost his meds or ran out while he was there (airlines lose luggage, for instance). finding a doctor in a foreign country might not be easy. that country might not even have the right meds. and it's downright dangerous when dealing with mentally ill people. they might lock him up for all you know.

flying him home before he deteriorates might have been the best plan.

in any even, life is unpredictable, and surely you're not suggesting that only calm, veteran flyers should be allowed on board. the wife obviously thought he could handle it, but surely she never imagined in her worst nightmare that if he couldn't, they would just shoot him.

do you think airlines should just ban all mentally ill people from air travel? or at least, anyone who has a history of paranoia, delusion, or claustrophia? i mean, who knows when their meds will just stop working even if they are taking them.

[aikoaiko]

31. On what bothers you the most.

You wrote:

I think what bothers me most here is that the comments you see from people who are leaning towards this being an unwarranted killing are tempered by the desire to know more about the circumstances, while those leaning towards it being justified aren't just leaning, they are full-bore, no-question-about-it they have every right to kill someone dead even if they thought he just MIGHT have been a threat, irrespective of the circumstances like him being off the plane, away from others and the wife telling them that he was sick and off his meds.

I was just thinking the same thing but with the sides switched. I think its more accurate to say that most people realize that they are making conditional judgments based on incomplete information on both sides and then there are a few freaks on both sides who talk as if they are omniscient.

[harlinchi]

33. It always has been, if he is Black!

The Bush administration has begun to treat the rest of the world as if it were Black. They don't like it!

[tridim]

34. Are their orders "shoot to kill" or "shoot to disable"?

Or just "shoot"?

[Silverhair]

55. Shoot for center mass - always. NT

[cantstandbush]

35. Authorities have been doing that to blacks in this country for centuries.

And it is still NOT ok.

[sinkingfeeling]

36. Anybody can do it in Florida!

[stray cat]

37. Extremists on both sides are throwing accusations

I don't know enough about the situation yet and neither does anyone else to make convictions one way or another. However, when facts are in short supply people like to make up their own to fit preconceived notions and lack of facts won't get in the way.

[Tactical Progressive]

40. I should have said might have a weapon

Too late to edit the post.

I used 'gun' because it was more generic to the point I was making. MIGHT has now been used to justify shooting people who ended up not having either guns or bombs.

The point is MIGHT. The one thing we know for sure is that he DIDN'T have a weapon. The shooting could still be justified if they 1) thought he had a weapon, and 2) was a danger to others if he did, and 3) there was no other recourse than to kill him to preclude that. That's and-and-and. So far we have no evidence that any of those conditions existed except the uncorroborated word of one of the Marshals that the first condition was verbally conveyed. If they get corroboration that he did in fact say he had a bomb that would go a long way towards justifying this killing in a lot of people's minds. Not all the way, but much of the way. Full acceptance would be that he claimed to have a bomb and that the physical circumstances dictated that there was no other way to stop him from killing others, like shooting him in the leg if he was out in the open.

[texpatriot2004]

41. Good question nm

[Xenotime]

44. America is getting too trigger happy...

and something needs to be done. These people are just looking for an excuse to murder civilians.

[Texasgal]

47. OH yeah...

Law enforcement is just LOOKING to kill somebody... :eyes:

[chat_noir]

48. Passenger: Alpizar Was Agitated at Gate

The passenger shot to death by air marshals in Miami had been agitated before boarding the plane and was singing ``Go Down Moses'' as his wife tried to calm him, a fellow passenger said Thursday.

``The wife was telling him, 'Calm down. Let other people get on the plane. It will be all right,''' said Alan Tirpak.

``I thought maybe he's afraid of flying,'' Tirpak said.

Tirpak took his seat, and Rigoberto Alpizar, 44, and his wife eventually boarded the plane. Then, a few minutes before the plane was to pull away, Alpizar bolted up the aisle and onto the jetway, where two air marshals confronted him.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5467432,00.html

[donheld]

50. When it became OK to attack a country who might someday

attack us with WMD's we can't find.

[davekriss]

51. Amadou Diallo?

"we've seen five cops empty their clips into a guy sitting alone on a stoop for reaching for his wallet"

Amadou Diallo? I was thinking about that case today. 4 NYC police officers pumped 41 bullets into his body simply because he reached into his pocket for his wallet. All the guy did when asked to stop and show his hands was reach for his wallet. No gun. No records, just a poor comp sci student. Yet he required 41 bullets before the officers felt "safe".

Or were you thinking of some other example of trigger-fingered poor judgement on the part of armed agents of the State?

[Tactical Progressive]

52. Yes, that was the reference

Four cops fired 41 bullets (41!!!!!) at Diallo, hitting him 19 times. Just how terrified do four guys (4 guys!) have to be fire 41 bullets (41!!!!!) at somebody to feel safe? I'll tell you exactly how scared shitless for your own safety you have to be to do that: too scared to be any kind of law enforcement officer in any jurisdiction in any country on earth. But there they were, four of them all together. Either that's a huge coincidence, or that type of attitude - that any degree of force is justified no matter how large, for any degree of threat they perceive no matter how small - is fairly common.

I didn't even want to hear the other side. I'm usually open to listening to any argument on anything, though I'm finally getting less amenable to that. But not with the Diallo case. If I had been on that jury I would have been tempted to wear headphones when the defense was talking. They could have thrown me in for contempt. If I were the judge on that case I wouldn't have let the defense utter a word. I would have had the court officers put those S&M ball-gags on all of them for the duration of the trial. Declare a mistrial. Take me to the bar. I don't care; that incident was beyond bullshit.

And unfortunately I'll never look at cops as the brave protectors in the same way again. What a wake-up call. And I know it's not all cops, of course, but what I don't know is that the one I might end up dealing with isn't one of the ones who consider everyone else expendable. Because it doesn't take 41 bullets to ruin your day, just a cop who's scared enough and who thinks he has unlimited leeway to protect himself from even the slightest possible danger, to put two or three into you. And then you're dead.

[davekriss]

56. And look where that mentality leads

How does one judge a group of four policemen who unholster their guns and shoot 41 bullets into the chest a man of color who happened to be reaching for his wallet and identification, not a gun? (Amadou Diallo again.) With disapprobation, certainly; potentially with dismissal and even imprisonment and fines.

So how does one judge GWB when he dumps more bombs on Iraq during the first 7 days of the war than were dropped in all of Gulf War I? Did Saddam come out blazing with his WMD? Diallo was gunned down because he was black, because he did the perfectly natural thing of reaching for his wallet, because the police were looking for a rapist that looked nothing like Diallo except both were people of color. Saddam was gunned down because he might have WMD, he might have the delivery systems to use them, and he might use them against us. Turns out neither Diallo nor Saddam had any smoking guns.

Since we agree Diallo's murderers deserve disapprobation, then why don't we as a nation all agree that George W. Bush deserves the same? GWB is a war criminal and should be imprisoned as far away from the levers of war as is possible.

***

An aside: Unlike Amadou (and many typical Iraqis), I am alive today because I am white. I recall a situation 25 years ago. I was with a friend and we were doing the Kerouac On the Road thing. We were in Colorado and needed a place to stay and didn't want to spend any money. We walked onto a college campus hoping to find a dorm with some party-happy comrades. While prowling around, a police officer encountered us. He drew his weapon and pointed it at my chest. High, I started telling him we were just looking for a party and started walking toward him while reaching for my own wallet. He hopped back while in the position and shouted more loudly, "freeze, m**her f**ker!" I continued walking and talking to the point where he finally decided that I was not a threat. He holstered his gun and looked at my id. Then he told us: There was a robbery around the corner at a gas station and the attendant was shot -- and we fit the description! Somehow I convinced him that it was not us. And not by words, I think, but by appearance. We appeared too white and too middle class, so unlike Amadou we live.

[obreaslan]

53. Cheney said that he bought yellow-cake uranium from Niger....

He had to shoot him. :grr:

[Silverhair]

54. Been that way a LONG time.

If a cop has his gun out and on you, and is yelling, "Freeze", that is NOT a good time to reach into your pocket.