Did any civilians view the actual shooting at the Miami airport?

[Bozita]

The plane was full. People were getting on and off.

Just wondering.

[blitzen]

1. and...where's the surveillance tape?

if this really did happen in the jetway, then no doubt it was caught on camera

[RandomKoolzip]

2. Hey, not trying to flame....

But what are you and others implying, and what possible conspiracy theory could be created from this incident? I'm just wondering myself; from the tone of many DU posts about the Miami shooting, it sounds like people doubt the outcome of events, and I'd like to know why. Are we really THAT cynical?

Just curious, not trying to flame...just sounds like a lot of people are being coy, and I'd like them to come out and say what they're thinking.

[xultar]

3. I think there was no need to shoot the guy. I bel they will be able to

prove that there was no reason to shoot the guy.

[pnorman]

17. My first thought is always along those lines.

And I well recall a somewhat similar case in London a while back. But unless the news reports were deliberately misleading, the cop made the only decision appropriate to the situation. It sure pains me to side with so-called "Law & Order", but I'll have to do so in this case. Here's the news item:

Air Marshal Kills Man Who Made Bomb Claim

By JOHN PAIN, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 1 minute ago

MIAMI - An agitated passenger who claimed to have a bomb in his backpack was shot and killed by a federal air marshal Wednesday after he bolted frantically from a jetliner that was boarding for takeoff, officials said. No bomb was found.

It was the first time since the Sept. 11 attacks that an air marshal had shot at anyone,
Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Doyle said. Another federal official said there was no apparent link to terrorism.

According to a witness, the passenger ran down the aisle of the Boeing 757, flailing his arms, while his wife tried to explain that he was mentally ill and had not taken his medication.
>
>

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051208/ap_on_re_us/airplane_shooting

pnorman

[Hobarticus]

51. No matter...if that's the case, you'll never hear of it. n/t

[Bozita]

4. Just looking for independent viewers

A lack of eye witnesses doesn't help.

NOBODY actually saw this?

[RandomKoolzip]

6. I'm sure there were people on the plane. The dude's wife, for instance...

I'm sure they will come forward in the coming days.

[G_j]

5. the official UK version of the train shooting

was completely bogus. In any case where an unarmed person is shot it is important to ask questions.

[RandomKoolzip]

7. But this is a lot different than the London train shooting.

THIS guy shouted that he had a bomb, he was wearing his backpack on his chest, and acting like a batshit crazy mother fucker. What was the air marshal supposed to do, ask the name ofd the dude's therapist to see if he had a history of mental illness? Or wait until the guy had finished reaching into the backpack to see if he INDEED had a real bomb in there?

What would YOU do if you were that air marshal?

[G_j]

9. I am not making any judgment

or accusing anyone of anything.
It is reasonable though to wonder if there are witnesses to the shooting.

[MADem]

11. They interviewed passengers who related what they were able to see

and hear (we did not hear from any passengers in the London tube business that I recall, did we?).

From what I understand, he began arguing loudly with his wife, stood up, grabbed his backpack, and headed up the aisle. The plane had boarded so he was going against the traffic, as it were, as people were putting stuff in the overheads and getting settled in. He started screaming at them, waving his arms, and saying, to the passengers, that he had a bomb in his backpack. The wife, behind him, got up and started yelling that he was mentally ill or bipolar and off his meds(reports vary as to what she said precisely). He got to the front of the plane, the marshalls tried to stop him, he ran into the jetway, and turned around, coming back at them, and reached into the backpack. One shot, down.

I was not on the plane, so I don't know what actually happened. However, I have known people who were bipolar and off their meds, and this sort of behavior is consistent with what I have observed. I knew one woman who went totally off the page and started BITING people and talking ragtime, who is a very sweet individual when she complies with her medical regimen.

From the point of view of the air marshall, what to do? A stated threat that he had a bomb, a declaration of mental illness by someone who could be sincere or could be an accomplice.

It's a sad situation, all around. No winners in that scenario, at all.

[jbnow]

22. We did hear from passengers in the London tube

since he was sitting down already and was taken off to be shot.

[jeanarrett]

45. Where exactly did you get the details of your account above?

[MADem]

48. Straight off TV, MSNBC, as it was unfolding and initial reports were

coming in.

[Tactical Progressive]

59. It's obvious Alpizar was telepathic

Since he was running up the aisle screaming that he had a bomb which, if anyone on a plane was screaming that they had a bomb, EVERYONE would hear it. Since nobody I've heard from on the plane had anything of the sort to say, the only logical conclusion is that Alzipar was communicating telepathically with only select people. What else could it be, unless ... maybe ... he wasn't running up the aisle telling everyone that he had a bomb.

Most of the rest of what you've heard matches what I've heard, except I didn't hear that he turned around and came back at the Marshals, which is something I also doubt. The guy was obviously obsessed about getting out of there, enough to leave his wife on the plane and brush past the Marshals at the entrance who were telling him, perhaps, to stay on the plane. Then what, he suddenly turns around and comes back? Sounds like bullshit. They probably yelled for him to freeze and when he turned around they shot him.

I'll bet all of the talk about him telling everyone on the plane that he had a bomb just disappears when it becomes clear from first-class passenger accounts that no such proclamations were made - and what will happen then is that the Marshal service will 'clarify' their account to him saying that in the jetway where nobody will be able to refute it. In the meantime the hysterical media accounts of brave Marshals saving citizens from would-be terrorist bombers will have placed that tale of him walking down the aisle yelling bomb far enough into people's heads that they'll readily accept the revised version.

When I hear blatantly contradictory accounts of the official version I smell bullshit coverup. We'll have to hope for either videotape, which I doubt exists in the jetway, or else that really credible third-party eyewitness accounts become available. As it is, the more I hear, the less credible the official version is looking.

The only thing we know for sure: a guy was getting off a plane with a backpack and he was shot dead.

[TheWraith]

16. DID he shout that he had a bomb, though?

That's something that I haven't seen confirmed by any of the civilian witnesses, and is the key part of the FAMs' story. If he didn't shout that, then they shot him for being a brown-skinned guy having a fit. Maybe it's all true. But given how unreliable the initial information usually is, and how fast the politicians went into "cover our ass" mode, I'm a little skeptical.

If I were that FAM, and the story were exactly as they layed out, I'd have shot him in the arm or the shoulder. Lethal force isn't always neccessary to neutralize somebody, and in this instance a little caution was warranted. He was outside the plane, the plane was on the ground, and the passengers would be moderately protected if he did actually have a bomb. Besides which, if he did have a bomb, killing him could have detonated it just as easily as if he'd done it manually. And last but not least, people who run OUT of a plane shouting "I have a bomb!" usually fit into the file of "crazy but harmless."

Frankly, I don't see how this is that different from the London train shooting. In that case, the official version also detailed suspicious behavior on the part of the suspect, only to find out a few days later that it was all fabricated. I usually disdain the complete paranoia shown on DU, but in this case it's a little warranted.

[lala_rawraw]

18. That is what

You are told and the Brits were told about a terrorist was running through the underground, when in fact the man was shown to be sitting, doing nothing. So yes, when there is a death, a shooting by authorities of a civilian especially, all questions must be asked. The Brit press reported what the officials told them had occurred and then the underground video was leaked. If it had not been leaked, the official version would have been the only version.

I am not by any means arguing what may or may not have happened, but I do find it a bit hard to believe that the story changing several times even though it is coming from officials and all of the passengers being kept for depositions/interviews, the extreme action of blowing up all of his luggage and other luggage as well when there was NO bomb found on his person or in his bag. His wife explained his agitated state. They are both citizens of this country, not some foreign nationals without ID. I suspect that it was an accident of an over-excited officer. Instead of admitting the mistake, no doubt in fear of civil action or even criminal action possibly, plus the bad publicity, they are focusing on image/damage control. So while I don't believe this was an intentional shooting, I do believe there intentional spin.

[EFerrari]

21. How do we know what if anything he shouted?

I'd like to hear from witnesses that have no reason to cya.

[MADem]

35. I think that exchange took place in the jetway, the pax were seated

already, or at least boarded, at that juncture. Here is a report from a teen who seems to have no axe to grind: http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8EC8460C.html


The remaining passengers were kept on the plane for an hour, then police told them to leave with their hands behind their backs, said Lucy Argote, 15, of Codazi, Colombia. They had to leave their possessions behind.

Argote said Alpizar got up from his seat and ran toward the plane's door, with his wife yelling in Spanish.

"Officers told him to stop and he said no," the teen said. "He was running like a crazy man."

[MADem]

25. I'm with you

Having known a few people who were Type 2 bipolar, they can be totally off the page--the paranoia, random flailing, violence, delusional thinking and general conspiratorial nuttiness they sometimes exhibit (the FBI chasing them seems somehow to be a theme) can be frightening and draining to a significant other. And how was the marshall to know if the very claim of mental illness wasn't a strategy to position the backback carrier in the best position to do a lot of damage? This was a split second decision, and I'm guessing the marshall feels like shit, despite doing the 'correct' thing, by the book.

There are no winners here. The whole incident is an argument for some serious research into developing better meds that stay bioavailable for longer periods, with fewer side effects, so more bipolar people will be compliant with their medication regimen. But no, it's more important for big pharma to make a better boner pill....

[RandomKoolzip]

31. In any case, it sure ain't an argument against air marshals.

This air marshal did the right thing under the circumstances. Unfortunately the man he shot was innocent of having a bomb, but he was not innocent of threatening to have a bomb and acting like a dangerous, unhinged schmuck on board a plane.

Thanks for being logical. :thumbsup:

[Bluerthanblue]

57. you may have 'known' a few

people who were BPII- but knowing a few doesn't make you an expert- Parinoia IS a common issue when a BP person is experiencing an episode of psychosis, but one would hope that a person TRAINED and EQUIPPED with WEAPONS that are concealed, and effective killing implements, would also be trained to be able to spot a person who was behaving in a psychotic manner.- That this man would have had the ability to access and 'escort' a 'bomb' of any kind onto an aircraft is highly unlikely-
That the man may have had a weapon that could potentially have harmed himself or other passengers is more 'concievieable' but given the metal detectors that passengers have to go through, it's rather unlikely that he would have gotten one aboard, AND that he was attempting to EXIT the plane not gain admittance, says that he was attempting to flee and his torment was being ON the plane, not to do anyone any harm-
The marshall SHOULD feel like shit- and should learn from this tragedy- saying 'they did what they are supposed to' doesn't cut it- Because if this kind of response is 'acceptable' to society- then indeed being mentally ill is a reason to justify killing a person- and i don't buy that-

I have more experience with this disease then you'll ever know- and understand it far better than I ever desired to. It's hell on all ends- It's not the pharmaceuticals fault that people don't stay on their meds- (unless you are talking about the exhorbonant cost) The reasons are many- and even IF he was on his meds, he could still have experienced an episode such as this- Shoot first, ask questions later is not my idea of 'appropriate' procedures when used by 'undercover' 'marshalls' armed with very deadly concealed weapons, and pumped full of fear- and trumped up 'terra threats' we have become our own worst enemy-

[MADem]

74. I have two in-law types who are Type 2 bipolar, and they both have

great health insurance with full prescription coverage, and they are non-compliant FREQUENTLY. The female doesn't like the weight gain, because she feels a need to compete with her very attractive younger sister, the male doesn't like the fact that the drugs make him feel "logey" and not himself. Their non-compliance has resulted in injury to other family members, some incredibly BIZARRE and threatening behavior, and hospitalization. The family has gotten better at spotting when they are dumping the pill down the hopper, or just not taking them, but it ain't money or lack of access to drugs that is causing them not to take the meds. It is the drugs themselves. It is a constant issue with these two branches of the family, and it causes angst frequently enough to be an issue. When they are compliant, they are delightful people, FWIW.

So no, I am not an expert. I do not claim to be an expert, but I have seen this behavior up close up and personal, have been bitten, punched, threatened, flailed at, and told the FBI is after me, them, and everyone else, hsd to pull them out of situations in public where they were acting in psychotic fashion, listened to them speaking in tongues and talking ragtime, assisted relatives in getting them to medical care, restrained them when they were trying to leap out windows and moving cars, and it is NOT pleasant. The hyper-vigilance can be nothing short of exhausting.

I can't help but think better drugs would increase compliance, given what I have seen and experienced first-hand.

[donsu]

26. what real bomber would announce he had a bomb? has any real

bomber done so?

the cops have been so fear mongered that they kill first and then justify.

[RandomKoolzip]

27. The 9/11 hijackers said they had bombs.

They didn't, of course, but it was enough to mollify passengers who would have otherwise tried to overcome the three or four slightly-built men with box-cutters on board. If I'm on plane, and someone says "I have a bomb!" I'm sure as shit gonna believe him, and if there's an air marshal on board, I will entrust him with my safety and the safety of the pilots. Does this make me some kind of sheeple-person? Or a fascist enabler? I don't think it does.

Nevertheless, if there's a training course for air marshals, I'm almost certain that they don't teach them that if a passenger says he has a bomb, he most assuredly doesn't REALLY have a bomb. That seems a bit wacky to me. As a previous poster says, this was a split-second decision. You guys are making it seem like this air marshal was some blood-thirsty goon, drunk on power and horny for random gun-play. Why is that? What would YOU have done in this situation?

[Spazito]

29. I have not seen nor read where a witness, not an 'official' has said

the man shouted he had a bomb, why is that? Surely if he was shouting, someone other than an 'anonymous' official would have heard him? The 'official' story doesn't add up, imo.

[RandomKoolzip]

30. Okay, then: what are they hiding?

What's the grand conspiracy? An air marshal shot some dude who was innocent of ANY malfeasance or wrongdoing. And the airline, homeland security, and the media are all playing along? And silencing any and all witnesses? How do you keep something like that secret, with so many people on board the plane and so many members of the meida at the airport right after it happened? Was the guy who got shot super-important in some way? Did he know the REAL truth behind 9/11 or something?

Seriously, people. If the guy fucked up, and shot someone with no provocation, they'd admit it. What reason would they have to cover that up? Sometimes I think we're all just getting WAAAAAY too paranoid. (Not that we don't have reason to be, but come on)

[Spazito]

32. I don't know what they are hiding, if anything. I am merely pointing

out where the story is lacking substance on the main point, that being the man shouting he had a bomb. If he didn't shout it, why are they saying he did and, if he did shout it, why are there no independent witnesses coming forth saying that?

Until there is an independent witness backing up the 'anonymous official' as to what the man said, the story doesn't add up to me.

[RandomKoolzip]

34. Well, if it doesn't add up to you, what's a more likely scenario?

Maybe the media and homeland security are saying that he shaouted that he had a bomb because he.....shouted that he had a bomb. Sometimes they occasionally tell the truth, y'know. Not often, but it happens.

Plus, many of the passengers didn't speak English.

[Spazito]

43. The word, maybe, is exactly the problem, we can guess what

may have happened or not happened and gain nothing. Again, I only point out there have been no independent witnesses to the man shouting what the 'anonymous official' has reported as being said. If it were cut and dried there would be little debate on this issue, I have no doubt. The fact there is a lack of detail on the essential aspect of what the man said or did not say is why there is a question left, imo.

As to many of the passengers not speaking English, it seems the ones that do have not come forward to re-affirm what the 'anonymous official' has said.

Edited to add:

"It seems a witness has come forward to say the opposite of what the official is stating:

I don't think they needed to use deadly force with the guy," says John McAlhany, a 44-year-old construction worker from Sebastian, Fla. "He was getting off the plane." McAlhany also maintains that Alpizar never mentioned having a bomb.

"I never heard the word 'bomb' on the plane," McAlhany told TIME in a telephone interview. "I never heard the word bomb until the FBI asked me did you hear the word bomb. That is ridiculous." Even the authorities didn't come out and say bomb, McAlhany says. "They asked, 'Did you hear anything about the b-word?'" he says. "That's what they called it."

When the incident began McAlhany was in seat 24C, in the middle of the plane. " was in the back," McAlhany says, "a few seats from the back bathroom. He sat down." Then, McAlhany says, "I heard an argument with his wife. He was saying 'I have to get off the plane.' She said, 'Calm down.'"

Alpizar took off running down the aisle, with his wife close behind him. "She was running behind him saying, 'He's sick. He's sick. He's ill. He's got a disorder," McAlhany recalls. "I don't know if she said bipolar disorder . She was trying to explain to the marshals that he was ill. He just wanted to get off the plane."

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

(Thanks to SimpleTrend for the link!)

[RandomKoolzip]

56. Wow. Well, that certainly is different than 99% of what I've heard and rea

read about this incident so far. Thank you for that link. My mind will remain open on this....I apologize if I offended anyone and should I hear anything else that's convincing I'll be glad to eat a big ol' plate of crow.

[MADem]

41. Because it happened in the jetway, perhaps?

The pax were on the plane, getting settled, when the guy bolted.

[Spazito]

42. I have been seated on a plane while passengers were still in the

jetway and can hear them talking, nevermind, shouting, if they were to do so so I don't see why they would not have heard him shouting and say so when questioned as they were after the incident.

[MADem]

44. You have good ears, or a seat near the door n/t

[Spazito]

46. It seems the facts are the man was in the aisleway of the plane

when he was quoted by the anonymous senior official as saying he had a bomb. A passenger on the plane has come forward and refuted the 'official'.

"I don't think they needed to use deadly force with the guy," says John McAlhany, a 44-year-old construction worker from Sebastian, Fla. "He was getting off the plane." McAlhany also maintains that Alpizar never mentioned having a bomb.

"I never heard the word 'bomb' on the plane," McAlhany told TIME in a telephone interview. "I never heard the word bomb until the FBI asked me did you hear the word bomb. That is ridiculous." Even the authorities didn't come out and say bomb, McAlhany says. "They asked, 'Did you hear anything about the b-word?'" he says. "That's what they called it."

When the incident began McAlhany was in seat 24C, in the middle of the plane. " was in the back," McAlhany says, "a few seats from the back bathroom. He sat down." Then, McAlhany says, "I heard an argument with his wife. He was saying 'I have to get off the plane.' She said, 'Calm down.'"

Alpizar took off running down the aisle, with his wife close behind him. "She was running behind him saying, 'He's sick. He's sick. He's ill. He's got a disorder," McAlhany recalls. "I don't know if she said bipolar disorder . She was trying to explain to the marshals that he was ill. He just wanted to get off the plane."

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

[MADem]

47. This guy, though, was no where near the door, and he may have his own axe

to grind: "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."


So the guy was distracted for part of the time, anyway, with a shotgun and a karate chop...and it wasn't a quiet environment, either:


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."

[Spazito]

49. Why are you disputing what this witness says yet believing

the witness who verifies the bipolar aspect? That witness didn't confirm the 'bomb' comment, only the bipolar part, why didn't she? It is becoming increasingly clear, imo, that the incident is far from what was initially reported and all the facts have yet to come out, especially regarding the key issue of the 'bomb' shout only heard, so far, by the 'unnamed senior official'.

People can be talking on the cell phone yet still be aware of one's surroundings, especially if there is a disturbance. It is no different than talking on your home phone and hearing your children getting into a loud dispute, imo.

[MADem]

50. The guy was shot in the jetway, this guy was seated over the wing

no where NEAR the door. And I am not "disputing"... I am simply saying that this guy might have his own reasons for being argumentative, seeing as he was on the phone, didn't get off, did not follow FA instructions to hit the deck, was by his own accounts peeking through the seats, and ended up getting his phone slapped out of his hand and had a shotgun pointed at his head. By this guy's OWN account, people were screaming and crying. We aren't talking about a quiet environment here, there were other people on that plane making NOISE, and the witness himself rather distracted by an AM with a gun and a karate chop.

I dunno about you, but if I were in that same guy's circumstances, chatting with my brother, moving around trying to see what was happening, and then being confronted by an AM, I don't think my super duper hearing would hear what was happening twenty three rows forward of me, around a bulkhead, in a jetway, while people were screaming and crying all around me. http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/nation/ny-usshot084543891dec08,0,6530752.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-print

The marshals chased him onto the jetway, connecting the plane with the terminal, and ordered him to get on the ground. Alpizar instead reached into his bag, and an agent responded with gunfire.

I say LET THE INVESTIGATION take its course. And I have no intention of being quick to judge a guy who is putting his life on the line to ensure passenger safety. I simply cannot believe the AM woke up that morning lusting for blood, or that this paint salesman was some sort of nefarious type that BushCo wanted killed. I think this was just a sucky situation all around--for the bipolar guy, his family, the AM, and the passengers. And the reason that I believe that the guy was bipolar is because the behavior of the deceased is completely consistent with Type 2 bipolar sufferers, and I have known a few of them, and had the unfortunate experience to have to deal with two who went BADLY off their meds (one who can no longer fly a foreign airline, for pulling this sort of shit...thankfully, well before 911):

Sometimes, severe episodes of mania or depression include symptoms of psychosis (or psychotic symptoms). Common psychotic symptoms are hallucinations (hearing, seeing, or otherwise sensing the presence of things not actually there) and delusions (false, strongly held beliefs not influenced by logical reasoning or explained by a person's usual cultural concepts). Psychotic symptoms in bipolar disorder tend to reflect the extreme mood state at the time. For example, delusions of grandiosity, such as believing one is the President or has special powers or wealth, may occur during mania; delusions of guilt or worthlessness, such as believing that one is ruined and penniless or has committed some terrible crime, may appear during depression. People with bipolar disorder who have these symptoms are sometimes incorrectly diagnosed as having schizophrenia, another severe mental illness. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/bipolar.cfm#intro

[Spazito]

53. Wow, there is no proof that the man was bipolar or not, only

a witness saying that. There is no proof the man had shouted he had a bomb only a witness that says he didn't hear the witness say that. The passenger was shot in the jetway but the shouting that was heard only by the 'unnamed senior official' was on the plane NOT in the jetway. There has been NO witness directly quoted as saying they heard what the 'unnamed senior official' has stated was said. It, therefore, remains an open question, imo, as does the question whether the man was, indeed, bipolar.

The facts behind this shooting are lacking, imo, and getting fuzzier not clearer as the witnesess come forward. Is it possible the marshall shot too soon, yes, it certainly is. Did the marshall act incorrectly, I don't know yet and neither does anyone else at this point.

Edited to add punctuation for clarity.

[MADem]

54. Let's flip your statement

Did the marshal act CORRECTLY, I don't know yet and neither does anyone else.

We need to let the investigation proceed. I tire sometimes of an eagerness (and I am not directing this observation at you, personally) to always suspect the worst. Sure, we have had plenty of shit pushed down our throats by BushCO, but sometimes a lousy situation is just a lousy situation.

Like I mentioned elsewhere, I know a couple of AMs. Nice guys, DEMOCRATS, Kerry voters.

Not everyone who is employed by the Feds is an asshole. In fact, a lot of the rank and file are not. Their politically appointed bosses are another situation, but you cannot blame the serf for the behavior of the Laird....

[Spazito]

55. I agree re letting the investigation proceed

To assume the shooting was right OR wrong based on what has been reported so far is to merely speculate. To point out the question that witnesses have NOT been quoted as hearing the man shout he had a bomb is simply asking why none have come forward and, therefore, a question mark remaining about the 'official' account.

I know some great cops but that doesn't negate the facts that some make mistakes and shoot in haste, a very few to be sure but it happens and to assume otherwise would be naive and less than objective on the issue.

As to the political persuasion of the marshalls, that, imo, is a totally moot point. The official story as currently reported doesn't add up, imo, and should be questioned which is what I am doing.

Edited to add:

From CNN:

Investigators are trying to piece together the final moments before the shooting as questions are rising about whether Alpizar made a bomb threat.

The marshals say Alpizar announced he was carrying a bomb before being killed.

However, no other witness has publicly concurred with that account. Only one passenger recalled Alpizar saying, "I've got to get off, I've got to get off," CNN's Kathleen Koch reported.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/08/airplane.gunshot/index.html

[High Plains]

82. Keep bending over backwards to deny any evidence that...

...doesn't fit your preferred version of events.

[Bluerthanblue]

58. do you seriously think

that the security would admit they fucked up and shot a man not only not armed, but who was trying to get himself OFF the plane that was causing him to become even more distressed??? Did you not read about the hightened 'threat' alert about flights being 'vunerable' to bombers?
If so, do you also believe * won the election fair and square either time??- or that Saddam really WAS a 'threat' to America???

The 'Blue wall' is real- and any f-k ups would be covered over as quickly and thoroughly as possible- why all the pre-emptive accounts of how the marshalls HAD to do what they did- not that the incident was being investigated... sure sounds like damage control to me. What reason would they have to cover up the marshalls screw up??? you can't come up with any????? think again- i'm sure you'll find more than you'd expect.

[RandomKoolzip]

60. You're overreaching.

If so, do you also believe * won the election fair and square either time??- or that Saddam really WAS a 'threat' to America???

:eyes:

Yeah, good one.

Anyhow, there is new information coming out that is at odds with what I've read and heard about this story, that indeed makes it seem like there was something fishy. I will keep my mind open, and my opinion is subject to change.

In the meantime, kindly refrain from making false and insulting assumptions about a guy who's been here since 2003, 'kay? 'kay.

[HEyHEY]

72. We're coming to get you now too!

We want your brain

[High Plains]

78. They NEVER admit it.

They went immediately into cover your ass mode. It took the feds about two minutes to announce the shooting was justified and appropriate, citing the bomb threats that no one heard.

[Eric J in MN]

61. None of the witnesses heard him say that he had a bomb (nt)

nt

[RandomKoolzip]

73. Look....the information I had when I posted my above post was

That PEOPLE on board the plane said he shouted that he had a bomb. Now there are stories coming out from various eyewitnesses saying that no one heard him say he had a bomb. I was going on incomplete information when I posted the above.....as the news has changed, so has my opinion. Can you stop ganging up on me, please? I don't need 9 replies to that post to make me get the point.

[High Plains]

76. Hmm, maybe I'd start covering my ass after I mistakenly shot...

...the guy and say he was making bomb threats.

[rman]

84. In both cases a 'possible' terrorist attack prevented,

and a supposed terrorist suspect killed.

Which makes the government look good for anyone who thinks "better safe then sorry" should be taken to an extreme.


The government itself certainly does think that it should be taken to an extreme;

"We had to make a shift in the way we thought about things, so being reactive, waiting for a crime to be committed, or waiting for there to be evidence of the commission of a crime didn’t seem to us to be an appropriate way to protect the American people."
- Ashcroft (The Power of Nightmares, BBC)

It is also known as the "precautionary principal" or the "preventative paradigm" - it is "Minority Report" come true.

[RandomKoolzip]

85. Wow. You guys are still piling on, eh?

Check the times for the posts I wrote. A lot happened bewteen the time I posted the message you're replying to and my reply right now. There's been new facts that weren't available at the time I posted that post.

As the facts have changed, so has my opinion. I have mentioned this before in this thread; I suppose that it's gone unread....are you guys just cherry-picking my comments and hog-piling for the fun of it now, or what?

Just so there won't be any more confusion on this matter, lemme state this in perfectly understandable English:

I Agree with you. I have changed my mind. Let's move on...together.

[rman]

86. Allright, good for you. Where do you want to go?

[newswolf56]

14. I think you're onto something. Based on the other threads I've read...

at least some of the more reflexive critics of this shooting are the same people who regard firearms as terror objects -- people who want to ban guns not only from human possession but from human consciousness, denying firearms not only to private citizens but to everyone, arguing that the mere existence of firearms is an act of violence -- an especially obscene act of violence at that.

These people are often also the same individuals who reflexively oppose any form of self-defense, especially war -- all war (including very specifically the war of self-defense by which the United States saved the world from the European and Asiatic forms of fascism) -- to the extent they are forever ready to censor facts and revise history to support their conclusions. While I disagree vehemently with this entire ideology, I nevertheless believe it is vital its proponents be heard, because their presence in the political equation does indeed sometimes act as a necessary and even redeeming restraint on darker human instincts -- though on other occasions it has unquestionably inflicted unspeakable tragedy: most notably the 1938-1939 destruction of Czechoslovakia and Poland by Nazi Germany, and the more recent instances of genocide in the Balkans.

As to official shootings in general, as a journalist -- a definitively, even (in some quarters) notoriously skeptical journalist at that -- I am well aware official shootings are sometimes deadly mistakes, also that a tiny few are deliberate murders, but most in fact are fully justified, if not ideologically so, at least by the circumstances in which they occurred. Thus I do not think any of us yet know enough to pass judgment on the shooting in Miami, and in any case I do not think the final verdict on any such shootings -- unless of course they are obvious homicides -- should ever be delivered by people who themselves have never borne arms under conditions of potentially lethal stress.

[G_j]

15. as a journalist (question)

when an unarmed civilian is killed, how often is the initial official story truthful?

[newswolf56]

20. In my experience, the initial official story is most often incomplete,

with its informational deficits the unavoidable result of process rather than any effort (whether individual or institutional) to withhold information.

This tendency is radically complicated by two factors: the innate and wholly mercenary compulsion of television toward sensationalist coverage of such incidents -- the ghoulish ethos of "its interesting when people die" -- and, in reaction, the increasing (and wholly understandable) reluctance of officials to release information that television might then inflame into a riot.

Television people are fully aware of this problem and in fact exploit it for maximum profit: the more violent the scenes on the idiot-box, the more money is to be made from the advertisers who sponsor the broadcasts -- facts that have been known, discussed and decried for decades without result. The true attitude of the industry toward its critics is perhaps best expressed by the major-market TV news director who, during a cocktail-party discussion several years ago -- this after I concluded a summation like the one above with the statement "that's why I maintain television news is a contradiction in terms" -- responded by punching me in the face hard enough to knock one of the lenses from my wire-framed glasses and bloody my nose.

Newspapers and other print media formerly did a much better job of reporting on official shootings merely because print is intrinsically more contemplative than video: video is like a flash of lightning; print like a seed that may either germinate or lie fallow. Perhaps the best illustrative example of this I can think of is the coverage of ghetto riots during the 1960s -- coverage in which I participated both as a reporter and an editor: TV mostly covered these dread events in a manner that depicted a whole people run amok and therefore inflamed American racism to an intensity of hatred that has since been disguised but has not diminished one scintilla.

Print on the other hand strove to put the riots in the context of poverty and oppression, and in all the better newspapers did so from the very beginning. Thus one's attitudes toward the riots and the rioters were from the very beginning determined by whether one was a reader or a viewer -- a point that was made (if memory serves) by the Koerner Commission itself: people who got their news from print tended to understand the rioters' grievances and thus be conciliatory, while people who got their news from TV were inflamed to new heights of racist hatred.

Alas, such inappropriate reactions based on incomplete information have no ideological roosting place: today, with the vast majority of all Americans obtaining their news from television, the left is as likely be misinformed as the right: note the huge number of us who originally supported the Iraq war on the basis of the Big Lie tactics by which the false pro-war arguments were peddled -- another manifestation of the deliberate dumbing down of the citizenry.

I said print media "formerly" did a better job because today's corporate newspapers are -- by managerial edict and thus with deliberate intent -- mostly as dumbed down as television. The corporations that own the nation's newspapers use surveys of TV audiences to determine newspaper content. Once again (as so profoundly noted in the '70s song "Dirty Laundry"), "it's interesting when people die" -- but the causes of the death (which may require a little effort to dig out and a little thought to understand) are dismissed as immaterial.

Returning to your original question about the comparative truthfulness of official accounts of shootings I can think of only six that were definitively untruthful, and three of these were assassinations (in which the government was obviously doing its best to conceal indications the U.S. is merely another American banana republic, differing from lesser American states only in the fact the United Fruit Company (and all other such corporations) are headquartered here rather than in, say, Pinochet's Chile. The fourth was the murders of the civil rights workers Michael Schwerner, James Chaney and Andrew Goodman; the fifth was the massacre at Kent State, in which the government initially claimed shots had been fired from the crowd (and denied the obvious photographic evidence that a company of Ohio National Guard Infantry had been given a direct order -- which it obeyed -- to face about, then fire a rifle-volley into a crowd of unarmed students); the sixth was the massacre at Jackson State, in which a similar false claim of "shots fired" was initially used to justify the shooting.

Nevertheless the fact remains that in most of the official shootings I know about -- those that I have covered personally and those that I am merely aware of -- the response of the authorities to public demands for explanations has been as good as could be reasonably expected: "this is what we know now, and we'll release more information as soon as we have it."

Many such shootings are obviously tragic -- for example the police shooting of a deaf and unarmed teenager in Seattle after he "ignored" shouted orders to halt his headlong flight from a felony scene -- but under the circumstances (which if I remember correctly was an armed robbery with the perpetrators still at large, and the deaf boy fitting the description of one of the perps) was -- again if memory serves me (the incident occurred in the mid-1970s) -- ruled "justified" both by the police review and in subsequent court action. Unless I am confusing this case with another, the officer himself was filled with such remorse he later took his own life: tragedy in 360 degrees. In any case the police -- however reluctant they may have been to release the details -- made no effort to lie about what had happened.

I hope this helps. I realize it is an impressionistic rather than statistical answer to your question, but it is the best I can do. In any case, if we are looking for grounds upon which to condemn the United States, our federal, state and local police are actually remarkably well-behaved, which I say even though I have whiffed my share of pepper-gas over the years and been the recipient of a couple of local-police beatings as well. The vast majority of our cops, regardless of who employs them, are merely working-class folk doing an especially difficult and dangerous working-class job. The real villains are the corporate fat-cats and the politicians: the people directly responsible for the infinitely criminal realities of U.S. social services, health care, public transport and education -- all of which are the very worst (and most viciously expensive) in the industrial world. Here too is probably the ultimate blame for what happened to a man -- reportedly a very sick man -- in a jetway at Miami: if the details now available are true, a tragedy directly attributable to our ever-worsening official hostility toward mental patients and mental health care in general -- again the worst in the industrial world and by far the most incipiently genocidal as well.


Edit: clarification of last sentence.

[G_j]

24. wow, thanks

I very much appreciate your taking the time to offer such a carefully considered answer. I cannot initially comment on a lot of it. However, I agree that the majority of cops are simply working-class folk doing a dangerous job. I think as in most such intuitions, there are definite and often serious problems with the culture that develops around having power over others and being constantly exposed to violence and tragedy.
This continually needs to be addressed but not by villainizing anyone.
It is far too dangerous to let destructive attitudes become entrenched.
It pits working-class people against others who are working-class, often minorities and the very poor.
Yes, the real villains are the "corporate fat-cats and the politicians" who perpetuate a two-tiered, racially charged society and give the marching orders. They are also the ones who have money invested in the prison industrial complex. They often see police as working to protect their interests as opposed to working for the people at large and create laws accordingly.

[hunter]

83. Nervous guys with guns don't make me feel any safer.

This is such an incredible fuckup because there were two nervous guys with guns aboard this airplane. If Mr. Alpizar had been riding on a bus he would have simply gotten off the bus, and the passengers would maybe roll their eyes and think, "Well there goes another one..."

I can't even count the number of times I've seen agitated people on a bus, some of them quite threatening. A plane sitting on the ground is not any different than a bus. The ONLY reason this guy got shot was because there were two very nervous guys with guns aboard the airplane. I will bet their life experiences hadn't prepared them for dealing with someone who has gone over the edge like Mr. Alpizar. I suspect there is a bit of racism involved here too.

Furthermore, the way the passengers were treated after the shooting was inexcusable. These are clearly the actions of a police state.

[MadHound]

33. I think that people have every right to be suspicious

I mean it isn't like law enforcement didn't put a five tap to the head of an innocent person in London, and then lied about it. It isn't like the police didn't shoot a man pulling out his wallet, over forty times, and then lied about it. It isn't like the police didn't beat a man to within an inch of his life over a traffic ticket, and then lied about it. And on and on, ad nauseum, there isn't enough space in this thread to cite every example.

Yeah, a think that people have every right in this world to be suspicious of the "official story", because time and again it has been proven that the "official story" is nothing but a pack of lies. I for one am really that cynical.

[RandomKoolzip]

37. Those are police. We're talking about air marshals.

What are they covering up? That they have some rogue Dirty Harry-esque air marshal with a hard-on for shootin' furriners working for homeland security? And they've gotten a whole planeload of non-English speaking people to refrain from talking to the press, while the media, the government, and the airline company all fall in line with the "official (phony) story" in order to pretect one guy? Seems a bit cumbersome to put together at the last minute.

I'm thinking it's the conspiracy theory that doesn't add up, not the official story.

[MadHound]

39. Air marshalls, police, homeland security,

All of those folks now have virtually the same mindset and sttitude, that they're guards at an outdoor insane asylum, them vs us, and they react accordingly. And if you talk to any of the old school law enforcement folks, they will tell you the same. Back in the day they were public servants, and acted for the most part as such. Now in the eyes of any law enforcement person, you are guilty until you're in jail, and then you're somebody else's problem.

And quite frankly I don't know what conspiracy theory that you're talking about. There isn't enough information out there, and what there is doesn't paint a pretty picture of the air marshall's actions. Passengers are saying that they didn't hear a thing about a bomb, that the air marshalls were pointing their guns all over the place, that the man's wife was telling them over and over, pleading that her husband was mentally ill and off his meds. Oh, and the man had left the plane, thus putting the passengers in less danger.

This doesn't sound like a conspiracy theory to me friend, it is starting to sound more and more like gross negligence and incompetence on the part of the air marshalls.

[MADem]

52. I dunno about that--the gates at MIAMI are butt up against each other

in a little circle. There may have been MORE people awaiting boarding of other aircraft in the preboard area than there were on the plane. If the guy had been a bomber, it wouldn't be illogical for the AMs to assume that he was looking for a bigger casualty count, especially if the plane wasn't full.

At this point in time, all I can do is feel sorry for everyone involved in this sad situation.

[High Plains]

81. It's called cover your ass...

The air marshals shot and killed a US citizen who was NOT a terrorist bomber. They fucked up.

The feds are circling the wagons, immediately justifying the shooting. I don't know about the airline; perhaps they are just taking the feds at their word.

I don't accuse the media of conspiracy but of lethargy. It seems like the media has been pretty happy to accept the official version. Why aren't more reporters tracking down the passengers?

And CNN, at least, seems positively obsessed with that plane sliding off the runway last night. I don't get their priorities.

[RagingInMiami]

8. The only civilians so far

Heard about five shots, according to the most updated article by the Miami Herald.

"He 'uttered a sentence to the effect that he had a bomb' in his backpack, said Jim Bauer, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Air Marshals service in Miami."


http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/13353797.htm

[0rganism]

19. 'uttered a sentence to the effect that he had a bomb'

Wow, that could be damn near anything. Did he say, "I feel like I'm gonna blow up," or maybe, "If I had a bomb in my backpack, you'd all be dead right now"? This is not reassuring in the least. Maybe he was freaking hard and really did think there was a bomb in his backpack, and he was trying to get it out the door before it exploded in the plane.

I mean, these are the man's last words, I hope his executioner(s) didn't misunderstand them completely...

[RandomKoolzip]

10. BTW, CNN's page on this story has an interview

with a passenger aboard the plane.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/07/airplane.gunshot/index.html

[MADem]

13. That link, which seems fairly detailed, is a bit different from the

reports I heard earlier today. I suspect that one is more accurate than the version I heard.

[DoYouEverWonder]

23. It seems that the only people who heard him say anything

about a bomb were the air marshals, at least according to the report that you linked to. Gee, the air marshals wouldn't be covering their asses now would they?

[RandomKoolzip]

28. So air marshals are wolves among the sheep now?

Fuck, I'm glad they're aboard planes and doing their jobs. Some asshole comes on board MY plane and starts acting like some dangerous assclown with a bomb in his backpack, you better fuckin' believe I'm trusting the air marshal to take him out. It's tragic that this situation had to end like it did, and I'm certain that in this air marshal's heart, he's suffering about what happened, but the fault here lies with the passenger.

I'm as liberal as anybody, but I don't automatically believe that everybody in a position of power or authority is, by nature, lying to me.

Plus, all you guys are making it seem like there's some sinister conspiracy to cover up something. What are they covering up? Do the air marshals work for Halliburton? Was this guy the second assassin on the grassy knoll? What possible conspiracy theory can be fashioned from this mistake?

[MADem]

36. If anything, I would guess that the air marshalls, who are on admin leave

are absolutely shattered by this experience. They followed their training to the letter, and it was simply an unfortunate convergence of events. Bipolar people can be extremely aggressive, say all sorts of crazy shit, and be very intimidating--and they can be quite strong when they are off their meds, too. It's not like the marshalls have time to call in a doctor and ask for a consult, they have to act instantaneously when a threat is presented.

[RandomKoolzip]

38. Exactly right.

Air marshals are paid to do EXACTLY what this guy did...which doesn't mean he's not affected by it. I'm sure he'a angry at himself and destroyed by the outcome.

I'm really worried by the fact that we're so tainted by the wrongdoings of this administration that we can smell conspircay in everything a government employee does now. Reading the posts on this thread reminds me of reading rightist publications after Waco and Vince Foster.

[MADem]

40. I have two good pals who are air marshalls

They say being vigilant all the time is rather excruciating--the work is rather lonely, same-same, but the pay is decent.

They also voted for Kerry....!

[sproutster]

63. So if these FAM's voted for Kerry their actions are legit?

HAHAHAHAHA... Don't we hear the same rhetoric coming from the WH? --Minus the Kerry part of course.

[MADem]

64. Good job--way to take a point and turn it into something it isn't

My only point was that not all AM's are rabid, trigger happy assholes--many are regular people, and Democrats as well. Pulling the administration into that simple small observation is rather Rovian of you! Bet you feel quite satisfied!

[sproutster]

65. Wasn't that your point?

[MADem]

66. Reading is fundamental, no, it was NOT my point n/t

[sproutster]

67. What was it then?

To elicit sympathy even though the story is slowly changing?

[MADem]

68. Again, RIF. It was an observation based on personal knowledge.

You are clearly the one with the agenda. Enjoy yourself.

[Moochy]

62. In a climate of fear

People in positions of power are under increased pressure, and the federal agencies increased awareness of anti-terrorism efforts. IMO the climate of fear encouraged by the White house's policy of nationalistic militaristic bullshit is directly responsible for this increasing this pressure on the marshalls, agents, and police required to enforce the law.

The "taint" of this White House doest stop at the dept. heads. Each of these petty barons have enfranchised entire fiefdoms of loyalists with even less experience, credibility or qualifications. Most of whom are previous industry execs, and now are in charge of the same regulatory bodies they used to lobby. I'm not saying these Air Marhsall agents were tainted, but it's optimism of the worst kind to think that the Bush Administration has anything but yes-men running this branch of govt. overseeing the air marshalls. It is unfortunate that the story is evolving much like the London shooting of the brazillian electrician, where the press jumped on one story and as the facts came out, they were much different than what the initial police reports indicated.

Where are the taserists when you need them to make the case for a kinder gentler technofascism?

[mmonk]

71. That's what I was wondering

"Where are the taserists when you need them to make the case for a kinder gentler technofascism?"

They sure love to fire those things these days, even at people in wheelchairs. A taser and he'd still be alive instead of using deadly force so quickly. Ignoring a person explaining the subject's condition may be good policy, but could also give one reasonable care in danger assessment. And yes, we all know the ticking timebomb scenario which requires one to act and find out later. Imagine this scenario taking place in America before 911 (and the danger was probably greater then with less awareness) and what people's take might be.

[leftstreet]

12. Good question

If they did, they haven't gotten their 15 minutes yet.

Anderson Cooper had interview sound-bites from two people on the plane at the time. One said he knew the couple was arguing, but couldn't hear what they were actually saying. I believe the other said she heard the wife calling to the husband to stay on the plane.

[Catchawave]

69. The Pilot ?

<snip>Chief Marshall would not reveal the specifics of his agency's interviews with people who were on the aircraft, including whether any had said they heard Mr. Alpizar threaten that he had a bomb. But Mark Raynor, an American Airlines pilot and local union official in Miami, said an account he heard from the plane's captain had supported law enforcement accounts of the shooting.

Mr. Raynor said the captain had been outside the cockpit at the time of the shooting and witnessed it, but the first officer had been inside the cockpit and had seen nothing. <snip>

Full article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/national/09plane.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th

[sproutster]

70. I thought it was the stewardess? :)

[Catchawave]

80. I provided a link to the pilot....

...do you have link to the flight attendant?

Over 120 "civilians" have been interviewed? This can be a slow process on DU, I know :hi:

[hunter]

75. Yes. And they are all criminals too.

Put your hands on your head and exit the plane.



This is Bullshit.

[sproutster]

77. So if someone didn't put their hands on their heads - is their death

acceptable?

[Thorandmjolnir]

79. So far,

all the people backing up the official story (which, by the way, keeps changing) have been faceless, nameless people, while the ones questioning the official story have come forward with their name and faces.


Whether the AMs acted correctly is for me impossible to say. What I don find disturbing, is that the official version of the vents seems to change to counter the eyewitnesses account.

This is too much like the London shooting.

Please note I have not made any judgment on the actions of the AMs. Just the story itself.


And please, can I appeal to all the people who maintain the man said anything about a bomb, provide me with a direct quote from any witness to this?