- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Darwin Wins at Miami
Darwin Wins at MiamiFollow
Quote:
light 924 was in Miami on a stopover during a flight from Medellin, Colombia, to Orlando, Florida, when the man said there was a bomb in his carry-on luggage, a Department of Homeland Security official said.
He was confronted by a team of federal air marshals, who pursued the man down the boarding bridge and ordered him to get on the ground, the official said. ( Watch scene after the incident -- 1:31)
When the man appeared to reach into his baggage, at least one shot was fired by the marshals, wounding the man, the official said, adding that the marshals' actions were consistent with their training. Officials said later that the man had died of his injuries.
Upon investigation, there was no evidence that the man had a bomb, an official said.
He was confronted by a team of federal air marshals, who pursued the man down the boarding bridge and ordered him to get on the ground, the official said. ( Watch scene after the incident -- 1:31)
When the man appeared to reach into his baggage, at least one shot was fired by the marshals, wounding the man, the official said, adding that the marshals' actions were consistent with their training. Officials said later that the man had died of his injuries.
Upon investigation, there was no evidence that the man had a bomb, an official said.
In case you're wondering, the expression most equivalent to "D'Oh" in Spanish, is, strangely enough, "Ay, caramba!"
#3REDACTED,
Posted: Dec 07 2005 at 5:05 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) yep, stupid is as stupid does.
just heard about this on the radio and it turns out the guy is/was a mental patient and he was off of his meds...
oh well. feel sorry for the feds and the civilians who had to witness this horrid event.
oh well. feel sorry for the feds and the civilians who had to witness this horrid event.
Quote:
Alpizar was traveling with a woman and had arrived in Miami on a plane from Ecuador, federal officials said. He and the woman began arguing before getting off the plane in Miami, two officials said.
guess she won the argument?
Quote:
the marshals' actions were consistent with their training
We don't really know the details of what happened, but does anyone think this shooting was justified?
soulshaver wrote:
Quote:
the marshals' actions were consistent with their training
We don't really know the details of what happened, but does anyone think this shooting was justified?
Quote:
the man said there was a bomb in his carry-on luggage
then again, i don't condone violence.
He said he had a bomb. He made motions as if to get to said bomb. They tried peaceful means first and only shot him after he went for the bomb. That he had no bomb is after the fact. If they'd hesitated and he did have a bomb and he'd blown up half the airport, people would be asking why the marshals hadn't stopped him. I call this justified. Also sends a message to acctual terrorists.
Well there is definitely some information missing such as what methods they used to try to subdue him before he was shot.
I guess my question was what methods are we willing to use to prevent bad things from happening (preemptive invasion, shoot first - ask questions later, sacrifice civil liberties). What if this had been a kid with a toy gun? Although he was yelling that he had a bomb, it was very unlikely for him to have gotten that far with it on his carry-on luggage.
Are people innocent until proven guilty?
Do suspected terrorists deserve these basic civil rights?
Because everyone is so terrified of terrorism I don't think that people value these things very much anymore. But isn't that what we are fighting to preserve?
I guess my question was what methods are we willing to use to prevent bad things from happening (preemptive invasion, shoot first - ask questions later, sacrifice civil liberties). What if this had been a kid with a toy gun? Although he was yelling that he had a bomb, it was very unlikely for him to have gotten that far with it on his carry-on luggage.
Are people innocent until proven guilty?
Do suspected terrorists deserve these basic civil rights?
Because everyone is so terrified of terrorism I don't think that people value these things very much anymore. But isn't that what we are fighting to preserve?
I always wonder why police don't use some sort of tranquilizer instead of bullets.
but this here, just as the Thread Title says.. Natural Selection at work.
but this here, just as the Thread Title says.. Natural Selection at work.
People are still innocent until proven guilty. For this guy to prove his innocents, he needed to stand down, but he didn't.
I doubt this would have happened with a kid on the grounds that they would assume they're innocent. There is a history of adults blowing things up on planes, but no history of kids doing it. I know that kinda smacks of profiling, but profiles wouldn't exsist if they weren't mostly true. I say mostly because I know there are acceptions: not all muslims are terrorists, not all mexicans are illegals, not all southerners are inbreeders.
I think they did accord this guy basic civil rights. He was asked to surrender before they shot him. He waved those rights when he went for his weapon. Denying him rights would have been shooting him on the plane as soon as he stood up. I'm still going to side with justafied shooting on this.
I doubt this would have happened with a kid on the grounds that they would assume they're innocent. There is a history of adults blowing things up on planes, but no history of kids doing it. I know that kinda smacks of profiling, but profiles wouldn't exsist if they weren't mostly true. I say mostly because I know there are acceptions: not all muslims are terrorists, not all mexicans are illegals, not all southerners are inbreeders.
I think they did accord this guy basic civil rights. He was asked to surrender before they shot him. He waved those rights when he went for his weapon. Denying him rights would have been shooting him on the plane as soon as he stood up. I'm still going to side with justafied shooting on this.
As far as I knew, he didn't have a weapon. That may be a non-issue though. And I agree that they probably wouldn't shoot a kid, because people do profile and would assume he is not actually serious. I would have thought though that they probably would not shoot a mental patient either. So why didn't they use non-lethal force to subdue him?
If he was mental patient and he has a "mental disease" as psychologists like to say, many people wouldn't hold him accountable for his actions or would be a little more forgiving than the bullet was. He probably just hit the /panic button, and so did the marshal that shot him.
This reminded me a little bit of the shooting that occured in G.B. shortly after the bombings there. An electrician from Brazil panicked, ran from non-uniformed policemen, and was shot and killed because they were panicking that he was gonna blow up another subway car. The parlaiment later upheld the law that justified the actions of the policemen.
Although this guy was surely asking for it, I don't think its a good policy to shoot to kill. The ends don't justify the means, this case is a perfect example of why. Surely there was another option than killing him.
In our rush to judgment, trying to prevent the unecessary loss of lives, we killed an innocent person. Is killing an innocent person better than allowing terrorists to live?
If he was mental patient and he has a "mental disease" as psychologists like to say, many people wouldn't hold him accountable for his actions or would be a little more forgiving than the bullet was. He probably just hit the /panic button, and so did the marshal that shot him.
This reminded me a little bit of the shooting that occured in G.B. shortly after the bombings there. An electrician from Brazil panicked, ran from non-uniformed policemen, and was shot and killed because they were panicking that he was gonna blow up another subway car. The parlaiment later upheld the law that justified the actions of the policemen.
Although this guy was surely asking for it, I don't think its a good policy to shoot to kill. The ends don't justify the means, this case is a perfect example of why. Surely there was another option than killing him.
In our rush to judgment, trying to prevent the unecessary loss of lives, we killed an innocent person. Is killing an innocent person better than allowing terrorists to live?
soulshaver wrote:
Quote:
the marshals' actions were consistent with their training
We don't really know the details of what happened, but does anyone think this shooting was justified?
having only the information i read a few hours ago, yes.
a potential terrorist is thretening to blow up a bunch of civilians with a bomb he has in his cary on lugage. said terrorist makes an agressive move first towards the law official, then towards his bag that is claimed to contain the bomb. the lives of inocents is in danger, the answer is to stop the terrorist before they can cause their act of terror. as has been proven in past actions suicide bombers have no respect for life and have already given them self up for dead. this is not a situation you can take the risk to "talk" the terrorist down, you have to stop them any way possible before they blow them self up and take out as much structre and people as possible.
yes shot them, it is simple self defense.
Kelvyquayo, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
I always wonder why police don't use some sort of tranquilizer instead of bullets.
but this here, just as the Thread Title says.. Natural Selection at work.
but this here, just as the Thread Title says.. Natural Selection at work.
simple, tranquilizers do not have an instant affect and people can still move and conduct acts of terror while you are waiting for the drug to take affect on the system.
top that off with you do not know what drugs are in that person, you do not know the exact weight of that person, you do not know exactly how they will react to the drug you are injecting them with.
you do however know exactly how they will react when shot with a metal slug.
Quote:
Although this guy was surely asking for it, I don't think its a good policy to shoot to kill.
What about terrorists' intentions to fly to kill?
I think, at this point in time, a shoot-to-kill policy in these situations is a great idea. I have some faith in the judgement of our air marshalls and (moat of our) anti-terrorist agents.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
soulshaver wrote:
As far as I knew, he didn't have a weapon. That may be a non-issue though. And I agree that they probably wouldn't shoot a kid, because people do profile and would assume he is not actually serious. I would have thought though that they probably would not shoot a mental patient either. So why didn't they use non-lethal force to subdue him?
If he was mental patient and he has a "mental disease" as psychologists like to say, many people wouldn't hold him accountable for his actions or would be a little more forgiving than the bullet was. He probably just hit the /panic button, and so did the marshal that shot him.
If he was mental patient and he has a "mental disease" as psychologists like to say, many people wouldn't hold him accountable for his actions or would be a little more forgiving than the bullet was. He probably just hit the /panic button, and so did the marshal that shot him.
at the time of the shooting, the law officials did not know he was a mental patient off of his drugs, they just knew here is a terrorist thretening to have a bomb, making agrressive actions towards the law officers, and refusing to comply with orders that would of saved his life.
without the informtion, you ack on what information you have. the information is a terrorist claims to have a bomb, is acting agressively, and is thretening lives with his actions. he is refusing to comply with the orders that can save his life and those around him, so you now do everything in your power to stop them from activiting their bomb.
as a last ditch effort when the terrorist was going for his bomb, you shot him to prevent the further loss of life.
Quote:
American Airlines Flight 924 was in Miami on a stopover during a flight from Medellin, Colombia, to Orlando, Florida, when the man, identified as Rigoberto Alpizar, said there was a bomb in his carry-on backpack, a Department of Homeland Security official said.
Alpizar was confronted by a team of federal air marshals, who followed him down the boarding bridge and ordered him to get on the ground, the official said.
When Alpizar appeared to reach into his backpack, he was shot and wounded, the official said, adding that the marshals' actions were consistent with their training. Officials said later that the man died of his injuries.
Alpizar, of Maitland, Florida, was traveling with a woman and had arrived in Miami on a plane from Quito, Ecuador, federal officials said. He and the woman began arguing before getting off the plane in Miami, two officials said.
Officials could not confirm if the man suffered from mental illness.
Alpizar was confronted by a team of federal air marshals, who followed him down the boarding bridge and ordered him to get on the ground, the official said.
When Alpizar appeared to reach into his backpack, he was shot and wounded, the official said, adding that the marshals' actions were consistent with their training. Officials said later that the man died of his injuries.
Alpizar, of Maitland, Florida, was traveling with a woman and had arrived in Miami on a plane from Quito, Ecuador, federal officials said. He and the woman began arguing before getting off the plane in Miami, two officials said.
Officials could not confirm if the man suffered from mental illness.
So basisly no one really know what happened. All i see and hear is what im told to see and hear. Officials lie. Everyone knows this. And mental illness, maybe, but all i hear is a good scapegoat. Furthermore, my moms bipolar; I know how they act. This one doen't seem to add up to me...
EDIT: Of course, this whole story could be 100% true. /sheep
Edited, Wed Dec 7 20:35:00 2005 by PackyMcStout
Singdall wrote:
Kelvyquayo, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
I always wonder why police don't use some sort of tranquilizer instead of bullets.
but this here, just as the Thread Title says.. Natural Selection at work.
but this here, just as the Thread Title says.. Natural Selection at work.
simple, tranquilizers do not have an instant affect and people can still move and conduct acts of terror while you are waiting for the drug to take affect on the system.
top that off with you do not know what drugs are in that person, you do not know the exact weight of that person, you do not know exactly how they will react to the drug you are injecting them with.
you do however know exactly how they will react when shot with a metal slug.
we can split atoms and put people on the moon.. and yet we can't figure out how to instanly sedate somone
I love people.Quote:
American Airlines Flight 924 was in Miami on a stopover during a flight from Medellin, Colombia, to Orlando, Florida, when the man, identified as Rigoberto Alpizar, said there was a bomb in his carry-on backpack, a Department of Homeland Security official said.
Looks like Rigoberto has earned himself the nickname 'Rigomorto'.
Tell me again why he was even in a position to reach into his carry-on luggage once he announced the bomb?
If anything was done wrong here, It was that he was allowed anywhere near the bag until they had opened it and taken every last scrap out to be sure there was no danger.
If anything was done wrong here, It was that he was allowed anywhere near the bag until they had opened it and taken every last scrap out to be sure there was no danger.
Kelvyquayo, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
we can split atoms and put people on the moon.. and yet we can't figure out how to instanly sedate somone
I love people.*grins* true, but those things have many more constants then the human anatomy and how each indiviudal can/will react to each type of drug in their system.
can someone be dropped in under 1/10 of a second from a drug, you bet they can, can it be done on the fly without knowing the exacts of the idividual safely? nope. safely is the key word there.
if you do not care about the after affects of the drug you put into someone, then why bother with it and just shoot them. you very well could end up with the same affect. dead or perm. maimed individual.
Pandorra wrote:
Tell me again why he was even in a position to reach into his carry-on luggage once he announced the bomb?
There's a reason it's called "carry-on luggage"...
Quote:
If anything was done wrong here, It was that he was allowed anywhere near the bag until they had opened it and taken every last scrap out to be sure there was no danger.
Read the story. It's not that they discovered he had a bomb in his luggage and then allowed him to go get it. He walked *off* a plane. Luggage in hand. He traveled through security. Luggage in hand. As he was moving into the tunnel to get onto another plane, he started wigging out and claimed that he had a bomb in his luggage.
The sky marshals had no clue that there was anything wrong until he did that. Thus, there's no way they could have stopped him from having his luggage. That's why he had it on him. Now. One could argue that since he'd carried that luggage off one plane and onto another, that he must have gone through security a couple times, and it was unlikely that he *actually* had a bomb in his luggage, but that's not a call that an individual sky marshal can or should make. At the time, they didn't know where he'd come from or how he got there. All they know is that there's a guy yelling that he's got a bomb in his luggage. They have to assume he's being truthful and act on that information. When he refused to put down the bag, they had to assume that he was in possession of an explosive device and would use it.
How exactly do you think they should have handled it? Do you really expect them to grapple with him? I'm sorry. But if I'm going off the assumption that the guy standing there has a bomb, the last thing I'm going to do is try to get close to him. I'm going to demand that he put it down. And if he doesn't, I'm going to shoot him. It's really that simple. They had him in one of those tunnel/bridge boarding thingies, right? That's about the best place to take him out since there's little chance of hitting anyone else, and if an explosion does occur, it's likely to just take out the boarding tunnel, and not part of a terminal. IMO, they did exactly what they should have done.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
The sky marshals had no clue that there was anything wrong until he did that. Thus, there's no way they could have stopped him from having his luggage. That's why he had it on him. Now. One could argue that since he'd carried that luggage off one plane and onto another, that he must have gone through security a couple times, and it was unlikely that he *actually* had a bomb in his luggage, but that's not a call that an individual sky marshal can or should make. At the time, they didn't know where he'd come from or how he got there. All they know is that there's a guy yelling that he's got a bomb in his luggage. They have to assume he's being truthful and act on that information. When he refused to put down the bag, they had to assume that he was in possession of an explosive device and would use it.
Quote:
and ordered him to get on the ground, the official said. When Alpizar appeared to reach into his backpack, he was shot and wounded, the official said,
I see what he actually did now but my first reaction would be to go flat on the ground unfortunitely it seems he didn't =/ so yes he deserved exactly what he got and the marshals did their job.
Now if he dropped to the ground they could have moved forward and removed the bag from his reach (how I pictured it - "reading comprehension is my friend" I know)
If suicide bombers are ready to die, why would one stand in an airport screaming, "I have a bomb!"? Wouldn't a suicide bomber be more likely to go ahead and blow themselves up without alerting potential victims? I'm not trying to justify the man's actions, or place blame on the marshals. Based on what I know about the situation (pretty much just the article linked in the OP) I'ld have to say they acted appropriately. It just occured to me that Rigoberto's actions were outside what I would think of as the norm for a terrorist.
If life gives you lemons, make lemonade. Then find someone that life has given vodka and have party.
This establishment does not serve women. You must bring your own.
This establishment does not serve women. You must bring your own.
And what happens when the person who has been shot with a tranquilzer wakes up and sues someone because the tranquilzer had too much kick and destroyed brain cells, lever functions, etc...
Someone yells that he/she has a bomb and proceeds to run around avoiding the authorities deserves a bullet.
No one deserves to die but in a crowded situation the potential for a large loss of life superceeds one person's life.
Someone yells that he/she has a bomb and proceeds to run around avoiding the authorities deserves a bullet.
No one deserves to die but in a crowded situation the potential for a large loss of life superceeds one person's life.
Meh, I still say we have a right to be scared. We have a right to try and protect ourselves. It's not the air marshall's fault he wasnt on his medication. The wife should have taken more responsibility in making sure he took his meds. They both knew the risks of not taking the medication, she's married to him, its just as much her obligation to their joint welfare to make sure he is staying on track as it is his IMO. If she knew he hadnt taken them, she should have postponed the flight and taken care of him.
Recent Visitors: 263
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (263)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Darwin Wins at Miami
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC