PDA

View Full Version : Airline Passenger Who Made Threat Killed



Candy
2005-Dec-07, 10:44 PM
Airline Passenger Who Made Threat Killed (http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pub&dt=051207&cat=news&st=newsd8ebkur85&src=ap)

MIAMI (AP) - A passenger who claimed to have a bomb in a carry-on bag was shot and killed by a federal air marshal Wednesday on a jetway to an American Airlines plane that had arrived from Colombia, officials said.

Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Doyle said the dead passenger was a 44-year-old U.S. citizen.

It was the first time since the Sept. 11 attacks that an air marshal had shot at a passenger or suspect, he said. A witness said that the man frantically ran down the aisle of the Boeing 757 and that a woman with him said he was mentally ill.
I saw this while at work. If you have a better link, would you please post it here.

Doodler
2005-Dec-07, 10:51 PM
Mentally ill, eh? What can ya say about small calibre ammo, it cures what ails ya. I'm no believer in Eugenics, but if a 'tard's got enough brainpower to cause trouble, he's got enough brainpower to suffer the consequences.

Throw his body to the dogs.

The Supreme Canuck
2005-Dec-07, 10:52 PM
Whoa. Uh, that may not really be a good thing to post here.

Candy
2005-Dec-07, 10:52 PM
Man killed at Miami airport (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10367598/)

NBC News confirmed that authorities searching the man’s carry-on bag did not find a bomb.

Passenger Mary Gardner told WTVJ in Miami that the man ran down the aisle from the rear of the plane. “He was frantic, his arms flailing in the air,” she said. She said a woman followed, shouting, “My husband! My husband!”

Another link from MSNBC.

I agree with you, Doodler.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-07, 10:53 PM
Mentally ill, eh? What can ya say about small calibre ammo, it cures what ails ya. I'm no believer in Eugenics, but if a 'tard's got enough brainpower to cause trouble, he's got enough brainpower to suffer the consequences.

Throw his body to the dogs.

So... if you're crazy... you deserve to die.

Candy
2005-Dec-07, 10:54 PM
Whoa. Uh, that may not really be a good thing to post here.
Why, we were talking about something very similar in the conspiracy area? This, however, is no conspiracy.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Dec-07, 10:54 PM
How awful!

The Supreme Canuck
2005-Dec-07, 10:55 PM
I was referring to the way that Doodler worded his response. It's bound to stick in some craws.

Dragon Star
2005-Dec-07, 10:57 PM
So... if you're crazy... you deserve to die.


So if your crazy, and you kill someone, you don't deserve to be punished? Right...

Candy
2005-Dec-07, 10:57 PM
Didn't something similar to this happen with a mentally challenged man on ATA last year? The man was held down by the passengers, and he died. I can't remember all the details. The story was changed a little and made into a CSI: Las Vegas episode.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-07, 10:57 PM
I was referring to the way that Doodler worded his response. It's bound to stick in some craws.

It certainly stuck in mine. I won't post much else, though, I've been warned to not post in threads which make me very angry, and this is getting me furious.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-07, 10:58 PM
So if your crazy, and you kill someone, you don't deserve to be punished? Right...

I'm sorry, but who died, exactly? Please point out to me who specifically was injured or killed by the victim in question.

Doodler
2005-Dec-07, 11:00 PM
Whoa. Uh, that may not really be a good thing to post here.

Its not an ad hom, nor is it espousing any baseless belief. Playing these "cry wolf" games causes horrendous disruption of airport operations, putting hundreds of people off schedule, stranding some if the disruption is substantial enough.

If they don't hesistate to blow up cars and baggage as perceived threats, I have no problem with them shooting down people who are legitimately perceived in the same manner. Bottom line, you do NOT PLAY GAMES WITH PEOPLE'S LIVES. If anything, I'd consider a minor dressing down of that Air Marshal for even bothering to yell at him to stop. Shoot first, go through his pockets for ID when he's neutralized.

We coddle "mentally ill" people in this country to a level approaching pathological. Its long time something happened to wake people up to the reality that not everyone's capacity is diminished equally. Given the kind of threat that he made, that Air Marshal had no choice but to treat it as real.

It was a stupid act, and the consequences fully deserved.

Candy
2005-Dec-07, 11:01 PM
I was referring to the way that Doodler worded his response. It's bound to stick in some craws.
Oh. I promise to post nice. This is so fascinating to me. I was staring at the television in total disbelief, as I watched it first unfold.

Candy
2005-Dec-07, 11:03 PM
I'm sorry, but who died, exactly? Please point out to me who specifically was injured or killed by the victim in question.
Lonewulf, the man wasn't a victim. The passengers not running down the aisle were the victims. If you don't take your medicine, and you know you have mental problems... well, I don't buy that as a defense, either.

Dragon Star
2005-Dec-07, 11:04 PM
I'm sorry, but who died, exactly? Please point out to me who specifically was injured or killed by the victim in question.

No, I was saying that it is related. You do bad things, you get punished.

I agree, if you know how to make trouble then you know the consiquence... and how to prevent it. I am going to remove myself from this conversation before things get heated.:whistle:

Disinfo Agent
2005-Dec-07, 11:04 PM
If you don't take your medicine, and you know you have mental problems... well, I don't buy that as a defense, either.How do you know he didn't?

The Supreme Canuck
2005-Dec-07, 11:05 PM
Playing these "cry wolf" games causes horrendous disruption of airport operations, putting hundreds of people off schedule, stranding some if the disruption is substantial enough.

<Snip>

Bottom line, you do NOT PLAY GAMES WITH PEOPLE'S LIVES.

I'm not saying that the act was justified or not (I don't know enough about it yet); I'm just saying that perhaps the way you worded your first response is unnecessarily belligerent and is thus inappropriate for this board.

Van Rijn
2005-Dec-07, 11:05 PM
So if your crazy, and you kill someone, you don't deserve to be punished? Right...

Where did he kill anyone? Shooting him may have been understandable, but it certainly isn't anything to be happy about. The man was ill. Yeesh.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-07, 11:06 PM
No, I was saying that it is related. You do bad things, you get punished.

I cannot disagree with what the Air Martial did. However, saying "What can I say? Bullets kills what ails ya" is offensive. Also, should everyone be punished in the same way? All the time? No matter what mental ailments you may have? Even if you can be cured of your ills, and will not commit a crime again?


I agree, if you know how to make trouble then you know the consiquence... and how to prevent it. I am going to remove myself from this conversation before things get heated.:whistle:

What makes you an expert on psychological disorders or mental disorders?

Edit: Just read where he said he would remove himself from the conversation. Oh well.

Dragon Star
2005-Dec-07, 11:07 PM
Where did he kill anyone? Shooting him may have been understandable, but it certainly isn't anything to be happy about. The man was ill. Yeesh.


:wall: Read my last post, I was explaining an example.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Dec-07, 11:08 PM
The man was ill. Yeesh.And his wife apparently watched the whole thing...

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-07, 11:09 PM
And his wife apparently watched the whole thing...

Wonder if his wife would like to hear that "bullets kills what ails ya!" when talking about her husband.

Doodler
2005-Dec-07, 11:09 PM
I'm sorry, but who died, exactly? Please point out to me who specifically was injured or killed by the victim in question.

Doesn't matter, in those conditions, the threat of violence is more than enough to trigger an aggressive response. After 9/11, no one is taking chances anymore. You can't treat it any other way. Every threat is treated as real, or the minute you subjectively question the credibility of a threat and fail to act, you open the door for an actual attack.

Every false alarm has to be investigated now, every time someone plays this game, they have to pay the price as if they were a real threat.

Doodler
2005-Dec-07, 11:10 PM
Wonder if his wife would like to hear that "bullets kills what ails ya!" when talking about her husband.

I'd be honored to stand nose to nose with her and repeat it in a tone of voice that would make most people's blood run cold.

Candy
2005-Dec-07, 11:10 PM
How do you know he didn't?

Gardner said she heard the woman say her husband was bipolar and had not had his medication.
It’s circumstantial (or a better word - heresy), but it was from the first link.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-07, 11:10 PM
I'd be honored to stand nose to nose with her and repeat it in a tone of voice that would make most people's blood run cold.

I'm sorry, but I have no interest in even talking with someone like you.

Unsubscribed.

archman
2005-Dec-07, 11:11 PM
It doesn't matter if the fellow had diminished mental capacity or status. If the air marshal was aware of the fact, it should not affect his decisionmaking process.

Which apparently it did not.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Dec-07, 11:12 PM
It’s circumstantial, but it was from the first link.You're right, I missed that. Sorry.

Dragon Star
2005-Dec-07, 11:13 PM
It doesn't matter if the fellow had diminished mental capacity or status. If the air marshal was aware of the fact, it should not affect his decisionmaking process.

Which apparently it did not.

:clap:

Van Rijn
2005-Dec-07, 11:14 PM
I'd be honored to stand nose to nose with her and repeat it in a tone of voice that would make most people's blood run cold.

I find this seriously offensive. The situation may have been unavoidable, but the man was ill and his wife would not deserve to be treated that way.

GDwarf
2005-Dec-07, 11:17 PM
The man was mentally ill, but I doubt that the Marshal knew that, nor did he really have any choice but to shoot the man. Should he have had an actual bomb then waiting, or even just maiming him, might have given him all the chance he needed to blow up the plane, and so in trying to save one person's life hundreds would die.

Now, had he known that the man was mentally ill the situation changes and becomes harder to puzzle through, the mentally ill man could still have a bomb, and could still be crazy enough to detonate it, or he could be joking, I would still err on the side of caution.

Either way, the man being mentally ill wasn't known to the Marshall, as such he would've acted on the assumption that a person really had gotten a bomb through security and was threatening the plane, and the obvious consequences.

Doodler: Would you honestly go to the grieving widow of anyone and proceed to verbally slap her across the face and then laugh at her? If so I find that disgusting, as she was certainly not responsible for what her husband did.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Dec-07, 11:17 PM
It doesn't matter if the fellow had diminished mental capacity or status. If the air marshal was aware of the fact, it should not affect his decisionmaking process.I'm not sure what you mean, since I don't think anyone questioned the air marshall's decisionmaking process.

I have to say, though, that in my opinion a good marshall would take the mental status of the person into account, if he was sure about it. What probably happened in this case was that the marshall was not sure whether the man was truly ill, or faking it.

The end result is still sad, as far as I'm concerned.

The Supreme Canuck
2005-Dec-07, 11:19 PM
GDwarf: Exactly. I'm sure the air marshal wasn't pleased he had to do it, but he did have to do it. It was unfortunate in the extreme, but necessary. Doodler's point stands, but the way he stated it is out of line.

Van Rijn
2005-Dec-07, 11:22 PM
:wall: Read my last post, I was explaining an example.

I did read your last post. Your point?

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-07, 11:26 PM
Look: I don't care if the Air Marshal had a choice or not. That's not my issue.

Doodler: My issue is the utter disregard for human life and human dignity by not only claiming "Bullets: Cures what ails ya!", but also saying that you would say that to the wife of the deceased, without a care in the world. She had to watch her husband die, shot in the back by an Air Marshal, and all because he forgot to take his pills. She went through a horrible, traumatic experience, watching someone she loved die, and yet you claim that you not only care about her feelings, but also seem to not care about the ending of a life.

No one else but Canuck and a couple of others, including me, seems to have a problem with this.

Van Rijn
2005-Dec-07, 11:26 PM
GDwarf: Exactly. I'm sure the air marshal wasn't pleased he had to do it, but he did have to do it. It was unfortunate in the extreme, but necessary. Doodler's point stands, but the way he stated it is out of line.

I don't see anyone arguing what might be necessary under the circumstances. Assuming the story is as reported, this in no way justifies the "he wasn't a victim" and "good riddance" type comments here.

Doodler
2005-Dec-07, 11:27 PM
Doodler: Would you honestly go to the grieving widow of anyone and proceed to verbally slap her across the face and then laugh at her? If so I find that disgusting, as she was certainly not responsible for what her husband did.

If he's of diminished capacity for a condition which SHE WAS AWARE he was not currently under appropriate treatment for (i.e. taking his medications), then she is responsible, as both the mentally capable party AND his spouse, for allowing his condition to reach a state where he would do this.

If she didn't want him to be in a situation where he could be a danger to others or himself, she should have seen to it he was properly medicated. After all, his capacity is diminished, his capacity for responsibility is equally considered diminished. She failed, he died. Its a very simple line to draw to direct responsibility.

Josh
2005-Dec-07, 11:28 PM
Mentally ill, eh? What can ya say about small calibre ammo, it cures what ails ya. I'm no believer in Eugenics, but if a 'tard's got enough brainpower to cause trouble, he's got enough brainpower to suffer the consequences.

Throw his body to the dogs.

If someone cries bomb in the current climate and they get shot for it then that's fine. I completely agree with it, if it's the only way to insure everyone else's safety. But it's still unfortunate, don't you think? Especially if they have a problem. They don't have the problem for fun you know. A bit of compassion wouldn't go astray and your comments are no doubt insulting to many people on here who have friends, family or are themselves affected by mental illness. You'll also do well to note that mental illness does not make you a "'tard". Please choose your words more carefully.


Playing these "cry wolf" games causes horrendous disruption of airport operations, putting hundreds of people off schedule, stranding some if the disruption is substantial enough.

You know ... you might have made a better argument that people's lives were at risk. I'd go along with that one. People not being able to make it home in time for dinner or to a business meeting is hardly enough reason to kill someone.


If you don't take your medicine, and you know you have mental problems... well, I don't buy that as a defense, either.

Have you ever worked with mentally ill people? A common problem amongst people with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia or similar illnesses is that after taking their medication they think they're fine. It's actually part of the illness itself.

Dragon Star
2005-Dec-07, 11:28 PM
I did read your last post. Your point?I am not so sure he died guys....

The Supreme Canuck
2005-Dec-07, 11:29 PM
I don't see anyone arguing what might be necessary under the circumstances. Assuming the story is as reported, this in no way justifies the "he wasn't a victim" and "good riddance" type comments here.

Right. That's exactly what I'm saying. No matter if it was a justified action or not (in my opinion, it was), it is still tragic. The guy was ill. The comments you refer to are indeed inappropriate.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-07, 11:29 PM
I am not so sure he died guys....

"Throw his body to the dogs" -- Doodler

Either way, Doodler wouldn't mind if he did.

Monique
2005-Dec-07, 11:29 PM
Mentally ill, eh? What can ya say about small calibre ammo, it cures what ails ya. I'm no believer in Eugenics, but if a 'tard's got enough brainpower to cause trouble, he's got enough brainpower to suffer the consequences.

Throw his body to the dogs.
I have friend with av Wanderer. He suffer from severe, chronic organic depression. He have terrible life until 4 year ago. He is diagnose and treated on new drug that correct neurotransmitter imbalance. He is now very good man and my friend.

You sir, speak on subject that you show no knowledge of!!

Dragon Star
2005-Dec-07, 11:32 PM
"Throw his body to the dogs" -- Doodler

Either way, Doodler wouldn't mind if he did.

Ops, sorry Lonewulf, forgot [sarcasm] tags.

Monique
2005-Dec-07, 11:32 PM
We coddle "mentally ill" people in this country to a level approaching pathological.
How do people get ugly as you!!!

Someone report this to moderators?

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-07, 11:32 PM
Sir, you are the lowest scum for such comment!! Is very ugly thing to say. You owe apology!!! :mad:

Hey, Monique, no need for the insults. This is bringing out the worse in all of us :(

(PS: Your PM Inbox seems to be full)

The Supreme Canuck
2005-Dec-07, 11:33 PM
Okay, now. Everyone calm down.

See, now, this is why such comments are frowned upon on this board!

Disinfo Agent
2005-Dec-07, 11:36 PM
Hey, Monique, no need for the insults. This is bringing out the worse in all of us :(

(PS: Your PM Inbox seems to be full)Here, here. Please do not make this into a personal confrontation. Stop reading this thread, if the matter is too emotional for you. This day has been bad enough.

Swift
2005-Dec-07, 11:37 PM
I'm not saying that the act was justified or not (I don't know enough about it yet); I'm just saying that perhaps the way you worded your first response is unnecessarily belligerent and is thus inappropriate for this board.
My feelings exactly, except I would have left out "perhaps" and I would add the follow-up responses have been equally cold Doodler. I suspect that the Air Marshall did what he had to do, but this isn't something to get happy about.

Josh
2005-Dec-07, 11:38 PM
Okay, now. Everyone calm down.

See, now, this is why such comments are frowned upon on this board!

Agreed.

Monique: I realise you're angry but please edit your reply here to remove the insult. As you know, insulting people is against the rules.

Doodler: Please refrain from posting obviously inciteful comments.

If this conversation doesn't shape up pretty quickly it'll be locked and the next person will receive an official warning.

edit: spelling correction. thanks Lonewulf ;-)

GDwarf
2005-Dec-07, 11:41 PM
If he's of diminished capacity for a condition which SHE WAS AWARE he was not currently under appropriate treatment for (i.e. taking his medications), then she is responsible, as both the mentally capable party AND his spouse, for allowing his condition to reach a state where he would do this.

If she didn't want him to be in a situation where he could be a danger to others or himself, she should have seen to it he was properly medicated. After all, his capacity is diminished, his capacity for responsibility is equally considered diminished. She failed, he died. Its a very simple line to draw to direct responsibility. I do agree with this, at the same time someone did die. Not only did he die, but his wife probably feels like Hell simply because of the points you listed above, maybe she was lax on that day and didn't check to see if he took his pills, maybe he normally told her if he did and he told her he did on that day but she didn't check, whatever, but she is probably beating herself up over that already, and there is simply no way to justify insulting her on top of what she is doubtless doing to herself mentally.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-07, 11:42 PM
Doodler: Please refrain from posting obviously insightful comments.

Josh, surely you mean "inciteful comments"? "Insightful comments" sounds more like a compliment than an insult o_O

Dragon Star
2005-Dec-07, 11:42 PM
The fact of the matter is the officer did the right thing, the guy's condition is irrelevant. It was his duty, if he did not act fast he would be fired, and possibly killed along with countless others.:(

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-07, 11:43 PM
Here, here. Please do not make this into a personal confrontation. Stop reading this thread, if the matter is too emotional for you. This day has been bad enough.

Unfortunately, I blame Doodler more than I blame Monique making it into a personal confrontation. While she should not have made such a comment, neither should have Doodler made his own comments.

Candy
2005-Dec-07, 11:43 PM
Have you ever worked with mentally ill people? A common problem amongst people with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia or similar illnesses is that after taking their medication they think they're fine. It's actually part of the illness itself.
I've actually both worked with the mentally ill (at a free counseling center), and I have lived with them (family). There are reasons one needs careful monitoring, and apparently this is one of those situations.

Dragon Star
2005-Dec-07, 11:44 PM
Unfortunately, I blame Doodler more than I blame Monique making it into a personal confrontation. While she should not have made such a comment, neither should have Doodler made his own comments.

Agreed, but lets just leave it alone...

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-07, 11:44 PM
The fact of the matter is the officer did the right thing, the guy's condition is irrelevant. It was his duty, if he did not act fast he would be fired, and possibly killed along with countless others.:(

And the fact of the matter is also that an innocent man did die, because of his mental illness. While I did not dispute that it was the officer's job to do his duty, and he did it, I dispute the tone of Doodler's comments.

"Throw his body to the dogs", "small calibre ammunition cures what ails ya", and "I would tell that to her face...", are all inciteful.

Also, I might add, they are a callous disregard for human life. That should not be rewarded.

Monique
2005-Dec-07, 11:49 PM
Agreed.

Monique: I realise you're angry but please edit your reply here to remove the insult. As you know, insulting people is against the rules.

Doodler: Please refrain from posting obviously inciteful comments.

If this conversation doesn't shape up pretty quickly it'll be locked and the next person will receive an official warning.

edit: spelling correction. thanks Lonewulf ;-)
Is better comment now Josh?
I apologize. I see good people hurt, is not right.

Dragon Star
2005-Dec-07, 11:49 PM
And the fact of the matter is also that an innocent man did die, because of his mental illness. While I did not dispute that it was the officer's job to do his duty, and he did it, I dispute the tone of Doodler's comments.

"Throw his body to the dogs", "small calibre ammunition cures what ails ya", and "I would tell that to her face...", are all inciteful.

Also, I might add, they are a callous disregard for human life. That should not be rewarded.

Again, I agree, but if we keep it up this will be the discussion and the thread gets locked, so I ask you again to also keep your comments to yourself, or use the PM please.

Dragon Star
2005-Dec-07, 11:52 PM
I have friend with av Wanderer. He suffer from severe, chronic organic depression. He have terrible life until 4 year ago. He is diagnose and treated on new drug that correct neurotransmitter imbalance. He is now very good man and my friend.

You sir, speak on subject that you show no knowledge of!!

Thank you Monique for your edit:cool:

Candy
2005-Dec-07, 11:52 PM
I can't wait for the real story to slowly come into the public eye. Again, I am in disbelief and intrigued to how this materialized.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2005-Dec-08, 12:06 AM
I'd be honored to stand nose to nose with her and repeat it in a tone of voice that would make most people's blood run cold.
If Only Someone, Had Said That, To her Husband, BEFOREHAND!!

Seriously People, This Is Why, you're Not Supposed to Shout, "Fire!!!" In a Crowded Theatre!!!!

When Stuff Like This Happens, for Real, People Die!!

:wall:

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-08, 12:11 AM
If Only Someone, Had Said That, To her Husband, BEFOREHAND!!

Seriously People, This Is Why, you're Not Supposed to Shout, "Fire!!!" In a Crowded Theatre!!!!

When Stuff Like This Happens, for Real, People Die!!

:wall:

Please, for the love of all that is great, let's STOP with this, people. The discussion as to what was said and what was done is more or less over.

Dragon Star
2005-Dec-08, 12:14 AM
Please, for the love of all that is great, let's STOP with this, people. The discussion as to what was said and what was done is more or less over.

Talk of the subject at hand or just don't talk!:hand:

Monique
2005-Dec-08, 12:14 AM
See... I tell you, I have mother's temper

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2005-Dec-08, 12:16 AM
Please, for the love of all that is great, let's STOP with this, people. The discussion as to what was said and what was done is more or less over.
Sorry, Read The First Page, And, Didn't Notice, It Had ALREADY Gone to Three ...

Still ...

My Point Hadn't Exactly Been Made, yet ...

So, I Stand By It, you Just Don't, Make Jokes Like That!!!

dvb
2005-Dec-08, 12:20 AM
So, I Stand By It, you Just Don't, Make Jokes Like That!!!

I hardly think the man was joking.

I've known and worked with a great deal of mentally ill people as well. No matter how hard one tries, it's impossible to predict what a mentally unstable person will think or do from one minute to the next, regardless of preventative measures.

Van Rijn
2005-Dec-08, 12:36 AM
See... I tell you, I have mother's temper

Believe me, you aren't the only one here who has known someone with mental illness and had thought of some choice words to describe some of the comments on this thread.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2005-Dec-08, 12:41 AM
I hardly think the man was joking.

I've known and worked with a great deal of mentally ill people as well. No matter how hard one tries, it's impossible to predict what a mentally unstable person will think or do from one minute to the next, regardless of preventative measures.
True ...

Still, you'd Think, There Would Have Been, Warning Signs ...

I Mean, a Man that Unstable, Usually Isn't Allowed a PASSPORT, In The First Place!

HenrikOlsen
2005-Dec-08, 02:03 AM
Believe me, you aren't the only one here who has known someone with mental illness and had thought of some choice words to describe some of the comments on this thread.
I agree, and is quite happy I didn't see the thread until now since I'd probably said too much as well.
I think what happened was a tragedy, though I don't think the tragedy was that a man was shot which I see as the correct response to his actions, but instead that his condition wasn't treated in time to prevent what happened.
This is talking as one who's lost a kid sister to the results of mental illness.

Monique
2005-Dec-08, 02:13 AM
I agree, and is quite happy I didn't see the thread until now since I'd probably said too much as well.
I think what happened was a tragedy, though I don't think the tragedy was that a man was shot which I see as the correct response to his actions, but instead that his condition wasn't treated in time to prevent what happened.
This is talking as one who's lost a kid sister to the results of mental illness.
I agree, marshal took correct and responsible action. Is still tragedy for all. We must provide better diagnosis and treatment for mental illness.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2005-Dec-08, 02:24 AM
I agree, marshal took correct and responsible action. Is still tragedy for all. We must provide better diagnosis and treatment for mental illness.
That's Just It ...

He WAS, Getting Treated!!!

But, he Forgot to Take his Medication ...

Still, I Wonder How he Got a Passport, in The First Place; Usually, Unstable People Aren't Issued them, ya' Know, 'Cause we're Afraid, they'll Do Exactly This, Except, With a Real Bomb!!!

Monique
2005-Dec-08, 02:37 AM
What to consider unstable? If my friend forget his medication, he get into trouble. If he do not forget medication all is well. Do we say he cannot have passport. Four years he is model of happiness and kindness.

Candy
2005-Dec-08, 02:41 AM
Air Marshal Kills Passenger, Citing Threat (http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pub&dt=051207&cat=news&st=newsd8ebo2c00&src=ap)


Mary Gardner, a passenger aboard the Orlando-bound flight, told WTVJ-TV in Miami that the man ran down the aisle from the rear of the plane. "He was frantic, his arms flailing in the air," she said. She said a woman followed, shouting, "My husband! My husband!"

Gardner said she heard the woman say her husband was bipolar _ a mental illness also known as manic-depression _ and had not had his medication.

Gardner said four to five shots were fired. She could not see the shooting.

After the shooting, police boarded the plane and told the passengers to put their hands on their heads, Gardner said.

"It was quite scary," she told the TV station via a cell phone. "They wouldn't let you move. They wouldn't let you get anything out of your bag."

Relatives said Alpizar had been on a working vacation in Peru. A neighbor who said he had been asked to watch the couple's home described the vacation as a missionary trip.

"We're all still in shock. We're just speechless," said Kelley Beuchner, a sister-in-law.
The passenger was identified as Rigoberto Alpizar, a 44-year-old U.S. citizen. Missionary trip? :think:

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-08, 02:46 AM
Wait, so she yelled out loud that he was bipolar? While chasing after her husband? Where the Air Marshal could hear? Just making sure I have the facts right... o_O

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2005-Dec-08, 02:46 AM
What to consider unstable? If my friend forget his medication, he get into trouble. If he do not forget medication all is well. Do we say he cannot have passport. Four years he is model of happiness and kindness.
Depends ...

Can he Be Trusted, to KEEP Taking, his Medication?

Even More Importantly ...

When Off his Medication, Can he Be Considered, To Be a Danger, To himself and Others?

Candy
2005-Dec-08, 02:51 AM
Wait, so she yelled out loud that he was bipolar? While chasing after her husband? Where the Air Marshal could hear? Just making sure I have the facts right... o_O
Passenger Gardner heard this - no mention of what the Air Marshal heard.

Candy
2005-Dec-08, 02:53 AM
The passenger indicated there was a bomb in his bag and was confronted by air marshals but ran off the aircraft, Doyle said. The marshals went after him and ordered him to get down on the ground, but he did not comply and was shot when he apparently reached into the bag, Doyle said.
Oh, I was under the impression this happened while on the airplane.

Van Rijn
2005-Dec-08, 02:53 AM
Wait, so she yelled out loud that he was bipolar? While chasing after her husband? Where the Air Marshal could hear? Just making sure I have the facts right... o_O

It wouldn't make a difference, at best. If somebody said they had a bomb and were moving in a threatening manner, then someone else says that they are mentally ill, I'm not going to do a Pythonesque "Oh, Well, that's all right then!" and put my gun down.

Captain Kidd
2005-Dec-08, 02:53 AM
Also, how was the Air Marshal to know she was legit and not trying to buy the guy time?

Candy
2005-Dec-08, 02:54 AM
Flight 924, which originated in Quito, Ecuador, had arrived in Miami just after noon, and the shooting occurred shortly after 2 p.m. as the plane was about to take off for Orlando with the man and 119 other passengers and crew, American spokesman Tim Wagner said. Alpizar had arrived in Miami earlier in the day from Ecuador, authorities said.
Okay, next time I will not skim over what I link to the BAUT.

Candy
2005-Dec-08, 02:57 AM
After the shooting, investigators spread passengers' bags on the tarmac and let dogs sniff them for explosives, and bomb squad members blew up at least two bags.
This was taken quite seriously.

Monique
2005-Dec-08, 03:17 AM
After the shooting, investigators spread passengers' bags on the tarmac and let dogs sniff them for explosives, and bomb squad members blew up at least two bags.
This was taken quite seriously.
Fact taken so seriously show foolishness of time we live in.
Perhaps we slow down let people be human, make mistakes.

From the movie Absence of Malice

Michael Gallagher
Everybody in the room is smart.
Everybody's just doing their job.
And Teresa Perrone's dead.
Who do I see about that?

Assistant. U.S. Attorney. General. James A. Wells
Ain't nobody to see.
I wish there was.
You're excused now, sir.

soylentgreen
2005-Dec-08, 03:22 AM
Congratulations folks, most of you have just proven the exact problem with these kinds of scenarios...rush to judgement!

Starting with the people on the plane(all probably a hair away from mob-rule frenzy on account of 9/11) to the air marshall (who I imagine is trained to incapacitate a person with fewer shots the appear to have been fired) to the news jackals (who were, as I saw at the gym this afternoon, running incomplete and unverified info in their news crawls nonstop) to the people in this forum (who in the space of a few hours have generated three full pages of mostly opinion-riddled water cooler philosophizing based on almost no direct experience or verified facts.)

Frankly, this thread has been one of the worst examples of human nature I've have ever seen.

Of course DOODLER has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that the greatest threat to Americans is...other Americans!

...but that's just my two cents.

Candy
2005-Dec-08, 03:25 AM
Fact taken so seriously show foolishness of time we live in.
Perhaps we slow down let people be human, make mistakes.
I'm not so sure about your statement for any place with public transit / passenger transportation.

I would agree that one shouldn't get treated like a terrorist when their silly hair band sets the metal detector off. This happened last week (again), as I was flying back from St Louis. The TSA person treated me like a criminal upon second search.

AGN Fuel
2005-Dec-08, 03:40 AM
Compliance with medication can be a real problem for some bipolar sufferers, especially when they are in their manic phase (when you are feeling on top of the world, why take medication to bring you down?). This is nothing short of a tragedy and my heart goes out to the wife.

I can only hope that should some of the participants in this thread ever suffer from a mental illness themselves, that they are treated by others with more compassion than they themselves display.

Swift
2005-Dec-08, 04:02 AM
Still, I Wonder How he Got a Passport, in The First Place; Usually, Unstable People Aren't Issued them, ya' Know, 'Cause we're Afraid, they'll Do Exactly This, Except, With a Real Bomb!!!
Do you know this for a fact? When I got my passport I did it by mail and all I had to show was a birth certificate and other ID. I don't recall a mental health test.

Candy
2005-Dec-08, 04:08 AM
Do you know this for a fact? When I got my passport I did it by mail and all I had to show was a birth certificate and other ID. I don't recall a mental health test.
USPS - Passport Application (http://www.usps.com/passport/): it looks like you can now download almost everything online.

He was a US Citizen. Good point, Swift!

[edit to add after surfing around the USPS - first time (http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html) applicants need apply in person - no mention of mental health.]

LurchGS
2005-Dec-08, 04:23 AM
Congratulations folks, most of you have just proven the exact problem with these kinds of scenarios...rush to judgement!

Starting with the people on the plane(all probably a hair away from mob-rule frenzy on account of 9/11) to the air marshall (who I imagine is trained to incapacitate a person with fewer shots the appear to have been fired) to the news jackals (who were, as I saw at the gym this afternoon, running incomplete and unverified info in their news crawls nonstop) to the people in this forum (who in the space of a few hours have generated three full pages of mostly opinion-riddled water cooler philosophizing based on almost no direct experience or verified facts.)

Ok, let's see.. are you stating that the rush to judgement is a problem for the sky marshall, or for those who popped off with knee-jerk responses to the incident?

I imagine you are correct about the people on the plane. I know how *I* feel on one of those flying sardine cans - and that's before we even leave the departure gate.

The Sky Marshall *is* trained to deal with such situations, but the idea that he might be trained to 'imncapacitate with fewer shots' is just plain wrong. The question is 'shoot/no-shoot'. If he opts no-shoot, he has other problems, but if he determines that he must shoot, there's no 'incapacitation' involved. If you shoot, you always shoot to kill.



Frankly, this thread has been one of the worst examples of human nature I've have ever seen.


I agree, though, that some of the conversation here has been... rabid, pointless, and just plain inflamatory, generally unworthy of the usually high-caliber discussions normally seen here.



Of course DOODLER has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that the greatest threat to Americans is...other Americans!

...but that's just my two cents.

only insomuch as he doesn't see the need to coddle those less healthy than most. As one of those self-same coddlees, I still agree with him in general. I also agree with him that it was definately the spouse's responsibility to ensure that the man had taken his medication - with the caveat that they had not run out of said medication on the trip.

--------------

Candy
2005-Dec-08, 04:42 AM
American Airlines (http://www.aa.com/content/amrcorp/pressReleases/2005_12/07_mia.jhtml)
Corporate Press Release

Updated: Statement On Miami International Airport Incident

Fort Worth , Texas - There was an incident on the jetbridge of flight 924 scheduled to depart from Miami to Orlando. The incident involved a Federal Air Marshal who had been onboard the aircraft, as well as one male passenger who had also been onboard. That passenger had deplaned the aircraft and was on the jetbridge when he came into contact with the Federal Air Marshal and the incident occurred. None of the other 113 passengers onboard were affected or were ever in any danger. This was an isolated incident. Any further details should come from either the Miami Dade Metro Police or the Federal Air Marshal office. American will not have any additional comment at this time.
I'm obsessed with this story. I'm looking forward to watching MSNBC and/or Court TV these coming weeks.

R.A.F.
2005-Dec-08, 04:50 AM
This "incident" is a perfect example of why I laugh when anyone says that we will "win" the war on terrorism...

The terrorists have already won...

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-08, 05:46 AM
I find it funny when people talking about "coddling" people with a mental illness. I mean, there's a reason it's called a mental illness. Treating it as an illness, and especially one that can be treated, is a very necessary step.

Cl1mh4224rd
2005-Dec-08, 07:02 AM
I find it funny when people talking about "coddling" people with a mental illness. I mean, there's a reason it's called a mental illness. Treating it as an illness, and especially one that can be treated, is a very necessary step.
Ok, umm... Lonewulf... I agree with you, but... you may want to stop forcing this issue.

TrAI
2005-Dec-08, 07:09 AM
Hmmm... You know, anyone trying to carry out an act of terrorism would try to keep it down untill the act is completed, announcing one has a bomb is more often than not madness or a foolish joke. Also, shooting a possible bomber is always quite risky, as it's not really harder to make a bomb that would be triggered by the loss of input that would result from the operators death.

However, if I interpret the articles correctly, he had not yet reached the plane, but was in the bridge/corridor thing leading to it, and as such, he would have presented a higher level of threat on the plane than at that time, even without a bomb, as there would be plenty of people around he could attack. If he had a bomb, it would likely be prefrable that it was detonated here instead of the middle of the plane, too.

It would be prefrable that the incident never occured, of course, but all things concidered, the marshal did the right thing to reduce a potential threat to the once he was there to protect.

paulie jay
2005-Dec-08, 07:38 AM
We really need to understand that the Sky Marshall had to make an instant decision. He perceived the threat as being real. You can't really say "Who died exactly?" after the event. Obviously if the Sky Marshall had that knowledge he wouldn't have pulled the trigger in the first place. He has to assumme that the threat is real and that if he doesn't do something then lives will be lost.

Of course it would have been preferable for the Sky Marshall to shoot the guy in the leg or something, but in the real world and the heat of the moment - and while the guy is reaching into a bag - who's gonna hang around to see if he's really got a bomb in it? Instant desicion. Point. Fire. Generally this means that the bullet is going to be heading for the biggest target, not a leg.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2005-Dec-08, 09:45 AM
Do you know this for a fact? When I got my passport I did it by mail and all I had to show was a birth certificate and other ID. I don't recall a mental health test.
If your Name, Is Red Flagged In The System, ANYTHING, Is Possible ....

However, It Might Be, Just My Paranoia, Acting Up!!!

:think:

GDwarf
2005-Dec-08, 01:03 PM
The media still don't have any kind of confirmed story on this.

Some sources say that he was mentally ill, others say that he wasn't.

Some say he was running towards the cabin and yelling that he was claustrophobic, others say he was running towards the cabin yelling about a bomb, still others say he was running up the ramp towards the airplane yelling about a bomb, and yet others say he had just gotten through security when this happened, others say he was escorted off the plane, went peacefully, and was then shot.

Some say his wife yelled that he had a mental illness, others said that she just yelled 'my husband', still others claimed that she did nothing.



The list goes on, and I just realised that all this anger came out of a story that may or may not be anywhere close to what we think it is.

Wolverine
2005-Dec-08, 01:22 PM
GDwarf raises an excellent point. I'd like to add that differences of opinion are to be expected - however - any further scathing, emotionally-fueled posts will not only result in this thread being locked, but warnings/suspensions issued. This forum is not a battleground for flame wars.

HenrikOlsen
2005-Dec-08, 01:23 PM
That sounds about right for what kind of spread you can expect to get after questioning a group of eyewitnesses about an event they wheren't perfectly placed to see and wheren't prepared for.
I'd guess different reporters asked different people about what happened.

Argos
2005-Dec-08, 01:46 PM
Another example of security-related incompetence. It reminds me of the Brazilian guy killed in London. If Americans keep killing themselves out of fear, well why the heck do they need terrorists? Security agents are acting like monkeys in a porcelain store. We need more intelligence and less testosterone.

Wolverine
2005-Dec-08, 01:49 PM
It would be more prudent to reserve judgement until all the facts are in rather than succumb to rampant speculation.

Swift
2005-Dec-08, 04:17 PM
Originally Posted by Swift
Do you know this for a fact? When I got my passport I did it by mail and all I had to show was a birth certificate and other ID. I don't recall a mental health test.
If your Name, Is Red Flagged In The System, ANYTHING, Is Possible ....

However, It Might Be, Just My Paranoia, Acting Up!!!

:think:
How would I get red flagged by "the system"? Does the State Department somehow keep track of every person who has been diagnosed with a mental illness? If they did, is that a legal reason to deny a passport, or even transport on a plane? (I suspect the answers are no, but I can't say for sure).

This (http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppi/info/info_870.html) seems to be the most relevent information on the State Dept. website. There does seem to be a background check when first applying, but it seems that it is for outstanding (arrest) warrants and other legal challenges to someone fleeing the jurisdiction of the US government.

Before any passport is issued, the passport applicant’s name is checked against a central name check system. A federal or state law enforcement investigative agency may request that a subject be placed in the passport name check system for notification before issuance even when there is no warrant or other court order.

The principal law enforcement reasons for passport denial are a federal warrant of arrest, a federal or state criminal court order, a condition of parole or probation forbidding departure from the United States (or the jurisdiction of the court), or a request for extradition. The HHS child support database and the Marshals Service WIN database are checked automatically for entitlement to a passport. Denial or revocation of a passport does not prevent the use of outstanding valid passports.

mugaliens
2005-Dec-08, 04:56 PM
So... if you're crazy... you deserve to die.

Stop it, you two. You got into a tiff on another thread and it was locked.

Air travel is not inherently risky. However, it's amazingly vulnerable to attack. When someone threatens the lives of the passengers in a tangible way, they should be stopped to protect the lives of the passengers.

I love Star Trek, but do not believe that the "needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many," unless, as in the case of Kirk, his continued existence was critical to the survival of the rest.

The continued existence of the pax who was shot was not only not critical to the survival of the rest, but based on the information at hand (the threats he made, his reactions, running away, etc.) his continued existence was detrimental to the survival of the rest.

He forfeited his life by his own actions.

If he was mentally ill, where were those who were responsible for his behavior? Were they co-passengers? Did they even bother to notify the airline? Was he even under care at the time? If so, how did anyone know he was mentally ill?

Lot's of unanswered questions, here.

My brother used to work at a center for the mentally ill. Most were ok, but there were still a lot of assaults, attempted rapes, etc. that happened. Only an idiot would allow someone who's mentally ill to board an airliner without any supervision or notification in this day and age.

mugaliens
2005-Dec-08, 05:05 PM
Instant desicion. Point. Fire. Generally this means that the bullet is going to be heading for the biggest target, not a leg.

I agree. People in the military, FBI, CIA, police, sherrifs, Coast Guard, Border Patrol, INS, and DEA are all tuaght the same thing: Aim center body mass.

With the recent proliferation of body armor, that's changed in a few agencies to read, "two to the chest, one to the head."

The key decision point before firing is "Is my life, or the lives of those around me, in immediate and dire threat that can't be solved any other way?"

If the answer is yes, then fire.

When someone is running down the aisle who's threatening others with a bomb, then the answer is "yes."

I'm truly, very sorry, that this individual turned out to be mentally ill. I hope the caretakers of other paotients who are mentally ill take the appropriate steps to ensure this doesn't happen again, including notifying the airlines and security personell.

Given the circumstances and all the information that was presented to him, the air marshal did his job.

Argos
2005-Dec-08, 05:19 PM
It&#180;s disturbing that individuals with a certain phenotype are more likely to fall victim to this kind of 'accident'.

banquo's_bumble_puppy
2005-Dec-08, 05:33 PM
I Can't Belive The Comments Made By Some People On Here. Have A Little Compassion. The Man Was Mentally Ill!!!

Mod????

SciFi Chick
2005-Dec-08, 05:35 PM
It´s disturbing that individuals with a certain phenotype are more likely to fall victim to this kind of 'accident'.

What do you mean? Where are you getting the idea that it was an accident?

SciFi Chick
2005-Dec-08, 05:35 PM
I Can't Belive The Comments Made By Some People On Here. Have A Little Compassion. The Man Was Mentally Ill!!!

Mod????

A couple of moderators have already stepped in. :)

Wolverine
2005-Dec-08, 05:38 PM
I assure you the discussion is being closely monitored.

SciFi Chick
2005-Dec-08, 05:40 PM
I assure you the discussion is being closely monitored.

When you put it that way, it sounds kind of scary. :lol:

Candy
2005-Dec-08, 05:43 PM
My bets are a made for TV movie is already in the works. :shifty:

mugaliens
2005-Dec-08, 05:49 PM
Or at least a lengthy well-televised lawsuit on the part of the bereaved wife.

Candy
2005-Dec-08, 06:06 PM
Or at least a lengthy well-televised lawsuit on the part of the bereaved wife.
This is one of those times when I am glad it wasn't my airline associated with something so "history in the making" with the twist and turn of events. ;)

Monique
2005-Dec-08, 06:10 PM
This "incident" is a perfect example of why I laugh when anyone says that we will "win" the war on terrorism...

The terrorists have already won...

I agree. Terrorists goal is for crackdown. Crackdown do most damage from mistakes, quick decision, rush for judgment.




Only an idiot would allow someone who's mentally ill to board an airliner without any supervision or notification in this day and age.

I have friend call himself Wanderer. He post at BABB as Lurker. He have "severe, chronic, organic depression". He take medication each day, is fine. Is no cure for him, so he have label as suffer from chronic mental illness. Is right to tell him, "you cannot board airliner"? Medication make him like all others.

Peptron
2005-Dec-08, 06:19 PM
This very strongly remembers me the case of Simon Marshall in Qu&#233;bec. Marshall has schizophrenia, and had the delusion that all the bad things happenning around were due to him.
Near of where he was living there have been series of rapes, and the rapist was never found. He then believed that he was himself the rapist. He went to the police explaining he was the rapist and pleaded guilty to accusations of rape. The police believed him immediately and didn't gather any proofs. After 5 years of prison, many people started to doubt that he had nothing to do with the rapes, so they did an ADN test, and as expected he had nothing to do with it.

Many psychiatrists were shocked by the story, since it's a known and common side effect of schizophrenia to think that oneself has done crimes one never did.
Marshall might have reacted like the guy in the plane if he started to think strong enough that somebody on the plane could have a bomb. The delusion could lead him to believe that he HIMSELF had that bomb.

That to say that trying to rationalize the actions of a mentally ill person just does not work. I'm not sure about bipolar disorder, but in the case of schizophrenia, one cannot be held responsible for ones actions. I've seen myself people act in ways very similar to running around a plane claiming one has a bomb.


I think that the air marshal did the right action though... since it's one of those situations where the doubt cannot really be allowed, and I'm sure he didn't even have the time to doubt either, if he had to.

It's certain that not taking his medications was a bad idea, especially before boarding a plane. But then maybe his medications had side effects like nausea, that he wouldn't have wanted to get during flight.
Also it's not as simple as: Is mentally ill => Take pills => Is no more mentally ill. The goal of the pills (in schizophrenia, not certain about bipolar disorder though...) is to reduce some of the symptoms, like psychosis. But often pills cannot effectively block a rush of delusions when the stress is high enough.


I think that it's not really a case of "error". The air marshal did the right thing in my mind. It's different from the story in UK where a guy was late, and so decided to run to the subway to get aboard in time; and so is shot by the police because he runs. The UK case is IMHO an error, but the other one is not, even if it's a sad story.

gwiz
2005-Dec-08, 06:28 PM
It's different from the story in UK where a guy was late, and so decided to run to the subway to get aboard in time; and so is shot by the police because he runs. The UK case is IMHO an error, but the other one is not, even if it's a sad story.
Not sure he was even running, seems some of the eyewitness reports of a running man were actually of one of the policemen, likewise reports of someone with a bulky jacket that could have held a bomb were of a policeman in a flak jacket. It looks as if the victim's only error was to live in the same block as a suspect.

Monique
2005-Dec-08, 06:30 PM
I think that the air marshal did the right action though... since it's one of those situations where the doubt cannot really be allowed, and I'm sure he didn't even have the time to doubt either, if he had to.

I agree, I think air marshal have not much time to sort detail. I think more thought and discussion necessary for how to make people safe.


It's certain that not taking his medications was a bad idea, especially before boarding a plane. But then maybe his medications had side effects like nausea, that he wouldn't have wanted to get during flight.

I agree. I think is difficult to convince bipolar person to take medication for manic period.


Also it's not as simple as: Is mentally ill => Take pills => Is no more mentally ill. The goal of the pills (in schizophrenia, not certain about bipolar disorder though...) is to reduce some of the symptoms, like psychosis. But often pills cannot effectively block a rush of delusions when the stress is high enough.

I do not know about schizophrenia. I believe true "Is mentally ill => Take pills => Is no more mentally ill" for some have depression.
My friend is good man.

Argos
2005-Dec-08, 06:31 PM
What do you mean?

I mean that the records show that individuals with certain phenotypes are more likely to fall victim to the bad outcomes of "quick decisions".


Where are you getting the idea that it was an accident?

Oh, was it intentional?

SciFi Chick
2005-Dec-08, 06:34 PM
I mean that the records show that individuals with certain phenotypes are more likely to fall victim to the bad outcomes of "quick decisions".

And I'm asking you to be specific in what you're saying, rather than vague. I think men and women of any phenotype are going to be shot if they yell that they have a bomb on an airline, then run away, and then reach for their bag. If it turns out that's not what happened, you might have a case. Otherwise, you don't.


Oh, was it intentional?

Accident is the wrong word for what happened here. Tragedy might be a better word. Then again, we still do not have all the facts. However, the air marshall did not accidentally kill him.

[edited for spelling error]

Candy
2005-Dec-08, 06:34 PM
We call them incidents in the airline business. :shifty:

[edit]Additionally, we use terms such as security threats or suspicious package/baggage. We never say bomb. :rolleyes:

Candy
2005-Dec-08, 06:59 PM
As CNN is reporting… (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/08/airplane.gunshot/index.html)

"Based on their training they had to take the appropriate action to diffuse the situation to prevent a danger to themselves and also passengers in the terminal," Adams said.

One law enforcement source said the backpack had drawn attention, because Alpizar wore it over his chest, not his back.


Gardner said that before the shooting, a fight broke out between the Alpizars. She said she was comforted after an airline pilot seated beside her said air marshals were on the plane and aware of the situation.

Gardner said the situation became more tense when the wife received a phone call on the plane.

"There was something going on that just was not right, and the pilot told me, he said ... 'Look, there's a marshal right there, they know what's going on. We're covered.'

"So we all felt fine, and then, of course, everything happened."
After reading the full length article, I’m suspicious that the wife ever said her husband was bipolar. The article puts in quotes everything the passengers heard, yet, they don’t with the mental illness parts. It appears that the mental illness defense only comes into play after the media got ahold of the story. :think:

Edit: Oops, I reread it, and I see Passenger Gardner did quote the word "bipolar" in her statement. This story is very odd.

Van Rijn
2005-Dec-08, 09:42 PM
The media still don't have any kind of confirmed story on this.

Some sources say that he was mentally ill, others say that he wasn't.
[snip]
The list goes on, and I just realised that all this anger came out of a story that may or may not be anywhere close to what we think it is.

I fully understood that the story wasn't confirmed, which is why I said "Assuming the story is as reported" here:

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=619977&postcount=37

The reason for my anger was the nature of some of the comments. It is one thing to say that shooting may be necessary, it is another thing ... well, never mind.

On the shooting: Is there anyone here that thinks, given the story is as reported (guy looks like he has a bomb, looks like he will set it off), the shooting wasn't justified?

The Supreme Canuck
2005-Dec-08, 10:27 PM
Entirely justified. It's still a bleeding shame, though.

Van Rijn
2005-Dec-08, 10:32 PM
My thoughts exactly.

Candy
2005-Dec-08, 10:45 PM
I agree that the shooting was justified.

Marshals defend Miami airport shooting - MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10367598)

“She said it was her fault, that he was bipolar,” said Mike Beshears, a Flight 924 passenger who works for a vacation club in Orlando. “He was sick and she had convinced him to get on the plane.”

Gillianren
2005-Dec-08, 10:58 PM
I guess I'm the token bipolar person here. So here's my two cents (and even though I'm near tears as I write this, I'm going to try to keep it unemotional).

Yes, it was justified. Oh, absolutely. At least, with the information we have available to us, that would appear to be the case; I'm not ruling out information that we don't have.

I just started taking meds. Last month. I'm on Zoloft, and when I started, it made me nauseated and gave me nightmares. It's still wreaking havoc on my gastrointestinal track, my sleep patterns are even more erratic than usual, and I have a marked decrease in appetite. What's more, I haven't noticed any benefit yet. It takes on average 4-8 weeks for the benefits to appear, but the side effects are immediate.

So if Zoloft doesn't actually work, there's a whole list of other things that I can try--Wellbutrin, Prozac, Paxil, etc.--that may or may not help with my symptoms and may or may not give me worse side effects. And all this for the hope that one of these will make me functional.

Now, aside from forgetting (I'm not used to a daily pill yet, and I'm bad at keeping track of time--a side effect of the illness), I'm very, very good at taking my pill, because I spent so much time unmedicated and not in therapy due to the lack of affordable health care in this country. (It is only within about the last year that the state of Washington has required insurance companies to pay for mental illness as they would any other disease.) I want to get better. What's more, I knew a paranoid schizophrenic in college who used to think she was better when she was off her meds, and I know she was wrong. The meds may have untoward consequences, but they're better than letting the illness run rampant.

We do not coddle the mentally ill in this country, I assure you. In this country, mental illness isn't taken at all seriously. Remember Tom Cruise saying there was no such thing as a chemical imbalance? Picture, if you will, the outcry if he'd said there was no such thing as cancer. Or Parkinson's. Or any other physical illness. But no, he says there's no such thing as a chemical imbalance, and people defend him, forgetting that there are people like me.

I feel grief for the man's wife, even if she wasn't keeping the best track of his meds. Or maybe he ran out. Or maybe they'd been mislaid; you can't get a replacement prescription for psychological medication, you know. If you lose it, you're out of luck.

But you know what? I deserve to live, too. I'm calmer on airplanes than a lot of non-mentally ill people that I know. Not all mentally ill people are that unstable; there's degrees of illness, just like some people have worse allergies than others. I'm not functional, but I'm not delusional, either. Do you want to tell me that a gun will cure what ails me? Believe me, I've already had that thought more than once. That's why the state is so eager to have me medicated.

Nicolas
2005-Dec-08, 11:10 PM
On the shooting: Is there anyone here that thinks, given the story is as reported (guy looks like he has a bomb, looks like he will set it off), the shooting wasn't justified?

I recently was on a train that was run to an isolated track and stormed by the police. I couldn't follow exactly what was going on as the point of interest was in another wagon than the one I was sitting in. There never was a clear message what exactly had happened on that train.

But given this info:
*2 months before the event, Dutch railways raise terrorist alert for no given reason.
*a few days after the event, the alert is to normal level again
*a week after the event, police claims to have taken some of the most important members of a Dutch terrorist group. No comments on who where when.

One can conclude that what happened that day was indeed the arrest of those terrorists. Whether they were planning to do something to that train or were just travelling/fleeing can't be concluded.

But anyway, here is how the events went:

*train attendant says we've been accidentally led into the wrong track at a station, and we will be sent backwards to go to the right track in a few minutes*
*we stand still for quite a long time, no further messages*
*police enters our wagon, in a very professional but clearly extremely alert way. they talk only to each other via police phones*
*police runs on the outside of the train* (running isn't sprinting, just a firm pace)
*police runs through the wagons*
*police starts asking everyone to point their own luggage*
*police checks the outside of the train*
*remember that at this point, not a single message was given to us*
*police officer comes on the intercom and says that the situation is under control now, and that 2 suspects have been taken into custody. Asks everyone to remain seated for the investigation*
...
*police goes away and we go to the right track. Forward :)*


As other trains were going closely past us during the events, it is highly unlikely that police expected a terrorist act on the train itself; I assume they just knew those persons were travelling on that train for whatever reason. We were also too close to a station if they would have expected a bomb on the train itself.

But anyway where does this lead to:
at that moment, when you hear that the situation is under control, you really don't care what happened to the terrorists. You're only glad for yourself and all those people around you that the threat is over. If the only way to remove a threat is by shooting the alleged terrorist, then so be it. That's the feeling of the moment.

When things calm down, you hope no shooting was involved because of the danger involved, the traumas, and because I prefer solutions not involving shooting people whenever possible.

Now in my case, apparently there was no bomb alert (we were not evacuated, which would of course be the case unless they suspected door triggers or we were taken hostage with explosion threats or things like that). But it gave a good feel of what it would be with a bomb alert, and in that case I can fully understand the marshall shooting the suspect, no matter how strongly I disagree with killing people as an act in itself. You see hundreds of people and one trying to blow them up. Nothing more, nothing less. If the marshall felt like being in this situation for good reasons, I understand that he shot the person when he saw no other solution.

If the situation turned out to be differently than what it seemed, than that's very, very sad. But unless there was a very clear reason removing all suspicion, than I won't blame the marshall. I assume he won't be happy about having to shoot somebody no matter what the situation turned out to be, let alone now it turned out that there was no bomb.
(that's in fact one of the reasons why I prefer solutions not involving shooting whenever possible, but again at the moment itself I can fully understand it. How I would feel if a real terrorist had been shot, I couldn't really tell. He could expect it and chose for it himself. But it's still somebody's son etc, so "happy" wouldn't be the feeling, not even really "relieved". There's always feelings of sadness involved to some persons, also persons with good intentions.)

The Supreme Canuck
2005-Dec-08, 11:40 PM
Gillianren: Very well-said.

AGN Fuel
2005-Dec-08, 11:43 PM
I guess I'm the token bipolar person here. So here's my two cents (and even though I'm near tears as I write this, I'm going to try to keep it unemotional).....But you know what? I deserve to live, too. I'm calmer on airplanes than a lot of non-mentally ill people that I know. Not all mentally ill people are that unstable; there's degrees of illness, just like some people have worse allergies than others. I'm not functional, but I'm not delusional, either. Do you want to tell me that a gun will cure what ails me? Believe me, I've already had that thought more than once. That's why the state is so eager to have me medicated.

Bravo, Gillianren. That was well said.

soylentgreen
2005-Dec-09, 12:02 AM
I absolutely believe that the idea of "shoot to kill only!" is nothing more than a concept born of a society over-stimulated by decades of jingoist John Wayneism garbage and scared witless by an exploitive, irresponsible governing body. There are DOZENS of non-lethal incapacitating methods available. Period!(Exclamation point!)

But in a nation where up till fairly recently it was ok to hang black people as long as you were related to the local authorities, I guess I can't expect too much. 200 years and we haven't learned damned thing, have we?

In my thirty odd years on this planet, I've been saddened by quite a bit....but nothing approaches the heartbreak of hearing just how little I can rely on the common sense and level-headedness of my fellow countrymen. I sure hope none of you borderline paranoids are ever on a jury with me, or stuck in an elevator with me...or a plane encountering turbulence with me!

sarongsong
2005-Dec-09, 12:06 AM
...Is there anyone here that thinks, given the story is as reported (guy looks like he has a bomb, looks like he will set it off), the shooting wasn't justified?At the least, one passenger (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1138965,00.html) does not:
..."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 described Alpizar as carrying a big backpack and wearing a fanny pack in front. He says it would have been impossible for Alpizar to lie flat on the floor of the plane, as marshals ordered him to do, with the fanny pack on. "You can't get on the ground with a fanny pack," he says. "You have to move it to the side."...

Monique
2005-Dec-09, 12:06 AM
I absolutely believe that the idea of "shoot to kill only!" is nothing more than a concept born of a society over-stimulated by decades of jingoist John Wayneism garbage and scared witless by an exploitive, irresponsible governing body. There are DOZENS of non-lethal incapacitating methods available. Period!(Exclamation point!)

I agree. Many weapons non-lethal available. Why give sky marshals lethal weapons.

The Supreme Canuck
2005-Dec-09, 12:07 AM
Actually, the policy isn't "shoot to kill." It's "shoot to hit." If you miss, it does no good. Unfortunately, shooting to hit means that you aim for the body mass: the torso. Which usually means death when using hollow point bullets (needed to not put a hole in your airplane).

Pistol shooting is much harder than most people believe, and hitting someone in the shoulder (for example) is not only very hard, but it may not be effective in stopping the person hit.

So the policy is sound, though it is unfortunate that it is needed at all.

Added:

Non-lethal weapons are far less effective than a pistol. If your job is to stop someone from doing something, you need him immobilized now. A taser won't do that. Pepper spray won't do that.

So, again, while shooting someone is terrible, in cases like this it is the necessary thing to do.

EvilBob
2005-Dec-09, 12:19 AM
GillianRen, my wife recently spent a year on Zoloft for depression which was relatively mild, but serious enough to require medication. Having seen the initial side-effects (but not experienced them) you have my sympathy and admiration for what you're going through.
When telling people what my wife was going through, it seemed that everyone has an (often uninformed) opinion on mental illness - "Oh, you need to stop taking those pills... My aunt was on those..." etc. No-one ever tells a diabetic to 'Get off that insulin and get over it on your own', do they? There's still such a medieval attitude to it, and everyone seems to think their opinion is unassailable, and will not inform themselves on the subject.
I hope you're feeling better soon - I have seen the side-effects subside after a few weeks, although they seemed to come back a little with each increase in dose. My thoughts are with you!

Candy
2005-Dec-09, 12:26 AM
"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."
from Sarongsong's link

Like I said on the previous page, "we" never use the word bomb. The word had to have been said by someone. Who? I don't know. Otherwise, the activities leading up to the shooting most likely would not have happened. The word bomb in the airline industry is just taboo, even prior to 9/11.

In our reservation offices, we have an alarm button for this purpose. If a caller uses the word bomb, consider the call taped and traced. The caller's information will be sent to our security department.

Gillianren
2005-Dec-09, 12:28 AM
Thanks, everyone. For the record, I've just last Thursday been bumped up to 100 mg tablets, which is the highest dosage. With luck, this means that the side effects will have a chance to go away as my body chemistry stabilizes. And, yes, I've had a lot of people tell me that all I need is to concentrate. Well, if I could concentrate, I wouldn't need the drugs, now, would I?

Monique
2005-Dec-09, 12:31 AM
Gillian Wanderer say hello.

Gillianren
2005-Dec-09, 03:45 AM
Gillian Wanderer say hello.

Tell him hello back, and that I miss him around here.

SirBlack
2005-Dec-09, 04:21 AM
I absolutely believe that the idea of "shoot to kill only!" is nothing more than a concept born of a society over-stimulated by decades of jingoist John Wayneism garbage and scared witless by an exploitive, irresponsible governing body. There are DOZENS of non-lethal incapacitating methods available. Period!(Exclamation point!)

But do we have a single non-lethal method that fill all these criteria?

- Similar range to a handgun or at least reasonably decent range (can't guarantee the user will have time to get very close)
- High accuracy at a reasonable range (can't afford to miss the first shot)
- Instantly takes effect (can't let the target have time to act after being hit if this was supposed to stop the target from performing some action in the first place)
- High/Perfect rate of effectiveness (can't allow any significant chance that it will fail to affect the target)
- Multiple uses/shots (sometimes there's more than one target, or the need for more than one shot)
- Instantly ready (can't wait for it to warm-up or charge-up, there may not be time)
- As easy to carry as a handgun (can't allow the device to be so bulky/heavy/clumsy as the hinder its usage or the user's mobility)
- Cheap enough to be made available to all personel who need it (what good is it if no one can afford to have it?)

I'm sure many of our current non-lethal methods would fulfill several of those criteria, but are there any which cover all of them? If not all the criteria are fulfilled, then essentially it's a device which only works sometimes, and I doubt many people would find that acceptable for dealing with what can potentially be life-or-death situations.

I do hope in the future we will have such a perfect non-lethal device, but that seems to be far off at the moment.

jrkeller
2005-Dec-09, 04:50 AM
There are DOZENS of non-lethal incapacitating methods available. Period!(Exclamation point!)


How about a few examples, because I can't think of one.

Doodler
2005-Dec-09, 04:58 AM
Actually, the policy isn't "shoot to kill." It's "shoot to hit." If you miss, it does no good. Unfortunately, shooting to hit means that you aim for the body mass: the torso. Which usually means death when using hollow point bullets (needed to not put a hole in your airplane).

Hollow points aren't the only alternative for non-piercing ammunition. There's also frangible rounds that are designed to break up on impact. The idea being they could be used in close quarters where there's a high risk of richochets.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/frangible.htm

Probably a little less lethal than hollow points, but I'l bet those fragments would be a pain in the target area to remove.

If Air Marshalls are packing Black Talons or Federal (whatever the heck they call'em these days), they're intending to kill what they hit. Its not like the massive damage to soft tissue caused by hollow points is in any way unknown before hand.

SciFi Chick
2005-Dec-09, 05:16 AM
But in a nation where up till fairly recently it was ok to hang black people as long as you were related to the local authorities, I guess I can't expect too much. 200 years and we haven't learned damned thing, have we?

In my thirty odd years on this planet, I've been saddened by quite a bit....but nothing approaches the heartbreak of hearing just how little I can rely on the common sense and level-headedness of my fellow countrymen. I sure hope none of you borderline paranoids are ever on a jury with me, or stuck in an elevator with me...or a plane encountering turbulence with me!

I think perhaps you're over reacting just a little when you say that "we haven't learned a damn thing". Lots has changed over the years, and we are learning more every day. It's always possible to find negative things to focus on, but there are positives as well.

Slavery is illegal. All citizens are allowed to vote. People aren't property. Civil rights have come a long way.

And the air marshal did his job well. A tragedy is just that - a tragedy. They happen. It doesn't mean everyone is letting the terrorists win.

SciFi Chick
2005-Dec-09, 05:17 AM
Thanks, everyone. For the record, I've just last Thursday been bumped up to 100 mg tablets, which is the highest dosage. With luck, this means that the side effects will have a chance to go away as my body chemistry stabilizes. And, yes, I've had a lot of people tell me that all I need is to concentrate. Well, if I could concentrate, I wouldn't need the drugs, now, would I?

I'm glad to hear you are getting the help you need. It is good news. I do hope the drugs work soon. :)

The Supreme Canuck
2005-Dec-09, 05:54 AM
Its not like the massive damage to soft tissue caused by hollow points is in any way unknown before hand.

Which is, in fact, yet another advantage of using hollow points. You want the target down now. Hollow points will do that for you.

Swift
2005-Dec-09, 06:04 AM
Thanks, everyone. For the record, I've just last Thursday been bumped up to 100 mg tablets, which is the highest dosage. With luck, this means that the side effects will have a chance to go away as my body chemistry stabilizes. And, yes, I've had a lot of people tell me that all I need is to concentrate. Well, if I could concentrate, I wouldn't need the drugs, now, would I?
Gillian,
I suspect you are not the "token" bipolar, given just how many people are on this board. I appreciate it that you are so open about it and I wish you nothing but success with it. I watched my father deal with it for as long as our lives overlapped. My parents were very "old school", they didn't "trouble" the kids with such problems and so I spent most of my childhood not understanding why daddy was "sick". They used the same approach when my mom had cancer (I'm old enough to remember when one didn't talk about the "C" word). I have reacted to all this by being as open as I can, at least to the point that others are comfortable.

So far I don't seem to have my father's mental health issues, though I did seem to get my mom's sinuses and digestive tract. But both my wife and my sister have dealt with relatively mild mental health problems. As I said, you hope it all works out for you.

Captain Kidd
2005-Dec-09, 01:22 PM
On the humorous side of the event, The Daily Show had a clip of the 24-hour news networks "accurately" reporting the event. It was full of "I hesitate to speculate but...", "I don't know", "I'm guessing here", and other such statements of "we don't know what's going on but we'll pick the most sensational parts to present (and if it's too boring we'll make it up)."

Wolverine
2005-Dec-09, 01:27 PM
Actually, the policy isn't "shoot to kill." It's "shoot to hit."

At the risk of seeming pedantic, I'd contend "shoot to stop" would be a more accurate policy description.

Moose
2005-Dec-09, 01:52 PM
Quibble: Wolverine, if "you're" doing anything other than shooting with the intention to kill, you have no business drawing a firearm, let alone discharging the thing.

Captain Kidd
2005-Dec-09, 01:56 PM
Wolverine I’d say that’s more why to shoot and The Supreme Canuck’s statement is more where to shoot.

My father was in law enforcement (among a great deal of other things) and he use to get irritated at fancy shooting in movies and shows (shooting guns out of hands, etc.). He always stressed that you’re suppose to shoot at the largest taget, which is typically the torso. You can’t afford to miss as 1) it probably won’t stop the person and 2) you risk hitting an innocent bystander. But that predated modern body armor too so it might be as applicable now.

That's my picking of the nit.

Wolverine
2005-Dec-09, 02:26 PM
I was just attempting to describe the policy, not the mechanics.

Doodler
2005-Dec-09, 02:54 PM
Wolverine I’d say that’s more why to shoot and The Supreme Canuck’s statement is more where to shoot.

My father was in law enforcement (among a great deal of other things) and he use to get irritated at fancy shooting in movies and shows (shooting guns out of hands, etc.). He always stressed that you’re suppose to shoot at the largest taget, which is typically the torso. You can’t afford to miss as 1) it probably won’t stop the person and 2) you risk hitting an innocent bystander. But that predated modern body armor too so it might be as applicable now.

That's my picking of the nit.

Even if they're wearing body armor, a bullet impacting on the torso is going to kick like a mule. It won't kill you, but it will definitely get your attention. Particularly in this case where the Marshall triple tapped him. You aren't just shaking that kind of hit off and continuing on like nothing happened.

galacsi
2005-Dec-09, 03:22 PM
Allo ,Allo , allo . . . . . . . . . . .

Complete Communication Breakdown with AMERICA

Doodler
2005-Dec-09, 03:27 PM
FYI, my last statement on the other aspect of this thread.

1) He had a medical condition which affected his judgment when not properly treated.

2) He willingly failed to treat it properly, placing himself voluntarily in a state of diminished capacity.

3) He is ultimately responsible for every action he committed as a result. More than a few jurisdictions are now in agreement with that sentiment, particularly in cases of drug and alcohol use. You knowingly diminish your capacity, your actions committed in that state are considered premeditated in court. No excuses.

For those of you who think I'm taking that stand baselessly, I've been treated for severe depression myself. The kicker was, when I was in the worst of it, I wasn't self destructive, I lashed out violently. For a short stretch between the onset of major symptoms and my being hospitalized for it, my family lived in fear of my temper. Once I was under treatment, I was freakin' religious about the meds. I couldn't stand being what I was once my head was clear, and there wasn't any way in heck I was going to stay that way. I scared myself when I was rational enough to consider some of the things I wanted to do when I was seeing red.

I've been lucky in that I've been able to put that part of my life mostly behind me after therapy and medication, but having been there, don't bloody tell me these people don't know right from wrong, they do, they just don't care. If anything, that "diminished capacity" for judgement makes them potentially MORE dangerous than your average person.

For someone to deliberately let their condition take hold again...I have no sympathy. For someone to know they're not properly medicated and bringing them into a controlled environment like that? I have nothing but spite. Thats like walking into a room full of explosives with a lit match, then wondering why the building blew up.

The Supreme Canuck
2005-Dec-09, 04:47 PM
Wolverine I’d say that’s more why to shoot and The Supreme Canuck’s statement is more where to shoot.

I'll go along with that. If you want to "shoot to stop" you need to "shoot to hit." And if you "shoot to hit" you're pretty much also going to "shoot to stop."

Good point, though, Wolverine.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-09, 04:50 PM
For the record, I rather doubt that even with three taps to a ballistic vest, that you would be significantly injured or even fazed. It might hurt and cause bruising, but adrenaline is known to run high in combat situations.

Some people, when significantly influenced (manytimes through drugs or other substances), can be shot with *no* vest whatsoever, and still operate sufficiently; depends on where he's shot and with what calibre type, however. Hollowpoints are not made for penetrating body armor, and would "disperse" the impact in the vest. It wouldn't be as concentrated as a normal round.

The Supreme Canuck
2005-Dec-09, 04:51 PM
Which is why law enforcement is starting to transition to "two to the chest, one to the head." The first two rounds will stun the target long enough for you to properly aim the third.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-09, 04:55 PM
Actually, the point for the two taps to the chest doesn't have to do with stunning. The idea is that the chest is far easier to hit, and if you do not significantly effect them, they must be wearing body armor. So you shoot 2 times to the chest; if that doesn't effect them (which you take a second to evaluate), then you shoot them in the head. If the two shots to the torso worked, then you don't have to aim for their head; which is good, because the head is a hard target to hit.

The Supreme Canuck
2005-Dec-09, 05:10 PM
Right. I was assuming the target was wearing armor. The stunning is a secondary (and particularly useful) effect of the shots to the torso. As you say, the head is hard to hit. The extra time provided by the stunning allows you to better aim for it.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Dec-09, 05:20 PM
On the shooting: Is there anyone here that thinks, given the story is as reported (guy looks like he has a bomb, looks like he will set it off), the shooting wasn't justified?Given the story as it has been reported so far, I don't feel that I'm informed well enough to have an opinion either way.

Some posters have made an interesting objection, though: normally, a terrorist would want to hide the fact that he had a bomb, not publicise it.

Another curious detail is that this all happened at the end of the journey, and it seems that the man was already out of the airplane when he was approached by the marshalls.

Doodler
2005-Dec-09, 05:21 PM
For the record, I rather doubt that even with three taps to a ballistic vest, that you would be significantly injured or even fazed. It might hurt and cause bruising, but adrenaline is known to run high in combat situations.

Some people, when significantly influenced (manytimes through drugs or other substances), can be shot with *no* vest whatsoever, and still operate sufficiently; depends on where he's shot and with what calibre type, however. Hollowpoints are not made for penetrating body armor, and would "disperse" the impact in the vest. It wouldn't be as concentrated as a normal round.

To be honest, I have some difficulty imagining body armor being a factor in an airport terminal. I mean, you've got to get that stuff passed the screeners first, and having been through a couple of those checkpoints lately, I don't see how you could casually wear the stuff through a checkpoint and not raise a flag or two. Its not easily concealable.

I agree that under "combat" conditions, it is possible to function after taking a hard hit. A police officer was recently killed when a round missed the armor plates and hit him dead center in the chest. He was able to continue pursuit till internal bleeding took him down.

A trained person who's been conditioned to operate in high stress situations like that may well be able to take a hit and keep rolling until they're put down by a fatal wound. Your average person, even highly motivated by religious fervor, isn't likely to be so well trained. Panic responses are extremely difficult to overcome, you have to be conditioned to the point where a controlled response to those kinds of incidents becomes almost a reflex before you get to the point where you don't freeze up and act. So whether the shots hitting armor cause actual damage or not, there's still that instant of shock that comes with realization, and most people will freeze.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-09, 05:29 PM
To be honest, I have some difficulty imagining body armor being a factor in an airport terminal. I mean, you've got to get that stuff passed the screeners first, and having been through a couple of those checkpoints lately, I don't see how you could casually wear the stuff through a checkpoint and not raise a flag or two. Its not easily concealable.

Body armor is getting more and more concealable. Not all of them are the hard types. Also, what exactly would they use to detect kevlar strands? I mean, I have no doubt they have a way to detect kevlar, but I am unaware as to what it is.


I agree that under "combat" conditions, it is possible to function after taking a hard hit. A police officer was recently killed when a round missed the armor plates and hit him dead center in the chest. He was able to continue pursuit till internal bleeding took him down.

Well, in truth, he would have been temporarily effected right after the shot. That was somewhat the point of this.


A trained person who's been conditioned to operate in high stress situations like that may well be able to take a hit and keep rolling until they're put down by a fatal wound. Your average person, even highly motivated by religious fervor, isn't likely to be so well trained.

The Islamic Militants that we're scared of are just that: Militant. They have combat training. It's partly how they brainwash the youth over there; train them for combat, give them guns, point the way. Also instill into them fundamentalist ideals.


Panic responses are extremely difficult to overcome, you have to be conditioned to the point where a controlled response to those kinds of incidents becomes almost a reflex before you get to the point where you don't freeze up and act. So whether the shots hitting armor cause actual damage or not, there's still that instant of shock that comes with realization, and most people will freeze.

A random person deciding to be a terrorist, this would apply to, yes. But see my previous point.

Extravoice
2005-Dec-09, 05:41 PM
Quibble: Wolverine, if "you're" doing anything other than shooting with the intention to kill, you have no business drawing a firearm, let alone discharging the thing.

I still remember my father explaining his three basic rules of gun safety.

1) A gun should always be treated as if it is loaded. (Many people have been shot with "unloaded" weapons.)

2) Never point a gun at anyone unless you intend to shoot that person.

3) Never shoot a person unless you intend to kill that person.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-09, 05:47 PM
The main reason people get shot with "unloaded" weapons is because, usually, they handle automatics and cock back the slide. Then they take the clip out, without taking the bullet out of the chamber. So it's still loaded with a single round. It's a rather silly way to kill yourself, in my opinion.

About as silly as when a BATF or DEA agent (I don't know which), was demonstrating to a classroom how to handle an automatic pistol. He slid the clip in, and the slide slid forward, indicating the gun was loaded. He didn't seem to realize the mistake he made and went on... when the gun went off and fired into the ground (most likely ricocheting, but it didn't hit anyone; he was VERY lucky for that, even if he still probably lost his job), I was just wincing. This man's supposed to be TRAINED in this stuff! He slid a full clip into a pistol and didn't even realize it, when the one single most pertinent clue would've been both audible and visible.

Doodler
2005-Dec-09, 05:51 PM
Body armor is getting more and more concealable. Not all of them are the hard types. Also, what exactly would they use to detect kevlar strands? I mean, I have no doubt they have a way to detect kevlar, but I am unaware as to what it is.

Most of the armor I've seen that's rated for bullet resistance has some substantial bulk to it. Even if the plates get smaller, its still has to be mounted and held in place to work properly, and that vest stands out. At a distance, it might be unnoticed, but on a close inspection, its not going to look natural.

As to deserving to die, hey, that's my opinion, you don't like it, tough. I don't apologize for it. Mental illness or not, that was quite simply the stupidest possible move in the worst possible place.

Monique
2005-Dec-09, 06:02 PM
Quibble: Wolverine, if "you're" doing anything other than shooting with the intention to kill, you have no business drawing a firearm, let alone discharging the thing.
"Shoot to kill" and "shoot to stop" functional equivalent. Only have one chance. Shoot gun from hand only for movie.

Moose
2005-Dec-09, 06:03 PM
A trained person who's been conditioned to operate in high stress situations like that may well be able to take a hit and keep rolling until they're put down by a fatal wound. Your average person, even highly motivated by religious fervor, isn't likely to be so well trained.

*shrug* Untrained deer do this almost as a matter of routine. (It's why the number two rule of deer hunting is to never chase a wounded deer. Give it a half-hour, it'll be under a tree a mile or so away, waiting to die. Chase it right away, and you'll be following it for days.)

Bob
2005-Dec-09, 06:24 PM
I didn't realize suicide bombers wore body armor.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-09, 06:26 PM
I didn't realize suicide bombers wore body armor.

I never said that it was standard of them to or not to. But are you going to claim that every suicide bomber that exists won't ever use body armor?

Preparing for possibilities is the key to survival.

Moose
2005-Dec-09, 06:28 PM
"Shoot to kill" and "shoot to stop" functional equivalent. Only have one chance. Shoot gun from hand only for movie.

The reason I draw the distinction, Monique, is the same reason I tend to discourage the use of "non-lethal weapon" when speaking of Tasers. It's important to understand that either weapon can kill when discharged.

It's a respect thing. The problem I see with tasers are that far too many police simply aren't respecting the weapon, thinking "non-lethal. I can use this safely, so I will", and so using it inappropriately and/or excessively.

It's all about the mindset.

If the official weapon-discharge policy is "shoot to stop", the consequences of taking the shot are grossly understated. In all likelihood, someone will die. If you miss, the victim may not be the same person as the target. You may even hit your target and kill someone other than (and along with) the bloke you aimed for. (Think Kennedy's "magic bullet".)

Once you pull the trigger, there is no recalling that bullet. It will travel as described by Sir Issac until it hits something, and that something will get a hole punched into it. That something is not necessarily the dangerous bad guy. And even if it is, the bad guy may not necessarily be the bad guy, just some guy. (Think the Brazilian guy in London.)

The moment a firearm is involved, the term is "shoot to kill". Anything short of that is grossly irresponsible and will lead to improper use, just the way tasers are being misused. Tasering kids, pregnant women, the elderly, tasering people repeatedly, and/or punitively. Tasering people dead. I've seen all of these things in the news. Meh. Tasers have proven to be potentially lethal and use policy should clearly respect this fact.

In this particular case, if the details are as I understand them, the moment the victim claimed to have a bomb and went for his bag, the shooting was justified (and remember that the only sensible assumption to make IMO is that any shooting will be fatal).

That Dude was mentally ill and off-medication makes this incident both tragic and regrettable, but changes nothing about the justifiability of the lethal shooting. In this I cannot agree with Doodler.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-09, 06:30 PM
Actually, with hollowpoints and pistol ammunition, it's very hard to hit someone past the first target. The wider "area of effect" means that the bullet will stop. It's not like it's an assault rifle round, or a hunting rifle round.

As for "not respecting the tazer", that's why *TRAINING* would be *KEY*. Training a cop to handle kids or pregnant women differently would go a LONG ways towards preventing accidental deaths.

mugaliens
2005-Dec-09, 06:38 PM
Entirely justified. It's still a bleeding shame, though.

Agree. Wish there were a way for an air marshall to instantaneously assess a running man's mental status, but we won't be there until Foundation's End.

Meantime, best to keep people with mental illness either away from the airport, or if fixable by meds, on their meds.

There are non-lethal alternatives. Perhaps they should be explored further. I'd rather spend two hours cleaning up a bunch of passengers, a rug, and some airplane parts from a sticky shocker than owrrying about killing someone.

http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-1-05/NLW-shock.htm

Unfortunately, many who survive stun gun attacks are suing police and LE left and right. Disincentive to implementing these techniques.

Moose
2005-Dec-09, 06:40 PM
Actually, with hollowpoints and pistol ammunition, it's very hard to hit someone past the first target. The wider "area of effect" means that the bullet will stop. It's not like it's an assault rifle round, or a hunting rifle round.

True, it's harder to hit something downrange under those conditions, but it can happen and has happened. You never discharge your weapon assuming anything that happens to be downrange isn't in danger. For the same reason you never discharge your weapon in the air assuming the odds are it won't hit anything on the way back down.

Guns require a great deal of respect, and far far too many people underestimate the damage a gun can do.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-09, 06:44 PM
Guns require a great deal of respect, and far far too many people underestimate the damage a gun can do.

And FAR too many people overestimate the power of bullets. Like the whole "Teflon" scare -- people assumed that the rounds could penetrate body armor far better than normal rounds, when it was simply not true; teflon's main advantage was that it could penetrate windshields and keep a straight trajectory.

Then there's the people who overstate the power of .50 machineguns.

Also, speaking as a gamer who has a lot of experience with RPGs, a lot of RPGs assume that pistols and assault rifles have about the same power; when it's DEFINITELY not the case. A 7.62mm rifle round could go straight through most body armor unless they have heavy plate inserts (like what Special Ops use).

The Supreme Canuck
2005-Dec-09, 06:47 PM
Actually, even with plate inserts a 7.62mm round is likely to go on through. And then bounce off of the plate in the back of the vest.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-09, 06:58 PM
Actually, even with plate inserts a 7.62mm round is likely to go on through. And then bounce off of the plate in the back of the vest.

Not the thick steel/ceramic inserts the Special Ops use. Those things are tough buggers, and very thick. They're far heavier than the steel inserts used by police officers.

The Supreme Canuck
2005-Dec-09, 07:02 PM
Oh, I see that you're right (http://www.army.gc.ca/Chief_Land_Staff/Clothe_the_soldier/hab/2/222_e.asp).


BR plates are added to the FPV front and rear pockets to enhance the protection level of vital organs against more lethal threats including 7.62mm and 5.56mm rounds.

My mistake. I think I was remembering reports of US soldiers in Iraq only inserting either the front or the back plate due to the weight of the things. If you got hit on the "soft" side, the bullet would come right back out the side it went in.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-09, 07:07 PM
I have a friend that's a firearms expert and is somewhat of a Human Encyclapedia, and we had lots of fun conversations. Trust me, I know a lot about guns; but I will NEVER know more than him. (Which is kinda scary to some people). Also, I'm an expert with the GURPS game system, which has a LOT of research thrown into it. Then there's the various things I've read here and there.

As for the weight of the plate inserts, yeah; they were a major issue in the whole Operation Gothic Serpent (AKA, Black Hawk Down) scenario. Lots of the soldiers thinking it was just going to be an average run didn't carry their plate inserts.

Doodler
2005-Dec-09, 07:41 PM
*shrug* Untrained deer do this almost as a matter of routine. (It's why the number two rule of deer hunting is to never chase a wounded deer. Give it a half-hour, it'll be under a tree a mile or so away, waiting to die. Chase it right away, and you'll be following it for days.)

Would you consider a deer's life of fleeing predators almost from the time they take their first steps to be enough to qualify it as "well trained" or "conditioned"?

Candy
2005-Dec-09, 07:43 PM
Meantime, best to keep people with mental illness either away from the airport, or if fixable by meds, on their meds.
I saw passenger Gardner on a program last night. In her opinion, watching Alpizar and his wife prior to boarding the plane, she stated they were having difficulties with his behavior. She followed with the man should not have been flying that day. She said she felt bad for his wife.

The airlines have many folks anxious when flying each and every day. We even have an area in your "reservation" PNR that we put remarks in for medication or "scared to fly" etc... Those people get special treatment. If you don't tell us, then we don't know.

The problem was Apizar said the word bomb while standing near the cockpit, and this is what clearly set off the needless and tragic chain of events. The marshal's main duty is to protect the pilot.

Monique
2005-Dec-09, 07:49 PM
Meantime, best to keep people with mental illness either away from the airport, or if fixable by meds, on their meds.
Perhaps best to consider more thoughtful, flexible policy.

Moose
2005-Dec-09, 07:55 PM
Would you consider a deer's life of fleeing predators almost from the time they take their first steps to be enough to qualify it as "well trained" or "conditioned"?

How much of a deer's life is spent with a bullet lodged somewhere in their anatomy?

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-09, 07:59 PM
How much of a deer's life is spent with a bullet lodged somewhere in their anatomy?

Actually, I think that this doesn't really apply.

Animals do have "combat reflexes". For deer, they use their "combat reflexes" to run like crazy. Predators, they use their "combat reflexes" to hunt and survive (also fleeing when they can).

Humans do not usually develop such reflexes unless training for battle, or experienced with combat. However, one has to realize that there's different factors for each scenario. For instance, in the case where a group of robbers in full body armor and using AK 47s pinned down police, they weren't really fazed by bullets hitting them. They were pretty much dead calm. But that doesn't necessarily mean they had "combat reflexes", merely a feeling of invincibility.

Moose
2005-Dec-09, 08:08 PM
Actually, I think that this doesn't really apply.

Of course it applies:


A trained person who's been conditioned to operate in high stress situations like that may well be able to take a hit and keep rolling until they're put down by a fatal wound. Your average person, even highly motivated by religious fervor, isn't likely to be so well trained.

Is it my understanding you're arguing the point that uninjured creatures behave according to their evolutionary strengths? Because I don't think that's in any way at issue.

We're talking about a fairly specific case of being able to take a significant action (either heroic in nature or to carry out a threatened action) after having been shot.

I say just about anybody (not incapacitated, either physically or by a panic reaction) will try to work around even a serious wound if they are motivated enough to do so.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-09, 08:12 PM
I say just about anybody (not incapacitated, either physically or by a panic reaction) will try to work around even a serious wound if they are motivated enough to do so.

Mmm, well, I suppose I agree... to a certain extent. It depends on the situation, how much adrenaline they have in 'em, and how willing they would be to "give up"

A fanatic, especially one that's well-trained, is not the "average person", too.

Doodler
2005-Dec-09, 08:44 PM
How much of a deer's life is spent with a bullet lodged somewhere in their anatomy?

Depends on where it enters. I'm not saying the injury wouldn't affect them at all, just that their conditioned upbringing would affect their immediate response to being injured. Once the adrenaline (or whatever their equivalent is) gives out, then yeah, they're going to be hampered. Just in that moment of injury, they're whole focus is geared to escape as a survival mechanism.

Doodler
2005-Dec-09, 08:54 PM
I say just about anybody (not incapacitated, either physically or by a panic reaction) will try to work around even a serious wound if they are motivated enough to do so.

Will they do so in a controlled manner that acts in opposition to their instinct to escape danger? That's what I'm getting at. Panic and run is the "default" when confronted with a dangerous obstacle. What I meant in relation to the airport scenario is, can a potential terrorist, or an Air Marshall trying to stop them, override their panic response and carry out their original intentions in spite of panic or injury?

That's what I meant with a non-fatal shot causing a target to freeze up, not that they won't act in some way, but will they continue to act towards their original goal? I don't believe that most of them would.

That's why even against an armored target, shoot first, secure the area, THEN ask questions. Blowing yourself up in stealth is easy, doing it under hostile fire is a completely different ballgame.

LurchGS
2005-Dec-09, 09:28 PM
For the record, I rather doubt that even with three taps to a ballistic vest, that you would be significantly injured or even fazed. It might hurt and cause bruising, but adrenaline is known to run high in combat situations.

It would depend on many things - the caliber of the weapn, the powder load, the health of the shootee.

There's also the reason the manufacturers (and any sane person) doesnt' call them 'bullet proof'. Ballistic wear greatly improves your chances, but sometimes the bullet does go through.



Hollowpoints are not made for penetrating body armor, and would "disperse" the impact in the vest. It wouldn't be as concentrated as a normal round.

The first half is right, but I definately disagree with the second half - until they hit, hollowpoints are still single hunks of lead. They don't mushroom/fragment until AFTER the hit. Against a ballistic vest, you'd still get the same kinetic punch you'd get from any other common handgun round.

Regarding wearing ballistic vests through airport screening - I'm unaware of any electronic device that could detect a vest unless said vest were sporting a metal shockplate. Kevlar is essentially a plastic, after all.
The newer vests worn by police and EMS are very thin, and not obvious to see when worn under certain clothing. Put it on under ...say... a loud Hawiian shirt, and it's difficult to detect without physical contact.

(and I thank Moose and a few others for backing me up, even indirectly, on the 'shoot to kill' thing. Between my wife and myself, 35 years of law enforcement definately drilled that into our heads, though she's never been shot at, and I've never had to use my guns for anything other than qualifying)

paulie jay
2005-Dec-10, 12:24 AM
Most of the armor I've seen that's rated for bullet resistance has some substantial bulk to it. Even if the plates get smaller, its still has to be mounted and held in place to work properly, and that vest stands out. At a distance, it might be unnoticed, but on a close inspection, its not going to look natural.

snip
Just on the subject of body armour, there are body armour "jackets" that for all intents and purposes look just like denim jacket fashion items. I've seen them (in my role with Customs) and they are pretty convincing when worn. When you've got 500 people walking past and you're trying to apply instant profiling and risk assesment with a scan of your eyes, things like this can slip by very easily.

sarongsong
2005-Dec-10, 01:18 AM
...If Air Marshalls are packing Black Talons or Federal (whatever the heck they call'em these days)...December 7, 2005 (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N07272855.htm)
"...Air marshals have very tough accuracy requirements -- the standard for marksmanship is higher than the Secret Service. They shoot SIG SAUER (http://www.sigarms.com/products/handguns.asp) pistols, use hollow-point bullets and follow very strict rules of engagement..."
Hmmh---sad coincidence...
November 29, 2005 (http://nctimes.com/articles/2005/11/29/news/nation/17_20_1711_29_05.txt)
"MIAMI -- Police are planning "in-your-face" shows of force in public places, saying the random, high-profile security operations will keep terrorists guessing about where officers might be next..."

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2005-Dec-10, 01:36 AM
The main reason people get shot with "unloaded" weapons is because, usually, they handle automatics and cock back the slide. Then they take the clip out, without taking the bullet out of the chamber. So it's still loaded with a single round. It's a rather silly way to kill yourself, in my opinion.

About as silly as when a BATF or DEA agent (I don't know which), was demonstrating to a classroom how to handle an automatic pistol. He slid the clip in, and the slide slid forward, indicating the gun was loaded. He didn't seem to realize the mistake he made and went on... when the gun went off and fired into the ground (most likely ricocheting, but it didn't hit anyone; he was VERY lucky for that, even if he still probably lost his job), I was just wincing. This man's supposed to be TRAINED in this stuff! He slid a full clip into a pistol and didn't even realize it, when the one single most pertinent clue would've been both audible and visible.
It Was a DEA Agent, and he Actually, SHOT himself!!!!

Safety First (http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/gunsafety.asp)

:wall:

Richard of Chelmsford
2005-Dec-10, 01:44 AM
This is a bit like the bloke who got shot by the Old Bill down a london Underground station.

SciFi Chick
2005-Dec-10, 04:09 AM
This is a bit like the bloke who got shot by the Old Bill down a london Underground station.

Not really. Unless it turns out that the story we've got isn't what happened.

LurchGS
2005-Dec-10, 07:34 AM
all guns are always loaded

Richard of Chelmsford
2005-Dec-13, 12:12 AM
Not really. Unless it turns out that the story we've got isn't what happened.

Hello SciFi,

I meant that there were similarities.

I'm on the radio on Saturday. You can listen in and hear me..and phone in if you like.

See my latest posting.

Candy
2005-Dec-18, 05:25 AM
Jet evacuated at Burbank airport after 'noncredible' bomb remarks (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/12/16/state/n164522S93.DTL)

About 130 passengers were evacuated from a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 onto a taxiway at Bob Hope Airport on Friday afternoon after flight attendants overheard remarks about a bomb, according to federal transportation officials.

One passenger was removed in handcuffs and the plane remained on the ground three hours later but a spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration said officials believed there was no threat to the aircraft.
Some people just don’t seem to learn.