Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Your Thoughts On Alpizar's Shooting  
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 25
Posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2221 times:

So here's my thoughts on Alpizar's shooting.

If he made a serious bomb threat, the air marshals did the right thing. I've learned from this forum that police are taught to shoot to kill, so if they shot him and killed him, that is inevitable. Now, should they have fired on the man? I don't know and I don't think I'm in a position to question that.

Today, its coming out that the passengers are saying they never heard the man say anything about a bomb, but authorities are saying he made the threat on the jetway after he ran off the plane.

Since we now know that he wasn't carrying a bomb, would there be a way for the marshals to imobilize him without killing him? Is that in their protocol or training? Or once they determined that he was a threat, does their training say to shoot at him? I always think its a shame for somebody to die at the hands of police, as it really sucks for the police to kill somebody in such an ambigious situation; it can't exactly be "fun" for them to do that, even though it may be part of their job.

My last thought is that its a shame that we have this sort of security on aircraft. I would like to believe that screeners could screen out any weapons, bombs, etc. before any chance of them getting on an airplane. I was also against having live firearms on aircraft as I feel there are ways to imobilize a threat (i.e. hijacker) without shooting him.

Ultimately, its a shame this whole situation happened, it wasn't in anybody's interest.

Any thoughts?


NO URLS in signature
12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20640 posts, RR: 62
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2215 times:

I wasn't there, so I can't second guess anyone's actions. I am a pacifist by nature, but if someone were to threaten my safety, or the safety of those around me, I wouldn't hesitate to use whatever force I deemed reasonable to the situation and had at my means to take them down. It's a black and white issue with me. "F-me? No, F-you."


International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineFutureUALpilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2602 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2214 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter):
If he made a serious bomb threat, the air marshals did the right thing.

Agreed. I believe that if anybody mentions that they have a bomb on an aircraft, they become subject to the authorities decisions from that point on, regardless of their state of mental health.

Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter):
I don't know and I don't think I'm in a position to question that.

Again, agreed, however this is a discussion forum where we can entertain as many "what ifs" as our heart desires, just as we are free to discuss our opinions on the matter.

Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter):
would there be a way for the marshals to imobilize him without killing him?

I'm not sure if they have tazers/other non-lethal means but given the situation(aircraft and innocent people directly threatened by a man saying he had a bomb), a lethal solution is best, as it leaves to loose ends/opportunities for said person to recover and detonate the device.

Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter):
it can't exactly be "fun" for them to do that, even though it may be part of their job.

I'm sure it is not fun, but in assuming that role they know that it was a possibility. My dad is a police officer and he always says that if he feels that his life has been threatened or the lives of innocent people have been threatened he will shoot to kill, especially if it means saving others and himself.

Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter):
Ultimately, its a shame this whole situation happened, it wasn't in anybody's interest.

Again, agreed. It is unfortunate but I don't think that in air travel today there should be any give as far as making threats/claiming to have a bomb/gun/what have you.

Again, Im not claiming what I say is absolute, these are just my opinions formed from the information I have.

[Edited 2005-12-09 17:56:19]


Life is better when you surf.
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2204 times:

Discussed to bloody pieces in Civ-Av. with an active thread still running . . .

Do we really need yet another two hundred plus post thread on the same subject??????

Gunfire At MIA? (by BigGSFO Dec 7 2005 in Civil Aviation)

Man Claiming Bomb Shot By Air Marshall At MIA (by Gatorman96 Dec 8 2005 in Civil Aviation)

Third Thread On The MIA Air Marshall Incident (by N1120A Dec 8 2005 in Civil Aviation)


User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 25
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2201 times:

I had a friend in my synagogue growing up who's dad was a police officer. He was involved in a shooting where a suspect shot him in the leg before he shot him dead. While he was wearing a leg brace thing (no clue what it was) for a LONG time, he says he regretted having to kill the man. Some people may accept that killing is part of the job (police, military, etc.) but it can't be an easy thing to do, at least it wouldnt' be for me.


NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21626 posts, RR: 55
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2188 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter):
Since we now know that he wasn't carrying a bomb, would there be a way for the marshals to imobilize him without killing him? Is that in their protocol or training? Or once they determined that he was a threat, does their training say to shoot at him?

From what I read, the marshalls didn't shoot right away when he said he had a bomb. It was only after he reached for his backpack, after disobeying orders to surrender, that they shot him.

The marshalls were assuming that he did have a bomb (and, since he said that he had one, assuming correctly IMHO). They also assumed he was going for the backpack in order to set it off. Let's say that he indeed had a bomb. If you're in the position of the marshalls, you have no way of knowing how long it's going to take him to set it off once he starts moving for the backpack. Ten seconds? Three seconds? You have to shoot immediately, and shoot to neutralize the threat. Once it gets to that point, the only sure way to neutralize the threat is to shoot to kill.

It is possible that the marshalls could have subdued him earlier using less violent means (taser perhaps), but one has to remember that had Mr. Alpizar surrendered (even after saying he had a bomb), this would most likely never have happened. The role of the FAMs is to protect the passengers from terrorists, not from themselves.

Of course, we know that he didn't have a bomb, and that this was all a tragic mistake. However, when one acts like a terrorist when on an airplane (which Mr. Alpizar did), one is really playing russian roulette.

Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter):
I would like to believe that screeners could screen out any weapons, bombs, etc. before any chance of them getting on an airplane.

With the TSA around? That'd be the day...  Sad

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineAirlinelover From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 5580 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2177 times:

While I agree with ANC that there need not be another thread on this, I'll say my part..

I'M GLAD HE IS DEAD!

Anyone who would act out like he did, then claim to have a bomb DESERVES to be shot. There is no excuse for his behavior, and anyone who thinks the no-med bi-polar thing is a good excuse should have their heads checked..

Additionally, it DOES NOT MATTER that pax did not necessarily hear the guy say BOMB.. What matters is that the FAM did.

As for his family, sorry for their loss, but the whacko deserved it..

Oh- He apparently worked at Home Depot.. Must have been in management, because 99% of their management is nuts like this guy (my fiancee works at HD and tells me stories about he mgt all the time).

Chris



Lets do some sexy math. We add you, subtract your clothes, divide your legs and multiply
User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7521 posts, RR: 23
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2171 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter):
My last thought is that its a shame that we have this sort of security on aircraft. I would like to believe that screeners could screen out any weapons, bombs, etc. before any chance of them getting on an airplane.



Quoting Mir (Reply 5):
With the TSA around? That'd be the day...

I touched on this in one of the earlier Civil-Av. threads:

Whatever screening Alpizar went through, it occurred at an airport outside of the United States and/or its territories; therefore, in this case, Thousands Standing Around had nothing to do with any pre-flight inspections of Alpizar's backpack.

Nonetheless, saying "Bomb" or "I have a bomb." on either an airplane or in an airport is just as unwise (if not more) than saying "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. One's just asking for trouble by doing that. Recall the humorous airport/airplane scene towards the end of Meet the Parents; which was released pre-9/11.

And for those who say, "Oh, he's mentally ill." or "He didn't take his medication."; don't think for one minute that a person isn't capable of carrying out on a threat. An example of this was John Lennon's assailant, Mark David Chapman, who BTW was also mentally ill.



"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21626 posts, RR: 55
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2161 times:

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 7):
Whatever screening Alpizar went through, it occurred at an airport outside of the United States and/or its territories; therefore, in this case, Thousands Standing Around had nothing to do with any pre-flight inspections of Alpizar's backpack.

It is my understanding (and my experience) that when one arrives in the US from an international destination, one is screened by the TSA before getting on your connecting flight. So I think that he would have been screened by the Thousands Standing Around.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7521 posts, RR: 23
Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2150 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 8):
It is my understanding (and my experience) that when one arrives in the US from an international destination, one is screened by the TSA before getting on your connecting flight.

Mir,

In case you did see my reply in the other thread, thanks for the clarification/correction. When I first read the story in the paper; it made no mention of the incoming plane from South America changing from one terminal to another (where the same flight could possibly continue to MCO). While I am aware that any incoming passenger flying from a foreign country must go through Customs & Immigration; I wasn't 100% sure whether FIS facilities at MIA (or elsewhere for that matter) offer a security sterile bypass to the same and/or adjacent concourse arriving passengers needing to catch a connecting flight. I guess not.

I stand corrected; my apologies for any earlier erroneous statements I may have made in this thread and the other one.



"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2137 times:

Terrorist A gets on a plane from Quito to Miami unarmed. Gets to Miami, clears customs, goes through security again at a another gate for a flight to some domestic destination. Terrorist B has already put a weapon or explosive device on the plane that is going to operate that flight. Terrorist A and B never even have to see each other.

How do they know which fleet number is going to operate the flight in question? Well major breakthrough! We have internet sites that tell us that stuff in realtime.

Who is terrorist B? We don't know, he could have come in from Cali, he could work for the airline, the catering company, who knows.


That DID NOT happen, but it is just one of a thousand things that could have. There is simply no point in belaboring the fact that no bomb was found.

The FAMs had to make a tough decision and they had to make it RIGHT NOW. Not only did they do the right (however regrettable) thing, they did the only thing.

In my opinion this event has less to teach us about law enforcement personnel and their procedures than it does about the mentally ill who are not institutionalized.

I have a very close and dearly loved family member who is bipolar and on meds for life. She has done things at least this dangerous to herself and has been very lucky not to have ended up on a slab. The things she has done are completely out of character for her when she is "normal" and I think it would be very hard to predict what she might do off her meds.

For these reasons she (when she is able) and those who love her are deadly serious about keeping her on her medication. They, we, understand that it could easily mean her life not to.

I don't know the whole story but it occurs to me that such a person can become a threat to themselves and others and therefore their not being institutionalized really must be conditional on there being responsible persons around them. It appears to me (with no training or education in the subject) that first symptom of undermedication is a kind of euphoric paranoia, which sounds like a contradiction in terms. It can be summed up as: "I'm okay, these people are all crazy!" You let a person in this state of mind on my airplane and I think maybe you have endangered my passengers. If there happen to be FAMs onboard the real risk is to the bipolar person.

Tragedy but where the reforms if any should come need to be in the management of such patients. We can't fix the post-9/11 air transport system to make it safe for them.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2098 times:

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 10):
Terrorist B has already put a weapon or explosive device on the plane that is going to operate that flight.

You say this can happen, but how does terroris B put a weapon or explosive on this domestic flight? How does he get through security with it (assuming they get all this stuff)?

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 10):
That DID NOT happen, but it is just one of a thousand things that could have.

I'm not questioning the decisions of those in the situtation, I just asked some questions about the situation. It was an unfortunate situation and I believe that NOBODY deserves to die. Yes he was dumb for saying bomb on an airplane and what he did was incredibly stupid. Yet I am of the belief that hopefully there is a non fatal way to resolve situations like these.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineFr8Mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5439 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2081 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 11):
You say this can happen, but how does terroris B put a weapon or explosive on this domestic flight? How does he get through security with it (assuming they get all this stuff)?

I'm an airline employee with access to the most intimate parts of an aircraft. I assure you, I can get a weapon into my facility, and from there it is a short walk to an aircraft. Do you know what is in my heart or mind?


Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter):
Since we now know that he wasn't carrying a bomb

Hindsight is a beautiful thing isn't it? We NOW know he didn't have a bomb, the officer certainly didn't know that at the time.

As to non-lethal means of disabling? At what range were the officers? Would you be keen on tackling someone you suspect, and have every reason to believe, is carrying a bomb and has failed to comply with your orders? I'm sorry, you put one between his eyes or between his shoulder blades, as the case may be. You shoot to kill, a wounded person can still trigger a bomb.

[Edited 2005-12-11 05:08:53]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Your Thoughts On Norway posted Sun Sep 24 2006 18:17:50 by Speedbird747BA
Your Thoughts On AK Senator Stevens posted Wed Apr 5 2006 23:21:24 by Bushpilot
Your Thoughts On DoubleClick posted Wed Sep 21 2005 14:41:37 by UTA_flyinghigh
Your Thoughts On Websites Like Iwon.com? posted Sun Jul 10 2005 06:41:57 by Lehpron
Your Thoughts On Dostoyevski posted Mon May 9 2005 10:47:00 by Mika
Your Thoughts On The New Dr Who posted Sat Mar 26 2005 20:51:48 by Myt332
Ryan Seacrest: Your Thoughts On Him? posted Sat Mar 19 2005 02:15:45 by ConcordeBoy
Gloria Allred: Your Thoughts On Her? posted Wed Mar 16 2005 21:52:44 by ConcordeBoy
Your Thoughts On Moscow & St. Petersburg? posted Thu Feb 3 2005 05:13:50 by ClassicLover
Your Thoughts On New TV Shows posted Mon Jan 24 2005 11:58:00 by VH-KCT*