Posted on 12/09/2005 12:28:29 PM PST by MRMEAN
..., it became increasingly apparent that the Maitland man killed by federal air marshals may have been fleeing in panic as he suffered the symptoms of bipolar disorder.
--SNIP--
A Miami-Dade police spokeswoman said Thursday that multiple witnesses reported that the 44-year-old was yelling that he had a bomb as he made his way down the aisle with a backpack slung across his chest. Later, the agency's chief of investigations insisted that Alpizar was yelling about a bomb but declined to say whether he was on the plane at the time.
Seven passengers interviewed by the Orlando Sentinel -- seated in both the front and rear of the main passenger cabin -- said Alpizar was silent as he ran past them on his way to the exit. One thought he had taken the wrong flight. Another thought he was going to throw up.
"I can tell you, he never said a thing in that airplane. He never called out he had a bomb," said Orlando architect Jorge A. Borrelli, who helped comfort Alpizar's wife after the gunfire. "He never said a word from the point he passed me at Row 9. . . . He did not say a word to anybody."
Two teens seated in Row 26 agreed. So did Jorge Figueroa, a power-plant operator from Lakeland seated a few rows behind first class.
"He wasn't saying anything; he was just running," Figueroa said. "I said to myself, 'It is probably a person who took the wrong plane.' "
What Alpizar's fellow passengers did hear were the desperate explanations from Buechner, Alpizar's wife, who at first seemed embarrassed by her husband's hasty exit. She started to follow him off the plane, saying, "He's sick. He needs to get off the plane," witnesses said.
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
I knew this would happen sooner or later. I just knew a few idiots on the plane that were completely oblivious to the events that led up to the shooting would be surprised and upset about another passenger getting shot, then start talking about how they didn't hear that guy say anything.
They didn't hear him say anything because they weren't paying any frickin attention to what was going on in the first place
Duh! What else is an eyewitness supposed to do?
The Federal Air Marshall spokesman said that the man was running up and down the aisles yelling that he had a bomb in his bag.
He's making some pretty tall claims for a man who wasn't on-board, isn't he?
Not only did he not see or hear any of the events that took place, but he wasn't even on the plane. Yet, there he is attempting to tell us what happened.
And, yes, I did hear them on TV AS THE EVENT WAS HAPPENING Wednesday; I guess I should just ignore people's spontaneous recollection of what just happened to them 30 minutes before.
LOL! (Do as I say, not as I do...) I can only offer these words of wisdom; "Never take the word of a few people who are anxious to get their faces on TV."
Did you happen to catch their names?
BTW, one of the guys you're quoting had to admit on Fox Thursday morning that while he was on the plane he could in no way see or hear what was going on because of where he was sitting?
It's not that I don't believe what you're saying, but I don't usually watch Faux News, so I missed this live. I searched their site, but came up empty.
Do you have a link to the video or the name of the passenger who recanted?
An agitated man gets up and runs off an airplane into the airport, his wife is explaining, “He’s Sick,” he has no weapon, how does he pose a threat requiring lethal force?
There are no reports of any other passengers in the vicinity in the airport. The White House justification, and the justification by talk-radio hosts, their callers, and many FR posters, was that the marshals shot to protect the passengers. On the ground, how is this different than being in a shopping mall. If a mall cop shot and killed a man running who who didn’t obey an order; would posters here be lining up to give him a medal, or demanding he be prosecuted for murder?
Mohammed Atta quietly took his seat, and didn’t run OFF THE PLANE. I wish that on 9/11 the FAA allowed the airlines to use the terrorist profiling system that was in place, that as I recall picked up some 11 of the 19 terrorists; but the airlines were not allowed to use that information because it would be profiling Arabs. Then we wouldn’t have to be justifying the shooting of an Innocent man.
They were in the airport, that seems an unlikely scenario. How were the Marshals to know his history?
His wife told them.
With more and more female bombers these days, it is reasonable to assume that her "explanations" might be ignored as they concentrated on the guy. Who can say that a female companion to a terrorist might not try a delaying ploy to give him time to detonate.
If he had a bomb he could have quietly detonated in his seat, or better yet waited until the plane was in flight and detonated it there. Your scenario, and other wild scenarios posted to justify the marshals’ actions, would justify shooting anyone. If you reach for your computer how does the air marshal know that you don’t have a bomb in it?
Hind sight makes geniuses of many of us, but when time is critical and a wrong decision will either result in the death of a possible innocent, but sick man, or if made the other way, might kill 100+ people, there is only one decision.
I just went over to DU after seeing someone post from there on this thread. I found this: Whatever happened to "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"? Even in cases requiring decisions we may not want to face? Until you can put yourself in the Marshals' position, you can't really make useful criticisms.
This is an odd sentiment that has been repeated in one form or another a number of times…Federal officials who shoot an innocent man are beyond criticism. If I had to make the same choice, I would likely have done as they did. You would follow a man who ran out of an airplane, who’s wife told you “He’s sick,” and who, from eyewitness accounts never said “I have a bomb in my bag,” and you would shoot him dead? PS: Tookey needs to be executed.
On that one point we agree.
If you’ve read the earlier threads, listened to talk-radio, or even review this thread, you will see many, if not most people, “automatically justifying the shooting of an unarmed man” and “not bothering to look at the facts…” Additionally, I'm not sure why it matters that they shot him when he was off the plane The repeated justification has been that the marshal was saving the lives of the passengers; once off the plane that justification no longer holds. We don't allow people, even LEOs, to go around shooting people who they think might be a problem. Lastly, you said: I expect that after interviewing all the passengers Federal officials will come up with a few who will agree they heard the word, "bomb." ("You did hear him say "bomb," didn't you...others did, you must have...you're not gonna say the air marshals were wrong, are you?") Thank you for that because it shows me where you're coming from. In other words, no matter who says what now, you have made up your mind.
If you don’t think that the Feds are in 100% CYA mode now, you have never dealt with a government agency. Even before there was an investigation, the White House came out and said the shooting was 100% justified. If they were serious and honest about finding out what happened they would never have put out press releases about what Alpizar supposedly said, now they have tainted the witness pool. My hope is that there were audio or AV recordings that will tell us what really happened.
Alpizar's personal history is relevant as to whether we believe that he was wont to making terrorist threats. If he had a history of making threats, or was an anti-Amreican muzzi, I'd figure, "He probably did make a threat," but with no such history, and no independent collaboration by the passengers, and with the air marshal's statement about his "yelling": "I have a bomb in my bag," apparently false, I think it is reasonable to believe that he made no such threat.
He ran off the plane, and didn't obey the shouted orders of people who were not in uniform.
People will concoct any theory to justify the apparently unjustifiable. If he planned to leave a bomb on the plane, would he leave in a way that draws the most attention to himself, with his wife saying, "He's sick," or would he quietly saunter up and get off; and would his wife stay on board? Really.
I guess I don't have your secret information on the "modus operandi" of suicide bombers. If Alpizar did have a bomb, and wanted to take out the maximum number of people, I would have figured he would have sat quietly in his seat until the plane took off, waited until the plane reached maximum altitude, sat in a seat next to the external fuselage, and detonated there to decompress the plane and kill everybody on board. Instead he left the plane, and went into the airport where there were, as far as we know, few if any people. You realize that if he wanted to explode a bomb in the airport, he never had to get on the plane, or even go through security, where his bomb was likely to be detected.
You do realize that if he left without identifying his bags the entire plane would need to be unloaded and rechecked. We are discussing tangible risk factors. In this case there were three major risk factors each of which indicates a high risk.
I for one am glad you are not a baggage screener.
His wife was still on board, in fact she went back to get a bag. She had already informed the marshals that her husband was sick. And after being shot Alpizar wasn't much good at id'ing bags; was he? Do you really think that it is an appropriate policy to shoot passengers who get off the plane because the baggage would have to be rechecked? I don't think you do.
And I have no idea what "three major risk factors each of which indicates a high risk" you are talking about; or how that justifies shooting an unarmed man who has already left an airplane.
What assumption do you think is proper to be made when a passenger disembarks leaving his checked bags and whatever else he may have left and refuses to be stopped by authorities?
Alpizar's wife had already told the air marshals that Alpizar was sick, that he was her husband. She was still on board, having returned to get a bag. The air marshals were not in uniform. I might assume that a passenger who I was told was sick was in fact sick and disoriented. If Alpizar's behavior was more alarming than described by the passengers, ie getting up and leaving the plane, I might assume that I should call for TSA help; with two air marshals on the scene already I don't think, given the information, and the fact that the passenger was already off the plane, that he needed shooting.
The fact is that checked baggage has already gone through screening, and the plane could (as has happened on other occasions when a passenger doesn't board) fly with the baggage on board. Or the baggage could be removed; the flight attendants know who is in each seat and all baggage has computer coded id.
In fact, from the news and passenger reports that I've seen, there was no reason for the air marshals to get involved at all; it appears that it was they who escalated a mundane, nonthreatening situation until they got out of control; and tried to cover up a unjustified shooting by putting out "I have a bomb in my bag" story.
And this took place on the ground, off the plane. A recent thread had a couple of Playboy Playmates who got out of control in the air; if these marshals had been on the flight would you have defended shooting those girls?
Let me try again.
What assumption do you think should be made when someone disembarks from a plane leaving the checked luggage behind. when you answer this honestly we can move to step 2 in your logic lesson.
I'm betting also, that the plane was a tad noisy while the events were unfolding.. Not like you're gonna have a library quiet plane with a guy running down the aisle with a back pack on, and two sky marshals yelling. So with people ducking down behind their seats, most likely screaming and yelling.. I bet many passengers couldn't be certain what anyone was saying.
I did answer the question in context. If you are asking the question without any context, no assumptions can be made, certainly none that would justify shooting a passenger to death.
In context, Alpizar's wife identified him as her husband, and told the marshals that he was sick. In context, an appropriate assumption was that Alpizar was sick and needed to get off the plane.
And you can keep your "logic lesson," with your "logic" we would see hundreds of shootings in planes and airports annually; fortunately most air marshals are using at least some common sense, and not Raycpa "logic."
(and BTW, it's interesting that the pro-kill posters don't refer to Alpizar by name.)
The context is the training of the marshalls. Again what assumption do you think should be made when someone disembarks from a plane while leaving their checked baggage behind.
(I thought I would at least have to make three moves to put you in checkmate, but I didn't expect you to fold)
Unless you are involved in air marshal training (which I'm sure you are not from your absurd posts) you have no basis for inferring any assumptions from their training. I do recall that as the air marshal service expanded, recruiting and training standards were greatly lowered...but somehow I don't think that's where you want to go.
And I've already answered your questions.
So here's one for you: What should we assume about air marshals who lie about a passenger running up and down an airplane aisle, saying, "I have a bomb in my bag."
Thanks for playing, when you get another quarter come back.
Well, I do like your nickname. :)
susie
This is the part I don't believe......
susie
Darn. And I thought tarot cards were a great idea!
susie
LOL, nuff said!
susie
Your post is really too long to respond to. I still stand by what I said. I will let it go at that.
However, you said in the beginning of your post that his wife stated he had no weapon. I don't recall reading or hearing that before, altho it may well have been said somewhere (I really cannot spend all day on this, altho it seems like it!)
Can you please tell me where you got that info?
susie
I put his wife's statement in quotes, "He's sick." I wasn't implying that his wife said anything about a weapon or lack thereof.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.