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 ...
oo oo ooo i know mistah kott-er!...What if the husband and wife used his illness as his excuse to run off the plane and blow up the terminal? How was that poor man to know whether or not there were Marshals on board?
Geez...I use my tinfoil for the grill.
But it's okay for you to, right? Because these people are saying what you agree with, right?
Utter rubbish; the airport was PACKED with people right inside the gate and on the airplane, no less than 120 in the plane alone!
That goes for the rest of your self-serving post, too.
Source? There has been no media reports of that...if so there should be plenty of witnesses to collaborate the air marshal's version of what transpired off the plane. So far I've seen only one media report of one woman inside the gate who heard the shooting, but didn't see it. She did not mention any of the dialog the air marshals reported, but perhaps others will.
As for "self-serving," the air marshals' version serves their interests; and one important part, that Alpizar ran up and down the aisle yelling, "I have a bomb in my bag," appears from the reports of independent witnesses, not to be true.
As this thing progresses there are certainly conflicting stor ies. I wonder if the actual facts will finally surface. If he was doing what the initial reports said he was doing...then the marshalls had no other choice.
I just can't imagine the shooting of a passenger who was calm and complied with requests from the air marshalls.
Bag-matching is mandatory on international flights, and was proposed but rejected for domestic flights.
AFAIK, no "assumptions" are made - although a person deplaning usually gives a reason and is also interested in re-routing any checked luggage. Absent an explanation, the assumption is that the checked luggage (or carry-on items left behind) poses a threat to the aircraft.
In a situation of snap judgement, a shooter will not account for fellow travelers (unless they too are presenting an immediate threat), or think about much other than what is immediately apprehended as a deadly threat. In this case, the shooters justify their apprehension of a deadly threat by asserting that the guy made a credible bomb threat. They have added detail by asserting that the bomb threat consisted of words (running up and down the aisle yelling a threat), his carrying and control of a pack, the guy making threatening moves toward the marshals (after having exited the aircraft), the guy failing to obey orders, and the guy reaching to get a hand into the bag.
The checked and carry-on luggage was dealt with afterward, by putting it in a safe place and "detonating it." This is prudent follow-up, but is not likely part of the calculus that played in the shooters' minds in the moments that lead to their conclusion that the man himself posed a deadly threat.
The fellow travelers were dealt with as well, by assuming that any number of them could pose a deadly threat. Some of those travelers did not follow orders (for example, they guy who was peeking between the seats and talking on his cell phone); and those securing the plane were prepared to kill any perceived deadly threat. This too is prudent follow up, given an initial belief of a bomb threat.
Heheheh. That does give pause - I bet there would good order on flights if that DID happen from time to time.
So far all of the eyewitness accounts agree that the guy was not calm; and it's a fair assumption that the shooter was not satisfied that the guy was submitting to orders.
Reminds me a bit of the kid in Queen Anne County, Maryland who had the misfortune of being in a car that matched the description of a car reported involved in a bank robbery. Plainclothes officers ordered him out of the car, and the kid was shot in the face for making what was apprehended as a threatening move.
This case, given the official account, is a slam dunk, because not only was the guy not calm, he was yelling that he had a bomb or some other words that amount to an unambiguous bomb threat.
Not necessarily. There have been many, many studies comparing what witnesses heard and/or saw during a fast-moving event. It is proven fact that some people will see or hear things others simply do not. It does not necessarily follow that because Alpizar "yelled" the word bomb that everyone on the plane "must" have heard it. Heck, there are times I don't hear what my wife is saying when she is sitting right across the table because my mind is elsewhere.
But Alpizar had already left the plane and was no risk to the other passengers.
Wrong again. There are "passengers" still in the terminal or even in the gangway. The door of the plane was obviously open, likely indicating not all passengers had boarded and some may have been coming down the gangway. Second, a bomb with a sufficiently large blast radius (easily carried by one person) could cause an explosion of jet fuel or other combustibles in or around the plane itself. He cold have had a remote control to detonate a bomb still on the plane. So to say that he was no threat simply because he was not physically on the plane is nonsense.
Posters have said it was reasonable for the marshals to assume that Alpizar's getting up and running off the plane and his wife following him saying "He's sick" was all part of a terrorist plot...as if a real bomber would get OFF the plane with his bomb, or draw attention to himself, or have his wife follow and draw more attention.
It's called distraction from the real threat. It could also be a "dry run" to force Air Marshals to reveal their identity and/or test their reactions. Prior to 9/11, the hijackers deliberately took various types of prohibited items onto aircraft - even though they had no intention of hijacking those particular flights - in order to test security and see what would pass.
Alpizar has no history of making threats.
Neither did any of the 9/11 hijackers.
He was returning from volunteer missionary work. The only reports that he made a bomb threat comes from officials. The word "bomb" in connection with airports and airlines is "magic," it authorizes any official action, just as the statement, "I thought he had a gun," justifies a police shooting of an unarmed man. From the information available, I believe that Alpizar did not make a bomb threat.
This is about more than what he said. Even assuming for the sake of argument he didn't yell he had a bomb, he ran from Air Marshals when ordered to stop, and reached into his pack. He could have been reaching for a weapon or reaching for a remote control that would have blown up a bomb still in or around the plane. He acted in a threatening manner - regardless of whether or not he "made a bomb threat" - and the Air Marshals were justified in stopping him via deadly force.
[N]o passenger interviewed by the media has confirmed the air marshal story.
No, the media has only reported the statements of those who contradict the Air Marshal's story. It doesn't follow that he did not say it. As proven earlier, it is not necessarily the case that ALL the passengers MUST have heard Aplizar if he was "yelling."
Frankly, I'd be more prone to trusting the word of the Air Marshals, who are trained to be observant to the things around them and to be watching and listening for threats, than the word of some sleepy-eyed passenger who's staring out the window and worried about getting their luggage back.
When did it become part of the philosophy of the Right to automatically justify the shooting of an unarmed citizen by Federal officials?
It's the philosophy of any rational, reasonable person to justify shooting an individual who is acting in a threatening manner in a situation where increased security is expected. Walk into a bank with a water pistol in your pocket and you're going to attract a bit of attention. Maybe you do or don't yell, "I'm robbing the bank," but you reach toward the water pistol. You'd get shot in a hurry.
"...does it not appear odd that ONLY people who didn't hear the word "bomb" are the ones being interviewed?"
That is because veryoen they have intervewed has say the never heard the word "bomm".
"Does anyone recall hearing the word bomb?"
Nope.
Nobody has made that claim except the feds, and for the record they have changed their story once so far.
"Like I said in another post - the wife should have made sure that the man took his medication if he was bi-polar. His needing to get off the plane because of his paranoia could have been avoided if he took his medication. I've seen bi-polar people talk to imaginary aliens who they think are visiting them from another planet. If he was running around up and down the aisle like they said he was - then he was probably having a serious episode. Regardless there is no way the Marshalls would have known this so she is as much responsible for his death as they are."
I can't verify this, but I read in another post on FR somewhere that he did not have his medication because it had been stolen when they were in South America. I dont imagine it's that easy to got a new scrip of bi-polar medication in Ecuador. The man appears to have been in a paic and desperate to get home and get his medication.
Anything could have happened, I doubt he was off his meds by choice.
"Since that is where the action took place, that is probably where those words were said. The passengers would not have heard that. When a police officer says stop, stop."
The fact that the first official version was that he was "running up and down the aisle screaming he had a bomb", which didn' fly so now the new version is that he said it in the jetway. That's not consistent with the facts that have come out. They guy freaked out and just wanted to get off the plane. The air marshals knew in flight who he was and that he was having a ahrd time, and the couple was assured everything would be ok. (aThat's apparently not how it ended up)
Maybe I'm missing it but where did the wife tell the marshal's her husband was sick? From what I read she made comnments as she followed her husband but turned back to get her purse. So when did she have contact with the marshals in order to tell them he was sick? Sounds to me as if she initially was following, saying he was sick and probably trying to calm him to get him back to their seats then when she realized he was intent on exiting the plane she turned back to get her purse. I haven't read where any of the marshal's heard her before they confronted him.
I feel very sorry for the wife in all of this because she was dealing with a sick man. She was doing her best to get him home and in some ways was caught between a rock and a hard place. She couldn't necessarily tell the airline personnel he was having an episode because they wouldn't have been allowed to board. She may have been able to have some control of him prior to his snapping. Then he snaps and won't listen to her, he panics and charges down the aisle to get out of the plane. In his confused mind he may have thought there was a bomb on the plane and he may have been muttering or saying something about a bomb. Wife has gone back to get her purse and all the marshal knows is what he's seeing.
Thank you, I understood you to say she said he had no weapon, but rereading the post you said it yourself. Of course, that's pretty immaterial (that we now know he had no weapon). The officers had no way of knowing that, no way of knowing if his wife was telling the truth about his illness, etc.
susie
I think facts will surface, eventually, however many people will already have decided what they think and won't let facts get in the way of that. I'm going to try not to be one of those people.
susie
Air marshals are among the coolest minds. Most have vast experience in the military or police or both and have been in many situations. They are exactly who you would want around in these kinds of circumstances. Not knowing these particular persons, it would be better to file away what has been said and wait for the case examiners to pronounce judgement than to automatically count the testimony of the witnesses as anything but irrelevant and confused.
This feels more and more like the Iraq/WMD thing to me. Focus on one thing you feel cannot be proven to be true (in this case the Marshalls apparently said they heard him say he had a bomb, but so far no passengers have said they heard it that we know of) and run with it. Distract the public from the real facts (he was acting in a manner that suggested he might be a danger, refused to follow orders and got shot dead because of it) so the *man* can be held up as the villan.
At least that's how I'm starting to percieve this.
susie
This feels more and more like the Iraq/WMD thing to me. Focus on one thing you feel cannot be proven to be true (in this case the Marshalls apparently said they heard him say he had a bomb, but so far no passengers have said they heard it that we know of) and run with it. Distract the public from the real facts (he was acting in a manner that suggested he might be a danger, refused to follow orders and got shot dead because of it) so the *man* can be held up as the villan.
At least that's how I'm starting to percieve this.
susie
Oh how times have changed.......From 'Meet The Parents': Norm: I got a plane full of people saying you threatened that stewardess.
Greg Focker: I was not threatening her. I was just trying to get my bag into the overhead storage thing...
Norm: You were acting like a maniac and you threatened her with a bomb.
Greg Focker: No, I said I didn't have a bomb.
Norm: But you said bomb.
Greg Focker: I said, "It's not like I have a bomb".
Norm: You said "Bomb" on an airplane.
Greg Focker: What's wrong with saying 'Bomb' on an airplane?
Norm: You can't say 'Bomb' on an airplane!
Greg Focker: Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb. You gonna arrest me? Bomb bomb bomb bomb! During the war I was a BOMBadier!
Norm: You assaulted an airline employee and I oughta put you away for years!
This is the scenario that makes the most sense to me. As for what the air marshalls said, I am so confused at this moment, I'm not sure if they have actually made a statement (themselves) or if all we have heard is second hand report from their office (or superior). susie
No it was her fault this happened. She is/was a mental health professional.
Its her career. She shouldve known better than anyone not to let him board without his meds.
It was only a 3 - 4 hour drive home instead.
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.