[MRMEAN]

From the CNN story posted yesterday

Dave Adams, a spokesman for the Federal Air Marshal Service, said Alpizar had run up and down the plane's aisle yelling, "I have a bomb in my bag."

If Alpizar actually been yelling "I have a bomb in my bag," while running up and down the aisle, wouldn't all the passengers have heard that?

From the CNN story, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan told reporters at Thursday's briefing that

"the agents acted Wednesday to protect other passengers."

But Alpizar had already left the plane and was no risk to the other passengers. This is fact that to be ignored by most posters on other threads, most talk-radio hosts (all except Michael Savage), and callers, who have reacted to this shooting with glee, saying "Good Shoot!", "the system works," and wanting to give the shooters medals. 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.

Alpizar has no history of making threats. 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.

It appears that Alpizar panicked ran off the plane, the air marshals decided to intervene and gave chase. They were in plain clothes, no doubt shouting their commands at him, and he may not, in his agitated state even understand that they were police; and he did not obey their commands. I believe that the marshals may have panicked themselves...and by saying that Alpizar threatened with a "bomb" they justify their actions...they may even believe it themselves now.

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?") but so far no passenger interviewed by the media has confirmed the air marshal story (that Alpizar ran up and down the aisle yelling, "I have a bomb in my bag,")...if the air marshals were correct ALL the passengers would have heard it.

Alpizar was not a threat to the passengers when he was shot, his wife had already explained to the marshals that he was sick, and it appears that the air marshal's claim that Alpizar made a bomb threat is not true.

This was not a "Good Shoot."

I know I'm going to be flamed as an ACLU liberal for this; to you who do that: When did it become part of the philosophy of the Right to automatically justify the shooting of an unarmed citizen by Federal officials?

[Homer1]

I agree with you 100 percent.

[joseph20]

He was running from the police. The police had their guns drawn and were shouting for him to get on the ground. At that moment he began reaching into his bag. That's when the shots were fired.

When a police officer is shouting commands at you with his gun drawn, you do what he says. Period.

[ANGGAPO]

No doubt the ACLU and a thousand lawyers will be involved.

[Doogle]

...does it not appear odd that ONLY people who didn't hear the word "bomb" are the ones being interviewed?
Does anyone recall hearing the word bomb?


Doogle

[jra]

This story doesn't pivot around whether he did or did not say the "B-word".

One can easily pose a threat whether or not they say a specific word.

[groovychick]

Looks like we will all have to wait for the dust to settle on this one.
I can't believe an air marshal would just fire on someone whom they did not believe to be a legitimate threat....
I have been waiting for the media to jump on this and condemn the air marshals.
I just hope we find out the real truth in all of this
and its tragic that the terrorist have made this our reality....damned if we do damned if we don't....

[Patriot Hooligan]

I saw an interview with a dallas man last night and he said, he doesn't remember the exact phrase, but that he heard the man yell "I have a bomb."

[American Quilter]

I know I'm going to be flamed as an ACLU liberal for this;

Us? Flame you? Never! We're far too polite.

Sounds like more investigation is needed here. Alpizar must have been doing something to make the air marshal perceive him as a threat.

[BigFinn]

I don't think Mohammed Atta yelled that he had a bomb.... just wish that Air Marshal was on that plane.

[trebb]

Just being off the plane did not make him "no threat to it" as a bomb set off in proximity might still send shrapnel through, along with possibly fireballing the fuel.

How were the Marshals to know his history?

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.

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.

Until you can put yourself in the Marshals' position, you can't really make useful criticisms. This will be spun so bad that many folks will think we need to give up security all together and just take our chances of another 9-11. Of course, if it had gone the other way, it would be spun with howls of anger about not doing enough.

If I had to make the same choice, I would likely have done as they did. The difference between their accounts and the witnesses accounts can be way out because they were concentrating on a possible threat and the witnesses saw everything in passing instead of being engaged.

The biggest problem is that the MSM, and many Dims will do everything they can to fog over and hide the real truth unless they can definitively prove that the Marshal's were just blood-hungry, gun-toting, maniacs that felt the need to kill someone to prove their manhood. Then, if they get what they want and security goes down the tubes, they will get the other thing they want, which is another 9-11 that they can use to bash the Prez with.

PS: Tookey needs to be executed.

[oceanview]

look at it this way - how many passengers are moving in the aisle towards the door, saying nothing, perhaps heading to exit the plane or perhaps heading for the bathroom or perhaps heading up front to stow some luggage in the closet, on planes everyday in the US? alot. how many are shot? NONE, until this incident.

that tells me this guy had to be doing something more then just silently walking down the aisle.

[brytlea]

The only part I would flame you for (if it is a flame) is suggesting that people are automatically justifying a shooting of an unarmed man by Federal officials. I think you are inferring (if not, I welcome you to correct me) that people are not bothering to look at the facts because they are ok with the Feds shooting anyone they feel like (if that's not what you mean, I would like you to clarify).

I think that honestly, we don't have all of the info and it will be dribbed and drabbed out to us. Initially EVERYONE in the media said the guy said he had a bomb. So, assuming that was true, it seemed like a normal course of action that he was going to get shot if he did not immediately do as they said. Now, it seems a little less clear (I don't know yet what all witnesses said, and I don't trust the media not to color the news, but your mileage may vary).

Additionally, I'm not sure why it matters that they shot him when he was off the plane (I'm a little confused about where he was, was it the little tube thing that connects the plane to the terminal?) Anyway, another possible scenario, which may preclude anyone on the airplane from having heard him say anything about a bomb was the he didn't say it until he was off the plane. If he had had a bomb, would you suggest it was ok to let him detonate it there, since he was off the plane? Anyway, I don't know for sure how things played out and I haven't seen a really good step by step of what happened.

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. Frankly, I have not. We'll see.

susie

[RambozoDClown]

Thank you for that breath of fresh air. The word "bomb" is the trump card in the airport.It justifies any action on the part of the PoLice. I am not saying the authorities actions weren't justified, I don't know, I wasn't there. What I do like to see is people questioning the "official" version of these types of stories. Sounds like the cops were causing a lot of terror themselves, pointing there guns at seated people's heads who had no connection to the crazy guy running around screaming.

[Izzy Dunne]

But Alpizar had already left the plane and was no risk to the other passengers.

Had he suggled a bomb ONTO the plane, he certainly could have left it there.

Alpizar has no history of making threats.

Completely unknown to the marshal at the time, completely irrelevant anyway.

He was returning from volunteer missionary work.

Completely unknown to the marshal at the time, completely irrelevant anyway.

[Sweetjustusnow]

Joseph20 is exactly right (see his first post).

It is unfortunate that a human being was killed. But the air marshals did the right thing. They didn't know he was mentally ill and his behavior alone is what got him killed. He clearly exhibited every aspect of a person that should be dealt with immediately as a threat to other persons.

One other thing;

"He was not someone who would disrespect the law," sister-in-law Violeta Castro O'Sullivan said from Costa Rica."

If that's the case, he himself looking at his own behavior through the lens of sanity, would have to admit he showed all signs of being a clear and imminent threat to others.

[Raycpa]

Questions:

1. did he say I have a bomb after he left the plane?

2. how close were these folks, planes are very noisy and its tough to hear people next to you let alone people 2 or 3 seats away

[Raycpa]

as if a real bomber would get OFF the plane with his bomb,

There was no way of knowing what he left on the plane. Such behavior would be consitant with a bomber who planned on setting a remote activated bomb.

[TCats]

This whole thing has had a stench about it from the get go. I think there were two parties who were panicked at the time - This unfortunate passenger AND the two Marshals.

IMO The whole story is just too pat - Yelling 'Bomb' and then making threatening movements after exiting the plane. I just don't buy it.

[Raycpa]

When did it become part of the philosophy of the Right to automatically justify the shooting of an unarmed citizen by Federal officials?

When did conservatives make judgements without the facts available? You are speculating.

[Jigsaw John]

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.

First question I would have is where did the Miami-Dade police spokeswoman obtain her information?