Foot In Mouth of the Week

[Miggy]

Goes to Mr Ted Aiman. Mr Aidman wrote the following letter to the editor of the Miami Herald:

Air marshals overreacted

Rigoberto Alpizar, a psychologically ill man, was killed instead of being temporarily stunned. Today, we have appropriate high-tech stun guns that could have saved his life and, possibly, creatively helped another human being.

The federal air marshals involved obviously were not properly trained, because the outcome was death and not a significant learning experience.

Hopefully, this tragedy will be used as a classic example of what not to do and what needs to happen -- including rational, empathetic human communication.

TED AIDMAN, Miami

I will ignore the dumb Monday-Morning quarterbacking remarks in favor of that warm fuzzy feeling given by 200,000 volts of electricity going through a possible explosive artifact inside a crowded airplane.

Mr. Aimdman, this smiley is for you:

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[QKShooter]

Hey, there ARE serious consequences for being Stuck On Stupid in airports and on airplanes these days.
I wouldn't be too shocked to learn that this guy actually succeeded in a plan of Suicide By Air Marshall.
And if the guy was mentally ill then the family had an obligation to make the airline aware of that fact before he boarded the plane so a decision could be made as to if they would even allow him to fly or not.
At least the Air Marshall's would have known (in advance) that the guy was not 100% mentally balanced.
The blame for this incident cannot be shifted to the airline or Air Security. He was a potential threat to innocent lives...they stopped the threat. Kudos to them.

[rocky]

Can't fault the Air Marshals.

[Miggy]

Can't fault the Air Marshals.

But there are plenty of idiots bound and determined to do just that. I had an argument a couple of days back with this lady from Argentina. She was horrified that the poor menatlly unstabe fellow was shot to death instead of subdued. I pointed out that the FAM did not know that at the time and that he did not have the time to conduct an interview and develop a psychological profile when somebody is threatening to use a bomb inside an airplane. She sort of blinked and had that "uuhhhh" look on her face but countered that there were other methods to take down the suspect. I asked which and the first one that popped out of her mouth was pepper spray because "he would drop the bomb to rub his eyes." I guess my face had a "Are you frigging nuts? Dropping the bomb is safer?" Look 'cause she rapidly went to Option 2: Taser. I politely(and believe me, saying something polite after such a display of stupidity took a lot) pointed out that maybe shooting electrictity so close to a bomb was not the best of options. Of course, she still had Option 3: Incapacitating Gas! I had to blink hard and ask for clarification. She went on to say: "You know, you spray him with gas and he goes to sleep" which it was first news to me that such a potent non-lethal device existed. I asked wher had she seen that besides James Bond movies and she insisted that there were such weapons or at least "there should exist, you know?" I told her that the only use of gas in a hostage situation that I know of was in a Moscow Theater and lots of hostages died because of the gas.
Her closing statement got me really mad. When she saw that she was grasping at straws, she chose to end up with: "Well, you know, American Police are just brutal. They shoot first and ask questions later, you know that. Much worse that the countries we come from. (wink-wink fellow oppressed latino.)"
I had to cease the conversation and leave the area. This dumb broad who lived under Argentinian Military dictatorships with nightime raids, concentration camps and Desaparecidos (Disappeared) had the gall to say that USA LEO's are worse that those frigging facists.

[rocky]

Think I would have suggested she go home , if our PD is so violent.

[P95Carry]

Miggy - plain fact dude - some folks just do not (and never will) - get it!!!

[Bud White]

I love it hit him with a stun gun ... um you running current though a bomb is never a good ideal

[Kompact9]

Seems odd that the suggestion of less than lethal takedown be suggested with someone that said they had a bomb and reached for the carry-on that contained it. If someone had a gun pointed at them, would they still opt for the less that lethal remedy? I think NOT...some folks will truly NEVER get it.

[SARR001]

Did a Dogpile.com search for this guy. He is on the Board of Directors of the Miami ACLU. In fact, his name is listed first in the By-Laws I found. Article III, paragraph 11.
http://www.aclufl.org/about/by_laws_2004.cfm

Why am I not surprised? The ACLU does some good things, but sometimes they are just waaaayyyyy out there.

[rstickle]

I will ignore the dumb Monday-Morning quarterbacking remarks in favor of that warm fuzzy feeling given by 200,000 volts of electricity going through a possible explosive artifact inside a crowded airplane.

Mr. Aimdman, this smiley is for you:

Actually, the voltage isn't that important with the bombs, it's the current.......... BUT, having said that I wouldn't want to taser a bomber for other reasons than voltage/current.

[havegunjoe]

Maybe the AM's could just ask pretty please don't set off the bomb and offer the BG a warm hug. My head hurts when I think how stupid some people are. Those Marshals did exactly what I want them to do if I was on that plane.

[F350]

The ACLU does some good things,

............................
.............................
.............................
..............................
..............................
...............................
...............................

OK; I have tried.....can you help me here; besides defending murdering pedophiles and islamo terrorists, leading the assault on traditional Christmas, turning their backs on the second amendment etc…..WHAT GOOD HAVE THEY DONE

[KenpoTex]

As far as the tazer thing, I don't think the current would actually reach the device since you can be touching a person who gets tazed and not get the current.

That aside, I think the FAM's did exactly what they should have done in that situation. They had no way of knowing that he had mental probs. and/or off his meds.

I've had a couple of conversations along these lines with people who were hung up on the fact that the guy had mental problems and, as a result, shouldn't have been shot. Even after I mentioned some of the factors that we've discussed here, they still were unconviced. Some people are just too stupid.

The sad part is that if there had been a bomb detonated, these same peole who are condemning the actions of the marshalls would be crying for their heads for NOT shooting the guy.

[ibex]

Tasers, "sleep gas" , warm hugs... these people make my head hurt.

I think we can consider it a fact that anyone bringing a bomb into a civilian airport and/or threatening and/or intending to detonate it there is quite possibly some degree of "mentally unstable". This includes terrorists.

And, as far as I am concerned, shooting mentally unstable terrorists (which is redundant, as previously established) is A-OK, even encouraged. And since terrorists cannot be distinguished from other, possibly slightly less dangerous nutjobs at a glance, shooting the latter is fine by me, too.

If a passenger is so barking mad that such behavior is to be expected, they should board the plane in a straightjacket.

It's soo easy for these touchy-feely types to say "see, he was just ill and had no bomb, there was no need for lethal force". Later. From the comfort of their recliners, eating dinner over the evening news. If they had been there, close to the "bomb", I bet they wouldn't have been so picky about what kind of force the Air Marshal used to save their butts. At least until after the threat was neutralized.

[KenpoTex]

It's soo easy for these touchy-feely types to say "see, he was just ill and had no bomb, there was no need for lethal force". Later. From the comfort of their recliners, eating dinner over the evening news. If they had been there, close to the "bomb", I bet they wouldn't have been so picky about what kind of force the Air Marshal used to save their butts. At least until after the threat was neutralized.

Exactly. This is why the doctrine of "Objective Reasonableness" exists. In hindsight, no, the guy wasn't a threat so it wouldn't have been reasonable to shoot him. However, like you said, the FAM's didn't know any of that so based on the circumstances as they perceived them it was reasonable.

...and it was.