Darwin claims one in Miami

It would appear that some people still don't quite realize that it is not
really a good idea to claim that you have a bomb on an aircraft...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/07/air...hot/index.html

Not exactly survival-oriented behavior, eh?

Grumman-581 wrote:

> It would appear that some people still don't quite realize that it is not
> really a good idea to claim that you have a bomb on an aircraft...
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/07/air...hot/index.html
>
> Not exactly survival-oriented behavior, eh?
>
>

Simply "suicide by cop". The only thing newsworthy about it is the venue.

--
I have never met a liberal street cop.

In article <kfOlf.37254$%i.8879@tornado.texas.rr.com>, "Grumman-581" <grumman581@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM@gmail.com> writes:
>It would appear that some people still don't quite realize that it is not
>really a good idea to claim that you have a bomb on an aircraft...

There was no bomb. At least that much is clear.

Other information (CNN and local (South Florida) TV news) leads to
another possible interpretation:

US Air Marshals encountered a person who was at least somewhat unbalanced.
Because (apparently) they were not prepared or trained to deal with this,
they provoked a situation which ultimately led to their killing him.

FWIW, I do not find serious fault with the individual air marshalls,
even though they could have done better. However, clearly, if they had not
been there, an inocent person would still be alive.

Does this make flying safer? I think not.

I still don't know why the "I" was dropped from "ITSA".
("I" for "Illusion of")

--
Charlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA
(hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying)
All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's.

"Charlie Hammond" <hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com> wrote in message
news:o0Ylf.304$sG7.208@news.cpqcorp.net...
> In article <kfOlf.37254$%i.8879@tornado.texas.rr.com>, "Grumman-581"
<grumman581@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM@gmail.com> writes:
> >It would appear that some people still don't quite realize that it is not
> >really a good idea to claim that you have a bomb on an aircraft...
>
> There was no bomb. At least that much is clear.
>
> Other information (CNN and local (South Florida) TV news) leads to
> another possible interpretation:
>
> US Air Marshals encountered a person who was at least somewhat unbalanced.
> Because (apparently) they were not prepared or trained to deal with this,
> they provoked a situation which ultimately led to their killing him.
>
> FWIW, I do not find serious fault with the individual air marshalls,
> even though they could have done better. However, clearly, if they had
not
> been there, an inocent person would still be alive.

innocent? are you fucking serious? I am so sick of laws protecting the
criminals.

Charlie Hammond wrote:
> In article <kfOlf.37254$%i.8879@tornado.texas.rr.com>, "Grumman-581" <grumman581@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>It would appear that some people still don't quite realize that it is not
>>really a good idea to claim that you have a bomb on an aircraft...
>
>
> There was no bomb. At least that much is clear.
>
> Other information (CNN and local (South Florida) TV news) leads to
> another possible interpretation:
>
> US Air Marshals encountered a person who was at least somewhat unbalanced.
> Because (apparently) they were not prepared or trained to deal with this,
> they provoked a situation which ultimately led to their killing him.
>
> FWIW, I do not find serious fault with the individual air marshalls,
> even though they could have done better. However, clearly, if they had not
> been there, an inocent person would still be alive.

Jesus Christ...give me a break. How is it when a person runs through a
public area proclaiming he has a bomb he can be labled and "'inocent'
person"? What the hell are they supposed to do? They challenge him and
he makes a grab for the item he claims is a bomb and they shoot him,
what the hell else are they supposed to do? If it had been a bomb and
the air marshals did nothing and he detonated it killing and injuring a
large number of people, you would be screaming at the top of your lungs,
"Why didn't these armed air marshals do something to stop this guy?".

Typical Monday morning quarterbacking. You weren't there. You
obviously have NO background in law enforcement.

Tell us exactly HOW the air marshals could have done better?

>From the somewhat confusing news reports I gather that the passenger:
- Said he had a bomb in his backpack
- Ran from marshals
- Refused order to stop, get down
-Reached for back pack

What could they do but shoot him?

"Charlie Hammond" <hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com> wrote in message
news:o0Ylf.304$sG7.208@news.cpqcorp.net...
> In article <kfOlf.37254$%i.8879@tornado.texas.rr.com>, "Grumman-581"
> <grumman581@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM@gmail.com> writes:
>>It would appear that some people still don't quite realize that it is not
>>really a good idea to claim that you have a bomb on an aircraft...
>
> There was no bomb. At least that much is clear.

But it certainly wasn't clear till after the fact.

> Other information (CNN and local (South Florida) TV news) leads to
> another possible interpretation:
>
> US Air Marshals encountered a person who was at least somewhat unbalanced.
> Because (apparently) they were not prepared or trained to deal with this,
> they provoked a situation which ultimately led to their killing him.
>
> FWIW, I do not find serious fault with the individual air marshalls,
> even though they could have done better. However, clearly, if they had
> not
> been there, an inocent person would still be alive.
>
> Does this make flying safer? I think not.

I don't have the slightest clue how you came to a -single- one of your
conclusions.

I'm absolutely speechless.

Among other things, anyone, in this day and age, who runs around an
airplane at a crowded airport yelling "I have a bomb" -needs- to be shot in
the head with as much ammunition as possible.

Any air marshal, or any law enforcement official that either hesitates or
refuses to do so should have his sword broken in half and be shoved out the
front gate of the fort, so to speak.


MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- A 44-year-old U.S. citizen who claimed to have a
bomb was shot and killed when air marshals opened fire on a boarding bridge
at the Miami airport, several sources told CNN. No bomb was found.

American Airlines Flight 924 was in Miami on a stopover during a flight from
Medellin, Colombia, to Orlando, Florida, when the man, identified as
Rigoberto Alpizar, said there was a bomb in his carry-on backpack, a
Department of Homeland Security official said.

Alpizar was confronted by a team of federal air marshals, who followed him
down the boarding bridge and ordered him to get on the ground, the official
said.

When Alpizar appeared to reach into his backpack, he was shot and wounded,
the official said, adding that the marshals' actions were consistent with
their training. Officials said later that the man died of his injuries.

"Froggy" <hub666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134061875.787892.183700@g49g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
> nitespark wrote:
>
> > Jesus Christ...give me a break.
>
> > How is it when a person runs through a
> > public area proclaiming he has a bomb he can be labled and "'inocent'
> > person"?
>
> Innocent as in ignorant or unaware?

Impossible no matter how hard you twist it.

hammond@not wrote:
> In article <kfOlf.37254$%i.8879@tornado.texas.rr.com>, "Grumman-581" <grumman581@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM@gmail.com> writes:
> >It would appear that some people still don't quite realize that it is not
> >really a good idea to claim that you have a bomb on an aircraft...
>
> There was no bomb. At least that much is clear.

With due respect Charlie, that doesn't change the perceived level of
threat at the time, does it?

> Other information (CNN and local (South Florida) TV news) leads to
> another possible interpretation:
>
> US Air Marshals encountered a person who was at least somewhat unbalanced.
> Because (apparently) they were not prepared or trained to deal with this,
> they provoked a situation which ultimately led to their killing him.

"Provoked"? Sounds like you're blaming them for causing his behavior.
The Air Marshals encountered a person who screamed he had a bomb, did
not obey the commands of the marshals and proceded to reach for his
bag. I don't think you really want air marshals to be trained to try to
diagnose or calm a possibly mentally ill person before taking action,
do you?

I hope they've been trained to deal with such grey areas just the way
they did. Do you have such little faith in the authorities as to jump
to the conclusion they hadn't anticipated and planned for such
situations?

As far as these grey areas, Richard Reid, aka the Shoe Bomber, would
have appeared "unbalanced", too. Reportedly, some other suicide bombers
have appeared a bit fidgety just prior to their date with the 72
virgins. IMO, it's a little too much to ask an Air Marshal to try to
sort that out. I'm happy that they just give them a reality check and
some redirection, to use a little psychobabble jargon, "Freeze, or
you're dead".

C'mon, Charlie, let's regrettably accept that, in this age of
terrorism, there will be mentally ill people who get into situations
where their behavior causes authorities to take severe action against
them. They might need a little more supervision now than a few years
ago, even though mental illness has always been a pretty high-risk
condition. This fellow would have needed some close supervision before
being taken bungie jumping or sky diving or, dare I say, scuba diving,
right? The same is true about public air travel now.

It's more sensible to expect that people with a known history of mental
illness, like this fellow who reportedly was bipolar, would be
monitored and supervised prior to getting into a potentially
life-threatening situation, such as travelling by public airline, where
armed Air Marshals are trained to foil terrorist attacks with deadly
force. Especially, since the wife reportedly knew he was decompensating
since being off his meds.

The unfortunate fellow's wife may have been able to better protect the
poor fellow by alerting authorities ahead of time about his condition,
his being off his meds, his manic state, etc. Her reported efforts to
alert the authorites at the last moments were too little, too late.

> FWIW, I do not find serious fault with the individual air marshalls,
> even though they could have done better. However, clearly, if they had not
> been there, an inocent person would still be alive.

What fault do you find and what could they have done better? I'm really
curious.

Innocence isn't the issue. The Air Marshals aren't there to determine
guilt, they simply respond, as trained, to threatening behavior and
situations.

I'm reassured by the certainty of their actions.

> Does this make flying safer? I think not.

I think it does, even if an ill person had to the one to elicit and
publicize the deadly response of our Air Marshals. Terrorists are now
less likely to assume that Air Marshals might hesitate in responding.

> I still don't know why the "I" was dropped from "ITSA".
> ("I" for "Illusion of")

That's probably a bit unfair and ungrateful, don't you think?

The other passengers on that flight certainly were grateful. So am I.

Dave C

Froggy wrote:
> nitespark wrote:
>
>
>>Jesus Christ...give me a break.
>
>
>>How is it when a person runs through a
>>public area proclaiming he has a bomb he can be labled and "'inocent'
>>person"?
>
>
> Innocent as in ignorant or unaware?
>
Exactly how much "awareness" does a person need to know not to run
around an airport yelling "I have a bomb".
>

--
I have never met a liberal street cop.