Schneier on Security

The only good news that I have started to see from this is mainstream news asking a very similar question, albeit with a slightly different spin.

Essentially - do we have to accept that some innocent Americans will occasionally die through no fault of their own in the interests of air safety?

Honestly, I really can't say the sky martials did anything wrong here. The man said he had a bomb. Stupid, perhaps, and not indicative of a terrorist, but do we expect them to do nothing? I'm assuming the man was not obviously joking about it.

One could make the argument that because he was mentally ill he didn't know better, and that is certainly viable to an extent. But does mental illness excuse a person from responsibility? If he killed someone, it would be clear that he was guilty and there would be little sympathy. Here he fakes an act that (if real) would endanger others, and then we are expected to be sympathetic. I'm sorry, but I think the sky martials did the right thing.

On the Janus proxy issue, I'd like to get in touch with William K F...if you're out there, could you raise your hand? I am looking for some details on the leak you reported.

I agreed with Mike. If you say: "I have a bomb" - be ready be killed. And marshalls have no right to be mistaken... they protect...

Bomb or weapon, make a sudden move to something concealed after being told to hold still by a LEO is going to get you shot.

This might have been the same result if it happened in a bank or a supermarket. If the officers who did the shooting had been uniformed city police officers the hype might have been a lot lower.

Yes there are more mentaly ill people that "terrorists". But mentaly ill people have commited some horrible acts (http://64.23.76.22/kudzu/sep01/inferno.html) so should their threat be ignored due to their illness?

I also find it strange that only his wife seems to have known about his condition. Others who knew him for years were suprised by this knowledge. Was he bi-polar or was this suicide by air-cop?

@ Chris S

"do we have to accept that some innocent Americans will occasionally die through no fault of their own in the interests of air safety?"

Of course not! If sky marshals are the only ones killing passengers now-a-days how could this possibly be a good security trade-off?

If security on the ground is doing its job AND we have well-placed confidence in said security (admittedly neither of which is presently the case) terrorists won't be utilizing airplanes as a means of terror anymore. Even with on-the-ground security lacking, terrorists still don’t seem to be targeting airplanes anymore.

We have to stop terrorizing ourselves by guarding against yesterdays threats and start implementing rational policies properly balancing security with civil liberties. Taking a man’s life for *maybe* saying bomb after he has passed security without considering mental handicap doesn’t seem rational to me.

I think Air Marshals should shoot anyone dumb enough to claim they have a bomb... and decrease the surplus population.

It is very difficult to see the rationale behind the sky marshals' action. What that guy did - running and shouting "I have a bomb" - is precisely what a terrorist would never have done. And even if he had been a terrorist, what harm could he have done in that jetway? They didn't have to shoot him dead just to stop him. It seems likely that they panicked. This is exactly one of the reasons why many of us have said we don't want armed agents on planes.

Given that local police/sheriffs officers recently shot an unarmed naked man because of the threat that he posed to them, I'm not surprised that this happened.

http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=79538

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_102505_news_naked_man_shooting_folo.624eafc.html

There is a lot more to this story than it first appears...

Of course the police were found not to have done anything wrong.

Z.

"It is very difficult to see the rationale behind the sky marshals' action. What that guy did - running and shouting 'I have a bomb' - is precisely what a terrorist would never have done."

Well, that's what a rational terrorist would never have done. There are irrational people with bombs. But this is a split-second decision, and it all comes down to training.

"And even if he had been a terrorist, what harm could he have done in that jetway? They didn't have to shoot him dead just to stop him. It seems likely that they panicked. This is exactly one of the reasons why many of us have said we don't want armed agents on planes."

This is plausible.

"Honestly, I really can't say the sky martials did anything wrong here."

At this point, neither can I.

Training is obviously valuable, and I would argue that someone in that role can never be trained enough. But it seems unlikely that you can train marshalls to instantly identify and distinguish HARMLESS mentally ill people - you can't just look for signs of mental illness, since certainly at least some "movie-plot" terrorists as well as suicidal or sociopathic killers have delusional and other mental disfunctions - so the challenge includes determining that their mental illness is a harmless form.

As a passenger, especially one who flies with his family on occasion, I would hope that any air marshall in my vicinity would err on the side of the safety of my family. I don't mean to be especially harsh to those with mental disabilities - but the marshalls' primary role is to protect the safety of the public, not of individuals who for various reasons present a false positive.

"Bomb or weapon, make a sudden move to something concealed after being told to hold still by a LEO is going to get you shot."

Yep.

"Training is obviously valuable, and I would argue that someone in that role can never be trained enough."

Please read Gladwell's book. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I want you to read the book before you expand on what you're saying.

"But does mental illness excuse a person from responsibility? "

Yes it does. If his mind is gone then he will make poor choices. I don't blame him for the problem, nor do I blame the air marshals.

I understand why the air marshals ended up shooting him. This would have been a great situation to have a Tazer available in additon to the handguns.

"And even if he had been a terrorist, what harm could he have done in that jetway? "

Depending on how far away they were at the moment a very small bomb could have killed several people, the air marshals included. If you have ever seen what a real grenade (a very small device) does you will understand.

umm, using a tazer on somebody who might have a bomb is not the greatest idea i've heard lately.

"Here he fakes an act that (if real) would endanger others, and then we are expected to be sympathetic." "But does mental illness excuse a person from responsibility?" "But mentaly ill people have commited some horrible acts"

Some of the comments here are nothing short of insane. You are saying: "don't be sorry for the death of an innocent psycho. Don't care!" How does such an attitude help us fight terrorism? Every single life lost is a victory for those who don't care for human life. The question to be asked is what was the justification for killing him. Killing can be justified if and only if it is necessary to avert an immediate mortal danger. You can't reasonably claim that in this case.

It is not at all surprising only his wife would be apprised of his condition. Bipolar disorder can often be kept in check very effectively with medication, and this is precisely the kind of information about yourself you would *not* want generally known.

This tragic incident is unfortunately not so surprising for anyone who has a loved one diagnosed as bipolar and knows how they can lose control of themselves when off medication. The surprising thing is that it hasn't occurred sooner.

After enough mentally ill and bomb jokesters get shot by air marshals, their hypothetically dominant numbers will fall.

For those who think all terrorists are rational, I have two words: Zacarias Moussaoui

@David

Shocking someone with a tazer does not electrify the entire body into an ignitor for things they touch. Maybe if they had an explosive that *could be triggered electronically* (metallic, found by metal detectors) and the trigger was somehow grounded. Maybe.

I would think it just as plausible for a bullet to set of an unstable explosive compound (which are cheaper to make) by a massive shock or heat change.

Tazers non-lethal. Tazers typically have less collateral damage when they miss. The discussion on whether Air Marshals should carry guns was made a while ago. It was discussed after they made that policy decision. Perhaps the results of that discussion can be re-examined with more creedance.

Is this really a new philosophical dilemma, or just a different slant on an old issue to "never yell 'fire' in crowded room"?

It is odd to note that CSI (the TV show, for those not in the USA) covered this issue from a slightly different standpoint a while back. In fact this "TV plot" was a much more complete and realistic scenario than a lot of those being thrown around to explain this--very odd.
Basic plot was as follows:
Man gets on airplane for a regular trip home. Man starts acting irrationally. Other occupants of plane passenger cabin kill man.
I don't like to spoil plots, but look up cranial edema and encephalitis and you will find out what was wrong with the actions of the passengers in the big picture of things (including a doctor)--even if most of us would likely have done the same thing.
Remember, people don't often do things because they are the right thing to do....

Quote from the following news article:

Air marshal kills man claiming to have bomb
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051208/NEWS06/512080432/1012
---------------------------------------------
A witness said the man frantically ran down the aisle of the Boeing 757, while his wife tried to explain that he was mentally ill and had not taken his medication.
The man indicated he had a bomb in his bag and was confronted by air marshals but ran off the aircraft, Doyle said. The marshals went after him and ordered him to the ground, but he did not comply and was shot when he apparently reached into the bag, Doyle said.
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
The following misquote from "speed"
---------------------------------------------
Harry Temple: All right, pop quiz. Airplane. Gunman with one bag. He claims to have a bomb in the bag; he's almost reached into the bag. Your 15 feet away. Jack?

Jack: Shoot yourself, becuase everyone's going doubt you made the right move and your career is over.

---------
Alternate answer
---------
Jack: Shoot the wife. She didn't help him keep up with his meds.
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
I find it interesting that in this case, keeping up with your meds could have maintained his health in more ways than one.

The threat may be low probability, but it is a high impact threat. This will be investigated and if there were mistakes, hopefully those will come out.

If someone says they have a bomb, I think it's reasonable for someone to act as if they do. This is very different from someone else saying "I think that guy might have a bomb" and shooting him.

The model may not match the most probable explanation, but in this case I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to act as if a specified threat is nonexistent. Just as called in bomb threats are rarely true, evacuation is a reasonable course of action based on the potential for harm in the rare case that the threat is exactly as advertised.

@Arl: That's not the point. Obviously, *if* he had had a bomb, he could have done harm. But then he could have blown up the plane any time he wanted. Why should he pose a danger while running away? Why should he run away if he posed a danger?

@Andy: "I would hope that any air marshall in my vicinity would err on the side of the safety of my family. I don't mean to be especially harsh to those with mental disabilities - but the marshalls' primary role is to protect the safety of the public, not of individuals who for various reasons present a false positive." You don't get it: the man had already left the plane. He didn't pose a threat to the passengers. What you should understand is that "to err on the side of safety" is not necessarily good for safety. It may be exactly what the terrorists want us to do.

It seems that whether the man was saying "I've got a bomb" is not established. From what I've read of the case, it is quite possible that the man was saying "I've got to go" -- which is very consistent with his mental state and actions -- and the air marshals misheard it (or decided to mishear it) as "I've go a bomb".

Also, there was no threat of hijacking a plane, was there? He was running *away* from the plane which was on the ground...

>>What that guy did - running and shouting "I have a bomb"<<

This is not confirmed. There are apparently passengers who say the victim said no such thing.

@Mike
"The threat may be low probability, but it is a high impact threat."
Not really: *the man had left the plane.*

The air marshals did nothing wrong, given their training and options. What we see here is what we could have foretold before all this ever happened: their options are not that great.
What if a real (but irrational) terrorist sets the bomb such that it goes off only if he's dead? At that split second they have to make a choice but they don't know if he has a bomb, under what circumstances it will go off, etc. It's a goal line save attempt. The results are not always pretty.

Also, @ Andy ("As a passenger, especially one who flies with his family on occasion, I would hope that any air marshall in my vicinity would err on the side of the safety of my family.")

That's a bit logically inconsistent. What you must have meant to say was "...I would hope that any air marshall in my vicinity would err on the side of the safety of the general public, even if it involves shooting a member of my family who might make sudden movements and not listen to cops..." -- right?

In the paper this morning, first article I'd seen questioning whether he actually said "I have a bomb". Which would make this much more like the the London shooting, with the first official story making it seem like the marshal's did the only obvious thing (because he said he had a bomb), when that may not have been the actual scenario.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-ap-airplane-shooting,1,6426214.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

The more logical statement for him to have made is something like "I'm freaking out, I've got to get off this plane, I'm afraid there's a bomb!" Is the word "bomb" on an airplane regardless of context reason to kill?

"If someone says they have a bomb, I think it's reasonable for someone to act as if they do." Maybe if I had were an air marshal, I would too. But if we step back and try to understand what happened, we should ask whether the presence of those armed marshals is good for security. I doubt it. I doubt it for the following reason: if there really had been a bomb on board, those air marshals wouldn't have prevented a terrorist (whatever his mental state) from exploding it. Airport security is supposed to prevent bombs or weapons from getting on a plane. If it fails, there's nothing air marshals could do about it.

@piglet

Planes aren't the only places that bombs pose a threat. Someone moving towards an area (the rest of the airport) where there are more people than on the plane would still pose a credible threat.

If someone with a bomb had been discovered prior to being able to put their plan into effect, it's not unreasonable to presume they would want to detonate the bomb in the place with the highest damage potential. Keep in mind, we're not talking about people leaving bombs places, blowing themselves up is a very common practice.

I don't know, but would suspect the man was shot with a handgun, which means there was a very high probability that the Sky Marshal was close enough to be affected by a bomb. That puts more than just the alleged bomber in danger. If any law enforcement officer believes they are in grave, immediate danger, they are justified in using whatever force is necessary to neutralize that threat.

The point of contention is whether or not the person claimed to have a bomb. Again, hopefully this is a high enough profile incident that there will be a serious investigation as to whether or not the actions taken were reasonable.

I'm surprised to see any readers of this blog falling into the trap of not understanding the reality of the terrorist threat.

The reality is, it is impossible to completely protect anyone against an attacker who is willing to die in the process of his attack.

The best you can do is try to mitigate the damage that the attack can cause. The rest of it is merely to instill a psychological feeling of 'security' for the masses.

This concept is so foreign to most of the public that they just can't digest how effective this mental state is for an attacker or the reality of the threat.

You can't second guess anything in the heat of the moment. Either you act or you die...or someone else does.

The air marshalls performed amazingly well here with the information that we have so far. Hope that there will be equally skilled air marshalls for the next time as well.

I have a background in physical security and an extensive background in firearms use and training. I'm glad I'm not an air marshall, and glad someone else who is capable is.

@piglet
--------------------
@Mike
"The threat may be low probability, but it is a high impact threat."
Not really: *the man had left the plane.*
--------------------
Just because he left the plane, does not lower the impact of a bomb. There are other people inside the airport.
--------------------
--------------------
@Phil

>>What that guy did - running and shouting "I have a bomb"<<

This is not confirmed. There are apparently passengers who say the victim said no such thing.
--------------------
I have read three news articles on this. In none of them are mentioned that others passengers had a conflicting story. Please provide a link to a news article that shows this.

Really two questions here, what the policy is and what actually happened. There's no way to know what actually happened without an investigation, but we can talk about the policy.

The policy as I understand it is, "if someone claims to have a bomb and they reach for it, shoot to kill." Bruce correctly points out that mentally ill persons are more common than terrorists, but even a mentally ill person can have a bomb. A policeman faced with a gun pointed at him has the same issue--he doesn't know if the gun is loaded or even if it is a real gun. Put terrorism and air safety both aside; are we seriously asking an air marshal not to protect himself if someone makes a credible threat that he's about to blow them both up? I wouldn't ask that of anyone.

Air marshals are trained to deal with all sorts of situations with methods from using verbal skills, immobiliazation and deadly force. But in the case of some reaching for what they say is a concealed bomb, there's no alternative to deadly force that I can think of.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/sfl-sairplane09dec09,0,1860656.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines

Headline: Witnesses in Miami airport shooting differ on whether Alpizar made bomb threat

"It is very difficult to see the rationale behind the sky marshals' action. What that guy did - running and shouting 'I have a bomb' - is precisely what a terrorist would never have done."

Exactly. So far, none of those whose been shot were real terrorists - all false alarms. The real ones always managed to blow people, and themselves, up. The government's idea is to kill the terrorist before they detonate anything. Sorry, their death is part of their plan so they'll make sure people die with them. Did it ever occur to anyone that they could just press a button, hold on to it then detonate when released? That way whether they get to their target or get shot in the head by an officer more than a few other people would still end up dead.

"Well, that's what a rational terrorist would never have done. There are irrational people with bombs. But this is a split-second decision, and it all comes down to training."

No amount of training would prepare anyone for something they don't understand. Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahatir understood this and has said that people who blow themselves up don't do so just to scare you but are fighting for a cause. They are fighting against US gov't meddling and abuse. Countless lives have been lost so what's some more as long as they're sending a dreadful message back.

"Honestly, I really can't say the sky martials did anything wrong here."

Gee... They killed the wrong man, that's what.

If the plane had taken off and there were air marshals on the flight and the man had lost it while the plane was in the air? The risk to other passengers would have been quite large.

The truly negligent person here is the man's wife, who thought she would try to put him in the air while we was clearly losing any semblance of control. She should have asked for assistance, gotten medical aid, and then, if necessary, done the haul from Miami home by ground transport (with restraints, if necessary).

HAHAHAHAHAHA air marshal-owned

Expect this story to change. Maybe not as much as the story in London changed, but it will change. The first version of an explosive story like this is never right.

@Jeff:
I don't think that that comment is very appropriate for this serious discussion.

But what is the cost/benefit analysis say?

The cost is very obvious:
A (apparently confused) human being was killed by accident.
Based on the available public information, one hardly can put
blame on the air-marshal.

Having more air marshals with loaded guns means more possibilities
for error (not to mention the increase in stress while flying,
knowing that one wrong move can potentially get you killed).

The benefit side is not that obvious:
Are there any documented cases of air marshals drawing
their guns and shooting, where those actions saved lives?

Aren't terrorists *by definition* acting irrationally? As far as I'm concerned they're mentally ill too. It's tough to distinguish the finer points of mental illness in milliseconds (and, yes, I have read Blink)

"If someone with a bomb had been discovered prior to being able to put their plan into effect, it's not unreasonable to presume they would want to detonate the bomb in the place with the highest damage potential."
Mike, this rationale hardly applies here. Nothing was "discovered" by those air marshals. To restate what I said before: those air marshals were only "effective" because *there was no threat*. Had there been a real threat, they probably couldn't have done anything. Much of this discussion misses the point because you are trying to answer the wrong questions.

Beyond several of the points made already, about shooting passengers and the general observation of how much overreaction that was involved I think the most interesting question right now is:

Was the story with the bomb a cover-up?

I remember how the excellent British policemen doing their duty shot an �obvious terrorist� that ran into a train to detonate his bomb. Here we already have several people claiming that there really wasn’t any talk of a bomb. I think it will be interesting to see what will come out of the investigation. If it isn’t all classified that is.

I would not be surprised if it turns out that the air marshals turned the airplane into a shooting range to stop a sick man because they had no idea how to handle a mentally ill person. It can be a very scary experience to meet somebody that is obviously crazy and aggressive.

Another interesting question is if it would be more efficient to spend money on medication and mental hospitals instead of armed guards.

I can't see anything different with what the air marshal did from what a cop walking the beat would have done. If you have someone threatening to blow up a bunch of people, no matter if it's in an airport, an airplane, a shopping mall, or a crowded city street, you will be told to get down on the ground and submit to LEOs. If you were told to submit, and reached for something concealed, you will positively get shot dead. LEOs aren't psychiatrists, nor should they attempt to discover the rationale of what is reasonably clear to any average person there to be an imminently deadly threat. Their job it to protect the people around them, and I don't want cops second guessing life or death situations.

On the flip side, what if the guy really did have a bomb and they failed to shoot because they figured it was a bluff?

-- "low-probability threat" --

As is often the case, people get caught up in the "probablility" of something, when they shoud be considering the "expected-value". If the odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 10 million, but the prize is 30 million, the the expected value of your $1 ticket is $2.

Same thing on the negative side. The odds of him having a bomb may have been ridiculously low, but the negative impact is huge.

The immediate negative impact to the air marshal, and the passengers is obvious -- they would be dead or injured. Even from the JetWay a couple of kilos of C4 would have done tremendous damage to the plane, the terminal gate, and any nearby grounds crew.

Longer impacts would have been a temporary closing of the airport, some job losses in the security staff, and some ridiculous congressional review of the TSA.

This is why we evacuate buildings for bomb threats and fire alarms. (When was the last time the fire alarm went off and there really WAS a fire?) The phrase "err opn the side of caution" is completly valid here. The air marshal may have made an error in judgment, but I believe it was the right error to make.

"Gee... They killed the wrong man, that's what."

No, they got the man threatening the lives of innocents.

Maybe we should seperate flights, everyone who doesn't want Marshalls aboard their flight can go to gate B. Those of who will risk being shot by an nervous guard will board at gate A.

"I would not be surprised if it turns out that the air marshals turned the airplane into a shooting range to stop a sick man because they had no idea how to handle a mentally ill person." It didn't happen in a plane. "It can be a very scary experience to meet somebody that is obviously crazy and aggressive." Doubtless, and that's why those people absolutely need training on how to deal with this kind of experience. This is not only a matter of "sympathy" with the victim but a matter of security. After all, air marshals are supposed to deal with difficult situations.

@ARL:

"I understand why the air marshals ended up shooting him. This would have been a great situation to have a Tazer available in additon to the handguns."

The problem there is that bombs are often initiated by an electrical pulse. Shooting with a Tazer could well set it off in spite of the actions to disable. Even if it didn't, the convulsions experienced by target could cause the very action that would set off the bomb. Shooting with a conventional pistol helps to minimize that, at the cost of an increased risk of death to the target.

@Stan:

"Gee... They killed the wrong man, that's what."

It's tragic, but based on the current descriptions that are generally accepted (the man was agitated, yelling, and refused to listen to instructions, and apparently made a sudden move), the Air Marshal may have felt that he had no choice in the matter but to shoot. The fact that this appears to be the first time in the 37 years of existence of the Federal Air Marshal Service that an Air Marshal has fired a weapon in the immediate vicinity of an aircraft, let alone killed a suspect. They've been called on numerous times to assist in dealing with problematic passengers while in flight, and have generally shown a great deal of restraint.

"No, they got the man threatening the lives of innocents."

Was he? It seems only the air martials are claiming that. It's suspicious to have someone "running and shouting" and only those who heard are the ones with guns.

If he was your loved one you would instantly see everything is wrong.

For the love of god it's "Taser"

Ryan: "No, they got the man threatening the lives of innocents." This isn't true, even by the account of the air marshals he didn't threaten anybody. Moreover, we know quite well that real terrorists wouldn't threaten in such a situation, they would just act. On that account also, your argument is wrong. It's incredible but at least some here seem actually to find consolation in the fact that air marshals killed somebody. You probably believe something like "this shows that they are ready to be tough on terrorists", to "err on the side of safety" as some have put it. *You are not using your brains!* Those air marshals are not making us any safer, neither you nor me. They deserve pity, not praise.

No doubt the marshals followed their training.

From CNN.com: "The marshals train in New Jersey, learning to abide by the principle: 'Dominate. Intimidate. Control.'"

They are trained to takeover the aircraft, to dominate, intimidate, and control -- not the troublemakers, but everyone, including each and every passenger. This is exactly the training terrorists get. These are terroristic acts.

Threatening the innocents with murder unless they immediately and totally submit without hesitation to the will of an armed unidentified attacker is a criminal offense everywhere in this country.

If I were a passenger and anybody stuck a gun in my face and ordered me to cower with my hands on my head, it would be my civic duty to kill him outright. Nobody who is pretending to protect me gets to threaten me, period.

Los Angeles and its environs has had this same problem for decades with the LAPD (and all departments imitating them) who are trained to dominate, intimidate, and control in every situation, and at the least hint of plausible threat of harm to themselves -- even if it takes a real stretch -- to then summarily execute people. The LAPD trains their officers to commit crimes which they have every right to expect to escape being punished.

It is easy to predict one obvious consequence of the Florida execution: When the first post-9/11 skyjacking occurs, all the passengers can be counted on to without hesitation fall into a swoon, being instantly meek, docile, compliant, obedient, utterly accepting, and eager to please.

"Moreover, we know quite well that real terrorists wouldn't threaten in such a situation, they would just act." Right and terrorists are the only people threatening our safety.

If the marshals acted according to their training, they did nothing "wrong." Questions of right or wrong are the wrong questions. The right question to be asking is -- Which way leads to fewer deaths of bystanders?

Hypothetically, if marshals end up killing 100 innocent passengers every 10 years, and it prevents a terrorist from killing 200 passengers every 10 years, then the current training is productive. OTOH, if marshals end up killing 100 innocent passengers every 10 years and it prevents a terrorist from killing 100 passengers every 20 years, then the training is unproductive.

Get out of the moral/immoral mindset. Think productive/unproductive.

Comparing the Miami shooting to the London electrician shooting, the one thing that really strikes me is the media's immediate conclusion that law enforcement must be right. Their reporters (forget their ex-law enforcement experts) opine about how well air marshals (or whatever agency happens to be involved) are trained and how the suspect "must have" been sufficiently threatening to warrant the use of deadly force.

Law enforcement officers must meet certain requirements for the use of deadly force. They are not the wild-eyed killers that some would like to portray them as. This is evidenced in that this is the first air marshal shooting post-9/11 that I am aware of. (Correct me if I am wrong.) According to the story I heard on the news, the subject commented that he had a bomb, refused to obey law enforcement, ran from officers, and then reached into a bag, again disobeying orders from officers. Based on these circumstances, there is probable cause to reasonably believe that there was an immiment threat to the officers/public. This justifies the use of deadly force to stop the threat. I believe the officer acted reasonably.

Let's assume we are going to train LEOs to accept that anybody claiming to have a bomb is, in liklikhood bluffing. Now I know that, as a bomb carrying terrorist, the best way to get them to give me plenty of latitude is to claim I have a bomb and have an accomplice tell them I am depressed. Then I will have all the time in the world to position myself in a way to cause maximum carnage while the marshalls stand by waiting for the counselors to show up.

It is a sad fact of life that we will, indeed, have casualties of war. Some. like the Brasilian electrician in London, are entirely avoidable and inexcusable. Other, such as this one, are probably inevitabe, though no less tragic.

@kingsqueak

Just once, I'd like to have a discussion on an issue of security where people don't make assumptions about this being a liberal thing or a conservative thing, or even a terrorism thing.

If the security measures emplaced do not properly protect the guarded commodity, or if the consequences of false flags become unacceptable, then the process must be evaluated. It cannot remain static and be an effective deterrent against terrorism.

====

It's easy to say bomb=terrorism, but there was only the perception of a bomb. If we've already determined, irrespective of physical reality, that there is a bomb, our decision-making process is skewed.

The Air Marshals did not do anything wrong per se - it cannot be said, thus far, that they acted precipitously or improperly. They shouted orders for the man to halt, to drop the bag - and he refused to comply. (I question, however, the wisdom of assuming that your suspect is going to know English.)

Who, exactly, was the wife speaking to, and what issues were involved in NOT getting this information into the loop?

I agree with Bruce, reading "Blink" may provide additional insights. The air marshals did not know WHAT to edit, and their intuitive response was therefore wrong.

While we are discussing differing reports of what happened, I'm not at all sure I have seen a report that made it clear that the wife was able to tell the Air Marshals that he was bi-polar and off his meds before the shooting started. In the absence of this sort of explanation, it seems more clear that the shooting was justified.

@piglet
"Killing can be justified if and only if it is necessary to avert an immediate mortal danger. You can't reasonably claim that in this case."

In the absence of knowledge of his mental condition, then I would claim, reasonably, that there was an immediate mortal danger.

@Stan "If he was your loved one you would instantly see everything is wrong."

Why? Because we all somehow have this understanding that people WE love can't lose control to the point that they become a believable threat? That's what this is really all about - was this poor sod acting in a way that would have lead a reasonable person to risk killing him to save the lives of others. I have worked with mentally ill people, and have some in my family, and I know how scary it can be to have them suddenly completely lose it. I've found myself planning how I would defend myself against people that I've been very close to, and dealing with the possibility that I could seriously injure or even kill them.

We have to separate the discussion of the security policies that lead to this man's death from the discussion of whether or not the Air Marshalls were acting out of incompetence, overzealousness or malice. The fact that they turned out, in hindsight, to have have made the wrong call does not, in and of itself, mean the policy was a bad one, even if it turns out that the implementation was poor.

@Kevin Kleinfelte:

If marshals end up killing 1 innocent passenger, and it prevents a terrorist from killing 200 passengers every 10 years, and this innocent passenger is your sister/mother/wife/daughter, what then?

Death by terrorist or by mistake, it's terrible both ways, right? We're paying the price for somebody else's meddling.

@Stan

"and it prevents a terrorist from killing 200 passengers every 10 years"

Can you please list your references?
I am desperately trying to find data on how many times terrorist activities have been prevented by marshals. No success so far.

I have a feeling that such information definitely would be published, since it has a strong political benefit to those implementing these policies.

For you youngsters out there, there is a reliable technology, old school, for immediately talking somebody out of action without killing him: use a sap.

The first coverage of this story I saw on TV ended with a statement to the effect that this incident demonstrated the effectiveness of the new security measures. I just about screamed. The death of an innocent man proves that these measure are effective!?!? Makes me feel safer about getting on a plane.

Obviously sky marshals were in a difficult situation. Not an easy call.

This makes me think:

What if air marshals overhear some folks speaking in a language (not english) and who keep using the term "bomb" repeatedly which could mean something else in that language?

@ Stan "[...] and this innocent passenger is your sister/mother/wife/daughter, what then?"

Then I'm out one sister/mother/wife/daughter, whom, presumably, was acting at least somewhat erratically. Not to say that I wouldn't be very sad. But I like to think of myself as bright enough to realize that not everyone knows my family as well as I do - so just because I know that they'll calm down in ten minutes doesn't mean that everyone knows that. (And besides, if I'm travelling with a person who's so ill that missing their meds that morning makes them irrational enough that they frighten those unfamiliar with them - I bloody well better make sure that, one way or another, they take those meds before I go anywhere that puts hundreds of unfamiliar people into the same place with them.) We're not talking about Federal agents randomly gunning down passers-by on the street here. We're talking about people responding to a perceived threat.

@ Ravi

This was my point exactly when I referenced the historic "fire" example.

At the heart of the debate seems to be how to define acceptable speech (including nonverbal communication), and what is be considered a reasonable response to that speech.

The two complicating factors in this case are the speed with which the Air Marshalls were expected to respond, and the mental state of the victim.

Well speaking personally as a person who is Bipolar and who suffers occasional anxiety attacks, I have a feeling that this is all just a cover up for for an error in judgement by the Sky Marshals responible for the shooting death of the US citizen. I highly doubt that the victim said "I have a bomb", it appears to me he was having an anxiety attack and had one thing on his mind and that was to get out as quickly as possible. At this point the Sky Marshals decided because they could not subdue the victim was to shoot and ask questions later. I wouldn't be surprised if the passengers were debriefed after the shooting. Next on the No-Fly-List anyone who is mentally ill.

@Lyger:

"Why? Because we all somehow have this understanding that people WE love can't lose control to the point that they become a believable threat?"

Of course they can. And I know how scary it can be, too. I had work on some volunteer missions and had one in our family, too. So I agree. What's wrong, among many others, is that we have additional reasons to be scared... that we and our loved ones, disabled or otherwise, have an additional unacceptable way to die.

@Gerd Rausch:

"Can you please list your references?"

Sorry, I have none. I was just quoting an earlier post. I know it was hypthetical.

------------------------
So generally, I don't feel safer. And the horrible possibility that your surname would match an entry on their hotlist doesn't make me feel better. How could anybody possibly avoid that?

Anyway, it's been nice sharing with all you guys. Wish I had more time but I gotta go. Thanks, Bruce, for a place for discussion and the book tip. I'll read it soon.

:-)

@ Bill Johanson

Let's not forget wifey here... she's the one who decided that putting an unmedicated manic-depressive on an airplane was a good idea. They're covering for HER error is judgement as well.

@ piglet
- - - - - - -

"And even if he had been a terrorist, what harm could he have done in that jetway? They didn't have to shoot him dead just to stop him."

- - - - - - -

What? You are suggesting they should have waited to see if they were subject to a bomb blast and killed first?

I've no love whatsover for TSA and airline security in general, (see my post in the thread here the other day on 30,000 people mistakenly put on watch list) but c'mon!

I rage against the system, but any idiot should know better than to run amok in what is basically a high security, low tolerance location. If an individual is of such mental capacity that they cannot understand that, then they have no right to be in such a location without proper escort and precautions.

Air marshalls are not mind readers. Act dangerous, and you'll be treated as such. Sad, but even for all the hassles I have flying, I wouldn't have it any other way.

1. What possible damage would a bomb have done to passengers, had the person who was shot been a terrorist in an otherwise-empty jetway?

2. Are there really no less-than-lethal weapons that could be used in situations like this?

If the air marshals guess wrong, they should be punished for their mistakes, the exact same way as if civilians committed the exact same acts for the exact same reason with the exact same results.

Also, it is not a 'split-second decision' if they have many seconds to think about it and act on it. If they let the guy get out of view of witnesses, and then held back all potential witnesses, and then went to kill him, the prosecution has all it needs to charge them with premeditated murder.

@Ravi Char

Imagine two seated Frenchmen excitedly talking together about something, and the sky marshals repeatedly hear a word that sounds like 'bon'. Then one of the Frenchmen grabs his shaving kit and heads for the can.

The marshals would go on a killing spree.

Before the plane made it to the ground the White House would announce that the air marshals acted properly and according to their training. And the French government would never get an apology.

@Bill Johanson

"At this point the Sky Marshals decided because they could not subdue the victim was to shoot and ask questions later."

His wife went to 'subdue' him. The air marshals stopped her, not with moral authority, but with the threat of deadly force.

A barroom brawler could have subdued Alpizar empty-handed. I bet I could have taken him.

But there was no help available: all the passengers were cowing in their seats with their hands on their heads, terrorized by the unidentified gunmen.

Clearly, if the passenger claimed to have a bomb, the Marshalls had no choice. I have read many news accounts of this tragic event. However, I have yet to read a news account that quotes a witness, by name, who claims to have heard him make this statement. Given the high level of secrecy around all aspects of TSA, we will never know the truth.

Pre 9/11, this story probably would have had a different ending--but our need to have a higher level of security and armed response changes everything.

So far:

Alleged claim, "I have a bomb." = BOMB.

Man behaving erratically = TERRORIST

Refusal to stop = TRYING TO ESCAPE

Refusal to drop bag = BOMB IS IN BAG

Perhaps it should be pointed out that, since he'd already gone through screening, that if the victim DID, in fact, have a bomb ... it was completely MISSED.

And - this is conjecture - is it possible the victim said, 'There's a bomb!' - evocating his fear that there might have been a device on the plane he was fleeing? If you thought you were running away from a mortal threat, would you stop when men drew guns and shouted at you, or would that only contribute to your agitated state?

Might he even have been misunderstood when he mumbled, "I have a problem"?

It's easy to say, 'well, if marshals shouted at me, I'd be on the deck!' - would you do the same if you were bipolar and had missed your meds? Do you ever forget to take medicine and believe that you did, in fact, take it?

And, frankly, if you're going to argue that a man on medication to control moods or other personality disorders shouldn't fly, then they shouldn't be allowed in public. A terrorist can strike on a crowded street just as easily as in an airport terminal, and law enforcement ignored the wife's attempt at explanation. (Heck, for that matter, alcoholic beverages should be banned on flights and in terminals, as they can also contribute to odd behavior.)

What if I shot someone and said I did it because he claimed to have a bomb? What if other people who were there claim he didn't say it? What if I did it while travelling in disguise? What if the man I shot had just come through a screening process--not a perfect process, but one designed to ensure that he did not have a bomb? What if I did it while he was trying to leave a very crowded area to get to a less crowded area--not necessarily an empty area, but an area much less packed than the one he was leaving? What if I refused to make public a detailed description of what happened?

How many of you would leap to my defense, call it justified, and scold anyone who criticized me?

Or do you first need to know whether I have a badge?

Now it looks like the UK is reconsidering the 'righteous kill' of the Brazilian.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4513482.stm

@peachpuff

I'm with you.

I think the points have been missed. It is more probable that the day ended with than man's wife and a couple of air marshals feeling like crap, wishing things had went differently. A mistake was made. The outcome was a tragedy.

News reports make poor evidence to determine if air marshalls or the wife was negligient. More likely this was not the case.

What this incident does show is that there is a security risk in allowing people with guns on an airplane! Is this risk reasonable? Does it serve a value that outweighs the risk? Does the air mashall's screening and training appropriately mitigate those risks? If not then this security policy needs to be adjusted.

My take is that given the majority of air marshall's were hired in the context of securing against terrorism, there is going to be a bias of seeing odd behaviors as terrorist activities. Given that the majority of bizarre and dangerous behaviors seen on airplanes (especially with the holidays) are more mundane (air rage anyone?) this probably should be adjusted to make things more secure.

@shad

Giving the authorities the presumption of innocence, the benefit of the doubt, and the presumption of good faith, while the authorities give their citizens the exact opposites, is blind allegiance to authority.

We are the paying customers. They are the service providers. When they make mistakes, they, just like we, must pay the penalties.

Why would a real terrorist (who already managed to get a bomb in a plane) shout to everyone "I have a bomb" ? That makes no sense at all. Most people would agree that the odds of someone doing that and being a real terrorist (with actual bomb) would be near zero.

A real terrorist who already managed to get a bomb in a plane with a trigger in his hand would already have won. There's no way any armed undercover "Bruce Willis" could stop that.

Now, I think the real question to ask would be wether or not it makes sense to have armed undercover officials in a plane in the first place (I happen to think it only increases the odds of getting someone innocent shot while not doing anything to stop actual terrorists, thus making everyone less secure).

Oh, and add to that the risk of shooting bystanders in a crowded place.

@Bruce, ARL

"Bomb or weapon, make a sudden move to something concealed after being told to hold still by a LEO is going to get you shot."

I think that you have become desensitised to the use of lethal force. It seems to me you have to "raise the bar" of percieved threat which justifies the killing of an individual.

I live in the UK were the cop in the street does not carry a gun. However there are more and more incidents of the police shooting dead people in circumstances where alternatives were available.

Maybe similar to the story mentioned above about a naked, unarmed, man being shot dead.

Of course we recently had the shooting on the undeground of the Brazilian man. When I first heard this on the radio I thought good, 3 bullets through the head is a good tactic ONCE YOU DECIDED THAT THE TARGET IS A REAL AND PRESENT DANGER.

It really comes down in every circumstance to the LEO, as you call him (a bit too flashy a title for my taste), making a split second judgement. And sure that is a tough job, but I think you have to err on the side off caution before pulling the trigger.

The desirable outcome is that no-one, including the "suspect" is killed.

This requires that you don't shoot someone because they make a sudden move, you shoot them when you see that they are drawing/have drawn a gun.

In a certain percentage of cases the person might get a shot of before the LEO shoots them.

In a proportion of those cases the "suspects" first bullet might actually hit a person.

And in a proportion of those cases the victim might die.

But overall you probably end up with a lot less bodies in the morgue.

From a statistical point of view, there should be a certain level of incidents where the LEO had the opportunity to "take the shot" but didn't and a by-stander died. Otherwise you know that the system is lop-sided.

@Ari heikkinen

Any ex-soldier (or ex-cop) can tell you what will happen when all the gunners have their fingers on the trigger and the guns pointed at people.

Now and then, a gun goes off. It's an accident. A 9mm, .40, or 12-gauge pointing at somebody's head when the accident happens means an accidental death.

And a coverup, a story to hide the accidental discharge, which is seen as a serious failure. The service has a vital stake in the pretense that accidental discharges never occur -- because if they don't hold that line, critics will start questioning pointing guns at innocents. And once the rules of engagement start to tighten, they tend to creep ever tighter.

how's someone to know who is and isn't a sky marshal? i thought they were plain-clothes.

I grasp the importance of split-second decision-making: it has saved my life several times.

I also know that a split-second is smaller than a unit second. If the authorities do their thinking over a matter of many seconds, or over many minutes, the decision to execute someone is not a split-second decision: it is a rash decision.

We have a long legal history of dealing with people making rash decisions of consequence to other people (and even to themselves). Let's hold all of the authorities to the same body of law we are held to.

@snow

They are identical in appearance and demeanor to skyjackers.

My problems with the issue of the armed sky marshals:

a) Identification - I cannot tell an armed "blackhat" from an armed "whitehat", save the assumption that anyone that's armed and claims to be a "whitehat", is a "whitehat".

b) Handguns are rather powerfull weapons, but consider the environment. A plane is a cramped location, lots of bodies in a small space. Your worries are that a shot will cause a hole in the hull (not the problem made out to be by movies, but still not a good thing), or hit someone else/in addition to the suspected target.

c) what does shooting the person gain you?

d) if you're in close enough range to be sure of a shot with a handgun, in those kinds of cramped quarters, if they're carrying explosive, you're WELL within the blast range.

e) Dead bodies don't make good informants.

***

Basically, I think plainclothes agents, armed with handguns, is just the wrong way to protect a cabin/jetway/concourse.

In the concourses, I have no problem with fully armed, uniformed police.

On the jetways/planes, if someone is going to be armed, they'd better be in uniform. Consider the chaos that would ensue if two people on a flight both stood up at the same time and claimed to be TSA agents, and telling the other the back down/under arrest.

Handguns just aren't the best weapon in a plane. This whole thing really did remind me of the UKs beat cops, who carry batons/saps instead of firearms. But they also appear to be quickly backed up by their equivalent of our swat teams.

If you're going to put agents on planes, then they'd better be easy to identify, trained primarily in hand-to-hand combat, within the kinds of quarters that a plane uses, and also with melee weapons both storebought and fashioned. Forget firearms.

It seems to me that at some point you have to rely on perimeter security, which is in effect what the TSA primarily provides (and we who travel on business hate to deal with). And then within that border, you can either have a fragile system that requires "enforcers" running around in it, or you can have a robust system in which people are expected to think/act for themselves.

In a lot of ways, this seems like an extension of the "government will protect me from anything". Which turns everyone into a victim waiting-to-be, instead of people that are capable of actually thinking and acting in a situation to preserve their and everyone else's safety.

Good examples of that were the reception that the shoe-bomber received, and the plane that crashed in pennsylvania on 9/11. In both those cases, people took charge of their own future, instead of waiting to be protected by someone else.

@Woody

Nice work.

America may have just gotten its own de Menzes.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-planefolo0905dec09,0,3421926.story

Of what I've been reading so far, suggests the guy was probably having a panic attack thinking there's a bomb in the plane, running and trying to get off the plane, in panic.

That makes much more sense than someone running around shouting "I have a bomb". It all makes sense if he was shouting "there's a bomb".

I hope there's a full PUBLIC investigation of this incident (it honestly smells like a coverup) and some real debate wether or not these so called "security measures" in the name of counterterrorism really make any sense at all.

This is just one more thing to make flying less attractive than a long wearying drive.

1) The planes are more cramped than ever.
2) Security is such a painful hassle.
3) Airports are an increasingly miserable place to spend time. Everybody there seems totally stressed out.
4) Now, you have to worry about getting shot by an overzealous air marshal.

I used to like flying.

Honey, let's get on the plane now. What's that? You don't want to take your medicine? Oh, okay, what harm can come of that?

normally bruce links to articles on both sides of the story along with his opinion, not this time.

he's always been against the shoot to kill policy on the bombers because of a dead mans trigger that goes off if they release the button.

the guy was probably having a panic attack. one witness said the wife said he has a disorder and never said bipolar.

witnesses said they never heard the word bomb.

he said "ive got to get off the plane." again and again before he ran off. his wife kept saying calm down.

the witness said the guy was wearing a fanny pack and backback, when he was ordered to lay on flat on the ground he tried to but couldn't because the fanny pack was in the way and tried to move it out of the way to comply. and they shot him approx five times.

here is a link from a mainstream source that says it.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1138965,00.html
now no one is even talking about it on the tv news .

the use of shock rounds less lethal rubber bullets would be more effectifve and better for use on a plane and would incapacitate immediately, if it hit anywhere on the body. and do not penetrate the skin. can be used at long ranges

http://www.impactlab.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3011

"normally bruce links to articles on both sides of the story along with his opinion, not this time."

Yeah, I was too lazy to find links. I figured that everyone could find them themselves. And the various "speculation" links seemed, well, too speculative.

update: they just showed surveillance video on tv showing that he had his backpack on backwards on his chest. so that is what he was moving out of the way so he could lay down when they shot him.

@ snow

The pilot keeps a list of who is an Air Marshal and where they are sitting. They are meant to be hidden to the passengers.

However, if you read the (public) application process you can tell that they will likely be under 37 and fit enough to pass a class II commercial pilot medical test...ah, profiling. They're not terribly hard to pick out on an average flight in the US.

In other words, if the pilot wasn't wearin a uniform, could you pick him/her out of a lineup?

More info, including some interesting history, can be found here:
http://www.thegunzone.com/fam-lawman/fam-qual.html

I was just curious if anyone has documented how easy it is to profile the Air Marshals...and believe it or not the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association made an open complaint about this to the US Government in 2004 after they "exhausted every other option in attempting to address the
situation":

http://www.fleoa.org/Legislative/LegDocs/FAM/AirMarshalsLETTER_04-16-2004.pdf

Here's an excerpt:

· The obvious “business attire� that FAMs must wear to maintain a “professional appearance�;
· The military like grooming standards (note that no other nonuniformed agency follows these standards throughout federal law enforcement with the exception of the very public U.S. Secret Service protection detail personnel) that the “discreet� FAM must follow in order to “blend in with the flying public�;
· How the FAM presents his/her credentials to the airline gate personnel;
· The fact that the airline gate personnel know the FAMs’ identity;
· How the FAM is escorted and boarded on the airplane prior to departure;
· The FAMs meet with and brief the flight crew. This at one time was unknown to the public and as a result a man was caught posing as a FAM at the Ontario airport in California when a pilot became suspicious when the suspect stated he had no brief and was flying alone;
· The fact that the crew knows the FAMs’ identity making them a target for terrorists to reveal whether or not a FAM is on the flight (if they could not already figure it out by watching these TV shows) and who they are;
· FAM seating configuration;
· What FAMs look for on a flight;
· The type and model of PDA FAMs use to communicate on the mission;
· The type and model of weapon FAMs use; and
· The specific way FAMs handle and deploy during hijacking situations allowing any terrorist to mimic and pose as FAMs.

Just to second guess those of you suggesting that the plane is the only possible target, and that leaving the plane is leaving the realm of possible targets, consider the number of soft targets present at an airport, accessible by running down a jetway.

Consider that bombs have indeed passed security before, and now we remove our shoes in security, but that doesn't mean all possible methods of concealment have been covered. Consider that many airports do not 'sniff' for plasticizers, or only sniff randomly.

Consider that the present climate of air security exacerbates the hair trigger responsiveness of enforcement personnel everywhere, when it comes to hot-button words like bomb, and that the high brisance and low profile of modern explosives leaves very little room for second-guessing if you're wrong and don't disable the target. It's like running onto the White House lawn while reaching into your jacket. And then not responding when the Secret Service issues your one warning. Unusual behavior doesn't get you consideration once you've crossed the line into "potential threat"; it decreases your predictability and escalates the situation.

And yes, Virginia, we use handguns. Clubs and saps are nice, if you can afford to close on the target. And they sure are effective, when you're dealing with someone less well equipped than yourself. But don't bring a knife to a gunfight. Only close with a better-armed target if you have no other choice. Don't be an "officer down" if you can help it. Engage from a greater distance than your target can; hold them there if you can; stop them if you can't.

And if you think you hear "bomb", from a man acting irrationally, are you going to walk up and ask him, "I'm sorry, sir, but could you say that thing you said once more, and enunciate this time?" Or are you going to direct him to hold position and stand down? What happens when he doesn't hold position? What happens when he runs? What happens when he doesn't stand down? What happens when he reaches where you can't see, and for something you can't predict, except on what you think you heard? Will we say it was nice to know you, or will we go with you to get a beer, afterwards? This guy doesn't seem to have died through no fault of his own. That he wasn't making accurate statements merely makes it a regrettable incident, instead of a triumph of law enforcement. But don't think that the air marshall is glad about it, in any event. He just wants to get home at night without having had to draw his weapon.

For the love of God, learn to behave sensibly around law enforcement and security personnel. They aren't trained to rationalize your behavior, they're trained to protect and serve the greater good. And live to do it tomorrow.

"But does mental illness excuse a person from responsibility? "

Insanity might absolve responsibility in a court of law, but it does not absolve responsibility in reality. If an insane person walks in front of a bus, he cannot claim insanity - he's run over.

I think the officers did exactly what they were supposed to do. I would be troubled if they had not killed him in those circumstances. One unwritten law of this society (or any conceivable society where firearms and explosives are available) is - when ordered by police to stop, you comply, or die. Later on, you will have the chance to sue for damages or what have you.

"Yeah, I was too lazy to find links. I figured that everyone could find them themselves. And the various "speculation" links seemed, well, too speculative."

It all seems like speculation to me, but the "he said bomb" story is starting to sound like a real stretch.

I take back what I said earlier about speech, since it may be that nothing was said clearly enough to justify a response and therefore it's irrelevant to the threat/countermeasure debate.

I mean the victim may have said "I do not have a bomb" or "I want my mom" or "Mmmm, mmmm, mmmm" (in a panic), etc.. I usually have a hard time understanding what someone more than one row away is saying on an airplane, so it's probably critical to know when/where the "bomb" statement was heard and by whom.

And that's not to mention another reason given for the fatal shooting was that the victim was "reaching" for his backpack after the Air Marshals told him to lie face-down on the ground. The only problem there, as others have pointed out above, is that he had to reach for his backpack to move it and be able to lay face-down on the ground. Damned if you do...

The investigation will probably mean a dearth of good info for a while, but I thought this was an odd statement:

http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/gen/ap/Airplane_Shooting.html

"David Stempler, president of the Air Travelers Association, said he thinks the shooting may prove more 'reassuring than disturbing' to the traveling public his organization represents. 'This is a reminder they are there and are protecting the passengers and that it is a seriously deadly business,' he said."

Yes, because I always feel better when someone innocent is shot dead and *everyone* else in the proximity is told to put their hands on their head while they are held at gunpoint by law enforcement. By that logic if federal agents shot and killed random suspected illegal drivers we should feel more "reassured" about driving. Please...

@ Matt

Well said.

"They aren't trained to rationalize your behavior, they're trained to protect and serve the greater good. And live to do it tomorrow."

I think that takes us back to Bruce's point about the book "blink" by Gladwell. The author seems to say people can tap into the subconscious and achieve higher awareness of how to accurately recognize/predict behavior. It probably depends on how often you have witnessed or even experienced the behavior before, which reminds me of the theory of Kung Fu (skill acquired through application of time and effort) -- reactions are best performed when they can be done second-nature.

The Air Marshals are undoubtedly experts with weapon-handling, but are they as comfortable with identifying and profiling the source(s) of erratic human behavior? I mean if they do not have a fair and broad definition of "sensible" behavior then woe be the people who get caught in their cross-hairs.

Why don't these "expertly trained" armed people ever shoot to disable, say in the legs? Of course, someone will say that they want to stop him from pushing the bomb trigger. But what if the bomb triggered when he released his hold? Methinks these guys are too trigger happy.

Then in the video on TV, they show that his baggage has somehow gotten moved to the runway where they decide to shoot at it to see if it blows up. Huh? How did these supposedly dangerous bags make their way out to the runway? Did they walk? Did someone carry them out there? Did they use a robot? Why not have the robot open the bag and see if it blows up then? Or what if the bomb in the bag was defective? Wouldn't it be easier to trace back its components if you didn't take target practice on the bags first?

D'oh.

Along with the theme of "blink", here is another case to consider:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4513874.stm

"Mr Sales told a court in the northern Brazilian city of Belem that he shot Sister Dorothy because he feared she had a gun in her bag.

He told the court she reached into her bag with the words: 'The weapon I have is this'.

Instead of a gun, however, he said she produced a Bible.

[...]

Many landowners in the area have openly argued that Sister Dorothy's murder was in legitimate defence of property."

regarding split-second decisionmaking, there's a concept in japanese samurai culture "the blank mind of the warrior" holding that samurai are more effective when they don't know what they're going to do next. back when i practiced law i noticed this was also occasionally true for lawyers too, not recommended for everyday practice.
the issue in miami is did he say he had a bomb or not, and this is empirically unknowable here in the blogosphere; in 2005 all we can count on are lies and spin from both sides. i have only limited, finite compassion for unmedicated wackos yelling about bombs in airports "everybody has a tale of woe that would bring tears to the eyes of a sphinx." i was struck by the account of the marshals then boarding the plane and ordering passengers at gunpoint to put their hands on their heads. plainclothes guy points a gun at me, the safest thing for him is to shoot me because i'll shoot him first if i can, i don't know who he is.

The lesson of "Blink" is that we can interfere with our intuitive abilities - even believe we are making correct snap judgments - but have, in fact, selected the wrong criteria to make an effective/correct one. As Gladwell puts it, we don't know what to edit, we edit the wrong thing, or we refuse to edit.

Unless we're willing to consider this shooting as one of those cases, then we're going to continue making bad 'snap' decisions.

The victim may have spoken with an accent, and/or speech may have been affected by his medication status.

I think the important question here is the utility of a five-hundred-million-dollars-a-year law enforcement investment where this case is their biggest triumph to date.

@spacenookie:

"I think the important question here is the utility of a five-hundred-million-dollars-a-year law enforcement investment where this case is their biggest triumph to date."

I don't think that is fair. After all, it may be that the presence of the sky marshals is detering terrorists.

That said, I don't support the idea in general and the points made above about how easy it is to identify the marshals need to be addressed.

I am very interested in the idea that the passengers "should not let" terrorists take over a plane, i.e. they should be willing to sacrifice their lives to stop a hijacking in progress.

I actually think this sounds like a good idea.
Since, once demonstrated, it would probably deter any future would-be hijackers.

However, to convince me to undertake this course of action, should I be unfortunate enough to find myself in that situation, I would require confidence that if I grabbed one of the hijackers and poked his eyes out with my thumbs, then other passengers would follow through and overcome the remaining hijackers.

Without trusting in that scenario I would not be willing to do it. Such a level of confidence would have to be based on a wide-spread understanding that this is the correct thing to do in such circumstances. And this would require the government and the airlines to 'educate' the public that this is expected of them.

Of course they will never do this since they would be afraid of being sued by my family after I am shot by hijacker no. 2.

In other countries it seems like a lot of Americans are very influenced by the movies they see. Like a bad terrorist (and with black hairs of course, he has to come from a dangerous country) shouting "I have a bomb!". This is the LAST thing you would do to for a successful bombing! Every stupid in the world know they are marshalls in the US airliners! But in an Hollywood movie, the guy would have to make a 10 min. speech... Get back to the reality!
For me this is the proof that 9.11 was successful for a terrorist point of view. Very sad to say but they succeeded at terrorizing America.

PS: Actually there were one time a representation of a bus bombing in "The Interpreter"; the bomber of course did not shout that he had a bomb, he simply exploded!

From Salon's "Ask the Pilot" series:

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2005/12/09/askthepilot165/index.html or http://tinyurl.com/7497z

Quote:
Wednesday's incident fulfills what many
of us predicted ever since the Federal
Air Marshals Service was widely
expanded following the 2001 terror
attacks in New York, Pennsylvania and
Washington: The first person killed by a
sky marshal, whether through accident
or misunderstanding, would not be a
terrorist. In a lot of ways, Alpizar is the
latest casualty of Sept. 11. He is not the
victim of a trigger-happy federal
marshal but of our own, now fully
metastasized security mania.

Sigh.

Do we really want to live in a society where government agents can kill innocent people without compunction?

What is the difference between the government killing innocents 'tragic mistake' by 'tragic mistake' and terrorists killing people? They are both equally dead. A well known first century moral philosopher suggested that 'turning the other cheek' was the correct response to violence, so why is the approach 'get them before they get you' now in vogue?

@Matt

"For the love of God, learn to behave sensibly around law enforcement and security personnel."

I demand that law enforcement and security personnel learn to obey the law.

Every innocent person on that aircraft who had a gun pointed at him is the victim of a felony committed by air marshals.

People with badges and guns like to think anything they do is lawful.

People without badges but with guns who get in trouble are often surprised that the police think they have done something wrong when they were merely doing what the police do.

Read the penal code. When a badgeholder commits acts defined as felonies, his acts are felonies. He needs to be punished with fines and imprisonment.

Anyone who points a gun in my face -- hijacker, skyjacker, carjacker, or other kind of jacker -- is committing a crime. Under the law, it makes no difference if he might have a badge hidden somewhere on him. Nobody has police authority unless he has identified himself as a police officer. That's what the badge is for. Anyone claiming to be the police but refusing to prove it, has no authority under the law. Period. He's just a criminal with a gun.

If everyone else on that aircraft, except the air marshals, had been wearing police uniforms, including Alpizar and his wife, the air marshals would never have drawn their weapons. We all know this.

If a law enforcement officer cannot do his job without breaking the law, he should resign. If he breaks the law he should be punished.

What would it take to force law enforcement to become law abiding citizens? That's a tough one.

I think we seem to have forgotten what the terrorists real goal was - to cause fear and undermine our faith in our systems.

Seems they were very accurate in their appraisal of our response. Instead of a tighter feeling of society and shared humanity - we shoot, invade and kill. Have we really made the world safer with the subsequent actions since 9-11? Somebody will always manage a terrorist act if hell bent on it (literally) - over reacting to the last one is not the answer.

And I am tired of people who hear this saying it is weak. It is simply common sense. Are we adding these numbers and the people and soldiers dying around the world onto the Trade Center casualty list.

I believe our actions have prolonged the terror campaign and we had a huge world concensus which has been completely shredded.

"Get out of the moral/immoral mindset. Think productive/unproductive."

Can everyone go back and read that comment again? The question is not "was the man wise not to take his meds" or "did he deserve to be shot". It's "is the cost worth the benefit?"

No matter how unwisely they act, shooting innocent people is a bad thing. It's a cost. The question is, do the benefits outweigh the costs on average?

How do we know he was mentaly ill? How do we know he said he had a bomb? How do we know the marshall wasn't mentally ill or upset or intoxicated?

All we know for certain at this point is a man was shot and killed by law enforcement. What we can hope for is a complete and transparent investigation not tainted by politics or career maneuvering. Good luck.

this article makes some interesting points about what happned and how it may relate to the critisism of the new miami sheild program. or maybe it was to condition people to accept the shoot to kill policy in the US

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2005/091205miamiincident.htm

there is a growing problem in the us of cops killing innocent people and facing nothing. cops get away with almost anything unless its caught on a camera that the cop cant destroy.

My lawyer told me that if you sue the cops for anything you have to move out of the county or city limits, sometimes the state. its just a fact in suing the cops. Thats why my friend decided not to sue. they will make your life hell.

Being in a foreign country and going though airports. Its pretty easy to beleive he ran out of medicine. I think they are trying to put out that he was bipolar and manic depressive, so that it would look like the man or his wife are to blame for not taking it. Obviously he ran out, and it was probably xanax or some other anxiety medicine for panic attacks.

I Don't believe the guy said he had a bomb. If you've ever had a panic attack, you might be able to understand what this guy was going though. Like immediately having to get off the plane.

It really seems like some kind of heart attack to the person having it. being stuck on a plane thats about to take off when your having a panic attack is not a good situation. People frequently get taken to the emergency room for a heart attack when its really just a panic attack. Its a horrible feeling.

Where are the security cameras in that airport?

Or is everything on the screened-passenger side a black hole?

Since I wasn't there, it's impossible for me to judge the actions. It does seem that there are already questions about whether he even said that he had a bomb.

For now, let's assume he did. It is very odd that a terrorist would announce his bomb, at least until he was prepared to take some action, like take over the cockpit or grab a flight attendant or something. It's odd to make a declaration when you are not in a position of power or about to lose a battle.

Second, why would a bomber fly the entire flight and only on landing declare he had the bomb. If he had a bomb, wouldn't he have detonated it by then?

And if he had a bomb and LEFT the airplane, wouldn't that be a good thing? Is the idea he smuggled a bomb on board an airplane, flew it the entire flight, left the plane saying he had a bomb, and then try to blow up the destination airport's terminal? Most odd indeed, especially since he likely looked nuts and his wife was saying he was ill.

But, with all of that oddity, a person who says he has a bomb on an airplane and then acts erratically is likely going to be harmed.

It seems that the guys almost deserved to be killed. If he was so mentally ill that he couldn't control himself, he should have not have been on the plane without restraints or medications or whatever. Being mentally ill is not an excuse to misbehave as it's impossible in a life and death situation to balance crazy and harmless from crazy and dangerous. Ask John Lennon how safe a crazy guy can be. Ask the Unabomer victims how we need to protect a crazy bomber.

I think the sky marshalls should practice shooting at the first amendment.

@Jojo
"Why don't these "expertly trained" armed people ever shoot to disable, say in the legs?"

Because expertly trained armed people are trained to shoot at the center of mass; i.e. the chest. If the person is really expertly trained s/he will usually do a 'double tap', one shot to the chest followed by a second (slower) shot aimed at the head.

The rationale here is that the chest presents the largest hit area and the head-shot should take out anyone who survives the chest-shot.

If you shoot to disable (i.e aim for leg or such) you might miss. If you shoot for the largest area you have a higher probability of hitting and therefore stopping the person. If you follow up with a head-shot the probability of stopping only increases.

Shooting to disable is a nice film sc