James Bovard wants to know why America's editorial boards are so enthusiastic about air marshals gunning down unarmed passengers.
Reason Magazine
|12.14.05 @ 8:11PM|#
"So in this safer America of yours, anybody who acts weird
according to the on-the-spot judgment of a gun-toting agent of the
state can be killed without consequence? Even if, in hindsight, it
becomes spectacularly obvious that this was unnecessary". . . . . .
. .Let me turn your question 180 degrees: In your politically
correct America where only perfect decisions by cops are allowed,
it is acceptable for the death of hundreds, or thousands, because
the cop with his finger on the trigger could not shoot when he
should have?
Why do you keep pretending these are the only two choices?
|12.14.05 @ 8:13PM|#
"You can say what you want about the circumstances and how the mistake was understandable. And maybe you're right. But the fact remains that an unarmed man was shot by an agent of the state, and if that agent of the state wants to keep his job, he'd better have a really goddamned good excuse for the mistake."
Good point, and I agree. The consequnence of that approach is that you might wind up with a police force that is so afraid to pull the trigger that they fail to pull the trigger when they need to, and hundreds of people die because of it.
Comment by: wayne at December 14, 2005 07:41 PM
Because cops are more concerned about keeping their jobs than
keeping themselves, and others, safe?
|12.14.05 @ 8:13PM|#
I simply answered the question you posed, Jennifer.
If you were the air marshall, what would you have done?
|12.14.05 @ 8:20PM|#
"...air marshals gunning down unarmed passengers."
Unfortunately, this is one of the draw backs of law enforcement,
and I think there is not much we can do about it.
|12.14.05 @ 8:21PM|#
If you were the air marshall, what would you have
done?
I don't know, which is why I don't have the authority to shout
orders and shoot people if I don't like their response. Those
who do should be held to a higher standard, don't you think?
You're basically saying "they were right to shoot him because he
might have had a bomb." Jesus, what the hell kind of standard is
that? Anybody "might" have a bomb.
|12.14.05 @ 8:22PM|#
Whoops: actually, I guess the standard is "acting weird, plus they MIGHT have a bomb." Then it's okay to shoot them.
|12.14.05 @ 8:26PM|#
I often hear that being a cop is a difficult job, and this
discussion highlights why it is so difficult.
In this instance, the best action for the cops would have been to
wrestle this guy to the ground, and subdue him.
But they did not do that. The cops claim here that they thought the
guy had a bomb. The guy was acting "strange and agitated". The guy
reaches into a backpack while the cops are ordering him to lie
down. Hmmm..... decision time... in 1.1 seconds the guy will pull
his hand out of that backpack with... something. i gotta make a
perfect decision here so I will wait to see the gun, or detonator.
and then because you need a perfect decision you decide to wait to
see if the gun is actually loaded, or the detonator is armed....
you observe the round shape of the bullets in the cylinder of the
gun (or the glowing red light of the LED on the detonator), but you
need a perfect decision... you wait to see his finger tense and
take the slack out of the trigger (or his thumb deform as he begins
to apply pressure to the detonator button)... but you need a
perfect decision... you're dead. the passengers are dead. you are a
miserable failure and a poor excuse for a human being.
All of you armchair quarterbacks are just outraged that the air
marshalls
|12.14.05 @ 8:28PM|#
The cops claim here that they thought the guy had a
bomb.
The key word here is "claim." They've already been caught lying,
and now it's up to them to prove they're telling the truth.
And again, Wayne, the whole rest of your argument boils down to "it
is hypothetically possible that the guy had a bomb." Yes, and it is
hypothetically possible that everybody has a bomb. You're giving
the state authority to shoot innocent people based not upon
evidence but upon hypotheticals.
|12.14.05 @ 8:31PM|#
"Why did I shoot him? Well, he was acting weird. And he might have had a bomb, you know, just like guys do in Iraq! In fact, now that I think of it, he said he had a bomb! What, those ten eyewitnesses disagree? Well, eyewitnesses are unreliable, you know."
|12.14.05 @ 8:33PM|#
"...air marshals gunning down unarmed passengers."
Unfortunately, this is one of the draw backs of law enforcement, and I think there is not much we can do about it.
Comment by: zeiner at December 14, 2005 08:20 PM
What do you mean "there is not much we can do about it?"
Thoreau at December 14, 2005 07:26 PM had an excellent suggestion.
Yes, cops are going to make mistakes that cost innocent lives. And
when they do, they should lose their jobs for it.
But, if what I've read by LEOs on various internet forums is
representative of law enforcement in general, the cops will whine
that their "right to be innocent until proven guilty" is being
violated. Because they can't (or won't) understand the difference
between administrative hearing, the "court of public opinion," and
an actual criminal trial. At least when an LEO is accussed of doing
something wrong (because it's never actually their
fault).
Thomas Paine's Goiter|12.14.05 @ 8:42PM|#
I guess you people learned nothing from the New Orleans debacle? Hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing`without the actual facts is a fruitless endeavor. I thought that you all would have learned that the initial hysteria is rarely factual, but I guess not.
|12.14.05 @ 8:53PM|#
What do you mean "there is not much we can do about it?"
I mean is that we are never going to have perfect law enforcement.
Even the best cops in the world make mistakes sometime in their
careers. All we can really do is to take each situation on a
case-by-case basis and deal with it accordingly as best as we
can.
Pooh|12.14.05 @ 9:04PM|#
"Caught Lying" is an incredible rush to judgment here.
Eyewitnesses are notriously unreliable because people react to
stress in different ways, altering their perceptions. I imagine
there was substantial confusion on the plane. No-one has yet
disputed that Alpizar was 'agitated' when he left the plane. I can
certainly see him going down the aisle and passengers asking each
other "did he say he's got a bomb?" Air marshall here's bomb and
there we go. Is that what happened? How do we know, but it's
plausible. Lets simmer down and let the facts come out. Are you
guys really finding fault with the media not immediately raising
'murderous air-marshall cover-up' theories?
Additional points - we don't know if it was the Marshals themselves
who said they heard "bomb" or if it was a passenger or if it was
some PR flack. Once again, accusing the marshals of lying at this
stage is premature and not especially helpful.
I have great sympathy for wayne's point that this decision had to
be made swiftly, by the marshalls at that moment. If they didn't
follow protocols, its on them, if they did (or even if they didn't)
the protocols and training have to be examined.
That being said, those establishment types who thumped their chests
and crowed how this was a great victory for the travel safety
apparatus should be ashamed and condemned. The one fact we
are sure of is that an innocent man died.
|12.14.05 @ 9:09PM|#
"Hmmm..... decision time... in 1.1 seconds the guy will pull his
hand out of that backpack with... something."
I bet it wasn't a butter knife, or a screwdriver, or a lighter.
|12.14.05 @ 9:16PM|#
We don't know enough yet to say whether the Air Marshalls were
justified. We have plenty of reason to be suspicious, but it is
still too early to tell. I will only reiterate my previous
observations:
1) People who shoot an unarmed civilian must bear the burden of
proof if they want to continue to wield authority over civilians.
For all I know they could still meet that burden of proof. But if,
after the facts are in, fully informed investigators have a
reasonable doubt about the decision, then the guys should lose
their authority.
Whether or not they lose their liberty as well is, of course, a
separate decision, and there the burden must be on the state.
2) Whatever the fallout here, we should NOT be sending law
enforcement officers to operate on civilian transportation if their
reflexes and instincts are calibrated to deal with Al Qaeda
operatives. They are much more likely to encounter drunks,
druggies, mentally people, and just plain weird people.
The odds are good that the twitchy guy on the bus talking about his
mission from God is NOT an Al Qaeda operative, even if he is
fiddling with something in his pocket. And the weirdo on the subway
who has a strangely wrapped package and wants to give it to the
President? I'm gonna go out on a limb that this guy is NOT an Al
Qaeda operative. (I certainly wouldn't let that guy visit the White
House, but there's no need for the subway cop to treat him as a
potential suicide bomber.)
|12.14.05 @ 9:22PM|#
> Hmmm..... decision time... in 1.1 seconds the guy will pull
his hand out of that backpack with... something
What dangerous thing could he have pulled out of his backback? Have
the marshals forgotten he passed through security before boarding
the plane? If they shot him because they genuinely don't trust
their own security measures, then what the heck are they doing
telling civilians it's safe to board?
|12.14.05 @ 9:22PM|#
> Hmmm..... decision time... in 1.1 seconds the guy will pull
his hand out of that backpack with... something
What dangerous thing could he have pulled out of his backback? Have
the marshals forgotten he passed through security before boarding
the plane? If they shot him because they genuinely don't trust
their own security measures, then what the heck are they doing
telling civilians it's safe to board?
|12.14.05 @ 9:26PM|#
Someone saying (yelling?) that, "I've got to get off!"
especially if English is not their native language, could easily
sound like, "I've got a bomb!"--particularly to someone who is
listening for threats.
It's sounding more and more like the marshals got nervous, acted,
realized they made a deadly mistake, and are now trying to do
damage control, even down to minimizing the number of rounds they
fired (they say three, multiple passengers say at least five.) All
the reports I've seen say that the first person to tell the media
what happened is a spokesman for the service, whom I seriously
doubt got his information from being there or talking to the
passengers.
Now maybe if these marshals had shot the guy who got drunk,
belligerent, and took a dump on the snack cart, I wouldn't feel so
bad. But this guy could have been just like a few people I know and
do care about. The fact that their usually controllable mental
illness could have them getting shot and killed, and then have
others applaud or defend the killers--well that scares me.
Finally, "paid leave" sounds an awful lot to me like
"vacation."
|12.14.05 @ 10:01PM|#
"People who shoot an unarmed civilian must bear the burden of
proof if they want to continue to wield authority over
civilians."
Yes, I agree, but the burden of proving *what*? In the case of
cops, I say their burden should be to prove that they acted as a
reasonable, well-trained cop would be expected to act. If they
can't prove this in the case of a dead civilian, make them work at
a desk or do security at K-Mart.
I also agree that when the cop becomes a criminal defendant, (s)he
is of course entitled to the same protections as any other
defendant.
|12.14.05 @ 10:55PM|#
I can't even get on a plane with nail clippers. How do you smuggle a bomb aboard, disguise it as a schlong?
|12.14.05 @ 11:51PM|#
I once flew as a passenger from St Louis to Los Angeles. About
45 minutes out of St Louis, a guy in the back of the plane (it was
a big plane, an L1011, or a 747) had a psychotic episode. He tried
to strangle a guy in the seat in front of him. Needless to say,
there was general disorder on the airplane for a few minutes there.
This was before 9/11, so there were no air marshalls on the plane.
After some struggle the guy was subdued and handcuffed (believe it
or not, there were handcuffs on the plane somewhere). We turned
around and flew back to St Louis and landed and the psychotic was
taken off the airplane by cops that met us on the runway. The guy
was about 40 and was traveling with some companions (wife,
friend... something). I was near the front of the plane so it was
more or less all over with before I realized there was a problem.
The guy hissed at me like a snake as he passed me while being taken
off the plane. As I see it, this was handled as "properly" as could
be expected.
One key point though is that this all happened before 9/11. The
9/11 events changed things. If this had happened today, it is
possible that this guy would have been handled with less care than
then. It seems to me that a whole lot of the blame for the death of
that deranged guy in Miami lies at the feet of the
Muslim-terrorists that have changed the rules of polite
society.
|12.14.05 @ 11:54PM|#
"2) Whatever the fallout here, we should NOT be sending law
enforcement officers to operate on civilian transportation if their
reflexes and instincts are calibrated to deal with Al Qaeda
operatives. They are much more likely to encounter drunks,
druggies, mentally people, and just plain weird people."
This is a very tough position for the cops to be in. The obvious
rebuttal is that we should not send the average
roust-the-drunks-beat-cop to deal with Al Qaeda either.
|12.14.05 @ 11:58PM|#
One final comment: It is a harsh truth but now days you ought not have a psychotic episode on an airplane. If you are likely to do so then you ought to make everybody aware ahead of time.
|12.15.05 @ 12:02AM|#
to all of you who said something along the lines of, "he went through security, what could he possibly have in his back pack that was dangerous...". Give me a break, you can't possibly be that naive, so you are just reduced to a losing argument, right?
|12.15.05 @ 12:08AM|#
"And again, Wayne, the whole rest of your argument boils down to
"it is hypothetically possible that the guy had a bomb." Yes, and
it is hypothetically possible that everybody has a bomb. You're
giving the state authority to shoot innocent people based not upon
evidence but upon hypotheticals."
Yes, but "everybody" wasn't running down the aisles of the plane
and rushing off of the plane and reaching into their backpack after
being ordered to a prone position; only the poor deranged, and now
deceased person did that. I am giving the state the authority to
use their best judgement to enforce and protect the lives of
themselves and the passengers of the airplane. What else can we
do?
|12.15.05 @ 12:53AM|#
Hi Wayne. I'm naive. Would you mind explaining what all those
checkpoints are for? Why little old ladies have to be felt up by
tsa agents? Why we're spending God knows how much money on airport
security?
If we're not preventing people from getting bombs onto airplanes, a
lot of people need to be fired, I want my tax money back, and
someone has a lot of explaining to do.
|12.15.05 @ 12:59AM|#
wayne-
Keep in mind that Air Marshalls aren't always recruited from the
ranks of street cops, people who interact with the general public
all the time. Many are former federal law enforcement or military.
While those agencies are good at what they do, we don't call the
FBI when a mentally ill guy is freaking out in the street. The
Marines don't have to handle domestic disputes. Soldiers don't
normally arrest belligerent drunks. The ATF doesn't have to deal
with a guy who tried to pick a pocket.
So if an incident like those I described in the previous paragraph
happens on a plane, and the only responders on the plane are people
with radar tuned to pick up on terrorists, and without the same
depth of experience identifying the more mundane things, bad shit
might happen.
I'm not saying that a steet cop's intuition is infallible. But if
you have enough Air Marshalls on enough planes, periodically
they're going to encounter a crazy non-terrorist. Some of those
encounters may end tragically no matter what sort of background the
Air Marshalls have. But I'd wager that over time, you'll see a
better record of handling these things non-violently when the Air
Marshalls have experience dealing with, well, the sort of people
you see on COPS.
If it turns out that the Air Marshalls did not exercise the
appropriate judgement in the Miami incident, I would be very
curious to find out what they did prior to serving as Air
Marshalls.
|12.15.05 @ 1:01AM|#
Although, as I think about it, a former ATF guy might be just the person to call if somebody tries to disable the smoke detector so he can smoke....
|12.15.05 @ 1:16AM|#
This is a very tough position for the cops to be
in.
No it's not. They get to kill whomever they want, and they will
never, ever face any negative consequences for it. The incentives
are all in favor of pulling the trigger. So they do.
Of course, this has only happened thousands upon thousands of times
with always-identical results, so we should give the police the
benefit of the doubt. Or they'll shoot us.
|12.15.05 @ 1:22AM|#
Have any witnesses confirmed the story of reaching into his backpack when feds told him to stop and get his hands away? If that's bogus too, then I side with Bovard. Otherwise, Wayne is eating your lunch. I'm a strong libertarian, but if I'm the judge, I grant judgment for Wayne. He's cleaning your clocks.
|12.15.05 @ 1:23AM|#
Wayne, not everyone has granted the state such an
authority.
In fact, let us assume that I sent the following letter to various
government agents:
To all "law enforcement" officers paid for by the city of Cambridge MA, the town of Belmont MA, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the United States government, and to the armed forces serving the same organizations
In various discussions with you and your supporters, it has come to my attention that you are under the impression that you are acting as my agents. Sad to say, this is absolutely incorrect. I do not authorize you to protect me, do not give you permission to shoot, electrocute or otherwise stun, kidnap or beat up anyone on my behalf. In addition, I do not authorize you to destroy or confiscate any property on my behalf. Furthermore, you do not have my permission to enter my property to conduct any operations on behalf of anyone else.
It has also come to my attention that you have fraudulently represented yourselves as my agent to my employers, who have been diverting ~35-40% of the wages due to me. Obviously I will be taking steps to ensure that this garnishment stops immediately.
Do you really think that the government officials would honor these
requests? At best, they would post it on their bulletin boards for
a good laugh, at worst my name would go on a list somewhere and the
next incorrectly filed or missing tax form would land my ass in
jail. Certainly, they will never allow me to stop paying for this
"Service" that I do not want to purchase from them. I don't send
the letter and I keep paying my taxes because I have a family to
take care of, and I can't put food on the table or keep a roof over
my wife and children's heads from jail. There is a term used when
people not held to be members of a government force people to pay
for something with threats of violence: "extortion". I think the
term aptly describes the state officials' actions as well.
Now, if I owned an airline, and two of my security guards shot
someone who was mentally ill and off his medication (BTW, do you
think that in the absence of immoral laws prohibiting someone
purchasing medicines without a note from a locally approved doctor
this incident might have been avoided?), I would scrutinize the
tapes of their actions very carefully. Unless their split second
decision was probably correct (ie he suddenly reached into his bag
as if to pull a weapon and they weren't close enough/had enough
time to tackle him or tazer him), they would be fired. I would take
a dim view of my workers shooting my customers; not only is it
immoral, it's also very bad for business.
I freely admit that I am nt an expert on these things but I would
like to contrast what hapenned with an area where non-state
officials provide security services: Disneyland.
Now Disneyland is a terrorists wet-dream: there are children there,
zionist-crusaders vacationing and spending their illgotten gains
etc. Thousands of people transit through the park each day.
Certainly some of them are mentally ill and have episodes. In
addition you have criminals, pick-pockets and the like. Now, it is
a well-known fact that Disneland does not accurately report the
crime that takes place within its borders because they don't want
to scare off customers. This of course makes them less than
diligent in investigating some crimes (given the low success rate
government officials have in solving crimes this is not to my mind
a disqualifying blow against private security). Certainly, they do
not tolerate guests who threaten the safety of their other guests,
and they act quickly and firmly to end the disturbance. Yet their
security guards have not, as far as I can discover, ever shot
anyone...
|12.15.05 @ 1:23AM|#
Have any witnesses confirmed the story of reaching into his backpack when feds told him to stop and get his hands away? If that's bogus too, then I side with Bovard. Otherwise, I fall on the Wayne side. I'm a strong libertarian, but if I'm the judge, I grant judgment for Wayne. He's cleaning your clocks on this debate.
|12.15.05 @ 1:45AM|#
wayne - here's the problem I have with the line of reasoning you
(and many others) are using: How many innocent people can law
enforcement kill in order to make sure that they shoot that suicide
bomber before he denonates and kills 200 people? In less than six
months since the London bombings, we already have two cases of the
killings of two civilians who were unarmed by law enforcement, one
in the UK and this one in Miami (regardless of what he may have
said, he did not actually have a bomb).
And clearly, the plan now is to increase the use of marshalls on
planes, buses, subways, and trains. And while we do not know if
this will be effective in preventing suicide terrorism, we do now
know for a fact that this tactic does result in the deaths of those
who were innocent of the imagined crime they were killed for. Is it
not easy to imagine that we will have 200 innocents killed in a
similar matter for each suicide bomber who may have killed 200 that
we neutralize? Is that not a morally abhorrent trade? Is it less
morally abhorrent for us to kill 100 innocents to save 200 lives?
50 innocents? Or is only two okay?
|12.15.05 @ 2:07AM|#
>Give me a break, you can't possibly be that naive,
>so you are just reduced to a losing argument, right?
If I'm so naive, them please explain what he could have had in his
backpack that should cause a pair of air marshals armed with
handguns to fear for their lives. Then, explain how he got it past
security, so we can fire everybody at his departure point who
allowed it on board.
|12.15.05 @ 2:18AM|#
It seems to me that a whole lot of the blame
for the death of that deranged guy in Miami lies at the feet of the
Muslim-terrorists that have changed the rules of polite
society.
In other words, the terrorists have won?
Sorry for the cheap shot, I'm not really coming down on the air
marshals for what was a bad, no-win situation. But if 9/11 changed
how we behave towards each other, then maybe it's true after
all.
As someone who carries a gun every day, I can appreciate what a
tough decision the air marshal had in a split second, and I'm going
to withhold judgement until all the facts are in.
|12.15.05 @ 2:34AM|#
Now it's clear to me why when landing last weekend, as I lept out of my seat and managed to get ahead a few rows while swearing under my breath, people were looking at me funny. The reason I was so agitated? MYCONNECTIONWASALREADY BOARDINGWHILE I'MINTHEBACK WAITING TODEPLANE. If enough people in front of me didn't get into the aisle, I would have sprinted off the plane myself. Didn't realize that could get a guy shot.
Pooh|12.15.05 @ 3:33AM|#
If we assume the facts are the worst theories put forth, then
the marhsalls acted poorly. If we assume wayne's facts, they acted
personally reasonable. How about we wait until we have some actual
information? Otherwise, let's form up a posse. I'll bring the
horses, you get the rope...
Wayne has made this point numerous times and no one has really
answered it: if the marshall's wait until they are "sure" it will
most likely be too late. Nobody is celebrating this death, and
those of you who are suggesting the marshalls got their jollies off
on this should be ashamed of yourselves.
|12.15.05 @ 3:42AM|#
"moderately intelligent non-trigger-happy air marshal"
You realize of course that an air marshal most is likely someone
who didn't/couldn't pass the interview to be a regular cop. AKA,
passed the tests, passed the back ground check, and then flunked
out because the real cops didn't want him on the force.
damaged justice|12.15.05 @ 6:09AM|#
"The 9/11 events changed things."
Repeating this ad nauseum does not make it true.
Nothing "changed" on September 11, 2001, except some people's
perceptions. The rules of reality are always the same.
You people who constantly spew this crap about "everything
changing" are the reason why fifty years ago, children took rifles
to school and kept them in their lockers, and today children are
expelled for pointing the finger at someone and shouting
"Bang!"
|12.15.05 @ 6:26AM|#
It seems to me that a whole lot of the blame for the death
of that deranged guy in Miami lies at the feet of the
Muslim-terrorists that have changed the rules of polite
society.
Bull-fucking-shit. The blame lies in the hands of the guys with the
guns, who -- like you, oh-so-timid-and-frightened-wayne -- didn't
follow their logica train to the station: If their version of
events was even remotely close to true, it would be tacit admission
that all the money, all the screenings, all the searches, all the
profiling, can do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent any individual from
bringing a bomb on the plane.
There. Was. No. Bomb. Nor was there a threat of one. You know it, I
know it, and the air marshalls knew it. Someone got trigger happy,
and made up a crappy cover story.
Next person who says "9/11 changed everything" gets my foot in his
nads.
|12.15.05 @ 7:43AM|#
"9/11 changed everything"
It did. Because Americans are major wimps.
"People get the government they deserve" or words to that
effect.
Dave W.|12.15.05 @ 8:01AM|#
In both US and UK, I am sensing that the public are willing to
give police a few freebies, as long as they do not sense any bad
faith before the shooting.
I predict that the public will react a lot differently if the
mistaken Tube shooting reoeats as a pattern, or if shooting people
with anxiety attacks becomes a pattern.
I don't like this because I am so allergic to police coverups, but
if you focus on that people call you a conspiracy theorist. I
prefer to use up my conspiracy chits on Flight 93 (HFCS is more an
evocative possibility than a cause for me). If Mr. Welch gets that
tape the day all those Hollywood movies come out, I can't imagine
want the LA Times might have done to him.
Dave W.|12.15.05 @ 8:30AM|#
There are more possibilities here than just murder or
justified shooting. There's a third category: Understandable but
still below the standards of judgement that we expect from a Law
Enforcement Officer.
God bless tort law and antiGodspeed to those who seem to destroy
it.
Warren|12.15.05 @ 8:50AM|#
Nobody has made mention of the fact that the guy's wife was running after him yelling "he's sick, he's sick, he has a dissorder". Not exactly comforting words but of overwhelming relavence to a lot of comments here I think.
|12.15.05 @ 8:54AM|#
Does anybody here think it's actually a good idea to put Air
Marshalls on buses?
The usual profiles won't work. If they shoot every twitchy guy
wearing a heavy coat in summer, talking about his mission from God,
well, they'll have at least one shooting per day in Los
Angeles.
|12.15.05 @ 8:59AM|#
And multiple shootings every day on Grayhound.
Warren-
It depends on the circumstances. I have to admit that if other
aspects of the Air Marshalls' story turn out to be true (I doubt
it, but let's be hypothetical), then her warning might actually be
a mitigating factor. Some dude claims to have a bomb, and somebody
is saying that he's mentally unstable. That suggests he can't be
talked down.
ow, if she was saying "He's just making stuff up, he's sick" that's
a little different. Details will be crucial.
MP|12.15.05 @ 9:01AM|#
God bless tort law and antiGodspeed to those who seem to
destroy it.
Oh yeah...civil suits against the government...very effective.
Especially considering that:
A) Most government agents have legal immunity.
and
B) Loss of a civil suit simply increases taxes. It is an
ineffective means of incentivising government.
|12.15.05 @ 9:01AM|#
Does anybody here think it's actually a good idea to put Air
Marshalls on buses?
I think it's an appallingly bad idea. Especially considering our
track record--seems the more power government is given to "protect"
us from terrorists, the more we need protection from them. And yet
the Air Marshal Cheering Squad has no problem with turning America
into the kind of place where simply acting weird--not
dangerous, not threatening, just weird--is enough to get you shot
to death and have frightened law-and-order types applaud
your death, because it made us safer.
|12.15.05 @ 9:02AM|#
In some future version of Google, a search for "false dichotomy" will have this thread as the top result.
aarrrggghhh|12.15.05 @ 9:03AM|#
Details will be crucial.
In the civil suits, yes. In the official, non-judicial
investigation, no. Ahhhh, sweet transparency -- o why do you inhere
so in one branch and not the others?
|12.15.05 @ 9:11AM|#
I'm still wrapping my mind around the notion of Marshalls on
buses. Imagine your typical LA bus:
At least two guys wearing unseasonably warm clothing.
Several immigrants from Muslim countries.
Two people with unidentifiable accents, and what they have to say
doesn't make sense in any language ever spoken on this
planet.
Somebody talking about his mission from God, and/or the secrets
that the government is keeping but he's figured out.
Somebody who's twitching.
At least one person who phrases his answer in the form of a
shout.
At least one gang banger packing.
Now put on this bus an Air Marshall whose instincts and reflexes
are honed to shoot Al Qaeda operatives before they can push the
"detonate" button.
Yeah, that will work REAL well. Right.
aarrrggghhh|12.15.05 @ 9:13AM|#
Most government agents have legal immunity.
I am not sure why you think this, because as far as I know, there
are a lot of civil suits based on negligent police overreactions.
But, maybe that is just the tip of the iceberg and immunity needs
to be peeled back further, as your comment would suggest. I am glad
that you brought up immunity here and how it has the potential to
block good, important lawsuits where the relevant details actually
matter, just like T. wants. The power of tort law to make powerful
people behave good is what we are learnin' T. on this here thread.
This basic lesson has wider application.
|12.15.05 @ 9:18AM|#
Dave W., I have never, ever called for a blanket end to all
civil suits.
Argue with the real thoreau, not a Dickens novel version of
thoreau.
MP|12.15.05 @ 9:20AM|#
I am not sure why you think this, because as far as I know,
there are a lot of civil suits based on negligent police
overreactions.
Those suits are not against individual government agents. They are
against agencies.
aarrrggghhh|12.15.05 @ 9:21AM|#
Dave W., I have never, ever called for a blanket end to all
civil suits.
And now you never will. Nuttin' like a pre-emptive strike!
|12.15.05 @ 9:24AM|#
As usual with the government, it's not the underlying event so
much as the attempt to distort or cover up what happened that
matters. That may not be the case here--I, for one, am still not
sure--but if it is, it is indefensible. Shooting the guy under the
circumstances is probably justifiable to some degree (or very
justifiable if the original reports turn out to be true), but lying
about it is not. Period. I'm not rushing to judgment, but I'm not
taking anything the government says about this matter on faith,
either. There are too many witnesses to the events to not be able
to get an idea of what really happened--Bovard is right about the
media needing to ask some tough questions. If the truth is that the
triggers were pulled too soon, that's something we need to work on.
Obviously.
What's sad about this incident, if the government really is
distorting what happened, is that lies aren't necessary. The
marshals' reactions weren't that surprising. I'm sure they didn't
shoot the guy for kicks--they probably were really concerned about
him having a bomb. As we learned in London, SOP for situations
where a guy may have his hands on a bomb trigger is to shoot to
kill. However, for those who think we need this level of security,
keep in mind that one more killing of an innocent person could
result in the whole air marshal program being called into question.
That's even more likely if people feel that the government is not
acting in good faith.
|12.15.05 @ 9:27AM|#
I'm still wrapping my mind around the notion of Marshalls on
buses.
Get with the program, T: the more trigger-happy government agents
we have with the right to kill anybody they think might possibly be
a threat, the safer America will be.
Remember what America's all about: the kind of place where you have
the freedom to be meek and quiet in public, and do exactly as you
are told by any uniformed officer of the law (or anyone in civilian
clothes who claims to be a uniformed officer of the law),
or else you will get shot and people will applaud your death
because it makes us safer.
Having the American government kill people is apparently the only
way to keep terrorists from killing people.
|12.15.05 @ 9:28AM|#
The deranged guy died tragically, and needlessly, but given the
evidence as stated he was not murdered. This was a justifiable
shooting by police officers.
I think it is a terrible idea to put air marshalls on buses/trains.
I went to college in Chicago and rode the CTA bus to school. It was
a madman's nightmare.
Most likely the terrorists have changed their thinking, i.e. they
are probably looking at targets other than airplanes because
security has been beefed up on airplanes.
Anybody who does not recognize that 9/11 "changed things" should
get on the list for a brain transplant as, obviously, their in-situ
organ is severely impared. Pre 9/11 the hijack rules were that the
crew and passengers cooperated and flew around for a day or two and
then got off in Cuba. The 9/11 hijackers obviously brought their
own, new and improved rules onto the airplanes that September
morning.
|12.15.05 @ 9:44AM|#
"Remember what America's all about: the kind of place where you
have the freedom to be meek and quiet in public, and do exactly as
you are told by any uniformed officer of the law (or anyone in
civilian clothes who claims to be a uniformed officer of the law),
or else you will get shot and people will applaud your death
because it makes us safer.
Having the American government kill people is apparently the only
way to keep terrorists from killing people."
Hey, I am a libertarian at heart so my gut reaction is to keep
government out of things. So, Jennifer what should the civilized
world do as an anitdote to the perceived danger of terrorists on
airplanes, and in the claustrophobic "tubes"? Just stay out of it
and let the terrorists and libertarians work out their own security
arrangements?
|12.15.05 @ 9:46AM|#
Pre 9/11 the hijack rules were that the crew and passengers
cooperated and flew around for a day or two and then got off in
Cuba. The 9/11 hijackers obviously brought their own, new and
improved rules onto the airplanes that September
morning.
Yet your justifications seem to imply that passengers and crew will
STILL do this, and so the only possible way to prevent another 9-11
is to give air marshals carte blanche to shoot anyone they feel
nervous about. And for all your eralier talk about Iraq and bombs
and IEDs, this is not Iraq. And having law enforcement
apply war-zone standards to civilian America will cause far more
trouble than it prevents.
|12.15.05 @ 9:46AM|#
wayne-
9/11 did change things: American civilians will no longer comply
with hijackers.
The government apologists are the ones who don't understand how
9/11 changed things. They still think that the American people will
comply with hijackers. The TSA bureaucrats need to get a brain
transplant and realize that We The People have the situation well
in hand.
|12.15.05 @ 9:55AM|#
Also all this talk about "They were right to shoot him, because he might have had a bomb" overlooks the fact that anyone might have a bomb. So now, instead of the government killing people based upon evidence, you're saying it's justified for the government to kill people based upon hypotheticals.
|12.15.05 @ 10:02AM|#
No cop has carte blanche to shoot people without cause. Only a
bloodthirsty madman would shoot an innocent person without cause.
Thankfully, there are few madmen among us. Cops seldom shoot people
wrongly, and by wrongly I mean in a criminal way. Cops sometimes
shoot people who, in hindsight, should not have been shot. This
Miami shooting appears to be a justifiable shooting that, in
hindsight should not have happened. Everybody involved probably
regrets the incident deeply, but that is the nature of the
beast.
"Yet your justifications seem to imply that passengers and crew
will STILL do this..."
I'm sorry but you have lost me here.
I think hijacking an airplane is unlikely nowdays because of
armored doors to the cockpits and armed pilots, but blowing up an
airplane is still quite possible and likely. Using a radio or cell
phone wired to a detonator is relatively simple as our recent
experience in Iraq has demonstrated. Jennifer, you apparently want
us to ignore any lessons from Iraq, but we won't and we
shouldn't.
|12.15.05 @ 10:09AM|#
"Also all this talk about "They were right to shoot him, because
he might have had a bomb" overlooks the fact that anyone might have
a bomb. So now, instead of the government killing people based upon
evidence, you're saying it's justified for the government to kill
people based upon hypotheticals."
Actually, I did not say that the police were right to shoot this
man because he might have had a bomb. I said they were justified in
shooting this man because they REASONABLY BELIEVED that he had a
bomb. That is a much higher standard.
What other standard would you apply? Absolutely never, ever, under
any circumstance should a police officer use deadly force? Why arm
them at all? Why not just have them all read "Atlas Shrugged" so
they can talk to would be hijackers and "educate" thme, presuming
they can get through "Atlas Shrugged" without falling asleep.
(Cheap shot at Libertarian philosophy that I could not resist even
though I consider myself a libertarian)
|12.15.05 @ 10:17AM|#
Actually, I did not say that the police were right to shoot
this man because he might have had a bomb. I said they were
justified in shooting this man because they REASONABLY BELIEVED
that he had a bomb. That is a much higher standard.
How do you know their belief was reasonable? They've already been
caught lying. How many times do they have to be untruthful before
you stop taking their word without proof?
I am also uncomfortable with the fact that THEY are the ones who
decide what is reasonable. SOmehow I doubt they will shoot anyone
and then admit, after the fact, "oops, that was a mistake."
Jennifer, you apparently want us to ignore any lessons from
Iraq, but we won't and we shouldn't.
I never said "ignore lessons from Iraq," I said "Understand that
America is not Iraq." You don't think there should be any
difference between the behavior of government agents in a wear zone
and behavior of government agents here at home?
|12.15.05 @ 10:24AM|#
I am willing to listen bright, new ideas. How should the
civilized world protect itself in all of the perceived vulnerable
areas: airports and airplanes, shipping terminals, mass transit,
etc?
"I am also uncomfortable with the fact that THEY are the ones who
decide what is reasonable. SOmehow I doubt they will shoot anyone
and then admit, after the fact, "oops, that was a mistake."
Actually, the "reasonable person" standard is used in courts of law
all the time, and it is ultimately a jury (i.e. us) who applies it,
not "THEM". I am presumimg that these officers acted reasonably
based on the news accounts I have heard, i.e. I am saying that in
my opinion they did as I probably would have done in those
circumstances.
dhex|12.15.05 @ 10:42AM|#
so we should be thanking our lucky stars you're not an armed
government agent?
see, it's not the shooting that's so bad up front, it's the blatant
lying about it that is. the lying makes the shooting worse, you
see.
protip: stopping people from blowing up the subway in new york is
impossible.
|12.15.05 @ 10:46AM|#
No cop has carte blanche to shoot people without
cause.
You believe that and still call others naive?
Only a bloodthirsty madman would shoot an innocent person
without cause. Thankfully, there are few madmen among
us.
Training officers to think of the public as enemy combatants
provides ample cause. Training officers that any questioning of
their authority or orders is a life-threatening situation provides
cause. There's no need for madmen for the wrong people to be killed
when policy provides so much cover.
I understand that mistakes can and will be made when an instant
decision is required. But for all the change that 9/11 has
supposedly wrought, Government agencies, legislatures, police, etc.
are still made up of people who are as inept and deceitful as you
or I are, maybe . How much authority do you want to give them?
|12.15.05 @ 10:46AM|#
I am way late rejoining the thread, and am adjusting my glasses
to make sure my hindsight is 20/20, but one point overlooked and
unquestioned thus far is the premise that a suicidal terrorists
would announce he has a bomb and run screaming away from the
target, with or without the explosives? If he was leaving the bomb
behind why announce it? If he is taking the bomb with him why
announce it? The man's actions were far more than agitated, they
were hysterical, consistent with mental illness, not consistent
with the demeanor of a suicidal or homicidal terrorist.
I know this is all took place very quickly and demanded very quick
thinking, it is supposed to look like an impossible job to those of
us on the outside, but enough already with the split-second
decision and police-academy washout hyperbole. The whole purpose of
hiring and training marshals is to find qualified people and
condition their muscles and their brains to make quick decisions.
Properly trained the game slows down dramatically and the mind can
fashion rational responses. The air marshals freely chose the line
of work, they cash their paychecks each week. Our representatives
have an obligation to staff competently.
In retrospect the victim's actions, even the version espoused by
the government, do not fit the profile of a bomber, certainly not
the type the air marshals were hired to deter. It is extremely
plausible that the agents acted in good faith at the time. It is
unacceptable that the response by these and other agents of the
government would be to then lie to the stakeholders (i.e. the
citizenry).
|12.15.05 @ 11:03AM|#
said they were justified in shooting this man because they
REASONABLY BELIEVED that he had a bomb. That is a much higher
standard.
Once again, if the air marshalls REASONABLY BELIEVED he had a bomb,
that's an absolute admission -- both by you and by the air marshall
corps -- that for all the blood, sweat, tears and toil, neither TSA
nor the airlines can do a bloody thing to prevent someone from
brining a bomb on board in carry-on luggage. Are you sure you want
to pursue that argument?
|12.15.05 @ 11:05AM|#
Here is my theory...
Alpizar was seated next to a homeless man who hadn't bathed in
months. After three hours of breathing fetid air the plane landed
and Alpizar leaped from his seat to escape the stench. While he
raced to get off the plane he yelled "I have a BUM" (english is not
his primary language). Some passengers saw him reach into his
backpack (probably for a Mentos or air freshener)and they yelled
"Look out! He has a Gub!
The Marshal was forced to shoot condidering all the commotion and
the lessons of 9/11.
|12.15.05 @ 11:10AM|#
Phil-
To be fair, they could have confidence that searches stop most
bombs but not all. They could believe that they have a high success
rate but not perfect.
Still, that should factor into their assessment. And, as has been
pointed out, why would a fanatical suicide bomber announce what
he's doing and give the Marshalls time to respond?
|12.15.05 @ 11:11AM|#
And, as I and others have argued, it may be difficult to distinguish between terrorists and crazy non-terrorists, but professionals are hired for their (alleged) expertise and good judgement.
|12.15.05 @ 11:32AM|#
Crushinator's explanation is a good one. I certainly have
desperately wanted off of airplanes a few times.
I don't disagree that we want good, well trained cops who exercise
good judgement. Maybe I am misinterpreting what many of you are
saying here but it seems that you all want a "perfect outcome" at
all times. You seem to want the police to NEVER use lethal force
when the recipient is not a fully vetted terrorist with a gun and a
bomb in his possession. It is OK to pursue this as an ideal, but
that is an impossibly high standard for anybody to meet. Remember,
the cops are just a bunch of average guys. A few are vile, and
criminal, and insane. They are just like the people on this board.
Most are just people trying to do the best job they can. None
(except the odd insane one) wants to die on the job. Most take
their job seriously and are serious about protecting the lives of
the sardine can full of libertarians.
|12.15.05 @ 11:52AM|#
Wayne, it isn't about the cops. No one here is blaming the cops (at least no one I can see). What we are blaming are the tactics which lead to the air marshals. Why do we need these air marshals, or bus or train marshals? What reason do we have to believe they will be able to do the job they are sent to do without several innocent people being shot?
MP|12.15.05 @ 11:58AM|#
wayne,
Mistakes will be made. I see this as primarily a wedge issue that
allows us to shine a light on the absurdity of the security state
in general. We have a major misallocation of resources because of
the attitude that people need to be coddled in order to feel safe.
All the money poured into the TSA could have been redirected to
fortifying aircraft cockpits and other sensitive areas.
|12.15.05 @ 12:00PM|#
"Wayne, it isn't about the cops. No one here is blaming the cops
(at least no one I can see). What we are blaming are the tactics
which lead to the air marshals. Why do we need these air marshals,
or bus or train marshals? What reason do we have to believe they
will be able to do the job they are sent to do without several
innocent people being shot?"
OK, as I said, I am open to ideas. What do we do to protect
ourselvs in seemingly vulnerable areas: airports and airplanes,
mass transit, shipping terminals?
|12.15.05 @ 12:04PM|#
Here, I will offer a possible solution: Let's, as a nation, honor and abide by the constitution. Let's allow all citizens who are not felons bear arms, i.e. let's honor the second amendment. Maybe then we would have no need for air marshalls as undoubtedly many of the passengers on the planes, buses, and trains could be expected to be armed.
|12.15.05 @ 12:25PM|#
Probably better for the Ted Stevens thread, but apparently passengers on a Hawaii-bound flight last weekend "subdued" and flexicuffed a passenger (a Mexican national! paging Lonewacko) who threatened a baby and ran for the cockpit.
|12.15.05 @ 12:27PM|#
What do we do to protect ourselvs in seemingly vulnerable
areas: airports and airplanes, mass transit, shipping
terminals?
For me, it's not about what else we need to do as much as getting
rid of methods that aren't helping. For example, confiscating my
toenail clippers isn't going to make anything except my toenails
safer.
The solution that I would suggest to many of your perceived safety
concerns would be to simply accept that bad things are possible in
those areas. I'm not saying we should be careless and reckless, but
you can't secure everything and still have a country that I would
want to live in.
|12.15.05 @ 12:35PM|#
I agree about toe nail clippers, and pen knives, and I think we
have gone WAY overboard with the TSA checkpoints, etc. By the way,
that seems to be unwinding; the TSA now seems to want to
concentrate on bombs, etc. and want to ignore the safety of our toe
nails. Good move on their part.
But, I think armed air marshalls on airplanes is a good idea,
although fully armed citizens is better.
I do accept that bad things can, and will, happen. I fully expect
an airplane to be blown up at some point, or maybe a boat, or who
knows. I fully expect that somebody else will be gunned down by air
marshalls, or by some European equivalent. But, I think we need to
do our best to counter all of these threats.
|12.15.05 @ 12:38PM|#
I'm not sure I completely buy into the "he's crazy, therefore safe" rationale. Only sane and stable people can blow up airplanes?
|12.15.05 @ 12:40PM|#
Why were there two air marshals on that
flight?
It certainly looks like the air marshalls used bad judgement in
concluding that a Mexican (Costa-Rican, whatever) with his wife
running after him apologizing for him was a bomber. But it's always
a recepie for disaster whenever the police get it into their heads
that someone might be armed and dangerous. So how did that idea get
there?
As I explained IN ALL CAPS in a letter to Nick, I suspect that the
flight was flagged in advance by some bit of CAPS II pseudoscience.
Maybe it was even Alpizar himself flagged by "the computer",
causing two agents to be placed on the plane and setting it in the
Marshall's minds that they were to expect trouble and act
decisively when they saw it.
|12.15.05 @ 12:46PM|#
"But it's always a recepie for disaster whenever the police get
it into their heads that someone might be armed and
dangerous."
Well, except when that someone is actually armed and
dangerous.
Would it not have been a truly wonderful PR nightmare if on 9/11 a
bunch of jackbooted government thugs had gunned down all 19 (or was
it 20) of those innocent muslim fundamentalists? I can just see the
headlines: "Government executes minorities for opening boxes..."
Not to mention the uproar on the reason blog that would have
followed.
|12.15.05 @ 12:47PM|#
As in favor as I am of people using their 2nd Amendment rights,
I don't think that that is workable on airplanes. Air marshals use
specific ammunitions to minimize the risk of a round penetrating
the aircraft; regulating that among armed passengers is simply
impossible.
There are three seeming terrorist dangers aboard a plane: an
in-flight bombing, a 9/11-type hijacking and crash, and a
hostage-taking. The only method to prevent the first is to prevent
the bomb from getting on the plane; after that, there is no real
way to stop a smart suicide bomber. So for that problem, air
marshals are useless.
As for hijackings, I've long felt the solution is to secure the
cockpit, and then to enable and permit the flight crew to change
the cabin pressure if an incident occurs. The flight crew can
nearly instantly render the passengers of the flight unconcious
using this method.
Dave W.|12.15.05 @ 12:50PM|#
More on peeling back, instead of beefing up, tort immunity; some
good news from the Lessig blog today:
the work of John Hardwicke
The New Jersey Assembly has voted 63-5 to enact a law to remove any
immunity for negligence in hiring in any case involving sex abuse.
[Bill expected to fully pass the legislature and be signed into law
soon.]
|12.15.05 @ 12:52PM|#
James,
What makes you think that the passengers wouldn't or couldn't stop
an attempted hijacking?
|12.15.05 @ 1:16PM|#
Can we make a new rule of internet debate?
Anyone who claims 9/11 is the cause of the death of innocent
civilians at the hands of government agents is forever banned from
making any statement which requests others to accept personal
responsibility?
Seriously. If you can't accept the fact that the person who pulled
the trigger, regardless of whether they're irrationally pissing
their pants, is the one responsible for the death, you shouldn't be
allowed to pontificate about how others have no personal
responsibility...
|12.15.05 @ 1:18PM|#
I don't believe anyone here is opposed to air marshalls having
the "right" to use lethal force, when necessary.
What I'm concerned with is what appears to be their dramatic leap
across every form of non-lethal response and going straight to "gun
his ass down". There were two air marshalls and I must assume they
are in fairly decent shape. There had to have been other options
(and as someone pointed out, how did they know he didn't have a
dead-man switch?). What were they and why were they rejected?
Couldn't they have contacted airport security to meet the plane? I
wasn't there, I don't know what they could have done, but 3 warning
shots in the back seems a little extreme.
They had a complicated situation to assess quickly, but if their
training is to kill anyone acting "strangely" while reaching into
their carry-on luggage, well, that's not going to cut it.
|12.15.05 @ 1:22PM|#
Another idea, obviously lost in today's entitlement culture
-
You get on an airplane, one of the risks you take is a
hijacking.
Amazing! Someone willingly take a risk?
Not allowable. Get the government to intervene!
|12.15.05 @ 1:26PM|#
"I don't believe anyone here is opposed to air marshalls having
the "right" to use lethal force, when necessary."
Good, then we are in agreement. This was a justifiable shooting.
End of debate.
Dave W.|12.15.05 @ 1:36PM|#
You gettin' set for the inevitable aspartme post, T.? If you haven't been GOOGLE-newsing recently, the UK is sayin' nasty things about FDA procedure. Like they should talk!
|12.15.05 @ 1:36PM|#
"Hmm...what if he was reaching into his bag to get his
identification papers?"
Hahahahahahahahahahahhahah.... hilarious. great joke!
|12.15.05 @ 1:41PM|#
Since there seem to be more holes in the official story than in
the victim, debating whether this was a justified shooting or not
would seem to be rather pointless.
To take a different angle, the victim was bipolar, and 1 in 5 will
eventually kill themselves. Any chance this was "suicide by
cop"?
|12.15.05 @ 1:41PM|#
Dave W., I've been too busy rigging my gun to fire when bumped.
I want something that I can deploy as quickly as possible with no
delays.
It turns out that you need to jam one of the internal safety
mechanisms. High fructose corn syrup is nice and sticky, perfect
for the job.
Dave W.|12.15.05 @ 1:43PM|#
Okay. I hope Jacob, rather than Ron, takes up the aspartme story. J. seems less in thrall.
|12.15.05 @ 1:43PM|#
BTW, Dave W., the owner's manual that came with my gun includes some precautions against tampering with the internal mechanisms. I'm hoping maybe you could help me find some loopholes if I send you a copy of the manual? That way, if I accidentally shoot somebody else, I can sue SigArms and say that I wasn't properly warned.
|12.15.05 @ 1:45PM|#
Sig? You're doomed dude. With all that decocking, and external safety, etc. Get a Glock.
Pooh|12.15.05 @ 1:46PM|#
quasibill, we can consider that rule when you and the other
ready-fire-aimers here offer more than conflicting testimony to
prove that people are LYING. That is, knowingly telling falsehoods.
But why wait for you know, actual evidence, when we
know what really happened?
If we start from the premise that everything the
government says is a lie, well than the actions taken are
inexcusable. Assumptions are the mother of all fuckups, and that
goes both ways.
Dave W.|12.15.05 @ 1:47PM|#
T., you would lose that case. Therefore, I won't take it. In court, unlike other parts of government, the details matter. I am glad you have a right to bring your case, but you should not excercise that right here because you will just end up costing yourself a lot of money.
Dave W.|12.15.05 @ 2:00PM|#
If you drink a lot of diet soda and just got diagnosed with brain cancer, let's offline talk and soon $$$!!!
|12.15.05 @ 2:41PM|#
One other question:
What if it turns out that every sweetener out there poses health
risks, but people want to buy sweetened beverages anyway? Should
the companies who satisfy that demand be sued?
|12.15.05 @ 2:43PM|#
quasibill, we can consider that rule when you and the other
ready-fire-aimers here offer more than conflicting testimony to
prove that people are LYING. That is, knowingly telling falsehoods.
But why wait for you know, actual evidence, when we know what
really happened? If we start from the premise that everything the
government says is a lie, well than the actions taken are
inexcusable. Assumptions are the mother of all fuckups, and that
goes both ways.
How many times does the government have to lie before I am allowed
to stop giving them the benefit of the doubt and
start expecting them to prove themselves, do you think? I
believe we've already passed that point; you appear to
disagree.
"Saddam, who attacked us on 9-11, has WMDs that can destroy England
in 20 minutes. We do not torture. We do not have ghost detainees or
secret prisons which we hide from the world. If we still have
trials by jury our democracy will die. The man screamed 'I have a
bomb!' Oh. . . .well, that was all untrue, but trust me--the NEXT
thing I say will be totally accurate. How dare you be
suspicious?"
Pooh|12.15.05 @ 3:11PM|#
Jennifer, non-benefit-of-the doubt is not the same thing as
proof. And if you start of from a premise that "the Man" is lying
everytime, you have bigger problems. He can find you from your
posts here, so I'd run while you still have time.
There also seems to be a failure among many to distinguish between
the marhsalls themselves and the policy/ROE under which they
operate - I'm prepared to give much more leeway to the officers
than I am to the policy itself. Both require facts,
speculation.
Slow down, take a deep breath, we still don't know more than we
know...
|12.15.05 @ 3:12PM|#
thedumbfish - nothing makes me think that the passengers wouldn't or couldn't stop an attempted hijacking. But if we care so much that no one ever dies before the last possible instant, then having the pilots use the cabin pressure to solve these problems makes it as certain as it can possibly be. And also, as someone who likes to sleep when flying, it would make it a lot easier on me if I didn't have to take turns with the guy in the aisle seat keeping watch against an insurrection.
|12.15.05 @ 3:46PM|#
Jennifer, non-benefit-of-the doubt is not the same thing as
proof. And if you start of from a premise that "the Man" is lying
everytime, you have bigger problems. He can find you from your
posts here, so I'd run while you still have time.
Somewhere higher up on this thread I mentioned that I distrusted
this story for the same reason I distrusted the London subway
shooting story: I am immediately suspicious of whatever story is
used to explain why agents of the state killed an unarmed, innocent
man.
Do you think our country would be better or stronger if everybody
took the opposite approach: Oh, the state just killed an unarmed
and innocent man, but I will choose to believe their story of
justification unless I see good evidence not to?
Dave W., club soda drinker (so|12.15.05 @ 4:26PM|#
What if it turns out that every sweetener out there poses
health risks, but people want to buy sweetened beverages anyway?
Should the companies who satisfy that demand be sued?
Depends on the deatils. Did the sweetner mfgr know about elevated
risks? If they did, did they pass the info on to the public? Did
they monkey around with the FDA? There are many more questions, but
you get the idea.
The reason I bring up the aspartme story before Bailey gets his
hands on it next week (or whenever) is that there are fairly
specific allegations of misconduct by through and with the FDA (way
back in 1980!!!). The import of which you should be able to connect
to one of your recent etudes. Wanted to strike while that iron was
still hot.
Like I said in that previous thread, in my FDA class they taught
that many, many food and substances have risks attached, and a line
must be drawn between accepatble risks and unacceptable. If the
integrity of that process is bribed away, we need to have the
vehicle of civil lawsuits to explore that. Because, like
WonderWoman's plane, it is a transparent vehicle. Down with
Cheeseburger Bill!
|12.15.05 @ 4:26PM|#
Dave W., in honor of you I've started a poll on grylliade's
forum:
http://grylliade.org/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=262
Dave W., club soda drinker (so|12.15.05 @ 4:29PM|#
sounds good. On the other board, a mod stuck up for me bigtime
today, so I feel good about that. The goree deetails:
http://invisionfree.com/forums/thefall/index.php?showtopic=10320&st=0
|12.15.05 @ 4:30PM|#
i don't know how we morphed from rogue, killer cops to corrupt
FDA officials... hey, wait a minute, now I get it.
Is aspartme the same thing as aspartame?
Leave a Comment
Most Popular Stories
- Fox Business Network Cancels Judge Andrew Napolitano's Freedom Watch (2.9)
- Breitbart on libertarians in 2012 (2.11)
- Did the Drug War Make it Any Easier for Whitney Houston to Seek Help For Substance Abuse? (2.12)
- The Inside and Outside of CPAC 2012 (2.10)
- One Possible Reason There Are So Few Liberals, Starring Jonathan Chait. And Some Stuff About Tax Progressivity. (2.10)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Romney Most Electable Candidate, Yet Gingrich in Statistical Tie Among GOP Voters (1.31)
- Explaining Newt’s Second Surge (1.26)
- George Washington Would Beat Out Romney as Richest President; John Kerry Would Have, Too (1.25)
- New Poll: Americans Aren't Ready for Another War (1.20)
- 2012 Election Match Up: Romney Wins, Paul Might (1.13)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
|12.14.05 @ 5:00PM|#
Plus, hadn't the plane already landed? I would imagine that the best time to detonate the bomb was while it was flying.
In any case, if the air marshalls really did see a guy running down the aisle of a plane saying/shouting he had a bomb, you better believe they should smoke his ass. If not, they had better use a little more discretion, and not lie about it.
|12.14.05 @ 5:02PM|#
"Members of Congress ought not use the excuse of the Miami incident to stick their noses into a layer of security that is clearly the most effective defense we have against future hijackings."
Vigilant passengers and crews?
|12.14.05 @ 5:05PM|#
I had a feeling something was hinky about that whole thing. And I now have a feeling that we'll never know what actually happened.
|12.14.05 @ 5:06PM|#
This is a triumph of hope over experience, given how such investigations over the past 15 years almost always whitewashed federal action.
Given that it is a different world with the pajamahadeen, maybe it won't be so easy to whitewash this one. The big problem seems to be more about public apathy and the rush to believe that agents of the government are actually motivated to act in the best interests of the citizens.
|12.14.05 @ 5:06PM|#
There are levels of libertarian thinking out there. I think of Bovard as that guy you read when you first start out to get you properly outraged. After a while, it occurs to you that he is a hair's breadth from a seizure on every issue, and much of what he says is high in noise and low in signal.
I'd rather read Will Wilkinson, Julian, Matt W, or CPF these days. One of the reasons I like Reason is that it has not changed into a screaming canon of libertarian scripture. It is a place to think things out, for the most part.
Timothy|12.14.05 @ 5:16PM|#
Give the airmarshalls tranquilizer guns, dammit.
Or water pistols.
Timothy|12.14.05 @ 5:17PM|#
Also, where are the Tookie protesters over this tragedy? At least Tookie had been convicted in a court of law and had rigorous appeals, this guy was bipolar, unmedicated, and happened to freak out on a plane. Now he's dead. Where's the due process in that?
Warren|12.14.05 @ 5:34PM|#
Jason,
Federal agents killing innocent civilians in public places seem to be well over the line of things worth getting outraged over. I also don't know what you mean by "high in noise and low in signal". That article had plenty of "signal" if you ask me. James' thesis is that the media is playing lap-dog for the feds under circumstances that call out for watch-dog (but not attack-dog) tactics. He supports this with several citations of major media sources, documenting both disturbing facts that warrant further investigation, and the medias unwillingness to question and dig. But [pithy cheap-shot] he's "a hairs breath from a seizure" so � Nothing to see here move along[/pcs]
|12.14.05 @ 5:48PM|#
I was suspicious of this from the beginning, too, because my standard rule is to distrust any excuse the government initially uses about why it killed an unarmed innocent person.
So the initial story is untrue, and now they're picking at straws trying to justify what they did. And for those of you who sympathize with the shooters, consider: no matter how harmless and normal you're being, someone who's determined to do so can find something to misconstrue, to justify calling you a threat.
If not, they'll just make stuff up. Remember the overcoat-wearing, turnstile-jumping Brazilian they shot in London?
|12.14.05 @ 5:50PM|#
Obedience To The Law Is Freedom
|12.14.05 @ 5:50PM|#
CNN.com is reporting there will be a three-day test of air marshals working on buses and trains. In light of the Alpizar shooting, does this bother anyone else?
|12.14.05 @ 5:51PM|#
What sort of sentence includes threatening words "to the effect" that one has a bomb�but apparently does not include the word bomb?
"I gotta blow this place!"
|12.14.05 @ 5:55PM|#
Bovard goes over the top sometimes, but he does seem to document what he's saying pretty well. And he's an equal opportunity government-bashing author, too, since he has zapped the Clinton and Bush administrations with equal fervor.
|12.14.05 @ 5:57PM|#
How many of the witnesses will be audited by the I.R.S. if their stories don't corroberate the feds'?
|12.14.05 @ 5:58PM|#
Quiet reader girl: Yes.
|12.14.05 @ 6:00PM|#
Plus, hadn't the plane already landed? I would imagine that the best time to detonate the bomb was while it was flying.
That, and Alpizar had already gone through a security checkpoint when he boarded the plane.
Maybe Alpizar was really a terrorist agent on a suicide mission tasked with discrediting the Air Marshals by getting himself shot to death.
|12.14.05 @ 6:02PM|#
"He said he had a bomb"="The Branch Davidians fired first"="The FBI had no knowledge that Vicki Weaver had been shot"
The natural result of unchecked federal law enforcement.
|12.14.05 @ 6:09PM|#
This particular incident may turn out to be a reasonable error on the part of the air marshals--who knows at this point?--but I agree with Bovard's concerns. Why are people so unwilling to question government actions? Our jaded view of the government is one of our biggest virtues. I hope that's not going away.
|12.14.05 @ 6:09PM|#
"He said he had a bomb"="The Branch Davidians fired first"="The FBI had no knowledge that Vicki Weaver had been shot"
I remember when the only people who ever said the last two were reviled not just as Certified Lunatics, but a dangerous threat to the nation as well. I'm ashamed to say that I even remember, for awhile, agreeing with the government's take on the latter two.
But at least I eventually got the hell over it.
The thing is, maybe some of those individual incidents can in fact be explained away as something perfectly innocent. Heck, maybe there's a plausible excuse for all of them.
But even if the individual events can be rationalized away, the cumulative weight of all of them is too much to ignore. Maybe they used to be isolated incidents, but now they're forming definite patterns.
|12.14.05 @ 6:10PM|#
I remember when the only people who ever said the last two were reviled not just as Certified Lunatics
Make that, "I remember when the only people who CRITICIZED the last two."
|12.14.05 @ 6:27PM|#
CNN.com is reporting there will be a three-day test of air marshals working on buses and trains.
I just read that story somewhere else. My guess is that the test will be conducted as follows: if there are no terrorist attacks during those three days, that proves that bus and train marshals work.
And if there is an attack, that just proves we need more marshals.
Larry A|12.14.05 @ 6:33PM|#
What sort of sentence includes threatening words "to the effect" that one has a bomb but apparently does not include the word bomb?
"If I don't get to the restroom, I'm going to explode."
Intelligence check: You're sitting on an airplane and some guy says, "I have a bomb!" and tries to get off. What do you do?
Once more, "If you haven't done anything wrong, why are you worried?" There ought to be a list of these.
|12.14.05 @ 6:37PM|#
Can't help but wonder out of a plane load of people departing a Latin country the seven interviewed did not hear the word bomb. Did any of those interviewed speak English? Did the one doing the yelling speak in Spanish or what? Did anyone ask those questions? Amazing reporting what?
|12.14.05 @ 6:38PM|#
I am inclined to not be so harsh on the air marshalls here. The guy did run down the aisle of the airplane in a rush to get off. The guy was "agitated". The guy was acting abnormal.
What are the air marshall's supposed to do, perform psycho-analysis? We all know now, after the fact, in the comfort of our homes, that this passenger was ill but the air marshalls did not know that in Miami.
The air marshalls did their job. It is a dangerous world we live in. If you fly as a passenger, then don't act as if you are going to hijack/bomb/kill your fellow passengers. If you do, you might wind up with a half dozen 40 caliber rounds in your chest.
Surely none of you think the air marshalls did this for a lark?
|12.14.05 @ 6:50PM|#
But even if you give them the benefit of the doubt, don't you think it would at least be nice if they were totally honest? Maybe not say that the guy was shouting that he had a bomb if he wasn't really shouting that he had a bomb?!?
Ok, he ran off the plane, the marshalls told him to get down, he didn't comply with their orders and perhaps even reached for the backpack he was wearing so they shot him. I'm still not stoked about it, but at least it sounds a lot more honest than saying he said one thing then having witnesses totally claim otherwise.
|12.14.05 @ 6:51PM|#
It is a dangerous world we live in.
No kidding--government agents are gunning people down in public, and claiming this makes people safer.
|12.14.05 @ 6:54PM|#
Wayne, I think the point is that we don't really know what happened. The initial story was BS (seemed a bit to tidy at first glance), so how do we know he ran down the aisle, was agitated or acted abnormal either?
We don't. The government mis-represented what happened, so now all of it become suspect.
|12.14.05 @ 6:55PM|#
yep, I agree that lying about claims of a bomb is wrong, and undermines the cops' position here. Was it the air marshalls who said they heard the bomb claims?
Did any of the witnesses corroborate the "I have a bomb" claim? Frankly, eye witness accounts are usually mostly inaccurate.
|12.14.05 @ 6:57PM|#
Until I learn more, I'm inclined to be sympathetic toward the air marshalls. Although it's disturbing that either they are declining to answer various clarifying questions, or the media are failing to ask them. But in the former case, I'd at least like to know what unanswered questions were asked. Like what jimmy said.
But I really have to take issue with this phrase from Bovard's article:
"A youngish [44 years old?] male
Fuck yes, you young punk! I'm 44 and I'm incredibly youthful. Hell, I got carded a couple months ago when I bought a bottle of vodka at the grocery store. Admittedly by an older lady who apparently forgot her eyeglasses, but still...
When will Reason hire a couple people who are old enough to shave? It might lend a little valuable perspective.
|12.14.05 @ 7:02PM|#
So, apparently some of you think the air marshalls murdered this man, i.e. they had absolutely no reason to shoot this man other than their own murderous impulses, so they laughed it up and took turns drilling holes in a citizen?
It is a dangerous world we live in because there are people who are burning with hatred for the developed world who are willing to drive airplanes into tall buildings and kill themselves as long as they can take a plane load of libertarians with them.
|12.14.05 @ 7:03PM|#
What are the air marshall's supposed to do, perform psycho-analysis?
Apparently, governments expect more of people like Cory Maye and Amadou Diallo than they do of their own armed agents.
Unlike trained law enforcement officers, who are excused for shooting innocent people because they had only a fraction of a second to make a life-or-death decision after initiating a violent confronation, civilians must correctly assess the situation and decide to make the appropriate response -- roll over and surrender -- in that same fraction of a second. Or else...
It takes a special kind of person to believe that "It was Amadou Diallo who set the stage for tragedy."
|12.14.05 @ 7:07PM|#
This discussion is about an incident on an airplane in Miami. I am only vaguely familiar with the Amadou Diallo story, and it is irrelevant to this discussion anyway.
|12.14.05 @ 7:09PM|#
so, what should the air marshalls have done?
|12.14.05 @ 7:13PM|#
The air marshalls did not do this for a lark. They did this because they believe their own hype. Plus the only tool they have and want to use is a hammer. Pretty soon everything looks like a nail.
|12.14.05 @ 7:19PM|#
It is a dangerous world we live in because there are people who are burning with hatred for the developed world who are willing to drive airplanes into tall buildings and kill themselves as long as they can take a plane load of libertarians with them.
And killing a man on the runway after the plane has landed will prevent this. . . . how?
If the air marshals knew they'd done nothing wrong, then I wonder why they lied.
|12.14.05 @ 7:20PM|#
"Plus the only tool they have and want to use is a hammer. Pretty soon everything looks like a nail."
actually, they did not bludgeon this guy with a hammer they shot him. This is the first shooting by air marshalls that I am aware of, hence it seems likely to me that they have used other "tools" in the past, including doing absolutely nothing a year or two ago in a situation that had MANY passengers on an airplane sobbing with fear.
fyodor|12.14.05 @ 7:22PM|#
wayne,
I don't think anyone here thinks the air marshalls shot a man just to watch him die.
But the choices do not come down to either doing their job correctly to make us all safer versus first degree murder. They may have made an honest screw-up. And we're entitled to know if they did. And if they did act correctly under the circumstances, does this make safer or does it create the opposite circumstance? There's plenty worth knowing and discussing about this, even if we totally accept the gist of what you're saying.
|12.14.05 @ 7:23PM|#
so, what should the air marshalls have done?
Uh, maybe subdue him and arrest him? Let's see, no passenger corroborates the marshal's silly claim that he was running up and down the aisle saying he had a bomb. They do say only that he was acting weird and trying to get off the plane and they do corroborate that his wife was yelling not to hurt him, that he's mentally ill. Yeah, sounds like a good time to just blow him away because he SO fits the profile of a hijacker. Oh and add to that the fact the plane was on the ground (where was he hijacking it to - gate 34C?) they shot him after he was off the plane on the boarding ramp for Christ's sake! Yeah some hijacker or terrorist... It doesn't take a psycho-analysis to figure that out - just requires a moderately intelligent non-trigger-happy air marshal.
|12.14.05 @ 7:26PM|#
"And killing a man on the runway after the plane has landed will prevent this. . . . how?
If the air marshals knew they'd done nothing wrong, then I wonder why they lied."
Your first question is easy to answer: They were preventing this bomber from pressing the button on his radio-controlled detonator. Radio controlled detonators are widely used in Iraq in their "Improvised Explosive Devices". I would hope that if I am a passenger sitting on an airplane is such a situation the air marshalls would perform in a like manner.
Your second question is harder. I don't know why they lied. Maybe they panicked and thouhgt they needed to bolster their justification for shooting. Maybe the air marshalls did not even say they heard anything about a bomb, maybe it was a passenger who said it.
|12.14.05 @ 7:26PM|#
There are more possibilities here than just murder or justified shooting. There's a third category: Understandable but still below the standards of judgement that we expect from a Law Enforcement Officer.
When an unarmed civilian is shot, the burden of proof should be on the state for anything it might do. This has two somewhat countervailing effects:
1) On the question of whether the shooters should keep their jobs, the presumption should be that they shouldn't, until they prove otherwise. That may sound counter to the notion of innocent until proven guilty, but that standard is only used when loss of liberty is at stake. Here the stakes are authority, and authority must be constantly earned, not taken for granted.
You can say what you want about the circumstances and how the mistake was understandable. And maybe you're right. But the fact remains that an unarmed man was shot by an agent of the state, and if that agent of the state wants to keep his job, he'd better have a really goddamned good excuse for the mistake.
2) On the other hand, if the state wanted to not only strip those agents of authority, but also convict them of a crime, the burden of proof immediately gets turned around. Now the stakes are loss of liberty.
Also, in regard to putting the Marshalls on buses and subways and whatnot:
You can say what you will about how this mistake was understandable, and maybe at the end of the day it will be the case that the shooting was totally justified and the Marshalls should keep their jobs. The fact remains that this was an encounter with a crazy non-terrorist, and this sort of encounter is far more likely on buses and subways than it is on airplanes. (Trust me, I've traveled cross-country on Greyhound.)
Encounters of this sort are best handled by experienced people who are accustomed to dealing with crazy non-terrorists. Here, I would rather trust the local beat cop than the Air Marshall. Maybe the case in Miami was understandable, and maybe even the most experienced beat cop would have done the same thing. I'd still say that buses and trains are better patrolled by people who's instincts have been honed by lots of encounters with crazy non-terrorists, rather than by former FBI agents or former military personnel. The FBI and armed forces may be very good at what they do, but I doubt they spend much time dealing with crazy guys walking down the streets talking to the voices in their heads.
I guarantee you that if our buses and subways are routinely patrolled by people whose instincts and reflexes are calibrated for encounters with Al Qaeda operatives, over time there will be more than a few tragic mistakes. Understandable? Maybe. But avoidable by people with more appropriate backgrounds? Probably.
Brian|12.14.05 @ 7:27PM|#
What sort of sentence includes threatening words "to the effect" that one has a bomb�but apparently does not include the word bomb?
"If I don't get off this plane soon, my bladder is gonna explode."
|12.14.05 @ 7:33PM|#
"Uh, maybe subdue him and arrest him?"
And while they are wrestling with this guy he detonates the bomb that he planted on the airplane and kills 200 people, maybe you among them. This does not strike me as laudible police work.
The point I am making is that it is plausible that these air marshalls were acting responsibly given the knowledge they had at the time.
I don't deny that it is tragic that an apparently innocent man was killed, but I object to the implication that these cops were just a couple of gun-happy thugs.
Rick H.|12.14.05 @ 7:33PM|#
Bobster: bingo. This incident is being cheered by folks who believe that, in dealing with a possible threat, there are no choices between gentle, passive psychoanalysis and "Shoot him! Shoot him!"
|12.14.05 @ 7:35PM|#
wayne, if you were talking about 1 or 2 eyewitnesses, I would agree that that TSA could be given the benefit of the doubt. But CNN+Time+Orlando Sentinel = 9 or 10 passengers who heard nothing about a bomb.
Bovard also discerns the slight but important "to the effect" change in the official story. I'll bet that, if pressed, the story changes to "he mentioned the bomb when he was on the jetway" which would conveniently allow plausible deniability because voila! -- The passengers on the plane can't hear what's happening on the jetway....except the gunshots that killed this man.
|12.14.05 @ 7:40PM|#
I think one of the major reasons that the editorials are not questioning the shooting is because they are worried that they will be branded as liberal communists that hate America by every right-wing hack with a microphone. It all comes to $$$ as usual. Luckily, they are some journalists and editors that have the guts to ask the right questions and try to get to the bottom of this tragic accident.
|12.14.05 @ 7:41PM|#
"You can say what you want about the circumstances and how the mistake was understandable. And maybe you're right. But the fact remains that an unarmed man was shot by an agent of the state, and if that agent of the state wants to keep his job, he'd better have a really goddamned good excuse for the mistake."
Good point, and I agree. The consequnence of that approach is that you might wind up with a police force that is so afraid to pull the trigger that they fail to pull the trigger when they need to, and hundreds of people die because of it.
Rick H.|12.14.05 @ 7:43PM|#
Wayne, do you think this would be a justified shooting if the guy was "acting weird" at a soccer game of 200 people? The plane was grounded.
My point is that this country's security psychosis seems to mainly center around planes and airports, as if terrorist organizations are drawn to airports and only to airports by some magical voodoo spell.
|12.14.05 @ 7:51PM|#
"Wayne, do you think this would be a justified shooting if the guy was "acting weird" at a soccer game of 200 people? The plane was grounded."
It is impossible, except in hindsight, to know the correct way to handle your scenario, or the airplane scenario in Miami for that matter.
If the guy in the soccer crowd was acting weird because he was about to open the valve on a cannister of nerver gas, then some on-the-spot action to stop him is absilutely justified. If he actually likes soccer then his weirdness is explained and some punishment is in order, but it will be administered by God at a later time.
|12.14.05 @ 7:55PM|#
It is impossible, except in hindsight, to know the correct way to handle your scenario, or the airplane scenario in Miami for that matter. If the guy in the soccer crowd was acting weird because he was about to open the valve on a cannister of nerver gas, then some on-the-spot action to stop him is absilutely justified.
So in this safer America of yours, anybody who acts weird according to the on-the-spot judgment of a gun-toting agent of the state can be killed without consequence? Even if, in hindsight, it becomes spectacularly obvious that this was unnecessary?
|12.14.05 @ 8:03PM|#
"So in this safer America of yours, anybody who acts weird according to the on-the-spot judgment of a gun-toting agent of the state can be killed without consequence? Even if, in hindsight, it becomes spectacularly obvious that this was unnecessary"
Let me turn your question 180 degrees: In your politically correct America where only perfect decisions by cops are allowed, it is acceptable for the death of hundreds, or thousands, because the cop with his finger on the trigger could not shoot when he should have?
Ed|12.14.05 @ 8:07PM|#
Bluto Blutarsky to Splintered Guitar Guy: "Sorry."
|12.14.05 @ 8:08PM|#
Anyone ever hear of reply to this