Air marshals' shooting of passenger in December justified

[FA Mikey]

story here

Two federal air marshals were justified in using deadly force in the fatal December shooting of an airline passenger at Miami International Airport and will not be charged with any crime, state prosecutors concluded Tuesday.

A 46-page report released by State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle found that the two air marshals had no way of knowing that the passenger, 44-year-old Rigoberto Alpizar, suffered from bipolar disorder when they heard him use the word ``bomb'' at least once while running through the plane's cabin.

The shooting death of Mr. Alpizar, while tragic, is legally justified in light of the surrounding circumstances presented to the air marshals,'' the report said. ``It should be noted that both air marshals demonstrated remarkable restraint in dealing with Mr. Alpizar.

The report found that Alpizar did not take enough of the drug Lithium to control his bipolar disorder. After he ran through the aircraft's cabin, he was confronted by both air marshals with their service weapons drawn. Both ordered him, in Spanish and English, to ``stop'' and ``get down.''

Instead, the report found that Alpizar made repeated bomb threats, ignored the air marshals' commands and headed back toward the plane with his hands on his backpack. Several passengers heard the bomb threats, as well as Alpizar's wife, the report said.

 

[USCREW]

story here

Two federal air marshals were justified in using deadly force in the fatal December shooting of an airline passenger at Miami International Airport and will not be charged with any crime, state prosecutors concluded Tuesday.

A 46-page report released by State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle found that the two air marshals had no way of knowing that the passenger, 44-year-old Rigoberto Alpizar, suffered from bipolar disorder when they heard him use the word ``bomb'' at least once while running through the plane's cabin.

The shooting death of Mr. Alpizar, while tragic, is legally justified in light of the surrounding circumstances presented to the air marshals,'' the report said. ``It should be noted that both air marshals demonstrated remarkable restraint in dealing with Mr. Alpizar.

The report found that Alpizar did not take enough of the drug Lithium to control his bipolar disorder. After he ran through the aircraft's cabin, he was confronted by both air marshals with their service weapons drawn. Both ordered him, in Spanish and English, to ``stop'' and ``get down.''

Instead, the report found that Alpizar made repeated bomb threats, ignored the air marshals' commands and headed back toward the plane with his hands on his backpack. Several passengers heard the bomb threats, as well as Alpizar's wife, the report said.

BEING CRAZY CAN GET YOU KILLED!

 

[Wretched Wrench]

BEING CRAZY CAN GET YOU KILLED!

Being scared can also get you killed.

 

[PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH]

The Air Marshalls did good. They should get a medal for their excellent performance. If you shout "I have a bomb", then be you better be ready to accept the consequences. Shoot first. Ask questions later.

 

[Bob Owens]

The Air Marshalls did good. They should get a medal for their excellent performance. If you shout "I have a bomb", then be you better be ready to accept the consequences. Shoot first. Ask questions later.

The Nazis felt the same way about dealing with the mentally disturbed. A medal? Letting them off the hook for using lethal force on someone who had cleared security is one thing, saying that they did an exceptional job when an unarmed person who was not a threat, only percieved as one,is executed, is another.

The report left out the fact that the wife repeatedly informed everyone what was happening with her husband.Just using the word "Bomb" is not, and should not be a capital offense.

I'm sure that most people who were present at the tragedy would have been less traumatized if instead of being taken away dead the man was taken away in a straight jacket.

 

[mjk]

The report left out the fact that the wife repeatedly informed everyone what was happening with her husband.Just using the word "Bomb" is not, and should not be a capital offense.

So the air marshals we're supposed to believe the wife of a man acting irrationally? What if she were a terrorist and her 'husband' was creating a diversion in order to identify the FAM's?

Just as a FAM shouldn't second guess your decision making process as an AMT, you shouldn't second guess the FAM.

 

[Bagbelt]

It takes a certain type of person to rejoice in anyones death. It may have been justified in the circumstances, but I think by now calling the guy crazy or condemning him without actually being witness to what happened isn't necessary. He already paid for it.

 

[Wretched Wrench]

It takes a certain type of person to rejoice in anyones death.

I rejoice in the death of an armed terrorist.

I decry the death of an unarmed person.

 

[Bob Owens]

So the air marshals we're supposed to believe the wife of a man acting irrationally? What if she were a terrorist and her 'husband' was creating a diversion in order to identify the FAM's?

Just as a FAM shouldn't second guess your decision making process as an AMT, you shouldn't second guess the FAM.

What if, what if. What if the guy sitting in First Class refused to make eye contact? Put a bullett in his head first just to be on the safe side, then find out why he behaves like a terrorist? Refusing to make eye contact is typical behavior for a terrorist, then again its also common behavior for shy or unsociable people, should they all be shot too, just so you can feel a little safer?

If a decision I made resulted in someones death you can be sure that I would be more than second guessed, and rightfully so.

The fact that the guy was acting irrationally, in a way that draws attention to himself, while the plane was still at the gate would be an indicator that the man was disturbed and not a terrorist.

Abnormal behavior should not be an automatic death sentence, those guys screwed up. While I agree that they should be cleared of criminality thats not the same as saying that they were right to kill an unarmed man.

Sure its easy for me to sit back, but I would hope that these guys are well trained in human behavior, not just trained to shoot. If not perhaps they should be, I'm sure that after the fact those guys felt bad about the whole thing, if not they should no longer be Air Marshals.

 

[FA Mikey]

We don't have to play "what if" Is anybody suggesting putting bullets in the head of anyone who doesn't look you in the eye? Is anybody or has anybody suggested putting bullets in the head of someone for not looking at them in FC?

Did this man deserve to die? No. Did he act in a manner in which threatening? Yes. Did he get ample opportunity to comply? Yes. Did he take action against the officers that may have put there lives in danger? Yes.

FAM's are there to protect us, and are made to step up to diffuse a situation or stop one if necessary, in any number of ways. Their life is on the line to protect ours. We expect them to follow all procedures as, in this case they did. But we cannot expect them to sacrifice their lives or ours, because someone might be joking or faking.

What we do know in this case is the guy ran up the aisle yelling bomb. We know with weapons drawn he was told in English and Spanish to stop and drop. We know he had a back pack carried on the front of his chest. When he stopped and turned to the FAM's on the jet bridge. Then reached in to the backpack in front of him. It was the last threatening move he was allowed to make.

 

[Bob Owens]

We don't have to play "what if" Is anybody suggesting putting bullets in the head of anyone who doesn't look you in the eye? Is anybody or has anybody suggested putting bullets in the head of someone for not looking at them in FC?

Did this man deserve to die? No. Did he act in a manner in which threatening? Yes. Did he get ample opportunity to comply? Yes. Did he take action against the officers that may have put there lives in danger? Yes.

FAM's are there to protect us, and are made to step up to diffuse a situation or stop one if necessary, in any number of ways. Their life is on the line to protect ours. We expect them to follow all procedures as, in this case they did. But we cannot expect them to sacrifice their lives or ours, because someone might be joking or faking.

What we do know in this case is the guy ran up the aisle yelling bomb. We know with weapons drawn he was told in English and Spanish to stop and drop. We know he had a back pack carried on the front of his chest. When he stopped and turned to the FAM's on the jet bridge. Then reached in to the backpack in front of him. It was the last threatening move he was allowed to make.

Well we dont know that he made any "threatening" moves, irrational behavior, yes. We only heard for sure that he was running off the plane, He may have used the word "Bomb", but in what context? You just used it too, should you be shot?

Usually when someone is running away they are not threatening.

Yes he had a backpack, and he was past security with that backpack.

No one suggested that he was joking or faking, he was disturbed and his wife was explaining what was going on at the time. People are using his behavior as justification for his death even though at no time did he present a real threat to anybody,nor was he pretending to be, obviously the man was panicking and trying to get off the plane.

I brought up the avoidance of eye contact to illustrate how rediculous the excuse that his behavior justifies his death is. How far are we going to go in trying to make people think they are safe? This tragedy should never be repeated, by saying it was justified it gives these guys a blank check to kill anyone who behaves in a way that could be interpreted as "threatening". The fact is that something went very wrong there and just dismising it as it was his fault does nothing to correct it.

 

[MOUNT KISCO]

Being scared can also get you killed.

Sorry, wrong quote.

The Air Marshalls did good. They should get a medal for their excellent performance. If you shout "I have a bomb", then be you better be ready to accept the consequences. Shoot first. Ask questions later.

Thank you, Mrs. Cheney

 

[FA Mikey]

Was he running away? Or was he running to something. The cockpit, or the terminal to set off the bomb he claimed to have? They couldnt know at that second.

Many lapse's in TSA security, I don't think that just because they were in a secured area, that there is zero chance of a weapon, bomb or gun.

On top of the running away or to something, wearing a backpack on the front of your body is one more thing that looks wrong. In this situation when you stop and reach in to it, then it becomes very suspect and threatening.

Glad that's what his wife was saying that and trying to stop him. But as someone runs past making threats you don't have the luxury of knowing he was disturbed. The FAM's couldn't know that was his wife or that he was off his medication. For all they know she could have been a coconspirator. Hearing that it would weigh in on there decision, for the next course of action. But with all the other factors looking more like he was a dangerous threat. The situation could not have gone any different.

 

[Bob Owens]

Was he running away? Or was he running to something. The cockpit, or the terminal to set off the bomb he claimed to have? They couldnt know at that second.

He was shot on the Jetbridge wasnt he? He had just left the terminal, if he intended to set off a bomb in the terminal why would he go through the terminal, get on the plane then get off the plane go back to the terminal to set off the bomb. Sorry but all the what ifs still dont justify the use of letal force.

Many lapse's in TSA security, I don't think that just because they were in a secured area, that there is zero chance of a weapon, bomb or gun.

Agreed nothings perfect but the use of lethal foce should be the last alternative.

On top of the running away or to something, wearing a backpack on the front of your body is one more thing that looks wrong.

"Looks wrong" may be cause for investigation, not execution.

In this situation when you stop and reach in to it, then it becomes very suspect and threatening.

If thats what happened,maby he was just moving it to a more comfortable position. Granted it would be suspect and reason for drawing their weapons, which they had already done, not dischargeing their weapons without seeing a real threat, heck he didnt even pull out a ham sandwich!

Glad that's what his wife was saying that and trying to stop him. But as someone runs past making threats you don't have the luxury of knowing he was disturbed. The FAM's couldn't know that was his wife or that he was off his medication. For all they know she could have been a coconspirator. Hearing that it would weigh in on there decision, for the next course of action. But with all the other factors looking more like he was a dangerous threat. The situation could not have gone any different.

But the fact is he was not a dangerous threat yet he was killed. Something went wrong, the system must do better than that.

 

[FA Mikey]

He was shot on the Jetbridge wasn't he? He had just left the terminal, if he intended to set off a bomb in the terminal why would he go through the terminal, get on the plane then get off the plane go back to the terminal to set off the bomb. Sorry but all the what ifs still don't justify the use of lethal force.

I don't know. I don't understand how the criminal mind or the deranged mind works. Fact is, a man ran up the aisle of the plane, yelling bomb heading towards cockpit and the terminal. Turned to officers yelling to him in English and Spanish to drop. Instead he quickly reached in his conspicuously placed backpack rather than comply faced with the threat of lethal force.

Agreed nothings perfect but the use of lethal force should be the last alternative.

And it was. It was not an execution it was after multiple attempts to get him to stop, disarm and comply.

"Looks wrong" may be cause for investigation, not execution.

True but we have more than looks wrong. He made multiple threats and threatening actions. Any of which could have resulted in far more people being killed or injured.

If that's what happened,maby he was just moving it to a more comfortable position. Granted it would be suspect and reason for drawing their weapons, which they had already done, not discharging their weapons without seeing a real threat, heck he didn't even pull out a ham sandwich!

He could have in a second grabbed a gun and without showing it, shot through his backpack at them. He could have been reaching for a trigger to set off the bomb. When someone runs past yelling threats, refuses to stop, reaches in a suspect bag in a suspect behavior, against two armed federal agendas with weapons drawn and saying in multiple languages get down and stop. I doubt they thought he might be going for a ham sandwich to eat there on the jetbride with them yelling and guns drawn.Just FYI all reports say he reached in to the bag.

But the fact is he was not a dangerous threat yet he was killed.

He was a dangerous threat. He yelled bomb, running away from federal agents, threatening behavior, refuses to stop or comply on any level and on top makes the unfortunate gesture to go for a weapon. He was a serious threat based on the info on hand at that second

Something went wrong, the system must do better than that.

The system in this instance worked. They did everything right and gave the man multiple chances to stop and comply. He refused to do so.