Passenger shot and killed by Air Marshall in Miami

Applaud to you not subscribing to the typical group thinking, as evident in much of this thread.

I grant you and your family have reasons to be fearful at a guy behaving erratically at a public place in close proximity to you, but then again you are not a professionally trained agent. If I read the report correctly, the guy was on a connecting flight to another destination while the plane was waiting in Miami airport. The air marshal(s) who shot the guy was on the same flight all along. If the guy were a bomb carrying terrorist to blow something up, why would he skip the golden opportunity while the plane was in air, instead manifest his identity and true intention after the plane was landed?

You concede the purpose of shooting by marshal was not really to quell a terrorist act about to occur, but to calm down a likely chaotic situation. Hence it essentially became a law enforcement rather than anti-terror act. The questions are whether the guy's gesture and language fully warrant his death and whether the marshal(s) acted excessively.

Let's for the sake of argument suppose 1) the guy turned nuts while the plane was still in the air, and 2) the bullets, if fired from the air marshal's gun, are powerful enough to pierce through the layers of the plane (one possibility is the double-window) to cause the air pressure to drop, vitually a suicidal act in its own right. Now ask yourself if in that scenario, would the air marshals still shoot first without trying some other methods to subdue the guy?

This reminds me of another unnecessary death involving police in Cincinnati a few years ago. A suspect with mental health problem, escaped from a treatment in hospital, was chased down to a corner by the cops. He had a brick in his hand, ready to throw at anyone who would be approaching him. The cops, fearful for their own safety, shot the dude ruthlessly. The similarity in both tragedies is that law enforcement agents took the *easiest* route from their angles while displaying absolutely no concern whatsoever for the lives of another human beings.

What you stated on the shooting seems to contradict codell's post, in which he said air marshals are trained to shoot to kill, not merely to subdue a *suspect*. Until new reports come out unequivocally showing the bullet wounds were not lethal and guy still had vital signs at the scene before he was transported to hospital, I tend to believe the marshal(s) couldn't care less whether the guy would stay alive.

 

News reports already said he was alive after the shot and died later on at a hospital.

You would believe that regardless.

You are so anti-cop/anti-law enforcement its disturbing.

 

I should have worded more carefully with the term "innocent man" before I stated my reasoning in more detail, but if you think that gave right to Manny Ramirez to fling poo at me, power to you. If he cares to debate on this incident I'll take on him any time. I know he doesn't like my posts, but I don't hold him in any higher regard than some low life internet scums either, to be honest with you.

 

wnes, I think you just like to argue for the sake of arguing.

Comparing a dude holding a brick to a guy claiming to have a bomb in an airport and then acting aggressively. Brilliant!

Speaking of things that are going to happen in this age, if you claim to have a bomb in an airport or airplane, after we had thousands of people die for hijacked airplanes, people are going to react swift and lethal. Was the dude mentally unstable? Who knows, unfortunately thats what happens. I would want the same action if I was on a plane or in an airport.

I know it has been asked before but what if he did have a bomb? What if he killed several hundred people because the marshall did not react? You have to remember, these people have less than a second to make a decision. I prefer this decision than to hesitate and many more people die.

I know one thing, I bet this will deter other people from making bull**** claims like this in the future. Is it a tough lesson? Of course, but sometimes it just happens.

Agreed.

And thats because you are a douche bag that has nothing better to do than be a troll.

 

Nice post. Welcome to my ignore list, population YOU.

 

Unless someone on this board is an Air Marshall, we really don't know what kind of training they have and how to respond in a that type of situation.

How in the hell can this remind of you the airport situation? Its not even close. I didn't know a birck has the ability to kill hundreds of people in an instance. The marshall did what he was trained to do, and in this case it was the right thing to do, there was a terrorist threat (yes, the threat of a bomb in an airport is a terror threat) and he defused the situation.

 

I feel bad for the guy, but it is good to know that there are extremely well trained air marshalls watching over us all when we fly. The air marshalls did their job extremely well and should be praised not pounced upon by utopians. The guy said he had a bomb, acted hysterical and wouldn't take this hand out of his bag... they did their job, end of story.

 

It probably didn't help that the Air Marshalls were on alert from a shoe bomber...
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1383832&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

 

Good point.

 

It's a reasonable comparison if you actually read the post by Severe Rockets Fan, to which I replied earlier. The marshal(s) got annoyed at the guy who was not following the order, and settled for a quick 'n easy solution, probably knowing full well the public would be content as long as it made them *feel* safe.

 

That doesn't necessarily mean they didn't shoot to kill. If his head wasn't blown off or his heart didn't stop pumping, he sure would keep breathing for a while.

In light of many accounts of police brutality, using excessive force, and abuse of power, this should not be unexpected. On the other hand, did you ever question your blind trust in them?

 

I've only had a chance to read the last page of this thread but I think I get the gist that this thread is breaking down between those who believe the marshalls acted improperly or excessively. Just from what I've heard about it on the news I have a very hard time saying that this was excessive or improper.

One of my side jobs is teaching self-defense and after 9/11 myself and another martial arts instructor and former cop helped put together some material for inflight self-defense for flight attendents and also a seminar for business travellers. We talked to flight attendents, pilots, military security experts and law enforcement to understand the situation regarding security on planes and the procedures and tactics of air marshalls. From what I learned there this incident seems to have gone according to the book.

Keep in mind that the situation on a plane, even while its still on the ground, is completely different than a law enforcement or security situation on the street. As we know from 9/11 a plane in flight can become a guided missile but also a fueled plane is potentially a very big bomb. Even if the plane isn't blown up or flown into a building the environment of a commercial airline is very restrictive and already stressful with many potential threats. Someone acting out on a plane can very easily cause injury to other passengers and flight crew. Given those dangers air marshalls are trained to react faster than regular police since even the most minor hesitation could lead to far greater tragedy.

Here's some information that we opened our seminar with to keep in mind:
-Prior to September 11, 2001 the pilot would take charge of any situation.

-Pilot will now not leave cockpit and will attempt to land plane if problems occur.

-There are still a very limited number of air marshals and there will probably never be enough to have them on every flight.

-Air marshals are undercover and will not break cover unless they sense that their is an immenent danger to the safety of the whole plane and they will act decisively.

-There is no option to flee an in flight security situation.

-Everyone on the plane is expendable.

Also keep another thing to keep in mind is that legal liability falls on the passenger if they disrupt the flight or behave in a manner that put the safety of the plane at risks. As passengers its up to us to police ourselves because if we act out in a manner that is deemed a threat air marshalls have far far more leeway to resort to lethal force than regular police.

I also just wanted to answer this question

Air marshalls use friable bullets that shatter when they hit a very hard surface like metal or the lexan that makes up the windows of planes. These bullets shred apart when hitting someone and cause more damage than normal slugs. The biggest danger from a shoot on an airplane is hitting a bystander because of that air marshalls have to have the highest degree of markmansship of any law enforcement officer.

If you are on a flight and something like this happens as soon as the Air Marshall identifies themselves and draws their weapon duck. Don't try to help them by grabbing the assailant because you are very likely to get in the way of air marshall's shot. If the air marshall believes the threat is so great, such as setting off a bomb, they can shoot you too if that's what they have to do to take out the threat.

 

The air marshall did the right thing. If someone is screaming bomb and running, what was he supposed to do. Once an officer, police or air marshall, pull a gun; it is shoot to kill.

Let this be a lesson, if you yell bomb and run in an airport; you might get shot.

 

Um... if the guy detonated the bomb I don't think he'd be pleading anything at all.

Some other posters alluded to this before and it's something that sticks in my mind in most stand-off situations. If someone really wants to set off a bomb, why would they tell people about it? You can possibly say in some situations that it's to get attention from people who might survive so someone/some cause will be credited with the attack, but I'm pretty doubtful about that. Most public suicide attempts are cries for help, it seems to me that something like this is pretty analagous. If I really want to set a bomb off, I'm not going to get off the plane and go into the walkway where there are less people. It seems like if he wanted to set the bomb off he would have done so before the Marshalls got him off the plane, just like a jumper would leap before the police and fire department show up with the trampoline. Add that to the fact that there is a 99.9% chance that he didn't get a bomb through security, there's a lot of reason to question the odds that someone who acts that way on a plane has any real intention of doing anything to harm anyone.

Can the Air Marshalls be questioned for following their training? I don't think you can put any guilt/blame on those individuals. However, it seems to me that it exposes a question about whether guidelines should be changed. It seems to me that incidences like this can be avoided in the future if either procedure is altered, or non-lethal options like tazers are added. Anyone see any solutions here?

 

Everything you said, brah.

 

You're assuming that the marshalls just got annoyed and decided to kill. Reports all say that the man was reaching into his backpack as if acting like he was about to detonate the explosive. You either take the subject down or risk an explosion that could kill hundreds of people.

The Cinci brick incident just sounds bad, I never heard about that, but that just seems like terrible judgement by law enforement officials. But to me, this case is entirely different.

Once again, in the Cinci case, it was one man with a brick. This incident had a man threatening the detonate a bomb, which could have killed not only the marshalls, but could have been large enough to damage the plane and possibly the airport, and could have resulted in hundreds of deaths. I don't think it's right to say that they had no concern for anyone else.

Anyways, this is a very unfortunate accident, especially since the man was mentally ill. But it just shows the severity of claiming to have a bomb, I think everyone will agree that they'd rather see one man dead rather than hudnreds of bodies scattered across the runway.

 

Good post. The only thing is that when a guy refuses to put his backpack down and is reaching into his backpack that is on his chest after claiming that he has a bomb, I don't know how much time the Marshalls have to think about whether or not he actually has one or not

As far as non-lethal weapons is concerned, that could definitely be an option, but not sure how something like a rubber bullet (for example) could stop someone from pusthing a button. Would a taser be an extremely dangerous thing to use when dealing with a bomb? Maybe someone can help us out with that.

 

The Air Marshall doesn't know if the guy is going to use the bomb as leverage for anything which would put the entire plane in jeopardy. He did his job and ended any chance of a prolonged situation or an immediate detonation.

 

Hypothetically speaking, if I hate somebody, I tell the Marshall that the guy told me he had a bomb, and he is actually reaching for his bag or pocket at the time. Will he be shot as well?

I am still a little bit suspicious of the whole situation. With normal reporters dramatic writing styles, if the guy indeed shouted that he had a bomb, the report would say so. That thing "he claimed that he had a bomb" is somewhat fishy to me.

Some people here tend to take it too easy with human lives. Keep that in mind, that incident could affect that Marshall's life and career forever, as well as other passengers who experienced that horror.

I am not saying the shooting is unjustified, but wondering whether there is better option at the time. Before we know the whole facts, no need to rush to conclusion.

Besides, if he had the bomb, why would he run off the plane?

 

I can answer some of these from what I've been told. Tasers have limited effectiveness because for them to work they have to pierce the skin or at least make contact. A taser can be stopped by a heavy jacket. Even though rubber bullets are billed as non-lethal still have a high degree of threat. There was a woman killed during a Red Sox victory party that turned into a riot that was killed with a rubber bullet. THe bigger problem is that if they don't kill they might incapacitate but still give someone enough time to set off a bomb. Bean bags fired from shotguns have the same problem that they might knock someone down but not incapacitate them enough to stop them. Also bean bags would require very bulky guns that would be hard to conceal and air marshalls travel undercover.

Unfortunately in an inflight security situation there might be a nano-second to react and in that nano-second an air marshall can't take the chance that something non-lethal will stop the threat.