Federal Air Marshal fires weapon on a plane

[Calm2Chaos]

I don't need to be on any you immature, condescending fool.

Calm down girly... Your gonna get your panties in a twist...lol

 

[Calm2Chaos]

h

See some events have been corroborated. It's corroboration that our legal system and the scientific method make use of.

Claimed to have a bomb- uncorroborated
Reached into his bag-uncorrobrated
got shot-corroborated

So, you have two things that might not be true, or might be true.

Bear in mind, I AM NOT SAYING THAT ALPIZAR DID OR DID NOT CLAIM TO HAVE A BOMB. I am saying, since we can not ask him, we have to ask witnesses, who as of yet, have made no positive statement to that effect. NONE of you defenders of the FAM have YET to post a SINGLE WITNESS STATEMENT saying they heard Alpizar mantion anything about, but there have been several posts about WITNESS saying they did not hear any mention of a bomb.

I mean, did you believe Tookie when he said he was framed? Just because someone says it, doesn't make it true. Corroboration is needed.

YA .... SO


Maybe the FAM heard it, maybe thats who it was said to. So he should have done nothing because there was no one close enough to verify the verbal exchange? That way if something then blows up or someone gets shot and killed you can blame the FAM for doing nothing? Another no win situation

 

[Calm2Chaos]

I didn't say the FAM *IS* Lying, I said he could be. I also said the FAM could be telling the truth. I also said the FAM could have misheard Alpizar. that's the problem you you people, you can't have more than one thought in your head at a time without getting confused.

What man with a bomb? There was no man with a bomb.

Stop imagining fictional stories as a defense.

The problem you people?...LOL

As opposed to a lifetime of commiting to absolutely nothing.... I hear the facts and I form an opinion. I f te facts change I may change my opinion. But at least I'm willing to pick a side instead of straddling the center mumbling " I don't know".

 

[libertarian_knight]

h


YA .... SO


Maybe the FAM heard it, maybe thats who it was said to. So he should have done nothing because there was no one close enough to verify the verbal exchange? That way if something then blows up or someone gets shot and killed you can blame the FAM for doing nothing? Another no win situation

No one close enough in a sardine can with wings.... No even the flight attendants that stand right by the door where the confrontation occured? Not even a passanger sitting next to, infront (maybe) or behind, or across the isle next to, in front of (maybe), or behind?

Damn right, if he kills an innocent man that's not a terrorist the FAM does ]get blamed. If he doesn't kill a terrorist he does get blamed. BUT YOU LIE. If he kills a terrorist HE WINS, WE ALL WIN. We all Cheer, pin medals on him, give him promotions, bonus paychecks, book deals, etc etc.

YOU LIE, when you say it's a no win.

I mean, if the only thing an FAM can do, are limited to two options: Kill an innocent, or not prevent terrorism, we would have no need for the FAMs. But we do need them, they can prevent terrorism.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

No one close enough in a sardine can with wings.... No even the flight attendants that stand right by the door where the confrontation occured? Not even a passanger sitting next to, infront (maybe) or behind, or across the isle next to, in front of (maybe), or behind?

The article I just read from the orlando sentinel says that the man while on the jetway screamed about the bomb, not in the plane. It was a miami-dade police spokeswoman that stated he was yelling about the bomb. Either way you have a split second to make a decision that could cost 1 man his life or 300....

Damn right, if he kills an innocent man that's not a terrorist the FAM does ]get blamed. If he doesn't kill a terrorist he does get blamed. BUT YOU LIE. If he kills a terrorist HE WINS, WE ALL WIN. We all Cheer, pin medals on him, give him promotions, bonus paychecks, book deals, etc etc.

If he doesn't act he's wrong and if he does he's wrong. Again... with your kind it is always a no win situation. Believe the man with the bomb, believe the terorrist with the martyr vest. Lets not believe the ones that are risking there lives.

YOU LIE, when you say it's a no win.

Your the one not being truthfull. You will condemm this man no matter what. you just need to know the facts before you decide which side you want to throw **** at him from. He did the right thing. If the day comes there is proof he killed this man knowing there was no bomb then I will reconsider. But until then he gets the benefit of the doubt.

I mean, if the only thing an FAM can do, are limited to two options: Kill an innocent, or not prevent terrorism, we would have no need for the FAMs. But we do need them, they can prevent terrorism.

Why fight terrorism.. there misunderstood anyway. There all just fun loving freedom fighters. Why go after someone that say he has a bomb, he just a little upset. Leave him alone and let him calm down. If he has a bomb and pulls the trigger at least nobody was offended or there civil liberties tarnished.

 

[libertarian_knight]

The article I just read from the orlando sentinel says that the man while on the jetway screamed about the bomb, not in the plane. It was a miami-dade police spokeswoman that stated he was yelling about the bomb. Either way you have a split second to make a decision that could cost 1 man his life or 300....



If he doesn't act he's wrong and if he does he's wrong. Again... with your kind it is always a no win situation. Believe the man with the bomb, believe the terorrist with the martyr vest. Lets not believe the ones that are risking there lives.



Your the one not being truthfull. You will condemm this man no matter what. you just need to know the facts before you decide which side you want to throw **** at him from. He did the right thing. If the day comes there is proof he killed this man knowing there was no bomb then I will reconsider. But until then he gets the benefit of the doubt.



Why fight terrorism.. there misunderstood anyway. There all just fun loving freedom fighters. Why go after someone that say he has a bomb, he just a little upset. Leave him alone and let him calm down. If he has a bomb and pulls the trigger at least nobody was offended or there civil liberties tarnished.

Originally Posted by libertarian_knight
Damn right, if he kills an innocent man that's not a terrorist the FAM does ]get blamed. If he doesn't kill a terrorist he does get blamed. BUT YOU LIE. If he kills a terrorist HE WINS, WE ALL WIN. We all Cheer, pin medals on him, give him promotions, bonus paychecks, book deals, etc etc.

If he kills a terrorist HE WINS, he's right
If he kills a terrorist HE WINS, he's right
If he kills a terrorist HE WINS, he's right
If he kills a terrorist HE WINS, he's right
If he kills a terrorist HE WINS, he's right
If he kills a terrorist HE WINS, he's right
If he kills a terrorist HE WINS, he's right
If he kills a terrorist HE WINS, he's right


you lie

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Originally Posted by libertarian_knight
Damn right, if he kills an innocent man that's not a terrorist the FAM does ]get blamed. If he doesn't kill a terrorist he does get blamed. BUT YOU LIE. If he kills a terrorist HE WINS, WE ALL WIN. We all Cheer, pin medals on him, give him promotions, bonus paychecks, book deals, etc etc.

If he kills a terrorist HE WINS, he's right
If he kills a terrorist HE WINS, he's right
If he kills a terrorist HE WINS, he's right
If he kills a terrorist HE WINS, he's right
If he kills a terrorist HE WINS, he's right
If he kills a terrorist HE WINS, he's right
If he kills a terrorist HE WINS, he's right
If he kills a terrorist HE WINS, he's right


you lie

The difference is you don't know if he's innocent. Your just assuming the FAM guilty. ANd your scenario says they only way we find out about the terrorist is when the bomb goes off. A split second decision.. YOUR on the Jetway, the MAn is acting VERY eratic. Say he has a bomb then start to approach you, then backs off. Suddenly he reaches into his bag. WHAT DO YOU DO???

 

[Donkey1499]

The difference is you don't know if he's innocent. Your just assuming the FAM guilty. ANd your scenario says they only way we find out about the terrorist is when the bomb goes off. A split second decision.. YOUR on the Jetway, the MAn is acting VERY eratic. Say he has a bomb then start to approach you, then backs off. Suddenly he reaches into his bag. WHAT DO YOU DO???

You blow the son of a bitch into the next reality. That's what you do.

 

[libertarian_knight]

The difference is you don't know if he's innocent. Your just assuming the FAM guilty. ANd your scenario says they only way we find out about the terrorist is when the bomb goes off. A split second decision.. YOUR on the Jetway, the MAn is acting VERY eratic. Say he has a bomb then start to approach you, then backs off. Suddenly he reaches into his bag. WHAT DO YOU DO???

I didn't say the FAM was guilty, I said he was wrong. Guilty typically implies a certain measure of malice. I don't thik the FAM had that.

The FAM probably panicked or was over zealous, or whatever, and **** happens, a man is dead, and the US has another Widow. i don't think he was malicious.

Again, I'll ask you. You desribed the ONLY two possible circumstance are: FAMs kill the wrong man, or FAMs don't kill a terrorist committing a terrorist act. Those are the ONLY two, you keep f***ing repeating. If so, why do we need FAMs then?

Your statments not mine, I offered two more options (as mathematical logic would also note). One explicit: FAM kills (or apprehens) terrorist, preventing terrorism (his JOB!). The other implicit, FAM does not kill innocents (his JOB!).

If the FAMs had been more sucessful at preventing terrorism, and had better track record, they might even be cut more slack. How many would be terrorists have been prevented?

Why do you apologists only immagine two possiblities that are not what the FAMs are there for? "Kill Innocents" and "allow terrorism" are nowhere in the FAM job desription I imagine.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

I didn't say the FAM was guilty, I said he was wrong. Guilty typically implies a certain measure of malice. I don't thik the FAM had that.

The FAM probably panicked or was over zealous, or whatever, and **** happens, a man is dead, and the US has another Widow. i don't think he was malicious.

Again, I'll ask you. You desribed the ONLY two possible circumstance are: FAMs kill the wrong man, or FAMs don't kill a terrorist committing a terrorist act. Those are the ONLY two, you keep f***ing repeating. If so, why do we need FAMs then?

Your statments not mine, I offered two more options (as mathematical logic would also note). One explicit: FAM kills (or apprehens) terrorist, preventing terrorism (his JOB!). The other implicit, FAM does not kill innocents (his JOB!).

If the FAMs had been more sucessful at preventing terrorism, and had better track record, they might even be cut more slack. How many would be terrorists have been prevented?

Why do you apologists only immagine two possiblities that are not what the FAMs are there for? "Kill Innocents" and "allow terrorism" are nowhere in the FAM job desription I imagine.

I left a scenario for you in the last post, would you please answer it.

As for options there are many.

1 He killed a guy with a bomb
2 He killed a terrorist with a bomb
3 He killed a guy with a mental disorder and a bomb
4 He killed a guy with a mental disorder claiming to have a bomb
5 He killed an innocent guy he thought had a bomb
6 He kiled a terrorist he thought had a bomb
7 He killed a terrorist with a mental disorder (They all have those) with a bomb
8 He killed a terrorist with a mental disorder (They all have those) claiming to have a bomb
9 He killed a innocent guy he thought he said he had a bomb
10 He killed an innocent guy because he's a sadistic prick

I considered all of these. But unless I have hard proof I have to give the benifit of the doubt to the man that has to make a split second life or death decision. If counter evidence or proof arises I can alwaqys reasses my stance. But I am willing to take a side with the evidence I have.

 

[libertarian_knight]

I left a scenario for you in the last post, would you please answer it.

As for options there are many.

1 He killed a guy with a bomb
2 He killed a terrorist with a bomb
3 He killed a guy with a mental disorder and a bomb
4 He killed a guy with a mental disorder claiming to have a bomb
5 He killed an innocent guy he thought had a bomb
6 He kiled a terrorist he thought had a bomb
7 He killed a terrorist with a mental disorder (They all have those) with a bomb
8 He killed a terrorist with a mental disorder (They all have those) claiming to have a bomb
9 He killed a innocent guy he thought he said he had a bomb
10 He killed an innocent guy because he's a sadistic prick

I considered all of these. But unless I have hard proof I have to give the benifit of the doubt to the man that has to make a split second life or death decision. If counter evidence or proof arises I can alwaqys reasses my stance. But I am willing to take a side with the evidence I have.

My concern, was to cease the lie, that it is always a lose-lose scenerio for the FAMs according to the statist apologists.

there really are only four varients

-----------------killed/prevented-----|--not killed/not prevented
-------------|-----------------------|-------------------
---non-threat|______lose___________|______WIN
-------------|-----------------------|-------------------
-actual threat|______BIG WIN_______|_______lose
--------------------------------------------------------

The preception is irrelivant to the results. What a perception does, is offer an explaination for, the more concerned, failure (lose). All the other hoopla you imagined are all merely varients of the same four major categories. There are also several otehr ways to write the four varients (i.e. non-threat protected, etc), but it's all the same core four concepts. The motivations and perceptions, regardless of whether or not the motivations or perceptions are valid do not alter that there are four possibilites, two of which are "wins" for the FAM.

What about lack of substantiting evidence?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

My concern, was to cease the lie, that it is always a lose-lose scenerio for the FAMs according to the statist apologists.

there really are only four varients

-----------------killed/prevented-----|--not killed/not prevented
-------------|-----------------------|-------------------
---non-threat|______lose___________|______WIN
-------------|-----------------------|-------------------
-actual threat|______BIG WIN_______|_______lose
--------------------------------------------------------

The preception is irrelivant to the results. What a perception does, is offer an explaination for, the more concerned, failure (lose). All the other hoopla you imagined are all merely varients of the same four major categories. There are also several otehr ways to write the four varients (i.e. non-threat protected, etc), but it's all the same core four concepts. The motivations and perceptions, regardless of whether or not the motivations or perceptions are valid do not alter that there are four possibilites, two of which are "wins" for the FAM.

What about lack of substantiting evidence?

To bad the FAM didn't have access to your neat little chart when he was making a split second life or death decision, is playing quarterback on monday fun???

 

[libertarian_knight]

To bad the FAM didn't have access to your neat little chart when he was making a split second life or death decision, is playing quarterback on monday fun???

what, you mean he had NO TRAINING, nor ever though about how to do his job? F*** man, we better dismantle the FAMs or they'll Kill us all.

I mean, these guys were never even told they have a possible "winning" scenerio, damn.

apologist.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

what, you mean he had NO TRAINING, nor ever though about how to do his job? F*** man, we better dismantle the FAMs or they'll Kill us all.

I mean, these guys were never even told they have a possible "winning" scenerio, damn.

apologist.

I read your link are you a Libertarian or an anarchist? lol anyways what would you suggest possibly letting the man go? Perhaps you feel that we should punish the FAM for doing his job.

 

[ANAV]

what, you mean he had NO TRAINING, nor ever though about how to do his job? F*** man, we better dismantle the FAMs or they'll Kill us all.

I mean, these guys were never even told they have a possible "winning" scenerio, damn.

apologist.

The marshalls will just stop the possible terrorists, the lunatics off their medications running around a mock on airlines and airports, and others that pose a threat.

Wether this unmediated nut said he had a bomb or not does not matter to me. The fact is that he was running from law enforcement carrying a bag of who know what in an airport is enough justification to stop the perceived threat by any or all means available. Are we that much removed from 9/11 that people would question shooting somebody that had all appearances of being a real threat?

 

[libertarian_knight]

I read your link are you a Libertarian or an anarchist? lol anyways what would you suggest possibly letting the man go? Perhaps you feel that we should punish the FAM for doing his job.

Libertarian practically, anarcho-capitalist ideally.

I hadn't "passed judgement" on the FAM. I just recognize the possibility he may not be suited to be a FAM anymore. I don't believe he acted crimminally or maliciously, just irresponsibly. And that view comes to a large part of the FAM claiming the passanger had said "bomb" being yet unsubstantiated by non-fam witnesses.

If people would carefully read my statements, in this thread, I have said it repeatedly, and I have arguing AGAISNT the predjucide of state aopolgists, not against the FAM necesarily.

 

[libertarian_knight]

The marshalls will just stop the possible terrorists, the lunatics off their medications running around a mock on airlines and airports, and others that pose a threat.

Wether this unmediated nut said he had a bomb or not does not matter to me. The fact is that he was running from law enforcement carrying a bag of who know what in an airport is enough justification to stop the perceived threat by any or all means available. Are we that much removed from 9/11 that people would question shooting somebody that had all appearances of being a real threat?

(emphasis mine)

Brown hair

 

[Calm2Chaos]

what, you mean he had NO TRAINING, nor ever though about how to do his job? F*** man, we better dismantle the FAMs or they'll Kill us all.

I mean, these guys were never even told they have a possible "winning" scenerio, damn.

apologist.

Every single variable and outcome. Every single possibility and reason. All of this is filtered and set in a mater of seconds. From the information that is being provided, I think the FAM made the right decision at the time and it was the only true choice he had. 1 life or 300, weight the differences and make the choice. Maybe if this happens again and your on the plane you can tell him to wait and see if he detonates a bomb under your plane before any action is taken to make sure there are no other possible alternatives... Seems fair to me..

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Libertarian practically, anarcho-capitalist ideally.

I hadn't "passed judgement" on the FAM. I just recognize the possibility he may not be suited to be a FAM anymore. I don't believe he acted crimminally or maliciously, just irresponsibly. And that view comes to a large part of the FAM claiming the passanger had said "bomb" being yet unsubstantiated by non-fam witnesses.

If people would carefully read my statements, in this thread, I have said it repeatedly, and I have arguing AGAISNT the predjucide of state aopolgists, not against the FAM necesarily.

So before acting in a split second situation your suggestion is to gain independent eyewitness confirmation???.... OOOKKKK so we are going to make a hard job basically immpossible... Tell ya what, next time I am on a plane. I would love to have this man is the FAM. My chances of getting blown up decrease as oposed to having a guy who's searching for a independent corroborating witness before he can take action.

 

[libertarian_knight]

So before acting in a split second situation your suggestion is to gain independent eyewitness confirmation???.... OOOKKKK so we are going to make a hard job basically immpossible... Tell ya what, next time I am on a plane. I would love to have this man is the FAM. My chances of getting blown up decrease as oposed to having a guy who's searching for a independent corroborating witness before he can take action.

No, but it seems failry odd a major event like man and woman running down the isle, a confrontation, and a killing on a plane with 141 passagners and several crew no one noticed or heard. He didn't have to wait for a witness, which is an ABSURD argueemnt, but it seems pretty unreasonable there weren't witnesses realying the same series of events.

Try using reasonable and rational arguements to support your support of the FAM, you don't have to delve into the absurd.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

No, but it seems failry odd a major event like man and woman running down the isle, a confrontation, and a killing on a plane with 141 passagners and several crew no one noticed or heard. He didn't have to wait for a witness, which is an ABSURD argueemnt, but it seems pretty unreasonable there weren't witnesses realying the same series of events.

You keep saying he was killed on the plane and he wasn't. He departed the plane and everything took place on the boarding bridge or ground. NOT on the plane.

I do however think there were some miscommunication going on during the preliminary investigation. And that some statements were made before the investigation was over and they shouldn't have. BUt they acted in the manner they were trained to.

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

He was NOT on the plane surronded by a bunch of passangers. He was on the ground with the air marshals.

Try using reasonable and rational arguements to support your support of the FAM, you don't have to delve into the absurd.

Your entire statement goes against everything I have read. I have yet to see a single piece say he was shot on the plane. He wasn't, so he wasn't surrounded by 240 witnesses. They took him off the plane to minimize the risk. So you need to try and use the occasional fact in your argument and stop hypothosizing scenarios to crucify or condemn or even debase the FAM. My point is your more then willing to take the information and place it al on the shoulders of the guys that have to make split second decisions. Where as I am going to take the information given and give them the benifit of the doubt until or unless further evidence comes out. It would seem your accusing the FAM's of lying, there were two. Because of there not then I can't see wtf your argument has to stand on

 

[libertarian_knight]

You keep saying he was killed on the plane and he wasn't. He departed the plane and everything took place on the boarding bridge or ground. NOT on the plane.

I do however think there were some miscommunication going on during the preliminary investigation. And that some statements were made before the investigation was over and they shouldn't have. BUt they acted in the manner they were trained to.



He was NOT on the plane surronded by a bunch of passangers. He was on the ground with the air marshals.



Your entire statement goes against everything I have read. I have yet to see a single piece say he was shot on the plane. He wasn't, so he wasn't surrounded by 240 witnesses. They took him off the plane to minimize the risk. So you need to try and use the occasional fact in your argument and stop hypothosizing scenarios to crucify or condemn or even debase the FAM. My point is your more then willing to take the information and place it al on the shoulders of the guys that have to make split second decisions. Where as I am going to take the information given and give them the benifit of the doubt until or unless further evidence comes out. It would seem your accusing the FAM's of lying, there were two. Because of there not then I can't see wtf your argument has to stand on

The Incident started on the plane, and ended on the Jetway. Where the killing took place, I mistakenly said the plane, because I didn't check what I was writing, been busy today, so not spending the time necessary. Either way, the incident started on the plane, in view of the 141 passangers (might be 114, either way, over 100 passangers). At least some of those passangers were witness to the confrontation, that DID take place on the plane, though not necessarily the killing on the jetway. What's more, I have yet to read one witness statement confirmng what the FAM statesd happened during the confrontation, the mention of a bomb (and the confrontation and mention of a bomb, according the the FAM spokeman, occured on the plane, not the jetway).

Now, reformulate you argument, since much of it was spent harping upon what I had wrongly typed (about the killing occuring on the plane, rather than the jetway).

 

[Calm2Chaos]

The Incident started on the plane, and ended on the Jetway. Where the killing took place, I mistakenly said the plane, because I didn't check what I was writing, been busy today, so not spending the time necessary. Either way, the incident started on the plane, in view of the 141 passangers (might be 114, either way, over 100 passangers). At least some of those passangers were witness to the confrontation, that DID take place on the plane, though not necessarily the killing on the jetway. What's more, I have yet to read one witness statement confirmng what the FAM statesd happened during the confrontation, the mention of a bomb (and the confrontation and mention of a bomb, according the the FAM spokeman, occured on the plane, not the jetway).

Now, reformulate you argument, since much of it was spent harping upon what I had wrongly typed (about the killing occuring on the plane, rather than the jetway).

I don't have to reformulate anything. You didn't say anything new. The incident started on the plane and ended one the ground. The spokesman in the very begining of the FAM investigation made that statement. And thats part of the miscommunication that I was talking about. The FAM's themselves I don't recall making that statement. They said he was acting eratically on the plane he was removed at which point the bomb statement was made. Of course this is al hearsay because I wasn't there. Maybe he said it while out on the bridge and it was inaudible to the passengers but not the FAM's. There are a 1000 maybes here, and a lot of things going on at once. I don't know if a mistake was made. But I am going with the FAM's until proven different. The alternative costs a lot of people there lives if there was a bomb. If they heard the man say it or even thought they did, and he reaches into his bag whats your next course of action? They did the right thing from the information I have

 

[libertarian_knight]

I don't have to reformulate anything. You didn't say anything new. The incident started on the plane and ended one the ground. The spokesman in the very begining of the FAM investigation made that statement. And thats part of the miscommunication that I was talking about. The FAM's themselves I don't recall making that statement. They said he was acting eratically on the plane he was removed at which point the bomb statement was made. Of course this is al hearsay because I wasn't there. Maybe he said it while out on the bridge and it was inaudible to the passengers but not the FAM's. There are a 1000 maybes here, and a lot of things going on at once. I don't know if a mistake was made. But I am going with the FAM's until proven different. The alternative costs a lot of people there lives if there was a bomb. If they heard the man say it or even thought they did, and he reaches into his bag whats your next course of action? They did the right thing from the information I have

there ya go again, as if there is only one alternative....

 

[Calm2Chaos]

there ya go again, as if there is only one alternative....

NOPE.

The problem is there are many alternatives and they had to weight them all in a matter of seconds. The man said he had a bomb and reached into a bag. They shot him in before he could detonate that bomb. The question of wether he was telling the truth about the bomb doesn't come into play. I don't care at that point in this situation if he's joking or not. They don't know and don't have time to wait and find out.

I'll ask you the same question you didn't answer last time:

If a man is on the plane and acting erratically. You get him off the plane ad he continues his behavior aproaching you then backing up. The man says he has a bomb and reaches into his bag. What do YOU do?

If there was a bomb and they waited and 200 people died. You would be saying that the FAM's are useless and they didn't do anything to protect the people. h