Sky Marshals Shoot Passenger

[Pangloss]

It appears we've had a case similar to the Menezes case in Britain. I've been following this for a couple of days (it actually took place here in South Florida).

 

In a nutshell, apparently a passenger who was mentally ill was flying back to his home in the Orlando area after travelling to Ecuador on some sort of religious mission. He hadn't taken his medication (for reasons unknown), and became anxious while the plane was boarding, after he and his wife had reached their seats (apparently flight stress for the mentally ill is becoming a recognized concern, which is interesting).

 

Anyway, he got up and ran through the boarding passengers to the front of the plane and got off. Two sky marshalls followed him out and demanded that he stop and lies down. He didn't comply, they shot him, and he died.

 

According to initial reports, passengers said that he was saying that he had a bomb. However, now that the dust has settled, there aren't any passengers actually coming forward saying that they heard that. Apparently the initial reports came from authorities, who said that passengers said he had a bomb. Now such passengers cannot apparently be found.

 

For some that won't matter -- he was reaching into some sort of bag that he was clutching to his chest and certainly acting desperate. I also think it will eventually come out that some passengers heard "bomb" and others did not, and that's good enough for me. These details separates the case from Menezes, who never said a word, he just ran.

 

I'm a little annoyed at some of the statements that the police should have listened to his wife, who was apparently running along behind him screaming "he's bipolar and hasn't taken his drugs!" That's not the sort of thing they can really pay attention to in a situation like that. Who is this woman? How does she know what his condition is? How do we know she is correct? These are not questions that can be answered on a split second's notice. Normally you might give the guy the benefit of the doubt, but if he's shouting "I've got a bomb!" and desperately reaching into a bag, that's pretty much a solution with only one answer.

 

I know the man's family is distraught, but I think it says a lot about our society that they immediately attack the authorities. I mean the man's wife was standing right there and saw what the guy did. She knew his history. Maybe she's feeling guilty (she claims it was her fault he didn't have his drugs) and doesn't want to admit her own responsibility, I don't know. But I think it's a shame.

 

Background:

http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2005/12/09/ap2381208.html

[ecoli]

What ever happened to tranquilizer's or tasors?... there are other ways to stop people then killing them. This guy wasn't a terrorist and he's behavoir was the result of a medical condition. There is no reason why this man should not be alive right now.

[silkworm]

Ecoli, I get what you're saying here and I'm usually against condoning government action that results in killing people but when you're in a situation like that the only sure course of action is to blow the person's brains out.

 

This is the way I've been told the scenario. He said he had a bomb and ran off the plane with a bag, his wife screamed, "He's crazy, he hasn't taken his medication." Air Marshall's follow him, tell him to put the bag down while he's still near the air plane, he reaches in it and deadly force was used at the point to insure that whatever he was planning to do wouldn't be done. From the statements I've heard from the victim's family, they didn't know he was mentally ill, only his wife did and an Air Marshall doesn't have time to call a doctor and get the man's head examined before they did anything. The passengers must be protected first, and nothing stops a person's motor function like a bullet in the brain.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The more pertinent question is "did the marshal even have a taser, or time to pull it out?"

[Pangloss]

I've wondered about the taser thing as well, but I've not seen a good answer on it. I'm keeping my eyes open for some info on that.

[zyncod]

I tend to agree with the police actions in the Menezes case where he had been seen on police videotape near a terrorist-related hideout, he was running, and wouldn't stop. If he had gotten away, he might have been able to accomplish what he was trying to do (although he wound up not actually having a bomb).

 

In this case, I think that they way overreacted.

 

1. Who announces that they have a bomb when the plane is still on the ground? He had already passed through security with that bag, and thus probably didn't have a bomb anyway.

 

2. He was running AWAY from the plane - who was he going to hurt in the jetway? All the marshals needed to do was get security to intercept him or catch him themselves.

 

Basically, the only way that this should be considered OK is if you think that it's ok to shoot somebody dead who's running down the street saying "I have a bomb" - a case in which the person might actually *have* a bomb, seeing as how he didn't have to pass through security to get on the street.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

In this case' date=' I think that they way overreacted.

 

1. Who announces that they have a bomb when the plane is still on the ground? He had already passed through security with that bag, and thus probably didn't have a bomb anyway.[/quote']

You can't count on security. In some trials of security, government agents managed to get through with all sorts of things.

 

2. He was running AWAY from the plane - who was he going to hurt in the jetway? All the marshals needed to do was get security to intercept him or catch him themselves.

If he blows up in the jetway, that costs the airport money and probably injures other workers, the skymarshals, and probably some random people, depending on how close to either end he was.

 

Basically, the only way that this should be considered OK is if you think that it's ok to shoot somebody dead who's running down the street saying "I have a bomb" - a case in which the person might actually *have* a bomb, seeing as how he didn't have to pass through security to get on the street.

Only if the person has 200 people around him would that be a valid example.

[insane_alien]

a taser would make more sense on a plane seeing as bullets tend to leave holes in the pressurised cabin wall which is never a good idea at 10km up

[Lance]

What ever happened to tranquilizer's or tasors?... there are other ways to stop people then killing them. This guy wasn't a terrorist and he's behavoir was the result of a medical condition. There is no reason why this man should not be alive right now.

 

Neither of these would stop a determined terrorist with a bomb. Tranquilizers take time and tasers would be extremely stupid on a person holding a weapon, such as a bomb.

 

a taser would make more sense on a plane seeing as bullets tend to leave holes in the pressurised cabin wall which is never a good idea at 10km up

 

Surely you don't beleive that the sky marshalls havn't thought of this and yet you have?

[SorceressPol]

I tend to agree with the police actions in the Menezes case where he had been seen on police videotape near a terrorist-related hideout' date=' he was running, and wouldn't stop. If he had gotten away, he might have been able to accomplish what he was trying to do (although he wound up not actually having a bomb).

 

In this case, I think that they way overreacted.

 

1. Who announces that they have a bomb when the plane is still on the ground? He had already passed through security with that bag, and thus probably didn't have a bomb anyway.[/quote']

 

That doesn't guarantee anything. He could have snuck a bomb that hadn't been assembel yet on board the plane. Besides, the public would raise hell if their safety was put at risk on a probably.

 

2. He was running AWAY from the plane - who was he going to hurt in the jetway? All the marshals needed to do was get security to intercept him or catch him themselves.

 

The marshals don't have x-ray vision. If there had been a bomb in that bag there is no way in the world he would have been able to know how powerful the explosives would be, so there is no way to assume that the people on the plane still wouldn't get hurt. Not to mention since the guy is running away from the plane, isn't he getting closer to the jumbles of people in the airport?

 

 

Basically, the only way that this should be considered OK is if you think that it's ok to shoot somebody dead who's running down the street saying "I have a bomb" - a case in which the person might actually *have* a bomb, seeing as how he didn't have to pass through security to get on the street

 

If you're dumb enough to run down the street screaming you have a bomb, yeah, you deserve to get shot. And for other replies about the tasers and tranquilizer darts, someone already mentioned that firing a taser gun at someone supposedly holding a bomb = bad idea. As far as tranqs, heavy clothing and crazy people take a while to go down. And if someone hasn't mentioned this already( they will) aiming for nonlethal parts still leaves the guy able to detonate the bomb, and more likely to hit one of the other passengers.

[ecoli]

If you're dumb enough to run down the street screaming you have a bomb, yeah, you deserve to get shot.

 

But in this case wasn't dumb, he was mentally ill.

 

And for other replies about the tasers and tranquilizer darts, someone already mentioned that firing a taser gun at someone supposedly holding a bomb = bad idea. As far as tranqs, heavy clothing and crazy people take a while to go down. And if someone hasn't mentioned this already( they will) aiming for nonlethal parts still leaves the guy able to detonate the bomb, and more likely to hit one of the other passengers.

 

What about things like rubber bullets?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Rubber bullets don't disable you. They just hurt, and that never stops someone determined.

[Pangloss]

1. Who announces that they have a bomb when the plane is still on the ground? He had already passed through security with that bag, and thus probably didn't have a bomb anyway.

 

Well that "shoe bomber" guys (forget the name offhand) announced that he had a bomb, and he passed through security as well. And he actually had one.

 

You can certainly bet that that information was part of the training the marshals got.

 

 

2. He was running AWAY from the plane - who was he going to hurt in the jetway? All the marshals needed to do was get security to intercept him or catch him themselves.

 

He was running from a smaller number of people (mostly empty airplane) to a larger number of people (busy concourse), in total panic mode. (shrug)

 

 

Basically, the only way that this should be considered OK is if you think that it's ok to shoot somebody dead who's running down the street saying "I have a bomb" - a case in which the person might actually *have* a bomb, seeing as how he didn't have to pass through security to get on the street.

 

This is where I start to agree with you, and that was where I went with the Menezes case. I have a concern about it and I worry that we're getting a little trigger happy. There's no question that it's a bad thing that a bomb go off in a crowd, but (and this is a tough "but") -- I'm not sure it's worse that a bomb go off than for one person to be shot by authorities in error.

 

 

a taser would make more sense on a plane seeing as bullets tend to leave holes in the pressurised cabin wall which is never a good idea at 10km up

 

I think the taser thing is a really good question, and I still haven't heard a good refutation to that point yet. Lance might have a point about the taser possibly setting off the bomb, but I'd need to hear some more science and maybe see some experimentation results on that.

 

However, the myth about gunshots blowing out windows in pressurized airplanes was experimentally debunked on an episode of Discovery's Channel's "Mythbusters" last year. I believe it's listed as "busted" in the Wikipedia.

[Lance]

Lance might have a point about the taser possibly setting off the bomb, but I'd need to hear some more science and maybe see some experimentation results on that.

 

That indeed would be a risk. However, an even bigger risk would be the spasming person on the floor with a detonator in his hand.

[Pangloss]

Oh ok, I see what you mean.

 

I can see how a taser might still be useful, though, depending on the situation. But I guess you'd also have to weigh it against the added burden of carrying both a taser and a gun.

 

(Love the hat on Marvin, btw.)

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

And there's always the risk that a passenger will notice the skymarshal has a gun, which doubles when the marshal also has a taser.

 

They probably want to be as lightly loaded as possible so they don't get discovered in case of a hijacking.

[SorceressPol]

But in this case wasn't dumb, he was mentally ill.

 

If you go on a plane and you have a condition like bipolar disorder, and it's pretty serious and you're not taking your meds, you're left with three choices. Wait to you're on meds again before flying, or alert someone at the airport about your condition! Flight attendants, TSA, etc. They will help you, and if either the man or his wife had alerted them, flight attendants would have been ready to handle the situation, and the marshal probably wouldn't have had to use deadly force. Or you could go with the third choice- none of the above.

 

 

What about things like rubber bullets?

 

If the marshal was close enough to the guy, rubber bullets wouldn't make much difference. Besides, having to change rounds takes up precious time.

[silkworm]

This can all be settled with a sign at the airport:

 

If you announce you have a bomb and reach into a bag you will have your head blown off. No exceptions.

 

As far as I know bipolar is a high and low disorder, no this type of psychosis. I heard this guy was drunk too. He may have committed suicide by cop. I'm not a fan of police and I'm not a fan of killing stupid, drunk, or crazy people but everyone knows the situation and nothing works better at stopping a madman than blowing his head off. They train the air marshalls for situation like that, it's a bullet to the head. Not the arm. Not the leg. The head to stop the threat as soon as possible. If the air marshalls had failed in this they should have lost their jobs, even though they ended up lucky. If he'd have listened, he wouldn't be dead.

 

However, this thread has raised an interesting point. What happens if I see someone I don't like and scream that he has a bomb, even when I know he doesn't? Or if I just think he does because I'm paranoid and racist?

 

I'm never flying on an airplane.

[zyncod]

He was running from a smaller number of people (mostly empty airplane) to a larger number of people (busy concourse), in total panic mode. (shrug)

 

Ok, I didn't know that. I thought that they had shot him in an empty jetway - I guess this makes it a little better.

 

But I will agree that the implications of both these scenarios are a little frightening. It's like cops going on high speed chases on highways that threaten many, many innocent motorists' lives in order to catch people that usually have only stolen a car or have drugs in their trunk. And then the worst part is that they broadcast these chases as entertainment on television. I don't really see a better solution to either of these types of situations (shooting "bombers" or chasing car thieves) - I just wish that it didn't have to be this way.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

But I will agree that the implications of both these scenarios are a little frightening. It's like cops going on high speed chases on highways that threaten many, many innocent motorists' lives in order to catch people that usually have only stolen a car or have drugs in their trunk. And then the worst part is that they broadcast these chases as entertainment on television. I don't really see a better solution to either of these types of situations (shooting "bombers" or chasing car thieves) - I just wish that it didn't have to be this way.

Fortunately, devices are being developed that will blast a car's electronics and shut it down.

 

Unfortunately, there's no sure equivalent for a human.

[cosine]

<op>

 

From reviewing the news article, it seems like the whole thing was a regretable accident. Surely it will lead to an in-depth review of current policies, but I seriously doubt it can be alleged that air marshalls would be shooting a mentally ill man our of malice. But it also seems like they were hasty, and were probably not calm themselves. I have no idea what the wife actually said, because the article doesn't say. It does say she was trying to explain she had a bipolar disorder. I can only conjecture that she did not explicitly say "don't shoot," because if she did I don't know how the air marshalls would have been able to shoot, since they were probably anxious and would have had to be near crazy to disobey the command of an innocent, seemingly level headed woman. But I don't think she was level headed either, probably didn't explicitly say "don't shoot", because two air marshalls were going to shoot her husband. I mean this is all just how the events seem to play out in my head, and why I would think it was a pure mistake if nothing else...

 

I've filled in the holes here where the article leaves them. This is actually the first I've heard of it, are there any more articles someone could reccomend that fills in more holes about how the events took place?

[ecoli]

I definately don't blame their Air Marshalls. There were doing their jobs as they saw the situation unfolding. There trained to think quickly, and if see what they think is a thread, well, there better trained to see threats then any of us here. If anybody is at fault here, it is the "system." Perhaps it is becoming necessary to create new methods at apprehending people that are potential threats. Not only to make sure the person is actually a threat, but so we don't loose the ability to interrogate them.

[Tetrahedrite]

I know this will be a mighty unpopular view, especially amongst Americans, but I never agreed with the concept of putting (lethally) armed air marshalls on planes to begin with. If these guys had not been on the plane, not only would the plane not of been blown up, the poor man would still be alive.

[Pangloss]

That's not a totally unpopular view over here, for what it's worth. IMO it's also a perfectly valid point of view, even if I don't share it. I just feel obliged to point out that you still have guys taking bombs onto airplanes, as was the case with the shoe bomber. Granted the marshals didn't catch that guy (none on the plane I guess), but it seems to justify the action.

[john5746]

I know this will be a mighty unpopular view, especially amongst Americans, but I never agreed with the concept of putting (lethally) armed air marshalls on planes to begin with. If these guys had not been on the plane, not only would the plane not of been blown up, the poor man would still be alive.

 

I think increasing armed Air Marshall's has probably been the best deterent to a repeat attack. It is costly, so hopefully they can reduce the number as more countermeasures are placed into action. A bullet hole will not explosively decompress and airplane - that is a myth.

 

From the articles I have read, I think the Marshalls acted correctly. The woman should be charged. That man was a threat and should never have taken the plane.

 

Maybe they could put a big red tag on mentally sick passengers, but the mentally sick would sue and a terrorist would probably try to utilize this method to get in under the radar.

 

I see no real remedy, people need to understand that they must listen and obey police and not take a flight if they are not under command of their mental capacities.