rideside.net

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-12-08 03:45:00 +0000

Terrorists - 1, US Air Marshals - 0.

Posted by rladew on 2005-12-08 14:23:14 +0000

New topic: Without air Marshals, How do we keep the majority of American passengers safe on airplanes? I agree w/ TGL. I think Israeli airflights have a screening system where the people that check the baggage actually have to board the same plane as well. Beyond that point, I'm not sure what the best solution is. Since its clear, DB, that you disapprove of the Marshalls (at least in this particular situation), I'm hoping you have an alternative solution to offer... _______________________________ I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. -John Cage

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-12-08 14:28:47 +0000

Pretty simple: Don't shoot innocent people. That would have kept one American, Rigoberto Alpizar, alive.

Posted by tgl on 2005-12-08 14:31:39 +0000

I don't mind having Air Marshalls on board flights, I see no reason to give them guns. Of course, I don't know why cops have guns either. If this guy was really a suicide bomber, would he have tried to run away? Wouldn't he have just blown himself up at the first chance of being caught, or are the Marshalls that quick on the draw?

Posted by rladew on 2005-12-08 14:47:41 +0000

So yr policy, or proposal to fix the problem would be to gather all air Marshalls together and tell them not to shoot innocent people? or it would be to make sure that they under no circumstances had guns? Just trying to clarify... _______________________________ I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. -John Cage

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-12-08 14:58:34 +0000

Well, I'm not really with tgl on this one. I suppose air marshal's might have a shooting weapon, with rubber bullets or even a 38 with smaller caliber bullets. But yes, it sounds so simple, tell them not to shoot innocent people. If they had done this, they wouldn't have egg/blood on their face.

Posted by Travis on 2005-12-08 15:53:09 +0000

dont know if you guys have followed our similar incident of the Brazilian guy the police shot on the tube. On the day of the incident and for a long time afterwards the news reports (and the offical police line) was that he had a very bulky coat on (on a warm day) was carrying a big bag, jumped the ticket barrier and ran from police when challenged. after the blood had congealed it emerged that he had a light jacket, no bag and briefly ran down the platform to catch a tube the doors were closing on we live in a time of double speak - can't believe anything that comes out in the press when an item is newsworthy and the spin doctors are working on it, its the little details that come out when the front pages have something else to shout about that generally tell a truer tale. I think the fact his wife was running after him screaming that he was mentally ill and other passengers make no mention of the bomb in the bag claim is fairly significant - seems like taking public transport if your from South America is rather risky these days

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-12-08 16:05:55 +0000

It does seem that the air marshals are the only ones with the "I have a bomb" claim. This is very interesting because not 14 hours ago most media was saying "claimed he had a bomb", but my local ABC affiliate's 11:00 pm news broadcast said, "no passangers made mention of the man carrying a bomb." Got me thinking. Just look at the google news list. There does seem to be a dimishing mention of a "bomb". Drudge has even taken the story off his page entirely as of now(12:11 pm).

Posted by rladew on 2005-12-08 16:51:59 +0000

While the sentiment is a good one (not killing innocent people), and I admit I sound like a broken record here in light of other posts, How is "not killing innocent people" enforceable? Do we need more rules and regulations on their training? Getting people together and asking them in a broad and unenforceable sense not to kill one another sounds a little touchy-feely Kindergarten-y to me. Ifa cop or an air marshal makes a mistake should those individuals be disciplined? absolutely! But denouncing the marshals or the police as a whole is ludicrous. Do you think you would be safer without police and air marshals? ______________________________ I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. -John Cage

Posted by tgl on 2005-12-08 16:58:40 +0000

We might be safer if they didn't have lethal weapons. Was Richard "Shoebomber" Reid shot at?

Posted by tgl on 2005-12-08 17:01:54 +0000

It's a lot easier to "not kill people" if there were no guns on the aircraft.

Posted by rladew on 2005-12-08 17:05:20 +0000

Unfortunately not. _______________________________ I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. -John Cage

Posted by rladew on 2005-12-08 17:06:37 +0000

should I be obnoxious enough to use the trite "guns dont kill people..." argument? ...nah _______________________________ I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. -John Cage

Posted by rladew on 2005-12-08 17:12:21 +0000

Oh, and for all of those who have forgotten: On 09/11/2001 MOTHERFUCKERS FLEW PLANES INTO OUR BUILDINGS!!!! _______________________________ I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. -John Cage

Posted by frame609 on 2005-12-08 17:38:06 +0000

Can't make an omlette without breaking a few egss.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-12-08 18:46:22 +0000

Yes, rladew, but what does this have to do with the price of eggs?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-12-08 18:47:24 +0000

By all means do. Are these air marshals murderers?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-12-08 18:50:52 +0000

No, just enforce the current rules. No need for new ones. I'm sorry if you think it's ludicrous, but the air marshals as whole acted horribly, and therefore worthy of denouncing. No, we would not be safer without police or air marshals in general, but with the way things seem lined up now, perhaps.

Posted by frame609 on 2005-12-08 18:53:17 +0000

It sucks that a crazy guy who may or may not have been raving re: a bomb got shot and killed yesterday, don't get me wrong. It's awful. But the marshals did what they were trained to do.

Posted by on 2005-12-08 18:59:06 +0000

I completely agree that the US Air Marshalls did what they were trained to do. That is not in doubt. I question the intelligence of a policy that puts innocent, albeit mentally ill, people at risk. I'm pretty certain that guns kill people, at least in this case. Alpizar would be alive today if the US Air Marshalls did not have guns. ---- On Sept. 11th, motherfuckers were stopped by citizens not using handguns. I doubt that the plane that landed in PA would have ended any differently if US Air Marshals had started firing at will into the cockpit.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-12-08 19:01:51 +0000

Oh, for all of those who have forgotten: RONALD REAGAN PAID OFF IRANIAN KIDNAPPERS, SOLD ARMS TO IRAN, AND GAVE SADDAM HUSSEIN BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN ARMS!!!

Posted by frame609 on 2005-12-08 19:37:34 +0000

Did the policy put him at risk? Was it his wife? Him?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-12-08 19:46:16 +0000

Exactly. That's why we can blame the entire system, not just these poor marshals.

Posted by tgl on 2005-12-08 19:49:18 +0000

A policy that puts the onerous on individuals to make split-second decisions regarding life or death when the closest tool on hand is a lethal weapon puts all of us at risk.

Posted by frame609 on 2005-12-08 19:53:35 +0000

It's all well and good to bitch about the system, but did the guy take his medication?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-12-08 19:59:58 +0000

Did the guy have a bomb? Did any passenger hear him mention a bomb?

Posted by frame609 on 2005-12-08 20:02:00 +0000

Was he shouting that he had one? Could he have prevented the entire incident by taking his medicine?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-12-08 20:06:36 +0000

(Via Drudge) Time mag interviews a man, who says "bomb" was never uttered.

Posted by tgl on 2005-12-08 20:30:30 +0000

It's not clear whether he was shouting. The Feds say he was, fellow passengers aren't certain. How many suicide bombers take the time to alert their presence to authorities before pushing the button? The evidence suggest it's likelier he was an unstable personality rather than a suicide bomber. The US Air Marshalls aren't given the luxury of time to make that determination, unfortunately, their only recourse is to take deadly action. Good thing the plane was still at the terminal, what if he started acting irrationally after take off? Marshalls are good shots, but do we know the damage to the jetway? Could they have depressurized the cabin? "If you feel you are not properly sedated, call 348-844 immediately."

Posted by frame609 on 2005-12-08 20:43:07 +0000

You'd think, in the wake of all this 'personal responsibility first' bullshit I'm spewing today, that I'm a communist or something. Or at least a libertarian.

Posted by tgl on 2005-12-08 20:50:46 +0000

[shift to left, natch] link People are responsible for their actions. But, come on! You forget your meds and you'll be shot? Let's be realistic. Here's what I know about terrorists on airplanes since Sept. 11, 2001: A) Terrorist with a shoebomb is apprehended without gunfire. B) Innocent traveler is shot to death. What conclusions can we draw based on the evidence, so far?

Posted by frame609 on 2005-12-08 20:52:08 +0000

Forget your meds and shout about a bomb in a plane from South America to Florida- a plane likely crawling with feds- and reach into your bag when the cops say to put your hands up? You should totally get milk and cookies.

Posted by rladew on 2005-12-08 20:52:40 +0000

Dont forget your meds, people. They help to make the world a much better place. ______________________________ I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. -John Cage

Posted by on 2005-12-08 21:01:30 +0000

We don't know if he was prescribed medication. It's purely speculative. Should they shoot a kid with Down Syndrome that pulls the same stunt? At most, he was resisting arrest. I don't see how the scenario is like one that involves a bomb. How many seconds would you like to have to comply with an officer while in an "altered" state, before you get shot?

Posted by tgl on 2005-12-08 21:05:25 +0000

The burden should be to explain why we need guns on planes, not the other way around. Show me evidence of an armed officer making a difference on an airplane, then I'll start listening.

Posted by frame609 on 2005-12-08 21:11:19 +0000

The slippery slope: if there had been a bomb on the plane, the talk would be of how nothing was done, etc. if there were no marshalls. It was touched on before- 9/11 changed everything, and some of the day's events could have been prevented by force, I'm sure.

Posted by frame609 on 2005-12-08 21:17:29 +0000

....and with all that, I'm off to the airport (after I take my meds).

Posted by on 2005-12-09 03:26:18 +0000

I getting tried of the all-purpose excuse for implementing myopic policies that don't seem to do anything about the problems at hand. Sept. 11th changed everything! I don't buy it. Not while we continue to spend up to 10 billion dollars a year on missile defense, which counters a threat we no longer have with technology that has not been shown to work. OK, OK, North Korea does pose a missile threat. That's about the only one. They've got... four ICBMs? And all those loose nukes in Russia; for $10 billion we could secure them once and for all. No one ever talks about the "future unfunded liability" of Defense spending. Only Medicare and Social Security get stuck with that dog. $400 billion a year; I feel safe.

Posted by rladew on 2005-12-09 12:19:31 +0000

IMHO, Medicare and Social Security are entitlement schemes that need a paradigm shift anyhoo. _______________________________ I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. -John Cage

Posted by rladew on 2005-12-09 12:32:38 +0000

If everything is speculative, Why are you automatically defending the victim of the shooting? (In fairness, the exact same question is pointed at me vice versa). If there is to be a large degree of behavior that is deemed "out of the ordinary", maybe it would be wiser for those individuals to prevent a dangerous situation by making SPECIAL ACCOMODATIONS with the airline (you know, kind of like when my wife's foot was broken and I had to preplan having a wheelchair available for her @ departing and arriving airport - The airlines weren't telepathic to her needs, I had to premeditate her care. I'm sure this suggestion will be read by some as discrimination, but if I was travelling with a loved one, a few phone calls and a verbal heads up to staff would beat having my loved one shot.) We expect so much of our police, air marshals, security forces etc., and sometimes these people are forced to make judgment calls and act in unclear situations. This specific incident is a good lesson to marshals that unusual situations aren't always incidents of terrorism, but I am glad that there are Air Marshals. It's leaps and bounds better than trusting some 5.50 / hr person asking you to take yr watch and shoes off. _______________________________ I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. -John Cage

Posted by rladew on 2005-12-09 12:36:23 +0000

I can see it now - a new merit badge course for boyscouts - stopping terrorists with shoelaces, oxygen tubing and individually wrapped peanut packages... _______________________________ I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. -John Cage

Posted by rladew on 2005-12-09 12:39:10 +0000

don't worry, I called the People's Republic of Cambridge. When you return to H3W, a very meaningful sit in and group of protesters will be ready to confront you... (As long as everyone has the proper parking permits) _______________________________ I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. -John Cage

Posted by tgl on 2005-12-09 13:19:24 +0000

More sick and destitute people are exactly what this country needs.

Posted by tgl on 2005-12-09 13:26:16 +0000

I'm no defending him, per se, I'm saying "don't blame the victim". I'm also saying, "don't blame the US Air Marshalls". I blame the policy that allows for the unneccessary risk posed by bombs in luggage, coupled with firearms on planes, which leads to situations that more often than not end in tragedy. My emprical evidence is slime, I know, but I reiterate: Number of terrorists stopped by gunfire on airplanes: 0 Number of innocent victoms of gunfire: 1 I don't see the guns as deterrant angle either. Are suicide bombers afraid of being killed? --- You are still blaming the victim. He's at fault because he doesn't have the presence of mind (forgetting that he's mental ill, aren't we?) to take every precaution that behavior not deemed "normal" doesn't get him a cap in the ass. Never mind that his actions seem more consistent with a crazy person than on a suicidal terrorist. --- There only paid $5.50/hr because the Repubican Congress and Republican President wouldn't pony up more cash.

Posted by tgl on 2005-12-09 13:28:02 +0000

Don't forget molestation, that's a key weapon in the BSA arsenal.

Posted by rladew on 2005-12-09 13:55:40 +0000

ouch. _______________________________ I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. -John Cage

Posted by rladew on 2005-12-09 13:57:08 +0000

NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION! amongst our arsenal of weaponry are such diverse elements as: -fear -surprise -molestation -comfy chairs _______________________________ I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. -John Cage

Posted by frame609 on 2005-12-09 15:49:27 +0000

I don't like how 'mentally ill' is being used as an excuse- dude was married, had a job and a house.

Posted by cdubrocker on 2005-12-09 16:01:37 +0000

People snap. Not necessarily an excuse, but a reason. You can be mentally ill, have all those things, and still snap, especially if you haven't had your meds (which is what I've been hearing about this guy, who knows if it's true).

Posted by tgl on 2005-12-09 16:08:07 +0000

I'm leery of harping on the 'mentally ill' angle as well. Especially since it's all heresay about the duress he's been under. Especially since I need more fingers to count the number of family and friends I know that suffer from some sort of mental illness. A man who happens to succumb to existential angst and is incapable of following shouted directions at the appropriate speed is now liable for his own shooting death. Welcome to the 21st Century.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2005-12-09 19:49:39 +0000

Regarding tgl's hypothetical question "Should they shoot a kid with Down Syndrome that pulls the same stunt?": FBI dudes *totally* took my brother - alone, leaving my parents freaking out in the corridor - into a private exam room at Cleveland Airport last year. He was searched & questioned, then released. The rationale? They told Dad that unscrupulous people could have used "someone like him" as a drug or bomb donkey. Um... On the plus side, it may possibly have been the best day of 2004 as far as my brother's concerned. Right up there with the day a female UNH cop let him ride around in her cruiser for an hour, let him turn on the siren, and gave him a cop hat as a souvenir. Back to the topic at hand: the Brits did it first, man. We kind of *had* to shoot some innocent guy, just to keep up with the Joneses. Er... Blairs.

Posted by on 2005-12-09 20:00:44 +0000

So many errors: empirical not emprical slim not slime than of a not than on a They're not There

Posted by Honar the librarian on 2005-12-10 22:14:24 +0000

I had dinner last night with a friend whose boyfriend is a customs officer--after 9/11 they were all trained to do work as air marshals 'cause the govt need extra manpower. In special air marshall training, unlike in the rest of his training with guns, suspects, etc., he was not trained to injure, but to shoot to kill. That's why there is special air marshall training. Just sayin'.

Posted by rladew on 2005-12-11 15:34:44 +0000

LOL - funny post Pamsterdam :) _______________________________ cruft: /kruhft/ [very common; back-formation from crufty] 1. n. An unpleasant substance. The dust that gathers under your bed is cruft; the TMRC Dictionary correctly noted that attackin

Posted by rladew on 2005-12-11 15:37:27 +0000

no worries, my friend, I threw all my red pens out years ago...

Posted by pamsterdam on 2005-12-11 19:55:49 +0000

Thanks, rladew. :-) We talk on the phone every week, and each time I get the "highlight of the week". "Pam! I had dinner at Chunky's! I had ICE CREAM!" "Pam! I swam in the Special Olympics! I got a GOLD MEDAL!" "Pam! A lady cop took me for a ride! I played the SIREN!" "Pam! The FBI took me away! They SEARCHED ME!" Heh heh heh heh heh. Man, I love that guy.