Taking the advice of a woman far smarter than I where blogging is concerned, I’m posting this — a comment that I left on the smart person’s great left wing blog here and in several other places to hopefully spur others to serious thought about what happened yesterday at Miami International Airport – the killing, in the name of safety, a man named Rigoberto Alpizar by members of the United States Federal Air Marshal Service.
I was, last night, quite torn and troubled about what had happened, since this is by all accounts the first time since 9/11 that the US Marshals have exercised their privilege on an aircraft to kill someone if they believe that person poses a greater harm.
This story had me heartsick and quite conflicted yesterday afternoon. But this morning, I woke up awash with what what I labeled in my comment on MLW as my really dumb questions. I sure wish that the Air Marshals would answer them:
<u>Dumb Question #1:</u> Don’t most male passengers traveling internationally keep their passports/identifying paperwork somewhere other than in their pockets, given the high risk caused by loss of these items – and wouldn’t an arriving international passenger need that item first thing upon disembarking?
OK this is my bias coming out, but the very first thought that popped into my mind when I heard the “reaching into a backpack” part was this:
<u>Dumb Question #2:</u> If it is true that this man was arguing with his spouse for much of the first leg of this flight from Quito, and this gave the marshals cause for concern, why did nobody warn Miami in advance that this possibly unsafe/unstable/terrorist person was coming so that beefed up security could have been waiting for him?
I’ve heard of them turning planes completely around for an overly drunk belligent passenger who is of no harm to anyone but him/herself. Certainly, the folks with the cuffs can and regularly do detain/arrest passengers who are “suspicious” based on in-flight conduct. Yet this guy was allowed to travel, disembark, go through customs, and reboard without anyone even attempting to discern what was the matter?
<u>Dumb Question #3:</u> Is it truly believable that anyone could have gotten a “bomb” or other dangerous piece of material past security in Ecuador that American Airlines and every other US based carrier has imposed for all flights traveling into the US?
At present, I cannot even get a cigarette lighter past security. It is caught in the XRay machine. How could a person just get a bomb through security in their carry-on luggage when you can’t even get through with fertilizer residue on the bottom of your shoes? We’re not talking about an international carrier that might, perhaps, be less diligent than a US carrier. We’re talking about American Airlines, the owner and operator of 2 of the lost 9-11 aircraft. That backpack was without question looked into when he boarded the flight.
So what changed during the time between Ecuador and landing in Miami? Is this an international plastiques expert that just managed to end up on board and jerryrig something in the lavatory mid-flight and, if so, wouldn’t whoever actually looks into passenger manifests under the TSA program (or whatever it is called these days) have known that a weapons expert was on board?
<u>Dumb Question #4:</u> How is it that the air marshals heard him say he had a bomb but did not hear his wife screaming down the aisle of the plane after him about his mental illness? And how is it that the air marshals managed to hear this when presently, not a single passenger, boarding passenger, or airline employee/airport worker claims to also have heard it?
Maybe it was a language thing – maybe they don’t teach the marshals Spanish. Although I understand that the (brand new) widow was also screaming in English. Maybe it’s a culture thing: they don’t understand that right now, even the US Supreme Court acknowledged in Illinois v. Wardlow that the mere possibility of police confrontation can cause innocent people to run away (or try to, before they usually get shot dead). As the late, (in)famous Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote:
Respondent and amici also argue that there are innocent reasons for flight from police and that, therefore, flight is not necessarily indicative of ongoing criminal activity. This fact is undoubtedly true, but does not establish a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Even in Terry, the conduct justifying the stop was ambiguous and susceptible of an innocent explanation. The officer observed two individuals pacing back and forth in front of a store, peering into the window and periodically conferring. <u>Terry</u>, 392 U.S., at 5–6. All of this conduct was by itself lawful, but it also suggested that the individuals were casing the store for a planned robbery. Terry recognized that the officers could detain the individuals to resolve the ambiguity. <u>Id.</u>, at 30.
In allowing such detentions, Terry accepts the risk that officers may stop innocent people. Indeed, the Fourth Amendment accepts that risk in connection with more drastic police action; persons arrested and detained on probable cause to believe they have committed a crime may turn out to be innocent. The Terry stop is a far more minimal intrusion, simply allowing the officer to briefly investigate further. If the officer does not learn facts rising to the level of probable cause, the individual must be allowed to go on his way.
Who knows? Maybe it’s because the Air Marshals follow neither the Supreme Court nor the newspaper, and thus did not truly understand that, contrary to myth, not every completely harmless person” views being approached by the police as a benign event and stands still secure in their innocence, even now that we are fighting our war on terror.
<u>Dumb Question #5:</u> Is it really plausible that a terrorist could decide that it was more important/showy/terror inducing to wait until landing in Miami to detonate an explosive on an airport jetway that might, if he’s lucky, kill 20 people, instead of blowing his arriving flight up mid-air and killing with certainty more than 130? Or blowing his stash in customs, which he had already come through and cleared, and kill God knows how many people from all over the world?
This is the one that is sticking with me the most, today.
But not as much as the words “Amadou Diallo.”
The good news? Here, just off the presses: Dubbya says that the air marshals did the right thing. And, as we all know, if Dubbya says that a government employee with responsibility for our homeland security is qualified and doing a good job, then it’s true.
Or is that doing a heck of a job?
Oh well, fighting terrorism is hard work. Federal air marshals, like all law enforcement officers, never shoot people who are of no danger to anyone. They are always careful and reflective (which I’d like to think anyone packing heat should be). After all, even the U.S. Supreme Court says that use of deadly force has a limit. People like this psychologist hired to do a study for Walter Reed Army Medical Center simply don’t understand why if we worry too much about law enforcement mistakes shooting innocent people, the terrorists will have won:
During the investigation of the domestic complaint, 19% of students shot the hostage. . .Moreover, 97% failed to meet the criterion of 70% of their rounds hitting the suspect. . .. Many of the students fired blindly, from the minimal cover available. Trainees were expected to call for backup in high-risk situations and had also been taught that if using their radio while their weapon was in their hand, the weapon should be kept in the dominant hand. Seventy percent failed this element by switching the weapon to the weak hand, in order to operate the radio in the dominant hand. The approved response for coping with the “dud” round that fails to fire is to tap the magazine, rack the slide and reengage the threat. The majority of the students failed this element, resorting to a variety of methods, all less desirable, to clear the malfunction. . . During the IA investigation, only 43% of students could accurately describe their shot placement. . .and only 57% could accurately identify the exact moment when the situation and doctrine first justified the use of lethal force.
Hmm. Well, we have to give law enforcement, especially the Air Marshals, the benefit of the doubt. After all, they are only there to protect us. Even if they sometimes overreact just a little bit.
Especially when you are mentally ill. Or Black/not white, like Amadou Diallo. Or now, it seems, both nonwhite and psychotic, like the late, not yet-quite-lamented by anyone but his family and neighbors (all of who say he was a pretty OK guy), Rigoberto Alpizar.
Nice to see you coming around here, Shanikka. And I’m so glad you posted this. Excellent move to think it in conjunction with Amadou Diallo–hadn’t thought of that.
But I have been profoundly “disturbed” by this incident, too, and wondering if it was not perhaps an attempt to offset those “failing grades” that BushCo got from the 9/11 commission.
Or, on the other hand, to instill more fear in the American public, as in to discourage them from travel–perhaps to discourage them from international travel (it is best after all to keep citizens in the dark and not let them see how the rest of the world works).
But you know me–I’m just a batshit loopy left wing radical. At any rate, it is comforting to know that I’m not alone in wondering about this incident and that “cooler heads” are also smelling a lousy little rat here.
If you’re interested, btw, I have since established for myself a cyberpadded cell here at Historical Footnotes where I can rant to my heart’s content, unmolested like the village idiot I take tremendous pride in being.
I enthusiastically recommend this diary and do hope you will continue to post here.
And also to “innoculate” or “desensitize,” to get the US public accustomed to the fact that extermination is not limited to undesirables in the ghetto, but can occur at any time, to any person.
It is interesting that while the gunmen allege that he said he had a bomb, according to the recollections of his fellow passengers, Mr. Alpizar was shouting that he “had to get off.”
That too, Ductape, you sticky ol’ roll of multi-colored yarns! 😉
Someone else pointed out the nexus between the timing of this event and the release of the “independent 9/11 commission” failing report card, and compared it to the timing of another previous “accidental killing.”I admit I had not focused on it, but it is convenient timing.
Thanks for posting this Shanikka. We need people asking questions every time somebody is killed. The police state is creeping up on us very stealthily, this is an outrage. We should have public hearings in each case of police shootings where the whole country can watch.
oh, Alice, as much as I would prefer that you be right and I be wrong, I fear …. in the 80s, it was “creeping up on us”….now it is here, full-blown. Believe me, it’s not a “little birdy” who tells me these things, rather, first-hand reports from people who de facto survived and/or fled the Nazi regime.
PS Alice, you know I rarely do this. But wouldn’t you pls rec this diary? These matters matter more to me than who is or is not being banished or banned from here or there (ductape, you lurking here? won’t you consider doing the same?)
(sorry if that was out of line….just sayin, you know…)
I rec’d it even tho I didn’t comment… so there you rabble rouser you… whatcha mean this is more important than our meta issues huh?? 😉
That’s my view: anyone who dies at the hand of law enforcement deserves a thorough investigation of the circumstances of their death. Because while indeed there are times when shoot to kill is justified by the totality of the circumstances, many times it has not only not been justified, but an obvious overreach of power and control by officers who have serious psychological issues to work out.
Unfortunately, this is one of those cases that at least so far looks to me an overreaction. And this man’s family deserves, at a minimum, an admission and an apology (and compensation) if that turns out to be true.
Thank you for posting this diary. I’ve had many of these same thoughts, especially #5.
The thing that gets me about this tragedy, is that its been preordained since 9/11.
Seriously.
Prior to 9/11, if this would have happened, there wouldn’t have been an air marshall onboard, in all likelyhood. The troubled man would have escaped from the plane, had his breakdown somewhere in the parking lot or on the concourse, and the couple would have had to rebook the last leg of their flight home. The world would go on.
Or if there was an air marshal onboard, he may have taken time to assess the situation. He may have thought “why the threat now? why landed? Why running into the airport_? Why is that woman screaming he’s crazy?”. He may have even given the guy a chance to explain what he was doing when he tried to reach into his bag, or shot him in the leg to take him down when he was running.
The Marshall most likely would not have considered the entire safety of the free world his responsibility in that split second.
He may have even let the guy run out to the parking lot or whereever, as long as he didn’t pass a package or hurdle security, or try to board another plane.
But since 9/11, every tiny threat is the end of civilization. If 19 guys with boxcutters could commandeer 4 planes and use them as giant conventional missiles, and hurt the economy and cause tens of billions of dollars of damage and kill a few thousand civilians (listed in order of govt importance)… well, of course every vial of white powder is anthrax, every suspicious person is a terrorist, and every suitcase contains a nuclear weapon. Our president told us so.
So the air marshalls were trained to react, fast to any threat. After all, if someone has saron gas, you gotta act fast or you’re dead. You can’t hesitate, you can’t take a chance you’ll be wrong, you have to jump to maximum terror blood red level right at the first hint of danger.
Paranoia is great. Even if its justified, the side effects are worse than the consequences of trusting.
Why assess actual threats when you can assume the worst and take action?
in New Jersey, and I will never get over it.
This is just another example.
They always lie. Whenenver law enforcement or military get caught on negligent homicide or murder, they always LIE. They always circle the wagons and LIE. We know this. We have thousands of examples.
In this case in Miami, the story about the victim saying “bomb” is a COMPLETE LIE! But it is backed up by our evil White House and by almost everybody else down the line.
HEY!!! It is CRAZY to believe ANYTHING said by the government.
Sadly my immediate reaction on hearing this news was “De Menezes”, the Brazilian guy killed on the London Underground. The same pattern is emerging, hyped up police misreading clues, different accounts from different witnesses, multiple shots (you will almost certainly find the poor man’s head was nearly blown off by multiple hits).
I agree. This is another example of law enforcement using their guns instead of their fucking brains, and some innocent person ends up paying with their life.
Would it have been that hard to subdue him or even shoot him in the leg for something? And shouldn’t there be some burden of suspicion beyond “I think I heard the word bomb”?
I first put this in the frontpaged story about this, but I thought I’d offer it here too, as I think you and I have a similar reaction.
what I find disturbing is the number of Americans who’re just peachy kean w/ the increasing willingness of American law enforcement to use deadly force. For every one of the people you mock for “Monday morning quarterbacking” I’ve heard three or four shrugging and saying “they had no choice”.
What I find disturbing is that we’re a supposed peace loving Christian nation yet we mindlessly say “thank you” whenever law enforcement acts in this way. We PRESUME whoever the dead person is was “asking for it”. Amazing, looking at his face on the television, that his complexion is of a duskier hue, as it so often is in these situations.
What I find disturbing is that this Nation of supposed freedom has an expanding and increasingly brutal prison system. What I find disturbing is that we are becoming more and more militarized, a modern day Sparta full of strutting cowboys and would-be weekend warriors who take joy in the destruction we deal out, the countries we “glass”, the misery we cause.
I don’t know if the FAMs acted “properly”. None of us do. They may have committed a ghastly mistake while still acting within the rules of their training and engagement. Shouldn’t we all bow our heads quietly for this poor man, this poor family and for the officers who killed him? Shouldn’t we take a step back and look at violence as a sometimes necessary evil instead of the unavoidable “fact” of life that we seem to get such a rush from?
Who the fuck am I kidding, though. This is a violent country inhabited by violent immature bullies with too much power and no sense of responsibility for the future. Take comfort in the fact that you too may find yourself in a building lobby or a airliner or a train car with a heavily armed paramilitary police aiming a riot shotgun or AR-15 at your head as they search for “terrorists”.
It is disturbing, specially when I read your diary, where the “Christian” just blows off the killing like it’s no big deal. And look at all the supposed “christians” who support Bush and his wars! That guy is the emperor of death and torture, and he’s got legions fo folks revering him as a “man of faith”.
Scary stuff.