|
Post by phinehas on May 7, 2007 10:55:54 GMT -5
I know we talked about this case before, but I just thought of it again when looking for info on the Vegas incident of today. Where is the backpack? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigoberto_Alpizar"a Pittsburgh Post Gazette editorial quoted a statement that indicated federal officials are reacting to the unraveling of their story by slightly modifying the way they describe the killing: "According to law enforcement officials, Alpizar 'uttered threatening words that included a sentence to the effect that he had a bomb.'" It is a long way from running up and down aisle shouting about having a bomb to using unspecified "threatening words." What sort of sentence includes threatening words "to the effect" that one has a bomb—but apparently does not include the word bomb?" www.reason.com/news/show/33006.html
|
|
|
Post by brandon on May 7, 2007 14:03:49 GMT -5
Phin, don't forget that the media often get quotes wrong and also present them out of context. The local news screwed up when reporting the Alabama Free Militia arrests and to this day still haven't gotten the story correct.
|
|
|
Post by Dale Jackson on May 7, 2007 14:36:55 GMT -5
Phin,
from your own link-
Sorry, you say bomb on a plane and run off, you have just surrendered your right to live.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 7, 2007 15:43:16 GMT -5
I think if he said anything at all, while exiting the plane, it was that there was a bomb, not that he had a bomb. It was obvious from the accounts that is bipolar condition produced an anxiety attack and he desperately needed to get off the plane. Read the "offical" report. www.miamisao.com/publications/press/2006/airmarshalshooting.pdfI don't think that a bomb was mentioned until after he felt he was being requested to get back on the plane. His wife told the agents that he was sick and had not taken his medication...she told them that she could calm him down. They forced her back into the plane. Why would a suicide bomber TELL them that he had a bomb and threaten that he would detonate it? You also notice that they SHOT him in the very backpack that he supposedly has a bomb in. You know, the one that isn't in the picture. (see pdf link for further pictures) The report is rather amusing when it get's to the parts speaking about the Marshals...the fact that the report put in the little quips about their jobs and how they are to "ensure the safety" of all the passengers. The report didn't do that for the gate agent or the departure agent. Here is what is really telling.... "noticed a commotion at the rear of the aircraft. F.A.M. 1 saw Mr. Alpizar running toward the front of the plane from the rear yelling that he had a bomb. Mr. Alpizar ran Page 32 past F.A.M.s 1 and 2 and exited the plane onto the jetway. F.A.M.s 1 and 2 followed Mr. Alpizar off the plane and onto the jetway. F.A.M. 1 noticed Mr. Alpizar’s wife coming toward the front of the plane behind them. " Now you tell me....Based off of that, how did he get past them? The plane hasn't left yet, they didn't have a 1st class lobster dinner on their laps. They knew there was a "commotion" at the freakin rear of the plane. God help us if these guys wait till real terrorists make their way to the front of the cockpit....because they will walk right by them.
|
|
|
Post by Dale Jackson on May 7, 2007 17:35:56 GMT -5
Sounds like they didnt't tackle the guy and then they shot him, I am looking for a reason to be outraged? Is it because he ran past them? Ok I see that part. Is it because he was bi-polar? They do not have the ability to know that right then.
This is an airline, there will be no calming down by a wife after a bomb is mentioned. I know I wouldn't want to be on a plane with a guy who said there was a bomb and then was calm down by the wife.
Cops say stop, you stop. You decide to run, you die.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 7, 2007 18:18:31 GMT -5
From what I have read, the people on the plane were more afraid of the swat team with shotguns pointed at the back of their heads then they were of a man having an anxiety attack and needing to GET OFF the plane. Just imagine the bloodbath on the plane if somebody didn't put down their cell phone when ordered.
The outrage is that the government doesn't make any sense. They kill people they shoudn't and don't kill people they should. They ban stupid things like nail clippers and belt buckles with General Lee with a pointed sword 1 inch long....they ban liquids because it's an explosive threat and then allow them back on as if the threat didn't exist anymore, along with all the nail clippers. I am pretty sure you can bring a lighter on the plane again...if one thing should be banned, a lighter is one of them.
The outrage is the fact that they DON'T really have the airports secure. How security could fail to detect a bomb in his backpack, you know, the one missing from the photos, is an outrage. That's right, he didn't have a bomb. The Air Marshals thought he did though, that is why they let him go right on by him and leave the plane. Because it's their job to protect the jetway from exploding, not the plane with it's passengers.
These guys wanted some "action" and they forced the situation to occur. I don't buy one minute that he said anything about a bomb UNTIL they were giving him the impression that he had to come back on the plane. The jetway door is locked, he couldn't get out. All they had to do was keep him from the plane and restrain him. I mean really, if he had a freakin bomb, they would have been dead anyway...so what do they do? Shoot the backpack with the bomb in it. They knew there was no freakin bomb in the backpack.
|
|
|
Post by Dale Jackson on May 7, 2007 18:52:04 GMT -5
Hindsight is always 20/20. What kills me if soldiers kill a guy in Iraq by mistake based on a split second decision, people here would say, "no big deal" and the media would have an aneurysm. Cops make a mistake here, if you can even call it a mistake, based on split second decisions and you say the"were looking for action."
As for the passengers who were terrified, they would have sought out the media to say a guy said he had a bomb and they let the plane takeoff and it would have been "Incompetence at the Airport: Could it happen to you." Hindsight is 20/20 and it allows us to second guess having not been there, the real world does not operate that way.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 7, 2007 19:34:41 GMT -5
The reason why I would say no big deal in Iraq is because it IS a war zone and their rules of engagement are different then domestic police officers in America.
I would consider the fact that they let a man, "screaming UP and DOWN the aisles that he has a bomb" and allowing him walk by you as being a mistake. Actually, it tells me that they never heard him say it, if ever, until they stopped him 4/5Th's up the jet way. If they thought he had been yelling bomb, why didn't they stop him? If he didn't say it, why did they chase him out to the jet way and draw their guns on him. Imagine if he didn't say anything, that THEY didn't hear him say anything.....would they have ran off the plane and drawn their guns at a person that just wanted to leave the plane? If they did hear him yelling about a bomb, why did they let him pass? Again, suicide bombers don't go announcing that they have a bomb. They then don't go announcing that their intentions are to setoff a bomb, they just do it.
Those Marshals didn't handle the situation well and based on how they handled that, they would have handled a REAL terrorist incident just as bad.
Let's see as far as your scenario about the airport incompetance....were the passengers whisked safely out the back door while there was this supposed backpack, missing from the photos by the way, full of explosives six feet from the plane door? Nope, they stayed there, in the plane until a swat team arrived so that they could have shotguns pointed at there heads...what happened to the backpack? Did some brave sole pick it up and carry it away outside from the plane's passengers and the terminal?
Now, you might say, that they knew it wasn't a bomb in the backpack and therefore they kept the passengers on the plane....but if there was no bomb, why the pointing of guns at people's heads?
I'm just curious as to what happened to this backpack bomb and where it went,if anywhere, during the time line from the beginning of the incident to when the passengers were finally let out the back of the plane. Maybe if I knew that, I would be less suspicious of the event. We know they threw all the luggage out of the plane and had dogs sniffing it. They actually then went and blew some of the luggage up.....why? Did the dogs actually sniff some explosive compound? No mention as to why that occured. Me thinks it was just a formality for show...to bolster the perception of what went down.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 7, 2007 20:18:25 GMT -5
|
|