Miami Flight - Shots Fired

December 7, 2005 11:57 AM

Live News Filter: Federal air marshal fires shots in jet bridge of American Airlines flight in Miami. NBC | CNN reports.
posted by ericb (332 comments total)

The aircraft is apparently was on a stopover during a flight from Medellin, Colombia, to Orlando, Florida. Sources say a passenger claimed to have bomb; one person is reported injured.
posted by ericb at 11:58 AM on December 7, 2005

Umm, so?
posted by mischief at 12:00 PM on December 7, 2005

A while back I said that I could watch the news and guess what would be posted on metafilter. Well, it happened again.
posted by puke & cry at 12:02 PM on December 7, 2005 [1 favorite]

I shot a guy on a plane once. I shot him with my pee, though, so there were no serious injuries.
posted by selfnoise at 12:03 PM on December 7, 2005

it wasn't on the plane itself, but the connecting thing to the plane---very misleading CNN wording.
posted by amberglow at 12:04 PM on December 7, 2005

I'm pretty sure n-tv just said that someone had a bomb in his carry-on.

There's also a question of whether it was on the plane itself or in the jetway.
posted by oaf at 12:04 PM on December 7, 2005

a bomd? a coke bomb in his/her belly more likely.
posted by garfield at 12:05 PM on December 7, 2005

I once shot a snake on a plane, just to watch it die.
posted by loquacious at 12:05 PM on December 7, 2005

Bush approval rating to soar!
posted by orthogonality at 12:05 PM on December 7, 2005

Bush approval rating to soar!

Karl Rove's got to be involved in this one!
posted by ericb at 12:06 PM on December 7, 2005

Why do flights from Columbia to Orlando land in Miami? That's kind of silly, isn't it? It'd be like flying from Australia to LA, but being forced to stopover in San Diego for a bit.
posted by mathowie at 12:06 PM on December 7, 2005

I wonder if the passenger watched themselves being shot live on CNN?
posted by tpl1212 at 12:06 PM on December 7, 2005

well, obviously the sharp object repeal is calming down the situation...




put down those scissors, scumbag!
posted by Busithoth at 12:06 PM on December 7, 2005

Man, I can't wait to get my private pilot's license so I can fly myself where ever I need to go and avoid the nightmare that is commercial air travel.

I agree that CNN set up the story in a very misleading fashion but its not the first time.

ortho, that would be a neat trick. Not a good one but a neat one.
posted by fenriq at 12:06 PM on December 7, 2005

Thank God they take your lighters, second hand smoke KILLS!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:07 PM on December 7, 2005

Bush approval rating to soar!

Which means that he would be using this to cover up something bad...oh wait. Nevermind.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 12:07 PM on December 7, 2005

Thank God they take your lighters, second hand smoke KILLS!

Oh, and the plastic explosive that guy tried to light. That, too.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 12:10 PM on December 7, 2005

Note to wannabe ter'rists: You're supposed to wait until you get on the plane before you start spouting off about the mickey-moused ordnance you've slapped together and stuffed in your stylish Ozark Trails Wal-Mart special carryon bag.

Not in the departure lounge. Not in the security checkpoint. On the plane. Y'know, while it's airborne. I know flying can be stressful, but if you can't wait until takeoff you might want to consider another line of work.
posted by loquacious at 12:10 PM on December 7, 2005

mathowie wrote: Why do flights from Columbia to Orlando land in Miami?

It probably has something to do with better Customs facilities. More staff, better "interview" rooms, more dogs, etc.
posted by loquacious at 12:12 PM on December 7, 2005

i wonder if the guy was being sarcastic.
posted by j-urb at 12:15 PM on December 7, 2005

Guy claims to have bomb. Deals with consequences. News at www.metafilter.com.
posted by dios at 12:15 PM on December 7, 2005

It probably has something to do with better Customs facilities. More staff, better "interview" rooms, more dogs, etc.

That, and it's over 200 miles away.
posted by oaf at 12:15 PM on December 7, 2005

No, no, he said "Miss Congeniality's what they're showing? What a bomb."
Then they shot him.
posted by klangklangston at 12:16 PM on December 7, 2005

It's -16° C where I live. [developing]
posted by mazola at 12:17 PM on December 7, 2005

Was he playing Zero Wing?
posted by selfnoise at 12:18 PM on December 7, 2005

posted by TetrisKid at 12:18 PM on December 7, 2005

Wow. That is some arm hair.
posted by selfnoise at 12:20 PM on December 7, 2005

Giant jellyfish devastating the livelihoods of fishermen in the Sea of Japan
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:20 PM on December 7, 2005

CNN updated their titles and stories:

A man shot and wounded on a Jetway at Miami International Aiport said he had a bomb, a senior administration official told CNN.

posted by mathowie at 12:20 PM on December 7, 2005

It's -16° C where I live...NBC | CNN reports
posted by tpl1212 at 12:20 PM on December 7, 2005

Guy claims to have bomb. Deals with consequences. News at www.metafilter.com.
posted by dios at 12:15 PM PST on December 7

Yeah, guys, this isn't an unusual story or anything. Happens every day. I was shot at by an air marshal just last week.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:21 PM on December 7, 2005

You can't say bomb on an airplane

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb ba bomb
posted by Emperor Yamamoto's Eggs at 12:22 PM on December 7, 2005

From CNN:

AIR MARSHAL SHOT AND WOUNDED
PASSENGER ON PLANE'S JETWAY

Nice line break.
posted by punishinglemur at 12:22 PM on December 7, 2005

Guys fly plane into building. Deal with consequences. News at www.metafilter.com.
posted by dios at 10:48:15 AM PST on September 11 [!]
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:23 PM on December 7, 2005

That one was worth a post. This one, not so much.
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:24 PM on December 7, 2005

posted by drpynchon at 12:24 PM on December 7, 2005

Why do flights from Columbia to Orlando land in Miami? That's kind of silly, isn't it? It'd be like flying from Australia to LA, but being forced to stopover in San Diego for a bit.

More like stopping in LA to go to San Francisco. As others have said, Orlando is a long way away. And not much of a city, IMO.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:25 PM on December 7, 2005

From CL's link... did you know that a large grouping of jellyfish is called a "smack"?
posted by BobFrapples at 12:27 PM on December 7, 2005

I once shot a snake on a plane, just to watch it die.

Pfft. I'm so mean I once shot an airplane just because it was snoring too loud.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:30 PM on December 7, 2005

Why do flights from Columbia to Orlando land in Miami? That's kind of silly, isn't it? It'd be like flying from Australia to LA, but being forced to stopover in San Diego for a bit.

Tell me about it. I was flying from San Diego to Ft. Lauderdale last week and had to first make a 20 minute jump up to LAX in order to make it to Florida. Didn't even get to finish my fucking cocktail.
posted by afx114 at 12:31 PM on December 7, 2005

NBC News' Pete Williams said authorities did not find a bomb.

This could get fairly interesting if it turns out the guy was joking or was misheard.
posted by truex at 12:31 PM on December 7, 2005

HUNDREDS OF PASSENGERS KILLED
TIME STANDING STILL

More as it happens.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:32 PM on December 7, 2005

You wanna bet he's Brazilian?
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:32 PM on December 7, 2005

Vin Diesal drinks a shake every morning made of the blood and entrails of snakes peed on by an air marshal on a flight from Medellin.
posted by selfnoise at 12:33 PM on December 7, 2005

or if he was just wearing an overcoat and didn't stop for subway police.
posted by mathowie at 12:33 PM on December 7, 2005

MSNBC says he's dead. ("Looks like I picked the wrong day to freakout on the plane")
posted by pardonyou? at 12:33 PM on December 7, 2005

MICHAEL BOLTON JUST SHOT
A MUSIC VIDEO

More as it happens.
posted by selfnoise at 12:34 PM on December 7, 2005

Why do flights from Columbia to Orlando land in Miami? That's kind of silly, isn't it? It'd be like flying from Australia to LA, but being forced to stopover in San Diego for a bit.

I know US airlines go more with a hub system, but that sort of thing is fairly common on flights in and to Canada. If a couple of relatively close together destinations don't individually merit direct flights from a far away place, they'll do a stop-off flight, dropping some passengers at the first and continuing to the second. It's way less inconvenient for the passengers going to the second place than changing planes. It sounds like this sort of thing might be the situation here.
posted by jacquilynne at 12:34 PM on December 7, 2005

There are no words.
posted by grouse at 12:36 PM on December 7, 2005

MY dad shot down a German aeroplane. We can never fly Lufthansa again.
posted by Joeforking at 12:36 PM on December 7, 2005

Is it just me, or did anyone else notice this misleading juxtaposition:



For those not in the know, that's a photo of Sen. John Murtha - a major critic of the Bush admin's handling and continued participation in the Iraq war, next to the phrase "Amazing progress in Iraq"
posted by stenseng at 12:37 PM on December 7, 2005

"This is the first time an air marshal has fired a weapon on or near an airplane, a federal official said."

This might be why this is news worthy. Just a thought...
posted by YurikoKinje at 12:38 PM on December 7, 2005

I once shot up on an airplane.
posted by NationalKato at 12:43 PM on December 7, 2005

Abe: Eh...you never know what you're capable of. I never thought I could shoot down a German plane, but last year I proved myself wrong.
posted by rxrfrx at 12:43 PM on December 7, 2005

Newsworthy, yes. Newsfilterworthy, no.
posted by mischief at 12:47 PM on December 7, 2005

You wanna bet he's Brazilian?
posted by CunningLinguist at 3:32 PM EST on December 7

well, duh.

One federal official told [Bob] Orr the man wasn't acting right, that he was acting a little bit crazy and started spouting all kinds of things. -- CBS News

foreign guy acts irregularly. doesn't immediately cooperate. gets shot dead by police. the first thing that gets out to the media is "he said he had a bomb," and although it's an outright lie, it's what everyone will remember.
posted by rxrfrx at 12:47 PM on December 7, 2005

From MSNBC: The passenger began fighting with his wife at the rear of the plane as the plane was being boarded. He got up, got his carry-on and started fighting against the flow of traffic to get out of the plane. He said that he had a bomb in the bag, air marshals ordered him to stop and get down on the ground, he did not, made it out into the jetway and that's where he was shot.

According to an eyewitness on the plane, the man's wife stated several times that the man had bipolar disorder and was off his meds, thus fueling his inappropriate and ultimately fatal behavior.

Take-away message: When you have loved ones who are reliant upon medication to maintain safe behavior, help them to stay on those meds. If you can't, try not to let them get on airplanes.
posted by Dreama at 12:47 PM on December 7, 2005

Even if someone says they have a bomb, they should not be shot based just on that.

If someone is killed by an agent of authority, it shouldn't be passed over without comment/scrutiny, whatever the circumstances.

I can understand why people might react flippantly to this news item, but it's still kind of creepy to actually see.
posted by Drexen at 12:47 PM on December 7, 2005

HUNDREDS OF PASSENGERS KILLED
TIME STANDING STILL

That? Was awesome. Can someone please start collecting these, for the amusement of those of us who are easily amused?
posted by Gator at 12:47 PM on December 7, 2005

I once shot up on an airplane.

OMG R U WILL SELF?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 12:48 PM on December 7, 2005

Dreama - Jesus, that's terrible.

That said, I would really have to stretch to blame Air Marshals for shooting a guy with a bag who said he had a bomb and didn't stop. I mean, what else does he need, a smoking fuse coming out of his pants?
posted by selfnoise at 12:49 PM on December 7, 2005

Guess he'll never pull THAT stunt again.
The poor schlub.
posted by Floydd at 12:51 PM on December 7, 2005

I once blew someone's head through the roof of an aircraft.

Seriously.

Remind me to tell ya about it.
posted by bluedaniel at 12:51 PM on December 7, 2005

HUNDREDS OF PASSENGERS KILLED
TIME STANDING STILL

I'm pretty sure that was also the plot to The Langoliers.
posted by toothgnip at 12:51 PM on December 7, 2005

Man, I can't wait to get my private pilot's license so I can fly myself where ever I need to go and avoid the nightmare that is commercial air travel.

posted by fenriq at 12:06 PM PST on December 7 [!]

Mind if I hitch a ride sometime? After a hellish flight to Manchester last year I swore I'd avoid flying commercially whenever I could help it.

And yeah, this may be passe to some of you guys, but it freaks me out. An innocent, albeit mentally disturbed individual just got killed.
posted by kosher_jenny at 12:52 PM on December 7, 2005

the first thing that gets out to the media is "he said he had a bomb," and although it's an outright lie, it's what everyone will remember.

Wow! I didn't realize we had an eyewitness! So tell us, "rxrfrx," exactly what did happen?
posted by pardonyou? at 12:53 PM on December 7, 2005

Remember, remember the last guy who got capped for not stopping.
posted by anthill at 12:53 PM on December 7, 2005

There's a good FPP here somewhere, I just wish someone would have taken the time to make one.
posted by mazola at 12:54 PM on December 7, 2005

Wow! I didn't realize we had an eyewitness! So tell us, "rxrfrx," exactly what did happen?

pardon you?
posted by rxrfrx at 12:54 PM on December 7, 2005

CNN reports the passenger was a U.S. citizen.
posted by punishinglemur at 12:57 PM on December 7, 2005

Maybe he looked foreign though.
posted by punishinglemur at 12:57 PM on December 7, 2005

kosher_jenny -- he was "innocent" of having a bomb. He wasn't innocent of creating an extremely unsafe and horrifying situation, of making a bomb threat, of acting in a suspicious and dangerous manner or refusing the lawful order of the air marshals. He wasn't a terrorist and he was supposedly mental ill, but that doesn't change the fact that he did do something, he wasn't just shot because someone didn't like his face.

From the marshals' perspective, if this guy was screaming that he had a bomb and made it into the terminal, he could've killed hundreds of people. What should they have done? If this guy had been armed with explosives and had made it into the terminal and detonated himself, we'd be sitting here condemning the marshals who didn't shoot the guy in the jetway when they had the chance to save all of those people.
posted by Dreama at 12:57 PM on December 7, 2005

pardon you?
posted by rxrfrx at 3:54 PM EST on December 7 [!]

So...because an innocent man was shot before under those circumstances, another man in a different country must have had exactly the same thing happen? Truly, your powers of deduction are astounding.
posted by unreason at 12:57 PM on December 7, 2005

Which is good enough for me to start speculating about just how outrageous and unjustifiable this shooting is.
posted by punishinglemur at 12:57 PM on December 7, 2005

Take-away message: When you have loved ones who are reliant upon medication to maintain safe behavior, help them to stay on those meds. If you can't, try not to let them get on airplanes.

Wow, so the new motto for police is, "Shoot first, ask questions later."
posted by fandango_matt at 12:58 PM on December 7, 2005

Truly, your powers of deduction are astounding.

You're either too thick to understand what I was saying, or you're just trying to be a prick. Not really so helpful.
posted by rxrfrx at 12:59 PM on December 7, 2005

pardon you?

Yes, I know all about the Menezes situation. Just suggesting you might want to hold off on claiming that it's all a big lie, when there's non-law enforcement eyewitness evidence to the contrary.
posted by pardonyou? at 12:59 PM on December 7, 2005

Wow, so the new motto for police is, "Shoot first, ask questions later."

What question would you have asked? "What kind of bomb, sir?"
posted by NationalKato at 12:59 PM on December 7, 2005

BREAKING NEWS >>> Former British P.M. Margaret Thatcher has been hospitalized after falling ill, her political party has said. Details soon.
posted by mazola at 1:00 PM on December 7, 2005

Agreed mischief.
posted by YurikoKinje at 1:01 PM on December 7, 2005

Just suggesting you might want to hold off on claiming that it's all a big lie

Based on the evidence available to me 13 minutes ago, I believe my assumption that it was a big lie was justified. Right now, I would hypothesize that if the guy was really off his meds, it was either just an unfortunate situation for all, or he was trying to commit suicide.
posted by rxrfrx at 1:01 PM on December 7, 2005

PASSSENGER HAS FRECKLES ON HER BUT
SHE'S HAPPY
posted by cloeburner at 1:02 PM on December 7, 2005

Why do flights from Columbia to Orlando land in Miami? That's kind of silly, isn't it? It'd be like flying from Australia to LA, but being forced to stopover in San Diego for a bit.

sometimes, airlines stop to let some passangers get off the plane at more desirable airport. for example, japan airlines have flight between tokyo and san francisco, but it actually originates from hong kong (or HK being the final destination) just so that they can have passangers flying to or from HK and tokyo.

not sure about this instance though.
posted by grafholic at 1:03 PM on December 7, 2005

Kind of late to ask questions, isn't it?

Apparently he was running away from the marshals, so they shot him in the back. Nice job, guys. Remember September 11, Let's Roll, Mission Accomplished.
posted by fandango_matt at 1:03 PM on December 7, 2005

You're either too thick to understand what I was saying, or you're just trying to be a prick. Not really so helpful.
posted by rxrfrx at 3:59 PM EST on December 7 [!]

Very well. Let me state it more plainly. You claimed that police acted improperly. Others asked how you knew this. You responded with a link to another situation in which police acted improperly. My response is that this is not a strong logical argument. Frankly, if you can not see the logical flaws in generalizing based on one case study, there is little point in future conversation.
posted by unreason at 1:04 PM on December 7, 2005

I don't think assuming that it was a LIE was justified, although assuming that it was not true might have been.
posted by empath at 1:04 PM on December 7, 2005

there is little point in future conversation

well, duh.
posted by rxrfrx at 1:05 PM on December 7, 2005

From CNN's ongoing coverage:

Upon investigation, there was no evidence that the man had a bomb, an official said.

So, looks like rxrfrx is on point.
posted by NationalKato at 1:05 PM on December 7, 2005

I would interpret that to mean that he did not really have a bomb, not that there was no evidence that he claimed to have one.
posted by rxrfrx at 1:06 PM on December 7, 2005

Never done this before, but

Metafilter: there is little point in future conversation.
posted by selfnoise at 1:09 PM on December 7, 2005

Thank god this was posted here, otherwise I how would I ever had known it had happened!!!!!!!!!!!
posted by Elpoca at 1:09 PM on December 7, 2005

Jurisdictional issue: did the Air Marshall have authority to act in the jet way? [via NPR]
posted by mazola at 1:09 PM on December 7, 2005

Which is more likely:

- boarding passenger start shouting "I have a bomb! nyah nyah nyah! catch me if you can!" before getting on the plane and authorities cleverly conclude he's a terrorist and shoot him on the spot for reasons of national security, or

- boarding passenger freaks out shouting gibberish and gesticulating and refusing to stop, and authorities find no other method of stopping him than shooting

Given the mental problems information...

If only he'd been a drunken rockstar, he could have got away alive.
posted by funambulist at 1:10 PM on December 7, 2005

posted by ed at 1:12 PM on December 7, 2005

I have a strong feeling that when all is said and done, the reality will be that this was not a failure of procedure or an incident which shold lead to indictments of national security procedure or the air marshal service, but will be viewed as a personal tragedy for an individual who, like many others, engaged in unsafe and illegal behavior due to mental illness.

The unfortunately juxtaposition of mental patient and policing authorities happens every day, all around the world and unfortunately it happens that the death of the mentally ill person is a consequence. I'm not sure why there's such a rush to the "They shouldn't have shot him! Police brutality! Frantic men on a plane at a crowded international airport who are screaming that they have a bomb in a confusing situation should be reasoned with." position.
posted by Dreama at 1:12 PM on December 7, 2005

What's the phrase for the extra gun crooked police officers would carry? Will air marshalls start carrying fake bombs to drop?

What was the point of shooting him after he was off the plane?
posted by dial-tone at 1:13 PM on December 7, 2005

• boarding passenger freaks out shouting gibberish and gesticulating and refusing to stop, and authorities find no other method of stopping him than shooting

The real question is whether cops are allowed to shoot unarmed people in the back.
posted by fandango_matt at 1:14 PM on December 7, 2005

on the jetway, I might add.
posted by fandango_matt at 1:16 PM on December 7, 2005

Oh no, not that again...
posted by funambulist at 1:16 PM on December 7, 2005

Jurisdictional issue: did the Air Marshall have authority to act in the jet way? [via NPR]
posted by mazola at 3:09 PM CST on December 7

I'm pretty sure the answer is yes. He is a federal authority for air transportation. As I recall, international airport have special zonings for the land and are under federal regulation. (I seem to recall that it why you can duty free shops; the state doesn't "own" the land). I'm certainly no expert on this, but I would be surprised to find out that an Air Marshall Authority does not extend at least into an airport. It would be non-sensical to have an Air Marshall's authority begin and end at a the cockpit door.
posted by dios at 1:16 PM on December 7, 2005

I mean, what else does he need, a smoking fuse coming out of his pants?

Well, that might get him wounded.
To get killed, he needs to be a Brazilian electrician.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 1:16 PM on December 7, 2005

The real question is whether cops are allowed to shoot unarmed people in the back.
posted by fandango_matt at 3:14 PM CST on December 7

How does the cop know he is unarmed. The only information the cop has is that he has a bomb and he is running towards an airport full of people. Hindsight is nifty, ain't it?
posted by dios at 1:17 PM on December 7, 2005

dial-tone: I believe that extra gun is called a "throw" or "drop" gun.
posted by rxrfrx at 1:18 PM on December 7, 2005

Anybody want to link to the wiki for Menezes for the fourth time? I don't think we all have had the opportunity to equivocate these two events yet.
posted by dios at 1:18 PM on December 7, 2005

Can we stop linking to the Wiki entry on Menezes now?
posted by NationalKato at 1:19 PM on December 7, 2005

What was the point of shooting him after he was off the plane?

Because if he had a bomb, he was off the plane and heading into the crowded terminal of one of America's busiest airports where hundreds of people would have been in danger.

The real question is whether cops are allowed to shoot unarmed people in the back.

By his own proclamation, this guy was armed. He said he had a bomb. It wasn't a gun or a knife but he certainly could have hurt someone with an explosive device, no?

As for any jurisdictional questions, if you commit a crime and cross from one jurisdiction to another, pursuing authorities from the original jurisdiction are still empowered to act with their full police powers to affect an end to the situation. Otherwise, all that any criminal being pursued would need to do is just cross a boundary.
posted by Dreama at 1:19 PM on December 7, 2005

dios wins.
posted by NationalKato at 1:19 PM on December 7, 2005

So the basic point seems to be, "Shoot first, ask questions later, better safe than sorry."

This logic sounds familiar, doesn't it? "We need to attack Iraq before there's a mushroom cloud over Manhattan, because we think Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, yadda yadda yadda..."
posted by fandango_matt at 1:20 PM on December 7, 2005

fandango_matt, how tall are you? I imagine one has to be well over six feet to have legs long enough to attempt leaps of logic that are so big. (In other words, that's a really ridiculous analogy.)
posted by Dreama at 1:22 PM on December 7, 2005

What was the point of shooting him after he was off the plane?

Bombs only work on planes now?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:23 PM on December 7, 2005

By his own proclamation, this guy was armed. He said he had a bomb.

No, "officials familiar with the incident" said he said he had a bomb. Geez--why not be skeptical all the way around instead of just in the directions that best fit our preconceptions?
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 1:23 PM on December 7, 2005

No bomb?

Well, live and learn!
posted by Busithoth at 1:25 PM on December 7, 2005

So the basic point seems to be, "Shoot first, ask questions later, better safe than sorry."

If the situation is self-proclaimed bomber running towards a crowd of people? Yes.

If the situation is less emergent? No.

Doesn't degree mean anything here? If the guy claims to have a bomb in the middle of a cornfield in Iowa, there probably isn't the need for shooting him. But when an international flight lands in a busy airport, and a hysterical person states he has a bomb, and is running from the Air Marshall, then there is no time to ask questions. It's called an emergent circumstance.

Should the Air Marshall have been a skeptic and disbelieved the guy? I can just see the posts now if that had happened: "Air Marshall was made aware that the bomber had a bomb, but did nothing, opting instead to try to stop the person to ask questions. Bomber detonated before answering anything, thus killing thousands. What a failure of government to protect us from obvious threats."
posted by dios at 1:26 PM on December 7, 2005

Why do flights from Columbia to Orlando land in Miami? That's kind of silly, isn't it? It'd be like flying from Australia to LA, but being forced to stopover in San Diego for a bit.

Hub, meet spoke.

rxrfrx is suggesting that the early reports may prove unfounded. At this point, that hasn't happened -- there seem to have been witnesses which corroborate the general outline of the incident. de Menezes, among other things, didn't claim to have a bomb. Also, the man here has been identified as a US citizen, although we don't know his ethnic appearance or English fluency. In those senses, rxrfrx was making an imperfect analogy.

pardonyou and unreason are in poor form to rag on him, though. There have been plenty of historical examples of police actions justified by false claims.

POLITE DEBATE ON METAFILTER
IS RARE
posted by dhartung at 1:27 PM on December 7, 2005

So, to sum up:
Cops shooting people in the back = OK
Cops shooting people who are running away = OK
Cops shooting people where no weapon is present = OK
Good to know we've cleared that up.
posted by fandango_matt at 1:27 PM on December 7, 2005

fandango_matt, it's 2005.
posted by NationalKato at 1:28 PM on December 7, 2005

Saying you have a bomb = WAY TO GET KILLED
posted by smackfu at 1:29 PM on December 7, 2005

Why are you being so willfully disingenuous?

Cops shooting people in the back without cause = not OK
Cops shooting people who are running away withou cause= not OK
Cops shooting people where no weapon is present without cause = not OK
Cops shooting people who claim to have a bomb and running hysterically away from authorites towards a crowd of people = OK.

Can you really not see the difference?
posted by dios at 1:30 PM on December 7, 2005

unreason are in poor form to rag on him, though

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that I know that rxrfrx is in the wrong when he says the marshalls were at fault. I'm saying that we have no way of knowing one way or the other based on current evidence.
posted by unreason at 1:30 PM on December 7, 2005

SOMEONE SET US UP THE BOMB
IS IN MY BAG AND I'M GOING TO EXPLODE EVERYONE
posted by rxrfrx at 1:31 PM on December 7, 2005

fandango_matt: you forget it's ok to shoot people in the front, too. Or the side.
posted by funambulist at 1:31 PM on December 7, 2005

No, "officials familiar with the incident" said he said he had a bomb. Geez--why not be skeptical all the way around instead of just in the directions that best fit our preconceptions?

Because I'm sitting in front of a TV, newschannel surfing, and I've now heard three different passengers in phone interviews, all of whom said that they heard the word bomb come from the guy as he was running through the plane acting like a jackass.
posted by Dreama at 1:31 PM on December 7, 2005

My gut: The guy probably was acting erratically (he might have even had a stash of pot in his carry on), but I seriously doubt he actually said he had a bomb (maybe something like--"they probably think I have a bomb!"). The authorities didn't like the fact that the guy was too squirrely to pay due deference to their authority, the guy got more and more squirrely as his worst fears of being mistaken for a terrorist were being realized seemingly in slow motion right before his eyes, and the whole convoluted mess ended in tragedy due to an unfortunate combination of circumstances, miscommunication, the paranoia of the War on Terror age, and certain less noble realities of human nature. But of course, I wasn't there, so I don't really know.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 1:31 PM on December 7, 2005

I'm saying that we have no way of knowing one way or the other based on current evidence.
posted by unreason at 3:30 PM CST on December 7

A problem inherent in any attempts to discuss the specifics or assign blame in a news story that no one knows any facts about beyond the most simple outline. Or, in other words, a problem inherent in all Breaking News posts.
posted by dios at 1:32 PM on December 7, 2005

/me shoots rxrfrx in the back

Oh, sorry about that. Better safe than sorry. Let's Roll.
posted by fandango_matt at 1:32 PM on December 7, 2005

pardonyou and unreason are in poor form to rag on him, though. There have been plenty of historical examples of police actions justified by false claims.

dhartung, if that had been his point, I wouldn't have "ragged on him," I would have agreed with him. But he was saying, unequivocally, that the allegation that the man said he had a bomb was a "big lie." He had no evidence to support that claim, other than a link to a past situation. I happen to believe that if you're going to accuse someone of making up a pretext for killing someone, you should at least have some facts to back up your accusation.
posted by pardonyou? at 1:32 PM on December 7, 2005

/me shoots rxrfrx in the back

Oh, sorry about that. Better safe than sorry. Let's Roll.
posted by fandango_matt at 4:32 PM EST on December 7 [!]

how did you know i was leaving
posted by rxrfrx at 1:33 PM on December 7, 2005

I seriously doubt he actually said he had a bomb (maybe something like--"they probably think I have a bomb!").

That might be true. But one account said he was fighting with his wife and was trying to push through people to get off the plane. What's a good way to get people out of your way? Say you have a bomb.
posted by dios at 1:34 PM on December 7, 2005

Sen. John Murtha

Regret to inform, sir, Mr. Murtha is a representative, not a senator. He recently kicked ass (video) in his response to the president's recent speech.
posted by kirkaracha at 1:34 PM on December 7, 2005

You said you had a bomb. I was just protecting everyone else.
posted by fandango_matt at 1:34 PM on December 7, 2005

Or, in other words, a problem inherent in all Breaking News posts.

Exactly, dios.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 1:34 PM on December 7, 2005

If the bomb had detonated on-air, that would have killed the Air Marshall as well.

Assuming that said Marshall knew about the bomb, we wouldn't know he knew.

Assuming said Marshall was on plane to begin with (not an immediate assumption; not all flights have Marshalls) perhaps he could have known, if he was on-board.

Assuming plane explodes, and assuming the governments involved would tell us there's an Air Marshall aboard, we might be able to do all this improbable if-ing.

In this light, bringing up de Menezes is as entirely an appropriate gesture as would be saying the Marshall was within his rights to shoot this person.
posted by Rothko at 1:35 PM on December 7, 2005

What's a good way to get people out of your way? Say you have a bomb.

Well... A way, at least... Clearly not a "good way"...
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 1:35 PM on December 7, 2005

MetaFilter: But of course, I wasn't there, so I don't really know.
posted by NationalKato at 1:35 PM on December 7, 2005

But he was saying, unequivocally, that the allegation that the man said he had a bomb was a "big lie."

No, I wasn't. I was saying that I assumed it would turn out to be a big lie, based on my observation of similar incidents, and I was saying it in a pretty obviously pessimistic way.

Again, it would be more productive if you acted in good faith and didn't start off by assuming I'm dumb enough to make a stupid argument that I have no qualification to make.
posted by rxrfrx at 1:35 PM on December 7, 2005

Maybe he was just angry about his wife wearing the "I'm with Stupid" t-shirt.
posted by Captaintripps at 1:36 PM on December 7, 2005

MetaFilter: I'm dumb enough to make a stupid argument that I have no qualification to make.
posted by mischief at 1:36 PM on December 7, 2005

What have we learned?

If you want people to get out of your way, don't yell, "I have a bomb!" Instead, yell, "I'm gonna puke!"
posted by fandango_matt at 1:38 PM on December 7, 2005

hey, fandango_matt's finally getting the point in all this!
posted by NationalKato at 1:38 PM on December 7, 2005

So are we going to move on and run sweeps on whether Maggie is going to peg it in shock at her daughter's win on I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here?
posted by longbaugh at 1:39 PM on December 7, 2005

What have we learned?

Keep it quiet.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 1:39 PM on December 7, 2005

this thread calls for a pissing elephant.
posted by quonsar at 1:46 PM on December 7, 2005

But one account said he was fighting with his wife and was trying to push through people to get off the plane.

See, if only he'd stuck to getting drunk, assaulting stewards with knives, knocking about food trolleys, throwing around trays and pouring yoghurt all over the place, then shouting "you're just a f*****g captain and I'm REM", he would have been spared.

Well, he'd actually have to have been in REM, too. That kind of thing helps.
posted by funambulist at 1:47 PM on December 7, 2005

I've heard this sort of thing referred to as 'suicide by cop'. I feel sorry for the officer who shot him.
posted by BrotherCaine at 1:49 PM on December 7, 2005

So what are we supposed to do??
Everytime I go to fly I make a point to say "I don't have a bomb", "there's not a bomb in my bag or shoe", I even wear my "I am not a terrorist" t-shirt specifically for travel.
So why do I always end up naked in a back room for hours?
War on terror my red white and blue ass.
posted by hellbient at 1:51 PM on December 7, 2005

The real question is whether cops are allowed to shoot unarmed people in the back.

He claimed that he had a bomb. That makes him armed for the purposes of criminal intent, even if he's not telling the truth. If you rob a bank while claiming falsely that you have a gun, you get charged with armed robbery.

The cop/air marshal/whomever was, if the story is true, absolutely correct to shoot him dead. If, in a crowded public place, you loudly claim that you have a bomb, it is not in the interest of public safety to find out first if you're mentally ill, lying, playing a prank, or what-have-you.

Kudos from this anti-authority leftie to the cop/air marshal/whomever for doing the right thing.
posted by solid-one-love at 1:51 PM on December 7, 2005

kosher_jenny, not at all, come aboard but watch your head, little planes have almost no headroom. Company's nice but I'll warn you, the in-flight entertainment consists solely of me telling bad jokes and sharp swerves to avoid "air potholes".

This is a bummer about the guy who was killed. I still don't get how people think they're being clever or funny or anything but incredibly stupid when they say the word "Bomb" on or anywhere near an airplane.
posted by fenriq at 1:53 PM on December 7, 2005

So what are we supposed to do??
Everytime I go to fly I make a point to say "I don't have a bomb"

See, the lesson I learned is to always have a bomb on me in case I get shot. You know, to make sure the air marshalls don't look bad.
posted by allen.spaulding at 1:58 PM on December 7, 2005

I haven't heard an eyewitness yet say anything about claims of a bomb, just that he was pushing frantically to get off the plane.
posted by CunningLinguist at 1:59 PM on December 7, 2005

Yes, it seems the people who heard him say he had a bomb are the ones in favor of shooting him. Fancy that.

"It's comin' right at us!"
posted by fandango_matt at 2:04 PM on December 7, 2005

Cops shooting people in the back without cause = not OK
Cops shooting people who are running away withou cause= not OK
Cops shooting people where no weapon is present without cause = not OK


Not if you're Samuel Alito...
posted by delmoi at 2:07 PM on December 7, 2005

I just love how the press glosses over all these nuances. Latest CNN web page headline for the story: "Air Marshalls Kill Man who Made Bomb Threat."

Boom--any uncertainty put to rest; historical record now thankfully straight.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 2:09 PM on December 7, 2005

Did he actually say he had a bomb? All I've seen is that he said the word 'bomb' not "I have a bomb" maybe he only meant to say "there's a bomb on the airplane" or something.

He was also running away from the airplane, maybe he thought someone else had a bomb and he just didn't want to get blown up?

Maybe his lips were really chapped and he really wanted to get some baum before the flight?
posted by delmoi at 2:14 PM on December 7, 2005

I used to think that people who went into law enforcement were doing so because they were ready to risk their lives to protect others. These days it seems like being law enforcement, especially the Homeland Security variety, just means you are ready to shoot someone . . . to protect others.

Oh, and linking to this seems to be ticking off Dios.
posted by MetalDog at 2:16 PM on December 7, 2005

Well Dreama says she has heard three different passengers say that they heard the man claim to have a bomb.

Do you not believe her? Or them?

Or do you truly believe that even if a man is acting crazy, claiming loudly to have a bomb, and pushing towards a crowded public building, he should in no event be shot?
posted by Eyebeams at 2:16 PM on December 7, 2005

Once the air marshals told him to stop, the fact that he fled permitted (or required, depending on your point of view) the air marshals to stop him by any means necessary. Whether or not he had a bomb at that point was irrelevant. He was fleeing law officers.
posted by oaf at 2:17 PM on December 7, 2005

And the major difference between this and de Menezes—wasn't de Menezes killed in one place? This guy fled from the police. That is immensely unwise.
posted by oaf at 2:18 PM on December 7, 2005

Oaf - so was J C de Mendez. People said he did so because he was carrying an out od date visa. Worth dying for?
posted by Sijeka at 2:18 PM on December 7, 2005

Oh, wait...sorry, I just remembered that he wasn't.
posted by oaf at 2:18 PM on December 7, 2005

* out of date, even.
posted by Sijeka at 2:19 PM on December 7, 2005

According to the All-Knowing CNN:

"the man, idenitified as Rigoberto Alpizar, said there was a bomb in his carry-on luggage, a Department of Homeland Security official said."

...So it appears that the Dept of Homeland Security finally has it's act together: Within moments of a terrorist event, they're in a position to give the definitive word on what went down. A model of bureacratic efficiency, nicht wahr?
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 2:19 PM on December 7, 2005

See, the lesson I learned is to always have a bomb on me in case I get shot. You know, to make sure the air marshalls don't look bad.

allen.spaulding, you are a model of a good citizen, and we applaud your thoughtfulness. If everyone was as considerate as you, flying would be a lot safer!
posted by funambulist at 2:19 PM on December 7, 2005

I just love how the press glosses over all these nuances. Latest CNN web page headline for the story: "Air Marshalls Kill Man who Made Bomb Threat."

You're looking for nuance in a headline!? That's like looking for spelling tips in a drop cap!
posted by SweetJesus at 2:19 PM on December 7, 2005

No, it wasn't worth dying for, but that's a choice de Menezes (and today's passenger) made. You do not flee from men with guns who are chasing you, whether or not they are police, because if they really wanted you dead, they'd have shot you already.
posted by oaf at 2:19 PM on December 7, 2005

Menezes ran through an entire tube station before getting shot, so, one place...
posted by Sijeka at 2:20 PM on December 7, 2005

If there's a positive in this, it's that the message is now out there loud and clear: there are air marshalls on flights into, out of, and around the US, and they'll shoot if necessary. Somebody out there thinking about a real bomb or other mayhem will have second thoughts.
posted by beagle at 2:20 PM on December 7, 2005

that is, "its act together."
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 2:20 PM on December 7, 2005

I aslo try to make at least one typo in each of my posts so as to make others feel good about their typing abilities.
posted by allen.spaulding at 2:21 PM on December 7, 2005

You don't expect men with guns to kill you when you're innocent in a public space, either. And when your visa is out of date and you fear for your future, I doubt you have time to sit and think, you just do.
posted by Sijeka at 2:21 PM on December 7, 2005

but that's a choice de Menezes (and today's passenger) made

may have made, you mean. why not respect the limits of your certainty?
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 2:21 PM on December 7, 2005

the reason that Menezes link is 'ticking off Dios' (and me) is because it's been linked to over four times. some people think they're enlightening this thread for the first time instead of reading the thread thus far. i mean, at least find another Menezes link...
posted by NationalKato at 2:22 PM on December 7, 2005

I aslo try to make at least one typo in each of my posts so as to make others feel good about their typing abilities.

Much apprecitaed.
posted by Sijeka at 2:22 PM on December 7, 2005

I doubt you have time to sit and think, you just do.

That's a terrible excuse.
posted by NationalKato at 2:24 PM on December 7, 2005

No, it's instinctive.
posted by Sijeka at 2:24 PM on December 7, 2005

Unfortunately, it's also human nature.
posted by fandango_matt at 2:24 PM on December 7, 2005

why not respect the limits of your certainty?

There are people who are outraged even if events were exactly as I imagined them. It's apparently up to the officer to determine, with 100% accuracy, that the guy has a weapon before even considering shooting at him.
posted by oaf at 2:24 PM on December 7, 2005

SOMEONE SET US UP THE BOMB

us <-> up
the meme is so old now you really ought to have it right by now.
posted by quonsar at 2:25 PM on December 7, 2005

No, it's instinctive.

Actually, when my visa is out of date and I'm in a country illegally, my instinct is to renew my fucking visa. Nice try, though.
posted by NationalKato at 2:26 PM on December 7, 2005

And the major difference between this and de Menezes—wasn't de Menezes killed in one place? This guy fled from the police.

Yes, but remember, until a few days later, that was the official story for de Menezes too. Everyone assumed he had been acting dangerously when he hadn't. Cos the police and some eyewitnesses said he had.

Not saying this must be the case here. Sounds like a different kind of incident (both in terms of victim and police behaviour - and the British cops had been following that guy, not reacting to something sudden). But, point is, when these incidents happen, the first statements are what stick most.
posted by funambulist at 2:26 PM on December 7, 2005

You're looking for nuance in a headline!?

Good point. I guess maybe it would just be nice to see a little more nuance in headlines these days, in light of the fact that many people get their info about the world primarily by scanning headlines...
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 2:27 PM on December 7, 2005

OK, Menezes reference alert!
But, regarding the eyewitness reports. If I recall correctly, there were many eyewitness reports after the Menezes incident claiming he was running from the police (later proved wrong), that he had on a thick coat (later proved wrong) even that he had wires sticking out from the coat! So I think this proves conclusively that we know absolutely nothing about what happened to this guy. What guy? Did I say something?
posted by johngumbo at 2:27 PM on December 7, 2005

There are people who are outraged even if events were exactly as I imagined them. It's apparently up to the officer to determine, with 100% accuracy, that the guy has a weapon before even considering shooting at him.

Well then, people might reconsider exam entry for the MI5 or something, because I'm worried officers are a little bit too trigger happy. Look, I understand that in london the risk was great, so it could be in US airports, but an officer is trainned not to answer his instincts and be 100 percent sure before shooting.

Even so, why not shoot people in the leg, for f's sake?
posted by Sijeka at 2:30 PM on December 7, 2005

Somebody out there thinking about a real bomb or other mayhem will have second thoughts.
posted by beagle at 2:20 PM PST on December 7 [!]

Someone wanting to commit SUICIDE setting off a bomb in mid-air is going to care much about death from getting shot by law enforcement?
posted by Rothko at 2:30 PM on December 7, 2005

So I think this proves conclusively that we know absolutely nothing about what happened to this guy. What guy? Did I say something?

Ding-ding-ding-ding-DING! We have a winner.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 2:30 PM on December 7, 2005

posted by Sijeka I doubt you have time to sit and think, you just do.

posted by NationalKato That's a terrible excuse.

So, by that logic, since the air marshals "didn't have time to sit and think, they just did", their actions were inexcusable.
posted by fandango_matt at 2:30 PM on December 7, 2005

Actually, when my visa is out of date and I'm in a country illegally, my instinct is to renew my fucking visa. Nice try, though.

WTF? Are you kidding me? Do you realise countries like UK or the US do not renew visas like +that+ and immigration policies are more strict? You do? You don't?
posted by Sijeka at 2:32 PM on December 7, 2005

Even so, why not shoot people in the leg, for f's sake?

Shooting people in the leg does not stop detonation.
posted by NationalKato at 2:32 PM on December 7, 2005

No, it wasn't worth dying for, but that's a choice de Menezes (and today's passenger) made

Point about first statements sticking abundantly proven....

Now someone really needs to link that Wikipedia article again, maybe? oaf, seriously, please go and read about that case. You seem to have stopped checking the news on that on July 22.
posted by funambulist at 2:32 PM on December 7, 2005

Menezes ran through an entire tube station before getting shot, so, one place...

Actually:

"As for the Brazilian running through the ticket hall, the leaked statement from a police officer ID's as Hotel 3 said that, as the male in the denim jacket had entered the tube station he had transmitted a request for directions as to whether or not this male should be detained. 'I received a reply instructing me to wait,' he said. This suggests an opportunity to stop Mr. Menezes; he wasn't running nor jumping over barriers....Mr. Menezes had time to sit down, one officer says he was actually pinned down to the seat. Two eye witnesses back this up. And the pathology report also suggests that he was killed sitting down. [PBS | August 18, 2005]

posted by ericb at 2:33 PM on December 7, 2005

So, by that logic, since the air marshals "didn't have time to sit and think, they just did", their actions were inexcusable.

No no no....Officers have a DUTY to think before acting. It's their jobs. I was talking about a guy running from officers because he didn't have a valid visa. He just does. Hwe doesn't think. He fears for his future.
posted by Sijeka at 2:33 PM on December 7, 2005

Even so, why not shoot people in the leg, for f's sake?

Shooting people in the leg does not stop detonation.

Ever heard of a dead-man's switch? Shooting them in the head doesn't stop detonation, if you're a smart bomber.
posted by SweetJesus at 2:35 PM on December 7, 2005

Shooting people in the leg does not stop detonation.

it's enough to buy time and stop the man before he reaches a bomb that is supposed to be in a BAG, unless he's wearing detonating devices under a coat (and not a denim jacket, like JCM).
posted by Sijeka at 2:35 PM on December 7, 2005

Has no one wondered how it would be that a person getting off a plane might have a bomb on them? Wouldn't they have passed through some sort of airport security before getting on said plane?

I guess the air marshals on the plane didn't trust the security at the originating airport very much.
posted by Orb at 2:35 PM on December 7, 2005

No! No! We're not allowed to mention de Menezes!
posted by Rothko at 2:36 PM on December 7, 2005

Look, if nothing else, incessently bringing up Menezes (as opposed to any number of instances where innocent victims of police violence were initially misrepresented as acting suspiciously) is that we get to simultanously annoy people while thinking about menses.
posted by allen.spaulding at 2:36 PM on December 7, 2005

always have a bomb on me in case I get shot

Don't forget clean underwear too.
posted by CynicalKnight at 2:36 PM on December 7, 2005

SweetJesus, where would you shoot a bomber?
posted by NationalKato at 2:36 PM on December 7, 2005

Do you have any idea how difficult shooting someone in the leg truly is?
posted by mischief at 2:36 PM on December 7, 2005

I always carry a bomb, because that eliminates the chances of my airplane being hijacked. I mean, who's ever heard of two bombs on a plane at the same time?

Also, he said "bong." Not bomb.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:37 PM on December 7, 2005

where would you shoot a bomber?

In the head if you're 100 percent sure. Wasn't the case here was it?
posted by Sijeka at 2:38 PM on December 7, 2005

And don't forget this comes just a day after the 9/11 commission said we're failing at security. Were there directives issued to be more active? To look more active? Why now after 4 years is there all of a sudden an incident like this?
posted by amberglow at 2:39 PM on December 7, 2005

Do you have any idea how difficult shooting someone in the leg truly is?

Oh god, the shoulder then. And yes I know, and yes I believe well trained agents should be able to do it.
posted by Sijeka at 2:39 PM on December 7, 2005

Ever heard of a dead-man's switch? Shooting them in the head doesn't stop detonation, if you're a smart bomber.

What switch would help dumb shooters?
posted by Rothko at 2:40 PM on December 7, 2005

Someone from Homeland Security is so totally going to stop by this thread and ask for IDs. Sorry, Matt!
posted by VulcanMike at 2:40 PM on December 7, 2005

In the head if you're 100 percent sure. Wasn't the case here was it?

Barring the guy throwing open his bag and explaining his master plan Hollywood-style, guess what '100% sure' is? BOOM!
posted by NationalKato at 2:40 PM on December 7, 2005

Even so, why not shoot people in the leg, for f's sake?
posted by Sijeka

I once had a friend who claimed he would only shoot an intruder in his home in the leg. A ridiculous concept.

Shooting a running man in the leg? Even more so.
posted by justgary at 2:41 PM on December 7, 2005

"well trained agents should be able to do it"

In perfect conditions, yes. In the field? Forget it.
posted by mischief at 2:42 PM on December 7, 2005

Indeed. The back is a much easier target.
posted by fandango_matt at 2:43 PM on December 7, 2005

Were there directives issued to be more active? To look more active? Why now after 4 years is there all of a sudden an incident like this?

To have that logically make any sense at all, you'd have to have cases of random guys running through airports yelling "BOMB" (if that did happen) for the past 4 years where no action was taken my security.
posted by justgary at 2:44 PM on December 7, 2005

You do not flee from men with guns who are chasing you

Especially if you look Muslim.

Rigoberto Alpizar

hmm,


(Menezes)

Not saying profiling is bad, I just hope the training of security peeps modulates the leap-to-conclusions we all do when put in apparent crisis situations.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 2:45 PM on December 7, 2005

Kisses, Dios!
posted by The Bellman at 2:50 PM on December 7, 2005

fandango_matt - do you believe there are any circumstances where a law enforcement official's shooting someone would be justified, other than (I hope you agree?) after the guy shot at the officer first? People keep bringing up obvious points about what the situation may have been, and your response is simply to snark at all of them and mock the air marshal.
posted by Eyebeams at 2:53 PM on December 7, 2005

The clever thing here would have been to shoot the wife, assuming the alleged "I have a bomb!" shout was some clever ploy to distract police from the real bomber.

After all, the couple were clever enough to make it look like they were trying to plant bombs on a plane after they'd gotten off the plane already, so, a higher degree of cunning should have been assumed than that of the average successful terrorist.

No I'm not making sense, but then, what does.
posted by funambulist at 2:55 PM on December 7, 2005

Yes, eyebeams, there are. This, however, was not one of them.
posted by fandango_matt at 2:56 PM on December 7, 2005

Sweet Jesus: If you're a smart bomber, you don't tell people you have a bomb either.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 2:59 PM on December 7, 2005

Because the marshall should not have believed that the man had a bomb, even if he said he did? Because he was running away? Why not?
posted by Eyebeams at 3:00 PM on December 7, 2005

"Also, he said "bong." Not bomb."

I bet he was just singing "La Bamba".
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:04 PM on December 7, 2005

If you honestly believe shooting an unarmed man in the back as he's running away is perfectly acceptable, then I don't think you're capable of understanding why this is an atrocity.
posted by fandango_matt at 3:05 PM on December 7, 2005

To have that logically make any sense at all, you'd have to have cases of random guys running through airports yelling "BOMB"

Can anyone provide a link to a credible news article citing a non-official witness as corroborating the official account that the guy actually did shout "Bomb"?

That'd at least give all us sideline quarter-backs a slightly more solid excuse for talking about this story as if we knew what the facts were. Everyone knows that the officials would say the guy claimed to have a bomb even if this had just been a screw-up; that's pretty standard CYA stuff we've all seen plenty of historical precedents for.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 3:06 PM on December 7, 2005

People have pointed out that he was running toward a crowded public space, but fine - rather than answer legitimate arguments, just pontificate that "we wouldn't understand".
posted by Eyebeams at 3:09 PM on December 7, 2005

running toward a crowded public space or running away from a perceived threat? see, truth is, we don't know which. claiming to know with certainty it was one or the other, and then proceeding with an air of authority from that assumption, that's spin.

as a culture, i don't think we actually know how not to spin the truth anymore... (sigh...)
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 3:11 PM on December 7, 2005

Not if you're Samuel Alito...
posted by delmoi at 4:07 PM CST on December 7

I read your link, and it is obvious from the link the author is not even attempting to understand the legal argument. He merely extrapolates that Alito supports shooting first and asking questions later as a matter of policy. That is just silly and shows a fundamental lack of understanding about what is involved in constitutional inquiry. As the link notes, Alito's position is that the act isn't clearly unconstitutional because it is impossible to frame a brightline rule regarding when deadly force is reasonable. In other words, the Constitution doesn't define what a "reasonable" use would be that would instruct an officer faced with exigent circumstances. Quite simply, as the article notes, Alito says "I do not think the Constitution provides an answer to the officer's dilemma." Saying that Constitutional doesn't contain a brightline rule regarding the reasonableness of force is qualitatively different than being an advocate for "shoot first and ask questions later."
posted by dios at 3:12 PM on December 7, 2005

Okay, so you honestly believe shooting an unarmed man in the back as he's running away is perfectly acceptable?
posted by fandango_matt at 3:13 PM on December 7, 2005

On PBS' News Hour, an interview with a Washington Post reporter indicated that the shooting victim was not a terrorism suspect, in the eyes of the FBI.
posted by Rothko at 3:15 PM on December 7, 2005

then I don't think you're capable of understanding why this is an atrocity.

well, the threat of terrorists in airports is real. Zero-tolerance of error is idiocy, really, and while I don't know the specifics wrt the "bomb" thing (after the tube shooting I am more gun-shy about believing official stories), if (ie. if) the guy was behaving erratically, looked muslim, etc. there is more leeway for understanding, if not condoning, error.

This is what happens when you put armed men with a license to kill in place. Shit happens.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 3:17 PM on December 7, 2005

Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:17 PM on December 7, 2005

then I don't think you're capable of understanding why this is an atrocity.

I think it would be wise to wait until all the facts are in.
posted by mazola at 3:19 PM on December 7, 2005

well, the threat of terrorists in airports is real.

Overall, not so much. 7 terrorists / annual number of airport visitors.
posted by iamck at 3:20 PM on December 7, 2005

iamck, the threat is still present. As 9/11/01 showed, 4 terrorists in control of an airliner can do a fuckton of damage.

Now, granted, 4 terrorists can also liquidate any given movie theater complex in the country, killing, what, hundreds, but for some reason airplanes and airports are still the marquee target.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 3:23 PM on December 7, 2005

looked muslim

that seems to be a pretty vague definition these days


posted by funambulist at 3:27 PM on December 7, 2005

not that it ever wasn't, or couldn't be, vague...
posted by