Air marshal kills man who made bomb threat

[nbcrusader]

Man killed after bomb claim at airport

MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- A 44-year-old U.S. citizen who claimed to have a bomb was shot and killed when air marshals opened fire on a boarding bridge at the Miami airport, several sources told CNN.

American Airlines Flight 924 was in Miami on a stopover during a flight from Medellin, Colombia, to Orlando, Florida, when the man, identified as Rigoberto Alpizar, said there was a bomb in his carry-on luggage, a Department of Homeland Security official said.

Alpizar was confronted by a team of federal air marshals, who followed him down the boarding bridge and ordered him to get on the ground, the official said.

When Alpizar appeared to reach into his baggage, he was shot and wounded, the official said, adding that the marshals' actions were consistent with their training. Officials said later that the man died of his injuries.

 

[U2democrat]

That man must not be so bright.

 

[BVS]

According to some stories, he was bi-polar and hadn't taken his meds.

 

[joyfulgirl]

I don't understand why they had to kill him. Don't they know how to shoot not to kill? If he in fact did have a bomb wouldn't they have wanted to take him into custody for questioning?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I heard about that, I figured he must have a medical issue. Very sad, it also makes you think about how someone who really had a bomb could possibly get away without even being noticed.

I'm sure there will be many questions about this and if it was proper action.

 

[Dreadsox]

Thank goodness someone is apparently doing their jobs.

 

[joyfulgirl]

Well, apparently his luggage just blew up on the tarmac.

 

[BVS]

Well, apparently his luggage just blew up on the tarmac.

It was blown up by security. So far no evidence of a bomb has been found.

 

[Dreadsox]

If the report is true that he reached into his bag after being told to freeze.....those officers did their jobs...period....and I pray they find peace with themselves if he did not have a bomb.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Just remember the Police lies after the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting in London, hopefully a bit more early transparency will be present rather than lies and backtracking.

 

[BVS]

If the report is true that he reached into his bag after being told to freeze.....those officers did their jobs...period....and I pray they find peace with themselves if he did not have a bomb.

Does this change your mind on a shoot to kill policy?

 

[Carek1230]

I absolutely back the officers who shot. they did their jobs. Anyone who is stupid enough to even think to say such a stupid thing as having a bomb in an airport, on medifcation, toxicated or of sound mind is an idiot and deserves their demise. I'm sorry folks but after the terrorism this world has endured this century with no telling when it is going to stop or happen again, Homeland Security has trained and given the instruction to shoot to kill. I'm glad to hear this story in a way. Then not because I have to fly and on American Airlines in a few days and I hate hearing these stories pop up in the news when I travel.....when you hear one, there's another goofball idiot in the wings making his or her decision to try something equally deranged.

 

[verte76]

I don't understand why they had to kill him. Don't they know how to shoot not to kill? If he in fact did have a bomb wouldn't they have wanted to take him into custody for questioning?

Neither do I. It seems like they would have wanted to question him.

 

[VertigoGal]

If the story occured as it was described, I think the police did the right thing. It's not a matter of whether or not he'd be useful for question, it's a matter of completely incapacitating someone who may be reaching for a bomb, and that doesn't mean shooting them in the leg unfortunately.

I do hope the description of the event turns out to be correct...the last thing the country needs is a scandal like the one in Britain.

 

[Liesje]

If shooting to kill is following protocol, then so be it. I also would question why they wouldn't shoot to injur rather than kill, but I've never been in a heated situation like that so maybe there's not much of a choice between a foot as opposed to a head or a heart.

 

[melon]

Thank goodness someone is apparently doing their jobs.

Indeed. It shows that the air marshal system is working.

Melon

 

[A_Wanderer]

With a bomber a wound doesn't stop them from blowing up a lot of people. If the decision is made then they should follow through completely even if it means blowing the skull of the potential bomber to bits.

 

[indra]

From what I understand in that type of situation the marshals would shoot to stop the person, and that generally means a shot to the body as opposed to an extremity. Unfortunately, since most of ones important stuff is in one's torso, chances are good the shot/shots will be fatal.

If he indeed did have a bomb, they wouldn't get a second chance, so they had to go for the complete stop.

 

[melon]

I'm sure this wasn't a moment where there was a lot of time to think about where to shoot. When someone claims to have a bomb and reach to explode it, I'm sure they're not concerned over whether he's someone who hasn't taken his medication.

I'm sorry. He made the decision not to take his medication, and it was a fatal mistake. Maybe next time, crazy people should think of more harmless ways to rant and rave.

Melon

 

[BVS]

With a bomber a wound doesn't stop them from blowing up a lot of people. If the decision is made then they should follow through completely even if it means blowing the skull of the potential bomber to bits.

Just to play devil's advocate, a kill would be deadly if it was a release trigger.

 

[A_Wanderer]

And I think that in that case the odds are even, once wounded they would want to release ASAP so that they could kill as many as possible. If uncertain a kill has slightly better odds.

 

[BVS]

If uncertain a kill has slightly better odds.

That is exactly why an all or nothing policy bothers me.

"Slightly better odds" doesn't help me sleep at night.

Come on people haven't you seen 'Speed'.

 

[A_Wanderer]

If the decision is made it has to be carried out completely, no half way. The goal is to incapacitate, if you can come up with a more effective means than using lethal force I would sure like to hear it.

 

[A_Wanderer]

If uncertain a kill has slightly better odds

So I am not misquoted this is in regards to shooting to kill versus shooting to wound, in both trigger and release cases a wound does not eliminate the threat. In the case of trigger a lethal shot will eliminate it, in the case of release then it will trigger it.

 

[MissVelvetDress_75]

I'm sure this wasn't a moment where there was a lot of time to think about where to shoot. When someone claims to have a bomb and reach to explode it, I'm sure they're not concerned over whether he's someone who hasn't taken his medication.

I'm sorry. He made the decision not to take his medication, and it was a fatal mistake. Maybe next time, crazy people should think of more harmless ways to rant and rave.

Melon

I agree. It is a sad situation all around. The Marshalls did what they were trained to do and thankfully there is not a history of US Air Marshalls being trigger happy.

 

[Dreadsox]

Does this change your mind on a shoot to kill policy?

I went into an alley in Boston one night after I saw a woman get grabbed and dragged into the alley. I am lucky to be alive it was a stupid thing to do. Some might say heroic, but when all is said and done, I reacted to the situation instead of thinking about the safe play for myself.

It does not change my thoughts about the shoot to kill policy. But, I think that if I had pulled the trigger to find out the man had no bomb, I would have difficulty dealing with it.

It is why I left law enforcement.

 

[Nube Gris]

He meant that he was carrying U2's How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb in his bag

 

[BVS]

I went into an alley in Boston one night after I saw a woman get grabbed and dragged into the alley. I am lucky to be alive it was a stupid thing to do. Some might say heroic, but when all is said and done, I reacted to the situation instead of thinking about the safe play for myself.

I'm a little confused as to what this has to do with the situation. I mean I would have done the same thing.

1. You saw a definate crime.

2. Was there a shoot to kill scenario?






I guess what I'm trying to get at is a wound vs. a kill shot. Is there any room for a decision, or must it be an all or nothing policy in a case like this?

I mean there's a couple of things here:

a. He's already gone through at least one checkpoint.

b. This guy is not in an "ideal" bombing area, he's getting off a plane on a tarmac, probably one the least dangerous places to bomb.

c. (which I know this shouldn't count for much) but you have a wife yelling out that he's sick and not on his meds.


What are we to do when there is a communication break down due to mental illness or language barrier?

 

[BVS]

So I am not misquoted this is in regards to shooting to kill versus shooting to wound, in both trigger and release cases a wound does not eliminate the threat. In the case of trigger a lethal shot will eliminate it, in the case of release then it will trigger it.

I understand now.

 

[anitram]

If he was off his lithium, it's just a sad conclusion to what was most likely a sad life. Bipolar disease is merciless.

It must be a tough thing to be the air marshal as well. On an intellectual level he probably understands he was doing his job, but it still has to be difficult to stand over a dead body.