December 7, 2005
NO TRIAL?:
Shots fired by air marshal (John Pain, 12/07/05, Associated Press)
A passenger who claimed to have a bomb in a carry-on bag was shot by a federal air marshal today on a jetway connected to an American Airlines plane that had just arrived from Colombia, officials said. Media reports quoted sources as saying the person's wounds were fatal.Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Doyle said after the plane had parked at the gate, a passenger indicated there was a bomb in the bag. The passenger was confronted by air marshals but ran off the plane, Doyle said.
A team of air marshals pursued and ordered the passenger to get on the ground. The passenger did not comply and was shot when apparently reaching into a bag, Doyle said.
Man killed on American Airlines flight (The Associated Press, December 7, 2005)
A witness said the man frantically ran down the aisle and a woman with him said he was mentally ill.Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Doyle said after the plane had parked at the gate, a passenger indicated there was a bomb in the bag. The passenger was confronted by air marshals but ran off the plane, Doyle said.
A team of air marshals pursued and ordered the passenger to get on the ground. The passenger did not comply and was shot when apparently reaching into the bag, Doyle said.
Passenger Mary Gardner told WTVJ in Miami that the man ran down the aisle from the rear of the plane. "He was frantic, his arms flailing in the air," she said. She said a woman followed, shouting, "My husband! My husband!"
Gardner said she heard the woman say her husband was bipolar and had not had his medication.
'Bi-polar' threat man shot dead (Reuters, December 08, 2005 )
This was thought to be the first time an air marshal has fired weapon on or near a plane, said Joseph Gutheinz, a former military pilot and lawyer who has worked in aviation security.Posted by Orrin Judd at December 7, 2005 3:31 PM"I believe this is the first time they've ever discharged a weapon. I am 100 per cent sure they have never had an incident like this before," he said.
Why do I have the bad feeling that this guy will turn out to be a Brazilian plumber?
Posted by: H.D. Miller at December 7, 2005 3:39 PMWho ran not because of a bomb but crack?
Posted by: oj at December 7, 2005 3:54 PMIf he was a plumber, wouldn't his crack have been visible?
Posted by: patrick h at December 7, 2005 4:31 PMlol!!!!!!
Posted by: obc at December 7, 2005 6:00 PMGreat line patrick h.
Posted by: AllenS at December 7, 2005 6:20 PMThe air marshall did exactly what he was supposed to do. Someone says he has a bomb in a bag and reaches into the bag, I want him put down and out of action before his fingers reach the detonator.
Posted by: Mike Morley at December 7, 2005 9:11 PMThis is the other side of the complaint by the 9/11 commission people, who have been going around this week saying the U.S. remains woefully unprepared to deal with a terrorist attack.
You can't demand an all-encompassing protective net while at the same time decrying the air marshals' failure to act immediately when they perceive a threat on board an airplane, even if it later turns out to be a guy off his medication. But I suspect tomorrow there will be dueling stories about U.S. homeland security being negelgent and being trigger-happy about potential threats.
Posted by: John at December 7, 2005 9:40 PMBut, unlike in England, a significant portion of the US population will say it was perfectly justified.
Someone in that state ('off his medication') should not fly - it is that simple. Remember the passenger on the Southwest flight who was "crushed" to death by other passengers a couple of years ago when he kept pacing the aisle, yelling and flapping and shoving the flight attendants? His mother tried to sue, the DA (I think from Burbank, which I believe was the destination) investigated, and many in press condemned the other passengers.
Every month, there are flights that make unscheduled stops to expel passengers who have abused flight crew, who have urinated or worse in the aisle or seats, who have tried to open doors (a physical impossibility, BTW), and who are caught smoking. These rebel souls are arrested and face thousands of dollars in fines. Usually, it is just booze, but sometimes it is a condition like 'bipolar'. They should know, and their relatives should certainly know, that they are in very risky territory if they get in the aluminum tube for 2 or 3 or 4 hours, especially after all the frustration associated with air travel these days.
Posted by: jim hamlen at December 7, 2005 10:18 PMdueling stories about U.S. homeland security being negelgent and being trigger-happy about potential threats.
Which just shows that this guy isn't the only one who's "bipolar".
Jim Hamlen
"urinated or worse in the aisle"
Of course, Georgia DEMOCRATIC Rep. Sanford Bishop had sufficient class to pee in a cup.
Posted by: h-man at December 8, 2005 5:21 AMh-man:
I'm sure you have heard the stories about Sheila Jackson Lee, (D-TX), who demands an entire row for herself when she flies, who abuses flight attendants left and right, and who expects commercial flights to be held while she makes phone calls from the terminal.
I suppose an air marshal could give her some friendly advice, but he would be too tempted to do more, I think.
Posted by: jim hamlen at December 8, 2005 9:15 AMIt's called suicide by cop.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at December 8, 2005 1:24 PMIs it not, as a matter of both custom and law, that if you claim to have a bomb in an airport or on an airplane, it's no different than actually having a bomb? To me, it all comes down to the accuracy of the statement that the target claimed to have a bomb. If that's true, that's all I need to know to agree with the Air Marshall.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at December 8, 2005 9:36 PM