Marshal shoots passenger Miami airport

[sgtmac_46]

Sympathy is in order, but its so often that sympathy turns to neglectful blaming and then the fault begins to turn on someone who is completely innocent of blame. Regardless of mental illness....to the air marshal it must have seemed quite a stupid thing to do. Its a tragedy, but responsibility must lie with him...no one else. Otherwise we should start questioning the wife as to why she allowed him off the medicine and into that type of situation.

7sm

Thank you for making my point. So often does 'mental illness' become a deflection of who own's responsibility for the event. It becomes "OH NO, we can't blame the poor mentally ill man, because that will make us look 'insensitive'....It must be the fault of those MEANIE police officers"

The only person that owns this event is the one who ultimately died as a result of it. Anything else is blame deflection in the name of 'sensitivity'.

When the need to appear sensitive overcomes reason and rationality, then, as Shesula has been saying, 'You've stopped thinking'. I'll look insensitive before I allow emotionalism to do my thinking for me. I really don't know what to say to anyone who is offended by that. I prefer to deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it had been after the event.

The israelis have had air marshals for a number of years with out this sort of incident happening, i would certainly ask some questions regarding training, employee screening procedures too,

Are you seriously suggesting that if you climbed on a Israeli airflight and yelled "I HAVE A BOMB" and then stuck your hand in a bag, they wouldn't SHOOT you?! I don't suggest you test that theory, unless you've got a death wish. You'll have so many bullet holes you'll look like a spaghetti strainer.

The Israelis are far more trigger happy when it comes to suicide bombers than we will ever be (Suicide bombings are a daily event). Anyone who thinks the Israelis have tolerance or a sense of humor for someone claiming to have a bomb, is sadly mistaken.

It's possible that the only people crazy or moronic enought to claim to have a bomb in Israel is someone who really does.

An interesting side note about Israel, for several years now parents and teachers in schools in Israel have volunteered to go through training to be monitors. In Israel, however, that consists of firearms training. They all get trained to carry concealed weapons, and their job is to patrol the halls of the schools watching for gunmen and potential suicide bombers. There are a great many places in Israel one could get shot for yelling "I HAVE A BOMB!".

Bottom line, if a man says he has a bomb, i'll take him at his word. Grown adults should know better than to yell certain things and engage in certain acts, especially in public, MOST especially in circumstances where it should be obvious that there will be a quick and certain response.

If we as a culture are so sensitive as to believe that we should excuse certain obviously dangerous behaviors that end up resulting in, what is more, predictable death or injury, and consider it a tragedy owned by anyone other than the perpetrator, then we have a problem with responsibility as a culture.

To call this a tragedy makes it appear as though something should be changed to prevent it in the future. Perhaps there should be a warning sign when you get on board the plane. Warning:"Don't yell 'I HAVE A BOMB!'" We've got warning signs for other obviously stupid activities, why not this one.

 

[arnisador]

So often does 'mental illness' become a deflection of who own's responsibility for the event.

But someone who is mentally ill might not be responsible for his own actions (e.g., the insanity defense). Maybe no one is responsible here, and it's just a pure tragedy.

I've bought the NY Times the last few days and have only noticed one letter to the editor about this issue--and it was critical of the sky marshals' service and its training. I'd like to see more balance.

I have not seen anyone, anywhere, suggest that the marshals erred in doing what they did. (Marshals, plural, as apparently both fired on the person.) But just as you seem concerned that they not be blamed--it simply doesn't follow that the person who died is to blame. Perhaps he was competent, but perhaps not. It can happen that tragedies befall us that are simply not anyone's fault, even though someone will surely get sued over them.

It is not yet clear to me that the man who died on that runway was 'responsible' for his actions in any useful sense of the term. We will see.

Bottom line, if a man says he has a bomb, i'll take him at his word. Grown adults should know better than to yell certain things and engage in certain acts, especially in public, MOST especially in circumstances where it should be obvious that there will be a quick and certain response.

If we as a culture are so sensitive as to believe that we should excuse certain obviously dangerous behaviors that end up resulting in, what is more, predictable death or injury, and consider it a tragedy owned by anyone other than the perpetrator, then we have a problem with responsibility as a culture.

No, we have a problem with perceiving mental illness as a 'real' illness as opposed to just a matter of being weak-willed. Some grown adults are mentally impaired. Would you apply your logic to someone with Downs syndrome? Tourette's? Grown adults should simply know better than to engage in the echolalia and profanity of a person with Tourette's?

 

[sgtmac_46]

But someone who is mentally ill might not be responsible for his own actions (e.g., the insanity defense). Maybe no one is responsible here, and it's just a pure tragedy.

Why he did what he did is irrelavent from the perspective of the response. That is my point. The tragedy may ultimately be that he didn't have his medication under control. But that tragedy is not the responsibility of the Air Marshalls. Why he did what he did is in despite, THAT he did what he did is pretty clear.

I'm not belittling those with mental illness, however, I really don't see how that is really the issue here. If we want to discuss how people can better control their mental illnesses, that's a fine point. We aren't really discussing that so much as the Air Marshall response to the situation.

I've bought the NY Times the last few days and have only noticed one letter to the editor about this issue--and it was critical of the sky marshals' service and its training. I'd like to see more balance.

Love to see more balance. However, there is an element of our society that responds to issues purely from the emotional. They fail to remotely consider cause and effect in their processes. They see 'Tragedy' and immediately look for someone to blame. That usually ends up being the most competent person involved in the situation.....usually the police. They feel the police should have done 'something' different, even if they can't quantify what they would have been.

I have not seen anyone, anywhere, suggest that the marshals erred in doing what they did. (Marshals, plural, as apparently both fired on the person.) But just as you seem concerned that they not be blamed--it simply doesn't follow that the person who died is to blame. Perhaps he was competent, but perhaps not. It can happen that tragedies befall us that are simply not anyone's fault, even though someone will surely get sued over them.

'Blame' in the sense of the word used, is solely in the realm of who owns the event. Who, if not him, owns the consequences of the event? He has sole ownership of the consequences of the event, and hence, his own death.

It is not yet clear to me that the man who died on that runway was 'responsible' for his actions in any useful sense of the term. We will see.

Well, it is clear that his actions led to his death. If someone wants to argue he wasn't responsible for those actions, then that is an argument that could be made. Clearly, however, his actions are responsible for his death.

No, we have a problem with perceiving mental illness as a 'real' illness as opposed to just a matter of being weak-willed.

Ok, bi-polar disorder caused this mans death. No one said anything about this man's weak-will causing his death. His actions caused his death. We can blame whatever you feel is responsible for his actions, if you desire. If you say that is bi-polar disorder, then we'll say bi-polar disorder resulted in his death.

 

[Tgace]

Im no psych. major, but I dont believe bi-polar disorder allows someone to be non-responsible for their actions.....

 

[sgtmac_46]

Im no psych. major, but I dont believe bi-polarism causes someone to be non-responsible for their actions.....

It doesn't. There are a few organic diseases of the brain that can cause someone to be completely non-responsible for their actions, but bi-polar disorder isn't one of them. They may act impulsively when they are manic, but that doesn't equate to psychotic.

I've heard of some 'delusional' thinking as the result of bi-polar disorders, but i've never actually seen those manifested. Those usually take the form of imagined slights or behaviors by loved ones.

I've never heard of one involving the mistaken belief that you are carrying a bomb.

Conversly, the man could have been in a depressive state, and this could have been an act of suicide, I suppose.

 

[Tgace]

read this ****

http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?nav=messages&tsn=4&tid=40890&webtag=ab-bipolar

I don't think that is what the story said.

It said his wife reported he was bipolar, had stopped his meds, and was acting strangely. What I find sad is why the sky marshall shot a guy whom he knew was mentally ill and in the midst of an episode. That is the question we should be asking. Why was this man shot when his wife was screaming that he was a bipolar off of his meds and other passengers on the plane sitting right next to the air marshall heard her, but he killed him anyway?

He didn't shoot to wound or even try and talk to the guy. He just killed him.

Here is the quote from the story

"MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- Witnesses aboard an American Airlines jetliner say that Rigoberto Alpizar's wife pursued him, saying he was mentally ill, just before federal marshals shot and killed him. Air marshals said Alpizar had announced he was carrying a bomb.

Later, no explosives were found. The incident remains under investigation.

"She was chasing after him," said fellow passenger Alan Tirpak. "She was just saying her husband was sick, her husband was sick." When the woman returned, "she just kept saying the same thing over and over, and that's when we heard the shots."

Another passenger, Mary Gardner of Orlando, said she also overheard Alpizar's wife. "I heard her say, 'he's bipolar, he doesn't have his medicine.'"

Ellen Sutliff, who said she sat near Alpizar, described him as agitated, even before he boarded the plane. His wife kept coaxing him, "We just have to get through customs. Please, please help me get through this," according to Sutliff.

"We're going to be home soon, and everything will be all right," Sutliff quoted the wife as saying.

Alpizar's mother-in-law told CNN affiliate WKMG that he suffered from bipolar disorder.

Accounts vary on whether Alpizar had announced he had a bomb.

Tirpak said he didn't hear Alpizar say anything."

This is the type of **** floating around out there that Im talking about.

 

[arnisador]

Why he did what he did is irrelavent from the perspective of the response.

Agreed. The response was appropriate.

Well, it is clear that his actions led to his death. If someone wants to argue he wasn't responsible for those actions, then that is an argument that could be made. Clearly, however, his actions are responsible for his death.

I agree with this. What's less clear is whether he was responsible for his own actions. That's my point, which appears to be orthogonal to yours.

If you say that is bi-polar disorder, then we'll say bi-polar disorder resulted in his death.

Of course, it's too soon to know if that's the case. I agree that his actions caused this to happen. But possibly something outside of his control caused those actions...it's too soon to assign blame to him (or his wife, or physician, or what have you). The fact that the marshals acted properly doesn't immediately shift the moral blame to the man who was shot. His actions set this in motion, but responsibility is a strong word, and with the spectre of mental illness in the air, a premature one. I feel.

 

[Tgace]

http://www.mydna.com/health/mental/bipolar/news/news_20051130_bipolar_case.html

Bipolar: Is wrong right?
Wed 30 Nov 2005 08:00 AM CST
WASHINGTON DC (myDNA News)

The defense attorney would have recreated his client's mental state at the time: Racing thoughts. Extreme restlessness. Overwhelming sexual urges. Poor judgment.

"What teacher in her right mind would do something like this?" Lawyer John Fitzgibbons said after a hearing for his client, Debra Lafave, the 25-year old former Tampa teacher accused of seducing a teenage student.

The victim, who was 14 at the time, reportedly told investigators that he and Lafave had sex in a classroom at the school, in her town house, and once in a vehicle while his 15-year-old cousin drove them around.

Nearly 18 months after her case sparked media mayhem, Lafave has avoided up to 30 years of prison time by pleading guilty to two counts of lewd and lascivious battery, according to AP reports.

But, if the case had gone to trial, Lafave's attorney planned to raise an insanity defense: Several psychiatrists determined that childhood trauma and her subsequent bi-polar illness may have led her to actions, the St. Petersburg Times recently reported.

Nearly 2.3 million adult Americans, which is about 1.2 percent of the population, have bi-polar disorder (or manic-depression), according to the National Alliance on Mental Illness - that's about enough people to fill 75 football stadiums.

Characterized by episodes of mania and depression that can last from days to months, bipolar disorder is a serious brain disorder that causes extreme shifts in mood, energy and functioning.

But does someone in a psychotic state understand the difference between right and wrong?

One article, published in 1981 by the Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, describes a young manic-depressive man whose first contact with a mental health professional was in connection with a criminal act performed during a manic episode.

Author R. A. Ratner reached the conclusion that "the crimes occurred only as a manifestation of or in conjunction with the active phase of the illness," which might imply that the person's sense of right and wrong was radically altered during the period of illness.

Otherwise, not much empirical research supports the notion that people with mental disorder diagnoses, including bipolar disorder, are more likely not to know right from wrong.

"Having any specific mental disorder, including bipolar disorder, doesn't mean you're more or less likely to know right from wrong," said John M. Grohol, Psy.D., co-chair of myDNA's Mental Health Channel.

"An 'insanity defense' is a legal pleading and may have little basis in scientific knowledge or research findings in general," he said. "Instead, it is directly related to whether that client knew, at the time of the act, the difference between right or wrong."

Since mental illness varies from person to person, there is no single answer to this question.

"Being in pain - including that from a major mental illness - can make us act in dangerous, hurtful ways," said Psychiatrist Russell J. Ricci, M.D., a mental health expert and member of MyDNA's Medical Advisory Board.

"Often, family members who should be in a position to help and to stop such behavior deny the seriousness of the problem," he said. "Even though we know right from wrong, without family intervention, it is difficult to halt the behavior."

 

[arnisador]

Im no psych. major, but I dont believe bi-polar disorder allows someone to be non-responsible for their actions.....

I honestly don't know the answer. Perhaps he was, indeed, responsible for his actions. I wouldn't be surprised to find his estate sued by fellow passengers...we'll see what the courts decide.

The teacher example is...unconvincing to me. I don't know enough about bi-polar disorder to know what the effects are, so I am withholding judgement. Suicide seems unlikely to me (how would he know a marshal was on board?). Delusion is a possibility, but panic seems to fit to my mind.

 

[sgtmac_46]

According to what i've read, the wife wasn't even near Mr. Alpizar when he was shot, she was still on the plane. The Air Marshalls were confronted by Alpizar, alone, saying he had a bomb, with his backpack turned around toward the front. He then refused orders to lay down on the ground, and placed his hand in to the backpack (clearly a provocative and threatening jesture, considering he just said he had a BOMB).

 

[sgtmac_46]

I honestly don't know the answer. Perhaps he was, indeed, responsible for his actions. I wouldn't be surprised to find his estate sued by fellow passengers...we'll see what the courts decide.

When we say 'responsible' arnis, we are referring to who's actions are responsible for the incident. To the much more complicated and philosophical debate about how responsible someone truly is for their own actions, i'll defer to others. We are debating who's ACTIONS are responsible for causing the event. I think it would do good to split those two issues in to two seperate issues.

 

[Tgace]

Conversly, the man could have been in a depressive state, and this could have been an act of suicide, I suppose.

That I can believe and blame on bipolar disorder.

 

[sgtmac_46]

That I can believe and blame on bipolar disorder.

I'm quite frankly surprised that no one has brought up that possibility. Bi-polar disorder, by it's nature, has a manic AND a depressive state. While his pre-shooting behavior is indicative of a manic state, it's always possible that this was a desperate act of suicide. The behavior itself has every indication of a suicide-by-cop. He claims to have a lethal weapon, and places armed officers in a situation where a reasonable person would believe they would shoot. That he did this with the intent of forcing them to shoot makes far more sense than any other explaination i've heard.

 

[arnisador]

When we say 'responsible' arnis, we are referring to who's actions are responsible for the incident. To the much more complicated and philosophical debate about how responsible someone truly is for their own actions, i'll defer to others. We are debating who's ACTIONS are responsible for causing the event. I think it would do good to split those two issues in to two seperate issues.

Responsibility is not merely a philosophical issue here. If there is a civil suit, or if he had survived and charges were pressed against him, there would be the issue of legal responsibility as well. It's not an 'academic' issue.

As to suicide by cop...I know this is a real phenomenon, but given that there was no guarantee that a marshal was on the plane with him, I must wonder if that was his goal.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Responsibility is not merely a philosophical issue here. If there is a civil suit, or if he had survived and charges were pressed against him, there would be the issue of legal responsibility as well. It's not an 'academic' issue.

IF he survived. As he is not being held responsible for his actions. We are merely judging his actions in proportion to the ultimate impact those actions took.

Again, you completely misunderstand my point. As the gentleman is DEAD we will never know his mindset, thus it is purely academic. Further, we're not judging HIS mindset, as he is dead, but who is responsible for the outcome of the circumstances.

As his actions are those that precipitated the events, we are only judging what we CAN know (i.e. what his actions WERE and what his actions resulted in).

Discussing his mindset is a PURELY philosophical undertaking as it is IMPOSSIBLE to know what his mindset was.

My only concern are what actions he took and what actions the Marshalls took, and how those converging actions resulted in the situation we have currently. Those are the only perameters we have available to us.

It is anyone's best guess what his mindset was at the time he was shot, and anyone's guess is as good as another.

Therefore, we can only judge his ACTIONS not his MINDSET. As his actions were apparently responsible for his death, we have to determine that the fault of his death rests with him.

What's more, as no adult is responsible for another adult, there is no one to sue in this circumstance. We certainly can't sue him. We also can't sue his wife, unless she could be somehow shown culpable, but I don't know how that could be. His estate is no longer his, it passed to his wife. So, all of this talk of his mindset is purely academic.

As to suicide by cop...I know this is a real phenomenon, but given that there was no guarantee that a marshal was on the plane with him, I must wonder if that was his goal.

You misunderstand. I never claimed he premeditated suicide. Only that, when confronted by obvious lethal force, he took the two actions almost guaranteed to get him shot 1) Claiming to have a bomb in the bag that he had turned around backwards on his chest and 2) Thrusting his hand in to the bag when confronted.

Taken together, this appears almost to be an act of suicide.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

I'm quite frankly surprised that no one has brought up that possibility. Bi-polar disorder, by it's nature, has a manic AND a depressive state. While his pre-shooting behavior is indicative of a manic state, it's always possible that this was a desperate act of suicide. The behavior itself has every indication of a suicide-by-cop. He claims to have a lethal weapon, and places armed officers in a situation where a reasonable person would believe they would shoot. That he did this with the intent of forcing them to shoot makes far more sense than any other explaination i've heard.

Given my unfortunate familiarity with bipolar disorder (family member has it), I think that this is a very possible scenario. Individuals suffering from severe forms of this disease (there are four levels) are in such constant pain that such an ending is very possible. Given the circumstances as reported, this is far more likely the truth than that the Marshall acted incorrectly. In fact, the Marshall is also a victim in this circumstance, IMO.

 

[MJS]

Dont get me wrong Geo. I see where you are coming from and I didnt mean to imply that you said that. Im just talking about some of the media spin Im beginning to see. While not outright stated the whole "someone said hes bipolar so the Marshal shouldnt have shot" seems to be rumbling around....

What I don't understand is, is how anyone is supposed to know the medical history of anyone just by looking at them?? Its no different than a Taser. We could Tase someone and next thing we know, his family is saying he should not have been Tased due to a heart condition! And I can tell that how??

Seems to me that the media is playing on this disorder as an excuse to why he should not have been shot.

Mike

 

[MJS]

The israelis have had air marshals for a number of years with out this sort of incident happening, i would certainly ask some questions regarding training, employee screening procedures too,

I'm afraid I can't buy fully into this. Are there links you can post to back this statement up? I dont know about you, but I'm reading all the time in the paper about suicide bombers in these countries.

I have to agree with Sgtmac on what he said. If this happened there, we would have seen the same results.

Mike

 

[sgtmac_46]

What I don't understand is, is how anyone is supposed to know the medical history of anyone just by looking at them?? Its no different than a Taser. We could Tase someone and next thing we know, his family is saying he should not have been Tased due to a heart condition! And I can tell that how??

Seems to me that the media is playing on this disorder as an excuse to why he should not have been shot.

Mike

Well, you've hit on a public phenomenon, based mostly on the ignorance of the public on the complexities of such situations and a general misunderstanding of cause and effect.

The general public gets their information via some sort of news outlet. The news outlets examine and tear apart issues like this ad nauseum. The general public, most of whom have absolutely no experience being forced to make split second decisions, suddenly fall under the illusion that these are topics that are debated at length before a decision is made. Most haven't the slightest idea of the extremely narrow period of time that these decisions are necessarily made in.

Moreover, they are bombarded by irrelavent issues. "The suspect had a heart history, the suspect had a mental illness, the suspect's gun wasn't loaded" all of which are irrelavent because they were unknowable quantities to the officer on the scene. Yet, the media and public opinion uses these irrelavencies to crucify the officer.

That is why, so often, public opinion conflicts so sharply with what happens following an investigation of the use of force. The force fed irrelavencies only appear damning to those who fail to realize that they have absolutely nothing to do with the officers decision. The investigation, and any legal action, are required to only deal with information available to the officer at the time of the incident. Everything available only after the fact is irrelavent.

Moreover, when media start using the word 'tragedy', the public is conditioned to automatically start looking for blame. Since we are conditioned not to 'blame the victim' (As we can see evidence of even in this conversation), we can't very well blame the behavior of the deceased as having resulted in his death. Therefore, we start looking for the most competent person who 'should have done something different' and 'failed' to blame.

Most of this type of monday morning quarterbacking is cured easily enough. Simply place the critiquer in a similar (albeit controlled) situation, and tell him to solve the problem. Most of the time, I see a sudden dawning realization come on the formerly opinion citizen, and they realize 'Hey, maybe I didn't have as firm a handle on this situation as I first thought'.

Some of the best responses to media criticism of shooting incidents has come from putting media and citizens through F.A.T.S (Firearms Training Systems) Training simulators and other tactical training simulations that put them under pressure to make decisions.

I've seen many a reporter or citizens find themselves at a loss on how to deal with a situation that they would have formerly felt no compunction generating an opinion on, when placed on the pressure to make split second decisions about 'life and death' in a simulated setting. It's overwhelming for most people.

 

[MJS]

Well, you've hit on a public phenomenon, based mostly on the ignorance of the public on the complexities of such situations and a general misunderstanding of cause and effect.

The general public gets their information via some sort of news outlet. The news outlets examine and tear apart issues like this ad nauseum. The general public, most of whom have absolutely no experience being forced to make split second decisions, suddenly fall under the illusion that these are topics that are debated at length before a decision made.

Moreover, when media start using the word 'tragedy', the public is conditioned to automatically start looking for blame. Since we are conditioned not to 'blame the victim' (As we can see evidence of even in this conversation), we can't very well blame the behavior of the deceased as having resulted in his death. Therefore, we start looking for the most competent person who 'should have done something different' and 'failed' to blame.

Most of this type of monday morning quarterbacking is cured easily enough. Simply place the critiquer in a similar (albeit controlled) situation, and tell him to solve the problem. Most of the time, I see a sudden dawning realization come on the formerly opinion citizen, and they realize 'Hey, maybe I didn't have as firm a handle on this situation as I first thought'.

You're absolutely correct! The problem is that like many things, is that people with little to no backround in a given situation, make judgement calls on what is right/wrong. Unless they are currently or have been a LEO, people (the meadi and public) should not be casting such a harsh judgement. That will never change though.

Some of the best responses to media criticism of shooting incidents has come from putting media and citizens through F.A.T.S (Firearms Training Systems) Training simulators and other tactical training simulations that put them under pressure to make decisions.

I've seen many a reporter or citizens find themselves at a loss on how to deal with a situation that they would have formerly felt no compunction generating an opinion on, when placed on the pressure to make split second decisions about 'life and death' in a simulated setting. It's overwhelming for most people.

I had the chance to use one of these simulators and I have to say that again, you're correct. The pressure and split second decisions is amazing! Granted, when the 'bad guy' is shooting at you, you're not really going to die, but you need to go in with an open mind, and realize that the feelings of pressure, stress, etc. at 10 fold when a cop is faced with situations like this in real life.

Mike