Marshal shoots passenger Miami airport

[7starmantis]

Responsibility is being argued here, but we must also realize that even those mentally ill (as in the insanity defense) are still held responsible for their actions. A mentally ill person kills a child and while they may not get the death penalty they are not sent back to work in a day care either. Temporary insanity is the worst thing to happen to our legal system in my opinion, but thats a different thread.

Bottom line, his actions resulted in his death....responsibility lies with him regardless of why he acted that way. It is a tragedy, but we cannot say no one is responsible...thats where we start compromising reality for the sake of being politically correct.

7sm

 

[ed-swckf]

Bottom line, his actions resulted in his death....responsibility lies with him regardless of why he acted that way. It is a tragedy, but we cannot say no one is responsible...thats where we start compromising reality for the sake of being politically correct.

7sm

I wouldn't call that being pollitically correct personally but what i want to know is would say a doctor/pschologist who misdiagnosed his insanity have any share of responsibility for his instability?

 

[7starmantis]

I dont think bi-polar disorder is really categorized as insanity.....anyone know?

 

[ed-swckf]

I dont think bi-polar disorder is really categorized as insanity.....anyone know?

I'm pretty sure it would qualify along with proof, its not clear cut but a manic depressive episode could justify a mental disorder defence.

 

[Tgace]

Its also known as manic/depressive disorder.....not really "insanity" as I understand it, but the "highs" and "lows" can be extreme and while most (if not all) know the difference between right and wrong, the extremes in mood can make them not care so much.

My personal thing about "not knowing right from wrong". If the person truely didnt know something was wrong than why do so many run, hide, fight and try to avoid being caught? If you didnt know it was wrong wouldnt you just say, kill someone, and then cross the street and order some food and sit down? If you run because you know the police are going to arrest you I would then believe you knew you did wrong.

 

[shesulsa]

My personal thing about "not knowing right from wrong". If the person truely didnt know something was wrong than why do so many run, hide, fight and try to avoid being caught?

As difficult is it may be to grasp or accept, the individual might not associate the idea that they are being pursued with the act they just committed IF they are legitimately ill or disabled. This is the nature of left-right brain (bipolar) disorders and developmental disabilities.

 

[OULobo]

Well, here is my question, if the man never mentioned a bomb, but the situation played out otherwise the same, would the Marshals still be justified in shooting him. It may sound a little bit conspiricyish, but some reports say that only the Marshals heard him say the b word and they were alone when they heard it. If they shot him unjustly and needed a "get off the hook free card", saying he yelled he had a bomb gives one to them.

 

[Tgace]

As difficult is it may be to grasp or accept, the individual might not associate the idea that they are being pursued with the act they just committed IF they are legitimately ill or disabled. This is the nature of left-right brain (bipolar) disorders and developmental disabilities.

Which may be true. However I still find it hard to swallow when some guy hides the body, makes up lies for his whereabouts, goes on the run, hides/fights/runs from the police etc. Then conveniently at trial the "he didnt know right from wrong" argument comes up. Why not just stand over the body picking your teeth if you thought your actions were OK? Or is the argument that he didnt know right from wrong when he committed the crime but it all came back to him after the fact? (not you saying that Geo just a general ?)

 

[shesulsa]

Which may be true. However I still find it hard to swallow when some guy hides the body, makes up lies for his whereabouts, goes on the run, hides/fights/runs from the police etc. Then conveniently at trial the "he didnt know right from wrong" argument comes up. Why not just stand over the body picking your teeth if you thought your actions were OK? Or is the argument that he didnt know right from wrong when he committed the crime but it all came back to him after the fact? (not you saying that Geo just a general ?)

To answer that, I'm reaching into how these minds might possibly work, so bear with me in that vein, okay?

For people with bipolar disorders and certain other mental illnesses and developmental disabilities, actions happen in sequences - rather concrete ones. Whenever the subject of murder or crime is visited, what follows? Cover-up, flight and pursuit. It's a repeating pattern which is comforting to people with brain disorders. They LIVE pattern, they EAT pattern, they WALK pattern.

Bearing with me, here - IF (again, that is a big, huge, argumentative IF) - there exists a definite brain disorder, it really is possible for them to even hurt someone in self-defense and think, by nature of pattern, that the next step is what's appropriate to do - not necessarily right or wrong, but the next thing to do.

That said and these specifics aside, it could very well be argued that ALL criminals are mentally ill to some degree (friggin' duh - why else do the crime?) but does this mean they get off scot-free? I don't think so.

 

[Tgace]

You may be right, but the whole "step by step" thing I just cant swallow. Sounds like psychobable rationalization to me. But then my take is on a different angle.......

I would think (again just throwing this out..) that if you asked one of these people why they ran/hid/fought etc. they would say "because the cops were coming for me"...."why were they coming for you?"..."because I killed that person". So while they may not have thought it was "wrong", they knew that "society" did and that they were going to be punished for it.

 

[sgtmac_46]

All this is rather irrelavent in this particular circumstance. We're not judging whether this gentleman should be held culpable, criminally, for his actions, as he is dead.

We're judging whether his actions, regardless of their root causes within his mind, are what resulted directly in his death. Therefore, it is necessary to seperate causation, in terms of cause and effect of his actions, from internal causation. The discussion of his internal causation is a red-herring issue.

Furthermore, it is actually part of a far larger discussion of mental illness, which psychologists and other researchers have been debating for decades, and doesn't lend much to the ultimate question here.

Put simply, does the answer yes or no, to whether he was in control of his actions, actually change whether or not the Marshall's were justified? The answer would appear to be no.

 

[shesulsa]

You may be right, but the whole "step by step" thing I just cant swallow. Sounds like psychobable rationalization to me. But then my take is on a different angle.......

I would think (again just throwing this out..) that if you asked one of these people why they ran/hid/fought etc. they would say "because the cops were coming for me"...."why were they coming for you?"..."because I killed that person". So while they may not have thought it was "wrong", they knew that "society" did and that they were going to be punished for it.

When you say "rationalization" I think you're saying I'm trying to reach for an excuse. Not so. You can either accept the way their brain works or not, makes no difference to me because you're going to do what you're trained to do no matter what and I realize that.

And what you still don't see (though this is indeed all irrelavent, but since you asked) is that though they follow the pattern, they might not understand it or even really mean to do it. Also, once the pattern is started, pattern-driven people are compelled to continue the pattern regardless of the 'meaning' of the circumstances because they don't see them as circumstances - only part of the pattern.

I really hate it when LEOs say they "reject" or "don't accept psychobabble rationalization" because to me, this is revealing of a general attitude that is no better for a cop to have than disrespect is for a criminal to have. IMVHO.

So, I suppose the difference between you and I, Tom, is that I accept that you are going to chase down a man like my kid because he's in a pattern he can't escape from and you see only a set of circumstances because that is what you are trained to do. And you won't (choice here) accept that men like my kid who are indeed legitimately ill can't understand that what they are doing is illegal, immoral and against the law. I accept your policy, you don't accept mine. I'll accept it, but nothing says I have to like it.

 

[Tgace]

Im sorry if you thought my posts were directed at you or your posts Geo because they are not. Im just posting my opinion on the matter and in this case its different from yours.

The difference is that I HAVE TO run them down and catch them. Its not a matter of my training, its not "my policy", its what society expects of me. I arrest on probable cause that a crime has been committed. I dont judge, sentence or determine punishment for them. So my belief or disbelief in the insanity defense doesn't really matter. If, God forbid I ever had to arrest your son it would be in the most professional and least forceful manner as possible. As to my belief in his mental culpability, that isnt mine to decide or argue. There are varying degrees of mental illness. There are some cases where its undeniable that a person has a serious disorder that causes them to act out of their control (I have had to escort mental health services into the homes of a few). If that were the case I would hope the DA would forego charges in leu of medical attention.

However, like it or not, I also believe that many people are using it as an increasingly effective excuse for their actions. Again Im sorry if my opinion offends you, but it is what it is, and I guess I will leave it at that.

 

[shesulsa]

Im sorry if you thought my posts were directed at you or your posts Geo because they are not. Im just posting my opinion on the matter and in this case its different from yours.

Actually, I felt we were arguing points rather productively, and sorry if I did not convey that accurately.

The difference is that I HAVE TO run them down and catch them. Its not a matter of my training, its what society expects of me. I arrest on probable cause that a crime has been committed. I dont judge, sentence or determine punishment for them. So my belief or disbelief in the insanity defense doesn't really matter.

Yes you do have to, and I understand.

If, God forbid I ever had to arrest your son it would be in the most professional and least forceful manner as possible. As to my belief in his mental culpability, that isnt mine to decide or argue. There are also varying degrees of mental illness. There are some cases where its undeniable that a person has a serious disorder that causes them to act out of their control (I have had to escort mental health services into the homes of a few). If that were the case I would hope the DA would forego charges in leu of medical attention.

I think the question becomes, then, even if it is not for you to judge, does your opinion affect your ability to think to the full range of your capacity in the moment (such as you can, I realize, believe me)? or do you feel this is a luxury you do not have?

However, like it or not, I also believe that many people are using it as an excuse. Again Im sorry if my opinion offends you, but it is what it is.

No, I completely concur, hence my repeated caveats of "IF."

 

[Tgace]

I think the question becomes, then, even if it is not for you to judge, does your opinion affect your ability to think to the full range of your capacity in the moment (such as you can, I realize, believe me)? or do you feel this is a luxury you do not have?

I dont really know what you mean by this. If you are asking if I stop and consider if every person I deal with has a mental illness and isnt responsible for his actions than I would have to say no. I do not have the luxury to deal with anything other than what I am observing at the time. If the person has committed a crime or is going to be a threat to me, another or the public at large than I have to act regardless of what issues the other person has.

 

[shesulsa]

I dont really know what you mean by this. If you are asking if I stop and consider if every person I deal with has a mental illness and isnt responsible for his actions than I would have to say no. I do not have the luxury to deal with anything other than what I am observing at the time. If the person has committed a crime or is going to be a threat to me, another or the public at large than I have to act regardless of what issues the other person has.

:asian:

 

[sgtmac_46]

I dont really know what you mean by this. If you are asking if I stop and consider if every person I deal with has a mental illness and isnt responsible for his actions than I would have to say no. I do not have the luxury to deal with anything other than what I am observing at the time. If the person has committed a crime or is going to be a threat to me, another or the public at large than I have to act regardless of what issues the other person has.

Mental illness and it's treatments are an issue for mental health professionals, not for law enforcement. A casual understanding of the disorders and how they manifest is useful to the first responding officer, just as a knowledge of CPR and first aid are useful. Those in mental health crisis can benefit from some knowledge on the part of law enforcement arriving on scene.

However, none of that applies in this circumstance. What's more, considerations of whether or not the individual is mentally ill has NO bearing on lethal force scenarios. A mentally ill suspect can kill someone as quickly as someone mentally healthy (whatever that means). What's more, it's easily argued that a mentally healthy person doesn't engage in violent acts that result in the deaths of innocent people.

I just started my Masters degree in psychology (A bachelors degree being just enough to know you have no idea what you're talking about).

I don't plan on going in to the realm of clinical psychology, for no other reason than that i'm not entirely convinced that the bulk of the 'disorders' we are taught exist, are nothing more than aspects of a given persons personality.

Most especially so with the many personality disorders, i.e. borderline personalities, histrionic personality disorders, narcissistic personality disorders, at some point I start to feel that 'disorders' aren't really disorders at all, but what a person IS.

I much prefer dealing with the realm of social psychology and it's study of common factors relating human behavior and social influences.

There are several 'organic' brain diseases that result in behaviors outside the realm of control of the individual. This can range from tumors to brain damage caused by external mechanisms. The bulk of the 'disorders' however, are still debated as to the degree of which they are the result of organic influences in the brain, or issues of faulty thought processes.

Depression, for example, can result from issues having nothing to do with the organic processing of the brain. Hence, it begins to be something wrong with the 'thinking' processes.

At any rate, we can debate the given merits of a given disorder classification all night. I still have yet to hear how it pertains, directly, to the given question.

 

[MJS]

Well, here is my question, if the man never mentioned a bomb, but the situation played out otherwise the same, would the Marshals still be justified in shooting him. It may sound a little bit conspiricyish, but some reports say that only the Marshals heard him say the b word and they were alone when they heard it. If they shot him unjustly and needed a "get off the hook free card", saying he yelled he had a bomb gives one to them.

See, this is the problem we're starting to face. In the initial reports, everybody was saying that this guy said 'I have a bomb' while he was running down the aisle of the plane. The news found a few people that heard nothing and this is what they're jumping on. My question is: I think its important to get all of the facts before they start running around saying "he said this and he said that." Seems to me that they're running with the fact that because a handful of people didnt hear anything then he must not have had a bomb. Thats bull if you ask me, but so typical of the media.

I would think that if he said nothing about a bomb, but his behavior was like it was, that the Marshals or someone would have done something. I dont know about anyone else, but if I was on a plane and there was someone acting like a nut, I would want someone to intervene.

Mike

 

[sgtmac_46]

See, this is the problem we're starting to face. In the initial reports, everybody was saying that this guy said 'I have a bomb' while he was running down the aisle of the plane. The news found a few people that heard nothing and this is what they're jumping on. My question is: I think its important to get all of the facts before they start running around saying "he said this and he said that." Seems to me that they're running with the fact that because a handful of people didnt hear anything then he must not have had a bomb. Thats bull if you ask me, but so typical of the media.

I would think that if he said nothing about a bomb, but his behavior was like it was, that the Marshals or someone would have done something. I dont know about anyone else, but if I was on a plane and there was someone acting like a nut, I would want someone to intervene.

Mike

There appear to be two or three passengers who have agreed to talk to the media, one of who is mad because he got his cell phone knocked out of his hand, who claim not to have heard him say the word "Bomb". However, the Police Department interviewed ALL the passengers, and seem pretty confident about what has occurred. Often, you get a couple of malcontents, who either weren't paying attention, or want their 15-minutes of fame AND they want to grind an ax against someone.

What's furthermore, none of them were present on the ground where the man was shot.

What's more, I heard CNN say "No one has come forward claiming to have heard that he had a bomb". That's outright dishonest. They didn't say "No one has come forward 'to the media'" which is what they meant. The Miami-Dade police department interviewed every passenger.

At the time CNN announced "No one has come forward", they were referring to one guy who came to Time and said "I didn't hear it". No one else had talked to the reporters. I guess all witnesses must clear themselves through CNN first.

"Miami-Dade police official Roy Rutland said the department has interviewed witnesses who confirm the marshals' report of hearing Alpizar speak of a bomb. Rutland would not say whether the witnesses were crew or passengers."

"Rigoberto Alpizar, 44, made the bomb threat after a flight attendant blocked him from exiting Flight 924 just minutes before the plane was scheduled to leave for Orlando, said Lonny Glover, national safety coordinator for the Association of Professional Flight Attendants. "

"As the man came forward it was obvious that he was upset," Glover said. "That's when one of our attendants at the front of plane told him, 'Sir, you can't leave the plane.' His response, she said, was 'I have a bomb.' It was at that point that the air marshals gave up their cover and pursued him out the door and up the jetbridge."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-12-08-marshals-defense_x.htm?csp=34

So apparently he said it near the exit door, when he was blocked from exiting by the stewardess. That would explain why some claimed they didn't hear it.

In addition, "Passenger Natalia Cayon, 16, of Codazzi, Colombia, told USA TODAY that she saw Alpizar's wife run after him and say in Spanish: "He's sick. He has a problem." So the wife apparently did yell this...but in Spanish.

"Cayon said she then heard the woman say in English, "Oh my God." Cayon next heard three to five shots."

Sounds more and more like a justified use of force.

Of course then you get this: "the shooting is likely to raise questions about the expanded presence of guns aboard commercial airplanes in recent years, as well as the marshals' training -- in particular, with people who appear to be mentally unstable." So REAL bombers are stable, unstable people are 'fake bombers'? What BS.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/07/AR2005120701578.html

Apparently, the Air Marshall's gave him orders in both Spanish and English.

"Mr. Adams said he did not know what language the air marshals had used to address Mr. Alpizar. But another marshal, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because air marshals have been threatened with dismissal for speaking to the news media, said he understood that instructions had been given in both Spanish and English."

"Mark Raynor, an American Airlines pilot and local union official in Miami, said an account he heard from the plane's captain had supported law enforcement accounts of the shooting."

"Mr. Raynor said the captain had been outside the cockpit at the time of the shooting and witnessed it, but the first officer had been inside the cockpit and had seen nothing."

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051209/ZNYT02/512090432

Again, what happened to this man is a sad turn of events, but it appears to be a turn of events caused by his actions.

 

[MJS]

Just wanted to bump this thread a little. I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't heard anything else about this subject on the NEWS. Seems like they were talking about it non-stop and then all of a sudden nothing!

Mike