Passenger shot and killed by Air Marshall in Miami

I think that part of the arguement is that many of the witnesses are saying that he never said anything about a bomb.

 

First rule of journalism - never trust the witnesses to an event.

It's a rule of human nature that people will remember like events differently. It's not even an intentional thing but the fact that people bring their own perspective to an argument. Some people may say he didn't mention a bomb but isn't it possible that they simply didn't hear it?

 

Are air marshals different animals from witnesses?

 

Maybe. A trained policeman would be more apt to keep his or her cool under pressure. Rambo or Batman would probably make better witnesses during a violent, stressful episode than Jenna Bush.

 

Its could also be a mistake to trust the assumptions of journalists these days...

 

Passengers on American Airlines flight 924 arriving from Medellín, Colombia, exit the
plane with their hands above their heads at Miami International Airport on Dec. 7, 2005.
(Inset: Rigoberto Alpizar)

Eyewitnesses refute official story in fatal shooting of passenger at Miami airport

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/dec2005/miam-d10_prn.shtml

By Kate Randall
10 December 2005

In the days since Rigoberto Alpizar was shot and killed while fleeing an American Airlines flight in Miami, no credible evidence has materialized to back the claim by government authorities that the 44-year-old Costa Rican immigrant said he was carrying a bomb in the moments before federal marshals opened fire.

Alpizar was shot dead on Wednesday by air marshals in the jetway of AA Flight 757 after exiting the aircraft. Law enforcement agents blew up Alpizar’s luggage on the tarmac, confirming he was carrying no explosives or other weapons. (See: “Miami airplane shooting: Washington’s ‘war on terrorism’ comes home”).

The official version of events, promoted by the Bush administration and the media in the immediate aftermath, is that this state killing of an innocent man was justified by the “war on terror.” The central assertion to back up this claim is that Alpizar said he had a bomb, and that this posed a terrorist threat. Dave Adams, a spokesman for the Federal Air Marshal Service, explicitly told the press that Alpizar had “run up and down the aisle yelling, ‘I have a bomb in my bag.’ ”

However, no witnesses—including from among the more than 100 passengers and crew members on board the flight—have come forward publicly to back up this allegation. Instead, numerous passengers have directly contradicted it, even after hours of interrogation and prodding by police authorities in the wake of the shooting.

Witnesses to the killing relate that the extremely agitated man attempted to get off the flight, followed by his wife, who called out that her husband was sick and had not taken his medication. Alpizar’s wife, Anne Buechner, has since said that her husband suffered from bipolar disorder (or manic depression) and had not recently taken his medication.

Passenger Alan Tirpak, 31, who was seated near the front of the aircraft, told the New York Daily News, “He didn’t say anything as far as I could hear.” Tirpak said he heard the man’s wife yelling to the marshals that he was “very sick,” before hearing shots ring out outside the plane’s door.

Another passenger, Mary Gardner, told Associated Press, “I did not hear him say that he had a bomb.” She also said she heard Mrs. Buechner say of her husband, “He’s bipolar. He doesn’t have his medicine.”

The Orlando Sentinel interviewed seven passengers who said Alpizar was silent as he bolted past them. “One thought he had taken the wrong flight. Another thought he was going to throw up,” the Sentinel reported.

Jorge A. Borrelli, an Orlando architect, stated, “I can tell you, he never said a thing in that airplane. He never called out he had a bomb. He never said a word from the point he passed me at Row 9.... He did not say a word to anybody.”

Borrelli said that Alpizar’s wife tried to reach her husband: “She was saying, ‘My husband’s sick. He’s sick. He’s bipolar. He didn’t take his medicine. It was my fault. I made him get on the plane. You know, we just came from a medical mission. Oh, my God! They’ve killed my husband!’ ”

Jorge Figueroa, a power-plant operator seated a few rows behind first class, told the Sentinel, “He wasn’t saying anything; he was just running. I said to myself, ‘It is probably a person who took the wrong plane.’ ”

Two teenagers seated in Row 26 concurred that Alpizar had said nothing as he ran down the aisle.

John McAlhany, 44, was seated near Alpizar and his wife toward the rear of the plane when the incident unfolded. He told the Daily News, “There was no bomb threat. I never heard anything about a bomb.” McAlhany added, “I heard him saying to his wife, ‘I’ve got to get off the plane.’ He bumped me, bumped a couple of stewardesses. He just wanted to get off the plane.”

The treatment of the plane’s passengers following the shooting was of a piece with the violence meted out to Alpizar. Armed federal marshals and police agents stormed the aircraft and ordered them to put their hands on their heads. Terrified passengers were told to remain motionless for more than an hour, and some reported having guns put to the backs of their heads.

After they were taken off the plane, with their hands still on their heads, they were questioned for hours by police officials, including officers from the Miami-Dade police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The last passenger was not released until nine hours after the event.

Despite the fact that no evidence had been found to indicate Alpizar’s actions had anything to do with terrorism, the passengers were grilled about whether they had heard him speak of a bomb. Anne Buechner, whose husband of 18 years had just been shot down in cold blood, was also questioned for hours before being released.

McAlhany, interviewed by AP, said, “The first time I heard the word ‘bomb’ was when I was interviewed by the FBI. They kept asking if I heard him say the B-word. And I said, ‘What is the B-word?’ And they were like, ‘Bomb.’ I said no. They said, ‘Are you sure?’ And I am.”

It is significant that after nine hours of such questioning, no one has come forward to corroborate the Federal Air Marshal Service’s claim that Alpizar said he had a bomb. The obvious explanation is that the entire bomb threat story is a lie, most likely invented by the perpetrators immediately after the shooting to provide themselves with an alibi.

This lack of evidence, however, has not deterred the federal authorities and the Bush administration from praising the performance of the marshals. On the contrary, in the immediate aftermath of the state killing—and before any investigation into the incident—White House spokesman Scott McClellan commented, “These marshals appear to have acted in a way that’s consistent with the extensive training that they have received.”

Air marshals spokesman Dave Adams commented on the shooting, “In this situation here, this was textbook,” because the marshals believed there was “an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury.”

Neither the Bush administration nor the Federal Air Marshal Service has offered condolences or an apology to Alpizar’s family. In fact, the general consensus, among both federal authorities and the media, is that the gruesome episode proves that after the long wait since the September 11 attacks, the “war on terror” is “working”—someone has finally been killed. Television broadcasts reported the shooting with an air of satisfaction—and the fantastic claim that passengers would now feel safer when they flew!

The incident has shown that the thousands of federal marshals riding on US aircraft operate under a shoot-to-kill policy. John Amat, national operations vice president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, who is also a deputy with the US Marshals Service in Miami, said that shooting to maim or injure is not an option in such situations: “The person was screaming, saying he would blow up the plane, reaching into his bag—they had to react.”

Alpizar’s family has not bought the authorities’ justifications for his death. In a telephone interview from Costa Rica with the Orlando Sentinel, his brother Carlos Alpizar said, “With all the advances that the US has supposedly made in the war against terrorism, I can’t conceive that the marshals wouldn’t be able to overpower an unarmed, single man, especially knowing he had already cleared every security check.”

He added, “I will never accept that it was necessary to kill him as if he was some dangerous criminal. And I want to make this distinction: He did not die. He was killed.”

 

I agree with you but the more I learn about this situation the murkier it gets and I haven't heard a witness on the plane recalling hearing him say he had a bomb. I've heard people say he was a panicked passenger trying to get off the plane which happens and is something flight attendants, flight crew and airport security are trained to deal with. Air marshalls aren't supposed to act to a situation like that unless its something so dire that the whole plane is in danger. I have a hard time seeing how one guy panicking to get off the plane while it is still at the terminal is that level of threat.

Knowing something about the training that Air Marshals and police officers go through I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt but I recognize mistakes get made. I don't know if one has been here but the case seems a lot less clear cut than I originally thought.

 

Jesus wnes, it's like you are begging for extra confrontation and questions of validity. You could have easily found an AP article that contains statements from passengers saying they never heard the word bomb, but instead you use a socialist paper as your source.

Passengers Didn't Hear Alpizar Say 'Bomb'

By CURT ANDERSON
Associated Press Writer

MIAMI (AP) -- The airline passenger shot to death by federal marshals who said he made a bomb threat was agitated even before boarding and later appeared to be desperate to get off the plane, some fellow travelers said.

One passenger said he "absolutely never heard the word 'bomb' at all" during the uproar as the Orlando-bound flight prepared to leave Miami on Wednesday.

Federal officials say Rigoberto Alpizar made the threat in the jetway, after running up the plane's aisle from his seat at the back of the jetliner. They opened fire because the 44-year-old Home Depot employee ignored their orders to stop, reached into his backpack and said he had a bomb, according to authorities.

Alpizar's brother, speaking from Costa Rica, said he would never believe the shooting was necessary.

"I can't conceive that the marshals wouldn't be able to overpower an unarmed, single man, especially knowing he had already cleared every security check," Carlos Alpizar told The Orlando Sentinel.

Some passengers said they noticed Alpizar while waiting to get on the plane. They said he was singing "Go Down Moses" as his wife tried to calm him. Others said they saw him having lunch and described him as restless and anxious, but not dangerous.

"The wife was telling him, 'Calm down. Let other people get on the plane. It will be all right,'" said Alan Tirpak, a passenger.

Some passengers, including John McAlhany, said they believe Alpizar was no threat to anyone.

McAlhany, a 44-year-old construction worker who was returning home from a fishing trip in Key West, said he was sitting in Seat 21C when he noticed a commotion a few rows back.

"I heard him saying to his wife, 'I've got to get off the plane,'" McAlhany said. "He bumped me, bumped a couple of stewardesses. He just wanted to get off the plane."

Alpizar ran up the aisle into the first-class cabin, where marshals chased him onto the jetway, McAlhany said.

McAlhany said he "absolutely never heard the word 'bomb' at all."

"The first time I heard the word 'bomb' was when I was interviewed by the FBI," McAlhany said. "They kept asking if I heard him say the B-word. And I said, 'What is the B-word?' And they were like, 'Bomb.' I said no. They said, 'Are you sure?' And I am."

Added another passenger, Mary Gardner: "I did not hear him say that he had a bomb."

Officials say there was no bomb and they found no connection to terrorism.

Witnesses said Alpizar's wife, Anne Buechner, had frantically tried to explain he was bipolar, a mental illness also known as manic-depression, and was off his medication.

The National Alliance on Mental Illness called on the Air Marshal Service and other law enforcement agencies to train officers if they don't already in responding to people with severe mental illness.

Others said Alpizar's mental health didn't matter while marshals were trying to talk to him and determine if the threat was real.

Shooting to maim or injure - rather than kill - is not an option for federal agents, said John Amat, national operations vice president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, which includes air marshals in its membership.

"The person was screaming, saying he would blow up the plane, reaching into his bag - they had to react," Amat said.

"The bottom line is, we're trained to shoot to stop the threat," said Amat, who is also a deputy with the U.S. Marshals Service in Miami. "Hollywood has this perception that we are such marksmen we can shoot an arm or leg with accuracy. We can't. These guys were in a very tense situation. In their minds they had to believe this person was an imminent threat to themselves or the people on the plane."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the two air marshals appeared to have acted properly when they shot to kill.

Both air marshals were hired in 2002 from other federal law enforcement agencies and were placed on administrative leave, said Brian Doyle, spokesman for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Miami-Dade Police were investigating and the medical examiner's office was performing an autopsy on Alpizar, who was from Costa Rica but became a U.S. citizen years ago. He lived in Maitland, an Orlando suburb.

Neighbors said the couple had been returning to their home from a missionary trip to Ecuador. Buechner works for the Council on Quality and Leadership based in Towson, Md., a nonprofit organization focused on improving life for people with disabilities and mental illness, the organization said in a statement.

David Stempler, president of the Air Travelers Association, said he thinks the shooting may prove more "reassuring than disturbing" to the traveling public his organization represents. "This is a reminder they are there and are protecting the passengers and that it is a seriously deadly business," he said.

Armed police boarded the aircraft after the shooting, with some passengers in hysterics. McAlhany said he remembers having a shotgun pressed into his head by one officer, and hearing cries and screams from many passengers aboard the aircraft after the shooting in the jetway.

"This was wrong," McAlhany said. "This man should be with his family for Christmas. Now he's dead."

---

Associated Press writers Andrew Bridges, Mark Sherman and Lara Jakes Jordan in Washington; Mike Schneider and Travis Reed in Orlando; and Jessica Gresko and Tim Reynolds in Miami contributed to this story.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AIRPLANE_SHOOTING?SITE=CODEN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

 

Regarding my don't trust witnesses is that it's been shown that witnesses will say anything to get their name in the paper. What's more likely to get their name in the paper: corroborating this story or going against what the air marshalls say happened?

wnes - your blind hatred of anything relating to authority is sad and disturbing. While it is true that there are instances of abuse of authority it's sad to see that you seem to have enlarged those isolated incidents to create in your head a blanket characterization of all authority figures as oppressive. Might I ask why? Are there personal incidents in your past that cause you to feel this way? I'm genuinely curious.

 

Yes, if those aren't the facts then it would change my whole opinion. I don't pretend that all those facts have come out yet. I have since seen several witnesses who said they never heard the word bomb. If that was the case, then their certainly could be fault with the air marshal.

 

Witnesses could have gotten their name in the paper saying they heard the word 'bomb' just as easily as saying they didn't hear it.

I think when a man has just been killed they are more likely to think about helping an investigation than lying and saying they didn't hear something they did in the hopes of having their name in the paper. Perhaps one person would be foolish, and callous enough to do that, but there are several witnesses.

 

You weren't onboard, and you don't know anyone of the eye witnesses, and you certainly don't know any of those Air Marshals. But you simply CHOSE to dismiss all the witnesses, and even went as far as accusing them to lie to authorities to get their names on paper. You accused them to intervene federal investigation, in a case where shooting and possible bomb were invovled, in the name of "war on terror", just to put their names on paper. I am not sure whether you are that brave or stupid to do such things, but what makes you think not one or two or three, but all the witnesses are that stupid to do such things. And yet you are still curious about the "hatred" of other posters? Well, I am seriously curious about your hatred to average citizens and a sick dead person you never know.

As I said in the very beginning, this whole thing sounds very very fishy. The guy was sick without medication. Every witness mentioned but no words from the authorities. The guy wasn't shot in the plane, but rather on the bridge, on his way off the plane. Someone argued that it was still close to plane and dangerous, yes, but the point was that he wasn't approaching the plan, but rather leaving the plane, why the heck did those brave Air Marshals shot him from behind? Every witness heard the wife telling them that he was sick without medication, no authorities said anything about that. And yet, some brave posters here wouldn't even question those authorities, just because they acted in the name to protect. Protect whom? Two guns on every plane is far far more dangerous than potential terrorists acts. They can't stop suicide bombers, because they wouldn't run up and down and CLAIM to have a bomb. They put far more danger to the situation, even if there is a real hijack threat, because a hole in the window would simply crash the plane without any negotiation. Not to mention, that potential terrorists' attempt to get the guns from those Air Marshals or incident like this one. Can someone tell me one real scenario that armed Air Marshal is beneficial to the passengers?

 

Just to follow on FB's point. At this point why hasn't a single passenger on board the plane come out and said that they heard "bomb"?

I don't want to jump to conclusion and say this was a bad shoot but I don't feel as confident as saying that this was justified according to procedure or level or threat.

 

Lawyers Hired for Marshals Who Shot Plane Passenger
Julie Kay
Daily Business Review
12-15-2005


The U.S. Department of Justice has hired two Zuckerman Spaeder lawyers in Miami to represent the federal air marshals who last week shot and killed a mentally ill Orlando man who allegedly said he had a bomb aboard a plane at Miami International Airport.

But legal experts don't expect any criminal charges to be filed against the two air marshals.

"Law enforcement traditionally has been supported when they use deadly force based on their belief that someone has a weapon," said Brian L. Tannebaum, president of the South Florida chapter of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "No charges will be filed -- you can put all your money on that."

Partner Michael Pasano and associate Paul Calli were hired to represent the marshals -- whose identities have not been publicly disclosed -- in the Miami-Dade police and Miami-Dade state attorney's office inquest. Pasano said they probably also would represent the marshals in any civil suit filed by the family of the dead man, which is considered likely.

Miami-Dade homicide investigators have interviewed witnesses to the Dec. 7 shooting, which occurred on a jetway leading to an American Airlines plane at Miami International Airport. Investigators have completed their investigation and are awaiting a final report from the Miami-Dade medical examiner's office, said police spokesman Roy Rutland.

"We're just standing by," Rutland said. "We should be done in a week or two. Police then will send their report to the Miami-Dade state attorney's office, which will make a determination whether the marshals used justifiable force -- or whether to file charges against the air marshals.

The Justice Department cannot represent its own employees in emergency situations due to conflicts, so it calls on private lawyers to take the cases. Pasano, who heads the criminal justice section of the American Bar Association, said he was unsure how he came to be called by the Justice Department.

"I guess they have a list of good lawyers somewhere that they call in such cases," he said. Some lawyers, he noted, won't take these cases because the government pays "extremely low" fees.

According to the Miami-Dade Police Department, the air marshals say they shot Rigoberto Alpizar, 44, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Costa Rica, after he exited the plane. Alpizar was on the jetway with a backpack strapped to his chest, yelling that he had a bomb, according to the marshals' account. It was the first time that a U.S. air marshal fired a weapon at a passenger.

Some passengers on the plane disputed the marshals' story, saying Alpizar never said he had a bomb. Alpizar's wife, Anne Buechner, who was on the plane when her husband was shot, said he suffered from bipolar disorder.

Calli said, however, that "I'm confident it will be determined [the air marshals] acted reasonably and appropriately under the circumstances." He declined to reveal the identities of the air marshals or whether they live in South Florida, citing national security concerns.

Randall Marshall, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Miami, agreed. "It appears the marshals were acting in accordance with protocol and training," he said. "It's a truly difficult situation where you can look at it from both sides. They had to make a split-second decision."

If a civil suit is filed by the family, it would likely be against the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging the officers were negligent in their duties, Marshall said. A direct constitutional claim against the individual officers alleging they violated the victim's constitutional rights by using excessive force would be "a much harder claim to bring" and less likely, he said.

"It's a tragedy," Pasano said. "The marshals are coping. They believe they followed all the correct procedures. We're praying that everyone reaches the same conclusion."

----

The last comment is truly unfortunate.