Alpizar Dead

After initial reports that a man had been shot by US Air Marshalls following a suspected terrorist incident, i've been surprised how many people's instintive reaction has been to side with security, over liberty. It seems that when these abstract terms conflict (which occurs when we have little information), we should favour the latter.

So upon hearing of Alpizer's shooting, I was immediately saddened, and wanted to know more information - I was not satisfied that national security is a tough issue, and we should just trust the goodies to get on with it. I found it immensely distasteful that Fox News brought out a line of experts to say that it was a fair shooting, and how the guy deserved to get his head splattered. Apparantly, "If you say you have a bomb, you've signed your own death warrant".

Really? What if i'm asking the stewardess if the onboard Nintendo plays Bomberman, or i'm singing along to Shaggy's Mr Boombastic, or i'm flying to Bombay? What if I emerge from the bathroom and return to my seat declaring that i've just laid a nasty stinkbomb? Have I signed my death warrant?

Maybe my suspicion was due to the recent tragic shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, in a similar incident. In that case, official evidence wasn't entirely accurate, and now we see that eye-witness accounts from Miami are somewhat inconclusive. It's not at all clear that Alpizar said he had a bomb, and we since know that he had a medical condition that creates panic and poor judgement, and definately wasn't a terrorist.

It's hard to create the right incentives for Air Marshall's and undercover officers, and I solute all those who spend their lives protecting our freedoms. But if we cherish those freedoms, we mustn't destroy them ourselves because of a feeling of fear that so characterises this "post 9-11 world". Just as charges may possibly be made against the killers of de Menezes, I hope the US authorities and mainstream media calm down their instinctive thirst for excessive force and launch an independent inquiry into this event.

Just because liberty is enshrined in the constitution, it shouldn't be taken for granted as being evident by definition. Neglecting the de facto spirit of liberty is a far greater crime that permitting terrorist acts. Err on the side of caution, but err even greater on the side of liberty.

Comments

[Chris Silvey]

Anthony, what should the Air Marshalls have done when the man said he had a bomb and began reaching into his bag? You have one second to decide? What do you do?

[AJE]

Is it known for certain that he indeed said that, and that he was onboard the plane/near to the plane?

All i'm saying is that we shouldn't allow the powers that be to scare us into granting police the right to kill anyone acting suspiciously.

If it turns out he said he had a bomb, it seems a fair decision ex ante (and that is what matters). If he didn't, there should be the same actions taken against the air marshall and police authorities that we're seeing in London.

[Quinn]

Whether or not Alpizar had a bomb, the Air Marshall’s would have had the same information to work on and the same decision to make; finding out if he had a bomb ex-ante doesn’t help the Air Marshal charged with having to make that call. As with the de Menezes case, having not been there we don’t really know whether the suspicions the officers worked on justified their actions, and it is right that both incidents are investigated fully, and prosecutions brought if necessary. But is anyone arguing for “granting police the right to kill anyone acting suspiciously”?

With the de Menezes case, what annoyed me at the time was the number of people who a) criticised the police the moment the news was reported, despite the fact the at that time no-one knew whether he was an innocent electrician, or indeed a terrorist with a bomb, and b) those who cheered the shooting, would accept no argument that the police actions could be questioned, and blamed de Menezes for wearing a bulky coat and running away from plain clothed police (which it later turned out was bollocks anyway).

Isn’t real life usually a lot murkier? Why must some people always try to pin the blame 100% on one side or the other?

[AJE]

Quinn - you're right, and I agree.

But you've missed my point - i'm not saying that the fact he didn't have a bomb is relevent, i'm saying that it's debateable whether or not the air marshall was right to believe that he did.

i.e. there's conflicting reports about whether he said "i have a bomb"

"is anyone arguing for “granting police the right to kill anyone acting suspiciously”?"

Yes, those who instinctively defend the air marshalls, without it being established that there was a geniune threat rather than just suspicion. The news footage that I saw (which is what i'm responding to), argued that if there's a hint of suspicion, you're fair game.

All i'm saying is that we do need to investigate, and persue the matter, but our instinct for liberty should preceed an instinct for security.

[Nick Schandler]

I think it's unfair to say that he was shot simply because he claimed he had a bomb. There was more to it than that.

The following is the story as I read it - after he initially claimed he had a bomb, air marshals attempted to talk to him: he remained noncompliant. He then began running toward the (busy?) terminal and reached into his backpack, where he claimed his bomb was located. Only then was he shot. This is very different from simply stating that you have a bomb.

I agree that one should not uncritically accept any exercise of the police powers as valid. But by the same measure, one should grant the state reasonable measures to exercise its duty to keep airports safe; and I do think that shooting a man who was running into a crowded terminal while reaching into his backpack in an apparent attempt to activate a bomb is a reasonable measure.

If the news footage suggested that any hint of suspicion means you're going to get your head blown off, then I agree that's BS. But don't blame the government for what the media insinuate.

[AJE]

All I really want to say is this:

- In the London incident, we know that the immediate, official story was incorrect

- It is not clear at all whether Alpizar even said he had a bomb

- We are fairly certain he was not a terrorist

- We shouldn't follow the media, and automatically give the marshalls the benefit of the doubt

Nick, the story as I understand it was that he attempted to run off the plane, and that is what caused the marshalls to chase him. The causation is very important.

"I think it's unfair to say that he was shot simply because he claimed he had a bomb. There was more to it than that."

Well maybe there's less to it than that - we shouldn't take as fact that he said he had a bomb. I agree that the story you say implies shoot to kill is the best strategy, but i'm saying there should be an independent inquiry to establish if that was indeed the case, and secondly that the sequence of events is also consistent with an ill man being stupid.

Are we to treat the two equally? I think it's possible for the police to be abe to distinguish between a terrorist and a mentalist - or at least it should be.

Although the death of De Menezes is still a major UK news issue, i'm worried that Alpizar's death will just be swept under the carpet.

As long as we all want an independent inquiry, then we agree.

[AJE]

I've just had a look through a few news reports, as far as I can see the story is as follows:

- Alpizar wasn't on his medication, was acting erratically in the terminal

- He was wearing his backpack on his front

- Just before the flight's due to leave, he leaves his seat at the back of the plane, runninf up the aisle

- (i.e. trying to get off, but also running toward the cockpit)

- His wife runs after him, saying he had a medical condition and wasn't on his medication

- 2 marshalls confront him as he's leaving the plane

- He continues to run down the jetway, toward the terminal

- Marshalls claim he says he has a bomb

- Other passengers have claimed they didn't hear this

- Marshalls claim he attempts to put his hand in his backpack

- They shoot him