December 07, 2005

Wanna bet?

Breaking news: a 44 year old American was shot and killed by air marshals at Miami Airport earlier today:

A passenger who claimed to have a bomb in a carry-on bag was shot and killed by a federal air marshal Wednesday on a jetway connected to an American Airlines plane that had just arrived at Miami International Airport from Colombia, officials said.

Homeland Security spokesman Brian Doyle said after the plane had parked at the gate, a passenger indicated there was a bomb in the passenger's carryon bag. The passenger was confronted by air marshals but ran off the plane.

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. He said this is the first time an air marshal has shot at a passenger or suspect.

I'm willing to bet one or more of the following will happen shortly:

  • The family of the man will sue the air mashal(s), the airport, the airline and/or the US government for "excessive force" and "negligence," claiming that the marshals acted too hastily with deadly force, and that they didn't make sure the man actually had a bomb. The airport and airline are "responsible" for "allowing" the man to get free from the marshals.
  • Ramsey Clark will represent the man's family in a civil suit against the US government, claiming the man was driven to hysteria because of President Bush's policy in Iraq.
  • Howard Dean will call on Congress to investigate the incident based on Clark's "case;" congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will demand intel from the White House on the growing phenomenon known as "Iraq Pseudo-Airport Bombing Syndrome."
  • Charles Rangel and other Congressional Black Caucus members will decry how minorities are "disproportionately affected" by "Iraq Pseudo-Airport Bombing Syndrome," now known as IPABS.
  • Congressman John Murtha will claim that the current crop of air marshals in the United States "is broken" and "worn out," and will call for an immediate redeployment of all air marshals.
  • Massachusetts Senator John Kerry will claim that "there's no reason for air marshals ... to be terrorizing passengers ... terrorizing kids and women, breaking sort of the customs of ... proper air travel."

And so on.

UPDATE (12/8 at 7:49am): Sadly, it appears the man in question was a manic-depressive who apparently forgot his medication. And, striking home for me, he was a naturalized US citizen from ... Costa Rica.

UPDATE 2 (7:52am): See? SEE? I was tongue-in-cheek, obviously, in my original commentary, but crap like this makes the truth stranger than fiction, I tell 'ya. So, I certainly won't be surprised in the least if my [fairly serious] first prediction holds water.

UPDATE 3 (8:05am): I TOLD you! Here's what's on America Online's "Welcome" screen right now:

UPDATE 4 (3:47pm): ABC News has a poll up asking the public if they believe the air marshals' action was justified.

MSNBC has this headline: Marshals defend Miami airport shooting; Officials say man claimed to have bomb; friends say he was a ‘nice guy.’

The NY Times includes the following bits: "An analysis this year by the Treatment Advocacy Center, a nonprofit group in Virginia, found that mentally ill people were four times more likely than members of the general public to be killed by the police." They also quote a widow who knew the man -- she called the shooting "a huge mistake."

(Cross-posted at La Shawn Barber's Corner.)

Posted by Hube at December 7, 2005 04:27 PM | TrackBack

Comments

classic and right on commentary Hube....get a sinus infection more often!!!! Even though it is in pun, unfortunately, these have basis of reality in leftist democratic responses of the past and unfortunately in the future

Posted by: schmitt at December 7, 2005 09:39 PM

Well, I think "Did Marshals Have To Kill" is the standard and necessary question, even if the answer is "yes" -- as it most likely is here. Any time there is a police-involved shooting, there is (or at least authorities pretend there is) an extensive investigation.

Posted by: dan at December 8, 2005 08:51 AM

"An analysis by the NYT finds that mentally-ill people are four times more likely to be killed by police."

Why are we surprised by this, and what's the problem with it. Mentally-ill are also more likely to put themselves into situations where the police may need to use force, often resulting in death. I say this being close to some individuals who are mentally-ill, and although I'd hate to see them shot by police, its simply an unfortunate reality and risk given the situation. That doesn't mean that police should be trained to handle certain situations and individuals, and that excessive force regulations aren't appropriate, it just means that fate, luck, and the way things are may be the cause as well.

Posted by: Chetly Zarko at December 9, 2005 08:07 PM

Post a comment









Remember personal info?