Shooting in Miami

[CrAz3D]

We enforce basic human rights...we don't create & enforce international gun laws.  International laws trump state soverignty, that isn't cool to do to a self governing country that is functioning ok & not commit extreme human rights violations (i.e. genocide)

[Kp]

Changing the legal system would require policing the entire world

Doesn't the US already do that?

No, there are some places that are just too inhospitable, like Canada.  It's too cold there.

[Adron]

Changing the legal system would require policing the entire world, you want to take on that task?

The original point here was that police in Sweden are trained to not shoot to kill. Because guns are not part of the society here. Which is a result of legal system as well as culture. Change your legal system and eventually culture and society will change as well.

[Falcon[anti-yL]]

The marshal handled the situation correctly. From their point of view, a guy is running from you yelling "I've got a bomb!" and when you tell them to drop to the ground, he instead reaches into his bag. What would you do? Personally I would've done the same thing, its better to play it safe and assume that he infact does have a bomb rather than wait and see what he was reaching for in the bag and putting other lives at risk.

[iago]

I just realized how silly it is to call a thread "Shooting in Miami". 

[CrAz3D]

I just realized how silly it is to call a thread "Shooting in Miami". 

It is true though.

Changing the legal system would require policing the entire world, you want to take on that task?

The original point here was that police in Sweden are trained to not shoot to kill. Because guns are not part of the society here. Which is a result of legal system as well as culture. Change your legal system and eventually culture and society will change as well.

How do we know this?  Are we to use the Swedes as an example?  Maybe your entire existance there is different from ours, stop trying force your views upon us (<--sarcasm)

Figures that the hypocritical statement would come from a liberal minded person.  As America tries to enforce/preach around the world you say stop invading, as we have gun/pollution you try to force your views upon us...hypocrisy, meet Adron; Adron, meet hypocrisy

[Grok]

Hypocrisy?  I don't see Adron invading the United States.  Rather, he is offering solutions for problems he sees in the United States that he believes are being done better in his country.  There's no hypocrisy.

[CrAz3D]

Adron is saying that the US should change, the US said (& did something about) Iraq changing, I'm sure Adron doesn't agree with the war...I don't have direct quotes but I'm quite possitive he doesn't.

So he can say one thing & do another? 

[Adron]

Adron is saying that the US should change, the US said (& did something about) Iraq changing, I'm sure Adron doesn't agree with the war...I don't have direct quotes but I'm quite possitive he doesn't.

So he can say one thing & do another? 

I always said the US should change. The US is wrong. Both in the violent aggression against other independent states and in its promiscous spreading of guns all over. And in its support of terrorist organizations. And in its lousy payment history. And... Well, you get the point.

[CrAz3D]

So is it ok that we say other countries should change?

[Grok]

Yes, why would you think it not be?  Freedom to voice our opinions is a fundamental right.  It doesn't require that anyone actually listen or agree with you though.

[CrAz3D]

Everytime we say something should change people start w/their "keep to your own business" but when they want something to change no one judges them.

[iago]

Here's another twist on the story.  Is this true? I don't know.  Read on........

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2005/091205miamiincident.htm

Miami Bomb Incident Starts to Look Suspicious
Eyewitness says Alpizar never mentioned bomb, passengers were more afraid
of Air Marshals putting guns to their heads

Paul Joseph Watson | December 9 2005

The shooting of Rigoberto Alpizar at Miami International Airport stinks
like a giant festering rat just two days after it happened. Alpizar never
screamed that he had a bomb and passengers relate that they were more
frightened of Air Marshals putting guns to their head and threatening
them not to look at what was taking place on board American Airlines
Flight 924. For those of us who researched the brutal murder of Charles
De Menezes in London, striking parallels have begun to emerge.

We live in an age where government deception about everything under the
sun is a matter of course and no major event can take place without us
automatically being suspicious about whether there were underlying
motives involved.

The incident seemed straightforward enough when the official version of
what happened was released.

A mentally unstable man runs off a plane with a backpack screaming that
he has a bomb and he is shuffling around in his bag apparently attempting
to detonate it. Most people agree that to shoot him dead as the Air
Marshals did was an extreme but necessary course of action to take.

Wait.

Let's take a step back here.

Is a real suicide bomber going to announce that he is trying to detonate
a bomb? How many Palestinians have you heard about who explain what they
are about to do and risk being apprehended before being able to do it?

Furthermore, we have eyewitnesses confirming that Rigoberto Alpizar's
wife was hysterical in trying to get the message across that the man was
mentally ill and did not have a bomb.

OK, so even considering these questions, many people would still maintain
that if they were on the plane and this happened they would still want
the guy filled with bullets, better to be safe than sorry.

This is where the waters begin to muddy.

Time Magazine reported the comments of one of the passengers on board
American Airlines Flight 924. This is what he had to say,

"I never heard the word 'bomb' on the plane," McAlhany told TIME in a
telephone interview. "I never heard the word bomb until the FBI asked me
did you hear the word bomb. That is ridiculous."

So if we are to believe this eyewitness, the 'madman' Alpizar never
claimed to have a bomb, therefore his only crime was running on a
grounded plane.

If he didn't announce that he had a bomb then why was it necessary to
shoot him dead?

McAlhany's account of the drama takes on an even more intriguing turn
when we consider the following from Time Magazine,

When the incident began McAlhany was in seat 24C, in the middle of the
plane. "[Alpizar] was in the back," McAlhany says, "a few seats from the
back bathroom. He sat down." Then, McAlhany says, "I heard an argument
with his wife. He was saying 'I have to get off the plane.' She said,
'Calm down.'"

Alpizar took off running down the aisle, with his wife close behind him.
"She was running behind him saying, 'He's sick. He's sick. He's ill. He's
got a disorder," McAlhany recalls. "I don't know if she said bipolar
disorder [as one witness has alleged]. She was trying to explain to the
marshals that he was ill. He just wanted to get off the plane."

McAlhany described Alpizar as carrying a big backpack and wearing a fanny
pack in front. He says it would have been impossible for Alpizar to lie
flat on the floor of the plane, as marshals ordered him to do, with the
fanny pack on. "You can't get on the ground with a fanny pack," he says.
"You have to move it to the side."

By the time Alpizar made it to the front of the airplane, the crew had
ordered the rest of the passengers to get down between the seats. "I
didn't see him get shot," he says. "They kept telling me to get down. I
heard about five shots."

McAlhany says he tried to see what was happening just in case he needed
to take evasive action. "I wanted to make sure if anything was coming
toward me and they were killing passengers I would have a chance to break
somebody's neck," he says. "I was looking through the seats because I
wanted to see what was coming.

"I was on the phone with my brother. Somebody came down the aisle and put
a shotgun to the back of my head and said put your hands on the seat in
front of you. I got my cell phone karate chopped out of my hand. Then I
realized it was an official."

In the ensuing events, many of the passengers began crying in fear, he
recalls. "They were pointing the guns directly at us instead of pointing
them to the ground," he says "One little girl was crying. There was a
lady crying all the way to the hotel."

McAlhany said he saw Alpizar before the flight and is absolutely stunned
by what unfolded on the airplane. He says he saw Alpizar eating a
sandwich in the boarding area before getting on the plane. He looked
normal at that time, McAlhany says. He thinks the whole thing was a
mistake: "I don't believe he should be dead right now."

This account brings several facts into clearer view.

    * The reason for Alpizar's rush to leave the plane would seem to stem
from his unstable emotional state and the row with his wife, and had
nothing to do with the potential of him having a bomb, as proven by the
fact that he never said he had a bomb and the subsequent controlled
explosions proved that he didn't have a bomb.
    * If Alpizar did not have a bomb and gave no reason to make Air
Marshals think he had a bomb, then he was killed for another reason.
    * The fact that Air Marshals were terrorizing passengers, putting
guns to their heads and karate kicking mobile phones out of their hands
proves that, whatever was taking place, they didn't want anyone to have a
consistent and clear view of what was going on.
    * The eyewitnesses were more afraid of the gun wielding Air Marshals
than they were of Alpizar and felt their lives were more endangered by
the Marshals than Alpizar.

This evidence trends towards two possible explanations behind this
incident.

Either the government wanted Alpizar dead for their own reasons and
carried out a targeted assassination under the guise of an anti-terror
operation or this incident was staged to reinforce the myth that there
are real terrorists running around that the government needs to protect
us from by taking away our liberties.

This event will lead to even more choking airport security measures,
reversing more rational trends which began with the announcement that
small sharp objects would be allowed on planes again.

Whatever the case, this incident has uncanny parallels with the murder of
Charles de Menezes by British undercover police one day after the
supposed aborted second London bombings on July 22nd.

The official story seemed to justify the shooting. A man wearing a large
padded jacket at the height of summer with wires trailing out jumps a
barrier and runs for the nearest train in a manic fashion as he is
followed by plain clothed police who had tracked him from a building
under surveillance due to it potentially housing terrorists.

The official story of course turned out to be a complete lie fronted by
Met Head (or meat head) Sir Ian Blair, who pathetically clung onto his
job by endlessly repeating the same bullshit on British television for
weeks after the event.

De Menezes was wearing a light denim jacket, was playing chase with his
cousin, did not vault a barrier, did not have wires trailing from his
jacket and was not seen coming from said building due to the policeman
watching the building taking a piss at the time. CCTV tapes of the
incident were seized by police who then claimed that the tapes didn't
exist due to the cameras conveniently malfunctioning at that exact time,
something which the London Underground workers wholesale denied.

This and many more startling inconsistencies prove that the police knew
for certain that De Menezes was no suicide bomber but they had been
ordered to kill him anyway.

De Menezes was a freelance electrician and potential knowledge of the
shady 'electrical surge' explanation that preceded the official story of
the London bombings could have sealed his fate.

The murder of Alpizar looks like it's in the same basket. No doubt the
official probe will bring to light more damning evidence but then the
establishment lackeys will just pardon their mob bosses anyway.

The Miami Police Department caught a lot of heat recently for their
Constitution gutting 'Miami Shield' program, where cops will randomly lay
siege to city buildings, ride buses and trains and demand to see ID's.

Were the events at the airport a response to that criticism? A message
sent that we need to shut up and show obidience to authority because
there are terrorist bombers out there that we need to be protected from?
The timing of the two stories is at the very least interesting if not
sinister.

This is a time of universal deceit, and any major event needs to be
scrutinized without haste because in nearly every case the evidence
points directly to government collusion and cover-up.

[CrAz3D]

Such BS

One passenger said he didn't have a bomb...who do you believe?  I like how this news article is from an extremeist anti-government (as it seems) site.
I find it hard to believe that Air Marshalls would just shoot the retarded guy because they felt like it.

& for the record, you're supposed to be scared of the air marshalls while they have their guns pulled & are protecting you...common sense that if you don't comply in a life or death situation you lose.

[Invert]

I'm sure you heard this before but do you know where a 300lbs gorilla sits? Anywhere it wants.
The United States is that 300lbs gorilla. The United States did not become the most powerful nation in the world by listening to other countries or getting influenced by other countries, we went out and did what we want. The United States will always do what it wants and what is in its best interest. We don't care about Iraq or its people, we want to protect ourselves and get oil from them as a payment for setting them "free".

The "fuck you" and "it's all about us" attitude is what makes us so much better than you. It's human nature to put yourself on that #1 pedestal. There is nothing anyone can do about the United States, we are leaching all the Arab countries for their oil while we have our own oil rich land that we will not touch. Eventually the Arab nation will run low on oil and it will get too expensive to drill there and they will have nothing to show for it. It's more profitable for us to have chaos in the Middle East. The United States will always stay on top. While other countries like Sweden worry about political correctness and who farts in who's direction the United States is setting itself up for world domination.

Anti-American liberals like Grok think they have a voice but they don't. Liberalism leads to communism and communism promotes equality. This is against human nature, there is no such thing as equality, and we always strive to be better.

So my point is that the United States is following human nature to dominate pillage and loot all for its profit. Since the beginning there was always an obsession with world domination and I believe that the United States will achieve that. There is nothing you can do about it.