Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Take your medication on time, all the time.

I blame Bush. I question the timing. I blame Chaney and Rumsfeld. I blame the Jewish neo-con cabal that pulls the strings of the helpless and hapless puppets in the White House. I blame Al . . . no . . . Jeff . . . Jeff Goldstein and his rabid armadillo. I suspect his monkey but it's not Friday. Only almost Friday, so the monkey probably skates on this one.

In case you haven't heard, an Air Marshall shot dead some poor schmuck in Miami who went nutzo on an aircraft that had originated in Columbia. His poor wife was screaming that he suffered from bipolar disorder and hadn't taken his meds. He went berzerko on the plane, then ran off the aircraft and down the tarmac clutching a bag in which he claimed to have a bomb. When ordered to halt and get down on the tarmac by federal Air Marshalls, he reached into the bag. At this point he was dispatched, permanently and, I might add, righteously.

Now, I expected that the gunsmoke would have hardly had time to waft away and the Air Marshall to pick up all his spent brass before the recriminations would begin (always pick up your spent brass after an assassination - it can yield fingerprints). So, I paid a quick visit to TalkLeft to see what the loyal opposition might have to say. I was not disappointed. To be fair, TalkLeft merely reported the breaking story without comment or opinion from the bloggers. For the blog's commenting followers, however, it was a different matter. To be more evenhanded yet (something for which Mark in Mexico is notorious), other commenters at TalkLeft took on the moonbats and tin foil hat-wearing "security and law enforcement experts" with a healthy mix of common sense, street smarts and derision.

To wit:

From Nicole Black, security and law enforcement expert:
This reminds me of the fatal shooting of the subway passenger in London. And, as in that case, I expect that once this shooting is investigated further, it will become clear that the federal air marshall's acted hastily and failed to follow proper procedure. But, as always, hindsight is 20/20.
(No, actually, Nicole, hindsight is looking at your own dumb ass.)

peacrevol ripostes:
There are a few things you just dont do. You dont say you have a bomb (especially in an airport). You dont threaten an air marshal in a jetway. You dont reach your hand in a bag after you have an air marshall pointing a gun at you. Common sense. The air marshall didnt have time to do a mental evaluation of this guy. He did what he thought was right to protect his life and the lives of everyone within the potential danger zone.
Scott Ferguson, analyzes the situation from his Lay Z Boy:
It seems obvious to me that the air marshall was poorly trained, or was following faulty rules of engagement.

Although not as bad as being pinned face down in a subway and shot in the back repeatedly point-blank by a cop, it is still awful. The air marshalls failed to manage the situation properly, and a man was killed.
(". . . poorly trained or was following faulty rules of engagement." OK, there, Scotty, and what exactly should the Air Marshall have done differently, step-by-step, now, and what exactly should the rules of engagement be? I am betting you don't have the foggiest but, since a Republican whom you hate so viscerally is in the White House, it was all wrong, wrong, wrong, right?)

demohypocrates slaps our expert, Nicole:
You must be the gold medalist at conclusion jumping. The points that peacrevol has made show that this shooting was completely justified. I agree though that other facts might surface which could change this conclusion but for now, ALL indications point to adequate justification.
Scott comments again wondering what the race was of the man who was shot. Apparently Scott's only source of news is TalkLeft, which didn't mention the fellow's name. It was Rigoberto Alpizar. What race does that suggest to you, Scotty? Chinese? Cossack? Australian Aborigine?

demohypocrates is better read than Scotty:
The man said he had a bomb, was acting in a threatening manner, wouldnt listen to the Marshall and began to reach into his bag. The fact that he may have been bi-polar doesnt alleviate the threat he posed.

From one news account I heard, he is a US citizen of Costa Rican descent.
Dadler shows off his intimate knowledge of explosives as well as knowing exactly where to pin the blame. His use of scare quotes around the terms "communists" and "terrorists" means, apparently, that he doesn't believe either of those exist or existed. Interesting.:
Obviously, this is disturbing and needs to be looked at. Although it should be said that shooting a person with explosives on them could just as easily detonate those explosives. There is no way to protect against everything. But we seem to think there is, and in the process are creating a hair-trigger mentality, as well as a bogeyman -- the "terrorist" -- as effective as the old "communist" was in maintaining the military industrial complex's profits and a state of perpetual war.
(Yeah, like those conjured up "bogeymen" who flew those planes into buildings on 9/11, killing 3000 Americans, and that conjured up "bogeyman" stopped by fellow airplane passengers from lighting the fuse to the bomb in his shoe and those conjured up "bogeymen" who set off the bomb under the WTC, killing 6 Americans, and those conjured up "bogeymen" who motored up to and blew the big hole in the side of the USS Cole, killing 17 Americans. Are those the "bogeymen" of whom you speak?)

Patrick is curious:
Besides, who ever heard of a suicide bomber. That just doesn't happen right?
(I think that was a rhetorical question.)

carshapedstar demonstrates his expertise at aircraft bombing and thinks we should just laugh off someone who says, "Bomb!" I guess.
Furthermore, if I wanted to blow up a plane, I would have kept my mouth shut.

I blame our retarded obsession with protecticing (sic) the skies from nail clippers and people who say "bomb".
After several more inane comments, demohypocrates suggests new rules of engagement:
So, a man flailing his arms and yelling he has a bomb is not a threat to those around him? I think the marshall should have given him a time out and a cookie.
(That was the derision part that I mentioned earlier.)

patrick weighs in again to complement carshapedstar on his aircraft bombing tecniques as well as displays his discretion at No Limit Texas Hold'em:
I guess all bombers are like you then. Or maybe, mentally ill people are incapable of detonating a bomb. Either way, I'm not betting my life on it.
Dadler proceeds to prove to one and all that his "honkey ass" is just as dumb as Nicole's:
But this is a guy who didn't hurt ANYONE. Say you have a bomb and run and you get shot. What is the logic. If he has a bomb, why isn't he just detonating it? Because a person who tells you, I will bet my honky ass, is not a person with a bomb, but a person with a very ill mind. If we can't properly profile the obvious head-case, how on earth can you expect the genuinely savvy and able terrorist to be stopped by a Marshall?
(Note to Dadler: The Air Marshall wasn't betting your "honkey ass", he was betting his own and those of all the passengers, crew and ground support within range of a possible bomb. Furthermore, if you wait for him to hurt ANYONE, you're already dead. Also, a "genuinely savvy and able terorist" isn't going to be stopped by an Air Marshall. By that point it's too late. That's why we're over in Iraq inviting all the terrorists there so that we might kill them before an Air Marshall has to. Clever, those Jewish neo-cons, no? And using your logic, that if ANYONE says he has a bomb - he doesn't, and if ANYONE doesn't say he has a bomb - he does, means that the Air Marshalls should shoot ANYONE who doesn't say he has a bomb. Fuzzy Wuzzy wasn't very fuzzy, was he? Is that the gist of your argument? I'm trying to be fair, here. Weblog Awards votes may very well be riding on an ILLUSION of fairness to ANYONE, here.)

Dadler is slowly but surely sliding off into the deep end:
We're not talking about protecting ourselves from "terrorists" here, but protecting ourselves from the mentally ill and bombless. It's the complete ILLUSION of security.

The well-trained and marginally imaginiative "terrorist" isn't gonna be caught with this kind of weak and unimaginative game.
(Keep them "mentally ill and bombless" types away from me, I say. Shoot all them type sumbitches on sight, says I. If the ILLUSION of security keeps me and mine from being blown to bits, then I'm all for David Copperfield or Penn and Teller or a reincarnated Harry Houdini or Air Marshalls or Goldstein's armadillo to create, create and create more ILLUSIONS.)

JimakaPPJ gets to the point, quickly and efficiently:
My point was that the Marshall didn't have time to have an internal debate.

And suicide bombers, by definition, are not rational.

I'm sorry. If someone starts screaming they have a bomb and starts running off a plane, on a plane, or through the nearest concourse snack bar.... I wan't (sic) him shot. Instantly. Immediately. Right then. No waiting. And make it a kill shot.

There is no second chance if the Air Marshall makes the wrong choice.
(A well put point, pointedly put.)

Anyway, this just goes on and on (with Dadler offering to sacrifice himself in a random act of violence - read all of it, it's a hoot) with the capable and thoughtful making no dent whatsoever in the warped thinking of the incompetent and clueless.

But they tried.

Also see Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom (To be fair and evenhanded, notoriously so.)
John Hawkins at Right Wing News
Jayson at PoliPundit
Bill at Pundit Guy
Holly from Cincinnati at The Moderate Voice
Michelle at Michelle Malkin

MacRanger at Macsmind
Sister Toldjah at, well, you know
Alex at The Noonz Wire
More than Loans has the skinny on this fraud
Conservative Revolution

The Travel Bloggers (Avoid Miami, right?)
PEER Review with a favorable review
Dr. Rusty at The Jawa Report says "Not fooling around."
Andrew at the Counterterrorism Blog reports on "Airport Nazis"
Robbie at Urban Grounds finds some positives

Reverse_Vampyr says "Thanks."
Dave at The Paladin Blog
Jay at Stop the ACLU says "Let the demonizing begin." It has.
Ian at The Political Teen doesn't have the actual live video - yet.
SerandEz says law enforcement just got interesting to the lefties

Cold Fury says Kos krazies will agree with my opening paragraph
Froggy Ruminations calls it A Small Victory (Michele is no doubt quite proud)
Preston at Junkyard Blog sugggests proper headlines for this story


Weblog Awards Logo
Please vote HERE for Mark in Mexico - Thanks!

No comments: