This threat presented itself, and we believe it was necessary to use deadly force," Bauer said.

The speaker was Jim Bauer, special agent in charge of the air marshals' office in Miami, not Jack Bauer of CTU. And he spoke seemingly without irony. The truth is as obvious as it is unpleasant: no threat presented itself. If the marshals perceived a threat, that speaks to their training and perhaps too much time watching 24. Other passengers who have gotten through the filter and reported what they saw and heard, did perceive what was going on. I hope some of them were screaming to their interrogators, once the guns were pointed away from their heads, "What the fuck have you goons DONE?"

The perceptual difference might well be in the mindset: air marshals, like US police, are trained to view their environment as hyper hostile, and they routinely treat those they engage with excessive force, both physical and "spiritual" (for lack of a better word). All in the name of protecting something that is being squeezed out of the American body politic.

Another dozen reasons why I'm glad to have abandoned that troubled country for a new life in New Zealand. Requiescat Bush aeterno in tormento.

It was interesting that page 1 and page 2 were almost separate articles. And (perhaps not so interesting) they each reflect my personal beliefs exactly. I couldn't have said it any better, about the cruel and reckless slaying of a disturbed passenger or about the folly of naive cowards who keep us from carrying Swiss army keychains. For the last 4 years I've maintained that we could all have been be forced to dress in hospital gowns with no carry-ons allowed, and Atta's thugs would have still successfully seized the plane--due to policy, not due to box cutters.

I find the actual presence of gun-toting sky marshalls on board passenger aircraft to be a greater source of anxiety than the prospective presence of hijackers. The Alpizar shooting only reinforces that anxiety. The killing of Mr. Alpizar is a horrifying consequence of the assumption that guns are the best response to our insecurities. In reality, the presence of armed agents only makes it inevitable that any "threat" will provoke a lethal reaction, regardless of the reality or the degree of that threat.

Placing sky marshalls on board aircraft is not necessarily a bad idea. But if those marshalls were unarmed, or armed with non-lethal weapons such as tasers, Rigoberto Alpizar would be alive today. It is quite unlikely that terrorists would knowingly take the chance of encountering well-trained agents in the course of a hijacking, even if they knew that the agents carried no guns.

Finally, Patrick is quite right to draw attention to the parallel between the shooting of Menezes in the London subway and the Alpazar shooting. Those Americans who insist that marshalls with guns are essential to their safety never imagine that they themselves could be at the wrong end of the barrel. This sense of safety - or should we call it immunity? - comes from the knowledge that their skins lack a certain pigmentation. Being a brown-skinned man like Menezes and Alpizar, I lack such assurance, and fear the "misunderstandings" that accompany this culture of paranoia.

S. Sen

C. Peabody-Pandis wrote the following:

"I’m sure some of these passengers thought they were going to die." "Mr. Alpizar was killed because he was a terrorist. He terrorized passengers and crew into believing they were going to die at his hands."

Well, I assume that terrorism charges are imminent against all the media outlets who reported earlier this year on the plane landing in California with no landing gear. It's well documented that some of those passengers thought they were going to die, "terrorized... into believing" in fact, despite the landing being relatively straightforward and unlikely to cause death.

Your argument rests on the mistaken assumption that causing feelings of terror constitutes terrorism. I've been terrified by a good many things in my life but have never thought to label the agents of that terror to be terrorists.

"He was shot after running up the aisle toward the cockpit." This quote from the original story was repeated by C. Peabody-Pandis and others, presumably as evidence of Mr. Alpizar's terrorist intentions. I would like to ask; if someone is desperate to exit a plane, for any reason, what other direction would they run? The door is beside the cockpit! Besides, with newly armoured cockpit doors what would Mr. Alpizar have done when he got there? Blown it up? His proximity to the cockpit would be rather irrelevant if he actually was going to explode some device.

Again from C. Peabody-Pandis: "We live in a period of fear and heightened anxieties. We have witnessed people strapping explosives to their persons and breeze in to open markets, or transportation and blow themselves and other up." True, but we've lived in such a world for several decades. Why the need to make ridiculous, useless changes to airport security now? How will that stop people from "strapping explosives to their persons and breeze in to open markets"?

I also fear that some of the comments made in reply to this article indicate an acceptance of the idea that it would be okay to restrict the travel freedoms of people with mental illness. I fear that someday we will feel comforted by the question, "May I see your papers?"

The introduction of armored cockpit doors, along with the increased vigilance of passengers and crew (with a number of pilots now authorized to carry guns), provides more than sufficient protection against hand-held weapons. The time and manpower saved by easing up on the confiscation of sharp objects can then be reassigned to other, more urgent tasks, such as hunting for explosives.

You should research the number of pilots that are actually able to get a permit... It's amazing how irresponsible some bureaucrats are dragging their feet on purpose.

Yes, the shooting of Mr. Alpizar was an act of social insanity.

----

Some observations: The media never mentioned where was his wife, except they tried to ask at the news conference and the question was shunted aside.

Where was the poor woman? Being browbeaten and hounded after having her husband shot?

...

Everyone went on how he said he had a bomb, but nothing was mentioned of exactly how he said that, or under what circumstances. It really seemed IF he even mentioned the word "bomb" that he just wanted to get off the passageway and back into the somewhere he felt safe.

...

The newscasts totally dropped the story off TV and websites after 24 hours. I had to do a special search to find his name.

...

The man mentally ill or not, had obviously panicked and was desperate to LEAVE the plane and especially the connecting tunnel he was in.

..

The Air Marshals provoked the situation. Whatever the man said, it was because he wanted to LEAVE not stay. And demanding and shouting at him is what obviously provoked him. Of course if you shout at a Disturbed Person you provoke an aggressive reaction. I know that. I've experienced it. But the Air Marshalls learned that in their training course didn't they? Yeah, right. ....

After realizing their mistake by seeing there was nothing in the knapsack and hearing what his wife said they still blew up three suitcases of the man's underwear in a very public display in order to justify shooting him.

..

The ritualistic "Blowing Up of the Underwear" looked staged for the cameras. Very futuristic and terrifying.

...

Similar to Nazi Show Trials and somewhat reminding me of the public executions in "The Forbin Project" where the computer's enemies were executed and supervised in view of view of the Computer's videocameras.

..

What if the wrong action had simply been having your name spelled incorrectly (being similar to a No-Fly person) or having a wrong telephone number on your boarding pass?

And then you protested at being harassed?

..

Or what if you had the hiccups at the wrong time, at the wrong moment? or hesitated because you stammered?.......

Listen to this:

"This shows that the program has worked beyond our expectations," said Rep. John L. Mica "This should send a message to a terrorist or anyone else who is considering disrupting an aircraft with a threat."

Whatsn'that? HUH? Sending a message to the mentally ill are we?

WE have seen the enemy and it is us, it is me. I confess, comrade. Shoot me Quickly! Quickly. End my pain.

They shot and killed US, they killed every one of us, because it could be any one of us.

They killed the public that they are supposed to protect.

How does anybody suffering from mental illness or even a litle neurosis feel about travelling on planes now in USA? A little timid, I would gather.

..

As a Canuk, I have often taken cheaper flights that travelled through America on my way to international destinations. Seriously now, "Amerika" scares me. From now on it's direct flights bypassing the USA. I don't think it is so safe there anymore. And it's not terrorists I am worried about.

...

It seems the world we know is an insane 1984 meatgrinder and the Ministry of Media feeds us into it.