home

DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals

By Last Night in Little Rock, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 06:44:23 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by Last Night in Little Rock

It is reported on Law.com today that DOJ has hired defense counsel for the two air marshals who shot and killed Rigoberto Alpizar last week on a jetway in the Miami Airport.

It should be recalled that the head of the air marshal program and even the White House were defending the use of deadly force against Alpizar as absolutely justified on CNN immediately after the shooting, without so much as an investigation.

The FBI is investigating, and passengers reported to CNN that they heard no bomb threat. He just said "I've got to get off, I've got to get off."

I've been on an airplane where a man panicked about the claustrophobia. He rushed for the door, too, and ran inside. It happens.

Circle the wagons.

< Pentagon Tracking "Suspicious" Domestic Groups | McClellan Disputes Novak on Bush's Leak Knowledge >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals | 50 comments (50 topical)
    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:02 PM EST
    the man was already on the plane, not boarding it. he'd passed through at least two different a/p's security. if he had a bomb in the carry-on bag, he shouldn't ever have boarded. reports came out right afterwards that other passengers, near the event, heard no mention of a bomb from him, only the feds. this didn't pass the smell test from the start and, like three day-old fish, is beginning to reek.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:02 PM EST
    In the words of the immortal Kinks, "Paranoia will destroy ya". And when the air marshalls with the guns are more paranoid than the unarmed passengers, well, you start to get the picture of a government more frightened than its people. And it's proving to be an unacceptably deadly equation. If these guys have training, I certainly don't see it being GOOD TRAINING.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:02 PM EST
    There is no dobut that the marshals are undertrained. They overreacted and needlessly took the life of an innocent, disturbed man. At the very least the family must be compensated and training must be adjusted.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#4)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:02 PM EST
    If the air marshals are anything like local law enforcement they pay into a legal defense fund and getting an attorney in an officer involved shooting is S.O.P. It is not indicative of anything, but I like the subtle hint that since they got an attorney they must have done something wrong. They may well have, but I think I smell a double standard.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:02 PM EST
    getting an attorney in an officer involved shooting is S.O.P. It is not indicative of anything
    I agree. What I don't agree with is the head of the air marshal program and the White House defending the use of deadly force without a formal investigation. That is a double standard as well.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#6)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:02 PM EST
    mac, It very well could be, used to be a times when department heads wouldn't comment until an investigation was completed. I don't know why that practice isn't followed more often. Politicians are a different matter entirely.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:02 PM EST
    used to be a times when department heads wouldn't comment until an investigation was completed. I don't know why that practice isn't followed more often.
    It's a public perception tactic. Politicians, regardless of what party they represent, do this all the time with a variety of issues at hand. As you stated, "Politicians are a different matter entirely."

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:02 PM EST
    Patrick, Explain to me how, in the current environment, my statement isn't accurate: that air marshalls are obviously more paranoid and quick to violence than the UNARMED PASSENGERS, and that is NOT A GOOD THING. It's easy for a law enforcement official to get an overblown sense of their importance in the overall picture, and I get the strong sense that air marshall training is merely furthering that destructive mindset.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#9)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    Now we’ve got folks with the same training working busses and so forth. I doubt the need and the efficacy. As it stands, reinforced doors and all, there is literally no chance of jacking a plane. If the airmarshals are only there to protect the passengers why then do we not have the equivalent at any gather of equal size? Movie theaters for example. Careful when you run out for some popcorn.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    As it stands, reinforced doors and all, there is literally no chance of jacking a plane
    Exactly pw. Just like I said when the armed air marshalls idea first came up after 9/11. With an impenetrable cockpit door in place, there is no need for armed air marshalls. They will only get innocent people killed. Scrap the air marshall plan, and use the funds to start scanning checked luggage and air cargo for bombs.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#11)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    fwiw, my brother, who until 3 weeks ago was an airmarshall, has told me that that it has very much been the goal of the TSA for some time now to get airmarshalls off the planes by making their presence redundant/uneccassary through better passenger boarding & luggage procedures.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    This is an interesting development because the DOJ, by hiring Defense Counsel, i.e., paying for it out of US Funds, is de facto endorsing the Marshals action. Compare this with current policy for covert and semi-covert CIA agents overseas. (A semi-covert agent will work under embassy cover, yet still have direct contact with foreign nationals engaged in espionage.) These CIA agents are advised to purchase liability insurance for their overseas assignments in case they violate a US law while engaged in their official duties. See here: http://feinstein.senate.gov/releases00/counterterrorism_act_final.html (Fifth and sixth paras from the end)

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#13)
    by jen on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    Now these guys are going to be on our subways. Joy.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#14)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    Work at creating a better and better nation every day; a more human, compassionate, tolerant, humble, intelligent, self-aware and self-critical land of the free...then we'll be talking about REAL security.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    Nice to see all the Monday morning quarterbacks on here! What do you people think...? That these guys are just itching to kill people? You all need to get a clue! Dadler.... that air marshalls are obviously more paranoid and quick to violence than the UNARMED PASSENGERS, Nice try, but nobody knew until after the fact that he was "unarmed". They guy threatened people... said he had a bomb... did not follow orders to stop & put the bag down... then reached in it...etc. Jesus what is up with you people? Why is it nobody is responsible for their actions anymore? Is there anybody in any kind of authority you people won't lynch at the drop of a hat???? Can any of them ever do anything right as far as your concerned? Nevermind... I already know the answer to that one.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#16)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    BB, Lynch??? And you want me to take you seriously? So you only assume someone ISN'T armed if they are what, naked? He was a yelling man. That's all that's been proven so far. Oh, and that he had no weapon or bomb. If shooting these types of people, as well as the innocent man gunned down in the London subway, isn't clear evidence that it ISN'T worth it, then we disagree vehemently. We cannot be protected from everything, humans can be prey too, and I'd rather live in a country that doesn't give up essential liberty for "security", much less the utter illusion of security this is. How does shooting this guy protect us from anything? Okay, drunk businessmen will be less likely to act out. I suppose that's good. It takes NO amount of training to have gunned down this man. And my opinion is it evidences a dire lack of REAL training.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    BB...So you think there is no need to rethink this whole air marshall thing? Whether the man said bomb or not is still in dispute. The marshalls say yes, the passengers say no. What is not dispute is that the Air Marshall program is 0 for 1 so far. Zero terrorists plots thwarted, one unarmed man dead.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#18)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    "They guy threatened people... said he had a bomb... did not follow orders to stop & put the bag down... then reached in it...etc." Who did he threaten? Who did he say he had a bomb to? How do you know he didn't stop, are there any credible witnesses? You can't put a fanny pack down UNLESS you reach for it. we went from: CNN is reporting that "Dave Adams, a spokesman for the Federal Air Marshal Service, said Alpizar had run up and down the plane's aisle yelling, "I have a bomb in my bag." to: James E. Bauer, agent in charge of the air marshals' Miami field office ... said that before Alpizar ran off the plane, he "uttered threatening words that included a sentence to the effect that he had a bomb." They lied.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#19)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    If they were alone with him in the jetway, which is that long narrow tunnel to the plane, they can pretty much make any claim they wish to about what he did and what he said. I wonder if there were any witnesses to the actual shooting who can corroborate the marshalls' claims? If this man were a perceived threat to the passengers, they would have subdued him in a few seconds. After all, the passengers were not aware there were any marshalls on the plane (supposedly).

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    You can't put a fanny pack down UNLESS you reach for it.
    Very good point. Reminds me of when a cop says "freeze, put your hands up." Make up your mind, do you want me to freeze or do you want me to put my hands up.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#21)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    They lied.
    Or they made a mistake. You never do know.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    Whether the man said bomb or not is still in dispute. The marshalls say yes, the passengers say no.
    First of all, the flight attendant's union, or whatever, says that the guy said he had a bomb to a flight attendant just before he ran off the aircraft. If factual, that would not only give some legitimacy to the AM's concern but also help explain why apparently none of the passengers were privy to the conversation.
    What is not dispute is that the Air Marshall program is 0 for 1 so far. Zero terrorists plots thwarted, one unarmed man dead.
    Secondly, the presence of the AM's is, or should be anyway, a deterrent to anyone with ill intent as well as protection in case something does go down. My wife got a flu shot this year and hasn't gotten the flu, does that mean she was exposed to the virus and the shot "thwarted" it, or that she hasn't been exposed to a virus and the shot was useless. Not a perfect example, but you get the idea.
    They lied.
    Lastly, a reasonable observation might include the understanding that in the hours directly following the incident there was a heck of a lot of confusion.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#23)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    Patrick, I'd go for the mistake part if they hadn't changed the story so often and so quick. They were all certain, including the WH spokesman, of exactly what happened. If they had said 'we don't comment on a situation under investigation', like they do on everything else. If they weren't in the wrong, why'd they have to lie so outrageously?

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    Ok then...let's wait until 10 people later found to be unarmed get killed before we rethink the air marshall program. Let's take everyone at their word and just cross our fingers that this doesn't happen again.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#25)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    Sailor, So someone, immedaitely after the shooting said, "Uh-oh, we screwed up, better start lying about it," or there was some confusion about the specific facts of the incident and there were somewhat differing versions of what happened given to the press. I dunno, I think I'm sticking with the latter. You may be right, but I think it's unlikely.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#26)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    Ok then...let's wait until 10 people later found to be unarmed get killed before we rethink the air marshall program. Let's take everyone at their word and just cross our fingers that this doesn't happen again.
    Exactly. Everyone is suggesting exactly that.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#27)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    they were designated spokesmen. If you don't know the facts, say you don't know the facts. A pr person for the FAU said an unnamed FA said he told her he had a bomb ,,, read that once, never saw it again. And, once again, it contradicts what the air marshals said. "uttered threatening words that included a sentence to the effect that he had a bomb." I could be wrong; I'm just happy that it's back in the news, it looked like we'd never know the truth (which is still a pretty good bet, but at least now there's a chance. It pi$$ed me off that all the news accounts took the gov't's word and said he had a bomb w/o none of them saying 'allegedly.' I also think that once he's off the plane, with his wife having been shouting over and over he was ill, a reasaonable person would not shoot him.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#28)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    Sailor, Just so where comparing apples to apples, spokesperson, is a term used by the press, and does not mean the person making the comment has the authority or knowledge to comment intelligently.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#30)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    I also think that once he's off the plane, with his wife having been shouting over and over he was ill, a reasaonable person would not shoot him.
    Whether or not the AM's were in a position to hear the wife's words or not, is not known. Whether those words were spoken in English or Spanish is under dispute. That only one of the AMs speaks Spanish seems not to be in dispute. Also, If I was in a potentially life or death situation with someone I believed to have a bomb, and that person was acting really irrationally, and then someone else started yelling that the guys's mentally ill, I imagine I would be even more on edge, not less.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    Dadler... BB, Lynch??? And you want me to take you seriously? Well I poersonally don't car if you do or not. Maybe "lynch" was a little strong... you supply the verb! In anycase...the air marshalls are immediatly in the wrong and all of you are siding with the nut... That says a lot to me & many others. Again I'll ask...Is ANYBODY ever responsible for theit actions as far as you're concerned? Or are you perfectly comfortable in blaming Government (IE _ authority) for all the bad things in the world? Can anyone in power do anything right?

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#32)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    Sailor & Patrick, Googling Dave Adams suggests he's a "spokesman" in the layman's sense of the term, speaking with authority. He's made statements on the Air Marshall dress code, shifty-eyed musicians, and gun-left-in-bathroom stories. And I've seen stray comments claiming that he's spoken on TV. If he's not officially speaking for the feds, they need to shorten his leash.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#33)
    by jen on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    Again I'll ask...Is ANYBODY ever responsible for theit actions as far as you're concerned?
    Thats what I keep asking every time cops or prosecutors make mistakes and you guys think nothing should be done.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    I never said I questioned the actions of the air marshalls personally. Only the people in the tunnel of the time of the shooting know what really happened. I think it's clear that what really happened is not cut and dried. It seems everyone is real quick to accept as fact that this guy deserved to get shot, instead of taking this opportunity to rethink the policy of armed air marshalls on flights.
    No..let's forget about the whole thing and that way when some nut does set a bomb off we can all blame Bush for doing nothing. How about that idea???
    In my opinion, the next nut to set off a bomb on a plane will be using the checked luggage or air freight to get the bomb on board, not carry-on. Then we can all wonder why our govt. decided to put armed men in the planes instead of bomb-screening checked luggage/air freight. If a guy can get a bomb on board with a carry-on, why are we all taking off our shoes at the airport?

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#35)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    "soemone yells that they have a bomb (Which many people heard" Links please. Even the AMs no longer claim that. now they say "uttered threatening words that included a sentence to the effect that he had a bomb." See, even the AMs are no longer claiming he ran up and down the aisle screaming he had a bomb. Responsibility!? They freakin' KILLED him! They ARE responsible. Good shooting or bad. The odd thing here is the same people who think Cory Mayes did the wrong thing when suddenly being awakened in his own bedroom with daughter, no time to think, shot. But AMs, trained, outside of the plane, with a person isolated and time to think did the right thing. Situational ethics indeed.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#36)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    It seems everyone is real quick to accept as fact that this guy deserved to get shot
    Links please.
    The odd thing here is the same people who think Cory Mayes did the wrong thing when suddenly being awakened in his own bedroom with daughter, no time to think, shot. But AMs, trained, outside of the plane, with a person isolated and time to think did the right thing.
    Links please. Don't bother guys, you know was well as I do that very few - if anyone at all - have made the statements you're claiming.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#37)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:04 PM EST
    The odd thing here is the same people who think Cory Mayes did the wrong thing when suddenly being awakened in his own bedroom with daughter, no time to think, shot.
    Certainly, you're not referring to me. I don't believe I've ever said that. I will admit I'm not so sure he was "suddenly" awakened either. According to the info I read, he was awakened in the living room, went to the bedroom, got the gun, got a clip, loaded the clip into the gun and then chambered a round before ever seeing who was knocking at his door or anyone entering his house. Certainly the time to consider one's response is longer in that case the in the case on point in this thread.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#38)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:04 PM EST
    BB, Even YOU should know that genuinely mentally incapacitated people are NOT, under our supposed system of justice, supposed to be treated like any other bad guy. "Supposed to be" are the key words. And show me where, you hyperbolic creature, I have said anything that would lead you to believe the childish idea that I'd thing government is responsible for everything bad. That's such an extremist charge, it's beyond adressing rationally. The Federal Government, its agents and lack of adequate training, helped kill an unarmed mental patient. If you don't think that deserves scrutiny, then sorry, we disagree. I'll ask again, how does this protect us? Why do you need training to shoot anything that causes a disturbance? This only seems indicative of a creeping paranoia, and a tragi-comically misguided use of resources.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#39)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:04 PM EST
    Patrick, How, exactly, could ANYONE know that, as you say you read, Mayes was awakened in the living room, went to the bedroom, got the gun, got a clip, loaded the clip into the gun and then chambered a round before ever seeing who was knocking at his door or anyone entering his house? Unless the cops had a world class psychic or a person with x-ray vision, how could they possibly know what happened inside Mayes' apartment BEFORE they got inside??? Unless his daughter wasn't sleeping and watched her dad do these things and then told police. Is that what you read also? You lost me with that post.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#40)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:04 PM EST
    Dadler, Of course no one but Maye knew. That's the point. Sailor was comparing the shooter in both scenarios. IIRC that was Maye's testimony in the trial, and the comment was related to the amount of time someone had to make decision to shoot. The marshal, if the accounts are correct, had a maybe a second or so to decide. Maye had at least a few seconds more judging by the time it would take me to do the same steps of retrieving, loading and chambering. I would certainly be giving a verbal warning too. Especially if I thought someone was breaking into my house. Personally I would rather the person run away, never to be caught than be forced to shoot them.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#41)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:04 PM EST
    suo, we all read the news accounts, none said 'allegedly'. Would it change your mind if I site the links? Once again to suo - there is a very high statistical correlation between the ones who think Mayes is guilty to the ones who think the AMs acted properly. If I search thru the archives and provide those links will it influence your opinion? Patrick, I had never read your take on Mayes' actions. Where did you find it? (and no, I wasn't referring to you. I understand your concern w/ Mayes was about TLs description of the deceased officer, not the facts of the case. Was I wrong?) If the Mayes case is as I have read it, he was awakened, the door flew open, he shot. As I read the Miami scenario, the man ran up the aisle from the back of the plane to the exit. His wife followed most of the way shouting he was ill. The AMs confronted him, he ran into the jetway. Everyone was wide awake. Pardon me, but I tihnk the decision time was much longer for the pros than for the amateur. BTW, I now (for the most part;-) like our exchanges, and I do learn from them. But we will probably always interpret the facts (even when there ARE facts) differently.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#42)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:04 PM EST
    sailor, You ask, I give. from Balko's site
    Cory Maye, 23, said he was asleep on a chair in the living room of his Prentiss apartment as his 14-month-old daughter slept in the bedroom when he heard a loud crash at his front door. "I immediately ran to my daughter's room, got a pistol, put in a magazine and chambered a round," said Maye, who is on trial for capital murder in Marion County. "As I laid on the floor by the bed, I heard kicks at the back door. I was frightened, I thought someone was trying to break in on me and my daughter."
    The complete excerpt is down near the bottom of the page and titled "Cory Maye's Testimony". I like the way he takes responsibility for the errors and corrects them. I think he's got the most comprehensive coverage going. Still I think it shows he had considerable time to consider his actions, and voice a warning.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#43)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:04 PM EST
    Still I think it shows he (Maye, not Balko) had considerable time to consider his actions, and voice a warning.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#44)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:04 PM EST
    Thanks for the links Patrick. As I said before, even after the facts are in we'll disagree;-)

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#45)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:06 PM EST
    Patrick, You're making assumptions about what you'd do if you were in Maye's situation based on your need to find fault in his actions. A couple of more seconds is not a reason to put a man to death. As a police officer, I just don't think you're objective on these kinds of issues. How does the Marshall have less time to react when THEY are the aggressor here? You're not making any sense. They KNOW what they're doing, that they are busting into a house that may be occupied. Maye, on the other hand, is IN THE DARK, and is genuinely reacting to the unknown. It's the difference between a wide receiver and a defensive back. The receiver KNOWS the route he's running, all the DB can do is react. Maye's unknown in this case is far more risky and difficult than the officer's. That's just common sense. There is also NO MOTIVE in this case that I can discern except self-defense. Everything else aside, how this is a death-penalty case is beyond me and is disgusting. There are plenty of great cops, I have no doubt. But there are plenty that aren't. The job tends to attract a certain male personality type. And they don't all get filtered out in the academy. Having been the victim of a lying cop in traffic court, and a court that blindly sided with him; having watched FBI agents physically intimidate an aquaintance at work (hoping to get my friend to open a private mail box for them, which would've gotten her fired); having had plenty of experiences with officers who immediately treated me with disrespect, as if I'm just an underling -- all of this had led me to form my opinion.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#46)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:06 PM EST
    Sailor, the comments from those who said both "Mayes is guilty" and "the AMs did the right thing" would suffice. And just to be clear, discussing the actual facts of a case does not constitute either of those phrases.
    Why do you need training to shoot anything that causes a disturbance?
    Dadler, to be clear, the AM's have dealt with many, many "disturbances," as you say, w/o shooting, so clearly your characterization is completely inaccurate. kdog, still waiting for confirmation of this one:
    It seems everyone is real quick to accept as fact that this guy deserved to get shot
    "everyone" and "deserved" are the biggies.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#47)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:06 PM EST
    Patrick, You're making assumptions about what you'd do if you were in Maye's situation based on your need to find fault in his actions
    I am? I believe I've been pretty neutral on the Maye's case. Drawing a distinction between this case and Maye's is what I was trying to do. If we disagree that's fine with me. We have different paradigms. The critical point is when the decision to use deadly force was made, and how much time lapsed between that decision and the actual use of force. My point was Maye armed himself and had time to take in circumstances as they were unfolding around him. Time to ask, or give a verbal warning. That he didn't does make him more or less guilty in my mind. Nor does the fact that I would have done things different. I was just pointing out there apparently was time to do those things in Maye's case. Whatever inference you draw may well be different from the next person.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:07 PM EST
    suo...I was exagerating. The majority of the people I've talked to accept as fact that the victim said bomb and the shooting was justified. One of the few things we know for sure is that the victim had no bomb, so I find that odd. Better?

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#49)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:07 PM EST
    Cool by me, kdog, a lot of exaggerating going on in threads lately. In fact, on another thread some dude wrote this:
    I keep hearing that's why they hate us, our freedoms.
    Can you believe it? I was going to ask for links on this one as well, but, heck, it's Friday, have a good weekend!

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:07 PM EST
    That's just sarcasm brother. well...kind of You too.

    Re: DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals (none / 0) (#51)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:07:07 PM EST
    Sarc, Shooting every innocent person who might have a mental breakdown is NOT a policy, requires NO training, and has nothing to do with security from terrorism. Please DO offer me some concrete info on all the times AM's have acted as savvy professionals to head off serious trouble.

    DOJ Hires Defense Counsel for Air Marshals | 50 comments (50 topical)