Comments on the Actions of Federal Air Marshals in Miami
Carlos Estrella
December 09, 2005
The recent shooting of a passenger on the jetway of Miami International Airport illustrates a new reality: there is a real possibility of an armed conflict on an aircraft or near one, that will be initiated (after legitimate threats) by Federal Officers using firearms. The reports that the passenger did not say he had a bomb has reported by the two air marshals aboard the flight have yet to be substantiated, however, the entire Federal Air Marshal program is under even more scrutiny. Without some facts being brought to light, it is easy to dismiss the training or the marshals as inadequate or worse, incompetent.
According to current federal law as well as what’s publicly known about TSA’s Federal Air Marshal guidelines, the drawing of a service weapon (currently a semi-automatic pistol with special bullets that pose a lesser threat to the cockpit or cabin of an aircraft) is a “last resort” compared to other methods of ending a situation. According to what is known about the Miami incident, Rigoberto Alpizar became agitated onboard while the plane was on the ground, ran through the aisle with a bag or satchel, was chased and repeatedly ordered to stop by at least one Federal Air Marshal, got off the plane onto the jetway, then after repeated attempts by the previously mentioned FAM and another Marshal to stop, quickly reached into a bag. According to the two FAM’s, they feared for their lives and fired their duty firearms, killing Alpizar. If this had happened IN the airport or for that matter on the streets of most American cities, officers would have most likely used some sort of weapon to stop Alpizar. In the Marshals’ case, they saw a man violate a code of conduct that has been ingrained into the world’s consciousness after the horrific events of September 11th, acting in a threatening manner while possibly making threatening statements (yet to be proven) about a bomb.
The mainstream media has focused on the Marshal’s apparent “shoot to kill” training. They have also focused on the possibility that Alpizar did not have to be shot, merely subdued, and that he did not utter anything about having a bomb. To put this into perspective, think about being a passenger on a crowded subway in New York City. Imagine that you have a passenger acting in a way that denotes some sort of mental illness or distress, as was the case in Miami. Imagine that two NYC Transit Police Officers came upon that passenger, ordered him to stop then the passenger suddenly reaches into a bag. What would those Transit cops do? If they try and “jump” the person, do they get shot or worse, blown up (along with the passengers on the train)? Do they shoot the passenger in the arm or leg, which may not immediately stop a person under mental duress of psychological or drug-induced rage and worse, may let a bullet travel through that arm into an innocent bystander? Maybe they should Taser the subject, risking igniting an explosive due to static discharge? Ultimately, the officers would do as they are properly trained to do, shoot the suspect in a place where they are pretty much guaranteed to immediately “stop.”
Police (including Federal Air Marshals) are universally taught to shoot “center mass,” which is basically the area surrounding the heart and lungs. This is to make sure that they a.) have a target that will in most cases cause the person to stop the action that makes “deadly force” justifiable, and b.) the officer(s) have a target they can hit under stress, unlike a “gun hand” or a leg, as is depicted in crime dramas, etc. Expecting FAM’s or other law officers to shoot someone to “wound,” “disable,” etc. is not only unrealistic but dangerous, both to the public and to the officers themselves. Even if the subject in Miami didn’t say he had a bomb, he posed a potential threat to a large group of people on an airplane and in an airport. This is justification for action which may unfortunately be fatal to the subject, as it was in this case.
There may be more to this than meets the eye, but for now, the investigation is ongoing and needs to be concluded without second guessing or “Monday morning quarterbacking” the actions of the FAM’s. If they “made up” the comments about the subject having a bomb, then they need to be punished for it. However, from the evidence available to the public, the shooting, however upsetting it may be, seems to be justified.
About the author: Carlos Estrella is a law enforcement and security training consultant and use of force trainer, as well as a former US Marine Military Police Officer and Tribal Police Investigator. Certified to teach firearms, defensive tactics and other law enforcement and security methods, he has been a consultant to numerous organizations and departments.
According to current federal law as well as what’s publicly known about TSA’s Federal Air Marshal guidelines, the drawing of a service weapon (currently a semi-automatic pistol with special bullets that pose a lesser threat to the cockpit or cabin of an aircraft) is a “last resort” compared to other methods of ending a situation. According to what is known about the Miami incident, Rigoberto Alpizar became agitated onboard while the plane was on the ground, ran through the aisle with a bag or satchel, was chased and repeatedly ordered to stop by at least one Federal Air Marshal, got off the plane onto the jetway, then after repeated attempts by the previously mentioned FAM and another Marshal to stop, quickly reached into a bag. According to the two FAM’s, they feared for their lives and fired their duty firearms, killing Alpizar. If this had happened IN the airport or for that matter on the streets of most American cities, officers would have most likely used some sort of weapon to stop Alpizar. In the Marshals’ case, they saw a man violate a code of conduct that has been ingrained into the world’s consciousness after the horrific events of September 11th, acting in a threatening manner while possibly making threatening statements (yet to be proven) about a bomb.
The mainstream media has focused on the Marshal’s apparent “shoot to kill” training. They have also focused on the possibility that Alpizar did not have to be shot, merely subdued, and that he did not utter anything about having a bomb. To put this into perspective, think about being a passenger on a crowded subway in New York City. Imagine that you have a passenger acting in a way that denotes some sort of mental illness or distress, as was the case in Miami. Imagine that two NYC Transit Police Officers came upon that passenger, ordered him to stop then the passenger suddenly reaches into a bag. What would those Transit cops do? If they try and “jump” the person, do they get shot or worse, blown up (along with the passengers on the train)? Do they shoot the passenger in the arm or leg, which may not immediately stop a person under mental duress of psychological or drug-induced rage and worse, may let a bullet travel through that arm into an innocent bystander? Maybe they should Taser the subject, risking igniting an explosive due to static discharge? Ultimately, the officers would do as they are properly trained to do, shoot the suspect in a place where they are pretty much guaranteed to immediately “stop.”
Police (including Federal Air Marshals) are universally taught to shoot “center mass,” which is basically the area surrounding the heart and lungs. This is to make sure that they a.) have a target that will in most cases cause the person to stop the action that makes “deadly force” justifiable, and b.) the officer(s) have a target they can hit under stress, unlike a “gun hand” or a leg, as is depicted in crime dramas, etc. Expecting FAM’s or other law officers to shoot someone to “wound,” “disable,” etc. is not only unrealistic but dangerous, both to the public and to the officers themselves. Even if the subject in Miami didn’t say he had a bomb, he posed a potential threat to a large group of people on an airplane and in an airport. This is justification for action which may unfortunately be fatal to the subject, as it was in this case.
There may be more to this than meets the eye, but for now, the investigation is ongoing and needs to be concluded without second guessing or “Monday morning quarterbacking” the actions of the FAM’s. If they “made up” the comments about the subject having a bomb, then they need to be punished for it. However, from the evidence available to the public, the shooting, however upsetting it may be, seems to be justified.
About the author: Carlos Estrella is a law enforcement and security training consultant and use of force trainer, as well as a former US Marine Military Police Officer and Tribal Police Investigator. Certified to teach firearms, defensive tactics and other law enforcement and security methods, he has been a consultant to numerous organizations and departments.