Back in July, Manish posted about the killing of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes that took place in the London Tube. He was a young, brown-skinned man who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and was shot in the head by police as a result of a series of unfortunate events. Manish titled his post Rashomon on the Tube. “Rashomon” was a reference to an Akira Kurosawa film in which people that witnessed the same incident had all reported seeing different things. When I read that air marshals had shot and killed Rigoberto Alpizar at the Miami airport yesterday, the first thing I thought of was de Menezes. Early reports said that the man was frantic, trying to run, mentioned a bomb, and reached into his bag just prior to being shot. I tried to put myself in the position of the air marshals. It would have been a tough choice, but I would have probably fired as well. When reports later surfaced that the man’s wife was yelling that he was “bi-polar” and “off his meds” I had to pause. The air marshals should have considered this, but its still a judgement call in my opinion. The latest news however makes me think that this is “Rashomon” all over again. Time Magazine reports:

At least one passenger aboard American Airlines Flight 924 maintains the federal air marshals were a little too quick on the draw when they shot and killed Rigoberto Alpizar as he frantically attempted to run off the airplane shortly before take-off.

“I don’t think they needed to use deadly force with the guy,” says John McAlhany, a 44-year-old construction worker from Sebastian, Fla. “He was getting off the plane.” McAlhany also maintains that Alpizar never mentioned having a bomb.

“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.” Even the authorities didn’t come out and say bomb, McAlhany says. “They asked, ‘Did you hear anything about the b-word?'” he says. “That’s what they called it.”

<

p>Look at the striking similarities in these cases (besides their pictures):

1. Both men were killed in the name of protecting citizens from terrorism and turned out to be innocent.
2. Both men ran from, and were fired upon by plain clothes law enforcement officers.
3. Both men were of South American ancestry.
4. In both cases witnesses describe facts which contradict the first reports from the authorities.

The marshals say Alpizar announced he was carrying a bomb before being killed.

However, no other witness has publicly concurred with that account. Only one passenger recalled Alpizar saying, “I’ve got to get off, I’ve got to get off,” CNN’s Kathleen Koch reported. [Link]

This whole incident is a bit unnerving to me because the new norm in law enforcement, as announced last week by the Miami Police Department, may be to have more “in your face” tactics so as to go on the offensive against terrorists. Bolder tactics might also result in greater mistakes, which in turn are likeliest to affect people from an Arab or South Asian background.

Police are planning “in-your-face” shows of force in public places, saying the random, high-profile security operations will keep terrorists guessing about where officers might be next.

As an example, uniformed and plainclothes officers might surround a bank building unannounced, contact the manager about ways to be vigilant against terrorists and hand out leaflets in three languages to customers and people passing by, said police spokesman Angel Calzadilla. He said there would be no random checks of identification.

<

p>“People are definitely going to notice it,” Deputy Police Chief Frank Fernandez said Monday. “We want that shock. We want that awe. But at the same time, we don’t want people to feel their rights are being threatened. We need them to be our eyes and ears.”

<

p>The other thing this incident brought to mind was the movie Jarhead, which I saw recently [spoiler alert: skip to the next paragraph if you haven’t seen the movie]. Towards the end of the movie the two main characters have become incredibly frustrated because, despite all their training, they have not gotten to shoot a single bullet while at war. In the final scene one of them almost goes crazy when denied the opportunity to a kill a man within his crosshairs. If it were me and my job was to ride on airplanes all day for the last few years, without ever having to draw my gun, I can imagine that if an incident ever did occur on my watch I would be hyper-ready to act. This isn’t the same as being trigger-happy, but it could lead to the same outcome.

“The federal air marshals have been trained to deal with terrorists and how to fire their weapons, obviously effectively, given what happened [Wednesday],” says Andrew Thomas, an aviation security expert at the University of Akron in Ohio. “But the question needs to be asked: Has that training been upgraded to deal with this rise again in air rage and the introduction of these new items on Dec. 22? If somebody shows up with a knife and is going to stab a flight attendant or start stabbing themselves, do we shoot them?”

Among flight crews who are regularly in contact with air marshals, some say there’s been confusion and mission creep since the FAM service was ramped up. Initially, marshals were clear that their mandate was to protect the cockpit, and they told flight crews they wouldn’t respond to problems at the back of the plane, unless they were life-threatening. That was in part to keep their cover from being blown. Indeed, marshals are trained to distinguish between a possible terrorist ruse to draw them out and the bad behavior of a drunken or disturbed passenger. [Link]

(thanks to Manish for helping me with some links on this post)