MIAMI — U.S. officials strongly defended Wednesday's fatal shooting of an agitated passenger by air marshals — believed to be the first such case in agency history — saying the man presented a serious threat to the American Airlines flight he had just boarded.
Rigoberto Alpizar, 44, of Maitland, Fla., was gunned down after claiming he had a bomb in a carry-on bag and refusing to obey two air marshals' order to surrender, officials said. No bomb was found.
"Their training showed they made the right decision, though there turned out to be no bomb in the bag," said Brian Doyle, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security. "They had a split second to make that decision."
James Bauer, special agent in charge of the air marshals' Miami field office, said the marshals' reaction to the perceived threat was by the book.
"They were justified in their shooting because of the threat posed by this man," Bauer said.
Federal air marshals have been around since the 1970s. Originally established to counter hijackings to Cuba, the program expanded dramatically after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Now thousands — the government won't say how many — of federal air marshals fly undercover to prevent more deadly hijackings. But they never had to fire a shot at a passenger or suspect — until Wednesday.
The government says air marshals are held to a higher standard of handgun accuracy than any other federal law enforcement agent because of the potential for disaster when shooting during flight.
One critic, however, says air marshals are insufficiently trained to properly assess and deal with unruly passengers.
Andrew Thomas, a University of Akron business professor and author of "Air Rage: Crisis in the Skies," said that in its rush to put undercover patrols on planes after Sept. 11, the Transportation Security Administration shortchanged the marshals' training.
While air marshals know how to "execute a takedown" of a suspect, said Thomas, they aren't fully trained in defusing tense situations borne out of some passengers' fear of flying or claustrophobia.
"The government ramped it up too quickly," Thomas said. "They put these people up there in the sky with very little understanding of how to deal with disruptive passengers."
In 2004, the Department of Homeland Security's inspector general issued a report that credited the air marshals for taking "significant steps" to deal with in-flight incidents. But the report noted "there were several deficiencies in the program."
Among them: the agency's policies on background investigation requirements, field office training, reservist selection, medical qualifications, disciplinary actions and travel procedures.
News stories provided by third parties are not edited by "Site Publication" staff. For suggestions and comments, please click the Contact link at the bottom of this page.
