1. Only if it exhibits itself by running from a plane and claiming a bomb.
Yes, indeed it is and indeed it should be. It is also punishable by death if it takes the form of pointing a gun at a police officer, breaking into a home where someone is armed or a long list of other actions that will obviously get you killed.
86. What issues? You contend that he was "shot on sight".
I say I will take the word of the people involved whereas you take the word of a toothless yahoo in the 20 something row. You also approach from the position that the sky marshalls are liars who are just waiting to shoot a mentally ill person. Tell me, why have they waited over 4 years to act on their bloodthirsty lust? I remember several instances of unrest on or near airplanes where people weren't shot. Please enlighten me as to why.
...and then again they may have reacted appropriately. The situation deserves time and investigation, if for no other reason then to see if there's an opportunity to improve protocol and thereby reduce the risk for a similiar future tragedy.
I suspect that, beyond the media glare, that that's just what will happen.
I'm sick of the bullshit and I'm gonna be straight up about this: there are any number of rackets in the US which can be connected to terrorists. In the past few years, they have spread out all over the net in a massive propaganda campaign.
They have LONG been obsessed with the Feds. They hunt down Feds families and terrorize their children. Then they go on nasty, murderous 'witch hunts' looking for 'Feds' under every cupboard. Why? Because they're organized criminals and corporate criminals, that's why. They are in the drug trade, some of them are in child pornography, covert and private 'surveillance' of troublemakers and threats to their 'status', etc. Of course they hate those who enforce the law! They make their living by breaking it.
I keep telling you people, anyone on this board who is obsessing on 'the Feds' and how they never do any good and are always 'oppressing' the people is a fucking liar and an apologist for organized crime. And at this point, they are obstructing justice.
I see, so the citizens of this nation are supposed to unquestionly allow the taking of our civil liberties? If we dare to question some fat bastard who behaves like a jack-booted mother fucker then we are an apologist for organized crime??? :wtf: I contend that it is the jack-booted bastards whom are the organized crime.
As someone who spent 25 years in federal law enforcement, I can tell you they DID NOT act properly. An emotionally disturbed person is not handled like this except as a last resort, which this cleary was not, as the plane was not in the air and there was no compelling present danger to life.
If this is how the Air Marshalls are being trained, then stand by for worse. Much worse.
A man who acts erratically on a plane, runs down the aisle, says he has a bomb, refuses to stop or drop his backpack, and then runs onto a jetway full of people toward a terminal full of people doesn't constitute a "compelling present danger to life"?
55. There has been NO evidence any of this happened
No videotapes, no passenger evidence, nothing but the remarks of an unnamed "senior official." However, there have been passenger statements that none of this story happened: the man wasn't running up and down the aisles, he never said he had a gun, he quietly left the plane with the AMs, his wife TOLD THEM MANY TIMES he was mentally ill, the air marshals LEFT THE BACKPACK ON THE PLANE, etc. Until the Feds produce a videotape or other compelling evidence, I'm not automatically believing them. I dated a cop for several years, and I know the CYAing that went on in a mid-sized department when there was a screw up, so....
I thought of the London Underground as soon as I heard about it, and it sounds like that may be what happened to a degree.
So, no.... so far there has been no concrete evidence of a "compelling present danger to life."
73. You forgot, they dated a cop once, providing unique insight into
every incident involving any form of law enforcement. If I were you I would refrain from all opinion until you also have dated a cop. I, on the other hand, once made out with a crossing guard, so I can tell you how things really happen.
for many years (there was a bitter time in my youth when I went for the $$$). I gained lots of respect for most of them. They were professional, most strived to high standards, and they had really tough jobs (and they really liked their donuts, believe it or not!). I recall, though, the stories. One desk-bound detective, for example, that always had to sit with his back to a wall and his eyes toward the door even though he'd been off the streets for a decade. There is a tendency, through daily exposure to the worst of us, to first think people are guilty and up to no good. Every large agency has its Division of Internal Investigations because there are a few who shoot first and ask questions later. It comes with the job.
The situation under discussion, IMO, deserves investigation at this point, not judgment. And you can't blame us if we face that investigation with a helpful dose of skepticism, livin' in Bushworld and all. Call it political PTSD.
given the penchant of our media to report the official version of things as truth (funny how people forget that when they want to), and given the hysteria bush, inc has manufactured to cover for its nefarious deeds, policies and plans.
You hear about them all the time. The screening is pretty abysmal. I wish our security was any where near as good as you seem to think it it. How can you trust the security so much when it comes to preventing explosions and so little when anything actually happens?
Some lady walked past the barrier. They didn't tackle her but she disappeared pretty damn fast.
As mediocre as most of the screeners appear, I, as William Pitt would say, reject your premise. I don't "...hear about them all the time." As much as I hate the screening, when they won't even let go through screening without a ticket to walk my 14 year old daughter to the gate in Detroit, I'd say some crazy guy who screamed about a bomb (which, by the way, bystanders have not verified) should have been shot to wound, not made into swiss cheese.
Law enforcement officers are trained to "shoot to stop the threat". The must sure way of doing this is to target center mass (the torso).
When I worked for a Sheriff's Office years ago we watched a film of a man on angel dust who was shot over 30 times and kept coming. "Shooting to wound" is not an option, especially if it's believed that the suspect has a bomb.
"Recent tests of airport security to determine whether screeners would discover concealed guns, knives, and simulated bombs had failure rates comparable to tests done in the 1980s and 1990s, says Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), who was briefed in April on the classified results. The earlier tests showed that screeners missed roughly 20 percent of the prohibited items at checkpoints and that screeners using X-ray machines to examine luggage missed 2 of every 3 bags carrying simulated explosives."
The man in question was not shot and killed because he was mentally ill, he was shot and killed because of his actions. It also had nothing to due with 9-11, GW, or the war in Iraq. In a peacefull Americia circa 1998 any one who shouts 'I have a bomb in my bag!' and when confronted by the police they reach into the bag that you say they said they have a bomb in, you will get shot. period...
I do feel for the family but this was an unfortinute incident and those Marshalls will have to live with their actions as well.
27. there is an eyewitness that came forward and claims that the man made
no threats and he never heard the word "Bomb". It's just one eyewitness so far. the jury is out on this for me until i hear more. My Dad is a pilot and has been for almost 40 years and we had a talk about this today and after discussing this with him i will watch and wait and then decide.
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."
When the incident began McAlhany was in seat 24C, in the middle of the plane. " was in the back," McAlhany says, "a few seats from the back bathroom. He sat down." Then, McAlhany says, "I heard an argument with his wife. He was saying 'I have to get off the plane.' She said, 'Calm down.'"
Alpizar took off running down the aisle, with his wife close behind him. "She was running behind him saying, 'He's sick. He's sick. He's ill. He's got a disorder," McAlhany recalls. "I don't know if she said bipolar disorder . She was trying to explain to the marshals that he was ill. He just wanted to get off the plane."
92. Adrenaline is one hell of a drug. I also needed 6 jumps to freefall.
I am glad I made it. It was incredible falling from so high that there is nothing to hit. I was 18, now 30 years later I would only do it again if my son gets old enough and wants to. I wouldn't miss the ride up with him for the world.
143. Likely, he was shot and killed as a direct result of 9-11 and our fear.
Immediately following and as a direct result of 9-11, the Federal Air Marshall Service was increased from 33 marshals to an estimated 6,000. The chances of an Air Marshall being on this particular flight prior to this increase would have been very small.
Since there obviously was no bomb, it is highly likely that everyone would have survived the flight and gone on with their lives. Instead a mentally ill man is dead, shot to death in front of his wife.
The "circumstances" that lead to this "bad ending" also seem to include America's fear and paranoia.
8. If that were true there would be many more fatailities
Although it might be good to check the various airlines just in case. No one wants mistakes like this to be made. Its amazing it hasn't happened before and I'm sure it will happen again just am I am sure we will also again see bombs explode on airplanes.
11. That's spin. Split second decisions don't allow the luxury of weighing
I stand by my belief and would expect the same if I said the same thing.
And you've read some of my more recent posts; it's safe to say I am probably mentally ill too. (The hint being, maybe the guy said it DELIBERATELY; not knowing where to look for less painful ways out?)
That it is very irresponsible to fly with a relative who has a known mental illness and has not taken their medication. It is very easy to put the blame on law enforcement but I think his relatives are partially to blame for this incident specially when law enforcement officials are know for their "trigger happy" attitude. Let's not cover the sun with the palm of ones hands.
I'm sitting with some of the security guards when one remarks that they should have "ventilated" the guy. Cough. So I ask him to elaborate, since I am unfamiliar with RW-gun slang. Then this stupid fuck says that they were "right" to murder this poor slob because it would "serve as a warning to the terrorists."
Let's let that insanity sink in for a moment.
So, I usually keep my mouth shut at work since I am pretty much there for the salary and plan on using the work experience to move either to Canada, Ireland or, at least, back up North. Okay. I cannot control myself at this one. BTW-this asshole wants to date me (bwahaha- AS IF!!!) and loves ,"smart ladies." :puke: I only date and socialize with Dems, libs, progressives, and the sane.
So I sez, "Um, RON (not his real name), how does killing a mentally ill man who was not, as far as the reports are saying now, carrying any kind of weapon serve as a warning?"
Hmmmmmm? As usual, RON segued into the usual nonsense, and I was glad to see that he sensed when I slammed down my Coke and excused myself in full regal-bitch tone from the table, that I do not approve of him or his idiotic ideas.
I expect tomorrow a full attempt at a debate with me, full of rationalizations of why this was a good thing.
of people who know nothing of the industry make derogatory remarks about people who are trying to do the job of keeping the airline safe. Tragic Tragic Tragic incident, but I have heard nothing publicly from the crew, the flight attendants, and I'm fairly sure the #1 flight attendant would have been standing at or near the door during boarding, but of course those few passengers looking for 15minutes of fame are 100% correct. It is posted EVERYWHERE at the airport that threats will be taken seriously. I'm sorry but hestitating could endanger the crew and the passengers. Where was the outrage when the passengers killed that other passengers in flight? Save your criticism until we know the facts. For anyone who believes that the media will never give us the complete facts why would you believe what they are saying now. Can't have it both ways.
The passenger shot to death by air marshals in Miami had been agitated before boarding the plane and was singing ``Go Down Moses'' as his wife tried to calm him, a fellow passenger said Thursday.
``The wife was telling him, 'Calm down. Let other people get on the plane. It will be all right,''' said Alan Tirpak.
``I thought maybe he's afraid of flying,'' Tirpak said.
Tirpak took his seat, and Rigoberto Alpizar, 44, and his wife eventually boarded the plane. Then, a few minutes before the plane was to pull away, Alpizar bolted up the aisle and onto the jetway, where two air marshals confronted him.
42. That's when you make the decision not to board a plane...
with your ill relative, give him his medications so he does not scare the shit out of everyone in the plane... Sorry, but I think his family gave him a dead sentence. It is just plain irresponsible to do such thing.
33. Rigoberto Alpizar wouldn't have been the first guy to commit suicide
Edited on Thu Dec-08-05 09:09 PM by new_beawr
by making cops shoot him.
Mental Illness kills a lot of people. Most of them die by themselves, but some of them need to have someone else pull the trigger. maybe that's what happened. I feel bad for Alpizar and his family, as I feel bad for any family I know that gets touched by death this way, and I've known several. But I also feel rotten for the Agents as well, I truly believe they acted in good faith and now they have to bear the burden of being someone's personal Firing Squad.
People that find this humorous, or make jokes about the guy's name (I heard that on the radio last night) or in any way treat this as anything but a real shitty situation, are in need of some radical mental therapy, maybe with a 2x4.....
77. Well, I don't know about people not being affected by them, but
...killing someone won't disable a bomb any more effectively, it seems to me.
Surely there must be some sort of weapon that will reliably take a person down without being fatal. It does sound like there are extenuating circumstances on both sides of this story. Whatever the facts of this case, preparing air marshals with some sort of weapon that can stop without killing would be a good thing to look into, imho.
50. YEP! You got it! and those of us "White Knuckle Flyers subject to Panic
Attacks. DON'T FLY unless you are Medicated to the Stretcher and can get onboard as "Comatose."
"Fly the Friendly Skies" is DEAD...They don't want those who might have some compromises. Go Away....or You're DEAD.
(Yeah...I know...all that stuff about not saying "I've Got a Bomb" or why didn't he "Fall on the Ground" when faced "with a gun from an Air Marshall." And...all that crap about 9/11 and how the "whole world changed."
Sheese...let's just give it up...We folks who can't stand that shit just shouldn't fly if we can't understand the "REGULATIONS!!!!" REGULATIONS....REGULATIONS!!!
but those of you who are asking why he was allowed to board are right on the money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is possible the agents questioned the passanger before he boarded, the family should have been more sensitive to his condition, but apparently no one thought or considered he would fail to this degree mentally or I'm sure they would have asked him to stay behind. My husband has thrown many passengers off the aircraft, most of the time for drinking prior to boarding and then being assholes once they are on. The agents hate it when he takes a delay to pull them off, and they get quite confortational. The last time it happened a passenger pushed a flight attendant, he was physically removed from the aircraft.
I doubt anyone who was involved in this incident wishes it had been resolved differently, but the then what if he did have a bomb? No winners here at all. It will be interesting to see what comes out from flight service, it was a flight attendant that noticed the guy trying to lite his shoe bomb.
the phrase "please get back on your meds" is not indicitve of someone who is sympathetic to those who have personal up close in your face knowledge of Mental Illness- There is nothing funny about your sarcastic use of that phrase- and minimizing the REALITY of the need for meds, and the concequences of not taking them in order to try and 'dis' someone is extreemly offensive, and bigoted- in my personal opinion.
You owe those who you claim to be 'sympathetic to' and 'familiar with' an apology-
Call me a sensitive prude- i'm f-kin sick to death of people who make jokes about something that has been made even MORE difficult by the stigma and dis-counting of a very deadly disease, by off the cuff comments such as yours-
The only shame in Mental Illness, is those who deny it exists, and those who refuse to acknowledge their own vunerability to it.
haven't got a clue what i know joe- and if you think that people with mental illness and those who live with them haven't been taught to feel ashamed you haven't walked your talk-
Desiring that people treat mental illness as something very real, difficult to live with, and VERY misunderstood as well as discounted and the brunt of MANY jokes is not being a 'drama queen'-
Telling someone to get back on their meds IS being insensitive - and a smart assed fool- going on to then say that you don't believe there is any 'shame' connected to mental illness only proves your ingenuinness.
Many people have fought all their lives to create an awareness that comments such as yours are what keeps people who have denied, hidden, and FELT ASHAMED of mental illness in the closet for centuries- I refuse to let your slur go un-addressed.
If you don't like what someone has to say, or cannot see their perspective, implying that THEY have a mental illness, is indeed an attempt to 'shame' them-
think about it before you reply- and don't be afraid to be wrong, and admit it. That is the sign of a mature, thinking, open minded person. I am learning that truth myself- on a daily basis- you are wrong here- admit it or not, it is your loss or gain.
yourself is NOT self-victimization. Growing up with a parent who was sever ly MI- and who refused treatment BECAUSE it was a disease that carried a HUGE stigma, as well as the deny it and it will go away mentality is experience you clearly DON'T have- or have any insight into- Want to call that reality 'drama queen'? go for it-
I absolutely do NOT encourage people to find shame in mental illness- your using the notion that someone who presents a perspective that differs with you must be mentally ill, or 'off their meds' is proof that you don't take this issue seriously-
I DON'T talk in 'hushed tones' and i'm not ashamed to admit that indeed i am on several meds- and DO struggle with mental illness, some genetic, some as a result of being raised by a tormented parent who could not face the social stigma of admitting the disease exists-
Comments such as yours are demeaning, rude, and hurtful- When you get your masters in psychology, then maybe i'll take your comment to others about 'being off their meds' as something other than the slur you clearly intended and continue to intend it to be-
Ignorance is no excuse for rudeness- and indignant refusal to face your OWN shortcomings and prejudice doesn't make them not exist-
You are wrong joe- dead wrong, when you justify your 'joke'- about being off meds-
lying- and the only deception i see comes from your inability to admit being wrong- But, that is indeed YOUR problem- and i will quit letting it become mine- I've spoken the truth, and made my point as well as i'm able-
You can take your rude, snide remarks and play with others who enjoy that sort of thing- You have made my point better than i could ever have. may you remain blissfully ignorant-
101. The Marshall did not kill the man... his family did...
Edited on Thu Dec-08-05 10:26 PM by Lost-in-FL
It all comes down to the act of caring for an ill family member, during an international flight, post 9/11. Just the same way you must calm a kid when he's crying so he does not disturb the peace of a flight you must make sure your relative is able to tolerate a long flight. If you do not do this you are at the mercy of a "Shoot to Kill-I want to get promoted-I am the law" kind of guy. We want more security, and cheaper prices but not capable of having personal responsibility...
his 'family' if by that you mean his wife- WILL blame herself forever- but it was NOT her fault- She didn't pull the trigger on that gun- or those guns, what was it, 5 times? while the man was outside the plane???
Calming even the most distraught 'kid' is childs play when compared to trying to help a person experiencing a psychotic episode to stay calm- The woman was doing all she could- had the marshalls not killed him, maybe she could have gotten him home without having to deal with armed 'passenger look alikes' which could only have fed his paranoia-
I don't want more security- i want a hell of alot less- life is something NONE of us will get through alive- Going around killing every one who scares us is not the best way to go about living lives that are 'secure'- and even if some folks 'feel' more secure, what have they sacrificed for that feeble sense of safety? everything.
Look, I hate to say this, but in this situation the lives of the bystanders are more valuable. No Air Marshall would shoot a guy for no reason, potentially exposing himself and harming others in the process. It is highly unfortunate that this happened, but I think the FAMs took the right action. Shooting to wound does not eliminate the threat, it puts more bullets in an area with innocent people. There is a reason cops practice the "failure drill", so they can drop anyone who is a non-compliant threat with high accuracy and efficiency. Personally, I feel safer in the fact that the system worked; if this guy did have a bomb it could of cost a lot more than one life.
63. I am bipolar, my father was diagnosed as bipolar
yet somehow we managed to live nonviolent lives even when not medicated. Probably we are the only two bipolars ever to manage this, judging by responses on earlier threads.
People with bipolar disorder run the gamut. Some are more prone to depression, some to mania, some veer between the two. There are different degree from major depression, mild depression, hypomania, full blown mania, and sometimes we are even stable! I took a writing class with another bipolar person and slammed her script for having a character that was only manic. Turned out it was based on herself and she had never been depressed only manic or stable. I am more prone to depression, had one major incident which took a year to recover from (i.e. adjust the meds.) I am sometimes hypomanic when in a creative state, which basically means my sleep patterns are more messed up than normal. My judgment is not impaired however, and the hypomania occurs even while on meds.
I sympathize with those who wrote of personal experiences with bipolar people whose behavior was erratic to the point of danger. But your experiences are not the sole definition of bipolar existence. To say that people who are unmedicated are inherently dangerous and incapable of rational thought is just not accurate. This man was. We are not all.
98. The "issue" probably goes more to "Trigger Happy" Air Marshall worried
he would seem "soft on crime" than "Bi-Polar Issues" that the M$M is trying to make it out as. To blame the victim and make HIM or HER the CRIME is what they do best...ROVE/Bush. Bush is never held accountable so it's easy to kill Mentally Ill People.
Hitler/Nazi's felt the same way....:-( Think about it....
106. My opinion is BP has nothing to do with the issue...
...that demands investigation. If someone presented himself as an imminent threat, the FAM is assigned the job to mitigate that threat -- he or she has the responsibility to take action to ensure a greater number around the "threat" are safe. Quite a responsibility.
Whether or not an individual is a "mock threat" or "real threat" (bipolar expressed as wildly manic vs. terrorist waging asynchronous warefare) is beside the point if it truly is impossible to distinquish between the two. In my mind the question becomes: Can the two be differentiated in the split second someone has to decide to use (lethal) force? And, if they can, how do we improve awareness, protocol, training, whatever, to ensure the tragedy that unfolded does not happen again?
Hey, I score like a -9/-9 at politicalcompass.org, it is not like me to side with the State on anything, but so far I perceive a tragedy, not a crime. Something those of us involved with these illnesses learn to do: Blame the illness, not its victims. This may hold in this situation.
(Now, having said that, I adhere to LIHOP and question whether any of the publicly visible security measures in airports are necessary. Are they instead pure "show" to maintain and politically exploit fear in the general populace? That takes us away from the poor dolts that killed the man in the jetway -- disarmed of his backpack, away from the passengers -- and onto other issues, however.)
Apologies if I contributed to that perception. My daughter is early-onset, rapid-cycling BP type I, PDD, ADHD, and ODD ... and unfortunately prone to violent outbursts. She is, though (and I think I've said), in the outer extreme.
She's adopted, but we've found out some things about her birth family. On the birth-father's side, almost to a person they have mood disorders, BP, schizo-affective disorder, and various personality disorders (narcisisstic and anti-social). Only a birth-aunt and a birth-cousin (the aunt's son), to our knowledge, has a history of similar destructive outbursts.
Prior to this, my experience with BP (any mental handicap, for that matter) was limited to two professional colleagues that chose to share their condition with me. Though both were unique (charismatic odd-balls, but not unlike me), neither were dangerous to themselves nor others and they had productive, challenging careers underway.
The last thing any of us want to do that have any involvement with these conditions is contribute to the unfair and hurtful stigmatization, the stereotypes and prejudices that are out there. So apologies if by sharing my experience I did just that.
Let me say this: MOST bipolar disordered live lives not unlike anyone elses. They go to school, marry, start careers and families, etc. A better way to picture the condition is to compare it to diabetes type I. Lifelong, requiring medication to control, sometimes intruding on individual lives and families, but otherwise uneventful.
116. Well, we are discussing this man. Not everybody else with bi-polar.
Why was he flying all over the world un-medicated? Clearly, he was in no condition to fly. Not that he deserved to be shot for that, but his wife knew he didn't take his meds. I don't get it-why didn't she make him take the meds? This could have been avoided.
68. Unfortunate for sure. I can't fault the air marshal.
How could he be sure the man was not a threat? The wife could have been an accomplice. How much blame could we pile on the air marshal if there was a bomb and hundreds died? The whole incident happened within seconds. The air marshal made a decision to use deadly force. The marshal perceived a threat and ended it. Remember, this is real life. You have had hours to think about it and have information that wasn't available to the marshal.
Mental illness that threatens the lives of hundreds of innocent people is punishable by death? Yes, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Maybe if the air marshal was made aware of the illness he would have done it differently? To say the individual was targeted because of his illness is highly questionable.
We have the freedom of speech, but not the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. However, it is not clear that the State (the FAM) have the right to end a life merely because one "shouts" -- perhaps the threat needs to be more certain and real than that.
(BTW, a lot of the controversy you generate on these threads could be eliminated if you said, "put aside that all facts are 'alleged' at this point, we don't know if the man said 'I have a bomb' yet, but 'what if?' -- what is right if the alleged circumstances were factual?")
I have a long, considered opinion on the question, "do the ends justify the means?", which the poster above you was slipping into when saying sometimes the rights of the few are trumped by the many. I could go into it but I have to get some other work done (and given the pace of GD this thread will be long gone by the time I get back to it), but I may come back to this later... fair?
114. I just don't see how the standard can be raised while still giving
enough time to respond. If somebody announces that they have a bomb it HAS to be treated as a real threat and that threat must be eliminated in the most expeditious manner (IMO).
I've actually stated numerous times that my opinions are based on the information we have to work with now and that if that information changes, I'll revise my opinions. That's a kinda wordy disclaimer to put in every post, so I've just been using it when it seems germaine to the specific issue at hand. I might not always state it, but I do agree that there's much more information that we'll see and my opinion will change (or not) based on that new information.
You're right, you have been saying "based on the information we have now", so on that point perhaps it is the rest of us who are not listening (it would help to say, "what if this were true?", though -- it could appear to others that you are overly trustful of the MSM).
Argh! On your "standard...enough time to respond" point I have a lot I'd like to say but it will take some time to type out and I don't have that time at the moment. I have to leave it there or I will be pulling an all-nighter ahead of a busy Friday (I'm likely going to pull an all-nighter anyway).
... this crazy guy, I mean this really big crazy schizo guy, all 300 pounds of him, gets out of his seat, looks all around, and starts yelling, "I'm gonna kill you! I'm gonna kill you all!"
And he looks like he might just do that, I mean his eyes were almost popping right out of his face, and he was shaking.
So the bus driver, a strong woman, stops the bus in the middle of the street, opens all the doors, and people are honking their horns behind us, and she walks slowly back to the guy, gets right in his face, and screams "Get your ass off my bus! Now!"
I think we should have armed marshals on every bus to shoot guys like this. :sarcasm:
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.