| Revision as of 19:14, 20 April 2006 edit163.191.100.10 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:41, 1 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots8,041,340 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Organizations}}, {{WikiProject Law Enforcement}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (45 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
Are women permitted to be marshalls? There's no mention of a sex restriction, but some of the information mentioned (e.g. that all marshalls must be clean-shaven, etc.) suggests that it's a male-only organization. If so, it ought to be mentioned. |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Organizations |importance=Low}} |
|
Women are not allowed to be marshalls, just flight attendants. |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Law Enforcement |importance=Low}} |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
why aren't women allow to be air mashalls?(] 15:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Sign your posts! (type <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) The second comment was a chauvinistic, vandalistic anonymous post. I doubt there would be a sex restriction for air marshals (there's no restriction on ] for instance.) If the article implies this, it should be fixed up so it doesn't have that male perspective :) ] 00:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::I remember reading an article about FAM and their training a while back. They mention that one of the FAM was female. I'll try to look it up and link it.] 19:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
APRIL 20, 2006: |
|
|
|
|
|
Women are allowed, and encouraged, to be Federal Air Marshals and there are several that have been employed since 2001, when they first started hiring. There aren't any "male-only organizations" in the Federal law enforcement system. rachel2026 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Is this the first FAM incident ever? or since 9/11? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Someone added that the shooting today in Miami was the first FAM shooting since 9/11. Did a FAM shoot someone on 9/11? If there were only 33 Sky Marshals prior to 9/11 that would seem unlikely. I suspect this is the first shooting ''ever'' in the FAM/Sky Marshal history.] 00:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:I thought I remembered reading both, which is why it stood out for me as well. I don't remember any Air Marshals actually shooting anyone on Sept. 11th... Sorry I can't be of more help. ] 02:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:Brian Doyle of DHS during a press conference said, "This is the first time that air marshals have used a firearm during a mission since 9/11." The "since 9/11" phrase was probably first used by him. Many media outlets have clarified the quote to mean: since the Federal Air Marshal Service was expanded after 9/11. --] 01:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The history page http://www.ice.gov/graphics/fams/history.htm doesn't actually appear to say whether or not an air marshal has ever shot a passenger. Any better references out there? ] 20:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Reminder: please supply sources == |
|
|
|
|
|
Can anyone provide sources for the statistic that "Until the American Airlines Flight 924 shooting incident at Miami on 7 December 2005, only two Federal Air Marshals have fired a weapon on or near an airplane"? |
|
|
] 13:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:Have 90% of your answer. Two citations posted. The first citation is from a TSA spokesman in an AP article dated Nov 26 2002. He said no FAM has ever fired a weapon on a plane. The second citation is from Brian Doyle of DHS, who says no FAM has even fired their weapon while on a mission since 9/11. Therefore, first time ever, unless ... a FAM has fired a weapon while near but not on a plane prior to Nov 26 2002. --] 01:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== dress code == |
|
|
|
|
|
witness's on cnn said that the airmarshall was wearing a hawaiian shirt, a edit might be nessisary |
|
|
|
|
|
*Thanks, I've added a note to that and a link to a CNN article. ] 20:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
= Should Air Marshals Carry Stun Guns = |
|
|
|
|
|
December 14, 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
I recently read a article (USA TODAY .com article, “ Airport Shooting: Tragic Product of Post 9/11 World”), The article mentioned about a incident that took place at Miami International Airport between a 44-year-old man named Rigoberto Alpizar and U.S. Air Marshals and the impact that incident had on homeland security in the United States. I understand that the current worldwide situation with violent extremist ideologies demands step-up security. However, what should these security measures consist of? In the case of the tragic shooting death of Alpizar by federal air marshals the article mentioned questions put forth by the article’s publisher USA TODAY.com; one of these questions asks: “ should air marshals also be given stun guns, to deal with situations in which non-lethal force is appropriate?” Currently electrified weapons technology is not adequate enough for use in situations like the one regarding Alpizar and the air marshals; however in a article titled “ Electrified Water Cannon” from Misplaced Pages a online encyclopedia service that article mention’s about a water cannon under research by Jaycore Tactical Systems that can fire electrified water jets at a target to deliver a electrical shock to that target. This non-lethal weapon is a step in the right direction to developing a non-lethal weapon that will work well in most situations where a fired projectile weapon like a gun would most likely be used. In situations like the one mentioned in the USA TODAY.com article, law enforcement officials in today’s world have a hard time distinguishing between a threat and not-so-threat, it’s up to society to develop the weaponry needed to give law enforcement officials a greater array of options to deal with certain situations that arise in our world. |
|
|
|
|
|
Anon. User |
|
