| Revision as of 07:52, 15 December 2006 editWrath0fb0b (talk | contribs)37 edits →Is this the first FAM incident ever? or since 9/11?← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:41, 1 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots8,041,194 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 |
| (33 intermediate revisions by 19 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Blatant Copying |
|
|
|
|
|
The whole section |
|
|
:The Federal Air Marshal Service promotes confidence in the nation’s civil aviation system through the effective deployment of Federal Air Marshals (FAMs) to detect, deter, and defeat hostile acts targeting U.S. air carriers, airports, passengers, and crews. |
|
|
:Federal Air Marshals must operate independently without backup, and rank among those Federal law enforcement officers that hold the highest standard for handgun accuracy. They blend in with passengers and rely on their training, including investigative techniques, criminal terrorist behavior recognition, firearms proficiency, aircraft specific tactics, and close quarters self-defense measures to protect the flying public. |
|
|
|
|
|
is blatantly copied from the first link. Yes, I know that US government websites are not copyrighted but this is still a violation of the relevant Wiki policies.] 07:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Rigoberto Alpizar crime scene photo == |
|
|
I removed the crime scene photo, since it showed a gory picture of a dead victim of Federal Air Marshals (which also could introduce POV). I don't think it it appropriate and at all meaningful to improving the article. The article is in need of pictures though, just something more appropriate and relevant. ] 01:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I replaced the picture. I remind you that "'']''", and also that "'']''" |
|
|
:In response to your comment that "You'd never see this in a paper encyclopedia," I refer you to: ]--] 19:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Obviously you see this picture as highly relavant to the Federal Air Marshal service. Although the picture is related to the topic, it's more sesationalist than useful to the article, especially since this is the only picture in the article. If you want to introduce such distasteful and POV content, I suggest you create a separate article about the incident, reference it in this article with a summary, and put the picture in the new article instead. A disproportionate part of this article has been dedicated to this incident, so introducing this picture only degrades the article's quality further. Even thouh Misplaced Pages rules allow you to include the picture, it doesn't mean that it makes sense to include it. ] 17:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I understand your concerns. However, this picture, though ], serves as a testament to the duties and consequences of these Marshals. As it is both relevant to the topic (]) and the section (]) it seemed to warrant inclusion. I see it as a far more relevant picture than say, ]. I do agree that the Aplizar section takes up to much space in this article. However, it seems to be covered in more detail here than anywhere else (namely, ] and ]). I would place this picture in the same tone as ], or ] and less than ]. |
|
|
:::--] 23:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Rigoberto Alpizar Section == |
|
|
|
|
|
This article is supposed to be about the Federal Air Marshals Service, yet half (3 of the 6 context pages) are about one incident of the Air Marshals Service. ] already has an article and this section needs to be either removed entirely or extensively shortened. One alternative could be to include a section about Historic Incidents of the AMS, in which Mr. Alpizar's death could be included. ] 15:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Perhaps merge with ]?--] 17:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Or perhaps in ]'s own article. Regardless, the information needs to be extensively trimmed or all together removed. I was hoping somebody who has contributed to this article would take on the job, but I will do it within the next week or two if nobody does. Unfortunately my access is too intermittent at the moment or I would tackle it tonight. ] 04:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Forgot to mention here that I did shrink the sections to some extent and merged the information with ]'s article. The section still needs to be trimmed down more, but being unfamiliar with full details of the case/situation, I was unsure how much could be cut without removing it all together. ] 23:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
