Passenger killed by Feds was on church trip to South America

khobar wrote:


Someone else raised the point that this could easily have been a ploy to
draw the air marshalls out into the open - I think this has exposed a gaping
hole in security

In cases of imminent danger, would you expect the AMs to remain hidden?

wrote in message
. net...
khobar wrote:


Someone else raised the point that this could easily have been a ploy to
draw the air marshalls out into the open - I think this has exposed a
gaping
hole in security

In cases of imminent danger, would you expect the AMs to remain hidden?

Actually, yes - in case of decoy, though Mr. Mazor offered some good
comments on the matter.

Paul Nixon

"khobar" wrote in message
news:cWgnf.3424$du.2386@fed1read02...
wrote in message
. net...
khobar wrote:

Someone else raised the point that this could easily have been a ploy
to
draw the air marshalls out into the open - I think this has exposed a
gaping
hole in security

In cases of imminent danger, would you expect the AMs to remain hidden?

Actually, yes - in case of decoy, though Mr. Mazor offered some good
comments on the matter.

Here's an example of a FAM breaking cover to deal with an inflight
situation. Handcuffs were sufficient, so despite ill-informed comments here
about trigger-happy FAMs, there was no shooting. It doesn't say whether the
other FAM stayed under cover.

Feds charge woman for disturbance on airplane

PHILADELPHIA -- A 35-year-old Pottstown woman has been indicted for
allegedly disrupting a USAir flight from Las Vegas to Philadelphia.

Story at
http://www.pottstownmercury.com/site...= 18041&rfi=6

John Mazor wrote:

"khobar" wrote in message
news:cWgnf.3424$du.2386@fed1read02...

wrote in message
y.net...

khobar wrote:


Someone else raised the point that this could easily have been a ploy
to
draw the air marshalls out into the open - I think this has exposed a
gaping
hole in security

In cases of imminent danger, would you expect the AMs to remain hidden?

Actually, yes - in case of decoy, though Mr. Mazor offered some good
comments on the matter.

Nonsense. At what point would you expect them to reveal themselves out
of fear of a decoy? What if there are multiple decoys? I don't believe
they have a goal to remain hidden in the event of an incident out of
fear that it might be a decoy. That being said, let the crew handle the
drunks, with a taser if needed.



Here's an example of a FAM breaking cover to deal with an inflight
situation. Handcuffs were sufficient, so despite ill-informed comments here
about trigger-happy FAMs, there was no shooting. It doesn't say whether the
other FAM stayed under cover.

Why do you assume there was another FAM?

"mrtravel" wrote in message
...
John Mazor wrote:

"khobar" wrote in message
news:cWgnf.3424$du.2386@fed1read02...

wrote in message
y.net...

khobar wrote:


Someone else raised the point that this could easily have been a ploy
to
draw the air marshalls out into the open - I think this has exposed a
gaping
hole in security

In cases of imminent danger, would you expect the AMs to remain hidden?

Actually, yes - in case of decoy, though Mr. Mazor offered some good
comments on the matter.

Nonsense. At what point would you expect them to reveal themselves out
of fear of a decoy? What if there are multiple decoys? I don't believe
they have a goal to remain hidden in the event of an incident out of
fear that it might be a decoy. That being said, let the crew handle the
drunks, with a taser if needed.

That was me who made that comment, not Mr. Mazor, the person you are
replying to. In any case, I thought my answer would be clear from the basic
idea of why there might be multiple FAM's on a flight in the first place,
but obviously I needed to add the implied word "other" - as in "Actually,
yes - in case of decoy (I would expect the other FAM(s) to remain hidden)."


Here's an example of a FAM breaking cover to deal with an inflight
situation. Handcuffs were sufficient, so despite ill-informed comments
here
about trigger-happy FAMs, there was no shooting. It doesn't say whether
the
other FAM stayed under cover.

Why do you assume there was another FAM?

Mr. Mazor can answer that.

Paul Nixon

khobar wrote:


That was me who made that comment, not Mr. Mazor, the person you are
replying to. In any case, I thought my answer would be clear from the basic
idea of why there might be multiple FAM's on a flight in the first place,
but obviously I needed to add the implied word "other" - as in "Actually,
yes - in case of decoy (I would expect the other FAM(s) to remain hidden)."


Until what point would you expect the other FAM to remain hidden, since
it would be quite easy for terrorist to have a 2nd decoy.

"mrtravel" wrote in message
...
John Mazor wrote:

"khobar" wrote in message
news:cWgnf.3424$du.2386@fed1read02...

wrote in message
gy.net...

khobar wrote:

Someone else raised the point that this could easily have been a ploy
to
draw the air marshalls out into the open - I think this has exposed a
gaping
hole in security

In cases of imminent danger, would you expect the AMs to remain hidden?

Actually, yes - in case of decoy, though Mr. Mazor offered some good
comments on the matter.

Nonsense. At what point would you expect them to reveal themselves out of
fear of a decoy? What if there are multiple decoys? I don't believe they
have a goal to remain hidden in the event of an incident out of fear that
it might be a decoy. That being said, let the crew handle the drunks, with
a taser if needed.

Here's an example of a FAM breaking cover to deal with an inflight
situation. Handcuffs were sufficient, so despite ill-informed comments
here about trigger-happy FAMs, there was no shooting. It doesn't say
whether the other FAM stayed under cover.

Why do you assume there was another FAM?

From another poster:

The "mrtravel" psycho:

- is a 47 year old unemployed loser, fired by Cisco a year ago
- has been trolling usenet and flooding newsgroups for TWO DECADES
- has been harassing and stalking usenet posters for TWO DECADES
- is a known criminal, in trouble with the law since he was a teenager
- has no life outside usenet, is online trolling/harassing/stalking 24/7
- is such a loser he often responds to posts within one or two minutes
- is an alcoholic and drug addict, often trolls while drunk and high
- is a known liar and bull****ter, lies about everything
- was fired by Cisco in early 2005 for doing all of the above from work
- likes to make death threats
- is a known pedophile and child sexual predator
- is a known importer of Russian whores looking for fast cheap green cards

Now I'm the charitable type, so I'm willing to believe that half of that
isn't true.

The problem is, I don't know which half.

"mrtravel" wrote in message
...
khobar wrote:


That was me who made that comment, not Mr. Mazor, the person you are
replying to. In any case, I thought my answer would be clear from the
basic
idea of why there might be multiple FAM's on a flight in the first
place,
but obviously I needed to add the implied word "other" - as in
"Actually,
yes - in case of decoy (I would expect the other FAM(s) to remain
hidden)."


Until what point would you expect the other FAM to remain hidden, since
it would be quite easy for terrorist to have a 2nd decoy.

The answer is rather simple actually - it depends on the number of FAM's
onboard.
If there is one then he/she reacts when his/her judgement dictates.
If there are two on board, then the primary will react when his/her
judgement dictates and the secondary will react when his/her judgement
dictates.
If there are three on board, then the primary will react when his/her
judgement dictates, the secondary will react when his/her judgement
dictates, and the tertiary will react when his/her judgement dictates.

And so on, sequentially.

Paul Nixon

mrtravel wrote:

John Mazor wrote:

Here's an example of a FAM breaking cover to deal with an inflight
situation. Handcuffs were sufficient, so despite ill-informed comments here
about trigger-happy FAMs, there was no shooting. It doesn't say whether the
other FAM stayed under cover.

Why do you assume there was another FAM?

It's well-known that they travel in twos.

Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

mrtravel wrote:

John Mazor wrote:

Here's an example of a FAM breaking cover to deal with an inflight
situation. Handcuffs were sufficient, so despite ill-informed comments
here
about trigger-happy FAMs, there was no shooting. It doesn't say
whether the
other FAM stayed under cover.

Why do you assume there was another FAM?

It's well-known that they travel in twos.

Apparently not to mrtravel.

Actually, in reviewing some of his posts here - I had never read any of his
stuff in ada - he mostly came across as a cranky contrarian. Sometimes with
good points, sometimes with loon trolling crap, like his questions about FAM
procedures. Either way, he likes to argue. Kind of a Tarver without the
sense of humor. (Feeble and infantile it may have been, but at least splaps
did have one.)