Talk:Federal Air Marshal Service/Archive 1

Female marshalls
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.

Women are not allowed to be marshalls, just flight attendants.

why aren't women allow to be air mashalls?(Raniya 15:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC))


 * Sign your posts! (type ~ ) 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 police officers for instance.) If the article implies this, it should be fixed up so it doesn't have that male perspective :) Mrtea 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.Attakmint 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

I thought the second comment was actually very funny --76.31.242.174 (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

August 18, 2010 - Regarding whether or not women were permitted to be Sky Marshals. Prior to 1970 Women in federal law enforcement were restricted to non-gun carrying positions. That changed in 1971 when President Nixon signed an executive order granting women equal status in federal law enforcement. Shortly afterwards the US Customs Service hired a number of females for the position of Customs Security Officer (Sky Marshal) - many of those women later transitioned to traditional Customs Law Enforcement positions such as Special Agent/Criminal Investigator when the Sky Marshal program terminated in 1974. http://www.cbp.gov/custoday/jun2000/tischler.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.173.111.152 (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

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.Wrath0fb0b 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.Rhallanger 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. Mrtea 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. --A rabbit 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? Tim Pierce 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"? Tim Pierce 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. --A rabbit 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. Tim Pierce 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 Wikipedia 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. galar71 01:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I replaced the picture. I remind you that "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive", and also that "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy."
 * In response to your comment that "You'd never see this in a paper encyclopedia," I refer you to: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia--Crackedoutbore 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 Wikipedia rules allow you to include the picture, it doesn't mean that it makes sense to include it. galar71 17:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand your concerns. However, this picture, though grisly, serves as a testament to the duties and consequences of these Marshals. As it is both relevant to the topic (Federal Air Marshal Service) and the section (Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office report) it seemed to warrant inclusion. I see it as a far more relevant picture than say, simply a picture of Alpizar. 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, American Airlines Flight 924 and Rigoberto Alpizar). I would place this picture in the same tone as video of JFK's assasination, or Nick Berg images and less than those of The Holocaust.
 * --Crackedoutbore 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. Rigoberto Alpizar 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. AuburnPilot 15:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps merge with American Airlines Flight 924?--Coolhandscot 17:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps in Rigoberto Alpizar'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. AuburnPilot 04:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention here that I did shrink the sections to some extent and merged the information with Rigoberto Alpizar'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. AuburnPilot 23:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

FFDO's
Are not Federal Law Enforcement Agent/Officers. They only wish they were. Just as FAMS are not pilots, becuase they have 8 hrs of cockpit training. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.22.190.98 (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Says the IP address registered to the United States Southern Command . Please feel free to make any changes you believe are necessary; this article really does need improvement.  auburn pilot  talk  19:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What is an FFDO anyway? 71.137.20.85 19:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * An FFDO is a Federal Flight Deck Officer (See FFDO) or the TSA's site here. Basically, they're armed flight crew members. - auburn pilot   talk  19:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Equipment and practices
The "equipment and practices" section initially states that "Air Marshals used to board the aircraft before other passengers to scan the aircraft for weapons and explosives. They now board along with other passengers to blend in." and then "current Director Dana A. Brown continues to enforce the policies that mandate FAMs to ... pre-board aircraft in full view of general passengers in the terminal." These statements contradict each other? Which is it? 24.166.17.187 (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Other Controversies
Im surprised that there are no other controversies discussed here, see http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/16/griffin.marshal.training/index.html, and this http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/14/air.marshal.investigation/index.html and definitely this http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/press/OIGpr_060829_Nguyen.pdf and finally this from my local news station whch did a good investigation and it also has a link to a video of my congressman grilling TSA director, http://www.click2houston.com/investigates/17121409/detail.html. All this should be incorporated into the article. If nothing is added or if there are no objections then I will assume its ok to do so. --76.31.242.174 (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the vast majority of postings for this was back in 2005. There is one back in 2008. Peole have probably forgotten this article by now. Anyway I incorporated the info into a new section in the artcicle "Other Controversies". I hope no one minds or erases it, I think its well done and researched and compliments the whole article. I'll stop patting myself on the back now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.242.174 (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization
Why are we capping Federal Air Marshal? Do we cap Federal Meat Inspector? If used as part of a name as in Federal Air Marshal Marshall it ought to cappitalized as part of the name. Elsewise, I can see no reason. Before I change it to standard English, I ask for comment. It is a big job I see no need to do it twice. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Weapons
These guys apparently switched to the SIG Sauer P250 some time after 2009: Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)