These articles are in addition to the 2 law dawg cited. Just a couple of examples of dozens

http://espn.go.com/nfl/news/2002/0802/1413498.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TRAVEL/03/01...ane.arrest.ap/

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/...6846119.htm?1c

I have more info on all three of these incidents, but I can't post our incident reports. I can keep posting news articles of these examples that you doubted existed. How many do you want?

Not always. I'm not going to elaborate.

[/QUOTE]Marshals never (in my experience) pull out a laptop and work or play games like most other business or leisure travelers.[/QUOTE]


Plenty of guys I've flown with use their laptops often in flight.

[/QUOTE]Marshals tend to be young (max age was 37, now 40 unless one was already a federal cop) and sport the buzz cut so popular with deputy sheriffs, FBI agents and border patrol agents. They look like cops. This characteristic can be changed, but the buzz cuts aren't forced on the agents right now, as cops tend to like the near-skinhead look.[/QUOTE]


True, max age for hire was increased from 37 to 40. Have to have minimum 20 yrs by age 60 for minimum retirement. So someone who was a law enforcement officer with another federal agency for say 15 years could have been hired as a FAM at age 55- he would hit 20 yrs with Fed by age 60. At my FO (field office) ages range from mid 20s to late 50s. True, most in 30s. No one on my team has what I think you could classify as a "buzz" or "crew cut"

[/QUOTE]Marshals tend to wear clothing to conceal a couple of firearms, like long pants and jackets, even when everyone else is much more casual. The jackets have to stay on if you want to keep the holsters concealed.[/QUOTE]


You obviously don't have much knowlege of concealment holsters. I haven't worn a jacket onboard a flight ever, and haven't even worn one to the airport in several months. Violating a service wide policy that hasn't really been enforced at my FO lately. This reminds me of a post I saw last week, maybe the 1st time I was on FT, where someone said you could spot the FAMs by the bulges around our ankles due to the leg holsters we wear. I got a chuckle out of that one. That someone was either imagineing things or it wasn't FAMs he was looking at.

[/QUOTE]Marshals tend not to chat up their seatmates, unlike nearly every boor in First Class.[/QUOTE]


I rarely speak to my partner while on board. Seems like you may have seen some who you thought were FAMS and weren't, and there may have been FAMs on some of your flights that you didn't realize.

All those incidents are of the "unruly/drunk pax causing a stir" type, and nothing to do with the prevention of terrorism. Like the guard at Walmart saying he's doing his bit to keep America safer by pinching shoplifters.

By contrast, if half the Anne Jacobsen (sp?) story is true, an arguable threat was developing (or at least merited investigation), and the onboard FAMs sat like deer in the headlights.

We don't need on board rent-a-cops. We need real deterrents.

The FAMS on that flight did exactly what they were supposed to do. They used their training and stayed in cover, but you can bet if these "band members" had done something that they shouldnt have (but they were only band members so why are we worried?) they would have taken decisive action. Our jobs as FAMS does not entail us jumping up at the most minute of circumstance. Our job is to act when appropriate. Each and every instance of a situation is different.

It is hard for people to know what "investigation" went on if they do not know the exact paramenters that FAMS operate on. And of course we cannot release the "exact" parameters we operate on. This entire incident has garnered extensive debrief and critique during weekly training sessions. The FAMS did what they should have done.

Oh, and by the way, I am not for rent.

If the Anne Jacobson story is true the FAMs did exactly as they should - they waited. You don't try to "Deter" a hijacking once the bad guys are on the plane. You make your move when it is the most tactically sound. Jumping up and telling them "Go sit down or you'll face my wrath...." is stupid. They had broken no laws at that point so you can't take them into custody. They were acting hinky and the FAMs did the right thing by waiting. You start the dance when YOU want to, you don't let the bad guys make you activate before you are ready.

This is law enforcement 101.

We don't need ignorant internet postings. We need intelligent, educated discusson.

Earlier you claimed that the two nitwits who drew their weapons and held them on a planeload of passengers were following procedure.

Now you say that procedure is to sit and wait.

Which is it?

Come on, lets be real. This is becoming a real "whose on first" type of thing.

Just like any peace officer, in any position, it takes the "totality" of the situation. There is no "ONE" way to do things for "ALL" situations. In the instance you refer to, which was nearly two years ago now, a situation "did" occur that caused the air marshal's to come out of cover to assist the flight crew. It was not a "terrorist" situation, but their cover was given up. They deployed as they were trained at that time. This situation was given much play in the press at that time. Being a "nit wit" had nothing to do with it. Critiques and armchair quarterbacking were in abundance. HQ responded at that time giving a description on how we as FAMS are trained to react to some situations if we do get involved, in the event of a ruse.

At that time many of us felt too much info was given away. Well that was nothing based upon the many "feel good" tv news stories and newspaper reports since then.

As was stated in several threads on here, as well as in news releases, interviews and offical reports, the FAMS dealing with the "band members" were fully aware of what was going on. They were ready to deal with the situation if a terrorist, criminal, or significant interference with the flight crew had taken place. None of these things happened, so no involvement.

Do you really think that any law enforcement agency simply has one procedure that cover's every possible circumstance, and the officer or agent involved can only just follow that one procedure?

Having their "cover" blown did not and never will excuse their actions. They pulled their weapons and held a planeload of LAW ABIDING TAXPAYERS at gunpoint.

Those are the actions of nitwits.

And, yes. When a Federal Agency makes the idiotic decision to introduce firearms to a Passenger Aircraft, I expect ONE set of crystal clear concrete procedures.

So, what, wait until they have the tactical advantage, like after the first throat has been slashed, they're at the door, and true pandemonium breaks out, preventing your "pop up and play Bruce Willis" game :confused: These "tactics"-- if really those of the FAM's-- would not have prevented a 9/11 style attack. You don't need to go to Brunswick to know that you don't surrender the only advantage you have, and yes, if it means preemptively telling someone to "sit your a$$ down", that's what you do before things reach critical mass-- after all, you all apparently have no problem doing the same to some drunk white guy or college student (but then again, you know you won't get a PC backlash or be required to attend "sensitivity training" for doing that, if it turns out to be the wrong call). There's a reason you guys aren't in real law enforcement or the military, sadly.

Support from an unlikely quarter.

To the extent that FAMs follow their training and protocols in meeting any of the varying situations that have arisen, then there is no blame for actions which turn out to have been inappropriate for the real situation.

By the same token, I wouldn't more blame the poor sod sweltering in body armor, holding a weapon and standing like a store window mannequin in front of a NYC financial district building for having made the decision to put him there. That piece of stupidity was crafted much higher in the food chain.

When a FAM is ordered to board in a way that "outs" him, to wear clothing or to act in any other way that has the same effect, it is not the fault of that front line person.

Nor, on the other hand, do I buy the "legend in their own mind," "tough guy," "I'm all that stands between your and certain death" stuff that too many of these folks seem to need to put out. But hey, if it gets them through the night...

The larger issue as far as I am concerned, is that our whole approach to the issue of "security" is out of whack. It is based in a fear driven, hysterical attitude with an unhealthy dose of CYA blended in.

My hope is that we will eventually learn enough to be able to scale way back on the window dressing - hand holding stuff and realize that crafting GOOD intelligence and accepting a certain amount of risk is the best best we can make.

In my opinion.

Best wishes,

Teacher49

Well, all niceties aside, you dont know what you are talking about, and frankly your wish (one procedure) will never happen. I hope you are as enlightened in your own field as you are in mine.

Thanks for your post. Just for the record the vast majority (like 99.9%) of us don't like those you have referenced above either. Those who project that image, and then spout it daily are the same people we don't like either. They usually are the kind of partners we would rather leave behind. Many of those have found over the past year or so that this is not the job for them and are being "weeded out".

Who says all the passengers were law abiding? Who says they were all taxpayers? Do you know who all of the 100+ to 180 passengers were and their histories? If there were any passengers on the flight who had a criminal history they couldn't be labeled as law abiding. Even some people without criminal histories, if they regularly break the law, can be called non law abiding. If there were any foreigners on the flight who lived abroad, they weren't US taxpayers. I'm being ridiculous here to point out an idiotic, blanket statement.

How much law enforcement experience and experience with firearms do you have? My guess is little to none.

Ok, no Marshals with guns on planes, that pretty much assures the only people with guns (besides FFDOs on a very small percentage of flights) will be the criminals and terrorists who can get them past TSA, which as has been reported before, isn't that hard to do. And don't give me that crap about the gun being taken from the FAM. The odds of a criminal or terrorist smuggling a weapon onboard a plane is far far greater than the odds of them taking a FAM's weapon.

You can say idiotic decision. Your opinion. I can say anyone who says it was an idiotic decision has no experience in LE and is totally clueless. My opinion. Opinions are like a-holes, everyones got one.

Don't remember; where in recent history has a gun been smuggled past the TSA and where was it reported?

Statement by FAM


Response from TSA person:
Gotta love it! Interagency bickering! ;) Now we're really getting somewhere!

Tongue in cheek,

Teacher49