Are we safer?

Rigoberto Alpizar was shot and killed Wednesday.\nThe name might not sound familiar to you, but you've probably heard about the story. Federal air marshals fired their first shots since coming into broad use after the Sept. 11 attacks, killing Alpizar at Miami's International Airport.\nThe details surrounding this case are nebulous. Air marshals claim Alpizar ran from the plane into the terminal while claiming to have a bomb in his carry-on luggage, which he had with him. Passengers claim his wife said he suffered from bipolar disorder and had not taken his medication. She chased him as he ran off the plane while trying to explain this. CNN reports that the marshals ordered Alpizar to the ground but that he kept advancing. Then, they fired shots after he "appeared" to reach into his bag. It seems uncertain if Alpizar actually did reach into the bag. After the shooting, investigators found no traces of a bomb in any of his luggage.\nWhat do we make of this? First and foremost, it is a tragedy for everyone involved. But what does it say about our security? An unscientific online poll at CNN shows 76 percent of respondents say that the presence of air marshals makes them feel safer. I'm probably in the 24 percent who disagree.\nThe details of this case might become less hazy after the investigation progresses. Regardless, it already says a lot about airline safety. Officials claim that the marshals acted consistently with their training but have been placed on administrative leave until an investigation is completed. \nAlpizar's actions left few options for the authorities besides the use of deadly force. And yet, it's difficult to consider a realistic situation in which the marshals would be necessary. \nUnlike Alpizar's situation, an actual terrorist intent on blowing up a plane would not give notice to the other passengers. Consider the "shoe bomber" Richard Reid, who nearly blew up a plane by lighting explosives contained in his shoes. He failed his attempt but only because highly attentive passengers and flight attendants were able to stop him as he tried to light a match. Would the presence of air marshals on this flight have facilitated the outcome? Probably not. Such a situation requires the instant reaction of an individual, whether it is a marshal, passenger or flight attendant.\nAlpizar's story reminds me of the case in Britain this summer when an unarmed man was shot and killed in the subway because he failed to stop running when ordered by the police. This was in the wake of the July 7 subway bombings.\nPerhaps I am wrong, and marshals might be our best hopes for safety up in the sky. However, since Sept. 11 they have been used only once, and they possibly killed a mentally ill man who posed no threat to anyone but himself. This track record makes it difficult to justify their existence.