MIT student at Logan

[Blotan Hunka]

No one is claiming they shouldn't have investigated and figured out what it was. However, upon investigation it should have been very clear that it was not an explosive device, and just a harmless light up shirt. At that point the issue should have been closed and everyone gone back to what they where doing.

The idea of arresting and charging a person because they wore something that you thought might be a bomb but really wasn't nor was it intended to be seems to be opening a door I would not want opened.

How would you draw the line? If there is no intent or accompanying actions to warrant the arrest where does the line between harmless homemade property and "hoax device" get drawn?

A person being arrested for having a bomb, no argument at all. A person being arrested for having something that someone thought might kinda look like what a bomb could look like? That is a law I don't want, and one that would have gotten everybody that took a electronics course in junior high school arrested for if they got spotted with it in the wrong place.



Yup, that covers everything I produced in Junior High electronics.

Depends on what the cops think her intent was doesnt it? If somebody wasted the time of LE, scared a group of people and made me miss my plane for a stupid stunt, Id want to see her charged.

 

[Andrew Green]

Depends on what the cops think her intent was doesnt it? If somebody made me miss my plane for a stupid stunt, Id want to see her charged.

It does, but with nothing more then a board that causes colored paint to light up, how can you determine intent?

With no way of showing that the intent was not malicious should it not be innocent until proven guilty? Which is really what I object too, I've seen nothing to point to her as having a malicious intent, just making a mistake. To presume guilty based on no more evidence then a geeky shirt is, in my mind, a very bad thing for a free society to be doing.

 

[MJS]

No one is claiming they shouldn't have investigated and figured out what it was. However, upon investigation it should have been very clear that it was not an explosive device, and just a harmless light up shirt. At that point the issue should have been closed and everyone gone back to what they where doing.

The idea of arresting and charging a person because they wore something that you thought might be a bomb but really wasn't nor was it intended to be seems to be opening a door I would not want opened.

How would you draw the line? If there is no intent or accompanying actions to warrant the arrest where does the line between harmless homemade property and "hoax device" get drawn?

A person being arrested for having a bomb, no argument at all. A person being arrested for having something that someone thought might kinda look like what a bomb could look like? That is a law I don't want, and one that would have gotten everybody that took a electronics course in junior high school arrested for if they got spotted with it in the wrong place.



Yup, that covers everything I produced in Junior High electronics.

IMO, one of the things that some may be over looking, is the fact that she caused a disturbance. I'd be really surprised if the people that do things like this girl in question, didn't realize that there wouldn't be consequences.

As I said before, the fact of the matter is, is she interrupted the normal flow of business. Why should she be exempt from charges? If a kid calls in a fake bomb scare at his school, she they be exempt? "Oh, well, I was bored today at school, so I thought I'd cause a little tension, so everyone could get some fresh air." Sorry, doesnt cut it in my book.

Basically, you're saying that its ok that tension was caused, that her actions should be excused because the shirt was deemed fake.

 

[JBrainard]

Did she? Cause I've not seen anything that suggests that. The shirt was not designed to look like a bomb, nor was she doing anything that would make her seem like a terrorist, just wearing the shirt.

Accidentally, not deliberately.

So again, my view is that this is a very bad step for personal freedom, allowing arrests and charges based on someone perceiving something in a way that it was not meant to be.

As for your first two paragraphs... You're kidding, right? Unless she is a complete moron, you can safely assume that she was trying to get a reaction from people.

As for the last paragraph, I am all for personal freedom, something that is erroding before our eyes. But in this social climate, her "artistic expression" should at least be checked out. As for whether she deserved a punishment and to what degree, I haven't really formed an opinion on that yet.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

It does, but with nothing more then a board that causes colored paint to light up, how can you determine intent?

With no way of showing that the intent was not malicious should it not be innocent until proven guilty? Which is really what I object too, I've seen nothing to point to her as having a malicious intent, just making a mistake. To presume guilty based on no more evidence then a geeky shirt is, in my mind, a very bad thing for a free society to be doing.

I think you are confusing "innocent until proven guilty" which happens in a court with "probable cause" which happens on the street. The cops job isnt to determine "guilt" just if the action warrants an arrest. Which they thought did Im assuming. She was released on bail and hasnt been convicted of anything yet am I right?

 

[MJS]

The shirt was not designed to look like a bomb,

Isn't this a pretty bold assumption Andrew? You work with computers right? Therefore, to your eye, it may seem, upon first look, that it was nothing more than a harmless display. However, line up 10 average Joes, and I'd bet you'd get opinions that differ.

nor was she doing anything that would make her seem like a terrorist, just wearing the shirt.

Hmmm...did the 9/11 hijackers do anything that would make them seem like terrorists? I'd have to say no, considering they got on board the plane!

So again, my view is that this is a very bad step for personal freedom, allowing arrests and charges based on someone perceiving something in a way that it was not meant to be.

Hmmm...as always, the cops are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Had this been a real bomb, and did nothing, I'd be certain everyone would wonder why they stood by. Now, here we have them doing something, and they still take heat. Amazing.

 

[Andrew Green]

I think you are confusing "innocent until proven guilty" which happens in a court with "probable cause" which happens on the street. The cops job isnt to determine "guilt" just if the action warrants an arrest. Which they thought did Im assuming. She was released on bail and hasnt been convicted of anything yet am I right?

No, I'm thinking that a person should not be arrested, or have to post bail unless there is some good evidence supporting the claim that they did something illegal. But I can't see the crime here.

Hmmm...as always, the cops are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Had this been a real bomb, and did nothing, I'd be certain everyone would wonder why they stood by. Now, here we have them doing something, and they still take heat. Amazing.

And they should definitely have investigated, determined it was a harmless "fashion" display and thats it, duty done, everyone is safe.

And you are right, I do work with computers and could probably pull half a dozen items that would make as convincing of a "bomb" as that out of the back room without much effort at all. The idea that I could get arrested for them seems absurd.

 

[MJS]

And they should definitely have investigated, determined it was a harmless "fashion" display and thats it, duty done, everyone is safe.

And you are right, I do work with computers and could probably pull half a dozen items that would make as convincing of a "bomb" as that out of the back room without much effort at all. The idea that I could get arrested for them seems absurd.

I guess the next question that I had already asked, but will ask again...why should someone who causes a disturbance, get off with a slap on the wrist, if that? Someone calls in a bomb scare to a hospital, a court house, a school...now you have emergency services, ie: police, fire depts, racing to a fake call, endangering the lives of themselves as well as others on the road, the chaos of trying to get everyone out of the building...and you're saying if its determined its a hoax, do nothing to the person that caused it? Alrighty then.

 

[Sukerkin]

I don't think Andrew was saying that, MJS but I do concur that, under such conditions as you noted above, actions should have consequences.

It boils down to intent in the end.

For example, I have been 'guilty' of wasting emergency services time by calling for an ambulance when, leaving a pub, I saw a chap fall down at the side of a country road and lie twitching and frothing at the mouth in an obvious fit. I'd gone back into the pub to make the call on a public phone (no such things as 'mobiles' back then) and when I came out, he was gone!

I waited for the ambulance crew to turn up and explained what had happened but I'd still pulled them away from other emergencies that may have been occurring.

I made a mistake. Should I have been charged for it?

I know we're heavily theorising about another persons motives here but, just maybe, the Eejut Student about which we've spoken so much, just walked up to the information desk in a moment of devilment, simply to see the look on the fellows face. Or maybe she really didn't think anything of it. Or maybe she was wearing the thing for the benefit of people flying in that she was going to meet, needed some information on the flgiht and couldn't take the sweatshirt off because she was wearing nothing underneath.

We don't know and I doubt we ever will. The discussion itself is worthwhile tho' and there's been some good posts on it from both sides of the Draconian Divide :tup:.

 

[Andrew Green]

I guess the next question that I had already asked, but will ask again...why should someone who causes a disturbance, get off with a slap on the wrist, if that? Someone calls in a bomb scare to a hospital, a court house, a school...now you have emergency services, ie: police, fire depts, racing to a fake call, endangering the lives of themselves as well as others on the road, the chaos of trying to get everyone out of the building...and you're saying if its determined its a hoax, do nothing to the person that caused it? Alrighty then.

If it is determined that she intended to cause a bomb scare, then charges should be laid. Prison I don't think is appropriate, but certainly a fine or community service.

But, if all she did is wear a shirt that she has had for a while and worn before quite often before how would this be proven?

Let's take another airport scare, suppose I am waiting for my flight, boarding call comes and I gather my stuff, but forget a bag. An abandoned bag leads to a bomb scare, should I be charged for forgetting my change of socks?

 

[Cruentus]

And you are right, I do work with computers and could probably pull half a dozen items that would make as convincing of a "bomb" as that out of the back room without much effort at all. The idea that I could get arrested for them seems absurd.

Not just arrested, but killed for it if your reaction was anything less then compliant when the cops arrive.

And as it should be. The problem we have in combating improvised explosive devices is that it only takes about an 8th or 9th grade level electronics course worth of knowledge plus materials you can find at the hardware store to make them. Yet, the damage they can do is quite great. That is why they are so dangerous, and that is why anyone ****ing around with it needs to face the consequences.

I am sure the courts will look at the evidence and she will be punished accordingly. She will probably get off without much penalty, but she will have to go through extensive investigation, and at least the trouble of going through the court system. And as it should be. If you **** up, you pay the consequences. And if this was just a simple oversight on her part and a mistake, then it's not like she won't be able to repair her life after going through the court system. She'll be fine, and she as well as others will have hopefully learned something.

But to say that once the cops saw that it wasn't a bomb, she should have just been let go with no consequence is absurd when one considers that this fits the exact profile of someone doing a test run for a suicide bomb, and the thing on her shirt in question fits the image of a particular type of detonation device that is commonly used TO A TEE.

 

[Big Don]

Really? Because I keep reading statements like "it doesn't look like she was intentionally trying to cause trouble," and "Her shirt was not intended to look like a bomb, it didn't really look like a bomb, doesn't seem there was any malicious intent in wearing it,"

Richard Reid's shoe wasn't suspicious looking. The 19 hijackers on 9-11 were reported to have been very polite, until, that is, they hijacked the planes...

 

[Cruentus]

Richard Reid's shoe wasn't suspicious looking. The 19 hijackers on 9-11 were reported to have been very polite, until, that is, they hijacked the planes...

Well, then we can all ***** that airport security sucks, and LE isn't doing their jobs, etc., for not catching them... :lol:

 

[Blotan Hunka]

This may sound bad but im gonna say it anyway. Just like climbing a fence into a nucular power plant could get you shot for what boils down to trespassing. Wearing a curcitboard strapped to tour cheat holding putty, in the current atmosphere should get you at lest arrested. Hell, if she ran she could have been shot.

 

[MJS]

If it is determined that she intended to cause a bomb scare, then charges should be laid. Prison I don't think is appropriate, but certainly a fine or community service.

Well, at least we're making some progress now. My point was simple...something should happen to her, be it a fine, community service, etc., but to walk away with a slap on the hand...I disagree with that. As for her intentions..like I said, she must be pretty stupid to think that wearing something like that would not gain attention. Its no different than a girl wearing a short skirt and low cut top. A passing guy looks at her, and the girls boyfriend gets pissed because you look. Hey, if you don't want to draw attention to yourself, choose your clothing careful.

But, if all she did is wear a shirt that she has had for a while and worn before quite often before how would this be proven?

Do we know for sure that she's worn this before?

Let's take another airport scare, suppose I am waiting for my flight, boarding call comes and I gather my stuff, but forget a bag. An abandoned bag leads to a bomb scare, should I be charged for forgetting my change of socks?

I'm going to say there was a different intent between the two cases you list.

 

[MJS]

I don't think Andrew was saying that, MJS but I do concur that, under such conditions as you noted above, actions should have consequences.

It boils down to intent in the end.

For example, I have been 'guilty' of wasting emergency services time by calling for an ambulance when, leaving a pub, I saw a chap fall down at the side of a country road and lie twitching and frothing at the mouth in an obvious fit. I'd gone back into the pub to make the call on a public phone (no such things as 'mobiles' back then) and when I came out, he was gone!

I waited for the ambulance crew to turn up and explained what had happened but I'd still pulled them away from other emergencies that may have been occurring.

I made a mistake. Should I have been charged for it?

I know we're heavily theorising about another persons motives here but, just maybe, the Eejut Student about which we've spoken so much, just walked up to the information desk in a moment of devilment, simply to see the look on the fellows face. Or maybe she really didn't think anything of it. Or maybe she was wearing the thing for the benefit of people flying in that she was going to meet, needed some information on the flgiht and couldn't take the sweatshirt off because she was wearing nothing underneath.

We don't know and I doubt we ever will. The discussion itself is worthwhile tho' and there's been some good posts on it from both sides of the Draconian Divide :tup:.

Again, difference of intent. If you call in a report of a bomb, knowing its false, yes, thats a waste of service. In your case, you called in a valid concern..someone fell. There was no ill intent on your part.

I think that the main issue is..why did she wear something like that? Is she that clueless to think that it would not draw attention to her?

 

[Andrew Green]

Do we know for sure that she's worn this before?

Yup, It turned up in one of the stories comments or blogs on it. One of her friends came in and said she's had it for a while and most likely didn't even give it a second thought, it was a shirt with lights.

 

[Cruentus]

This may sound bad but im gonna say it anyway. Just like climbing a fence into a nucular power plant could get you shot for what boils down to trespassing. Wearing a curcitboard strapped to tour cheat holding putty, in the current atmosphere should get you at lest arrested. Hell, if she ran she could have been shot.

And this may sound bad, but since terrorism is a very real threat, I wouldn't want it any other way...

 

[MJS]

Yup, It turned up in one of the stories comments or blogs on it. One of her friends came in and said she's had it for a while and most likely didn't even give it a second thought, it was a shirt with lights.

Interesting. I find it odd that if she in fact did wear this shirt out in public, that it never once cause an issue. It took her wearing it to an airport before someone saw it and said, "Gee, that looks like a bomb!"

 

[Andrew Green]

same as the mooninites where up for weeks all over the country until someone decided they where a bomb?

Anyways, here's her instructables account: http://www.instructables.com/member/stasterisk/

Personal site was here: http://stars.mit.edu/ but is down right now.

asterix... stars... "Star Simpson"... Hey, that sweater has a green star that lights up!