Boston == OverReaction

[gibbons]

How have the terrorists have won?

They have won by instilling terror in our society where it wouldn't normally exist - where it doesn't need to exist. My daughter would call these people drama queens, they love the drama associated with a big scare. It gives the media something to fill their 24 hour news shows, it gives the government a reason to take away our civil rights, it gives some poor slob with an automatic weapon a woody, and it gives me the cold chills.

"It's a bomb Andy! I tell you it's a BOMB! What are we gonna do?"

 

[gismo]

If it's something that looks threatening, what's wrong with that?

By your theory, I could carry paper towel rolls wrapped in brown paper and labeled as TNT into a school along with a pack of matches, walk up to the principal's office, scare the living *hit out of the secretary, whenever I wanted.

You appear to be equating unintentional appearance with intentional hoax. Let me give you a couple real world examples that I've experienced on my own. I occasionally take one or more waterskis with me on an airline trip. The skis have to be well protected from the baggage handlers and the industry has developed several variations on a large (6-7 ft long, 1-2 ft diameter) bags for this specific purpose. To the uninformed they strongly resemble body bags (and after carrying one around an airport they feel just as heavy). Virtually every time I make such a trip I encounter people (including airline staff) who conclude that I'm transporting cadavers. Now I've never been arrested for this conduct, but I've sure gotten a lot of aprehensive stares and questions about the bag. Would you consider it OK for me to be arrested for the appearance of carting around a dead body?

My daughter has diabetes and wears an insulin pump. This looks like a very oversized pager except that it has a thin tube (that looks a lot like a wire) running from the pump to somewhere on her body where the drug is injected. Most folks have never seen such a device (I never had prior to her contracting the disease) and to someone with a vivid enough imagination it could resemble some sort of explosive device. In fact there are a lot of things that one might suspect (like play-doh) even though they are common if you've got explosives on the mind.

The bottom line here is that carrying something that is neither an explosive or otherwise dangerous device and isn't intended to be interpreted that way, shouldn't be grounds for arrest.

IMO, the test should be: was it the intent of the person to appear to be carrying something dangerous. Something labled "TNT" would be pretty solid evidence of such an intent. OTOH, a couple of paper towel rolls in a paper bag without such a label isn't. And just for the record, I'm not saying that the girl shouldn't have been stopped, just that I see no grounds for an arrest. As to the drawn guns, that's a tougher call. I can understand the officer's concern for the safety of those in the vicinity (including themselves) but those who carry deadly weapons and specifically law enforcement folks should be properly trained to discriminate between innocent devices and real threats. IOW, the officers should have been able to understand that the girl's "device" was not a threat but they weren't. It is a common human trait to fear anything that is unfamiliar, but law enforcement types should be able to control that fear.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

They have won by instilling terror in our society where it wouldn't normally exist - where it doesn't need to exist. My daughter would call these people drama queens, they love the drama associated with a big scare. It gives the media something to fill their 24 hour news shows, it gives the government a reason to take away our civil rights, it gives some poor slob with an automatic weapon a woody, and it gives me the cold chills.

"It's a bomb Andy! I tell you it's a BOMB! What are we gonna do?"
[picture deleted ]

There's no doubt of that - fear is a powerful weapon. But, in THIS instance, is any of that applicable?

Imagine you're a cop. You get a call over the radio that an airline counter employee has just had a conversation about a flight with a person who was wearing clothing with visible wires, a circuitboard, a battery, and something that looked like explosives. You start trolling around the airport, and standing by the bus stop, you see a person who fits the description who has possession of all of those things.

What are you supposed to do? Not take it seriously? Or are you supposed to look closer, and when you see something that could easily be a bomb when viewed from a distance of 20 feet, and pull your gun?

It's really easy for us to now say, "how did you not know those were light bulbs and play-dough." But at the time, how is any reasonable cop supposed to think any differently? In fact, I'd say it's unreasonable for a cop to think differently - and this is coming from somebody who has no problem criticizing the gov't as overreaching.

Now, as I've said before, if the police spent more than ten minutes with this girl after finding out it was play-dough, there's a serious problem. If this hoax device charge isn't dropped (and note it's not up to the court to make that decision - if the facts fit the legal elements, it's the prosecutor who'll be the bad guy), we'll have a good argument for a case of overzealous prosecution (again, assuming she didn't mean to set off alarm bells). But unless there's something I'm not aware of, a charge of disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace is warranted - no different than a drunk walking down the street yelling at 4 in the morning in a quiet neighborhood. There are just some things that are not acceptable in an orderly society.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

...
IMO, the test should be: was it the intent of the person to appear to be carrying something dangerous. Something labled "TNT" would be pretty solid evidence of such an intent. OTOH, a couple of paper towel rolls in a paper bag without such a label isn't. And just for the record, I'm not saying that the girl shouldn't have been stopped, just that I see no grounds for an arrest. As to the drawn guns, that's a tougher call. I can understand the officer's concern for the safety of those in the vicinity (including themselves) but those who carry deadly weapons and specifically law enforcement folks should be properly trained to discriminate between innocent devices and real threats. IOW, the officers should have been able to understand that the girl's "device" was not a threat but they weren't. It is a common human trait to fear anything that is unfamiliar, but law enforcement types should be able to control that fear.

I think we share the same opinion - the hoax device charge is BS. Unless she meant to appear to have a bomb.

I don't think she deserved to be arrested, either. Given a citation for some kind of disorderly conduct, sure. But arrested? Absolutely not - it's a stupid prank.

As far as the officers being able to tell, if this thing were viewed from a distance of 20 feet or so, I could see it being mistaken. When viewed close up, however, they should have just let her go.

Heck, I don't even know if a charge of disorderly conduct is warranted. The more I think about it, the more I think maybe it isn't. At the same time, as a society we can't let people get away with things that, either intentionally or not, get in the way of an orderly and efficient manner of functioning.

So we'll see what happens, I guess.

 

[Missa]

I think we share the same opinion - the hoax device charge is BS. Unless she meant to appear to have a bomb.

I don't think she deserved to be arrested, either. Given a citation for some kind of disorderly conduct, sure. But arrested? Absolutely not - it's a stupid prank.

As far as the officers being able to tell, if this thing were viewed from a distance of 20 feet or so, I could see it being mistaken. When viewed close up, however, they should have just let her go.

Heck, I don't even know if a charge of disorderly conduct is warranted. The more I think about it, the more I think maybe it isn't. At the same time, as a society we can't let people get away with things that, either intentionally or not, get in the way of an orderly and efficient manner of functioning.

So we'll see what happens, I guess.

Ok, so if I get a whole bunch of people together and we are all convinced that a blue shirt means you have a bomb... and then you walk in with a blue shirt on and we go hysterical and start telling the LEO's you have a bomb. You should get arrested for making a public disturbance for wearing a blue shirt.

Hum, makes sense to me.

Oh and your use of 'stupid prank' makes is sound like you think it was intentional. If it wasn't intentional then it wouldn't be a prank.

Missa

 

[tdager]

You know what...this really hits home with something I have seen before:

The American military is at war;
The American people are not.

For those of you that cannot seem to grasp that at a minimum this girl DID deserve to get stopped and at least questioned, then you are delusional and infantile in your thinking.

Now...charged with a hoax device? It appears that is not the case and I agree she should not be charged with that. However to sit here, on a message board, and pontificate how a police officer should have known this or that...especially when I am fairly certain it went down just like Obi said, a radio call went out and an officer observed the girl and then took action.

Would YOU walk up to someone who might have a bomb? I know I sure as hell would not. Hell I have deactivated live explosives, I KNOW what even a little amount can do.

Now, once she was found to be stupid rather than evil, give her a ticket and send her on her way.

However you must choose, either task law enforcement to attempt to protect us from the bad guys, or do not. However do not try to take the human equation out of this, perceptions, fears, training, all play a role, and all are fallible.

The sad part is that if you read any of the writings of Osama or other radical muslims, they are a patient, long term, deadly enemy. They use our media against us and our complacency.

You have not now, nor ever, lived in a totally "free" society. It is even less so today though thanks in large part to our own lack of diligence and scrutiny. Now some of you want to seem to give psychic powers to cops to determine intent and then give them a college education in electronics to boot! Simply amazing.....

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Ok, so if I get a whole bunch of people together and we are all convinced that a blue shirt means you have a bomb... and then you walk in with a blue shirt on and we go hysterical and start telling the LEO's you have a bomb. You should get arrested for making a public disturbance for wearing a blue shirt.

Hum, makes sense to me.

Oh and your use of 'stupid prank' makes is sound like you think it was intentional. If it wasn't intentional then it wouldn't be a prank.

Missa

Hmmm. Note the reasonable component. In your hypothetical, I'd say you would be arrested for creating the public disturbance.

Like it or not, we're members of society and we're expected to behave ourselves.

If people don't like that, they're free to purchase a thousand acres on top of some mountain somewhere, and walk around doing whatever they'd like. If that option isn't feasible, perhaps because it's nice being a member of society, then people had best not be pains in the ass while in public.

 

[Missa]

For those of you that cannot seem to grasp that at a minimum this girl DID deserve to get stopped and at least questioned, then you are delusional and infantile in your thinking.

I challenge you to find even one person in this tread who said she shouldn't have been stopped and at least questioned. I've been reading this thread quite regularly and no one has said that.

What has been said is that once the well trained Police figured out that the untrained infomation person was mistaken that should have been it. I think that guns at the ready was even approprate, but arrested? Charged? That's a compleate overreaction. Having the poop scared out of her and lectured on the approprateness of her sweatshirt and that she needs to think a bit more about her attire when approahing an airport. Yup, now if the investigating officer got a hit when talking to her about her shirt that she had intended this kind of reaction, then arrest her. But from what I've seen reported this is in question. Even a warrning that if she doesn't use her head next time she might be arrested would be ok, but the thought that she should be arrested just for being dumb is a compleate over-reaction. Our Socity should be focused first on education then on punshment, not just on punshment.

Missa

 

[Missa]

Hmmm. Note the reasonable component. In your hypothetical, I'd say you would be arrested for creating the public disturbance.

Like it or not, we're members of society and we're expected to behave ourselves.

If people don't like that, they're free to purchase a thousand acres on top of some mountain somewhere, and walk around doing whatever they'd like. If that option isn't feasible, perhaps because it's nice being a member of society, then people had best not be pains in the ass while in public.

All 50 to 60 of us? That seems a bit unfeasable. And I still challenge you to prove the reasonable component that she should have known better. You may have known better but to her it could have seemed reasonable to wear it because no one has ever question her sweat shirt before. It's there for reasonable to believe that no one will question it in the future. She's what maybe 20??? She's still learning what socity as a whole thinks is reasonable, education not punshment is in order. (unless it comes out she was being intentional) The law is in place to keep order but there was no 'firm' law that was broken, just a 'subjective' law which needs to be taught where the line is, and the 'reasonable' line is always moveing.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

All 50 to 60 of us? That seems a bit unfeasable. And I still challenge you to prove the reasonable component that she should have known better. You may have known better but to her it could have seemed reasonable to wear it because no one has ever question her sweat shirt before. It's there for reasonable to believe that no one will question it in the future. She's what maybe 20??? She's still learning what socity as a whole thinks is reasonable, education not punshment is in order. (unless it comes out she was being intentional) The law is in place to keep order but there was no 'firm' law that was broken, just a 'subjective' law which needs to be taught where the line is, and the 'reasonable' line is always moveing.

All 50-60 of you, causing unrest? Sounds suspiciously like a mob or a riot - the quintessential examples of disorderly conduct.

As far as her only being 20, what kind of excuse is that? If you don't know right from wrong by the time you're in 8th grade, you're a lost cause. If you don't know the rules of society by the time you're 20, it's time that society teaches you those rules. If you haven't learned the rules of society by the time you're 20, you're one of three things - stoopid, a fool, or a criminal. As she's a student at MIT, I'd argue that she ain't stupid. Society should not tolerate the latter, and in many cases does not.

Punishment and education are not mutually exclusive. In this case, punishment is education, in the same sense that a child doesn't touch a hot stove again after he's already touched it once. Sometimes punishment is the best teacher.

A reasonable component that she should have known better? How about not walking into an airport - the one place you don't go and mess around with any kind of arguably violent or disorderly activity - with what looks to any reasonable person like a bomb. If she didn't know that an action like that is out of bounds, then she sure well should have. Something like that is patently unreasonable in our society.

Right now, I think a charge of disorderly conduct alone fits. If it turns out that she did this with the knowledge that she had something that looked like a bomb, I don't have any problem with a hoax device charge, either.

 

[ausrere]

Lets not forget that this whole discussion is based on facts in news articles.. and none of us have the information that the officers on the scene did at the time. They obviously felt they had probable cause to arrest, and she was properly arraigned by a magistrate who didn't seem to have a problem with the arrest either (lest I suspect she'd been cut loose without having to post a bond). We don't really know what she said to the officers during the incident, or what other actions she might have taken to lead to the hoax device arrest. We only have what the media has released (or had released to them..nothing says law enforcement has to detail their whole case to the media)..and I don't trust the media to get the facts straight, let alone have all of them to begin with. I'll wait to see how this plays out in court to decide if the arrest was proper or not, but the stop and detainment...I have no problem with how that's reported as having gone down.

 

[gibbons]

For those of you that cannot seem to grasp that at a minimum this girl DID deserve to get stopped and at least questioned, then you are delusional and infantile in your thinking.

My wife accuses me of being both, but that's not important now. I have no problem that she was stopped and questioned. I do have a problem with the attitude LE has demonstrated in their remarks about the confrontation. I also have a problem with the charges. A slap on the wrist, in this case, is all that is warranted.

Now, once she was found to be stupid rather than evil, give her a ticket and send her on her way.

Agree.

Now some of you want to seem to give psychic powers to cops to determine intent and then give them a college education in electronics to boot! Simply amazing.....

I'm willing to give you the point here. It is probably unfair to Monday morning quarterback like I've been doing and my Barney Fife reference was probably unjustified. It does seem, however, that after confronting the suspect it would have been pretty easy to determine that she wasn't a real threat. But you're right, I haven't been in that situation so I don't really know.


Overall the point I'm trying to make is this: It is critical that we continue to use common sense in our daily lives, and not let fear drive us. It is even more critical that we not let fear be used against us, especially by our own government. Every time I hear about an incident like this I wonder what we are becoming.

 

[gibbons]

I think we share the same opinion - the hoax device charge is BS. Unless she meant to appear to have a bomb.

I don't think she deserved to be arrested, either. Given a citation for some kind of disorderly conduct, sure. But arrested? Absolutely not - it's a stupid prank.

As far as the officers being able to tell, if this thing were viewed from a distance of 20 feet or so, I could see it being mistaken. When viewed close up, however, they should have just let her go.

Heck, I don't even know if a charge of disorderly conduct is warranted. The more I think about it, the more I think maybe it isn't. At the same time, as a society we can't let people get away with things that, either intentionally or not, get in the way of an orderly and efficient manner of functioning.

So we'll see what happens, I guess.

We're on the same page.

 

[Missa]

As far as her only being 20, what kind of excuse is that? If you don't know right from wrong by the time you're in 8th grade, you're a lost cause. If you don't know the rules of society by the time you're 20, it's time that society teaches you those rules. If you haven't learned the rules of society by the time you're 20, you're one of three things - stoopid, a fool, or a criminal. As she's a student at MIT, I'd argue that she ain't stupid. Society should not tolerate the latter, and in many cases does not..

Gee, thanks... I guess I'm a lost cause then. I'm defending her because I was her at oh, about 20. I could see doing what she did strickly out of naivitiy. I was obvlious to the fact that 90% of the people out there were not blessed and are unable to think the way I do. At 20 I would have never guessed until someone pointed it out to me that someone could think this was a bomb. But come on! Legal fees, fines, and having to defend yourself for an honnest mistake (if not a prank, that's what it is).

I could argue that she was stupid, as far as how other people could possibly view this. Generally people whom are very smart, can be very stupid in their ability to think like the average person.

Punishment and education are not mutually exclusive. In this case, punishment is education, in the same sense that a child doesn't touch a hot stove again after he's already touched it once. Sometimes punishment is the best teacher.

But any punshiment should match the crime... and an honest mistake is not something that the book should be thrown at. And getting burned by a hot stove is not punishment but consequences. If you want to make that kind of compasion to what is being done, it would be touching the hot stove, getting burned then having your dad take off his belt and beat you bloody for touching the stove.

A reasonable component that she should have known better? How about not walking into an airport - the one place you don't go and mess around with any kind of arguably violent or disorderly activity - with what looks to any reasonable person like a bomb. If she didn't know that an action like that is out of bounds, then she sure well should have. Something like that is patently unreasonable in our society.

How was she to know that someone else was dumb enough to think that was a bomb? No one who she had come into contact with before thought it was a bomb and it was everyday items to her.

Right now, I think a charge of disorderly conduct alone fits. If it turns out that she did this with the knowledge that she had something that looked like a bomb, I don't have any problem with a hoax device charge, either.

I think that even disorderly conduct is too harsh. If she wasn't threating and just had a DUH moment... a strong conversation and warning should be all that is dished out this time.

Missa

 

[KennyFlys]

Poor horse.

 

[kevin47881]

Poor horse.

 

[tdager]

Overall the point I'm trying to make is this: It is critical that we continue to use common sense in our daily lives, and not let fear drive us. It is even more critical that we not let fear be used against us, especially by our own government. Every time I hear about an incident like this I wonder what we are becoming.

I agree...though many seem to forget that the government is not some nameless, faceless mass of being. It is made up of hundreds of thousands of normal, everyday, working people.

I am no longer in government service, but when I was I was just a simple human working for a paycheck. Contrary to some I was not thinking of ways to stick my jackboot on the throat of a citizen, or somehow become omnipotent.

The government IS us, and we are the government. Scary thought huh?!

 

[Ghery]

You have to consider your audience. Saying an MIT lecture hall is the same as strolling around the airport isn't a fair comparison. There are a lot of things we did on the rugby field in college that I think are felonies in any other place.

Cheers,

-Andrew

Thread creep, but... I had a high school English teacher whose husband (one of my dad's veterinary students) played rugby. She wore a button at school (that would get a teacher fired today) that said, "It takes leather balls to play rugby".

My wife accuses me of being both, but that's not important now.

Have you ever noticed how wives say things like that and we shrug it off, but if we said something like that to them we'd get our heads handed to us?


Back to our regularly scheduled horse beating....

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I like to say do unto others as I would have them do unto me.






I wonder how it would feel to have a horse beat me to death?

 

[gibbons]

I just wanted to be # 100.

 

[mikea]

Look, I'll agree that it wasn't smart on her part. The reaction of the cops was over the top, given what little I know of the incident.

At the risk of sending this into Spin Zone, between the two political parties, we have coddled the nation into thinking that life should be risk-free, and that only the strictest form of enforcement will do. One party wants folks to believe that government is be-all-and-end-all, with everything flowing from the government, the other party exploits that in the name of "law and order". Boston cops and Massport had a bad reputation long before 9/11. TSAs new "SPOT" program is even worse. Someone on another board referred to them as the "face police."

I want our country back.

That IS a very real threat for the welfare of the U.S.

Some will whip up the fears to gain power ... insert Godwin here ... and such illogical, unfounded fears whipped up by a few politicians confiscated personal property of put and put law-abiding United States citizens into concentration camps during WW II.

We have to not allow it.

Like you Bill, I'm getting really impatient for the days when this hysteria ends and we get our country back, instead we still have some saying every day that we're getting and need more and better surveillance and freedom restrictions.