MIT Student's airport "bomb threat" - Page 4

AMosely · 09-24-2007, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atomic Dog

The difference between Israel and the United States is, however, that one is surrounded on all side by hostile countries. The other is not. Israel has done a fantastic job in training their military to deal with the reality of their situation. On the other hand, to me it seems that the U.S. is not. Instead there is a sense of false-reality steeped in fear that appears to be consuming our nation.

I agree with you, but what I'm saying is if the US suffers another attack soon I think this could change. It matters less that we are not surrounded by enemy states and more that we are 'reachable' by enemies from both within and without. Of course I also believe that a shift in our Middle East policies (namely less waging of widespread war, less open declaration of enemies and increased efforts at diplomacy) will also benefit our domestic security.

**Gillespie** · 09-24-2007, 12:12 PM

Quote:

One other thing. Many people seem to making the argument of, "there's no official look for a bomb." I agree, anything can be a bomb these days. My question to you: Why was this chick detained and not the dude next to her with the cell phone? The woman with a laptop? Kid with the shoes that light up when he walks? Man in a hoodie with a backpack?

There are security measures in place to prevent destructive devices in the guise of the examples you mentioned. They'd be detained if warnings were raised during the course of the lengthy and now-familiar entry process into today's airports.

This girl walked into an airport with a "bomb"-looking device strapped to her, hence the reaction towards this student. The argument mentioning that there isn't a specific blueprint towards what a bomb looks like is in response to certain initial posts in this thread which seemingly scoffed at the "device", claiming it looked "nothing like a bomb should", or something to that effect.

**Atomic Dog** · 09-24-2007, 12:16 PM

@AMosely

I one hundred precent agree with you on that. If there is another attack, and there more than likely will be, things will most definitely change. Unfortunately, even if we were attacked again, I think it would be a complete overreaction of the government to have the NG patrolling our neighborhoods, security measures at every market place, etc. We are "reachable", but we're still America. If suicide bombing and IED's became an everyday thing here in our country, then I could understand the neccessity. But it's pretty obvious that that day is not today.

I also think that you're right about shifting our policies. In fact, I bet that would make an entire world of difference for our security. Much more than training our police to deal with threats that haven't even been imposed upon this country yet.

Pickle · 09-24-2007, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atomic Dog

@Cing

I think the question that comes to mind for me, in regards to "suicide bomber training" is...how are these officers being trained to identify these people?

Admittedly, it was pretty foolish of her...but also, I think it's a bit scary to think that in the U.S. we're resorting to this "Shoot First" mentality. It rings scarily of a police-state mentality.

Growing up in Los Angeles, you heard from time to time about someone getting shot by a cop because they were holding a toy gun. Most often these were children. Sometimes very small children. It always seemed absurd to me that any officer could confuse a small child with a toy gun for a dangerous criminal.

I'm not sure the actions of the officers were an overreaction, but certainly the mentality ("Shoot first, questions later") was...this IS America after all.

The mentality is not shoot first ask later as you state. If this was the case she would be dead.

Children with guns have been shot by the police, even by accident. No one is disputing that. However, that argument is non-sequitur. A child with a realistic looking toy gun and an adult in an area that is highly prized by terrorists with a fake bomb is entirely different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMosely

This thead got me thinking - it's extremely unfortunate to think that if America suffers another terrorist attack soon, we may end up in a similar security state to Israel's, where members of the army (in the U.S. this would probably be National Guard) do uniformed patrols in vulnerable public places as a regular part of their service. I remember after 9/11 when the National Guard was deployed at US airports, and how much that freaked me out. They weren't trained at all for that job, and I remember wondering if it was more dangerous to have them there than it was not to. In Israel, the constant military presence is done in an effort to provide faster response to attacks and make the public feel safer, but it's also interesting to see the effect it has on both public and police/military behavior. I was living in Israel for a period and I had several soldiers tell me that you get used to it as you would anything else. They claimed that the training is very rigorous on recognizing true threats, but also recognizing non-threats that may meet some of the criteria of a true one. America is in its infancy when it comes to dealing with things like this. Israel has been living with it for decades, and it has enabled both the military/police and the public to better put things in context - like an LED board on a kid's sweatshirt. I think if this MIT woman had walked into Ben Gurion, it would have been handled very differently - perhaps more appropriately.

How was it innapopriately handled?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atomic Dog

Instead there is a sense of false-reality steeped in fear that appears to be consuming our nation.

What false reality are you speaking of?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

Personally, I think security acted appropriately in detaining the girl. I don't think, however, she should be prosecuted/fined/punished unless it can be proven that she had the intent of causing panic.

How do you prove intent? Using your argument no one should be prosecuted for anything unless they had intent to break the law or cause panic.
"Was I speeding?" = I didn't mean to speed.
"The gun went off accidentally" = I didn't mean to shoot him
"I forgot I put that expensive item in my pocket before I walked out of the store" = I didn't mean to shoplift
"Does that look like a bomb?" = I didn't mean to cause a mass panic in an airport.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

I don't have a problem with law enforcement acting in a way they see fit when encountering suspicious devices/people. They're doing it for our safety, I appreciate it. What annoys me is when the security/officers/officials become indignant and cling rabidly to their decree of punishment if they've been proven wrong. Defending their response actions is quite fine- punishing people for stupidity/misunderstanding isn't so fine.

Did this happen in this case?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atomic Dog

I also think that you're right about shifting our policies. In fact, I bet that would make an entire world of difference for our security. Much more than training our police to deal with threats that haven't even been imposed upon this country yet.

So, we shouldn't train for an eventuality?

Steeler · 09-24-2007, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pickle

How do you prove intent? Using your argument no one should be prosecuted for anything unless they had intent to break the law or cause panic.
"Was I speeding?" = I didn't mean to speed.
"The gun went off accidentally" = I didn't mean to shoot him
"I forgot I put that expensive item in my pocket before I walked out of the store" = I didn't mean to shoplift
"Does that look like a bomb?" = I didn't mean to cause a mass panic in an airport.

All of these are arguable either in court or with an officer on the scene at the time, with varying degrees of validity. Ever gotten a pass on a speeding ticket? Hunting accidents happen and people don't always get arrested for it. Our justice system has been built over centuries to include the possibility that honest mistakes happen, and to account for this in meting out punishment. Determining intent is a tough task, but it is a factor in judicial proceedings that effects whether or not to prosecute, degree of guilt, and level of punishment.

Pickle · 09-24-2007, 03:03 PM

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Unless this MIT student is a functional idiot you are not going to get me to believe she did not know there would be issues with her actions. Are you trying to tell me this was an "honest mistake"? To say that she had no intent here is ridiculous. She may have had an intent to make an artisitic statement but part of that artistic statement is where she made that statement.

And I have gotten passes on speeding tickets but that is another thread about how cops only take care of their own and don't care for the common man.

Steeler · 09-24-2007, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pickle

Are you trying to tell me this was an "honest mistake"?

Not one of us really knows the truth. But lots of people seem to think they do.

**Atomic Dog** · 09-24-2007, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pickle

The mentality is not shoot first ask later as you state. If this was the case she would be dead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AP Article

"She was immediately told to stop, to raise her hands and not to make any movement, so we could observe all her movements to see if she was trying to trip any type of device," Pare said. "Had she not followed the protocol, we might have used deadly force."

He added, "She's lucky to be in a cell as opposed to the morgue."

Essentially it sounds that if she had hesitated or made any sort of mistake they would have used deadly force without even knowing if she was a threat or not. In this article the officer says "might have" in another an officer says "would have."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pickle

A child with a realistic looking toy gun and an adult in an area that is highly prized by terrorists with a fake bomb is entirely different.

This is where I get confused...why call it a fake bomb when there was absolutely no intent? She didn't design her sweater to resemble a fake bomb. It's clear in every article that she had created this "art" for career day at MIT. Not as a "fake bomb" as the media keeps spinning this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pickle

What false reality are you speaking of?

The false reality that widespread terrorism is a real threat in the United States. 9/11 was an awful tragedy...but in no way an indication that we need to be running around pointing guns at our own out of suspicion that they may or may not be a suicide bomber. We're not Iraq. We're not Israel. We're America. That is the false reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pickle

How do you prove intent? Using your argument no one should be prosecuted for anything unless they had intent to break the law or cause panic.
"Was I speeding?" = I didn't mean to speed.
"The gun went off accidentally" = I didn't mean to shoot him
"I forgot I put that expensive item in my pocket before I walked out of the store" = I didn't mean to shoplift
"Does that look like a bomb?" = I didn't mean to cause a mass panic in an airport.

3 of those 4 examples are legitimate examples of crimes and excuses to get out of them. The last (though inciting mass panic is a crime), when used as a metaphor for this incident, is out of context. It's obvious and apparent she didn't build it to resemble a bomb or any such device. I don't believe any charges should be held against her. Should she have been questioned? Certainly. Detained? Maybe for the questioning. Had her very life hang in the thread of a few men who may or may not be qualified enough to assess her potential threat level? Not a chance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pickle

So, we shouldn't train for an eventuality?

My grandfather used to tell me a joke when I was a kid about an elephant hunter in New York. He stalked the streets for weeks with his elephant gun before he was spotted by a police officer who asked him "What are you doing with that elephant gun?" The man responds "I'm hunting elephants. Wouldn't want them stampeding through New York." The officer replies "But sir, there are no elephants in New York." The man says to that, "I'm doing a damn fine job then!"

Not a funny joke by any means, but seriously, there are no elephants in New York. Train all you want for the "eventuality," but keep it at that. Training. There's no reason for it to go beyond training until the day suicide bombers are suddenly a widespread threat to our nation. At the moment, they are not. In fact, when was the last time we had an epidemic of suicide bombers in the U.S.?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pickle

She may have had an intent to make an artisitic statement but part of that artistic statement is where she made that statement.

Her statement had nothing to do with the airport. The sweater statement was intended for Career Day at MIT.

**CingularDuality** · 09-24-2007, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atomic Dog

Essentially it sounds that if she had hesitated or made any sort of mistake they would have used deadly force without even knowing if she was a threat or not.

I was waiting for someone to say this...

Look, if I'm a cop, and I have a gun pointed at you and you have who-knows-what in your pocket, and I'm telling you to get on your face, what possible reason would anyone have for not complying? And if you start advancing on me, what should I think? Should I think that you want to give me a hug? Or should I think that there's obviously more to you than I originally thought if you're willing to advance on a cop with a gun pointed at you?

Likewise with the fact that if she had not complied with the cop with a sub-gun at the airport, anyone would have to assume that it's something other than harmless "art". Any normal person would comply with the cop's commands.

And this is where it ties in with that idiot in Florida that got tased. And why complying with police commands is the law. Yes, it's an enormous amount of authority and responsibility that we've given to the police, but it's also very important. If any sort of police-state mentality were creeping into our nation, Taser-boy and bomb-girl wouldn't have made front page news like they did.

**Atomic Dog** · 09-24-2007, 07:41 PM

I agree with the points you make Cing. I guess my concern is that most people, especially non-criminals, aren't used to having guns pointed in their faces...ever. The first time it ever happened to me I was completely floored, confused, scared...and I had a hard time even comprehending what was really going on. Fortunately I managed to gather my wits enough to get me through it (it wasn't a cop pointing a gun at me), but I can see how this can go wrong really fast without any wrong doing on the part of an innocent person. That's my biggest fear. Thank god that didn't happen.

Where I do disagree is that just because they made the paper there must not be any police-state mentality creeping into our nation. These things don't happen over night...well...maybe in some places they have. But that wouldn't fly here.

But I admit there was reasonable suspicion. I don't question the actions of the officers, just the thought that they would have shot an innocent woman dead if she had made any hesitation or mistake. It doesn't sit with me very well that she's looking at criminal charges as well when she's clearly not a criminal. Just an idiot. As far as I know that's still legal.

**CingularDuality** · 09-24-2007, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atomic Dog

It doesn't sit with me very well that she's looking at criminal charges as well when she's clearly not a criminal. Just an idiot. As far as I know that's still legal.

What makes you think she's not a criminal? She was wearing a fake bomb! Do you have some other explanation for what she was wearing, and what she was holding? I'm no MIT electronics student, but I'm sure I could make a circuit board that looks better than that if I wanted to make some wearable art. And the putty that she was carrying? Was that part of her career fair outfit? And whose flight was she checking on, and why was she leaving without ever finding out about that flight? Why didn't she explain her outfit to the airport employee that asked her about it? Wouldn't you think that she'd be proud of her "art" and that she would want to explain it to anyone that showed an interest? Especially if she was in a recruiting mood from the career fair?

I call BS on this one. This nutjob went to the airport specifically to cause a scene, and she just didn't realize that she bit off a bit more than she could chew.

**Atomic Dog** · 09-24-2007, 08:21 PM

I think the post Sordavie made concerning brilliance and common sense (and the lack thereof) gives a bit of insight. This and the character statement made by a fellow classmate who described her as brilliant but lacking in the common sense department. I concede that the putty handling is a bit questionable. An investigation may be in order, but I don't think the guilty verdict should be laid on her quite yet.

I met a woman once who used to stop and cut the heads off of roadkill in the middle of the day on busy streets in the name of "art." Her art was always centered around animal skulls for some bizzare reason. She's been harassed to no end by cops because of her eccentricness. But in the end, she's not a criminal...just kooky artist.

We don't know enough about this girl. I hope to follow this one.

Ratatomik · 09-24-2007, 08:31 PM

Well of course , you dont need to be a rocket scientist to understand that if you **** with airport authorities in any way (at least theses days..) you do are in trouble! BUT , i dont know about how things are in the U.S. (in airports) but in Canada , those you actually work at the check points work for private corporation , dont have the skill and the proper training to work with people (customers....) and have ***ing power trip tendancies which make people even more angry and pissed. And dont forget that police officer are not all super well trained. Its not because you wear a smg that you actually are smart....

But anyway , if you are REALLY (not like the last one in London) motivated to commit a attack on civilian targets , you will succeed....

**leejo** · 09-24-2007, 08:32 PM

I think her guilt or innocence revolves in part around the flight she says she was there to meet.

Quote:

He said the woman told officers she had come to the airport to meet a Continental Airlines flight from Oakland, California.

If she has a really good reason for being there - a friend was coming in on that flight, e.g. - and if some people saw her wearing that contraption around earlier and she didn't make any statements about making some show down at Logan, then maybe she's just a nitwit.

In my mind her guilt or innocence is a separate issue from the police response, which, as I have said, I believe was correct.

And even if she is guilty the remaining question is what punishment is appropriate. My guess is that pre 9/11 such a person would have the crap scared out of them and be given some sort of deferred judgment. Do 80 hours of community service and the charges are dropped. There are lots of first-offender programs to handle decent people who behave like fools (a friend tells me).

Since 9/11 that option may not be available any more, but by the same token the excuse of naiveté is gone too.

Edit: it occurs to me that she was...what...12 when 9/11 happened? Just as a lot of people don't really remember the gulf war, or the cold war, or nuclear attack drills, or the Iran hostage crises, or 20% interest rates, or lines for fuel, maybe she really is part of a new wave of young people for whom the twin towers never really existed, or for whom the horrors of 9/11 2001 are as abstract as 12/07/41 is to most, if not all, of us.

Kerostasis · 09-24-2007, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

What makes you think she's not a criminal? She was wearing a fake bomb!

Actually, she was wearing a glowing stick figure. Every one keeps calling it a "fake bomb", but it wasn't intended to resemble a bomb in the first place, so it can't possibly have been a fake one.

Quote:

Do you have some other explanation for what she was wearing, and what she was holding? I'm no MIT electronics student, but I'm sure I could make a circuit board that looks better than that if I wanted to make some wearable art.

Yeah, but would yours blink? People get a sort of irrational pride out of building stuff like this for the first time,

09-24-2007, 12:16 PM	#48 (permalink)
Atomic Dog Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Michigan Age: 31 Posts: 4,003	Re: MIT Student's airport "bomb threat" @AMosely I one hundred precent agree with you on that. If there is another attack, and there more than likely will be, things will most definitely change. Unfortunately, even if we were attacked again, I think it would be a complete overreaction of the government to have the NG patrolling our neighborhoods, security measures at every market place, etc. We are "reachable", but we're still America. If suicide bombing and IED's became an everyday thing here in our country, then I could understand the neccessity. But it's pretty obvious that that day is not today. I also think that you're right about shifting our policies. In fact, I bet that would make an entire world of difference for our security. Much more than training our police to deal with threats that haven't even been imposed upon this country yet. __________________ \| ArmA SOPs \| PCS SOPs \| TG Primer \| 4th Wiki \| Ikariam Info: Mothership \| Parliament \| Chocolate City \| Saint George

09-24-2007, 03:03 PM	#51 (permalink)
Pickle Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Land of Fruit and Nuts! Age: 35 Posts: 1,281	Re: MIT Student's airport "bomb threat" Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Unless this MIT student is a functional idiot you are not going to get me to believe she did not know there would be issues with her actions. Are you trying to tell me this was an "honest mistake"? To say that she had no intent here is ridiculous. She may have had an intent to make an artisitic statement but part of that artistic statement is where she made that statement. And I have gotten passes on speeding tickets but that is another thread about how cops only take care of their own and don't care for the common man. __________________ "Umm Deputy these aren't my pants" - Common alarm cry of the North American Crackhead [tg-c1][ma-c1][defense]

09-24-2007, 07:41 PM	#55 (permalink)
Atomic Dog Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Michigan Age: 31 Posts: 4,003	Re: MIT Student's airport "bomb threat" I agree with the points you make Cing. I guess my concern is that most people, especially non-criminals, aren't used to having guns pointed in their faces...ever. The first time it ever happened to me I was completely floored, confused, scared...and I had a hard time even comprehending what was really going on. Fortunately I managed to gather my wits enough to get me through it (it wasn't a cop pointing a gun at me), but I can see how this can go wrong really fast without any wrong doing on the part of an innocent person. That's my biggest fear. Thank god that didn't happen. Where I do disagree is that just because they made the paper there must not be any police-state mentality creeping into our nation. These things don't happen over night...well...maybe in some places they have. But that wouldn't fly here. But I admit there was reasonable suspicion. I don't question the actions of the officers, just the thought that they would have shot an innocent woman dead if she had made any hesitation or mistake. It doesn't sit with me very well that she's looking at criminal charges as well when she's clearly not a criminal. Just an idiot. As far as I know that's still legal. __________________ \| ArmA SOPs \| PCS SOPs \| TG Primer \| 4th Wiki \| Ikariam Info: Mothership \| Parliament \| Chocolate City \| Saint George

09-24-2007, 08:21 PM	#57 (permalink)
Atomic Dog Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Michigan Age: 31 Posts: 4,003	Re: MIT Student's airport "bomb threat" I think the post Sordavie made concerning brilliance and common sense (and the lack thereof) gives a bit of insight. This and the character statement made by a fellow classmate who described her as brilliant but lacking in the common sense department. I concede that the putty handling is a bit questionable. An investigation may be in order, but I don't think the guilty verdict should be laid on her quite yet. I met a woman once who used to stop and cut the heads off of roadkill in the middle of the day on busy streets in the name of "art." Her art was always centered around animal skulls for some bizzare reason. She's been harassed to no end by cops because of her eccentricness. But in the end, she's not a criminal...just kooky artist. We don't know enough about this girl. I hope to follow this one. __________________ \| ArmA SOPs \| PCS SOPs \| TG Primer \| 4th Wiki \| Ikariam Info: Mothership \| Parliament \| Chocolate City \| Saint George

09-24-2007, 08:31 PM	#58 (permalink)
Ratatomik Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Lazo,Bc, Canada Age: 24 Posts: 43	Re: MIT Student's airport "bomb threat" Well of course , you dont need to be a rocket scientist to understand that if you ** with airport authorities in any way (at least theses days..) you do are in trouble! BUT , i dont know about how things are in the U.S. (in airports) but in Canada , those you actually work at the check points work for private corporation , dont have the skill and the proper training to work with people (customers....) and have *ing power trip tendancies which make people even more angry and pissed. And dont forget that police officer are not all super well trained. Its not because you wear a smg that you actually are smart.... But anyway , if you are REALLY (not like the last one in London) motivated to commit a attack on civilian targets , you will succeed....

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links