El_Gringo_Grande

Here is something I simply do not understand.

Somebody has a bomb on them. You tell them to stop. Do you really think andybody can take them out faster then they can press the button that is going to kill everybody? Maybe it is only their holding down of a button that is keeping it from exploading. Killing them could actually cause the bomb to go off. Or maybe it is detonated remotely.

I just don't understand how force is going to stop a human bomb.

__________________
Sen. Barack Obama (IL) For President '08
---
I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
- "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
- "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
- If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

leejo

I think the idea is that you point the gun and start yelling at them from a relatively safe distance. If they want to blow themselves up or lie face down spread-eagled.. whatever. If the human bomb were on a school bus instead of in an parking lot, the fuzz might take a different approach.

sordavie

A lot of these kinds of people are very childlike in certain respects. For instance, my ex-housemate's psychiatrist told him that he had the emotional development of a 11 or 12 year old (he's 31 by the way). And, this really was the case. So, I wouldn't find it surprising to see that she acts in certain ways as a child would--for instance playing with playdough and not realizing that it looks like plastic explosives and that fact would be quite salient to airport security.

We find it absurd that she wouldn't make that connection so it's tempting to say that she had to know and that she was out to cause trouble on purpose. But this is not to take in to account how some of these people are. They really are practically or common sensically retarded. That is, their mental growth in certain respects can be very stunted. Surely nobody would think that a 5 year old who was playing with playdough and some blinky lights in an airport did so with the intent to cause a ruckus with security. We wouldn't do that because 5 year olds don't understand these matters. They don't know what terrorists are. They don't know why security is tight. Some adults who are brilliant in certain theoretical areas have the social, practical, emotional, and common sensical skills of 5 year olds. And, it wouldn't surprise me that this is the case given we're talking about an MIT student.

This is not to say that the authorities acted inappropriately. Their response was quite appropriate. But, given that we have hindsight, I don't think we should be so quick to draw the inference that she must have been intentionally up to no good. I take it the reasoning goes something like this:

Either she's a complete idiot or she did it maliciously.
She can't be a complete idiot
So, she must have done it maliciously.

But the first premise of this reasoning is false. The fallacy here is called false dilemma. Indeed, there are people who aren't complete idiots but who are, in a sense, idiots in certain respects. That is, there are some people who's mental development isn't level all the way around. Where they lack in common sense and practicality, they make up for in theoretical maturity. Unfortunately, these people are walking faux pas because we have certain expectations of how normal adults act. We exempt children because we don't hold children to those expectations. For instance, we allow that children might run around making a fuss in a restaurant--they just don't know better--while we would find it really, really strange if a normal adult did that. But in certain respects, these people are mentally like children, and they break out expectations quite often. So, the second premise is right, she's not a complete idiot. But the first premise is false. There's at least a third category for people to fall in: not a complete idiot but retarded in a certain respect. So, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises above.

__________________

leejo

I see your point but I still think that as an adult she is responsible for her actions. She may have made some choice along the way not to focus on the effect her actions have on others, in the same sense that your former roommate chose to send you flying around the grocery store instead of applying his mind to learning where the soup was. That doesn't make it right or acceptable.

Lots of people put others in great danger or cause great expense through their own stupid behavior. I think most can come up with a decent excuse for their actions. The drunk driver rarely intends to cause death or destruction, but death and destruction happen nonetheless, and the drunk is responsible.

Would I hold a 5 year old to the same standard? No. And if this young lady has some documented affliction then I'm inclined to let her slide too, just as I wrote that I don't blame the VA Tech killer for acting on his manifest mental illness. However, I am willing to bet that she has a folder full of glowing reviews and grades and has demonstrated an ability to master complex and abstract ideas from a variety of disciplines. I'm afraid she's still not off the hook.

And in any case, what is to be done with such a person?

sordavie

In many cases, it's not a choice of theirs. My ex-housemate knew that he was like this. He chose to goto a psychiatrist for help. He would do things like write down long lists of things that he needs to work on to socially fit in better--things like 'shower more often', 'don't ask overly personal questions to people you just meet', 'keep some things secret', etc... He even wrote down instructions about how to act at conferences we attend, because although he wasn't embarrassed by his actions people would tell him that some of the things he did weren't appropriate. And he tried to follow these lists and instructions. So, it wasn't that he chose to ignore common sense or practicality. In fact, just the opposite; he wanted these things, he wanted to fit in, but for whatever reason he just couldn't "get it.

I'm willing to bet that if a psychiatrist gave her a full examination, we could document some abnormalities like this. That she has glowing grades and such is an indication that her mental capacities are very mature in one respect. It doesn't tell us whether they are mature in the respect that's relevant at hand. My ex-housemate was a staight A student who received undergraduate degrees in physics (a particularly hard major to maintain high grades) and philosophy as well as numerous academic awards and scholarships. But, as I've been trying to show, some people are very intelligent in some respects but very "stupid," for lack of a better word" in other respects. I think this is what we have here. How much do you hold her responsible for her actions? Well in one sense we hold her fully accountable. But in another sense I'm inclined to say we shouldn't go on to levy punishments.

__________________

marstein

I don't think that the reports say the student acted odd. She's apparently a geek who wore a project shirt. And the general population is so stupid (including the guards that should have been better trained) to take a very simple circuit board for a bomb.
Soon they are going to ban atoms - because bombs can be made out of them.

__________________
Gigabyte P35-DS3R, 2GB, 8800GTS 640MB, Core2Duo E8400

marstein

BTW Wired has a blog on it: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2...-airport-.html

__________________
Gigabyte P35-DS3R, 2GB, 8800GTS 640MB, Core2Duo E8400

xTYBALTx

Didn't a black guy in Cleveland take something like 20 lead pills to the back while reaching for his wallet a few years ago?

When our police receive paramilitary level training and equipment, this kind of thing becomes normalized. That people here find this occurrence outrageous - in which the police thought they were dealing with a suicide bomber - surprises me. It's when paramilitary and "aggressive" tactics are deployed in non-crisis situations that the **** really hits the fan.

__________________
Current good song: Justice - Stress

CingularDuality

Are you kidding? Or have you just never tried to get LEDs to blink? Trust me, if that's her idea of art, she's no artist. When I first heard about this story, I thought she meant that it was performance art, and that she walked around looking like a suicide bomber all day just to see how people react.


From the NYT:

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

tHa_KhAn

You're saying at a distance, prior to close inspection, you can conclude that a circuit board strapped to someone's chest is in no way connected to something hidden under the shirt or on their back? That despite the very real threat of people using similar explosives exist all over the world, the guards are idiots for taking precaution?

Like was mentioned before, you can't say bomb or making shooting references or you will be removed or detained in an airport. My friend had a large grenade charm on his chain and was advised by the first security guard to take that off as some people may not be as understanding. There are many reasons to transport firearms via airplanes, but you can't just throw them in your carry on. Is it over reacting that if someone going on a hunting trip walks into the terminal with their rifle slung over their shoulder and the guards respond with weapons drawn. What if that individual was clearly an avid hunter? Should guards be trained to know immediately if someone is there to cause harm or just taking a hunting trip?

My point is, that after seeing the picture and hearing her story it's easy to conclude she was not a threat. However, prior to close inspection how could anyone know she is absolutely harmless? It's the whole hind sight is 20/20. Also, professional people who are into nefarious things do a lot of test runs. I work in the financial industry and in training they point out a lot of things to look at for "dry runs." This could be the same kind of thing, they didn't shoot her because she complied. Everything worked as it should.

Whether she has the social awareness to not do things like this or not is debatable. The art excuse suggests to me that she is aware, but chose to do it anyway. The device looks almost exactly like one I built in one of my classes in college, simple LED display. Those kinds of boards are more for technical experience than artistic designs, but who will ever know.

__________________

Steeler

I dunno, I'd let him through.

__________________

leejo

I agree about unnecessarily para-militarizing the police. Seems most suspected pot growers could be arrested buying donuts or xbox games instead of by storming their castles at 3 am. But even though a certain number of people are killed unnecessarily each year in these midnight assaults, I think you have to compare those numbers with any measured alternative - would MORE people get killed if the arrests happened at Dunkin Donuts - instead of by themselves.

Obviously being black and reaching for your wallet are hazardous to your health. That's not fair of you to use as an example.

Although that MIT kid sorta...what is she? Blawaiin? Hawablack? She looks like the Rock's island love child or something. Maybe the terrorists would do better if they got plastic surgery to make them all look like Bob Saget.

marstein

That's the thing Leejo. If you want to stay the land of the free and the home of the brave it doesn't help much to make people afraid to stick out in any way. If you are (strike that) if you look different you get the extra treatment at the airport and on the street.
Terrorists now know how they need to look: white business man with laptops strapped to their backs. Conveniently there are now preapprovals available for sale so you can get through security faster.

__________________
Gigabyte P35-DS3R, 2GB, 8800GTS 640MB, Core2Duo E8400

Kerostasis

@Cing: I looked through like 4 different articles on the incident that made no mention of that part, and couldn't find any linked in the thread either. I guess some versions of the article do mention it, but I wonder why it's so rare, given that it seems like a fairly important piece of evidence?

@Marstein: The "pre-approvals" aren't designed to let you "pay $50 instead of being checked at the airport", they are designed to let you "pay $50 to cover the cost of the extensive background check we'll do on you NOW, so we don't have to do a SECOND check at the airport". Is that any more reassuring?

*note, amount of $50 has been pulled out of thin air

__________________

tHa_KhAn

That's the point. Security typically chooses to find those that look out of place, those that are odd. Not just people, but things. Some are over reactions, but with the current events of the world, coupled with the crazy law suit system, it is better to error on the safe side and inconvenience those that feel they must express themselves in a way that could be taken out of context. I may fancy myself a knight of round table and purchase a set of plate mail and a long sword, but I'm not getting through security like that despite only wanting to protect moral fabric of my Camelot. Also, the typical terrorist does not fit the profile of the person you just described for many reasons. Laptops are given extra examination at all air ports to avoid the situation you just described.

This is just like the taser incident. These individuals had their reasons for choosing the exercise their rights. Given the proper place and event, both would not even be in the news. However, they chose to express their rights in ways that do not agree with the location and others in that location. You may have your rights, but others have their rights. Your rights do not trump the others rights and vice versa. This girl could have been more cooperative and vocal in announcing her intentions to the first employees she encountered at the air port. She did not, couple her odd behavior and odd idea of art you have enough reason to thing she could be up to something more than just picking up a friend. Both cases are where people chose not to cooperate and escalated the situations, luckily in the girl's case she took the threat of force serious and didn't yell "Don't shoot me, bro." and take off running. Take a camera and start taking photos of the layout of the airport and security. See how long that lasts.

__________________