snooggums

It's a Lite Bright like the ATHF ads in Boston. IF she gets charged with anything without clear intention that she was intending to cause a panic it is a travesty. Just because a 'reasonable' (ie: ignorant of electronics) person would panic does not mean she should be charged with something.

__________________

Switchcraft

I have expertise in electronics, I don't think that "panic" is the same thing as "go ensure that person with the wires and the putty isn't about to kill people." You act like similar devices don't kill people frequently.


Hey look, wires, a breadboard for circuits, and a cell phone! Well, if it's a cell-phone then it MUST not be dangerous. Forget about anything nearby that might look like an explosive.

sordavie

I don't think anyone is disputing whether the police acted appropriately. I don't think anyone is disputing whether the thing looks suspicious. So why do people keep insisting that what she did was suspicious and that the police acted appropriately? Everyone agrees about that. What's in question is whether she intended it to look like a bomb to scare people or whether she just didn't realize. All the evidence that we have says it's the former.

__________________

Switchcraft

Snooggums comments are in multiple threads, and he damn sure has been saying that "ignorant" security people have "overreacted." My comments were directed at him, since "everybody" does not apparently agree.

leejo

But, Sordavie, in this thread there are several posts in which people assert that the police did not act appropriately. There are other posts that claim the device isn't suspicious. Am I taking crazy pills?

You seem focused on her intent but a lot of us have said several times we don't care all that much about her intent. It's a factor, but no more central to the discussion than these other points.

I remember two cases that came before the judicial board on which I sat in college, same kid in each case.

First case, he "accidentally" set off a fire detector in a dorm while partying by holding a lighter under it. We found him not guilty because he had his side of the story and the NC state law we were using as a guide said that intentionally setting off a fire detector in a school is a crime. In other words, we weren't willing to say that he hadn't simply behaved stupidly.

Second case, same guy discharged a fire extinguisher in a dorm while partying. He said it was an accident. The NC law were relied upon said that discharging a fire extinguisher at a school with no fire present is a crime, regardless of intent. So he got spanked.

His intent, and hers, are a factor. But in this case intent is a mitigating or aggravating factor, not the central issue.

sordavie

Well, I just scanned back over every post. I don't see anyone who thinks that what she had on her wasn't suspicious. Even the original poster took what he said in his first post back just a few posts later stating that "maybe it is suspicious."

So, who are these people who think that what she did wasn't suspicious look at all?

__________________

leejo

I think that Marstein's posts imply that he thinks her actions weren't suspicious at all.

So, while you were scanning the posts, did you see any posts about how the police acted inappropriately? You didn't mention that at all.

sordavie

No, Amosely seemed to come the closest when claiming that an Israeli airport might have handled things differently--"more appropriately." This doesn't imply that he thinks the police acted inappriopriately.

__________________

leejo

If you read all the posts and you still claim that you do not detect a strong undertone of "police acted inappropriately" in many then either your verisimilitude or your reading comprehension is pretty lacking, in my opinion.

In any case, if it's ok with you, how about you and people who wish have the conversation you want to have about intent, and I and others will have the conversations that we want to have about whether or not the police responded with appropriate force to what they correctly or foolishly perceived to be a bomb. I don't understand why you seem to feel the need to tell us "what's in question".

Atomic Dog

I don't think anybody is ignorant to the reality of the situation that occurs over-seas. For the most part we act like similar devices don't kill people in the United States frequently...because they don't.

__________________

snooggums

We have a winner!

Overseas they don't need to conceal those scary wires all sticking out because they don't need too or are in a hurry. In an airport attack they would (and easily) hide those small electronics in a case that is small like a laptop, shoe, PDA, backpack, luggage, lunchbox or any other commonly found item.

How many actual explosive devices with wiring hanging out have been confiscated in the US? Why do people in this thread state that it would have been right to shoot her if she didn't do exaclty as the police said?

__________________

tHa_KhAn

Like I have said before, I think it is bigger than this individual. Her punishment, regardless of appropriate to her or not, is going to be a precedent for future cases. If "Art" or "Forgetfulness" become legal precedents as excuses to avoid severe punishment in these cases, the doors have been opened for people to pull pranks for all sorts of reason(Bomb Threat do avoid exam kind of thing). What's worse is the door has been opened for dry runs by people who would like to do harm without worry of severe repercussion for getting caught. Yes, the same person couldn't do it over and over again, but a group with multiple individuals could establish a strategy to continual test security over a period. If it's acceptable to have wires and electronics poking out, then potential threats have less to worry about when it comes to concealment.

What she did is not like a speeding ticket or even a drug possession. Her crime was how it affects others not just her person and the law. Many people everyday forget to do something on a much smaller scale and receive the typical punishment. Why should she be different? I guess that's my question. If someone forgets to buckle their seatbelt and receives and extra fine for not doing so. Someone forgets to unload their firearm(and does not have a CWL) and gets caught in transport. There are many little things people get fined or worse for that are simple mistakes, oops moments. Why does her oops moment, which cost time and money on a large scale deserve to be unpunished, especially with the possibility of a bad precedent being set?


*edit* They would have been justified in shooting her because they believed she had a device that could cause deadly force. Similar to some drunk teen pointing a pellet gun at a cop at night. How does he know in an instant that it is a pellet gun? Snoogums I believe you are looking at this after the fact, not from the eyes of a someone charged with airport security who received a call about someone with potential bomb. The immediate calls for compliance were their investigation to find out if it was a bomb. If she doesn't comply, they probably would have concluded she was a real threat and acted in the interest of all the other people in and around the airport.

__________________

Gillespie

Quite a few individuals are looking at this after the fact. Hindsight is 20/20, as the saying goes. Put yourself in the situation, then make judgements.

Let's move past this tiresome facet of the thread. There's a large consensus (correctly) that the police and the booth attendant acted appropriately. It resembled a bomb. That's ALL that mattered. Err on the side of caution.

OK. Now let's discuss what this young lady's punishment should be. I'm on the side that leejo and others are standing upon: regardless of her foolishness (and, after reading many things about this, I'm inclined to agree with Sordavie that the girl's simply bereft of any common sense), what she did was a MAJOR boo-boo. I believe she should faced some sort of punitive action.

However... to what degree? I'll stop short of jail-time. A fine of some sort, and community service. A punishment of that sort would be appropriate in this case. In my opinion, at least.

Kerostasis

There's several questions here, some of which are easier to answer than others:
(1) - Did police respond appropriately by investigating the threat? I say yes, and I think just about everyone else agrees the answer is yes, even those who are backing the girl as being merely forgetful. No major question here.
(2) - Was the "itchy trigger finger" type response, that brought her to within a moment's hesitation of death, also appropriate? My personal opinion is no, but there's still room for argument. However, since she was ultimately not shot, this is thankfully a fairly minor point.
(3) - Now that the scare is over, and we have 20/20 hindsight, Should she be punished for bringing the circuitboard into the airport? Well, someone has conveniently offered us the relevant passage from Massachusetts law, which clearly states that conviction depends on her intent in carrying the device, which brings us to the last question...
(4) - Did she intend to scare people, or did she not realize that her shirt would make people nervous? Really, this is the big question in the case. Evidence on this question is a little sketchy, but it seems entirely plausible from what we know that she is telling the truth when declaring the circuit-board was intended for the previous night's career fair at MIT. Do you people consider that claim implausible?

__________________

tHa_KhAn

I think that claim would be entirely plausible on its own. However, I think her avoidance of initial questions, coupled with a wad of clay say she didn't just throw on the shirt from the night before or something like that. Either way it would be hard to prove. The last two bits I think will be what gets her in trouble.

Like the senator/congressman(or family I don't recall exactly) who had the loaded gun in his bag at an airport because he forgot to take it out after carrying it. That makes sense, but had he had it wrapped up and hidden or had multiple other ready to use weapons it would have been a lot harder to believe.

__________________