Switch

So, i ask again.. was the entire device taped outside of her shirt? Or, was it removed for photos after the fact. It would make sense for her to wear it inside her shirt with the lights poking through.

__________________
|TG|Switch

Better known as:
That noob who crashed the chopper.
That noob who ran over the mine.
That noob who TK'd me with a sniper rifle.
That noob who hit that APC at 300m with light AT! Our APC...

leejo

As a quick aside, if you have a loaded handgun in a bag and forget about it, you have no business with a loaded handgun. I know that when I travel with a gun I feel 100% responsible for keeping it secure at all times. This is to prevent its accidental use and also its theft. I would hate to have a gun stolen and find out later it had been used in a crime.

IMO, if someone "forgets" about the gun in their bag at the airport, they ought to get charged with another crime!

Back to our regularly-scheduled thread.

marstein

This is crazy. If you actually want to do harm, you have millions of options to hide the device. You would not wear it on a sweater. Just because something looks unusual doesn't mean that it is dangerous. You are forgetting that you are living in a place that has freedom. With the arguments I read here anything could be called a threat tomorrow and people could be arrested for it. Shoes, water - wait we already had that... Google 'circuit board jewelry' and you find things like this. Even the language used is sensational 'strapping a board on your chest' sounds a lot different from the more real 'she wore a small piece of circuit board jewelry'.

This actionism won't make us any safer. The police were obviously not properly trained - there is a history of that in Boston. Once you start picking people out because they look 'suspicious' you go down a dangerous route.

The Israeli way of looking at the behavior of people seems to be a much better way.

Switchcraft

The device was outside the shirt.



Some of her classmates confirm that was a pretty normal thing.

leejo

But Marstein, we're supposed to be talking about her intent. The device was suspicious and the police did act appropriately. Get with the program!

USN_Squid

I would argue she'd probably be dead right now if she walked up to an israeli soldier with that on her chest. I have to think you're kidding with that kind of post.

__________________

HybridNinja

You would be suprised.


I think she is clearly an idiot, or maybe she didn't know. You'd be suprised how stupid people can be when it comes to common sense.

Now the ATHF boston bomb scare was all government bull****.
This is quite more serious, as it's an airport.

__________________
|TG-Irr|TanithGhost
100 pixels height is too small people.

marstein

I am not kidding. After a lot of attacks on their airplanes they came up with a method of weeding out terrorists by looking at their behavior. They have trained people that talk to you before you check in. Depending on how you behave you get the deep treatment.

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

marstein

On that picture the thing does look a lot bigger than on the first post of the thread. Ugly too. She should have stuck with Hawaiian fashion.
Sadly she would have been arrested too.

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

Gillespie

Nah. Probably just funny looks. I imagine it's already getting chilly in September up in Massachusetts.

Annnnyway... everyone's different, and while they do have "profiles" to identify potential wrongdoers, not everyone will fit it. To show an example, serial killers all fit the same general "profile" in the progression and development of their madness and predatory instincts; however, you'd never be able to identify one just by looking at them.

Why compare this girl to a serial killer? I'm not! Please don't jump to that conclusion. I'm just illustrating that relying on profiles to identify suspects helps, but there's always that one.

Hence the occasional female suicide bomber.

Tarenth

Domestic crime is just as sophisticated as foreign crime. It just won't get the big news headlines with CNN when a gang or crime group uses explosives similar to that cellphone to cause havoc downtown. And if its going to go boom anyways why make it pretty? Wires hanging out and exposed breadboard won't mean a thing as long as it still goes boom.

When that car blew up in the movie Lord of War and even further back with the movie Casino, the first explaination everyone thinks of is "Car Bomb". Now a days we'd call them IEDs if it happened to our troops over seas, but here in the US they're just Car Bombs because they're bombs in cars.

Yes crap like that happens here in the US. And most of us (LEOs not included since they're on the front lines) don't really hear about it or give it much thought at all. I know if I drive a red car into a blue territory or a blue car into a red territory downtown I'll either get mugged, shot, robbed, vandalized, or have some form of explosive thrown at me by one of the major local gangs. Its happened before, there are documented cases of it happening now, but the local news just pusts up a short blerb about "Gang Violence Between Nortenoes and Souteneos on Rise. Innocences Killed" then goes on to the next story.

She acted idiotic. Arguements that she has diminished mental capacity that changes her culpability are up to the defense to bring up and speculation on our part unless they do. I can cite references to my odd friends all I want but until we get facts that prove "Yes, she has diagnosed diminished mental capacity in this way" they don't explain having a blond moment. I can space out and 'forget' which side my brakes are on and speed through a red light. While definately stupid, reckless, and dangerous I doubt people are going to start explaining it away due to mental incompetance and confusion of the moment even if I'm a self proven idiot by my actions.

Atomic Dog helps us out on the "Which part of the book is going to get thrown" question by quoting the statutory law on the matter. What isn't covered is the actual case law on similar cases which I found both interesting...and a major headache. Believe me, I'm not legally trained and reading the pages of words going back and forth made my head swim. I probably should've written down the address or something...but we were hitting Mags in WoW and I just closed things up so I could be on by invites. Basically case law breaks up hoaxs into several catagories, but the general gist I got of the word 'intent' which was in contention several times was that 'intent' could be the actions that lead up to the belief in the hoaxs. If she 'intended' to wear that shirt (which is proven by putting it on and leaving the house) and 'intended' to enter the airport with it, then she 'intended' to have the shirt in the airport which could then be believed to be a bomb. She may not have intended to have caused a panic and been arrested for it, but she knowingly intended all the actions leading up to the belief in a hoax. If she had answered questions when asked about the device initially then she would've stated a definate intent to not have belief that it was a bomb, but since she walked away without answering and had a plastic explosive like substance at hand without reason that would be hard to believe.

BTW, the law also divides malicious hoax and unmalicious hoax so there is precedent of someone being charged with an unintentional hoax or doing it out of a sick sense of humor. Malicious hoaxes (calling in a bomb threat just to cause chaos) can net you years in prison and some serious punishments depending on how bad you are. A hoax without malicious intent (both intentional and unintentional by the party) will net you mostly a fine and some service with penalties up to a year in jail depending on how funny the judge thought you were.

And the 'up to' means just that. Maximum sentence for non-malicious hoax which would probably be planned and intended for the sake of disruption on a large scale will get you jail time. An act I'm sure we can all agree this was not.

__________________
My sanity is not in question...
It was a confirmed casualty some time ago.

CingularDuality

I'm not sure if you realize, but our entire system of criminal law in the United States is based on "reasonable suspicion", "probable cause" and "guilt beyond reasonable doubt". If we don't investigate crime based on suspicion, what do you propose we investigate?

__________________

Become a supporting member!

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

Tarenth

I vote for T-shirts handed out by victims of crimes during the act that say "I'm a criminal. If you are reading this, you should probably be calling the police instead"

Yes, that was my glib moment.

__________________
My sanity is not in question...
It was a confirmed casualty some time ago.

marstein

I was thinking more along the lines of something like 'racial profiling'. You are talking about 'reasonable'. There is a difference between picking on someone because they look different and checking them out because they act suspicious.

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

HybridNinja

Like when that lawyer got his house searched without a warrant just because he converted to muslim?

__________________
|TG-Irr|TanithGhost
100 pixels height is too small people.