Slashdot Mirror
MIT Student Arrested For Wearing 'Tech Art' Shirt At Airport
SuperBanana writes "According to a report by the Boston Globe, MIT Student Star Simpson was nearly shot by Logan Airport police who thought she was armed with a bomb. She approached an airline employee wearing a prototyping board with electronic components, crudely attached to the front of her sweatshirt and holding 'putty' in her hand. She asked about an incoming flight, and did not respond when asked about the device. Armed police responded. 'Simpson was charged with possessing a hoax device and was arraigned today East Boston Municipal Court. She was held on $750 cash bail and ordered to return to court Oct. 29. "Thankfully because she followed our instructions, she ended up in our cell instead of a morgue," Pare said. "Again, this is a serious offense ... I'm shocked and appalled that somebody would wear this type of device to an airport."'"
Hrmmmm.... looking at the "device" from the images on the link makes me think the police overreacted. Come on now.... holding her at gunpoint? Granted, it was likely not the smartest move on her part not to respond about the "device" when asked, but once again, I am dismayed that people are getting owned by fears of terrorism and things and people that look "abnormal".
Reminds me of that guy who dressed up as the alien predator in the UK and got the British police all over him. Anyone have a link to the video of that?
Or how about the Muslim men that were asked to leave a flight because they spoke in Arabic?
Or how about the guy who was not allowed to fly with his breadboard that he was using for prototyping. They let him fly with one in its package though if *that* makes any sense.
Pare said. "Again, this is a serious offense
Why is it that airports have special significance? Seriously, think about it. There are many other places with large concentrations of people that we are not spending any money on for security that would be ideal terroristic locations. Would you say that "I'm shocked and appalled that somebody would wear this type of device to a college campus"? or how about "I'm shocked and appalled that somebody would wear this type of device to an art show"? or how about "I'm shocked and appalled that somebody would wear this type of device to a concert"? or "I'm shocked and appalled that somebody would wear this type of device to a park"?. Is all this paranoia actually making us safer? I suspect what it is doing is making flying more inconvenient for the traveler, more expensive for the airlines, reducing businesses ability to function and more because let's be honest here.... It is not hard to imagine any number of amazingly effective scenarios that terrorists could use that would be far more effective than focusing on airports, so quit with all of the panic reactions already.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Hmmmm, I think as an art project I'd like to create something that I definitively know is not a bomb but really could look like a bomb to the average person, and maybe even people whose job is security at the airports. As a matter of fact, I think I'll try this out for fun and go to the airport and see what their reactions are. Geez, this'll be fun.
This MIT genius almost became a SBC. I think security at airports is lousy, and it's mostly a joke, but this is hardly a prank I'd consider pulling, and while this "artist" is likely to get mileage out of the alleged overreactions of security, I have no admiration for what looks to be if not stupid, an incredibly mis-guided caper.
These are the idiots who goad people trying their best to do their jobs into making split-second decisions, but have magnitudes more time to create accusations about why the split-second decisions were wrong, or violated their civil rights, or something to make "bad people" look bad. Arrrrgggghhhh.
Notably about this student, she's 19, meaning she's certainly old enough to have understood the gravity of 9/11 being 13 at the time. She might think it's funny, she ought to apologize. </i> (from last post)
Do they just need to do some public service announcements about what a real bomb looks like and what fake electronic gadgets look like?
...featuring lots of her own blood.
I'm looking forward to the convoluted arguments as to how the security personnel overreacted, and how she did nothing wrong. The damn thing definitely looks like it could have been a bomb. She really is lucky they didn't shoot her.
For What.
"I am a kernel in the linux army"
She is very lucky she didn't get shot. You'd have to be insane or a moron to wear something like that to an airport. She got in to MIT though so I vote "insane".
This person is insane and has a death wish. I almost got shot for trying to smuggle toothpaste in my carry-on bag and I think I may be on a terrorist list for a nail clipper. Attaching shit to your T-Shirt that looks like a bomb sounds like a great way to end your life. MIT pumping out the best and brightest I see.
So is there anything that Boston authorities WON'T mistake for a bomb?
who think playdoh, a circuit board, and some wires hanging off your person should not be a problem in an airport, and to think it is a problem is a sign of the coming fascist apocalypse
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I think this is a classic case of someone who is obviously very bright academically, but who doesn't have an ounce of common sense. Yes, upon close inspection, the device might not look like a bomb, but the police don't have time for close inspection when it's the real thing. I actually WANT the police to overreact in cases like this in order to keep me safer.
Regardless of if it looks like a bomb (isn't that subjective anyways) it is certainly suspicious and the airport guards did the right thing.
I mean honestly, how many wear a bread board with led's, etc (and possibly hold putty or what appears to be in their hands) when they walk into an airport? Airports personal are going to look for suspicious activity and this definitely was.
WTF was this girl thinking? Was she trying to make a statement that a lot of people with no electronics experience think a bomb might look like something out of the show 24? She could have paid with a bullet to the head. Just stupid.
you just can't walk into an airport like this. You don't fuck around in those places.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
From I've heard, this is not like the Aqua Teen Hunger Force situation at all.
She clearly wanted to provoke a reaction. She was holding clay in her hand, she was wearing a circuit board that may have looked like a bomb and she WENT INTO AN AIRPORT.
Hello?
Do we automatically defend every artistic tech person or only the sane ones?
Unless some other information comes forward, this artist wanted to be arrested.
And she was.
...but what the hell was she thinking with a shirt like this?
Her choice of "artistic expression" isn't immediately recognizable, and therefore has to be treated as a threat.
Information wants to be Free. Useful Information will cost you.
I see several posts here of the form "its obvious this isn't a bomb because...". What everyone is overlooking is the fact that the average person at the airport, including the guards, are not nerds that would have knowledge of C4 or how bombs really work, etc. They don't all read Slashdot.
In short, while I agree that the US in general is very much over-reacting to threats, this person was a major doofus, and she should be treated as such. She's damned lucky she only ended up in a jail cell, and not with a sudden and terminal case of lead poisoning. I wonder if she, or her nearest surviving relatives, would have thought it was so funny if an innocent bystander were killed or injured had it gone down a different way.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
All the training and FUD put into anit-terrorism won't stop a reasonably intelligent and determined terrorist. All that has been accomplished is to show the WORLD how ineffective anti-terrorist measures really are. While we are busy concentrating on stopping boy scouts and grandmothers from flying, REAL terrorists are figuring out how to shut down power grids, poison water supplies, or get a job in China so they can poison us with the US Government's consent.
I'm amazed they didn't tazer the girl and turn a piece of artwork into a real exploding device!
Seriously this country needs to get a grip on itself. These types of incidents would not seem all that bad if there really WERE terrorists walking around every airport in the US. Trouble is, there just isn't. Even when London was being bombed semi-regularly by the IRA, anti-terror measures were not so intrusive or blatantly idiotic.
It has been shown (sorry no links) that these anti-terror measures have failed to reduce terrorism at all, and in fact, recent anti-terror triumphs were due to ordinary pre-9/11 police methodologies.
If it wasn't such a dire situation, I might want to laugh...
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
I like watching douchebags over-react and inconvenience everyone around them. I hope more and more people pull stunts like this.
If more people did this, perhaps this country of cowards would get the fuck over themselves once they realized that knee-jerking is no way to keep a nation secure.
Blar.
I think they also teach cops that bombers always want to get caught before getting on the plane, so they typically will walk up to a flight attendant and ask them questions to draw attention to themselves. They also typically wear the bomb on the outside of their shirts so they can walk aimlessly through the metal detectors and help Homeland Security detect them quicker.
Key facts:
I am rabidly for freedom, privacy, and personal rights. I'm quite set against abusive use of police force. This was not even remotely an unreasonable action by the airport police, and it has NOTHING in common with the whole "mooninite" incident, save similarities in the type of device.
Please help metamoderate.
She's involved with the MIT Media Lab and a breadboard with a few LEDs and a battery is supposed to constitute a project?!!!??! One which she's proud of?
Nicholas Negroponte needs to spend less time on OLPC and get back to teaching.
I'm surprised at the posts defending this girl - suggesting that airport security should be able to identify electrical components and distinguish art putty from plastic explosives at a glance. If they were trained to do that, they'd be the ones at MIT, not this girl! It sounds like they handled the situation correctly - asked her what the device was, and then detained her without needing to use violence when she didn't respond.
As to the girl herself - how dumb do you have to be? What would convince someone to question the arrival time of a flight while wearing electronics and handling putty? How about some common sense? I hesitate to say "she's lucky she's not dead", since that implies that deadly force would have been justified in this case, but at a certain point it's hard to have pity.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to paint a squirt gun black and walk into a kindergarten, then complain when the teachers can't distinguish my toy from the real deal.
Let's say I work as a police officer at the airport. I see some girl coming forward with this device with chips and wires which bears reasonable resemblance to a bomb.
It is either a bomb, or it is not.
I can either choose to take action, or not to.
If I choose not to take action, and it does happen to be a bomb, then innocent people will die, the world will be in chaos all over again, and I'll probably go to prison for dereliction of duty. If it is not a bomb, then at best nothing will happen, but much more likely I'll get at least a reprimand for negligence and at worst will lose my job for the same reason.
If I choose to take action, then at best I will prevent a major catastrophe, become famous for quickly and bravely acting, and in general be the hero of the day. And if it is not a bomb? Well then probably I'll be able to justify my actions anyways, on grounds of reasonable assumption and the surrounding situation where time can be critical. At the worst, all I'll get is some trolls flaming me on Slashdot.
I'll go with the second option, thank you.
Problem #1 with arresting someone for wearing a "suspicious" breadboard: Terrorists wouldn't do that.
Seriously, are we honestly so stupid to believe that terrorists are going to go walking around with wires all over their clothes? They're going to put the fucking bomb UNDER their clothes. It's not going to tick, it's not going to beep, and there's not going to be an obvious bright LED countdown clock.
This isn't 24, it's real life.
There's nothing wrong with questioning the kid or examining the device - that's just common sense. But there is exactly zero reason to arrest the kid once it's clear that it's nothing but a blinking T-Shirt. It's not a "hoax device", it's a blinking T-shirt.
I brought a GP2X handheld gamesystem and a scientific calculator to the airport once. I almost died laughing as two airport security agents mulled over the two for almost ten minutes. I heard whispers like "maybe one is a remote detonation device for the other?" and "Do you think it could be used to hijack the planes control system?". The people supposedly keeping us safe are morons and can't tell the difference between a breadboard full of LED's and a real threat. And that's what is disturbing. We are giving up all these rights, and we aren't actually in any way, shape, or form safer. If these people have such little understanding of electronics, someone could easily gut a PSP and fool these clowns. It's a dog and pony show at best, and at worst we've given up basic civil liberties.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
Remember that she was not attempting to board a flight, and was only picking someone up at the airport.
She was "pretty stupid to try it"? Try what?
I'm not crazy; I accept that human expression and behaviour has to be limited for public safety. But I fail to understand what reasonable threat to public safety is assumed here. Simply being unusual is NOT sufficient ground for detainment - go down that path and we'll all have to wear identical orange jumpsuits to board the plane.
Basically, this is saying that that having something out that looks 'electric-y' is tantamount to terrorism. One can only assume that if the same shirt had the same breadboard but if it were wrapped in a matte plastic case, no such suspicion would have been brought. So, message to terrorists: don't put LEDs on your bombs, and don't show exposed wiring. Put it in a backpack, and you'll be fine.
Boy, I feel so much safer.
Ok, enough with the constant claims of something being a "hoax device" and prosecuting someone for it.
If it's a hoax worth prosecuting over the person involved had damned well better state or firmly imply that one object is, in fact, another. In this case as before in the Mooninite issue it was a third-party who made a mistake about an object that was never intended to be misinterpreted. This makes it a misunderstanding. You tell the person why you made the mistake, probably suggest that in light of this mistake they avoid doing it in the future (although that's entirely up to them, of course), apologize explaining that you were only trying to do the right thing, and send them on their way.
In other words: "Oh, we're very sorry, but from our laymen's point of view it looked like it might be a bomb of some sort. I'm sure you can understand where we're coming from with this and, in light of this fact, why we reacted the way we did."
The lack of an intent to deceive is really the issue here. The Piltdown Man was a hoax, this is just a misunderstanding.
I taught at the Institute for about a decade, and kids wore stuff like this all the time. She could have easily put it on to wear to class then drove out to the airport to pick up her friend.
I'm not saying she shouldn't have been more cooperative, but perhaps having guns pointed at her for probably the first time in her life might have made her a bit tongue-tied.
I've seen the pictures.
To me, the problem is less of a matter that the police reacted (I suppose an idiot could be excused for mistaking it for a bomb) than that they now know it's not a bomb, apparently she never claimed that it was a bomb, and they continued to press charges of "hoax device" and so on. Granted, this is Boston, which went batshit crazy over Mooninites, but I was just as annoyed by the "fake bomb"/"bomb hoax" news reports then. I suppose they want some sort of satisfaction for the time/expense of reacting, in a vengeful way now.
Look, people. Something CANNOT BE A HOAX device if it was not INTENDED to be perceived as a device. The entire point of the word "hoax" is that it is "An act intended to deceive or trick." If there is no INTENT, then there is no hoax. Evidence of intent is a concept built into criminal law itself as a necessary condition to make things stick (IANAL, but I'm pretty confident on this point). There is no hoax here.
There are, however, a bunch of misunderstandings and some poor judgment on the part of the student*. That said, cut your losses, shake hands, tell her not to do it again, and move on. Personally I'm sick of the rampant stupidity that seems to have infected the world "post 9-11" and this is a prime example of it.
*While I think it's poor judgment, I also think it's a shame that tech art can't be worn in public without eliciting a full-blown law enforcement response. I've seen this sorta stuff on the runway in some fashion shows and always thought it was pretty cool.
picpix image polls. create - share - vote. fun!
There are people who want you to be afraid, who want you to be willing to accept any level of brutality in the name of "protecting you". Are you sure those people haven't curdled your brain with their scare talk? Talk about no common sense. Yes, common sense says that the only people qualified to call foul on a supposed bomb are bomb experts. Not "people involved with electronics" and not airline ticket agents. Even so, the most brain-dead drop-out from cop school (giving the average undertrained TSA agent a break here) can tell that a light-up shirt is not something that calls for even the threat of lethal force. At most, the wearer should be politely asked to submit to a check for explosive materials or for other contraband. You can't have a bomb without explosives or at least a detonator and supposedly the TSA is capable of detecting those.
She's the bomb...
It looks like a breadboard to anybody involved with electronics. Explosives have electronics attached to something that goes boom. Unless they thought her boobs were filled with plastic explosives there's really not much there.
Except:
1. The average security guard/police officer is not involved in electronics. If they were, they would more likely seek jobs that have better pay in these fields.
2. In a situation with a possible suicide bomber fractions of a second count. It is reasonable that even a person with reasonable training in electronics would make a quick call on this.
3. She had a play dough/putty like substance in her hand. To the unlearned or to those without time to analyze the situation - all involved in this case - she was certainly suspicious.
4. The grave threat of allowing someone on an aircraft with a bomb or exploding a bomb in a densely packed area provides additional reason for quick, decisive action on the part of security.
She did something very, very stupid and is lucky to have walked away alive. The police acted with great restraint and should be commended for it.
The police did not kill this person. The police do have a duty to investigate suspicious activity.
Let me get this straight.
You're saying that if the police see someone walk into an airport wearing something that may or may not be a bomb, they should wait until after it explodes to take action?
I've done a fair amount of electronics and if I had seen her wandering into the airport I would have thrown my carryon at her head and dived to the floor from a distance. She's an idiot. No, you are a coward. And a violent one, at that. A reasonable person might have approached her and asked her why her shirt was lighting up. A timid person might have hurried away or gotten behind a thick pillar (look at the girl, if you totally hollowed her out and filled her with C4 a couple feet of concrete would shield you). Only a violent coward would throw his suitcase at a harmless person's head in a paroxysm of terror.
My young son has grown up around computers and electronics. He's generally not been exposed to TV or government-sponsored fear-mongering. It would not occur to him that he needs to protect himself from people like you, who would violently attack him if you saw him wandering about with silly putty in his hands and a breadboard hanging off his belt.
But I guess there is no "Land of the Brave" any more. I'm going to have to go home and explain to my son how your terror is restricting his totally harmless lifestyle. How's it feel to be working for Usama?
If you are the expert you would like to project being, and you are disgusted by the situation, may I suggest helping. Go apply for a job as a security agent at an airport. Go do the job and do it right. Help teach your coworkers how.
Oh what's that? It doesn't pay much and the work is pretty boring? Ahh, well then perhaps you see the problem. We are not paying the kind of money nor offering the kind of environment to get top level professionals. If that's what you want, fair enough, but then figure out where the money will come from. Nothing is free. You want good people, you have to pay good money.
Ok, maybe the initial reaction was justified... They didn't actually shoot her after all.
But prosecuting her? They checked her out. She didn't have a bomb. So tell her she's an idiot and send her on her way, right?
If someone is going to take a bomb to the airport, would it look like her sweatshirt or your carry-on? If she should be apprehended, anyone with a briefcase should be shot. I mean, OMG, who knows what could be in there! You're just carrying stuff around *concealed* at the *airport*, what are you thinking!?!
Is why nobody told us that they started making good-looking female nerds?
I suppose it could be more unusual... she could be on slashdot!
An Islamic extremist detonated a bomb she was wearing on the front of her blouse at Logan Airport earlier today. She and ten bystanders, including one security guard, were killed instantly. When a guard who survived the blast was asked why the woman was not detained, he replied: "We thought she was just exercising her right to free expression with a battery, silly putty, wires, and a circuit board over her blouse. How could we have known?"
Angry Slashdotters called the airport security "imbecilic" and staffed by "morons" for not arresting the woman and inspecting the bomb. Ironically, these are the same Slashdotters who stated that airport security overreacted not too long ago when MIT Student Star Simpson wore a similar device at Logan Airport, causing a minor uproar that led to her arrest and eventual release. Logan Airport issued a statement vowing to continue their efforts to keep Slashdotters who want everything both ways happy.
Lets me get around you easily by just playing to your assumptions. Suppose we assume that no terrorist would ever wear a bomb on their clothes, and we further assume that they'd certainly never tell you. Now I know if I pack a bomb in my bag, there's a good chance it'll get noticed on X-ray. If I put it under my clothes, good chance the metal parts will set off the detector. In both cases I've got a concealed device that looks like it might be an explosive (since it is) and I get busted. Ahh, but I know that Rz is in charge of security, and he's told everyone "No terrorist will ear a bomb in plain view, so don't worry about anything you can see." So I strap the shit right to my shirt and carry parts in. Security asks me what it is, I laugh and say "Oh it's a bomb," they all laugh with me because their boss Rz told them no terrorist would ever do that. So I get through security with my bomb, because it was assumed that nobody would ever do that.
While I admit that it is unlikely that someone would try that, you don't start making assumptions.
In this case there are some additional important facts:
1) The person that was alarmed wasn't a security agent, just an info booth employee. Expecting everyone to be an expert in everything is retarded. Most people know jack and shit about electronics.
2) Part of the reason for the alarm was the girl refused to answer questions about it. She was asked what it was, she just turned around and left. THAT is very suspicious. Most people, if you ask them about their clothes, are happy to respond, especially if said clothes are unique/geeky. I love my Think Geek "Resistance is futile (if 1 ohm)," shirt and will happily explain it. It is real suspicious for someone to not say anything, not even "none of your business," and just walk off.
She must have done it intentionally, to get bigtime attention, because that act seems purposeful and reckless "to the max". Boston security responded appropriately.
For those people who said it doesn't look like a bomb... what does a bomb look like? Does every bomb look the same?
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
because people who strap bombs to themselves always behave with perfect logic and reason
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This is ridiculous. I'm as opposed to the overreaching police state activities we've been seeing as anyone, but wearing a device that looks like an IED, that you designed specifically to look like an IED, that serves no other purpose, and then wearing it to an airport knowing full well the reaction it would produce, is not remotely constitutionally protected speech.
This is screaming "Fire!" in a crowded theatre to the tenth power.
I can't believe people are defending this. Think for a moment if instead she decided to create a piece of "art" that happened to look just like an AK47 instead of an IED? Would you be defending her then too? Because the situation is the same, even worse.
If she walked into a airport with piece of art that looked like an AK47, held at ready, you can be sure that if she had even flinched, she would have been shot dead, and she would have had it coming.
Having what looks unambiguously like an IED in a crowded airport is even worse.
This is Darwin award territory.
The article specifically states that she ignored questions about the shirt and putty then walked away. The TSA must account for the fact that some people are fucking nuts. This woman lives in a very rarified world where electronics tinkering is both commonplace and expected.
The reason it is and should be a crime is because you simply cannot have a policy where people toting things that look like bombs can board aircraft. Should it really be the TSA's responibility to determine that something is a fake? Is it reasonable to expect security personnel to accurately analyze suspicious items on the fly in a check-in line?
She's very lucky they didn't shoot her through the head. With the crowds of people around the main concern is the safety of the bystanders. The guards responded with amazing self restraint: Remember, they are just people with families, lives etc.. If she HAD been fucking nuts, she could have killed them all in a picosecond.
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
And newspaper articles are always accurate. And people who overreact to apparent security threats never misreport the facts in order to justify their overreactions.
step 3: god dammit, it doesn't work
And since your biased against the press you disregard anything written. The fact she isn't dead tells me someone showed good judgment. She certainly didn't. Over reacting would have been her lying dead on the ground while the police continue to shoot at the bloody corpse.
Did you see the picture of her shirt? A breadboard, some LEDs, and a 9v battery. This incident displays only marginally less paranoia than, say, confiscating my toothpaste, and we are not any safer. She didn't attempt to board a plane or go through any security checkpoint and we really have NO IDEA if she actually heard anyone ask her about the device, or indeed, if they actually did. (I'm willing to bet it's CYA on someone's part...) Frankly I'm appalled (not only by this incident), at the lack of common sense of the FAA, HLS, amd Boston Police. I say we all go out & buy some blinky, flashy, raver toys and flashmob an airport!
The reason it is and should be a crime is because you simply cannot have a policy where people toting things that look like bombs can board aircraft.
She wasn't boarding an aircraft. She wasn't trying to board an aircraft. She wasn't even trying to pass through the security checkpoint to get to the boarding areas for the aircraft.
But I heard the police stopped a straw man in the airport who was trying to do all of the above.
I am seriously curious: in your opinion, under what conditions should security detain someone?
At what point should airport security shoot to kill? I'd love to hear what you think and why.
I am not "gun crazy". I don't own a firearm, I don't support unfettered access to firearms and I definitely do not support a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach. However, security policy MUST take into account every possibility.
AFAIK current policy draws heavily on advice from israeli security experts, who have considerable practical experience dealing with this sort of thing. The reason they shoot people in the head is to try to prevent suspects from triggering explosives by instantly disabling motor skills. Shooting someone in the legs does not prevent them from triggering a bomb if they so desire.
I personally don't have very much sympathy with people who don't understand the level of security in american airports. Just how much crap should the security personnel tolerate?
You, sir, are a fucking idiot.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
This is one of the reasons I hated going to MIT. There were so many people who came from these high school backgrounds where they were ostracized and ignored for being nerds, and suddenly they're at MIT! Such an enlightened place! People understand me! So for some reason, people decide to act in ways that get attention from everyone around them. And when they're off campus, it's so exciting to make all the "normal" people think they're so weird! I absolutely agree with the police in this case; she was not using common sense; she just wanted to impress people with her brainyness and weirdness. I was kind of like that (although not quite that stupid!). I feel sort of bad for her; she'll never live it down, but that's what happens.
RTFA. It was an information kiosk attendant. It was quite possible that the question asked seemed so off the wall, she decided it wasn't serious. It was her shirt after all, what ELSE would it be? We spend a lot of time justifying the way law-enforcement types think. They on the other hand do not spend much time worrying about how the innocent think or react. They are expected to assume guilt and let higher authorities sort it out later. I've been in a jury trial where a police officer asked a reasonable question, received a LOGICAL answer, and still arrested the guy because the answer sounded like a confession to the officer. Situation: narrow driveway, view out mostly blocked by houses on either side. Police edge up in cars staying out of site of back of driveway where a cock fight was held. Individual sitting on porch near front of driveway sees the cars and walks out to see what's up. Officer, who knows the guy, says, "So-and-so, what are you doing here?" So-and-so answers. "I came to look." Busted. Took the jury half a day to conclude there was a reasonable doubt about the communication sequence there. The long time hold out was a Christian Fundamentalist who thought Buddhists worshiped the Devil.
As far as real bombs go, I used to help my dad set explosives to take out stumps and boulders. It takes two wires, a cap, and ONE battery, and, if you want to get real fancy, a switch. We just touched the wires to the battery poles. If you are going for a remote detonation because you want to stay alive with all your limbs, you use a larger battery to overcome the drop in voltage.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
That's definitely NOT a professionally correct thing to do, especially for a news site. Zonk, please be more careful when editing to NOT attribute the edited portions to someone who did not submit them.
And also, please do not move links from text which clearly describe what they are, like "report by the Boston Globe" over to things which make it very difficult to figure out what the link is about, such as, "who thought she was armed with a bomb". Think about it. The first section, as chosen by the original submitter, clearly shows that this link contains an article discussing this story. The second text portion looks like it's supposed to link to a blog entry by someone who thought she had a bomb. It makes no sense to change it. We should not have to guess the contents of links when they can be easily labeled.
The point was that the newspapers were *incorrect* (in the Jean Charles de Menezes case) and the police lied to the newspapers as was later shown by CCTV footage.
If your idea of presence of mind and restraint is not shooting a teenaged girl with a few blinking lights on her shirt in broad daylight I'd hate to see the kind of world you want to live in. This isn't like a kid jumping out in a dark alley with a realistic toy gun in his hand.
The police arrested her simply to show that they could. What she was wearing doesn't look like a bomb to anyone with an ounce of brains. It was worthwhile to check her out because someone unfamiliar with bombs and electronics thought what she was wearing was unusual but there was no crime committed. Boston police overreacted and wasted a lot of money and a lot of peoples time on the Aqua Teen Hunger Force devices and they overreacted here.
The prosecuter during her arraignment said that she answered the employee that it was art. Everybody panic!
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
It is the threat of shooting innocent people that is wrong.
The "security" at American (and now European) airports is phony. It is only there to make people feel safe, it has no real effect. This is why these events piss off people. We know they are not going to catch any serious threat, but instead they arrest or harass everybody else.
You are not going to see Iraqi or Israel style suicide bombings in the US. They require weaponsgrade explosives, and still makes the suicide bomber looks bulging like he is carring a lot of heavy stuff tied to body (not something you can carry under a t-shirt!). The kind of explosives you can acquire and produce in a western country will only create events like that at Glasgow, which was a joke.
If she had wanted to blow anything or anyone up, she:
...And guess what? After they made a huge deal of it, guns pointed, etc, it turns out... get ready for this shocker... she actually did not have a bomb.
1) Would not have worn the bomb visibly.
2) Would have had a much bigger one (like in a backpack or purse)
3) Would not have approached an airport employee (who she could reasonably assume would be on the lookout for bombs) like she did.
Therefore, she did not have a bomb.
Who would have thought?
"Oh, well, that CAN'T be a bomb, I can SEE it," while they walk in with a wheelbarrow full of C-4.
Now you are mixing-and-matching my points. I said that if it was a real bomb, it would have been bigger. And here you go talking about a "wheelbarrow" full of C-4. Of course anything THAT size would be (and should be) suspicious. But not a circuit board on a tee shirt (or are you claiming her rack was 'wheelbarrow sized', and should have drawn suspicion??)
Further, such a person could be providing a diversion so that another person could make it through security
Then it's a really bad idea to send the guys with guns to take her down, no? If they're leaving the gates wide open so someone else could just walk thru. (And if they're not, then what's you point?)
a handful of plastique could kill a few people
So can a steak knife. So can a cane. So can a pillow. So can a razor blade. So can my bare hands. So can...
Like it or not, it's her fault for being a fucking idiot and not considering the climate of an airport after 9-11.
So, you are seriously saying that we all have to be extremely careful not to do or say ANYTHING that, if properly mis-interperated by those in charge, could be the least little bit suspicious, otherwise we deserve what we get??
If that's true, then you ought to be expecting feds bursting thru your door at any time, with all your talk about "wheelbarrow[s] full of C-4." and "plastique could kill a few people" and "fucking nuclear bomb[s]". I mean, that kinda talk could be mis-interperated....