Slashdot Mirror
Aqua Teen Art 'Terrorist' Describes His Ordeal
destinyland writes "Boston police arrested artist 'Zebbler' for installing L.E.D. devices that promoted Aqua Teen Hunger Force (after police mistook them for bombs). He's finally shared the real behind-the-scenes story about his arrest and release. He describes his interrogation ('My interrogator gave me nothing but carrots to eat') and remembers a surreal exchange with a police officer. ('My daughter is a huge fan of you ... So, did you really mean to blow up Boston?') Now his latest project is a cool high-definition/surround sound installation for an event called RIP.MIX.BURN.BAM.PFA."
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Anyway, that was a bit of a rant but my point is, I liked the way this guy handled the media way back (because the media, frankly, deserves that...I appreciate what they do, but every now and then they need to be reminded that they aren't the ones in control but the ones who document and their emotional manipulation and constant spinning deserves to be checked). But on this interview two quotes in particular made me realize he is separate: [Psychedelics] did not seem to offer a path to salvation, just a widening of perspective. and One doesn't need psychedelics to achieve those kinds of realizations however. I really think it was good of him to say that, because yeah, he's clearly someone who isn't a stranger to drugs but he offers a level headed view that's not overly self serving a biased. Too many people think drugs (especially psychedelics) answer all their questions and solve everything and sound like selfserving douchebags. They talk about discovering the answer while taking LSD and it's so pretentious and dickish and done to fit an image. Here's a guy who does them (no problem with that here) and then proceeds to say they helped a bit but they aren't necessary and maybe he enjoyed them but he's clearly not going to judge someone who doesn't do them. I've never tried psychedelics and I also no longer smoke marijuana, but I am most definitely not an anti-drug type; I just am glad to see someone saying drugs can be fun but they aren't necessary. People who do drugs and say that's the only way are almost worse than people who don't do drugs and say that's the only way because people who do drugs generally take pride in their self-described "open minds". So kudos to him for basically saying "yeah I used drugs but you don't have to and you can still get to the same point regardless of your choice."
Admitedly terrorists are morons, thankfully, or we'd be in a lot more trouble. The point is say if I were trying to hurt a lot of people I wouldn't hide the weapon I'd want it to draw attention. Lets say you pull a trailer up and park it on a busy street and have a large sign that says to advertise your new mobile coffee francise you were giving away iPod Nanos to the first hundred customers that buy coffee. You're guaranteed a hundred people will be waiting at the mentioned opening time and probably a whole lot more. The Russians used the technique in Afganistan and went so far as to make explosives shaped like toys trageting kids. If you want to be sure to harm people you want to draw attention but the right type of attention so it seems perfectly normal. A trailer where you seemed to be selling coffee or ice cream wouldn't attract the attention of the police unless they wanted to check your permits but they wouldn't do that until you opened for business. Hiding a bomb in a display that is designed to draw attention does make sense. If they ignored them and they did blow up then people would be screaming. The police were doing their jobs being careful but they came down hard on them afterwards out of annoyance and the fact they felt foolish but what option did they have? Yes they shouldn't have tried to throw the book at them because it's an overreaction. They meant it as kind of a gorilla advertisement and gorilla actions like placing displays without permission or permits has some risk. The police handled the aftermath poorly but they had to know there was some potential for trouble. I'm sure they were expecting a possible fine not the third degree and a possible vacation at Gitmo.
I doubt that a bomb squad was involved for more than a couple of minutes and it is likely that their opinions were ignored.
It's funny you mention that. We had a similar incident not too long ago at my university.
The cleaning staff for the computer/engineering building saw some creepy guy going through the building at 5:30am, way earlier than people normally show up in the morning. They didn't really think anything of it, until they got to the third floor.
On the third floor, displayed in the window of one of the offices, was a timer. And it was counting. Up.
Wires could be seen coming off of it, but nobody could tell where they went.
Campus security was called, the police were called, bomb-sniffing dogs were called in, the building was shut down.
It turned out (of course) to be just a diagnostic display. The "wires" leading away from the device went up to a curtain rod. They were holding it up.
The funny thing was, it had been there for weeks. The cleaning crew must have seen it, but they didn't remember it being there. And why was it counting UP and not DOWN? We've all seen 24, we know which way timers are supposed to go.
But in an outbreak of common sense, nobody was charged with a "hoax", nobody was arrested, and nobody is in jail. The cleaning crew made a mistake (and apologized later!), and that was the end of that.
And thank goodness, because that creepy guy was ME!
Don't put advice in your sig.
Zebbler had a good point in regards to the business of TV news. Fear prods people to watch TV. The newstainment companies take advantage of that. "I Wash My TV in Fear" is a video show he puts on consisting of the most fearful snippets of TV news recorded over a couple of days. I wonder if it might be possible to create a horror movie that way.
They made him eat carrots? Were they overcooked?
The cops may well have believed it was all a misunderstanding, but their job is to gather evidence of any possible crime. After you've been Mirandized, it's a game in which they try to get as much information out of you as possible without overstepping their constitutional limitations. If they act hostile towards you, it doesn't mean they are actually hostile, any more than a friendly act means you can trust them.
Good cop or bad cop, it doesn't matter, once they've brought you in for something they're going to try to get you to give them evidence of a crime, or if they have solid evidence of a small crime, to get you to give them evidence of a bigger crime. In this case, by the time these guys were being interrogated the cops knew the devices weren't bombs. The cops were trying to get the guy to say something like this, "We weren't planting bombs! We just thought if we could close the subways down we'd get a lot of free publicity for our movie!" Bingo, they've just promoted a case of advertising without the proper permits into the intentional creation of a public nuisance. Armed with this, they throw the small fry back in order to get the genius behind the stunt, which is good police work. The corollary of this is that when there is no larger crime, the small fry endure some tough and threatening sounding talk.
While normally I think cops should be polite and deferential to citizens, this one process is inherently ugly and manipulative, which is why you want a lawyer present in a police interrogation, even if your conscience is clear. You don't want to admit to a crime greater than the cops have evidence for, just because they are threatening to pin an even larger crime on you. Without a lawyer present, the system is inherently unfair and dangerous to the innocent.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
If you read the timeline of that day you'll see that the police did determine pretty quickly that is wasn't a bomb. The main issue during the day was that the streets had to be be closed so investigators could safely access the devices - even if the authorities didn't think it was a bomb, the street would still have to be closed to workers could safely remove them. There was also the issue that a real pipe bomb turned up at New England Medical Center during that ordeal.
As I wrote before, the biggest mistake those guys made was hanging the devices off of public property - even before 9/11, doing something like that is just guaranteed to get the bomb squad out there (and contrary to popular opinion, the device that was first called in to the police had only been there for less than 24 hours). Some of the other devices on storefronts though had been there longer.
IMHO the police reaction in this one instance was reasonable - up to the arrest & prosecution part. There were no mass evacuations, no arrests of Middle-eastern people for being Middle-Eastern. They closed the roads, investigated the devices, and reopened the roads. The arrests and press releases after that though were clearly CYA.
On the other hand, the arrest of Star Simpson was a fucking travesty, and my alma mater's response to the incident ("reckless"? WTF? Is wearing a blinking tie to the airport also reckless?) has ended my participation in their alumni fundraising activities.
I believe her lawyer was wise to pick a bench trial as the local press continues to hype the event, constantly referring to her as a prankster and dressing like a suicide bomber and the average joe on the street sure seems to think she should burn at the stake.
My understanding is that the state will need to prove intent on her part and that there was absolutely no intent as she basically wore the same clothes two days in a row. So as long as the judge decides to follow the law, rather than succumb to some inane urge to "send a message" she should come out all right.
PS -- anyone else read ATHF as Alcohol, Tobacco, Humor and Firearms?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I am lucky that the city I live in has a very low percentage of police officers per capita, and a high degree of competition to get in. Even to be a transit cop here you need a postsecondary degree and a few years' policing experience.
Contrast this with the TV promo I saw a few years back, on Detroit's Fox affiliate, which announced that the Detroit Police Department was hiring, and a high school diploma was (I kid you not) a plus.
Who protects us from these people?
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
"That day...?" The pieces had been there for more than a week before the incident was sparked. The absurdity of mass hysteria never fails to entertain!
Because he wasn't doing it safely. You want to hang off the side of a highway and get yourself or someone else killed hanging an electric sign for an advertiser, go ahead. But if the city or state agency sends an employee to do that without the proper safety precautions and that worker (or an innocent bystander) gets killed, that agency will be held accountable.
And unfortunately, accidents do happen.