"And despite the fact that you think you are lawyer because you hang out on/. arguing what you read off someone's blog, I can assure you they have a legal basis for the charges." Very nice to know that you can assure me on that after just explaining to me that I am not an expert. Kinda sets a low bar for the response: Since it's obvious that you like to be hypocritical, lets see where else in your post you create arguments.
"(and no, they do not have to prove intent to charge someone it)." Never said they did. Just that it's nice to be able to see how a charge might be justly applied, since if it wasn't, it would be one of the thousands of documented cases of the police charging someone with a crime that later turned out not to be a valid use of the applied charge. For a quick example that even a non lawyer like me can point out, read the recent slashdot article about the man who was arrested for not showing the police his drivers license after he called them from a Circuit City parking lot. There was even precedent set that it was an unlawful request in that situation by the officer in the first place. The charge was made, but not within the actual law.
"She wore a device on her shirt which if she had any brains she would have known looked at the very least suspicious." Convenient that you bring up that point again as so many have. Her intelligence comes into play here because as the definition of what you wrote: "...she was charged with perpetrating a hoax" her state of mind and intent are the central issue in this charge being valid or not. What else do you think that the jury will be debating if this goes to trial?
Or if you want to go the other route, do you think that people who don't know what the majority are thinking about them and how they'd react to what they're doing, need to be charged with crimes that specifically take that into account. Either she "had any brains" and did it on purpose or it was identical to any number of serious outcomes that result in accidents because of the general populaces ignorant trudging about every day. What do you think causes the hundreds of accidents every day in most states if not that people don't have any brains at all if they think they can eat and talk on their cell phones and put on makeup while driving and tuning the stereo. They get charged with specific crimes that take into account their state of mind and leave the issue at that. That's why there's a difference between manslaughter, justified homicide and homicide, the intent is paramount. But I'm not a lawyer, just someone who can read.
"When asked about it, she just walked away without explaining what it was she was wearing" Again, with only one side of the event being known you are assuming a pretty biased viewpoint that you know everything that happened. All I am pointing out here is that unless a person is no longer being given the opportunity to be "innocent until proven guilty" you are correct and she gets no say in what happened and what her punishment will be for doing what others said she did. God bless this great nation and the freedoms we fight to protect. Now you can have your opinion that the police are infallible and should never be accused of being as human and emotional as the rest of us lower creatures, that's a right that you have. The right to disregard her due process in the interest of ego. Snap judgements based on half informed opinions are so much more certain and forceful than thought out weighed and factually based decisions.
"had they not we would not be talking about an arrest here, we would be talking about a fatal shooting." Perfect black and white worlds are wonderful argument boosters but unfortunately I've repeatedly addressed this exact thought innumerable times with the simple fact that I have no issue with that part of the story you people keep trying to bring up. That no one was hurt is a good thing and that they inspected her suspicious looking device is a benefit to us all. (no kidding, seriously) The fact that
And without using the circular logic and trying to avoid my point: After they had ascertained what she was wearing, they charge her with perpetrating a hoax? Without any of the legal obligations included in any of their statements to back that charge up one iota?
"...let a judge/jury decide if she was just stupid, or did she do this on purpose."
That's the only problem I have with your entire statement. Everything now has to go to court instead of someone determining this at the scene. In no circumstance should they have opted to shoot a person carrying a bomb and risk setting it off IF THERE WERE ANOTHER WAY. Which there was and they did so, good job. The first person to examine the "bomb" should have been qualified to do so or should have stayed away from it. Once it was taken from her and couldn't be activated there should have been a procedure to address a possible bomb. That procedure should in my opinion be for a person knowledgable enough to examine the possible bomb and determine if it is a threat. If not, questions should be asked. I see no statements to the effect that her explinations were malicious or revealed intent to pull a hoax. That is the basis for the charges she was arrested for. Stupidity is not the same thing as perpetrating a Hoax. It doesn't matter the situation, place, or intelligence. That's the definition of a hoax.
So I'll repeat the part of my post you obviously didn't read or forgot while typing your reply to it: "If there was intent to pull a hoax then arrest her, if it was a stupid monkey mistake, admonish her for being stupid and let her pay a fine, don't confuse the issue with other charges if they aren't valid."
So far I have seen zero facts stated by the police or otherwise that would lead to an arrest charge for attempting a hoax. I think that if they chose to have the press release already and didn't show any sustaining proof even in passing, the charge itself is not reasonable. Until I see something that actually merits the charge there's nothing more to say.
Again with the closed minded view of the world. There are more than your limited number of options.
The bomb expert shouldn't be the only one in the airport and they don't have to be brilliant geniuses in their field, just educated about the main threat that airports seem to be concerned with. Kinda like security in every other field being educated to do their jobs effectivly in each field. It would be a very good idea to have the local security force en mass educated in this area anyway, but to have certain people trained a bit more wouldn't cost them that much and would save them a lot of trouble in cases like this. The police responded from somewhere anyway and if they are the people responding to a bomb threat then they should be able to handle it, otherwise why the hell are they reporting to the area at all if not to just shoot on site like so many of you people are referencing they held back on. How nice of them not blowing up the airport by shooting at a likely bomb in their eyes.
All I'm asking for is a little responsibility for a situation that seems to be the entire focus of the airport every time I go there. Everybody's concerned with bombs but not doing all that much to actually handle one effectifly if they find one.
Saying that the only other option would be to let here walk around freely ignores the whole of my argument. They can check it out and determine if it is a threat and act accordingly. If there was intent to pull a hoax then arrest her, if it was a stupid monkey mistake, admonish her for being stupid and let her pay a fine, don't confuse the issue with other charges if they aren't valid.
You wouldn't want someone able to disable the bomb? You wouldn't want someone able to tell your officers where not to shoot to avoid setting it off? You wouldn't want to save those lives in imminent danger?
That's just retarded. To have an admittedly imminent threat and not want the people ther who have the ability to handle it.
"I trust the police more than I trust someone stupid enough to wear that shirt to the airport.
Also, aren't you equally as sheepish for believing that the police are covering something up, without knowing the entire story?"
Not once did I say that the police were covering something up and not once did I say I believe they are. I believe that until both sides of an argument are looked at there is no point in condemning one side. Too many times has heavy handed condemnation been looked upon with remorse when the full facts, whichever side they may come from, finally come out.
I simply don't trust people to consistently tell the whole unbiased truth when they have a direct motive to do otherwise and have been shown to have done so in the past.
These beliefs aside, my posts are about getting a better handle on security in this case. By handling it in the way they have stated, I feel no safer. I feel like the people who were involved in this event are less able to make me safe by their own admissions of how they handled this event. I'm not addressing the lunacy of this girl as the issue, I'm addressing the facts that are admitted by the people who say they did them, that's all we have to go off of right now and by saying that they did these actions they are either lying and making themselves look bad or they actually did these things and that itself makes them look bad to me. There has to be a responsible reaction to these things or they will get worse and IMHO this was by their own admission not a reasonable reaction to the actual evidence that they found when they investigated the suspected bomb.
1: "Suppose she was intending to do damage with a hastily constructed bomb trigger. Someone saw it and thought "aw, it's just some innocuous tech." When the dust settled, what would the official response be to the fact that someone saw it and did not do anything about it?"
Lets suppose that you have read my actual post and I never said any such thing. In no way should there be the complete opposite reaction in the other extreme. Total passivity is a ridiculous argument and you should be ashamed to have posted it. They should have looked closer at the device like they do at your luggage when they suspect something. Your statement: "The fact that it could have been better hidden doesn't mean things that are not hidden should not be seen as a threat." is completely without basis in this argument since I never stated this in the first place. That's what we call a straw man tactic. State some ridiculous argument that the other person never said and then proceed to beat that down instead of arguing the actual points that were made.
2: "Now let's suppose she was intending to do damage with a hastily constructed bomb trigger, someone saw it, and reported it. Instead of surrounding her by police, one just walks up and says "hey that looks like it could be a bomb trigger" at which point it goes off and kills the officer. What would be the official response to that?"
Gee, there seems to be no keeping you in check does there? In your own statement the other option was: "Instead of surrounding her by police..." And if she had the reaction of blowing herself up over being asked if that was a bomb, what do you think her reaction would have been if she was surrounded by police? She would have blown them all up and no one would have been safer in either of your two scenarios but in your stated alternative way of handling it more people would have died. Congrats.
3: "If you're implying someone could have concocted a sophisticated bomb that would have made it through, that's a red herring. The question here is: are you safer from nutcases with unsophisticated bombs looking for a grim public display to right some wrong they feel society in general has done to them. In this case, I believe I am safer with the police taking a very swift and calculated response to reasonable suspicion."
A red herring is a distraction that draws attention away from the real issue. I'm pretty sure the real issue is the event that she had no real bomb and was charged with purporting a hoax. The basis of the hoax charge is that it was intended to make people think that it was a real bomb, that's the definition of a hoax. The intent to make people think something fake is real. The goal of getting a bomb into the airport is totally different, it is to make people think that something real is either something else or not to draw attention to it at all. So stating that if her end goal was to successfully get a bomb into the airport it would only have been successful if done in a different matter is not a red herring it is explaining the basis of my argument, intent. If she was trying to get a bomb inside the airport she could have easily explained the device with some fabrication to the questioner and avoided the escalation at that point at least. She still would have been asked to put it away or leave it outside.
The "calculated response to reasonable suspicion" is a very humorous statement since the calculated response part is exactly what you call a red herring. It depends completely on what the further investigation into a possible threat reveals. In this case it revealed a homemade light bright. Now intent is brought into question. If it turns out that she intended to pull a hoax it will only be revealed in her testimony and any video surveillance of the events. But I'll wait to hear them before I condemn her.
Who do you call to a possible bomb situation? A bomb expert perhaps? At that point the event should have gotten under control, she should have been educated on the effects her device was creating and given the choice to leave with it or hand it over, like we all have to do with our bottled water and other liquids that pose such possible threats. This is a response to determine the threat level and act accordingly not determine the threat level and arrest if there is none.
Somehow I suspect that "someone asked her about it, but she ignored them and walked away." Doesn't really capture her side of the event. As I'm sure you know since you're probably human, there are usually two perspectives in an interaction and they can be wildly different. someone could have asked her: "Is that a bomb?" or they could have asked her "hey, that looks cool dude, can I have your number?" Since we have yet to hear what actually happened from the two people whe actually were there and we have not seen a video of the event this is all speculation. Thanks for playing.
Again, take all your facts from the police side of an event and you will always come away with a completely unbias account of an interaction. Very reasonable of you.
I can't help but expect the video footage of this event and her testimony to be slightly different though. Can you reassure me some more that people who wear uniforms are always right and accurate and unprejudiced and that the masses are paradoxes with unexplainable lapses in consistency?
Or perhaps the freedom to have a spiffy new looking mp3 player that has a lit up screen. Keep in mind that unless there are set standards and appropriate limits, it's up for interpretation. That's a slippery slope when it comes to tech. In a luddites eyes an mp3 player with an external battery pack could very well look like a bomb, just because you can make the distinction doesn't mean that everybody else can come up with the same one. In this case I tend to think she warranted closer inspection, just like they do when something looks suspicious in your luggage. If it turns out to be ok, you go on with your day, not go directly to jail. In this case I also think that she should have been told to take it off, leave it in her car, or toss it like they make people do with liquids at my locak airport still. They don't arrest you for trying to bring a bottle of Jolt into the airport.
I'm a tech so it's not just blackberry stuff that I have to deal with. Most of the new devices don't have anything better than basic import or export functions that's half ass at best. I can't tell you how many times I land up going all the way down to csv or tab delineated just to get the data transfer started.
Some devices are great with others and some are only great within their own brand, but most don't want you leaving so they make it hard, or don't care and make it near impossible with proprietary formats. Third party software seems to work most of the time but it can also be a pain when it tries to corrupt the data or enter duplicates for no reason.
Some things could use standardization, basic consumer data storage is high on that list for me. Standard fields with a spec that addresses expansion of the individual lengths as well as the field quantities themselves. A coalition of manufacturers including those overseas would have to be behind it though. Still, I can dream.
I haven't read the "overreaction" statement in anybodys posts so far. I just stated that they could have been more intelligent in this and actually addressed the issue.
Here, I'll use your example:
If someone yells fire in a crowded theatre there are a couple specific things to note.
A: They could really think there is a fire and are trying to save other peoples lives. If it turns out that what they saw was a flickering light through a curtain that is reasonable confused as fire, all is OK and they are not arrested.
B: If they are not confused and are just making an attempt to get poeple trampled as a panic reaction to hearing someone yell "fire" then they were completely guilty of a hoax and should be prosecuted.
In both these situations there is intent, if you would change the consequences for the forst one to be the same as the second, ie: arrest for making an honest mistake others could have made, you are supressing the reaction that could actually save people in the future from this exact situation. If the person happens to see what looks like fire to them but has coincidently heard or read about the last person arrested for making a claim that turned out to be false, they might, just might, hesitate yelling "Fire" for fear of being later accused of a hoax.
This is all anecdotal evidence on the effects of news coverage and statistical speculation, so don't jump over me for the situation itself. Just remember that we are already talking about a possible different situation where things would have to have been different to include an actual bomb and speculative history to make it that obvious.
The point is that there has to be a ballance between the threat that something poses and the actual threat that each situation poses. There must be people in those places that can make a decision that's based on facts and knowledge when evaluating them. Otherwise it's just a fear state.
"You can shout and rant about freedom all you want; the simple fact of the matter is that someone walking around an airport with wires dangling from them fiddling with some putty-like substance is going to shite people right up."
So another analogy, you are going to the airport and you are wearing an mp3 player with the headphones comming out of your pants pocket and as you walk, you take the headphones out of your ears and place them in your collar to not tange them up in your pocket. You happen to be a little stressed because of recent terrorist activity halfway around the globe and you buy, at the airport shop, a stress ball that looks like a ball of jelly. You are now arrested and charged with attempting a hoax at the airport.
Remember it's just a possibility, and any arguements on how you are so much smarter than that are going to only apply to about 10 percent of the people who fly at airports, since these are the people that can't get the idea that their carryon cannot be larger than the overhead compartment, and all the other similar jokes that are constantly made because these people are actually dumb and also the majority out there.
So what do we do about actually increasing security at the airport? Do we address the stupidity of the masses and make the system better able to detect real threats and not waste the time and effort on fakes? All it would have taken at this point would have been an actual bomb expert to look at the device for a couple seconds and then advise that she take it off or leave. If they son't have a bomb expert at the airport reporting to the scene of possible bomb alerts, what the hell good does all the other security at an airport to detect possible bombs do? So you think it's a bomb, now what? Shoot it?
I bet you could have made all that inside a portable mp3 player and gotten it abord and tossed it inside the cockpit when you came abord and only then would have been cought if someone happened to see you toss it. You could have put the C4 in a battery shell and sealed it with epoxy and then boiled it in a weak acid to stop the sniffers from detecting it and the scanners would see it as a normal specialized battery like in all these new devices. If you wanted to get in the air you could have kept quiet and just set it off in your pocket and taken the plane down. How does the situation today, assuming that the police side is totally accurate, keep you from doing that tomorrow?
All these "It could easily have been..." arguements fail to address the actions results, does what they did make you safer? Have they used these techniques to actually stop someone from attempting that "easily been..." statement?
And that's why I wrote the rest of my post. Casual inspection is so far from what now happens at these airports that it it a joke.
If anybody cared to look at the device and had any training about electronics and bomb detection, they would have told her it's not smart to be wearing it because the regular employees would think it was a bomb, that's where this should have gone, not to the status of arrest and hoax charges.
Again, you are taking the report completely one sided. Wait till you have seen the video surveilance if it was recorded like to many other incidents that turned out to be "mis-stated" by the officers on the scene. Or just wait till she has had her turn to recount the events. Don't jump to conclusions like a trained monkey, wait to condemn and mock and rant.
"...they have every right to be concerned. "
And we have the right to expect that situations are not handled incompetantly when they are touted to be so expected that we have to focus on them every time we fly. If they have to be so concerned about it, why is there no set proceedure that they can state they complied with and get on with life? If this was simply following acceptable proceedures, why do airports constantly fail to catch the investigative reporters that show how many things they got through security every couple months, that they are specifically looking for and have the proceedures in place to actually catch but don't because they didn't follow them?
I'm all for having a safe flight and being protected from the evil bad men, but if even I can see the giant flaws in the system and the obvious ways around them, what good are they? Can you think of no other plot that has been foiled by the airport security than the old shoe bomb that wasn't really caught, but instead, foiled by sheer luck that the man couldn't light it up? And now we all have to remove our shoes when going through security. Brilliant knee jerk reaction, don't we all feel safer?
Ah, but then you'd go down that slippery slope and people whould start asking for removable batteries again.:)
Seriously though, the built in battery only really works when the device itself is a consumable, most poeple use their phones the two years and toss them before the battery goes completely flat and they get a new phone. These phones though are next to free and can be considered consumable to the masses. The higher tech devices on the other hand are not. Think people replace their PDAs and (non apple)MP3 players every two years? Not likely, these have better lifespans and are used for more functions that are long lasting, listening to music and organizing information and future events. It's one thing to transfer your phonebook from one phone to another but a PDA is a pain to get synched up again with different software or a new model with (sigh) different version of Outlook. PITA!
The iPhone is combining these devices together and still carrying the baggage and shortcommings from the devices it's supposed to surpass. Removable battery, high speed data connections (including wireless since that's it's main functioning state). And the highest neglected feature request that has stumped corporate america so far: User enhanced functionality. Get it right this tiem apple, give us the ability to improve your product for you, For FREE no less! Let us make spiffy programs and features that will propogate with demand across your sleek foundation hardware. Give us the chance to make you money.
That's why the average joe shouldn't be assigned to airport security, they have all this expensive equipment to scan you and your stuff for fingernail clippers and shampoo but the training should be there as well to be able to distinguish between actual threats and innocuous tech.
In this case the first person she talked to should have looked at the device and seen that it was A: in their opinion a threat, or B: in their opinion a possible min understanding waiting to happen. If the former, alert security and have an officer take a closer look. That officer responding to a possible bomb threat better be able to distinguish between a bomb and a light bright. If not then why the hell have someone respond to a possible bomb situation. Any person able to make a bomb that looks like the one they think they were seeing could have rigged up a dead mans switch to go off if they were shot so what sense does it make to shoot a person that could have been carrying a bomb? Why risk it without knowing if by shooting it, it would go off? That's just knee jerk reaction taking hold over reason. That's why places like this need a policy that's thought out and followed in these situations. That would make us safer. Not arresting a person as a deterrent attempt to scare the rest of us into quiet submission. All of you "Oh my god the terrorists are going to get us, we better obey anybody!" are letting this go too far in too many areas where it doesn't do any real good and errodes at the very thing we pride ourselves in having: Freedom. Otherwise what are we fighting for?
And for all you out there: "A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real."
To perpetrate a hoax therefore would necessitate that the intention was there to make others believe that it was a bomb. The INTENT is what matters in a hoax, not the reaction.
"You ignore where and what other items were involved in this."
You ignore what actually was involved in this. The police called the paint on her sweatshirt "putty" and the simple breadboard attached to the outside of that sweatshirt a bomb.
You're really taking one side of the facts and acting like they are from the mouth of god. Wait until you actually get some verified facts about what you are talking about before jumping to conclusions like the police did.
Wow, a lot of blowhard comments on posting a link to the original question of it being called a passage if it was impassable.
It was a passage since it was a possible route. It was an actual route because someone had actually gone through it in the past. It was passable, not easily, but doable and repeatable. It was not theoretical and has become easier to pass through as technology advanced. The only development in the article is that the pass itself has been made easier due to icemelt.
The whole arguing semantics before agreeing on terms is a waste of time. And I thought giving information would help clear things up. Silly me.
Here you go, how's this: The Northwest passage which was very difficult and took over 3 years when it was first used by an expedition in 1903 has slowly become easier with advanced technology but was still not viable enough to become a true trading route. With recent icemelt it is now possible to theoretically use a sailing vessle to cross the entire length of the route.
And I'm sure that there was some policy that they can quote to back up that "misunderstanding" and it was a totally isolated event.
Pretty cut and dry denial of warranty of hardware based on software. If the manager denies service it's not a misunderstanding it's policy. Unless they can show the documents that the manager specifically didn't follow, it's a case of consumer backlash changing a companies operating practices.
I'll believe the "misunderstanding" cop out for the responsibility when they can show policy documents that state that the OS doesn't matter in cases of obvious hardware defect. If they've got that on file, if it was a misunderstanding and every higher level employee involved in that case goes back through basic training for service repair qualification, I'll believe it.
First, from your last post: "often businesses will file for chapter 7 bankruptcy so they can reorganize and by telling customers along with suppliers they are okay"
I don't know why you changed to talking about chapter 7, in another posters link above "In chapter 7, the business ceases operations and a trustee sells all of its assets and distributes the proceeds to its creditors"
I'll chalk that up to a typo unless you can clarify.
Second, your quote of my post still misses the point I am trying to get across.
"They are literally filing for bankruptcy and assuring their customers that they are fine and can rely on them at the same time"
This statement is being made knowing about the type of bankruptcy that they are filing. This is not a mistake or misprint. My point is that this is allowed. Not that it is currently illegal or outside normal practice. I am not arguing this point any longer if you keep trying to point out that my post is correct and somehow still correct it. I am not denying that this is happening, just that IMHO it is not "Just" in these cases where the company has no one else to blame other than itself. And this is not "market fluctuation" "sudden unforeseeable development" or any of the hundreds of reasons or circumstances that would make this a legitimate move by a company. This was too long in comming and they knew it, didn't change, and let it come. The companies Management drove that company directly here and are now trying to escape the consequences for themselves. (Again, using legally permissable venues)
From the same resource mentioned above: "Some critics have claimed that Chapter 11 bankruptcy is excessively lenient in giving a needless "escape hatch" to the incompetent management of a failing company, damaging the efficiency of the economy as a whole and allowing poor managers to continue managing. It is unusual for the management of a company in Chapter 11 to be fired, as it is usually assumed that the present management team knows far more about the company and its customers than would a new set of management. These critics note that in Europe, bankruptcy law is far less lenient for failing companies."
This text also admits that it is currently an acceptable process and is a completely legal option, BUT I think that it is being abused by these types of companies that expect the option equivilent to a "Get out of jail free" card for running their business into the ground to be available after so blatant a stratagy comprised of outright lies and deception. They could have mada a case in a month if they had anything to begin the lawsuit with in the first place. Present evidence to sustain further disclosure and discovery. that's a legitimate process they avoided at all costs and now the people who made that decision are trying to walk away unscathed by the natural market consequences of having a bluff like that finally called.
OK, I'll reply to these posts since it looks like there is a common misunderstanding going on about what I am trying to get across.
Saying that other companies have done and are doing the same thing is a main part of my problem and shows that you don't understand what I'm talking about when I say that we continue to let them escape the consequences that they create from their own decisions.
The fact that they are using the bankruptcy to escape the stock plummet that would follow the judgements that are comming is a cop out of their responsibility for the actions they have taken. I never said that they were going out of business, closing operations, or filing a different type of bankruptcy that would leed to those outcomes, and if you read that somewhere it was your assumption not mine. The problem I have with the simultanious assurance to their customers is that they are using a restructuring tactic to avoid the fallout of their horrible choices and appear to be a reliable company to anybody. It's a joke and it's on US ALL for allowing it.
Maintaining operations necessatates that your operations can be maintained. In this case they are losing battle after battle over their offerings being theirs to offer. Telling their customers that they can be relied on is a blatant lie if they have done any forecasting, which they probably have since they are filing for a chapter 11. These last ditch options were not created for companies like these, they were a legitimate tool for allowing the companies that suffered from circumstances beyond their control or from reasonable made but poor judgement decisions. NOT outright evil business practices like using the arm of law as your own goon.
From your own post: "news that they're filing for bankruptcy doesn't really mean anything."
And from your own link: "A chapter 11 filing, on the other hand, is usually an attempt to stay in business while a bankruptcy court supervises the "reorganization" of the company's contractual and debt obligations. The court can grant complete or partial relief from most of the company's debts and its contracts, so that the company can make a fresh start."
Is this deserving of the company that started all this?
OK, I'll reply to these posts since it looks like there is a common misunderstanding going on about what I am trying to get across.
The fact that they are using the bankruptcy to escape the stock plummet that would follow the judgements that are comming is a cop out of their responsibility for the actions they have taken. I never said that they were going out of business, closing operations, or filing a different type of bankruptcy that would leed to those outcomes, and if you read that somewhere it was your assumption not mine. The problem I have with the simultanious assurance to their customers is that they are using a restructuring tactic to avoid the fallout of their horrible choices and appear to be a reliable company to anybody. It's a joke and it's on US ALL for allowing it.
Slashdot Mirror
"And despite the fact that you think you are lawyer because you hang out on /. arguing what you read off someone's blog, I can assure you they have a legal basis for the charges."
Very nice to know that you can assure me on that after just explaining to me that I am not an expert. Kinda sets a low bar for the response: Since it's obvious that you like to be hypocritical, lets see where else in your post you create arguments.
"(and no, they do not have to prove intent to charge someone it)."
Never said they did. Just that it's nice to be able to see how a charge might be justly applied, since if it wasn't, it would be one of the thousands of documented cases of the police charging someone with a crime that later turned out not to be a valid use of the applied charge. For a quick example that even a non lawyer like me can point out, read the recent slashdot article about the man who was arrested for not showing the police his drivers license after he called them from a Circuit City parking lot. There was even precedent set that it was an unlawful request in that situation by the officer in the first place. The charge was made, but not within the actual law.
"She wore a device on her shirt which if she had any brains she would have known looked at the very least suspicious."
Convenient that you bring up that point again as so many have. Her intelligence comes into play here because as the definition of what you wrote: "...she was charged with perpetrating a hoax" her state of mind and intent are the central issue in this charge being valid or not. What else do you think that the jury will be debating if this goes to trial?
Or if you want to go the other route, do you think that people who don't know what the majority are thinking about them and how they'd react to what they're doing, need to be charged with crimes that specifically take that into account. Either she "had any brains" and did it on purpose or it was identical to any number of serious outcomes that result in accidents because of the general populaces ignorant trudging about every day. What do you think causes the hundreds of accidents every day in most states if not that people don't have any brains at all if they think they can eat and talk on their cell phones and put on makeup while driving and tuning the stereo. They get charged with specific crimes that take into account their state of mind and leave the issue at that. That's why there's a difference between manslaughter, justified homicide and homicide, the intent is paramount. But I'm not a lawyer, just someone who can read.
"When asked about it, she just walked away without explaining what it was she was wearing"
Again, with only one side of the event being known you are assuming a pretty biased viewpoint that you know everything that happened. All I am pointing out here is that unless a person is no longer being given the opportunity to be "innocent until proven guilty" you are correct and she gets no say in what happened and what her punishment will be for doing what others said she did. God bless this great nation and the freedoms we fight to protect. Now you can have your opinion that the police are infallible and should never be accused of being as human and emotional as the rest of us lower creatures, that's a right that you have. The right to disregard her due process in the interest of ego. Snap judgements based on half informed opinions are so much more certain and forceful than thought out weighed and factually based decisions.
"had they not we would not be talking about an arrest here, we would be talking about a fatal shooting."
Perfect black and white worlds are wonderful argument boosters but unfortunately I've repeatedly addressed this exact thought innumerable times with the simple fact that I have no issue with that part of the story you people keep trying to bring up. That no one was hurt is a good thing and that they inspected her suspicious looking device is a benefit to us all. (no kidding, seriously) The fact that
And without using the circular logic and trying to avoid my point: After they had ascertained what she was wearing, they charge her with perpetrating a hoax? Without any of the legal obligations included in any of their statements to back that charge up one iota?
"...let a judge/jury decide if she was just stupid, or did she do this on purpose."
That's the only problem I have with your entire statement. Everything now has to go to court instead of someone determining this at the scene. In no circumstance should they have opted to shoot a person carrying a bomb and risk setting it off IF THERE WERE ANOTHER WAY. Which there was and they did so, good job. The first person to examine the "bomb" should have been qualified to do so or should have stayed away from it. Once it was taken from her and couldn't be activated there should have been a procedure to address a possible bomb. That procedure should in my opinion be for a person knowledgable enough to examine the possible bomb and determine if it is a threat. If not, questions should be asked. I see no statements to the effect that her explinations were malicious or revealed intent to pull a hoax. That is the basis for the charges she was arrested for. Stupidity is not the same thing as perpetrating a Hoax. It doesn't matter the situation, place, or intelligence. That's the definition of a hoax.
So I'll repeat the part of my post you obviously didn't read or forgot while typing your reply to it:
"If there was intent to pull a hoax then arrest her, if it was a stupid monkey mistake, admonish her for being stupid and let her pay a fine, don't confuse the issue with other charges if they aren't valid."
So far I have seen zero facts stated by the police or otherwise that would lead to an arrest charge for attempting a hoax.
I think that if they chose to have the press release already and didn't show any sustaining proof even in passing, the charge itself is not reasonable. Until I see something that actually merits the charge there's nothing more to say.
Again with the closed minded view of the world. There are more than your limited number of options.
The bomb expert shouldn't be the only one in the airport and they don't have to be brilliant geniuses in their field, just educated about the main threat that airports seem to be concerned with. Kinda like security in every other field being educated to do their jobs effectivly in each field. It would be a very good idea to have the local security force en mass educated in this area anyway, but to have certain people trained a bit more wouldn't cost them that much and would save them a lot of trouble in cases like this. The police responded from somewhere anyway and if they are the people responding to a bomb threat then they should be able to handle it, otherwise why the hell are they reporting to the area at all if not to just shoot on site like so many of you people are referencing they held back on. How nice of them not blowing up the airport by shooting at a likely bomb in their eyes.
All I'm asking for is a little responsibility for a situation that seems to be the entire focus of the airport every time I go there. Everybody's concerned with bombs but not doing all that much to actually handle one effectifly if they find one.
Saying that the only other option would be to let here walk around freely ignores the whole of my argument. They can check it out and determine if it is a threat and act accordingly. If there was intent to pull a hoax then arrest her, if it was a stupid monkey mistake, admonish her for being stupid and let her pay a fine, don't confuse the issue with other charges if they aren't valid.
Breutiful black and white thinking with that wonderful closed mind of yours.
"If it was handled incompetently they would have shot her without first trying to disarm what they believed could be explosives"
Nice world you live in where there are only two choices and outcomes. Now go outside and play with the other children.
What the hell difference would that make?
You wouldn't want someone able to disable the bomb?
You wouldn't want someone able to tell your officers where not to shoot to avoid setting it off?
You wouldn't want to save those lives in imminent danger?
That's just retarded. To have an admittedly imminent threat and not want the people ther who have the ability to handle it.
"I trust the police more than I trust someone stupid enough to wear that shirt to the airport.
Also, aren't you equally as sheepish for believing that the police are covering something up, without knowing the entire story?"
Not once did I say that the police were covering something up and not once did I say I believe they are.
I believe that until both sides of an argument are looked at there is no point in condemning one side. Too many times has heavy handed condemnation been looked upon with remorse when the full facts, whichever side they may come from, finally come out.
I simply don't trust people to consistently tell the whole unbiased truth when they have a direct motive to do otherwise and have been shown to have done so in the past.
These beliefs aside, my posts are about getting a better handle on security in this case. By handling it in the way they have stated, I feel no safer. I feel like the people who were involved in this event are less able to make me safe by their own admissions of how they handled this event. I'm not addressing the lunacy of this girl as the issue, I'm addressing the facts that are admitted by the people who say they did them, that's all we have to go off of right now and by saying that they did these actions they are either lying and making themselves look bad or they actually did these things and that itself makes them look bad to me. There has to be a responsible reaction to these things or they will get worse and IMHO this was by their own admission not a reasonable reaction to the actual evidence that they found when they investigated the suspected bomb.
1: "Suppose she was intending to do damage with a hastily constructed bomb trigger. Someone saw it and thought "aw, it's just some innocuous tech." When the dust settled, what would the official response be to the fact that someone saw it and did not do anything about it?"
Lets suppose that you have read my actual post and I never said any such thing. In no way should there be the complete opposite reaction in the other extreme. Total passivity is a ridiculous argument and you should be ashamed to have posted it. They should have looked closer at the device like they do at your luggage when they suspect something. Your statement: "The fact that it could have been better hidden doesn't mean things that are not hidden should not be seen as a threat." is completely without basis in this argument since I never stated this in the first place. That's what we call a straw man tactic. State some ridiculous argument that the other person never said and then proceed to beat that down instead of arguing the actual points that were made.
2: "Now let's suppose she was intending to do damage with a hastily constructed bomb trigger, someone saw it, and reported it. Instead of surrounding her by police, one just walks up and says "hey that looks like it could be a bomb trigger" at which point it goes off and kills the officer. What would be the official response to that?"
Gee, there seems to be no keeping you in check does there? In your own statement the other option was: "Instead of surrounding her by police..." And if she had the reaction of blowing herself up over being asked if that was a bomb, what do you think her reaction would have been if she was surrounded by police? She would have blown them all up and no one would have been safer in either of your two scenarios but in your stated alternative way of handling it more people would have died. Congrats.
3:
"If you're implying someone could have concocted a sophisticated bomb that would have made it through, that's a red herring. The question here is: are you safer from nutcases with unsophisticated bombs looking for a grim public display to right some wrong they feel society in general has done to them. In this case, I believe I am safer with the police taking a very swift and calculated response to reasonable suspicion."
A red herring is a distraction that draws attention away from the real issue. I'm pretty sure the real issue is the event that she had no real bomb and was charged with purporting a hoax. The basis of the hoax charge is that it was intended to make people think that it was a real bomb, that's the definition of a hoax. The intent to make people think something fake is real. The goal of getting a bomb into the airport is totally different, it is to make people think that something real is either something else or not to draw attention to it at all. So stating that if her end goal was to successfully get a bomb into the airport it would only have been successful if done in a different matter is not a red herring it is explaining the basis of my argument, intent. If she was trying to get a bomb inside the airport she could have easily explained the device with some fabrication to the questioner and avoided the escalation at that point at least. She still would have been asked to put it away or leave it outside.
The "calculated response to reasonable suspicion" is a very humorous statement since the calculated response part is exactly what you call a red herring. It depends completely on what the further investigation into a possible threat reveals. In this case it revealed a homemade light bright. Now intent is brought into question. If it turns out that she intended to pull a hoax it will only be revealed in her testimony and any video surveillance of the events. But I'll wait to hear them before I condemn her.
Again, and again the point is missed.
Who do you call to a possible bomb situation? A bomb expert perhaps? At that point the event should have gotten under control, she should have been educated on the effects her device was creating and given the choice to leave with it or hand it over, like we all have to do with our bottled water and other liquids that pose such possible threats. This is a response to determine the threat level and act accordingly not determine the threat level and arrest if there is none.
Somehow I suspect that "someone asked her about it, but she ignored them and walked away." Doesn't really capture her side of the event. As I'm sure you know since you're probably human, there are usually two perspectives in an interaction and they can be wildly different. someone could have asked her: "Is that a bomb?" or they could have asked her "hey, that looks cool dude, can I have your number?" Since we have yet to hear what actually happened from the two people whe actually were there and we have not seen a video of the event this is all speculation. Thanks for playing.
Again, take all your facts from the police side of an event and you will always come away with a completely unbias account of an interaction. Very reasonable of you.
I can't help but expect the video footage of this event and her testimony to be slightly different though. Can you reassure me some more that people who wear uniforms are always right and accurate and unprejudiced and that the masses are paradoxes with unexplainable lapses in consistency?
Or perhaps the freedom to have a spiffy new looking mp3 player that has a lit up screen. Keep in mind that unless there are set standards and appropriate limits, it's up for interpretation. That's a slippery slope when it comes to tech. In a luddites eyes an mp3 player with an external battery pack could very well look like a bomb, just because you can make the distinction doesn't mean that everybody else can come up with the same one. In this case I tend to think she warranted closer inspection, just like they do when something looks suspicious in your luggage. If it turns out to be ok, you go on with your day, not go directly to jail. In this case I also think that she should have been told to take it off, leave it in her car, or toss it like they make people do with liquids at my locak airport still. They don't arrest you for trying to bring a bottle of Jolt into the airport.
I'm a tech so it's not just blackberry stuff that I have to deal with. Most of the new devices don't have anything better than basic import or export functions that's half ass at best. I can't tell you how many times I land up going all the way down to csv or tab delineated just to get the data transfer started.
Some devices are great with others and some are only great within their own brand, but most don't want you leaving so they make it hard, or don't care and make it near impossible with proprietary formats. Third party software seems to work most of the time but it can also be a pain when it tries to corrupt the data or enter duplicates for no reason.
Some things could use standardization, basic consumer data storage is high on that list for me. Standard fields with a spec that addresses expansion of the individual lengths as well as the field quantities themselves. A coalition of manufacturers including those overseas would have to be behind it though. Still, I can dream.
I haven't read the "overreaction" statement in anybodys posts so far. I just stated that they could have been more intelligent in this and actually addressed the issue.
Here, I'll use your example:
If someone yells fire in a crowded theatre there are a couple specific things to note.
A: They could really think there is a fire and are trying to save other peoples lives. If it turns out that what they saw was a flickering light through a curtain that is reasonable confused as fire, all is OK and they are not arrested.
B: If they are not confused and are just making an attempt to get poeple trampled as a panic reaction to hearing someone yell "fire" then they were completely guilty of a hoax and should be prosecuted.
In both these situations there is intent, if you would change the consequences for the forst one to be the same as the second, ie: arrest for making an honest mistake others could have made, you are supressing the reaction that could actually save people in the future from this exact situation. If the person happens to see what looks like fire to them but has coincidently heard or read about the last person arrested for making a claim that turned out to be false, they might, just might, hesitate yelling "Fire" for fear of being later accused of a hoax.
This is all anecdotal evidence on the effects of news coverage and statistical speculation, so don't jump over me for the situation itself. Just remember that we are already talking about a possible different situation where things would have to have been different to include an actual bomb and speculative history to make it that obvious.
The point is that there has to be a ballance between the threat that something poses and the actual threat that each situation poses. There must be people in those places that can make a decision that's based on facts and knowledge when evaluating them. Otherwise it's just a fear state.
"You can shout and rant about freedom all you want; the simple fact of the matter is that someone walking around an airport with wires dangling from them fiddling with some putty-like substance is going to shite people right up."
So another analogy, you are going to the airport and you are wearing an mp3 player with the headphones comming out of your pants pocket and as you walk, you take the headphones out of your ears and place them in your collar to not tange them up in your pocket. You happen to be a little stressed because of recent terrorist activity halfway around the globe and you buy, at the airport shop, a stress ball that looks like a ball of jelly. You are now arrested and charged with attempting a hoax at the airport.
Remember it's just a possibility, and any arguements on how you are so much smarter than that are going to only apply to about 10 percent of the people who fly at airports, since these are the people that can't get the idea that their carryon cannot be larger than the overhead compartment, and all the other similar jokes that are constantly made because these people are actually dumb and also the majority out there.
So what do we do about actually increasing security at the airport? Do we address the stupidity of the masses and make the system better able to detect real threats and not waste the time and effort on fakes? All it would have taken at this point would have been an actual bomb expert to look at the device for a couple seconds and then advise that she take it off or leave. If they son't have a bomb expert at the airport reporting to the scene of possible bomb alerts, what the hell good does all the other security at an airport to detect possible bombs do? So you think it's a bomb, now what? Shoot it?
I bet you could have made all that inside a portable mp3 player and gotten it abord and tossed it inside the cockpit when you came abord and only then would have been cought if someone happened to see you toss it. You could have put the C4 in a battery shell and sealed it with epoxy and then boiled it in a weak acid to stop the sniffers from detecting it and the scanners would see it as a normal specialized battery like in all these new devices. If you wanted to get in the air you could have kept quiet and just set it off in your pocket and taken the plane down. How does the situation today, assuming that the police side is totally accurate, keep you from doing that tomorrow?
All these "It could easily have been..." arguements fail to address the actions results, does what they did make you safer? Have they used these techniques to actually stop someone from attempting that "easily been..." statement?
And that's why I wrote the rest of my post. Casual inspection is so far from what now happens at these airports that it it a joke.
If anybody cared to look at the device and had any training about electronics and bomb detection, they would have told her it's not smart to be wearing it because the regular employees would think it was a bomb, that's where this should have gone, not to the status of arrest and hoax charges.
Again, you are taking the report completely one sided. Wait till you have seen the video surveilance if it was recorded like to many other incidents that turned out to be "mis-stated" by the officers on the scene. Or just wait till she has had her turn to recount the events. Don't jump to conclusions like a trained monkey, wait to condemn and mock and rant.
"...they have every right to be concerned. "
And we have the right to expect that situations are not handled incompetantly when they are touted to be so expected that we have to focus on them every time we fly. If they have to be so concerned about it, why is there no set proceedure that they can state they complied with and get on with life? If this was simply following acceptable proceedures, why do airports constantly fail to catch the investigative reporters that show how many things they got through security every couple months, that they are specifically looking for and have the proceedures in place to actually catch but don't because they didn't follow them?
I'm all for having a safe flight and being protected from the evil bad men, but if even I can see the giant flaws in the system and the obvious ways around them, what good are they? Can you think of no other plot that has been foiled by the airport security than the old shoe bomb that wasn't really caught, but instead, foiled by sheer luck that the man couldn't light it up? And now we all have to remove our shoes when going through security. Brilliant knee jerk reaction, don't we all feel safer?
Ah, but then you'd go down that slippery slope and people whould start asking for removable batteries again. :)
Seriously though, the built in battery only really works when the device itself is a consumable, most poeple use their phones the two years and toss them before the battery goes completely flat and they get a new phone. These phones though are next to free and can be considered consumable to the masses. The higher tech devices on the other hand are not. Think people replace their PDAs and (non apple)MP3 players every two years? Not likely, these have better lifespans and are used for more functions that are long lasting, listening to music and organizing information and future events. It's one thing to transfer your phonebook from one phone to another but a PDA is a pain to get synched up again with different software or a new model with (sigh) different version of Outlook. PITA!
The iPhone is combining these devices together and still carrying the baggage and shortcommings from the devices it's supposed to surpass. Removable battery, high speed data connections (including wireless since that's it's main functioning state). And the highest neglected feature request that has stumped corporate america so far: User enhanced functionality. Get it right this tiem apple, give us the ability to improve your product for you, For FREE no less! Let us make spiffy programs and features that will propogate with demand across your sleek foundation hardware. Give us the chance to make you money.
That's why the average joe shouldn't be assigned to airport security, they have all this expensive equipment to scan you and your stuff for fingernail clippers and shampoo but the training should be there as well to be able to distinguish between actual threats and innocuous tech.
In this case the first person she talked to should have looked at the device and seen that it was A: in their opinion a threat, or B: in their opinion a possible min understanding waiting to happen. If the former, alert security and have an officer take a closer look. That officer responding to a possible bomb threat better be able to distinguish between a bomb and a light bright. If not then why the hell have someone respond to a possible bomb situation. Any person able to make a bomb that looks like the one they think they were seeing could have rigged up a dead mans switch to go off if they were shot so what sense does it make to shoot a person that could have been carrying a bomb? Why risk it without knowing if by shooting it, it would go off? That's just knee jerk reaction taking hold over reason. That's why places like this need a policy that's thought out and followed in these situations. That would make us safer. Not arresting a person as a deterrent attempt to scare the rest of us into quiet submission. All of you "Oh my god the terrorists are going to get us, we better obey anybody!" are letting this go too far in too many areas where it doesn't do any real good and errodes at the very thing we pride ourselves in having: Freedom. Otherwise what are we fighting for?
And for all you out there: "A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real."
To perpetrate a hoax therefore would necessitate that the intention was there to make others believe that it was a bomb. The INTENT is what matters in a hoax, not the reaction.
"You ignore where and what other items were involved in this."
You ignore what actually was involved in this. The police called the paint on her sweatshirt "putty" and the simple breadboard attached to the outside of that sweatshirt a bomb.
You're really taking one side of the facts and acting like they are from the mouth of god.
Wait until you actually get some verified facts about what you are talking about before jumping to conclusions like the police did.
Wow, a lot of blowhard comments on posting a link to the original question of it being called a passage if it was impassable.
It was a passage since it was a possible route.
It was an actual route because someone had actually gone through it in the past.
It was passable, not easily, but doable and repeatable.
It was not theoretical and has become easier to pass through as technology advanced.
The only development in the article is that the pass itself has been made easier due to icemelt.
The whole arguing semantics before agreeing on terms is a waste of time. And I thought giving information would help clear things up. Silly me.
Here you go, how's this: The Northwest passage which was very difficult and took over 3 years when it was first used by an expedition in 1903 has slowly become easier with advanced technology but was still not viable enough to become a true trading route. With recent icemelt it is now possible to theoretically use a sailing vessle to cross the entire length of the route.
A mistake, that's it.
And I'm sure that there was some policy that they can quote to back up that "misunderstanding" and it was a totally isolated event.
Pretty cut and dry denial of warranty of hardware based on software. If the manager denies service it's not a misunderstanding it's policy. Unless they can show the documents that the manager specifically didn't follow, it's a case of consumer backlash changing a companies operating practices.
I'll believe the "misunderstanding" cop out for the responsibility when they can show policy documents that state that the OS doesn't matter in cases of obvious hardware defect. If they've got that on file, if it was a misunderstanding and every higher level employee involved in that case goes back through basic training for service repair qualification, I'll believe it.
Here: http://www.marine.fm/en/NWP1.htm
Not too sure if it's the same exact route but it's been traveled as far back as 1903.
First, from your last post:
"often businesses will file for chapter 7 bankruptcy so they can reorganize and by telling customers along with suppliers they are okay"
I don't know why you changed to talking about chapter 7, in another posters link above "In chapter 7, the business ceases operations and a trustee sells all of its assets and distributes the proceeds to its creditors"
I'll chalk that up to a typo unless you can clarify.
Second, your quote of my post still misses the point I am trying to get across.
"They are literally filing for bankruptcy and assuring their customers that they are fine and can rely on them at the same time"
This statement is being made knowing about the type of bankruptcy that they are filing. This is not a mistake or misprint.
My point is that this is allowed. Not that it is currently illegal or outside normal practice. I am not arguing this point any longer if you keep trying to point out that my post is correct and somehow still correct it. I am not denying that this is happening, just that IMHO it is not "Just" in these cases where the company has no one else to blame other than itself. And this is not "market fluctuation" "sudden unforeseeable development" or any of the hundreds of reasons or circumstances that would make this a legitimate move by a company. This was too long in comming and they knew it, didn't change, and let it come. The companies Management drove that company directly here and are now trying to escape the consequences for themselves. (Again, using legally permissable venues)
From the same resource mentioned above:
"Some critics have claimed that Chapter 11 bankruptcy is excessively lenient in giving a needless "escape hatch" to the incompetent management of a failing company, damaging the efficiency of the economy as a whole and allowing poor managers to continue managing. It is unusual for the management of a company in Chapter 11 to be fired, as it is usually assumed that the present management team knows far more about the company and its customers than would a new set of management. These critics note that in Europe, bankruptcy law is far less lenient for failing companies."
This text also admits that it is currently an acceptable process and is a completely legal option, BUT I think that it is being abused by these types of companies that expect the option equivilent to a "Get out of jail free" card for running their business into the ground to be available after so blatant a stratagy comprised of outright lies and deception. They could have mada a case in a month if they had anything to begin the lawsuit with in the first place. Present evidence to sustain further disclosure and discovery. that's a legitimate process they avoided at all costs and now the people who made that decision are trying to walk away unscathed by the natural market consequences of having a bluff like that finally called.
OK, I'll reply to these posts since it looks like there is a common misunderstanding going on about what I am trying to get across.
Saying that other companies have done and are doing the same thing is a main part of my problem and shows that you don't understand what I'm talking about when I say that we continue to let them escape the consequences that they create from their own decisions.
The fact that they are using the bankruptcy to escape the stock plummet that would follow the judgements that are comming is a cop out of their responsibility for the actions they have taken. I never said that they were going out of business, closing operations, or filing a different type of bankruptcy that would leed to those outcomes, and if you read that somewhere it was your assumption not mine. The problem I have with the simultanious assurance to their customers is that they are using a restructuring tactic to avoid the fallout of their horrible choices and appear to be a reliable company to anybody. It's a joke and it's on US ALL for allowing it.
Maintaining operations necessatates that your operations can be maintained. In this case they are losing battle after battle over their offerings being theirs to offer. Telling their customers that they can be relied on is a blatant lie if they have done any forecasting, which they probably have since they are filing for a chapter 11. These last ditch options were not created for companies like these, they were a legitimate tool for allowing the companies that suffered from circumstances beyond their control or from reasonable made but poor judgement decisions. NOT outright evil business practices like using the arm of law as your own goon.
From your own post:
"news that they're filing for bankruptcy doesn't really mean anything."
And from your own link:
"A chapter 11 filing, on the other hand, is usually an attempt to stay in business while a bankruptcy court supervises the "reorganization" of the company's contractual and debt obligations. The court can grant complete or partial relief from most of the company's debts and its contracts, so that the company can make a fresh start."
Is this deserving of the company that started all this?
OK, I'll reply to these posts since it looks like there is a common misunderstanding going on about what I am trying to get across.
The fact that they are using the bankruptcy to escape the stock plummet that would follow the judgements that are comming is a cop out of their responsibility for the actions they have taken. I never said that they were going out of business, closing operations, or filing a different type of bankruptcy that would leed to those outcomes, and if you read that somewhere it was your assumption not mine. The problem I have with the simultanious assurance to their customers is that they are using a restructuring tactic to avoid the fallout of their horrible choices and appear to be a reliable company to anybody. It's a joke and it's on US ALL for allowing it.