Boston == OverReaction

My first instinct is, "It's just some LEDs on a breadboard;"

my second: "what a moron."
 
Missa said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070921/ap_on_re_us/fake_bomb;_ylt=An4jrVBBwxQDgl7Hh.nXw62s0NUE

Bomb my behind! That's an engineering geek if I ever saw one.
Click to expand...

If YOU ever saw one...however someone else may not have ever seen an "engineering geek."

I just do not get it, we place so many demands on people for your, and their safety, and then freak if they get it wrong.

This was no over reaction, this was an idiot MIT student who is "book smart and common sense stupid."
 
What an idiot.

May be tough to prove she intended to pass it off as a bomb, but there really should be some sort of stupid penalty sometimes.:yes:

(and I say this as someone who at 6, was convinced by a 12 year old to help him build a fake bomb to put in our uncle's suitcase before he shipped off to Iran for Bell Helicopter. :hairraise: Dad enforced the stupid penalty :eek: )
 
Last edited:
LOL, there we go let's take away one more freedom in the name of saftey! First they came for my shoes... and I did nothing.

I think the world is a little dumb if you mistake a little LED flashing cartoon charector or a sweatshirt like that for a bomb. Come on, if it was a bomb do you think they would put flashing lights and wires on the outside or on the inside???? and she didn't even try to approach the secured area! It may not have been the smartest thing to go to an airport in Boston (who's over-reaction is legandary) but come on a little comon sense from the security personal please! Stop and question sure but arrest and charge? I know about 20 other people with similar shirts saying cryptic things only an engineerd would get.

Missa
 
Last edited:
SCCutler said:
My first instinct is, "It's just some LEDs on a breadboard;"

my second: "what a moron."
Click to expand...
I'll second your second. The bond is nothing compared to what she's facing on the hoax charge. I'm surprised she wasn't charged with a terroristic threat.
 
Missa said:
LOL, there we go let's take away one more freedom in the name of saftey! First they came for my shoes... and I did nothing.

I think the world is a little dumb if you mistake a little LED flashing cartoon charector or a sweatshirt like that for a bomb.
Click to expand...

Except of course, those would be REAL bombers who figure out that if you add little flashing lights to the real thing, everyone will think it's fake...at least long enough to let you push a button. It's not necessarily the item that's the problem, it's the item in conjunction with it's location. It's not any different than carrying a realistic looking toy gun to the airport or a bank. Not smart, and guaranteed to draw attention.

I wouldn't be surprised if she doesn't get convicted of anything, but as I said, sometimes there really should be a stupid penalty. It is sad we've come to this though.
 
Missa said:
LOL, there we go let's take away one more freedom in the name of saftey! First they came for my shoes... and I did nothing.

I think the world is a little dumb if you mistake a little LED flashing cartoon charector or a sweatshirt like that for a bomb. Come on, if it was a bomb do you think they would put flashing lights and wires on the outside or on the inside???? and she didn't even try to approach the secured area! It may not have been the smartest thing to go to an airport in Boston (who's over-reaction is legandary) but come on a little comon sense from the security personal please! Stop and question sure but arrest and charge? I know about 20 other people with similar shirts saying cryptic things only an engineerd would get.

Missa
Click to expand...

Ah, but see, now they'll say that the terrists might use such a tactic in the future if we allow things like this!

:rolleyes:

There was a moron in all of this, but it wasn't the girl. Boston just wants more DHS money, and possibly more lawsuit money since they got a good ransom out of Cartoon Network after the previous lite-brite incident.

"Had she not followed the protocol, we might have used deadly force."
Click to expand...

Remember folks, just being in POSSESSION of wires and a battery make you a terrorist that we can kill.

I'd mention other items passengers generally carry that could house a much better explosive device than an electronics bread box, but I don't want a visit from DHS. :hairraise:
 
ausrere said:
Except of course, those would be REAL bombers who figure out that if you add little flashing lights to the real thing, everyone will think it's fake...at least long enough to let you push a button.
Click to expand...

Man I'm good.

To address this... I'll risk my freedom here. What do you think a terrorist is more likely to use? An empty laptop shell packed with explosives in a laptop bag or carrying case, looking just like a casual business traveler... or an electronics breadbox with much less volume?

Seriously. Come on now.
 
Missa said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070921/ap_on_re_us/fake_bomb;_ylt=An4jrVBBwxQDgl7Hh.nXw62s0NUE

Bomb my behind! That's an engineering geek if I ever saw one.
Click to expand...

Yep! You know when I was in high school I did this. I put Christmas lights on my school sweater.

I just saw the story on CNN headline News. It was "MIT Student arrested for HOAX BOMB!" I looked and knew it was just lights. :mad:

So now Boston can use the post-Moonite law to charge her with a felony?


I dunno how Boston is going get through this Christmas with all of the those scary lights all around. They better get to banning.
 
Last edited:
wbarnhill said:
Man I'm good.

To address this... I'll risk my freedom here. What do you think a terrorist is more likely to use? An empty laptop shell packed with explosives in a laptop bag or carrying case, looking just like a casual business traveler... or an electronics breadbox with much less volume?

Seriously. Come on now.
Click to expand...

Realistically of course your average terrorist is going to use something neither of us have probably thought of yet.. or the laptop case if they aren't creative. But, not all people who blow themselves up for stupid reasons are terrorists. Your average not-so-smart suicidal person wanting to go out with a bang might think the flashing lights are kind of a cool attention getter.... and the airport would be a great place to make that final statement. (not to mention a great place to do a suicide by cop).

Not saying someone didn't overreact here. And lord knows I've had my complaints about airport security idiocy (like me having to take my legally carried weapon out and lay it on a table in front of everyone while they magic wand me to make sure I'm not carrying a pocket knife. sheesh!) But it's back to that discussion we had about crooks painting the tips of real guns orange to look like toy guns thinking the cops wouldn't treat them as real guns. People will do anything, and the creativity never ceases to amaze me.

or an electronics breadbox with much less volume?
Click to expand...

I don't think it was the breadbox or the flashing lights that worried them so much as what she may have strapped to herself underneath that jacket that had them a little jumpy.
 
ausrere said:
Except of course, those would be REAL bombers who figure out that if you add little flashing lights to the real thing, everyone will think it's fake...at least long enough to let you push a button. It's not necessarily the item that's the problem, it's the item in conjunction with it's location. It's not any different than carrying a realistic looking toy gun to the airport or a bank. Not smart, and guaranteed to draw attention.

I wouldn't be surprised if she doesn't get convicted of anything, but as I said, sometimes there really should be a stupid penalty. It is sad we've come to this though.
Click to expand...

So we need to ban anything that looks like it could be a bomb, which means anything that looks like it has wires and a battery, which means anything that looks like it could be a battery, which means anything that looks round and big, or rectangular and small, or round and small , or rectangular and small, IS THAT REALLY A ZIPPER??!!!! A BUTTON???!!! YOU'RE UNDER ARREST!!! OMIGAWD!!!! :mad:
 
mikea said:
Yep! You know when I was in high school I did this. I put Christmas lights on my school sweater.

I just saw the story on CNN headline News. It was "MIT Stident arressted for HOAX BOMB!" I looked and knew it was just lights. :mad:

So now Boston can use the post-Moonite law to charge her with a felony?


I dunno how Boston is going get through this Christmas with all of the those scary lights all around. They better get to banning.
Click to expand...

I put them in my hair... Flasing craft x-mas lights with a battery. Everyone thought it was cool and wondered how I did it. I told them they were hard wired in and it was just showing the nurons firing... there was actually a batterypack (well secured agianst hair by eletrical tape wrapped anound the batterybox hidden under the pony tail) But now if I tried it, I'm sure I'd go to jail for having a bomb on my head. At least in boston.

Missa
 
Missa said:
But now if I tried it, I'm sure I'd go to jail for having a bomb on my head. At least in boston.
Click to expand...

There is a time and place for everything. Playing with toy guns is fine, playing with toy guns in a bank is not. Wiring up a laughable "bomb" and carrying playdoh is fine, goofing around with that in an airport is not.
 
mikea said:
IS THAT REALLY A ZIPPER??!!!! A BUTTON???!!! YOU'RE UNDER ARREST!!! OMIGAWD!!!! :mad:
Click to expand...

I said it was sad didn't I?? :rolleyes: :)

Individually of course, no. But, battery + exposed wires + attached to a sweat shirt with a cryptic (to the average joe) hand written message saying something about "Socket to me" and fully capable of having something hidden under it + airport = Maybe not illegal, but will draw attention.

And I'll stop now before we get started again on the whole cop damned if you do/damned if you don't discussion again.
 
Last edited:
ausrere said:
I said it was sad didn't I?? :rolleyes: :)

Individually of course, no. But, battery + exposed wires + attached to a sweat shirt with a cryptic (to the average joe) hand written message saying something about "Socket to me" and fully capable of having something hidden under it + airport = Maybe not illegal, but will draw attention.
Click to expand...

Where did the artical say the message on the back was hand written????

The local Engineering faternity made some up similar to that when I was in school and the message was screen printed on and they were sold as a fund raiser.

Like I said, I agree with the stop and explain your shirt, being searched and a warning of maybe you should think twice about wearing this at an airport. But arresting and charging is a whole nother action. She didn't even approach the security area. She went up to an information desk and asked if a plane was on time then was in the process of leaving when security approaced her with sub machine guns. So how close can I get to an airport before I get seached because someone doesn't like what I'm wearing?
 
Last edited:
cfa4827569_20070921device3.jpg


The lights were LEDSs and they were on a Radio Shack electronics breadboard.

You mean people can experiment with ELECTRONICS without supplying a passport for a Homelandland Security background check? WE NEED A LAW!
 
Bill Jennings said:
There is a time and place for everything. Playing with toy guns is fine, playing with toy guns in a bank is not. Wiring up a laughable "bomb" and carrying playdoh is fine, goofing around with that in an airport is not.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty good synopsis of the situation.

It also applies to the law, and I wish more prosecutors would realize it. Just because Mass. has a law relating to "hoax devices" doesn't mean it should be used every single time there is something with flashing lights. In other words, just because something can be done, doesn't mean that it should (i.e., Jurassic Park).

In this case, it's my opinion that all that is warranted is some kind of breach of the peace charge. Was it a hoax device? Maybe - but charging that puts this occurrence on the same level as someone who straps on paper towel "innards" and goes into a bank with the intent to rob it based on the use of a hoax device.

So give me a break, prosecutors.
 
Bill Jennings said:
There is a time and place for everything. Playing with toy guns is fine, playing with toy guns in a bank is not. Wiring up a laughable "bomb" and carrying playdoh is fine, goofing around with that in an airport is not.
Click to expand...

I couldn't have put it better myself. Sure this is absurd, and the fact that these measures were deemed necessary is a demonstration of how jumpy we have all become, I don't want airport security saying "Oh those are just lights and playdoh, they can get on board" when I'm the one flying the plane. I want to know that all 19 people sitting behind me have been checked and rechecked before we're at 10,000 feet with no security personnel in sight. What if the absurd lights were designed to be just absurd enough to remove suspicion? I dislike the TSA as much as the next guy, but I wouldn't want to load 19 strangers into my plane without them.
 
Bill Jennings said:
There is a time and place for everything. Playing with toy guns is fine, playing with toy guns in a bank is not. Wiring up a laughable "bomb" and carrying playdoh is fine, goofing around with that in an airport is not.
Click to expand...

I doubt she even wired it up, it sounds like shirts made up and sold as a fund rasier by engineering faternities/socities and who doesn't play with play dough??? In collage I carried a small can of play dough or silly puddy on my key ring that I played with when board.

AKA, couple decades back and you are talking about ME. ( no I didn't own one of the sirts, too much money and i was an ME not an EE)
 
Missa said:
I doubt she even wired it up, it sounds like shirts made up and sold as a fund rasier by engineering faternities/socities and who doesn't play with play dough???
Click to expand...

Come on!!!

She knew what she was doing, and knew it would prevoke a response. Now, she'll have to tap into more of Daddy's money to get good representation.
 
ausrere said:
Individually of course, no. But, battery + exposed wires + attached to a sweat shirt with a cryptic (to the average joe) hand written message saying something about "Socket to me" and fully capable of having something hidden under it + airport = Maybe not illegal, but will draw attention.
Click to expand...

She didn't use common sense. The sweatshirt itself was okay. I can see that as art. But walking into an airport... SQUEEZING PLAY-DOH?! (looks like plastic explosives)

C',mon! That's just NOT SMART. :no: I have no doubt she was trying to provoke some 'response' or media attention. And she got it. :yes:
 
TangoWhiskey said:
She didn't use common sense. The sweatshirt itself was okay. I can see that as art. But walking into an airport... SQUEEZING PLAY-DOH?! (looks like plastic explosives)

C',mon! That's just NOT SMART. :no: I have no doubt she was trying to provoke some 'response' or media attention. And she got it. :yes:
Click to expand...


Even if she wasn't trying to provoke a response, it's pretty much just a bad idea to go to an airport (or government building, or any large public gathering) in this day and age with anything that could be mistaken for a weapon - play doh, wires, and a battery...all you're missing is the casio watch and you've got Speed all over again.
 
Flip this the other way.

A bomb explodes in an airport. Upon review of security tapes, which were leaked to CNN, they notice a person walking by security with odd crude homemade exposed electronics attached to them while forming some type of clay in their hands.
 
jesse said:
Flip this the other way.

A bomb explodes in an airport. Upon review of security tapes, which were leaked to CNN, they notice a person walking by security with odd crude homemade exposed electronics attached to them while forming some type of clay in their hands.
Click to expand...
So, something similar activities seen around Little Five Points in Atlanta or on Capital Hill or LoDo in Denver.
 
LOL My brother approached me tongiht and said did you hear about the idiot at Logan. Andrew and I did an Angel Flight to Logan today and my first thought was well we landed a little long but that was cause it was such a darn big runway:dunno:

And yeah I think she was an ijit too.
 
I used to wear full tactical BDUs, black, with a vest that said "Riot Police" and with all sorts of things that today would probably have me locked up in the clink.

Is that good? No, it isn't.

But, by the same token, if you walk into an AIRPORT, one of the 9/11 airports, with this crap on your chest, what do you expect? Seriously? Yes, it proves we completley overreact, but it also proves you're a complete idiot.

Sheesh. If I had been at BOS and security had locked down while going to a flight, I would have lost it.

Cheers,

-Andrew
 
Last edited:
More. If she was really trying to show how stupid they are and she really intended that it be seen as a bomb, I think she would have made it more obvious than it was. The shirt was referring to a MIT dorm or something. When you think you're much smarter than the proles you think they're really stupid so they would need to be hit over the head with it. So the shirt and the stuff she was carrying would have been more like a bomb. More wires. Liquids.
 
Teller1900 said:
I couldn't have put it better myself. Sure this is absurd, and the fact that these measures were deemed necessary is a demonstration of how jumpy we have all become, I don't want airport security saying "Oh those are just lights and playdoh, they can get on board" when I'm the one flying the plane. I want to know that all 19 people sitting behind me have been checked and rechecked before we're at 10,000 feet with no security personnel in sight. What if the absurd lights were designed to be just absurd enough to remove suspicion? I dislike the TSA as much as the next guy, but I wouldn't want to load 19 strangers into my plane without them.
Click to expand...

And where do you draw the line???? She was not getting on an airplane. She walked in asked about an inbound flight and walked out. She did not even approach the secured area! Absent-minded? Yes. Stupid? Probally. Crimenal? NO WAY! If we made being stupid a crime, we would run out of jail space. Again... how far away from the airport are we going to let the goverment step on our freedoms in the name of saftey???

A people whom give up freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety.

The terrorists have won. :(
 
Last edited:
Missa said:
And where do you draw the line???? She was not getting on an airplane. She walked in asked about an inbound flight and walked out. She did not even approach the secured area? Absent-minded? Yes. Stupid? Probally. Crimenal? NO WAY! If we made being stupid a crime, we would run out of jail space. Again... how far away from the airport are we going to let the goverment step on our freedoms in the name of saftey???

A people whom give up freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety.

The terrorists have won. :(
Click to expand...

Agree.

Between the two political parties, this nation has not only lost its sense of humor and fun, but the citizens have lost many freedoms. Apparently you need to destroy the village to save it. I'm truly glad that I grew up when I did (OK, OK, maybe I never grew up...)

Boston, the city that went into a panic over Moonites.
 
Missa said:
A people whom give up freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety.
Click to expand...

No offense to you Missa, but like a lot of quotes used today to support a position, this one has been mangled horribly.

For those that care, here is the original quote:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

Notice the words ESSENTIAL and TEMPORARY. Thus one first has to argue if going to an airport is an essential freedom, and then one has to argue if protecting against a terroristic threat, in todays world, is a temporary security measure.

If not, then the quote has no bearing and is meaningless.

BTW...gross cases of stupidity will usually earn one at least an arrest, if not jail time. Do not like that? Do not do grossly stupid stuff.
 
tdager said:
No offense to you Missa, but like a lot of quotes used today to support a position, this one has been mangled horribly.

For those that care, here is the original quote:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

Notice the words ESSENTIAL and TEMPORARY. Thus one first has to argue if going to an airport is an essential freedom, and then one has to argue if protecting against a terroristic threat, in todays world, is a temporary security measure.

If not, then the quote has no bearing and is meaningless.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a quote. It's how I feel. If it was a quote it would have had " " around it and attributed to the author. It was based on the sentiment published in An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) But was not a quote of the book.

I'm sorry you think my veiw of the world is meaningless. But that's just your oppinion.

What you are doing above is like nit picking direct quotes from KJV of the Bible, it's not the verbage that makes the meaning but underlying sentimant.

tdager said:
BTW...gross cases of stupidity will usually earn one at least an arrest, if not jail time. Do not like that? Do not do grossly stupid stuff.
Click to expand...

The gross case of stupidity in this case is by Security and the Media and I see netiher of them arrested nor charged.

Missa
 
Last edited:
Missa said:
It wasn't a quote. It's how I feel. If it was a quote it would have had " " around it and attributed to the author. It was based on the sentiment published in An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) But was not a quote of the book.

I'm sorry you think my veiw of the world is meaningless. But that's just your oppinion.

What you are doing above is like nit picking direct quotes from KJV of the Bible, it's not the verbage that makes the meaning but underlying sentimant.



The gross case of stupidity in this case is by Security and the Media and I see netiher of them arrested nor charged.

Missa
Click to expand...

*sigh* Ma'am I was not "dismissing your opinion" only trying to clarify what you were saying, at least in my mind. That quote, and variations of it, are almost always attributed to Ben Franklin and almost always changed. In this case the sentiment, as expressed, was about specific things, not a generic "give up freedom for security, deserving of neither" feel.

If the direct quote you mentioned is exactly how you feel, well then you are correct, we will have wildly different views on things. I mean do you have the freedom to land at a military base? That is a loss of freedom. What about not being able to walk down the street naked? Or drive where ever you wish? Or fly without talking to ATC even if IFR? I mean these are all of your "freedoms" correct?

I am not arguing that there may not have been some over reaction, however I am cognizant of the fact that most people we put in the position of offering us some protection, are "damned if they do, damned if they do not".

We are talking a busy international airport with thousands of people rolling through day-to-day. There is little time to "figure things out" on a case-by-case basis, at least initially. The officers in question did EXACTLY what they were tasked with doing. Now if you have a problem with the DA pressing charges, so be it, again we will agree to disagree. However expecting someone to have the luxury of time, or insight, into each and every potential issue that arises at an international airport is patently unfair and plain ignorant of what it is like to work in a job like that.
 
Go back and read my posts, Stopped and questiond? No problem, arrested and charged big problem. I would think that once a police officer got a closer look at the sweat shirt and play doh.. Yea give her a stearn warrning but really??? Agian, how far away from the airport do I have to be to wear that shirt? She was not trying to enter the securered area, or does my freedom of expression just get totally limited because other 'stupider' people might think I had a bomb instead of a cool light up shirt? I see a lot of Kids wearing shoes that light up and flash... maybe they have a bomb or since it's a highly marketed item is it ok?
 
Missa said:
Go back and read my posts, Stopped and questiond? No problem, arrested and charged big problem. I would think that once a police officer got a closer look at the sweat shirt and play doh.. Yea give her a stearn warrning but really??? Agian, how far away from the airport do I have to be to wear that shirt? She was not trying to enter the securered area, or does my freedom of expression just get totally limited because other 'stupider' people might think I had a bomb instead of a cool light up shirt? I see a lot of Kids wearing shoes that light up and flash... maybe they have a bomb or since it's a highly marketed item is it ok?
Click to expand...

I posted the following in response to a post on the AOPA boards about how if it was an "unintentional" breach of the peace, no charges are justified. I think it speaks to the problem of simply letting actions like this girl's slide.

me said:
As far as unintentional goes, I agree, for the reason you've given.

This incident, though, I think is a little bit different. We've got someone who, at best, has been "criminally negligent" - meaning that while she might not have meant to cause a disturbance, the circumstances were such that she should have been aware of that very real possibility. In other words, would a reasonable person walk into a situation with what could reasonably be interpreted as a threat, and expect that other reasonable people would not be disturbed by it? Sorry for the excessive use of "reasonable," but that's the measuring standard for most legal situations.

I just don't think there's any way that you could reasonably walk into an airport with something looking like an explosive and be blissfully ignorant of the disturbance that is bound to cause.

As I've said, I don't like the idea of a police state where the State (aka, the police and the Man) gets to serve its own interests to the detriment of all else. Regardless, this situation has to be punished - we, as a society, can't have rabblerousers constantly baiting the police. It costs all of us time, money, and exasperation. As a worst case scenario, what happens if somebody does something like this again, and while police are responding to it, a 7-11 gets robbed which might not have otherwise been robbed had the cops not been tied up with a bunch of BS?
Click to expand...

A breach of the peace or OGO charge is exactly what is warranted here. It's a misdemeanor, and might even be a petty. Meaning that there's something like a $500 fine. It's an appropriate penalty, yet sends the message that we as a society won't tolerate this kind of crap.

Our system is not "complete liberty." Rather, it is "ordered liberty," meaning that while we have certain freedoms, there are also certain freedoms that we surrender to avoid complete chaos.
 
Missa said:
Go back and read my posts, Stopped and questiond? No problem, arrested and charged big problem. I would think that once a police officer got a closer look at the sweat shirt and play doh.. Yea give her a stearn warrning but really??? Agian, how far away from the airport do I have to be to wear that shirt? She was not trying to enter the securered area, or does my freedom of expression just get totally limited because other 'stupider' people might think I had a bomb instead of a cool light up shirt? I see a lot of Kids wearing shoes that light up and flash... maybe they have a bomb or since it's a highly marketed item is it ok?
Click to expand...

OK this is getting silly.

How the hell is a regular police officer supposed to know what is, and is not, a bomb on a sweat shirt? How many MIT-trained officers do you know? How many even have a rudimentary electronics background?

Now toss in the Playdoh...I mean COME ON here. Do you have explosives training? Have you ever played with C4? Can YOU tell the difference between Playdoh and C4, or Simtex, or other modern pliable explosives? Guess what, neither can most officers. Hell I have formal explosives training and I have no idea what some of the modern stuff looks like, what its consistency is, etc.

As for the secured area comment, a terrorist attacks to create terror and panic. What better place than the crowded terminal BEFORE one enters the secured area. Lots of people crowded tight, no security, just BOOM and lots and lots of dead people.

As for your "freedom of expression", you have a right to it, and others have a right to react to it. Your freedom does not trump others. If you are truly have a difficult time seeing why this was insanely stupid on the part of this girl, why people are so jumpy, why not every is, or has the time, to be "Superman" in their knowledge or understanding of all things, then we are done with this conversation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top