Boston overreacts again

[Phi for All]

I have a right to carry around any stupid contraption I want, provided it's not an actual weapon, and I don't see why the onus should be on me to be sure it doesn't look like something that you will freak out about.

Actually you don't. There's a federal law that requires Airsoft and BB gun manufacturers to put an orange tip on the barrel of their guns to distinguish it from a real gun and it's also a federal offense to tamper with that tip by breaking it off or painting it. Google around and you'll see all the kids who've been killed by police officers who thought they were being threatened by these deadly-looking "contraptions". In many municipalities if you rob someone using one of the fakes it's treated as armed robbery. It's the device that can cause others to react as if it were real, including reacting with deadly force.

 

Imagine it's your family being threatened by a deadly looking device/gun/whatever. If you use deadly force to protect them and later find the item was a fake are you going to blame yourself for being mistaken? Aren't you going to argue that it looked real and the perpetrator forced you to react in the way you did? Do you see the rights violation now?

[ParanoiA]

Actually you don't. There's a federal law that requires Airsoft and BB gun manufacturers to put an orange tip on the barrel of their guns to distinguish it from a real gun and it's also a federal offense to tamper with that tip by breaking it off or painting it. Google around and you'll see all the kids who've been killed by police officers who thought they were being threatened by these deadly-looking "contraptions". In many municipalities if you rob someone using one of the fakes it's treated as armed robbery. It's the device that can cause others to react as if it were real, including reacting with deadly force.

 

And I disagree with that as a law. I love my kids, so I would be sure we bought plastic guns with red caps and so forth, but to make it a law is wrong, in my opinion. Like I said, it cuts both ways. I don't see how you can say I'm "free" when I have to be sure everything I do doesn't get misinterpreted by you or else I'm in jail. And, if someone gets killed because they used a fake plastic gun, then that will be worked out as justified in court. It's their own stupid fault.

 

Just like I don't see how anybody has any right to demand that you wear clothes. Likewise, don't complain to the rest of us that everyone is starring at you.

 

I don't understand the problem. Everything worked here except the aftermath. She exercised her freedom. Law enforcement responded. Learned it wasn't a threat after all. Then, the stupidity started...

 

Imagine it's your family being threatened by a deadly looking device/gun/whatever. If you use deadly force to protect them and later find the item was a fake are you going to blame yourself for being mistaken? Aren't you going to argue that it looked real and the perpetrator forced you to react in the way you did? Do you see the rights violation now?

 

I see no rights violation. If someone threatens my family with a plastic gun, and I kill them, then good for me and stupid for him. He claimed it was a gun. At the very least he made a threat accompanied by that plastic gun, that apparently does not have a red tip or any other "toy" indicator, so it would be a justifiable kill in a court of law judged by my peers.

 

Understand what I'm saying...I don't blame the police for suspecting a contraption as a weapon. I don't blame society for reacting to the appearance of "deadly devices". This is all reasonable and easily argued in court. I have a problem with generating laws - highly subjective, open to interpretation kinds of laws.

 

Some idiot makes bombs with wires and a perf board and suddenly I can't walk around with my home made clock on my chest or I go to jail? Ridiculous thinking for a modern, supposedly intellectual, free society.

[swansont]

A flashy fashion accessory is one thing but deliberately making it look like a bomb with a visible explosive tells me she knew exactly what she was doing.

 

Here we go again.

 

What does a bomb look like?

[bascule]

What does a bomb look like?

 

A bar of chocolate:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4204980.stm

 

 

Remember... any time you see someone with a bar of chocolate in an airport lobby, they could be a terrorist bomber. React accordingly.

[DrDNA]

Holy hershy bar Batman. What kind of a sick, perverted individual would put explosives in chocolate? Is nothing sacred?

Basc,

That link was very interesting. I really enjoyed reading it.

 

BTW: If someone is standing next to my child and they are eating a chocolate bar, than I probably won't be alarmed.

But if that same person is also wearing a circuit board, wires, batteries, some kind of clay, and blinking lights I will quickly and quietly move my child out of the immediate area.

When I see evidence of someone taking down a plane or blowing up a subway with a candy bar, my initial reactions to chocolate (eg, slobber running down my chin, calm, etc) may change.

[swansont]

OMG, they've known about this technology for 60+ years and done nothing to protect us against it!

 

BTW: If someone is standing next to my child and they are eating a chocolate bar, than I probably won't be alarmed.

But if that same person is also wearing a circuit board, wires, batteries, some kind of clay, and blinking lights I will quickly and quietly move my child out of the immediate area.

When I see evidence of someone taking down a plane or blowing up a subway with a candy bar, my initial reactions to chocolate (eg, slobber running down my chin, calm, etc) may change.

 

What if they had those blinky LEDs in the shoes? Would you move away then?

[DrDNA]

Yes Chief....and the shoe bomb, the motor oil bomb, lump of coal bomb, and the plum bomb.......remove the cone of silence.

[john5746]

What if they had those blinky LEDs in the shoes? Would you move away then?

 

You just gave an idea to the terrorists!! Are you happy now?

[DrDNA]

What if they had those blinky LEDs in the shoes? Would you move away then?

 

 

If it was a kid? no.

An adult? maybe. I'll admit that other factors would weigh in........and don't you dare try to trap me in an ethnic or religous profiling scenario LOL

 

If you ever take a self defense class, note that they will tell you that one of the most important tools for survival is your own instincts.....to listen to your instincts, to that voice inside your head. When it says RUN, you should run. Don't think about it. Just get out of there.

 

Just like I don't see how anybody has any right to demand that you wear clothes. Likewise, don't complain to the rest of us that everyone is starring at you.

Para,

You sir are apparently a REAL libertarian. The genuine article

 

PS: I must disagree with you; at least partially. It defintely should be illegal for some people to go without clothes.

[ParanoiA]

Can I ask what is wrong with reacting to wires and perf boards and other silly contraptions as bombs? Not sure I'm getting the message here. I want people to react, no matter how stupid it may seem. What I don't want them to do, is to follow up by prosecuting these people and trying to find fault and reasons to punish them.

 

I think terrorists would get even more of a kick out of creating a mess of wires and puddy and a bomb and watching us laugh just before it goes off because we thought the security guard that stopped him was stupid.

 

Until it gets out of hand, why not question these things? Are we experiencing an overflow of fake bombing jokes? Seems pretty narrowed and tame so far to me...

 

Para' date='

You sir are apparently a REAL libertarian. The genuine article

 

PS: I must disagree with you; at least partially. It defintely should be illegal for some people to go without clothes.[/quote']

 

Thank you sir. And now that you mention it, I have a couple of neighbors that would likely shock my kids into a coma if they ran around naked...

[DrDNA]

"German saboteurs claimed they were planning to attack wartime Britain using exploding cans of processed peas, according to secret files."

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3264257.stm

 

Basc,

did you see the link to the exploding canned peas plot on the page that your candy bar link was on?

 

Ladies and gentlemen, you see before you what a real bomb looks like. Case closed.

[bascule]

Can I ask what is wrong with reacting to wires and perf boards and other silly contraptions as bombs?

 

Because 99.999999% of the things in the world with wires and breadboards are not bombs.

 

The same thing goes for bars of chocolate.

 

If you can disguise a bomb as everything, why not treat everything as a bomb?

[Pangloss]

<wave wave> I'll bite. Why not treat everything (in the airport) as if it were a bomb? Isn't that more or less what we're doing in airports these days? Has your luggage been out of your view at any time during your visit to our facilities, sir? What exactly about this is so hard for people to understand?

 

To me that just screams "find another way to get there", especially when combined with the ridiculous air traffic situation. But when you're talking about millions of pounds of combustibles and human lives separated from total disaster by a piece of drywall and a simple lock, I think it's understandable.

 

Which makes this stupid flower child's protest a ridiculous action and her treatment both logical and understandable.

[iNow]

It seems the larger point is that our current detection mechanisms are weak. One could walk through the metal detector with something much more dangerous than a bomb and go completely undetected.

 

You can choose to move you and your kids away from those in the airport who cause you anxiety (the "gut feel" response), and you can also decide to fear those who have questionable attire. However, you are still not making yourself any safer, and there is no reason to point rifles at everyone in the airport due to the trouble caused by a tiny few.

 

Improve the detection techniques, and work smarter. The enforcement mechanisms of the 1960s no longer cover the issues we face, and throwing more rigid and totalitarian rules with heavily armed enforcers at the problem will not solve it. It only gives the illusion of safety, not the realization of it. What we ALL want is actual safety, and respect for the individual to remain in the process.

[swansont]

If you ever take a self defense class, note that they will tell you that one of the most important tools for survival is your own instincts.....to listen to your instincts, to that voice inside your head. When it says RUN, you should run. Don't think about it. Just get out of there.

 

But what if you have crappy instincts? That you have such a narrow focus of what you think "normal" is that a whole bunch of stuff sets off your flight reflex?

[DrDNA]

But what if you have crappy instincts? That you have such a narrow focus of what you think "normal" is that a whole bunch of stuff sets off your flight reflex?

 

The only response I can think of is perhaps medication and/or therapy....

 

Although it has been tried and attempts will continue, I don't believe that we can engineer the world to prevent every possible negative consequence.

 

I know that some believe that we should design the world to protect us completely from ourselves, but we might not want to live in that world.

 

I take a middle of the road stance on things like that. I say food and drug regs for safety, yes; airline regs for safety, yes; set belts and helmets, between you and insurance company; etc.

 

How about you? Do lean towards the protect people from themselves camp or the more darwinist go ahead and let it happen to them camp?

[iNow]

How about you? Do lean towards the protect people from themselves camp or the more darwinist go ahead and let it happen to them camp?

Wasn't this thread about protecting people from others, not themselves?

 

 

Also, you cannot advocate (and be taken seriously) full cavity searches and heavily armed killers and hounds to replace flight attendants and consider your stance "middle of the road." Sorry. That's outright extremism right there.

 

 

For reference, your "middle of the road comment" was shown in post #66, yet your stated desire for armed flight attendants and full cavity searches in post #36, your reference to the girls need to be thankful she didn't get a bullet in her skull in post #23, and your argument against freedom in general back in post #14.

 

 

 

Perhaps you have a different meaning of "middle of the road," and a different concept of "regulations" than most?

[DrDNA]

Wasn't this thread about protecting people from others, not themselves?

 

 

Also, you cannot advocate (and be taken seriously) full cavity searches and heavily armed killers and hounds to replace flight attendants and consider your stance "middle of the road." Sorry. That's outright extremism right there.

 

 

For reference, your "middle of the road comment" was shown in post #66, yet your stated desire for armed flight attendants and full cavity searches in post #36, your reference to the girls need to be thankful she didn't get a bullet in her skull in post #23, and your argument against freedom in general back in post #14.

 

Perhaps you have a different meaning of "middle of the road," and a different concept of "regulations" than most?

 

Perhaps....In fact I'm actually sure that I have a different interp for middle of the road than many others....and I think that's fine.

I'm not advocating conformism or more regulations, but I meant that I would be comfortable flying under those circumstances. I think others would also, but I can't and won't try to speak for everybody, just myself. I never did like flying. 9/11 certainly didn't help that. Are you advocating less security on flights?

 

Inow,

In post 23 I said that perhaps we should thank the swat team for showing restraint......Not sure how you came to your conclusion based on that. I still think that given the current state of affairs, they did not over react. In fact, I think the system worked (for once maybe). of course I wasn't there and I don't know everything that transpired...just the reports.

 

How do you get an argument against freedom in general from my post 14? I intended that I gladly give it up for the few hours of flight (even more when it is international). Everyone gives up many personal rights and freedoms every time they fly. Don't you agree?

 

I believe that you got my intent on 36.

[ParanoiA]

This is a strawman. The 911 hijackers did not smuggle a bomb onto an aircraft. In fact, I doubt that any of the security measures in airports today would have hindered 911. The fundamental flaw in security that day was having the cockpit doors unlocked.

 

Did you forget about the box knives? Another rather benign tool that no one freaked out about. If security had made a big deal out of those box knives, I'm betting we'd hear about how stupid security was and if they were going to hijack a plane they would have used actual knives, long knives - not little box knives that can only penetrate roughly an inch or two into the skin.

 

The point is, why NOT assume a bundle of wires could be a bomb? Why NOT take a couple of minutes, see it through? No bomb? Good, no problem. What's the issue? I don't get it.

 

What if Star is actually an Al Queda operative? What if the plan was to fake us out once or twice, make everyone look stupid, so then she can show up at an airport with a real bomb? I'll bet you no one is going to tackle her now, no matter how well she advertises she has a bomb strapped on.

 

Or better yet, how do we know Al Queda isn't watching all this and taking notes? Americans are more scared of looking stupid than dying. What a priceless bit of intelligence that is...

[ParanoiA]

It depends on the environment. Group think is an interesting phenomena, and I suggest that a larger point is how this serves as yet another example of the totalitarian mechanisms used in the name of protection.

 

It's totalitarian to react to what appears to someone to be a bomb? I think you have a distorted view of freedom. You don't have a right to walk down the street and not be questioned. You don't have a right to ignore law enforcement. You don't have a right to insist that you are above detention while the rest of us are not. We are a free country, but we have laws and we have to be able to enforce those laws. That's why we have such a crafty justice system that was built to ensure you're rights are not railroaded during the process of enforcing those laws.

 

Your rights are not being denied because law enforcement stuck a gun to your head thinking you had a bomb. Only when they try to convict you for LED's and silly puddy...

 

Think on that. You're not nearly as free as you're suggesting and never have been. We are quite a free and non-totalitarian country.

 

I have an insulin pump, and I am a *free* citizen of the United States of America. If some dumbfukc security person shoved a rifle in my skull because they didn't know what it was, I'd suggest that our culture had tried solving a major problem by treating the symptoms and not the cause, and that we'd taken a very wrong turn in our approach to the world. I am sensing this wrong turn more and more, but remain hopeful than rational and intelligent minds will ultimately prevail.

 

I remain hopeful that rational, intelligent minds will see the non-issue in reacting, like we always have, to a perceived threat - no matter how stupid others seem to think it is. Police investigate, detain, train weapons on, and jail people every day for less.

 

Remember iNow, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, so everyone who is ever arrested is done so as an innocent person. How does that strike your totalitarian chords?

[iNow]

I remain hopeful that rational, intelligent minds will see the non-issue in reacting, like we always have, to a perceived threat - no matter how stupid others seem to think it is. Police investigate, detain, train weapons on, and jail people every day for less.

I cannot speak for others, but I've tried to make clear that I agree reaction is good, but how we react is much more important.

 

I think what got my proverbial panties in a wad were the comments by the police, and the remarks about how lucky the girl is that she didn't get a bullet in her head. That's just retarded. I know their jobs are tough, but it's no excuse to lose all sense and forget that individuals deserve respect.

 

Remember iNow, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, so everyone who is ever arrested is done so as an innocent person. How does that strike your totalitarian chords?

You've clearly never been arrested in Texas. Cheers.

[swansont]

The point I think most are missing is that while it is free to do these things, and I'm quite adamant and proud of it, it's insane to expect law enforcement, or anyone else for that matter not to mistake such things. Don't sport yourself up with wires and LED's and expect no one to get the wrong idea.

 

After all, that's what made it fun for Star. Because she KNEW someone would get the wrong idea. She knew what she was doing.

 

You assume that, but have no idea if it's actually true. Having known various artsy types, and being a geek and knowing many (even some MIT folk), I think it's entirely probable that nothing of the sort entered her mind. Nobody at MIT was spooked by the gadget. Anybody who has worked with electronics much would recognize is as a non-threat.

 

How funny would all of this be if a security guard let a terrorist walk right by and blow up an airport terminal only to find out later that the terrorist walked in with wires and LED's poking out of his shirt? Yeah, just keep worrying about how stupid that stereotypical component looks...

 

But that's setting the bar so insanely low, because it would be trivial to hide a bomb in a piece of luggage — a piece of luggage raises no suspicion at all. Or camouflage it as one of any number of innocuous items. Security that protects from the lowest percentile or two on the terrorist intelligence scale doesn't make me feel very safe. Nothing happened here that would make a terrorist think that an airport lobby is a hard target for suicide bomber.

[ParanoiA]

You assume that, but have no idea if it's actually true. Having known various artsy types, and being a geek and knowing many (even some MIT folk), I think it's entirely probable that nothing of the sort entered her mind. Nobody at MIT was spooked by the gadget.

 

You're absolutely right.

 

Anybody who has worked with electronics much would recognize is as a non-threat.

 

Exactly. Security guards and law enforcement are not experts in electronics and personally I don't want them trying to be. I want them to go with their gut, without losing their heads. I think iNow made the same point - it's the aftermath that I'm concerned about. Trying to punish people or rough them up for exercising their freedom is unacceptable.

 

But that's setting the bar so insanely low, because it would be trivial to hide a bomb in a piece of luggage — a piece of luggage raises no suspicion at all. Or camouflage it as one of any number of innocuous items.

 

Right, so at least make them hide it. Everything we do in the way of preventative security will NOT make us safe and will NOT make me feel any safer. The only thing preventative security is going to do, is make it more difficult for terrorists to act, and give us a chance to thwart their plots ever now and then - at best.

 

In other words, I have no expectation we'll ever see a bomb with gangly wires and perfboards, so that doesn't then mean that everyone with wires and perfboards get a free pass now. Don't you see how you're opening a door for a real terrorist? According to your logic, he just needs to display his bomb with wires and LED's so no one will suspect him. No hiding or engineering required - just make it "look" like a bomb and the americans won't do anything.

 

I cannot speak for others, but I've tried to make clear that I agree reaction is good, but how we react is much more important.

 

This sounds more reasonable to me.

 

You've clearly never been arrested in Texas. Cheers.

 

No, but there's still time and I've always wanted to see the Cowboys play. I may have a story for you yet...

[Severian]

Exactly. Security guards and law enforcement are not experts in electronics and personally I don't want them trying to be.

 

Don't you think that security guards in airports should be given some rudimentary training on what a bomb is, what it can be made from and what is likely to be suspicious as a possible component of a bomb?

[bascule]

How funny would all of this be if a security guard let a terrorist walk right by and blow up an airport terminal only to find out later that the terrorist walked in with wires and LED's poking out of his shirt? Yeah, just keep worrying about how stupid that stereotypical component looks...

 

There's bad publicity in either case (false negative or positive on a potential bomb threat), although I'm sad to see the media by and large calling this a "bomb hoax" when there's no evidence that was the intention. I certainly have no problem with security people reacting to things that look suspicious, I'm just wishing they'd exercise more common sense. Common sense, it seems, has gone out the window and been replaced by hyperparanoia.

 

I think it's important to balance security concerns with the fact that false positives can harm others, and at any rate unless there's actual evidence that something was intended as a hoax we shouldn't consider such an act to be malicious.

 

I think the best way the security staff could've handled this is to confiscate the device, search her, have the device inspected, then let her go on her merry way as soon as it's determined that the device is benign.