1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Lawyer: Fake Bomb Charge an Overreaction

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by usasportstraining, Sep 23, 2007.

  1. #1
    There's something both disturbing and somewhat funny about this. This student, who's a member of the Electrical Engineering program at MIT, was wearing a sweatshirt with a battery powered circuit board on the chest. She wanted to stand out on Career Day at the University.

    Well, it seems she did! What are your thoughts?



    Lawyer: Fake Bomb Charge an Overreaction

    [​IMG] Here's the back of it.
    SEMrush
     
    usasportstraining, Sep 23, 2007 IP
    SEMrush
  2. lorien1973

    lorien1973 Notable Member

    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    601
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #2
    cops are damned if they do, damned if they dont.

    fact is, having an item that looks like a bomb in the airports is a crime. being stupid doesn't absolve you of anything.
     
    lorien1973, Sep 23, 2007 IP
    Toopac likes this.
  3. omgitsfletch

    omgitsfletch Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,222
    Likes Received:
    44
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    145
    #3
    Have you seen pictures of it? It's a small PC circuit board, and a battery. To me personally, it looks nothing like a bomb.
    [​IMG]

    Never mind the fact she wasn't going past security, she was in the pickup area of the airport. Remember this is Boston, where they freaked out because of things like this:

    [​IMG]

    I totally agree, she should have been stopped at gunpoint, arrested, but once it became clear there was no threat, she should have been let go. She's going to have a criminal record for the rest of her life now, never mind fines and what not, because police in Boston can't tell a circuit board and play doh when they see it.
     
    omgitsfletch, Sep 23, 2007 IP
  4. lorien1973

    lorien1973 Notable Member

    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    601
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #4
    I dont think backseat driving should be done. It's the cops out there doing their job. It's easy to sit back when you are not in the situation and say what you think it is.

    the picture says a lot about the quality of people they let into MIT these days.

    I'd also disagree about letting her off scot-free. She cost the cops time, diverted manpower, etc. I wouldn't send her to jail, but certainly I'd send her a bill for the time involved the cost of the efforts.
     
    lorien1973, Sep 23, 2007 IP
  5. Village_Idiot

    Village_Idiot Peon

    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    3
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #5
    It isn't an over reaction, that is just a defense lawyer talking. There are certain things that come with common knowledge (logic), you cant even talk about doing something terrorist in an airport without them getting on you. Wearing a fake bomb is as idiotic as they comes she should be in big trouble for this.

    If I made porcelain replica of my 1911 pistol (and an m16 on my back) and did an interpretive dance which involves waiving them in the air screaming "Die america" (which in my made up languages means "love one another"), would that be a crime? Or is it art?
     
    Village_Idiot, Sep 23, 2007 IP
  6. omgitsfletch

    omgitsfletch Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,222
    Likes Received:
    44
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    145
    #6
    See and that's what you guys don't understand. If someone jokes saying the word bomb or similar in an airport/airplane, or purposely wears a fake bomb, they are asking for everything they get.

    What you fail to see is that not every person on the planet sees a circuit board and automatically assumes, or even has the thought cross their mind, that it could be a device of terrorism.

    She didn't make a papier-mache stick of dynamite and papier-mache alarm clock and put it in a belt around her waist; she had a circuit board and battery which lit up lettering on the front of her shirt. So when you automatically convict her by saying "she was wearing a fake bomb", you have to first assert and prove that it's common knowledge that a circuit board = possible bomb. I don't believe that is true, and for that I hope she's acquitted.

    Next we will be double-clicking businessmen in the forehead because their PDAs and pagers could be a trigger device! This is precisely the kind of fear that allowed the Patriot Act to pass, the kind of fear that got us into Iraq, and I hope people wake up one day and realize this is precisely the kind of thing Bin Laden hoped to achieve with his attacks.
     
    omgitsfletch, Sep 23, 2007 IP
  7. AGS

    AGS Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,543
    Likes Received:
    257
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    265
    #7
    LOL I remember them, were they not linked to or inspired by Al-Qaeda. :p
     
    AGS, Sep 23, 2007 IP
  8. Village_Idiot

    Village_Idiot Peon

    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    3
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #8
    Any jury in their right mind would believe that she knew what she was doing.
     
    Village_Idiot, Sep 23, 2007 IP
  9. lorien1973

    lorien1973 Notable Member

    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    601
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #9
    You make a good point. Guys with boxcutters walking onto planes from the same airport a few years ago were just expressing themselves too. Get the point? Harmless looking things can turn into something worse.

    The cops were right to arrest her; her being a moron isn't their fault, its hers.

    And they have a common look to them. You'd have a good point if someone's PDA had wires protruding from it and had flashing lights all over them. Show a little sense here.
     
    lorien1973, Sep 23, 2007 IP
  10. GTech

    GTech Rob Jones for President!

    Messages:
    15,836
    Likes Received:
    571
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #10
    Ron Paul supporters. Inaction is the best course of action, always.

    They keep digging a grave for the candidate with their anarchist views. How are they ever going to trick people into thinking taking personal responsibility for one's actions is what they stand for, when people play "bomb" or shout "fire" at the airport?
     
    GTech, Sep 23, 2007 IP
  11. omgitsfletch

    omgitsfletch Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,222
    Likes Received:
    44
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    145
    #11
    http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/266-102a.5.htm

    The prosecutor is going to prove, according to the state law, that her contraption is a device "that would cause a person reasonably to believe that such device is an infernal machine". The prosecutor is also going to have to prove, according to the state law, that she brought it into the airport "with the intent to cause anxiety, unrest, fear or personal discomfort to any person or group of persons".

    I'm basically making the point that I don't believe that is the case. For one, I don't think it's common belief that simply a circuit board is indicative of a possible bomb; secondly, I think they are going to have a hard time proving that her device, whose intention is to light up the lettering on her shirt, was brought into the airport with the intent to scare.

    Again, that is why I believe she will be rightfully acquitted, provided she gets a decent lawyer.
     
    omgitsfletch, Sep 23, 2007 IP
  12. omgitsfletch

    omgitsfletch Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,222
    Likes Received:
    44
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    145
    #12
    Yes, my political candidate has some bearing in this discussion. Once again, I'm quoting current state law on the matter to justify my point. Since she is going to be tried according to Massachusetts state law, I invite each of you to show how they will prove both of the bolded points I made, beyond a reasonable doubt. In the United States, luckily, you get tried in a court of law, not a court of public opinion, so unless you can prove both of those points, she's innocent of the crime she was charged with.
     
    omgitsfletch, Sep 23, 2007 IP
  13. lorien1973

    lorien1973 Notable Member

    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    601
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #13
    It really only has to be a belief to the arresting officers doesn't it? they believed it was and if that's whats necessary then that's already there. isn't it?

    intent is always the hard part to prove, but its safe to say she wanted to cause "anxiety" or she would have entered the airport with a hello kitty outfit.

    I'm no lawyer, but isnt this the more relevant piece of this law:

    (c) This section shall not apply to any law enforcement or public safety officer acting in the lawful discharge of official duties.

    I think she'll get off, simply because it's bad PR if she isn't, but I think she should be fined the expenses incurred by the city for the entire ordeal. But, more than likely, she'll get off entirely.

    As an RP supporter, you should be alarmed at this because she is not taking any personal responsibility here.
     
    lorien1973, Sep 23, 2007 IP
  14. omgitsfletch

    omgitsfletch Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,222
    Likes Received:
    44
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    145
    #14
    To get in trouble in the first place, sure, only the cops need to see it as a threat. That's why I'm maintaining what I said originally, she should have been charged, possibly arrested, and then released with no charges. The cops can arrest you for pretty much anything, it's afterwards that the prosecutor has to decide if you've truly broken the law.

    Uh, not sure if you're making a joke here or what. Haha, we should all wear hello kitty outfits around I think :)

    That basically just says that cops are not held to this law. In other words, a cop couldn't get charged with this same crime. I'm not sure where a police officer in the course of his official duties is going to transport and have the intent to worry any group of people with a hoax device, but if such an event ever arises, that cop is in the clear.


    She doesn't need to take personal responsibility for her actions if she hasn't broken a law. That would be like saying a guy detained for matching the description of a robber or murderer on the loose should take personal responsibility for looking a lot like the robber. It's just a mixup, let it go.
     
    omgitsfletch, Sep 23, 2007 IP
  15. Village_Idiot

    Village_Idiot Peon

    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    3
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #15
    Remember, you don't have to prove anything in criminal court, you have to convince the jury.
     
    Village_Idiot, Sep 23, 2007 IP
  16. omgitsfletch

    omgitsfletch Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,222
    Likes Received:
    44
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    145
    #16
    Yes, the prosecution has to convince the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt that this device looks like a hoax device, and that she had the intent to scare the people at the airport by bringing it with her.

    I'll concede that they may be able to sway a non-technical jury who isn't familiar with the amount of people who tinker with parts like this that it could be seen as a hoax device. In other news, every shopper of the parts drawers at Radioshack is a possible threat to America, lol. :p

    But they have a damned difficult job proving the second part.
     
    omgitsfletch, Sep 23, 2007 IP
  17. usasportstraining

    usasportstraining Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,877
    Likes Received:
    363
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Articles:
    4
    #17
    I don't think so. It was related to a Cartoon Network advertising campaign.
     
    usasportstraining, Sep 23, 2007 IP
  18. GTech

    GTech Rob Jones for President!

    Messages:
    15,836
    Likes Received:
    571
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #18
    Do Ron Paul supporters support people going into airports with devices that could easily resemble bombs and disrupting the public? I seem to be getting that message, from at least one of them.

    Why would I want to vote for that candidate, again? Just pointing out what I continue to say. If you paulians want to trick others into believing you care about your country and that RP is the best person not to protect it, you might want to try a little harder ;)
     
    GTech, Sep 23, 2007 IP
  19. omgitsfletch

    omgitsfletch Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,222
    Likes Received:
    44
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    145
    #19
    So GTech, are you saying that she broke the law in this case? If so, I invite you to try and demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that both requirements of the law I cited were met in this situation. Otherwise, she is innocent.

    I'm sure as soon as you receive this post, you'll take the time to try and demonstrate that. I humbly await your response :)
     
    omgitsfletch, Sep 23, 2007 IP
  20. Toopac

    Toopac Peon

    Messages:
    4,451
    Likes Received:
    166
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #20
    <real talk>

    She knew damn well the response she would get with a circuit board on her person, which was on display. She was caught & should be prosecuted.

    Basically it was an unfunny prank that went wrong.
    </real talk>
     
    Toopac, Sep 23, 2007 IP