Lawyer: Fake Bomb Charge an Overreaction

So you are saying that she is lying, that even though she claims she made the circuit board device to light up the lettering on her shirt, and even though that is precisely what the device does, her true intent was to frighten the people at the airport. If you truly believe that, then we have a difference of opinion. I hope the prosecutor can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the scenario you are suggesting is the case, otherwise she will go free.

 

Or extremely f*cking stupid

 

Well unfortunately, she would not be breaking the law in that case. To be convicted of "possession of a hoax device", the law she's being charged with, and the law I cited earlier, she has to have had the intent to scare. So while she may be an idiot, she should be a legally acquitted idiot in that case, according to Massachusetts law.

 

Didn't you see the post where I said that?

Thank you for confirming that RP supporters actually support people making hoax bombs and taking them to the airport. Just one more reason why I can't vote for RP.

You're doing all my work for me

 

Correct, however i don't believe someone can be that dumb, which leaves one answer.

 

You have to understand the mindset of the individual. This is obviously a pretty nerdy girl. She goes to MIT, and while younger, went to a boarding school where she was honored nationally for many different achievements in robotics and other sciences. This is an individual who constantly likes to tinker with electronics. I used to work at Radioshack, I dealt with customers like this all the time, this is a decent chunk of the population.

If you want to suggest that her intent was not pure, and rather than creating an innocuous device for her personal amusement, her true intent was to frighten people at an airport, that is your opinion. I'm just saying I don't think that the prosecution will be able to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt while compared to the reasoning "I made a toy to light up my shirt, and at 7 in the morning forgot that it was on the sweatshirt I brought to the airport. Irrelevant to that, is it true for the general public that circuit board = bomb?" Let's come back to this topic in a few months and see who was right.

 

I am still trying to comprehend why she was at the airport...being a student at MIT surely makes you smarter than the average joe, right? After all, that is where Dr. Bose teaches (or maybe he is retired by now)...

 

She was picking up a friend early in morning.

 

American police are cretinous imbeciles.

 

I think it's a two way street. Visitors at airports and bus terminals need to be conscious of their actions and appearance AND the police and workers need to be careful about how they react.

However, if the police were not sure of her intentions or what she was wearing, I think they have every right to detain or stop her. They don't have much time to react, so they could get it wrong sometimes.

I'm just glad they didn't shoot her. Even though it was obviously not a bomb upon closer inspection, and probably any bomb technician or electrical engineer could have pointed it out immediately, the police were in the right, in this case.

 

I have to agree with omgitsfletch, maybe it resembling a bomb didn't cross her mind. Not everyone sees and reads about bombs most or some of the time, and thus such things may not register in a person's mind. I know 9/11 happened, but some don't think much of it anymore and aren't paranoid about what they display could cause people to think it's a bomb or another threat.

Now I do agree that the police had the right to arrest her(and thankfully didn't shoot her). But I don't think she should be charged for it. I mean she even responded to the police arrest without a fight, unlike that student that was tasered a couple of days ago.

 

Yes, I agree with much of what you said.

However, I think she should pay for part or all of the expense incurred. I wouldn't want to see a felony charge on her record. However, it is important to send a message that people must think carefully about their appearance, demeanor, and response (when they are questioned). I think it was an honest mistake on her part.

Maybe, if not paying expenses or a fine, that making it into international news and the embarrassment she probably felt would be enough of a message to others not to be quite so foolish.

 

She went into an airport with a fake bomb, there is no possible way any American (especially one smart enough to get into MIT) wouldn't know that this would be a public disturbance. However, a public disturbance is the least of he charges, she knowingly went into an airport with a fake bomb. It is a felony, Mass. law says

If she did not know that it would cause confusion, why did she tell a worker its "harmless art"? The defense lawyers comment of "almost paranoid" is not true, airports are completely paranoid to avoid 9/11 happening again. It is common knowledge that you don't mess around in an airport.

What she did falls nothing short of this criteria, art or not it is not legal to take that into an airport.

 

The only way that I can think of for them to honestly charge and convict her of that would be if she admitted that it was a joke or was trying to make a statement.

If she did admit it, then absolutely, she should have the book thrown at her.

An honest mistake in judgement? No, she shouldn't have a felony charge against her. That would be a real tragedy.

Geez, I know a number of people that are considered geniuses, are known for making poor judgment calls. They seem to be known for lacking common sense.

<edit>

If we convict someone because they've got something like a circuit board on their shirt, etc, then I'd be concerned that we'd set a bad president. What about someone typing away on a laptop or carrying an Ipod? Couldn't those devices also be considered possible bombs?

 

Bad judgement calls are not acceptions to the law, if they where, 99% of criminals would be found innocent. How can you prove it was more then bad judgement?

No, not rationally to hold up in court anyway. The circuit board could look (and somewhat does) like a bomb, an iPod does not.

 

Don't they have to prove intent though? If she went there trying to cause a disturbance or make some political statement, then yes, she should be convicted. However, if she just happened to make a bad choice in apparel, then no.

As I added above:
If we convict someone because they've got something like a circuit board on their shirt, etc, then I'd be concerned that we'd set a bad president. What about someone typing away on a laptop or carrying an Ipod? Couldn't those devices also be considered possible bombs?

 

Define proof, there is no proof to the tier you are looking for. Telling a worker its harmless could prove she knew it could be misunderstood, therefore you have mens rea (intent to do said crime). Furthermore, the law states

 

Although I'm not a lawyer, I suppose I can play one on the internet. How will they prove that she showed "intent to cause anxiety, unrest, fear or personal discomfort"? To me, that will be hard to prove, if she didn't realize it's effect. She's an electrical engineering student; to her it's obviously a mere circuit board and a battery, but to a cop, it could look like a bomb.

I think the police did the right thing to stop and question her, but in terms of penalties, I think she should be limited to paying a fine and maybe doing community service at the airport. It should end there.

 

I have got to agree with usasportstraining, she did not cause a ruckus and didn't seem like she wanted to scare people by playing a joke. I mean if she acted like that guy that was tasered; you know scream political statements and making accusations then yeah she deserves to be charged.

 

You never answered my question, if she didnt know it could cause a misunderstanding, why did she tell an employee it was a harmless piece of art? That could easily be enough in court to prove intent.

Blogsip: What she said has literally no legal matter, if it would have been bad screaming political statements in that, it would be bad not screaming stuff out.