Aqua Teen "hoax" in Boston

[GIGObuster]

I predicted that, but even though they do acknowledge responsibility for the confusion, in the statement they never accepted that the items were intended as fake bombs, but I see the media just can not let that go on that point.

One has to notice also that it is not a fine, it was a deal with the city of Boston, I agree with **Fear Itself ** on what would had happened at the end of a long court process, instead of a long and more expensive court battle a good will gesture is a better copy.

[lowbrass]

@GIGObuster

I predicted that, but even though they do acknowledge irresponsibility for the confusion, in the statement they never accepted that the items were intended as fake bombs, but I see the media just can not let that go on that point.

That’s the nature of the beast: “BOMB SCARE! Think of the children” makes a more sensationalistic headline than “Some guys put up signs; Mayor still asshole”.

[boytyperanma]

2 million dollars seems pretty cheap compared to the cost of the advertising they got for their show. There almost failed ad campaign managed to make the front page of every newspaper. It would be hard to find anyone in MA that doesn’t know what Aqua Teen Hunger Force is now.

Maybe companies should consider putting up fake bombs as advertisements.

[Larry_Mudd]

@boytyperanma

Maybe companies should consider putting up fake bombs as advertisements.

A marketing blitz?

[Count_Blucher]

I notice that this is all going away, but Mayor Thomas M. Menino never Did capture Milton Bradley. Now sectarian gaming-cells are popping up all over Massachusetts: Avalon Hill, Ohio Arts, Parker Brothers…

[clayton_e]

@Contrapuntal

Don’t tell EddyTeddyFreddy!

Hm… sorry EddyTeddyFreddy… I guess I skimmed right over your post.

[Skywatcher]

@Count Blucher

I notice that this is all going away, but Mayor Thomas M. Menino never Did capture Milton Bradley.

He needs to post a stakeout at Fenway.

[lowbrass]

@boytyperanma

2 million dollars seems pretty cheap compared to the cost of the advertising they got for their show. There almost failed ad campaign managed to make the front page of every newspaper. It would be hard to find anyone in MA that doesn’t know what Aqua Teen Hunger Force is now.

Guess Ted’s not so dumb, is he?

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@clayton_e

Hm… sorry EddyTeddyFreddy… I guess I skimmed right over your post.

nobody never gives me no respect…

[wolf_meister]

Turner Broadcasting will spend $2,000,000 for the cost of the “bomb hoax”? That’s less than the price of a 30 second Superbowl ad. I’d say they got a good deal out of that “advertisement”.

[waterj2]

But still no charges for the guy who did plant a hoax pipe bomb at New England Medical Center, thereby turning a mild scare about an innocent cartoon figure into a serious issue about “hoax devices”?

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@waterj2

But still no charges for the guy who did plant a hoax pipe bomb at New England Medical Center, thereby turning a mild scare about an innocent cartoon figure into a serious issue about “hoax devices”?

Hard to say either way. There’s been no follow-up in the press, anyway.

[wolf_meister]

Here’s an interesting item of news that was just released:
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/10943197/detail.html

Basically, surveillance cameras had recorded these 2 clowns going out to videotape a police investigation of one of the suspect devices.
Of course, I don’t blame them for not alerting officers as to the harmless nature of the device. After all, how can anyone be sure that it was one of their harmless “LiteBrights” and not a substitution of those dangerous, explosive “LiteBrights” that terrorists use. :rolleyes:
No doubt their lawyer will bring up this subtle point of law.

I suppose that even their videotaping the investgation will not bring them any closer of being convicted of anything.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@wolf_meister

I suppose that even their videotaping the investgation will not bring them any closer of being convicted of anything.

Maybe, maybe not, given this from the Boston Herald article:

Peter Berdovsky, 28, was photographed holding a video camera filming the police response, including the transit bomb squad cop blowing up the device at 10:21 a.m. His prankster partner Sean Stevens, 27, stood alongside him. 

[snip]

their presence at the scene appears to contradict both men’s assertion that they did not know their actions had caused chaos.
“The minute they knew that police officers were racing across the city, firefighters were racing to the scene, and bomb techs were suiting up, and they did not call 911. That - that forms intent,” one high-ranking BPD official said last night. “Their being there could provide the proof of intent prosecutors need.”
[snip]

“The pictures show they were very interested in the whole scene. They had a decent camera with a telephoto lens. They were very carefully noting everything that was going on,” said one source who had seen the images. “They did not look like average spectators. They were actually so close to the scene, they had to be pushed back when we were clearing the area.”

[lowbrass]

@EddyTeddyFreddy

Maybe, maybe not, given this from the Boston Herald article:

I question the objectivity of that article. It appears to have been written by “Michele McPhee, Boston Herald Police Bureau Chief”. I’m not really sure what that title means, but the first sentence of the article identifies the accused as “The bomb hoax bozos whose light-up devices sparked a Boston terror panic”.

I think McPhee had already made up her mind when she wrote an article on Feb. 1st titled “Punks should pay 38-fold for co$tly crime”.

Should be easy enough to clear up: If his employer can verify that he called, then obviously his story checks out. If he didn’t call, then there’s a problem with his story. The reasoning in the article is illogical:

He did not initially know that the event near his house was related to the (cartoon character) he placed there for Cartoon Network,” Pyle said. “He went home and called his employer, and they told him to sit tight.”

But their presence at the scene appears to contradict both men’s assertion that they did not know their actions had caused chaos.

He said he heard about a bomb scare and went there to film it, and that he didn’t know at first that it was because of the sign he put up. McPhee is saying that the fact that he was there at the scene proves that his explanation is false. That makes no sense. The explanation accounts for why he was there. The explanation is either true or it’s a lie, but his being at the scene does not disprove the explanation.

[lowbrass]

And even if he did know the hubbub was about the sign he placed there, it still doesn’t prove the intent in placing the sign was to incite a bomb scare.

[rayh]

@lowbrass

And even if he did know the hubbub was about the sign he placed there, it still doesn’t prove the intent in placing the sign was to incite a bomb scare.

Even if he did tell them, if he put it there 2 weeks ago anybody could have done anything to it.

What are they going to charge him with - “failure to stop us making fools of ourselves”?

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@lowbrass

I question the objectivity of that article. It appears to have been written by “Michele McPhee, Boston Herald Police Bureau Chief”. I’m not really sure what that title means, but the first sentence of the article identifies the accused as “The bomb hoax bozos whose light-up devices sparked a Boston terror panic”.

Meh, the Herald is the local tabloid rag. It goes for sensationalism and hyped-up yakety-yak. Her title’s probably just a fancy moniker for the reporter with the police beat. That link is what came first to hand; by now the story should be getting play in a lot of other, more sedate media outlets.

[El_Cid_Viscoso]

Hmm, police embeds. What will they think of next.

[wolf_meister]

A February 6, 2007 Boston Globe editorial concerning the $2,000,000 Turner settlement had this interesting fact:

The settlement leaves two would-be “artists,” Peter Berdovsky and Sean Stevens, as the public faces of the debacle. For short money, they installed the devices on bridges and other transportation infrastructure. The same devices installed in out-of-the-way nightclub districts in other cities attracted little or no attention from authorities. Public safety officials in Boston, however, didn’t have the luxury to ignore flashing devices connected to battery packs once they were discovered in sensitive areas.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2007/02/06/turners_funny_money/

So, I wonder if this fact has been brought up in previous SDMB Boston bomb hoax discussions? Or is this the Boston Globe’s desperate attempt to make Boston less of a target of ridicule for late night comedians?