Although your link works, her name is not on the roster page from last season (one article says that she was a swimmer “in 2006”).
Also, it’s interesting that this article contains the following quote:
Why the “(sic)”? Villains is spelled correctly. Or is the point the irony of a planet-saver being arrested?
Bomb squad members, sure, or someone higher up, but I would guess the average beat cop goes an entire career with seeing a bomb, fake or real, and if you’re not exposed to something, I don’t see how they can learn distinguishing characteristics. And what about the possibility of a real bomb made to look fake? Granted, if in this incident the thing was cartoonishly fake, then I agree that cops should be have been able to tell, and part of being a good cop is being able to distinguish a threat from a non-threat, but I don’t see them as having enough training with bombs, specifically, to do so, unless my understanding of how common this type thing is off. But I agree, they should have someone who can show up and assess the severity of a bomb scare.
My comments were mainly that the first cops to show up and pulled guns should not be thought of as overreacting, until the situation could be assessed.
The sic probably wasn’t for “villains” it was probably more for “saving the planet from evil villains” which is an unsubstantialted calim… Maybe? Can you use “sic” that way?
That or when the article was piblished some spell-checking software ignored the “sic” and just corrected a typo.
I travel a lot. I see people walk into airports all the time with objects that are far more threatening than what this young woman had on her sweatshirt.
A thick hard-bound book is a greater security threat than a breadboard with a battery and a few LEDS.
The fact that the people charged with insuring the safety of our airports seem unaware of what constitutes a real security threat fills me with a profound sense of depression.
Admittedly I haven’t seen the “bomb”, only read reports, so if it is that cartoonish, then I could be wrong.
That’s just what was on the outside - I’m betting they couldn’t tell if there was anything else underneath. Plus - I’ve missed if there were any updates on this - if she was carrying plastique-appearing playdoh in her hands, that could really worry someone who just had moments to look her over.
Richard Reid was trying to light a match near his shoe, for heaven’s sake. I’m not going to blame airport personnel who didn’t want to be the one who ignored the person with a suspicious-looking device. The charges do sound extreme, however, unless they do legitimately determine that she was trying to pull a hoax/“art stunt” of some kind.
Here, judge for yourself. A breadboard, a couple of wires, greed LEDs, a few resistors, some scotch tape. And she didn’t even try to walk through the security checkpoint.
A real terrorist could walk in Logan tomorrow pulling a rollerboard with enough explosives in it to kill several hundred people. That’s a real threat, not this Mickey Mouse crap.
Which is true of anyone wearing a jacket.
Extreme responses to unusual objects or attire is not good security. A real attack will probably come from someone trying as hard as possible to not stand out – as it did on 9-11. So security procedures should be designed around discovering covert threats, not going ballistic over anomalies.
It’s reasonable that a person wearing an odd bit of clothing should be given some extra attention. But the authorities should have procedures in place to escalate their suspicions rationally, not immediately jump from lax to lethal.
I once sat next to a man on a plane who had a nice big bible with a sticker (probably from a DVD box) on it that said “SECURITY DEVICE! DO NOT REMOVE!”
Maybe you guys don’t remember the silly college student last April at VTech? Are you guys really going to give this nitwit a pass? She could have gotten other innocent people hurt if she had resisted arrest. Honestly, who goes to the airport with playdoh and wires? This was a deliberate hoax, and she needs jail time.
Yes, but she didn’t have to be a terrorist. She could have been crazy, and crazy doesn’t necessarily mean covert but can still be a threat. That’s like the people who bitch that they’re white and Christian, and their baby is being searched in the security line - well hell, security isn’t just there to catch evil Muslim bombers, they’re also looking for white Christian bombers, smugglers, and for idiots who bring something on the plane that might freak other people the fuck out and/or cause problems unintentionally.
I repeat: They’re professionals, and it’s supposed to be their fucking job to learn the distinguishing characteristics of threat vs non-threat.
Also, see my story earlier in the thread: They couldn’t even read a goddamn boarding pass and see it didn’t match up with someone’s available identification.
If the terrorists really wanted to hurt us, none of this bullshit security theater would have any preventive effect at all.* I’m reasonably certain that the only reason we haven’t been attacked is that our Idiot In Chief is doing exactly what the Islamists want him to do, stumbling around the world stage alienating ordinary people and breaking shit. The instant we pull back from that is the instant we get hit again to bait us back into lunacy.
*Standing in the security line at the airport on Saturday, which loops back and forth and creates a huge multi-tiered crowd, I reflected that a backpack bomb could easily be carried up to right before the checkpoint is reached, and kill several hundred people.
Actually, what concerns me most is the police statement that she’s lucky to be alive. Y’know, since she cooperated with the police, I think it’s incumbent upon them that she remain alive. She wasn’t “lucky,” she was cooperative. The default should not be “kill people who cooperate.”
Totally agree. That tool sounds like Judge Dredd.
But she didn’t resist arrest - she cooperated.
I can understand why security might want to take a look at the device, since it’s pretty unusual. But having determined that it was not a bomb or any other kind of threat, the correct response would be to say to her: “OK, thanks for cooperating. We’d appreciate it if you didn’t wear these things in the airport. Off you go!”
Nothing I have read about this suggests a deliberate hoax - just a lack of thought on the part of the student.
I admire the balls she’s got, but then have to slap and shake my head at just how dumb the woman was to try to pull something like this. But then again, there’s something to be said about skating on thin damn ice, and I applaud those that realize the fine line they do, and do it anyway. . .
. . . I just slap my head at those that don’t realize how thin the ice is, but start skating. It’s a difference between “brave” and “idiotic”.
Anyway, after this, I think I’m going to move to Britain:
. . . 'cause here in the States, we’ve only got MP5 officers. I hear that in Britain, they’ve got them advanced MI6 types. I sure as hell don’t know what an MI-6 looks like, but I’m scared already!
Tripler
Hell, I’ve only got an M-4 at work. :smack:
I agree, any cop should be able to tell in two seconds that that’s not a threat, especially when worn by a daft American coed.
I disagree.
I veteran cop would, but would probably snap to a decision to make an example of the perpetrator. A rookie cop would be confused and think he/she caught bin Laden himself.
Tripler
I base this on our own CE troops.
Somebody who wears a fake bomb to the airport is obviously not looking to hurt anyone, she was obviously not a threat. That doesn’t mean something like that couldn’t cause a huge amount of panic, thats why yelling fire in a theater is illegal.
It’s not a fake bomb. She’s an MIT nerd and she made a jacket with blinky lights on it.