Should responding to a bomb threat be illegal by federal law?

[Little_Nemo]

@Velocity

I think bomb threats should still lead to evacuations, but the bomb-hoaxers should be required to pay absolutely immense fines and financial compensation, and other penalties as well. Perhaps 100 hours of community service for every person that was evacuated.

If a bomb-threat-hoax causes 1,000 people to be evacuated, and the person making the bomb threat is required to perform 100,000 hours of community service as a penalty, that would sure be a deterrent.

I think you’re being way too lenient. Calling in a bomb threat is a felony in most places and I think it should remain so. A person who calls in a fake bomb threat should be facing imprisonment not fines and community service.

[Melbourne]

When Britain finally entered WWII, one of the things they did was enforce a “blackout”, turning off all street lights, covering windows, driving with the headlights turned off.

Was rigorously enforced, caused lots of deaths, and even more injuries. They did eventually relax some of the rules. Almost totally meaningless: had no effect on anything at all. But, and this was the main thing, everybody believed it was important. What can you do about mass beliefs like that?

[Count_Blucher]

@Stringbean

Kids become screaming, irrational loons, much as grown adults do when a bomb threat is made.

Adults as screaming irrational loons? Going “FOX News” would be a better metaphor.

@Stringbean

Because it disrupts the activity of hundreds, if not thousands, of people.

Well, two things. One, safety first. Two, because the people making this ridiculous case don’t have to knock on doors & break the news that someone is dead.
The minute one of these hands on hip geniuses gets dragged by their lapels to one of those doors & Forced to do that?

Then we’ll think about it.

[Dr.Drake]

@Habeed

The actual live bombings where a threat was made in advance, in the United States, in the last decade? Zero. The actual bombings where a useful threat was made in advance in all of human history? Probably a very small number.

Making a threat defeats the whole purpose of committing a bombing. And committing an actual bombing obviates the need for a threat.

So no, it’s not at all comparable to a fire alarm. It’s more like a sensor that always goes off when it’s a false alarm, and almost never goes off when it’s the real thing.

This is actually a reasonable argument for changing how we respond to bomb threats. The current policy of “panicky overreaction” is not, overall, very helpful. Ignoring them with a dismissive “yeah, whatevs, the science test is still happening in fourth period” is probably better. But then the callers will just go back to setting off the fire alarms, which are not so sensible to ignore, so no substantive change will have occurred.

The suggestions in the OP take it a little far, though in his defense we have lots of pointless and unenforceable laws.

[steronz]

@Lord_Feldon

Evaluating the response to bomb threats to see what actions make sense in light of the actual risk isn’t a terrible idea. That is not what you proposed, though.

Criminalizing evacuations after bomb threats is insane and stupid. That is what you proposed, and it is genuinely one of the stupidest ideas I have ever seen put in print.

There’s a certain logic to criminalizing evacuations, though. See, if a school gets a bomb threat on the day of the big test, the superintendent can be 99.999% sure that it’s bogus, and arguably the correct course of action would be to ignore it completely. But if parents caught wind that there was a bomb threat and their precious children weren’t evacuated, there’d be lawsuits for decades. The superintendent’s hands are tied. However, if there was a law tying her hands in the other direction, that would shield her from the parental outrage. “I would have evacuated the school, I really would, but, you know… federal law and all that.”

Unfortunately there’s two problems with this. One, it would only take one real bomb for the parental outrage to overwhelm the law. “You should have ignored the law and evacuated anyway, you coward!” And two, the law would have to be written by humans, and elected humans at that, who would then bear the brunt of that same parental outrage.

No, the idea proposed by the OP will only work when we’re enslaved by robot overlords.

[DiggitCamara]

@Stringbean

He said later in the thread:

“The actual live bombings where a threat was made in advance, in the United States, in the last decade? Zero.”

If that is so, doesn’t it seem rather odd that we flip our shit like kids in a candy store over an essentially negligible threat?

You don’t need an “actual live bombing”. What if there was a bomb found even though it didn’t explode?