Fine. I readily acknowledge that airports, and not just airplanes, have been targeted by terrorists, kooks, and publicity seekers.
I initially highlit that portion of your post, because ISTM that folks invoke “airports” a close second to the mantra “9/11” in their efforts to create/maintain our current culture of fear.
That in no way changes the main thrust of my posts, which is that the reaction in this case was excessive, unreasonable, and to me undesireable.
You apparently think the potential threat from this woman was high because she was at an airport, wearing something out of the ordinary, and was not readily responsive to inquiries from an airport employee. Am I missing something?
I think it was relatively low because she was outside of the building, not carrying luggage, and had not been observed trying to get into any restricted areas or trying to get anyone or anything on a plane. In my view, an unburdened person outside of an airport terminal, who has not been observed trying to get anything on a plane, is pretty low on the list of threats. I never suggested that she ought not have been questioned. What I questioned was whether it needed to be done with machine guns drawn, whether she deserved prosecution, and whether the official response “She’s lucky she did not get shot” was desireable.
Of course, I have long thought it silly that folks joking about bombs or guns at airport security are treated so severely. I’ve got no problem being in the minority on that.
But never mind any of that. Feel free to continue limiting your input to expressing your dismay at my ridiculous comparisons of airports to my living room.
Although we still disagree, thank you for the consideration you gave to what I posted. I didn’t mean to be unpleasant, but I was frustrated, and I hope you’ll at least think that I give your points as full consideration as you gave mine.
The only element I think you didn’t include is that risk equals chance times consequences. I think it was reasonable to have suspicion of this woman carrying a homemade bomb – the electronics, refusing to answer a very simple question from the information booth attendant, the odd slogan on her sweatshirt. She was acting like a nut, and some people fled for their lives because they, too, thought she had a bomb.
Now, I’ll say that the chance of her having a bomb was pretty low, but the consequences if she did have a bomb could be very high. The police responding to the call were, in that respect, well-founded in concern for their lives. I think they had every right to draw their guns on her until they were satisfied that she wasn’t a threat.
If a cop responds to someone reported to have a pistol, I don’t think that cops should have to first ask nicely whether she has a gun before taking steps to protect themselves from the chance that she did. That goes even more so with fear of her having a bomb.
In any case, yes, I think she certainly does deserve prosecution. Whether intentionally or through sheer and unbelievable ignorance, her acts constituted shouting “fire” in a crowded theater.
What exactly are they going to prosecute her for? I’d suspect that the charge of a hoax would require proving intent - which obviously does not exist. Having been at MIT for a year, and in Course VI, I doubt she’d consider a circuit board and odd and outlandish thing to have. Especially a circuit board that looks nothing like a bomb, and was not even concealed. I’d hope that police and security would be trained well enough to recognize what a bomb would look like, and maybe that the average bomber does not wear the electronics on the outside and goes and asks questions of airport personnel.
Pre-911, I got stopped at X-Ray because I had packed a Polaroid camera and slippers in my carry-on, which looked exactly like sticks of dynamite and a timer. I know because they showed me. I said, wow, you’re right, opened it up, and showed them what was in there. Now, do you think they were remiss for not pointing a gun at me and arresting me for a hoax? This girl wasn’t even trying to get on a plane with the board.
This is obviously nothing like yelling fire in a theater - there was zero intent.
Her only ignorance, as far as I can tell, comes from the fact that after being at MIT for a year she has forgotten what total morons there are in the outside world. I’m not aware that there is a requirement that you only do things that the most paranoid and ignorant of the population can’t misinterpret. Harrison Bergeron, anyone?
Disclosure. I’m an MIT grad, who first read this story assuming it was some sort of hack gone wrong. But it isn’t even that.
I think there’s the possibility that she was simply acting like a moron, but I’m not convinced of that. I can’t figure out why she wouldn’t answer the question or why she was playing with the play-dough. As far as I’m concerned, those are issues of fact for a jury.
Seeing as how the bag was not in your immediate control, but was in the hands of an airport screener, makes that a much different situation from one in which a woman is believed to have a bomb strapped to her person.
In your case, I think pointing a gun at you would be excessive, since you didn’t have the devices under your control, the risk to everyone was considerably less. Had you snatched the bag from the screener, that would be different. And a Polaroid and slippers in a bag are completely reasonable things for airport travelers. Evasive people with electronics strapped to their chest and carrying something resembling plastic explosives is not something that you’d expect or should reasonably see at an airport.
Intent is not a resolved issue as far as I can tell. At the very least I think she was extremely negligent, which caused a panic. Whether there’s a criminal penalty for that, I don’t know, if there is, it should be applied.
The girl is an idiot if she didn’t know better that to wear that to an airport. Which I suspect she did - and wore it to “make a statement” or something. Which still makes her an idiot. Also, that piece of shit barely qualifies as art - is it that unbelievable that people thought it was a device? The response of airport security was neither unreasonable nor excessive, in my opinion.
However, there is no law (unfortunately) against being a fucking moron (and an ugly one at that). If they prosecute her, they better have a damn good reason or else it is just wasting tax dollars and court time on a throwaway case. She didn’t make threats. She didn’t attempt to board a plane. She didn’t resist arrest. She should walk. Hopefully she learned her lesson. And other who do the same as she did should EXPECT the same treatment.