Posted on 05/12/2007 4:05:15 AM PDT by gridlock
Prosecutors said they would not pursue charges against two men who planted electronic devices around the city as part of a botched advertising campaign after the pair apologized Friday for causing a bomb scare.
Peter Berdovsky, 27, and Sean Stevens, 28, also performed community service at a rehabilitation center in a deal with prosecutors.
In contrast to their first court appearance in January, when they mugged for the camera and waved to friends in the courtroom, the men offered contrite apologies and said they never expected the stunt to cause any turmoil.
"I deeply regret that this incident caused such anguish and disruption to so many people," Berdovsky told the Charlestown District Court.
Stevens said he saw the devices simply as "harmless entertainment."
"I had no intention of upsetting or alarming anyone," he said.
The two were accused of planting about three dozen battery-powered devices in Boston and Cambridge on Jan. 31. The devices, a promotion for Cartoon Network, had lights that created images of a cartoon character making an obscene gesture.
Fears of terrorism arose when the devices were discovered in a subway station and on a bridge, among other locations. Bomb squads were deployed, and highways, bridges and some transit stations were temporarily closed.
Similar signs were placed in nine other cities around the United States, but only in Boston did they elicit such a response.
Berdovsky and Stevens were charged with placing a hoax device and disorderly conduct.
Attorney General Martha Coakley said it would have been difficult to prove to a jury that the men intended to create panic, and that she did not believe they realized the problems the ads would cause.
"We believe this was an appropriate and fair resolution," Coakley said.
Berdovsky said he was relieved the case was resolved without a trial.
"I am looking forward to what the future has to bring. I'm just going to be working really hard and working on my art and working to build a really peaceful community for all of us to live in," Berdovsky told The Associated Press by telephone after the hearing.
Berdovsky performed 80 hours of service and Stevens completed 60 hours at the Spaulding Rehabilitation Center in Boston.
The men designed a cartoon mural that will be painted in a waiting area for children undergoing physical therapy, said Oz Mondejar, Spaulding's vice president of human resources. They also helped patients use computers, cleaned the hospital's sailing docks and helped produce a DVD featuring patients talking about their rehabilitation successes.
Turner Broadcasting and the advertising agency that carried out the campaign, Interference Inc., agreed to pay a $2 million settlement to cover costs and restitution for the law enforcement response. The head of the Cartoon Network resigned nine days after the stunt.
Another botched joke from Boston.
The AG wimps out.
Frankly, I am surprised. With the amount of chest-beating coming from the Mayor at the time, I thought this one would go to trial.
The Mayor deserves ridicule, today, for failing to deliver on his threats.
The morons were the authorities in Boston who overreacted, while several other cities did not.
The devices [... ] had lights that created images of a cartoon character making an obscene gesture.
Even putting aside the terrorism angle, why would anybody think that's a good idea?
I was kind of hoping the punishment would include a haircut or two.
Just another indication that when government employees are made to look like the idiots they are, it's now a homeland security crime.
Reference ping...
Great point, on that last.
Well, I am not going to be drawn into that conversation again. Suffice it to say that we disagree on that one. Remember, sombody did call in a bomb threat. I, myself, want the police to respond to bomb threats.
Your milage may vary.
There is a difference to “respond” and “lock down the city”.
It is good to report suspicious things and a good thing that authorities respond but the local authorities overreacted in this case IMNSHO.
Geez. Why didn't they just have them take Cindy to the movies?
As it turns out, the overreacted. There was no actual threat, so any reaction would be an overreaction.
Of course, that would mean that 99.9% of everything the police do is “overreaction”.
The Eighth Amendment bars cruel and unusual punishment...
We're being attacked by martians !!
Mulder! Scully ! Get in here !!!!
Can I ask if you are choosing the right words here?
To "call in a bomb threat" means to call the police (or anyone else) and say "There is a bomb set to go off in location XXXX" - by implication the caller is the bomber or an associate of the bomber.
However, when someone calls the police and says in effect "There is a thing within my field of vision that I don't recognize and I'm afraid it might be a bomb" this is not a "bomb threat" and rightly should be treated as a lower risk, unless we need to assume that everything any random citizen might not recognize is in fact a bomb.
I'm sure the latter phone call took place in Boston, not so sure about the former.
So - the Prosecurors get their costs for persecuting cartoonists who planted flashing light equipped boxes which was part of some vage message about a putatively vaguely obscene gesture?
May G*d rot all lawyers.
Hmmn - on second thought, maybe He already has. Or at least their brains.
I know, I know. The Police in Boston are tragically un-cool and unaware of the latest trends in children’s television programming. They should probably have a mandatory 40 hour annual refresher training course in marginal stoner culture, just so they don’t go out and make fools of themselves.
IIRC there was a simultaneous bomb threat, involving conventional pipe bombs. It was in responding to that threat that the unbelievably hip and trendily cool ATHF thingamajiggies got involved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.