It's a light bright board with her name "Star" in it. Wow, I feel much safer. Drop the charges and try and find some real terrorist.
Posted on 09/22/2007 6:37:50 AM PDT by Turret Gunner A20
http://home.peoplepc.com/psp/newsstory.asp?cat=TopStories&referrer=welcome&id=20070922/46f49340_3ca6_1552620070922-1497302150
Lawyer: Fake Bomb Charge an Overreaction
BOSTON - The MIT student who walked into Logan International Airport wearing a computer circuit board and wiring on her sweat shirt claimed it was harmless artwork. But to troopers who arrested her at gunpoint, it was a fake bomb.
Nineteen-year-old Star Simpson was charged Friday with possessing a hoax device. Her attorney described the charge as offbase and "almost paranoid," arguing at a court hearing that she did not act in a suspicious manner and had told an airport worker that the device was art.
(Excerpt) Read more at home.peoplepc.com ...
“First, it doesn’t remotely resemble a bomb.”
Yes, it resembled a bomb. A circuit board with wires and a battery, combined with a hand full of fake plastique. That resembles a bomb.
What about a shoe-bomb? Does that remotely resemble a bomb? I mean, there’s no flashing lights or anything, but how is that more ridiculous than a circuit board with flashing lights, combined with a hand full of play-doh?
Oh, and let’s not forget, it was attached to her hoodie, in the fashion of a vest-bomb.
Just because only a fool would display such a bomb, if real, doesn’t mean a darn thing.
Only a fool would use one in the first place.
She would probably applaud you for it. A better analogy would be to ask how she would react if you were to hang three nooses from a tree in front of a high school in Jena, LA. Hey, it's nothing but 'art' right?
She is not guilty.
“Simpson, 19, of Lahaina, Hawaii, has expertise in electronics and even received a Congressional citation for her work in robotics, according to her lawyer.”
“it’s disturbing how many posters on this board are completely certain what to make of every new event, regardless of whether any actual facts are available.”
Agreed. Poor kid.
“with either play-doh or plastique on the back of this hoodie.”
It was silly putty and she was holding it. Basically this ends up being charging someone for looking suspicious. That’s real cool.
ok she lives in boston and was going to the airport to pick up a friend. it is not like she put that sweatshirt on to travel a long distance to an airport to actually travel on a plane.
who knows where she had spent her day before she went to the airport. who knows what sort of geek fests MIT has where such ‘art’ would be considered cool.
to top it off the lights are in the shape of a star and her name is star. I really would like to believe it was an innocent mistake on her part. maybe SLIGHTLY courting controversy but i dont think she designed the whole thing just to shake up an airport.
the police were right to question her but shooting her on sight in the end would have been completely stupid. she was not even making verbal threats OR getting on a plane
It's a light bright board with her name "Star" in it. Wow, I feel much safer. Drop the charges and try and find some real terrorist.
Well, funny thing, since you apparently don't deal much with folks who are trained to deal with bomb threats or any other security issues for real, because what the professionals are trained to do is secure the area and then attempt to evaluate the threat (meaning attempt to identify and characterize the bomb). Getting a bomb dog is not a big hassle since airports have them to sniff bombs (funny thing that, huh?) A bomb dog is real useful, since it can tell whether or not there really is a bomb, and it is not a human, some claim, so some folks here value its life as less important than that of people (I won't debate this point here, however tempting).
In fact, the last thing that competent personnel do is shoot. It may come to that, but weapons are immediately taken away, evidence seized, personnel put on administrative leave, heavy duty investigators take over, and the lawyers break out the champagne and cry yeehaa.
Once you know that it isn't a bomb, then you can handle it as a normal law enforcement issue - including deciding that after all it isn't a law enforcement issue. I know that it is hard for folks here to accept this point, but it is really ok for security folks and LEOs to have a suspicion, investigate, and reach the conclusion that there is nothing to it. I know it seems like a useless waste of professional time when it doesn't minimally result in charges and a fine or a small jail sentence, but life is tough all over.
I think it is worse. It is charging someone because you became suspicious and ended up looking foolish.
You surely noticed that the picture is in the campus newspaper? Doesn't seem like that big a deal.
And she is guilty because everyone is doing it? Can we stick to this case, and try the next case on a separate thread?
Yes. In a recent article about her airport arrest, the campus paper said that she used to work for them.
A circuit board with wires and a battery and what you take to be a facsimile of an explosive includes a radio, a camera, a personal computer, an ipod, a cell phone, a pacemaker, a pc battery life extender, a cellphone fast recharger (which actually has scary energetic materials in it), an electric razor, and those flashy wheeley running shoes that kids where. All of these resemble bombs in certain aspects, except for one vital component. None of the real things have actual high explosives, nor did this woman's LED flasher assembly.
Now if you are logically consistent you will advocate that anyone who has any of these should be shot first, and questioned later. Me, given the scarcity of bombs actually going off in our various facilities, I think we can afford the risk of stopping and investigating. It seems to have little actual security consequence, saves some innocent lives and does a whole lot less collateral damage to the constitution.
She is definitely guilty of either gross stupidiy or an abnormal need for attention.
“Worked for the paper” seems to be a better reason than “drawn to crisis” for the fact that she took that picture....
Real or Memorex?
Having now seen the "bomb" ... seems to me she was thinking "geeky, edgy, cute, and funny" fashion accessory.
So I'd call her guilty of being a goofball 19 y.o. engineering student who didn't fully think through her fashion accessory.
I'm voting for attention deficit disorder.
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.