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 ...
Please do a thorough search around your house for your brain, reinsert it in your skull and start to engage it.
One silly reason has to do with who is qualified to be an expert witness in a court of law, which is where, under the US Constitution all of this get to be tried.
Q. Please explain your expertise in high explosives, bombs and/or improvised explosive devices?
A. I have none.
Your honor, I move that this witness be dismissed as unqualified to testify on the subject.
This covers many possiblities. All of these objects have been used to conceal explosives. Therefore, we can argue that anyone of these items is subject to suspicion for carrying a real bomb, if it is a bomb, or a hoax bomb if it isn't a bomb.
That is why we get to this intent to create alarm issue, which you have to prove, so that we can sort out who is guilty of a hoax, and who just bought a consumer electronic item and carried it around with him.
It might help your case if you, too, engaged your brain and used it to reason your way through the problem.
Right now, the line of argumentation you are on is that we need to shoot all 19 year old college girls, if they act suspiciously, because that is the only way we will keep ourselves all from getting blown up, even though we have gone many many years without an american college girl from hawaii of blowing up anyone.
Most of us sort of make rough guesses as to odds and when they get down to the 1 in 1 billion per year level, or so, we move on and imagine that something else will get us like the slippery spot on the airport floor from a spilled coke that we didn't notice because of our paranoia about 19 year old american girls carrying bombs.
actually, they swipe it for explosive compounds, and when the machine shows there are none, airport security pretty much uniformly assume that it is not a bomb, explosives being the sine qua non of the bomb making business (google it and you will find it explained in great detail).
I think we are channeling the Salem witch trials. It is the only explanation.
You think you have right to be intellectually sloppy and jump to a conclusion without using your god-given brain.
Quit judging everyone by yourself.
Almost every single one of your posts has clearly and loudly demonstrated that you fit that very description COMPLETELY AND PRECISELY TO THE LAST LETTER.
You aren't impressing a soul with your show off make-believe expertise, and super-duper intellect. On the contrary, you come on like a petulant child who has been denied his lollipop.
Also, I find it hard to I find it all but impossible to believe that you served all those years in the military that you claim, because if you acted there like you do here, someone would surely have broken your face, neck and several other parts of you anatomy and taught you better manners.
So, why the hell don't you just shut the hell up, you pompous ass, climb down off your high horse, and try acting like a grown up human being for once?
Now you're a lawyer. ***Har dee har har har***
Now you're a lawyer. ***Har dee har har har***
That still doesn't cover all possibilities, does it? So it doesn't answer completely the question -- dhat does a bomb look like, does it? That is why we get to this intent to create alarm issue, which you have to prove, so that we can sort out who is guilty of a hoax, and who just bought a consumer electronic item and carried it around with him.
And you, of course, are an expert on that, too? It might help your case if you, too, engaged your brain and used it to reason your way through the problem.
Can the smartass remarks, snotnose, you don't come on like any damned Einstein yourself. And you haven't even begun to make an intelligent case as to your contentions that you are smarter than the people on this board who oppose your asinine ravings. If fact, so far you have only succeeded in showing yourself as being able to dodge the simplest question with nasty invective. Right now, the line of argumentation you are on is that we need to shoot all 19 year old college girls, if they act suspiciously, because that is the only way we will keep ourselves all from getting blown up, even though we have gone many many years without an american college girl from hawaii of blowing up anyone.
That is a filthy lie, and you know it.
Most of us sort of make rough guesses as to odds and when they get down to the 1 in 1 billion per year level, or so, we move on and imagine that something else will get us like the slippery spot on the airport floor from a spilled coke that we didn't notice because of our paranoia about 19 year old american girls carrying bombs. On September 10th I wonder what the odds were that the World Trade Center would be a pile of smoking rubble and the Pentagon would have a big hole in it on September 11th.
It is funny that technicians and technical representative travel around all of the time with briefcases filled with all kinds of electronic parts and equipment. Normally, the airport will swipe it for explosives and then send them on their way.
Not funny at all - except maybe to the uneducated. The Lockerbie bombing used a sophisticated devise. Most terrorist bombs are not supplied by high level security services. Most are of the home-made variety - including the popular suicide vest. If the initial security scan shows professional style electronics and the swipe for explosives show it clean (not having come in contact with lawn fertilizer for example) of course it will be passed.
I sure got your goat.
I sure got your goat. No you didn't, bubblehead. You got corrected on your atrocious manners and an honest opinion of what a arrogant, pompous, egotistical jackass you are.
But then, it is quite predictable that you should think you are important enough for someone to get upset over. You can forget that, punk -- the last person you were important to was probably your mother -- maybe.
What a persuasive arugment based on facts and airtight logic to support your position.
What a persuasive arugment based on facts and airtight logic to support your position.
The facts were there and lead quit logically to my opinion. One has only to read your asinine posts, demonstrating your atrocious manners containing lies and laughably false assumptions, to come to teh same obvious a conclusion -- that you are a lowlife, childish ill-tempered clod.
What a persuasive arugment based on facts and airtight logic to support your position.
The facts were there and lead quit logically to my opinion. One has only to read your asinine posts, demonstrating your atrocious manners containing lies and laughably false assumptions, to come to teh same obvious a conclusion -- that you are a lowlife, childish ill-tempered clod.
My factual premises:
1.We have a constitution that presumes innocence until proven guilty.
2. The law in question requires demonstration of intent for the "device" to be considered a "hoax"
3. A bomb consists of 4 parts: a source of energy; a switch; a detonator; and explosives. [Anyone with the skills to post on FR can look this up on the internet. Even you]
4. The woman is an MIT student who understand how to wire things up, find and post things on the internet.
5. Various people on this forum have suggested that this woman should have been shot on sight, with questions asked later. <6.>This woman has been charged with a hoax bomb because of the "device" that had flashing lights in a star shape. <7.>The issue of modeling clay is irrelevant and perhaps untrue, since the police, according to reports, did not mention it in their charge sheets.
My conclusions:
1. It is quite evident from the picture that there is nothing that represents either the detonator or the explosive.
2. Therefore the "device" in no way resembles a bomb.
3. The woman could have looked up on the internet what a bomb looked like and had the technical skills to make something that looked like a bomb.
4. Therefore she did not intend the thing to look like a bomb.
5. Therefore, there was no hoax (intent being required).
6. Furthermore, at no time did she act in a manner to intentionally threaten anyone (make demands, scream threats, act violent).
7. Again therefore, there is no evidence of intent.
8. Under various laws, statutes, and professional ethics, DA's do not charge and prosecute folks without a reasonable belief that they can establish the facts sufficient to convince a jury to find a person guilty.
9. The DA in this case has already admitted that it will be difficult to convince a jury of 12 to convict.
10. Therefore, the DA's conduct is frivolous.
11. Because it is unconstitutional to shoot people on sight, those who advocate the same are immoral tyrants.
12. Since the police don't in their court filings mention the modeling clay, it is either untrue, irrelevant, or in fact further embarassing to the position of the police. In any event, we were not their and must ignore this in concluding the proper disposition of this case.
You can list your facts in 1,2,3, 4 order and your arguments similarly like I did. Then we can all follow your genius in arguing that this girl is a mock terrorist.
laughably false assumptions
That seems to bother you -- you question it. Well here it is, liar: Right now, the line of argumentation you are on is that we need to shoot all 19 year old college girls, if they act suspiciously, because that is the only way we will keep ourselves all from getting blown up, even though we have gone many many years without an american college girl from hawaii of blowing up anyone.
I never said, nor even hinted at any such thing, and your saying so is a damned lie.
You can list your facts in 1,2,3, 4 order and your arguments similarly like I did. Then we can all follow your genius in arguing that this girl is a mock terrorist.
And I never argued, nor hinted, at any such a thing as that , either: so, again, you lie.
So much for your credibility.
Suggestion: try getting your facts about the cast of characters in a debate, and you might not be caught in such childish lies.
Many here have. I denounced them for it. Instead of also denouncing them, you denounce me.
If you don't agree with shooting 19 year old girls on sight, then please, so we can all hear it, denounce all who would call for such an action as the immoral and unconstitutional cretins that they are.
Then we can move forward with addressing any substantive disagreements you and I may have.
If I were you I would never ever presume that there is some subject on which someone of FR does not know an awful lot more than you.
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.