But he did not commit a crime with weapons in your example. So your 'if/then' hypothosis is false from the start.
So next time you get pulled over for speeding, maybe the cop should assume you are guilty of more serious crimes. "I shot you because you could have been hiding a mass murderer in your trunk."
No, but he didn't, so what's the point?
You have NO way of knowing that he didn't -- that IS the point.
The point was that the security folks don't know why someone runs past them. They have to figure that it had to be illegal because NOBODY is stupid enough to do this without a really good reason. For all they knew he had a gun or a bomb. He could have passed it on to someone else already in the terminal or hid it in a rest room and picked it up later.
If they hadn't reacted the way they did then why even have security? Just let the folks who want to go through the security screening and those that don't can run around it without any reaction.
But he did not commit a crime with weapons in your example.
No, that's not true. He then would have committed the felony of having weapons in a secure zone, in addition to his other crimes, in that hypothetical case.
My point was that he committed a serious crime, and that it really shouldn't be seen as "innocent" because such an action as running past security could have caused awful consequences for other people. If hundreds of other people ran past security to "save time," and some weren't caught, would you feel the same about such a security breach?
He inconvenienced thousands of people for his own selfish gain. Hundreds or thousands of people will have missed flight connections and may even have had trouble rescheduling their flights, and may have missed important events. Airlines and businesses lost money. It's not so innocent.
If other people decide to copy his example, airport security will be even more overburdened and air travel will become impossibly difficult. He deserves far more punishment than a $1000 fine.