Geek Girl at gunpoint at logan.

[Lightraven]

Israel, having the most experience with suicide bombers has a combination of aggression and self-sacrifice. They will attempt to stop the suspect, with hands like you would with any unarmed suspect, and control any hand held detonators. If they are reasonably sure they are dealing with a bomber, they may negotiate, if nobody (including the officers) is in immediate danger, or they may shoot if there are people in the blast radius.

With wireless command detonators, there is no assurance that killing the bomb wearer will prevent the detonation of the bomb. I imagine that within a few years, the United States Army will have the world's most experienced personnel in dealing with suicide bombers. When these people start training the Department of Homeland Security and its components, tactics, recognition and use-of-force policies will be far better than today.

 

[Samuel]

If you have to protect your own or anothers life then yes of course if necessary. But only as a last resort. Had this woman had a fit or something she could have been killed and her life is as valuable to her and her family as a LE officer's would be to him and his (or hers) family. Maybe a someone should clearly state what is allowed in the airport (ie: no flashing LED circuit boards on your person) so that someone could hand it in outside or something, because as it is not knowing is making the situation dangerous for the absent minded as well as innocent people who could get killed because security guards are looking out for the obvious and then totally panicing when they do feel threatened. Anybody with a level head should have been able to sort out this one without being a hair-trigger away from killing a person proably as innocent, dare I say it, as you. She was outside the airport when she was challenged - whose life was she threatening - was it even necessary to draw a gun?

As I alluded in another post - it's really easy to comment about LE work (and worse, spout off about how things "should have been handled") when you're not out there doing the job, without having had the training/experience of LE work, from the comfortable/safe vantage point of your recliner or office chair, and with the 20/20 benefit of hindsight, etal...

I invariably draw my weapon and take aim at "innocent" motorists several times a week, minimum. Why? Because the seemingly innocuous (to them) movements/motions they make are red flag raisers to me - not keeping their hands clearly visible, suddenly reaching for their wallet or papers, etc. Problem is, BGs make the same motions when retrieving a hidden weapon.

Things that may seem like no big deals to non-LEOs may often be big deals to us. If we don't respond quickly enough or properly or, dare I say it, forcefully enough, people may die. I aim to go home safe and sound to my family every night. Also, when it comes to the general "well-being" of the productive members of society, I would rather error on the side of safe than sorry...

 

[orionlion82]

If you have to protect your own or anothers life then yes of course if necessary. But only as a last resort. Had this woman had a fit or something she could have been killed and her life is as valuable to her and her family as a LE officer's would be to him and his (or hers) family. Maybe a someone should clearly state what is allowed in the airport (ie: no flashing LED circuit boards on your person) so that someone could hand it in outside or something, because as it is not knowing is making the situation dangerous for the absent minded as well as innocent people who could get killed because security guards are looking out for the obvious and then totally panicing when they do feel threatened. Anybody with a level head should have been able to sort out this one without being a hair-trigger away from killing a person proably as innocent, dare I say it, as you. She was outside the airport when she was challenged - whose life was she threatening - was it even necessary to draw a gun?

thats a very balenced statement.

now look here:

My girl lives in boston. she is a geek by any definition.


she wants to make really cool geeky LED halloween decorations and spread them around her neighboorhood.

i keep trying to tell her that true american patriots in boston SHOOT anyone with an LED.

- if they survive it ...they get sent to a prison camp like every good american celebrating haloween- they get to spend the rest of their lives in cuba.

i dont want my girlfriend to get shot.
i dont want to fly to cuba and try to tell a marine at the gate how its all a big mistake.




(whew)

keep up the discussion.

its a key issue for our forums {weather i disagree with you or not.}
its allso a key issue for america.

(right here - right now we are a potential pivot point. Geeks, modders and LED hounds ****along with**** a disproportionate body of law enforcement.)

right here, right now.

could there be a more informed discussion?

I would shake her hand.
just for having EITHER the stupidity *OR* the audacity to walk around in public in america with a few LED's and some play-doh and have the expectation that she was in the right.

maybe just to have the hope that you could to that in america without being in the crosshairs.

if law enforcement wants to fault her for that now - yall - the constitution is printed on their toilet paper.

WHO IS WRONG HERE?
does america end at the airport enterance?

 

[Groundhog66]

 

[orionlion82]

speak up and say it. its allright to say something.
this IS america, and we are both americans.
we can disagree and take each other on the issues.

its whats right.
step up.

 

[Samuel]

i keep trying to tell her that true american patriots in boston SHOOT anyone with an LED.[/B]

I think your tinfoil hat came loose...

 

[Groundhog66]

speak up and say it. its allright to say something.
this IS america, and we are both americans.
we can disagree and take each other on the issues.

its whats right.
step up.

If you have been paying attention to YOUR thread, you would have noticed that I HAVE been speaking up. But, enough is enough for me....

 

[dano]

I've read this whole thread, and I'm not sure what people want to believe: That the girl was naive and didn't think her actions and materials would cause some suspicion, or that the authorities involved over reacted?

How many have ever seen a real suicide bomb? Or bomber?

How many have seen the actual components to a bomb (hint: they don't all have funny blinking lights or a fancy watch or two wires connected to the clock's hands)?

How many have seen what a suicide bomb does to its surroundings?

Do you think a bomber is going to be dressed up like a Hollywood middle eastern terrorist, with dynamite strapped to his chest and yelling "Allah Akbar!"?

The second guessing, based upon stereotypes and little or no reasoning, is astounding.

The girl was walking around in the vicinity of an airport with a board, wires, battery and "play-doh." In this day and age, what should the expected response be? It wouldn't be a pat on the back and a suggestion to comply.

There isn't time to examine a device, there isn't time to place people in jeopardy. The decision to act is made on the available information, not what will be known, not based on a person's look, race, etc. The authorities acted accordingly, as they should, based upon the info.

"It's just a girl with LED's" or "It's just a kid with a back-pack" aren't relevant responses, any longer. Gone are the days when the veteran beat cop is called to a "suspicious package" and proceeds to kick it over, or dump the contents onto the sidewalk.

Suicide Bombers don't fit the Hollywood stereotype. Richard Reid, as a well known example, tried to blow up a plane with a PETN/TATP bomb in his shoes.

English and Israeli authorities pioneered the tactics to deal with a suspected suicide bomber, which I won't outline, but it's an immediate response with deadly force.

If she had blown herself up, how many, in this thread in particular, would be saying that the authorities under reacted, and didn't do their job?

 

[LuxLuthor]

My comments in large part are based upon a brief encounter from a low paid rent-a-guard sitting on a stool who is not likely as alert and knowledgeable as an armed trooper, and probably was having a Barney Fife moment after the twit walked away....or he would have immediately taken charge, and not let the twit walk anywhere.

This security dude didn't even realize what he was looking at, and I'm assuming she had the playdo in some sort of color (out of the toy can) that added to his radio alert to a real cop. We also do not know if she had the playdo in shapes of plastic explosive bricks, and then pulled it off with her hands once she realized the mistake she just made. She could not have been driving a car with hands full of playdo, so I'm guessing it was part of her sweatshirt artwork.

Everyone is also assuming you know for sure in a brief glance like this what is under her sweatshirt. The point is if someone is doing something like wearing a bomb vest, and WALKING INTO AN AIRPORT...yes I want to emphasize again for all those minimizing her being outside when arrested, that she did in fact, enter the airport....then that person is asking to be neutralized with deadly force. It is beyond careless. It is intentionally diabolical to put on such an outfit and step foot into an airport in today's environment, and she should have been shot as far as I'm concerned. If I had been nearby, I would have clapped and thanked the officers for doing a great job, as this is the America I want to live in.

Expecting a rent-a-cop to have the calm presence of mind, education, and experience be able to recognize the presentation of a genuine authentic suicide bomber vs. someone perhaps intentionally testing security vs. an ignorant twit deciding to display her artistic interpretation of a bomb and walking INSIDE of an airport....yeah, I would have had no problem if the guys with guns shot first.

None of the airport rent-a-cop TSA security characters I have seen impressed me in the least, and even VERY FEW American LEO's have the experience and training that the Israeli defense forces have. They are also allowed to violate most "civil rights" we expect in American, including racilal and socio-religious-ethnic profiling. Once more terrorist attacks have taken place in America, most of these moveon.org and huffington post liberal viewpoints will become irrelevant. It's sad that is what will be required, but it will happen.

 

[NA8]

Think that girl will get hired anytime soon ?

 

[Nyctophiliac]

Okay, okay...I have just looked at the picture of the 'artwork' flashy LED thingy and it scared me! These are not the skills of a refined 'modder' on display - it's a crude looking, thrown together, mishmash of wires,circuit board, leds, insulating tape and a PP3 battery - in the dark it might look cool, a flashing star effect will make the kids go 'OOh!' - but in an airport in the day ( Actually I have no idea if it was daytime?) it could very easily been a terrorist device of some kind.


So, I'm now supposing that she made a mistake. A mistake of naivety maybe, or maybe she wanted to achieve artistic status by the crudeness of the design versus her trained skills, but any way a BIG MISTAKE TO MAKE!

The authorities did pull guns on her, more than one. She was arrested for being suspicious. But she is alive and kicking and able to learn from this.


I suppose what galls me most about this is that it just brings home to me what a dangerous world we live in, and a little serious forethought is always sensible. When terrorism is rife, innocent people will be killed. Not always by the terrorists directly. This may not be the fault of the LEO's who pull the triggers, but on the situation as a whole. To quote Robert De Niro, ' We're all in this together!'



We're not in Kansas anymore.


Be lucky.... :grouphug:

 

[tygger]

As it is now, the worthless lawyers will try and tear apart the security officials for doing what they have been trained to do. Obviously, America needs another major terrorist attack before it begins to realize how serious these issues really are. I'm sure it is coming when I see reactions like this to our police trying to protect us.

Statistically, aren't most of us more likely to be struck by lightning than be affected by an act of terrorism? Compared to the myriad of other possible dangers we face on a daily basis, realistically, terrorism just isn't that much of a threat. Not to say we shouldn't be thinking of making our lives safer in every way possible, but it seems we've blown this way out of proportion to its actual likelihood of happening. I mean, if we were really concerned with safety it would make more sense to declare war on auto accidents wouldn't it?

 

[jtr1962]

Statistically, aren't most of us more likely to be struck by lightning than be affected by an act of terrorism? Compared to the myriad of other possible dangers we face on a daily basis, realistically, terrorism just isn't that much of a threat. Not to say we shouldn't be thinking of making our lives safer in every way possible, but it seems we've blown this way out of proportion to its actual likelihood of happening. I mean, if we were really concerned with safety it would make more sense to declare war on auto accidents wouldn't it?

Except auto accidents, or cancer deaths, or heart disease, or any of 100 things which kill far more people than terrorism don't generate sensationalist headlines. Law enforcement is unfortunately as media driven as the politicians. The politicians have their "crime of the moment". Law enforcement are just pawns stuck doing the politicians' dirty work. Next time someone complains about being unjustly treated for speeding, buying pot, or anything else don't complain about the cop doing his/her job. Rather, write to your local politicians to have any laws you feel are unjust changed or repealed. If enough people feel certain laws violate their rights or their basic freedoms, then they can vote out someone who wrote those laws. Or at least this is how I learned our system of government is supposed to work.

If we're really so worried about terrorism, we would stop sending oil money to the Middle East, perhaps maybe even make it much harder to travel into the US. So many different angles to this topic that I could go off on 100 different tangents. Let's just leave it that this girl was a complete moron for doing what she did regardless of whether she did it in 2007 or prior to 2001. Common sense dictates that you just don't do some things such as attract attention to yourself with blinking lights in a public place. I won't second guess what law enforcement did here, but I do feel those entrusted with our security should be better trained and better paid. They should also have better equipment. I'm willing to bet that airport didn't even have a state-of-the-art bomb detector. That would have instantly let security decide whether or not this person was a real threat. You can't depend upon humans to make an accurate snap judgement in a situation like that. Without the proper equipment, some innocent people will die needlessly, and some real threats will slip right by.

 

[Tubor]

As I alluded in another post - it's really easy to comment about LE work (and worse, spout off about how things "should have been handled") when you're not out there doing the job, without having had the training/experience of LE work, from the comfortable/safe vantage point of your recliner or office chair, and with the 20/20 benefit of hindsight, etal...

I invariably draw my weapon and take aim at "innocent" motorists several times a week, minimum. Why? Because the seemingly innocuous (to them) movements/motions they make are red flag raisers to me - not keeping their hands clearly visible, suddenly reaching for their wallet or papers, etc. Problem is, BGs make the same motions when retrieving a hidden weapon.

Things that may seem like no big deals to non-LEOs may often be big deals to us. If we don't respond quickly enough or properly or, dare I say it, forcefully enough, people may die. I aim to go home safe and sound to my family every night. Also, when it comes to the general "well-being" of the productive members of society, I would rather error on the side of safe than sorry...

I can see your POV but the police exist as an extension of civilians' own security not masters over life and death, even if the street-level reality might seem that way to you. Remember the police just used to be a gang once, a political gang and it's still quite easy to see the links today. I'm not advocating abolishing LE, as providing your own security would surely evolve into much the same thing, only with personal - clan/gang - loyalties. Better to have it impartial and everyone subject to the same laws governed by politically elected parties - it's an honorable ideal to strive for anyway. But there is a theoretical point where loss of freedoms/rights does justify change, you have the right to protect your own life after all.

My point is that laws should be clearly and obviously stated, especially when someone might be subjected to "deadly force". I think it may be the idea that proper training and law enforcement would allow a terrorist to devise a way past them and so it's better to not have any rules in place. But the reality is there is no way of stopping a terrorist from entering an airport and if there was, they'd be there waiting for you when you got out, so lets have some basic, clearly stated, safety rules we can all abide by. Saying "it's obvious" is just not enough.

 

[BB]

From an article several days ago:

A Massachusetts Port Authority staffer manning an information booth in the terminal became suspicious when Simpson -- wearing the device -- approached to ask about an incoming flight, Pare said. She did not respond when the employee asked her about the device she was wearing, so the employee repeated the question, police said.

Simpson then said the device was artwork and left the counter and walked around the terminal area, causing some employees to leave the building in fear, police said.

Simpson then walked outside, and the information booth attendant notified a nearby trooper.

Her action(s) and the device were apparently enough that several other employees actually left the building rather than risk being around her (assuming, that the TV station is accurate--always a big question with journalists).

Given the circumstances, it seems that the police had little other option than to investigate--and I am sure that the cops wanted to go home in one piece at the end of job too.

-Bill

PS: Apparently, there is another MIT tradition:

The Logan scare was the second MIT-related incident that has created chaos this month. On Sept. 6, a cleanup crew working the banks of the Charles River was burned when it retrieved metallic sodium. Although the exact source of the substance remains under investigation, the annual "sodium drop" is a tradition for MIT students.

 

[Samuel]

I can see your POV but the police exist as an extension of civilians' own security not masters over life and death, even if the street-level reality might seem that way to you. Remember the police just used to be a gang once, a political gang and it's still quite easy to see the links today. I'm not advocating abolishing LE, as providing your own security would surely evolve into much the same thing, only with personal - clan/gang - loyalties. Better to have it impartial and everyone subject to the same laws governed by politically elected parties - it's an honorable ideal to strive for anyway. But there is a theoretical point where loss of freedoms/rights does justify change, you have the right to protect your own life after all.

My point is that laws should be clearly and obviously stated, especially when someone might be subjected to "deadly force". I think it may be the idea that proper training and law enforcement would allow a terrorist to devise a way past them and so it's better to not have any rules in place. But the reality is there is no way of stopping a terrorist from entering an airport and if there was, they'd be there waiting for you when you got out, so lets have some basic, clearly stated, safety rules we can all abide by. Saying "it's obvious" is just not enough.

My understanding of Sir Robert Peel's place in history was that he was simply establishing a organized group of people to help enforce the laws of the land (among other things). The only difference between those people as opposed to "regular citizens" was that Sir Peel's people were hired to do that as a full time job. That is to say, ideally, Everyone should be doing (perhaps on a slightly more limited basis) what LEOs do on a daily basis. LEOs shouldn't be the only ones looking out for the best interests of society or the welfare of the community. That is not to say that non-LEOs don't - it's just that sometimes there just doesn't seem to be all that many of you either actively helping or supporting.

As far as your "masters over life and death" comment - well, it's true. It's a great responsibility we bear, even though we know that a split second decision we make in a "tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving" situation could result in life or death and/or months of second guessing by often ignorant people sometimes with anti-LE agendas and whatever fallout after that. That being said, however, "ordinary citizens" ALSO have that same responsibility or "power" - protecting yourself or someone else from serious bodily injury or death. A lot of people seem to forget that.

As far as "loss of freedom/rights" goes - well, there is a saying "good security is not convenient". Everyone has a different level of what he/she is "willing to put up with". We enjoy a lot of freedoms here in the US, pretty much more than everywhere else. Problem is that those same freedoms make it laughably easy for terrorists and other criminals to do their dirty deeds. When LE clamps down and imposes restrictions, it's for the greater good. Unfortunately, too many people don't see it that way and are unwilling to "go along with the program" (even if they have nothing to fear/hide), just because.

With regards to "clearly stated safety rules" - some "rules" are SO basic that they need not be stated. IMO, in today's society, we cater WAY TOO MUCH to the Stupid among us. Putting signs up won't help because Stupid can't or won't read and/or will ignore the message/warning anyway. Stupid is the reason why we have continued frivolous lawsuits. Stupid is the reason why we have warnings written on boxing gloves "warning: boxing is a contact sport... yada yada yada". Stupid is the reason why we have warning labels that "coffee may be hot"... Unfortunately, Darwin can't keep up with how fast Stupids are reproducing.

 

[gadget_lover]

Since the mid 1900's you have been subject to intense scrutiny if you used the words "hijack" or "bomb" in an airport. I remember seeing signs to that effect. I'm not at all surprised that she was arrested. I'm also not surprised that she was released without being charged. That's the way the system is supposed to work. She was a possible threat, she was scrutinized and is going on with her life, probably a little wiser for the experience.

In essence, the system worked.

BTW, The LEDs were attached to a prototyping board. I have several of those myself that I use when testing circuits. The board was attached to a shirt of some sort. I would have looked at her closely too.

Daniel

 

[Empath]

I'm also not surprised that she was released without being charged.

The last I knew, she was charged and was out on bail.

The more relevant matter, rather than the blinking LEDs on her sweatshirt, is the question of the Play-Doh. What was the purpose with the Play-Doh, and what was she doing with it. That's the information that doesn't seem to be properly addressed in the media.

 

[James S]

but but! We've all seen bombs on TV, they ALWAYS have flashing lights and wires and big countdown LED's (that always stop at 001 when the good guy cuts the blue wire... or is it the red wire... I always forget)

They said she followed directions and that is why she is alive. So... why then didn't the conversation just go, excuse me maam, you can't wear that through the terminal and I'm going to have to swipe you for explosives over here please."

Obviously the guy who confronted her thought there was an immediate threat, like she was going to slap that wad of plastique to his forehead and blow them all up right then and there.

We all know that in spite of the fact that the security dudes say they are catching more people through behavior observation than through bag scanning, we all know that they are mostly minimum wage lackeys who's other choice for summer job involved the hope of being promoted to fry cook. Remarkably poor judgement all around.

 

[Phredd]

An to anyone who feels that our Country does not give us enough freedom, your desired freedom is just an airfare away.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but I can't disagree more strongly with your statement here. We can all disagree and speak our mind and still have a right to live here.