Just because they attend MIT doesn't mean they are smart

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moonbear
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mean Mit
Click For Summary
A 19-year-old MIT student was arrested at Boston's Logan International Airport after wearing a device that authorities initially perceived as a bomb. The device, which included a circuit board and Play-Doh, led to her being charged with possession of a hoax device. The discussion highlights the lack of judgment displayed by the student, as her attire could easily raise suspicion in an airport environment, particularly post-9/11. Participants debated the appropriateness of the security response, with some arguing that the authorities acted correctly given the potential threat, while others criticized the overreaction and questioned the necessity of deadly force in such situations. The incident sparked broader conversations about personal freedoms, public safety, and the implications of wearable technology in sensitive areas like airports. The consensus leaned towards the idea that while her intentions may not have been malicious, the choice to wear such a device in an airport was ill-advised and could have serious consequences.
  • #31
DaveC426913 said:
A gun is a gun. If you hear hoof steps, think horse, not coconuts*.

But a circuit board, while certainly the security should have reacted with extreme prejudice, I just don't think counts as a weapon per se. Much as it hints, it just doesn't say "clear and imminent danger".
A circuit board and a lump of play-dough. It is my understanding (and thus the basis of my logic) that it was intended to look like a bomb.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Integral said:
But then, foolish me, I do not think deadly force should be used by security forces unless someone is actively shooting.

Really? Do you mean if someone was waving a gun in the direction of a crowd of innocents, security should not shoot?
 
  • #33
russ_watters said:
A circuit board and a lump of play-dough. It is my understanding (and thus the basis of my logic) that it was intended to look like a bomb.

Oh yeah. I forgot about the clay/playdough. I rescind. That can definitely be interpreted as a deadly device with imminent danger. Yep, shoot her if she blinks wrong.

And yep, now that I think that through, this wasn't simply a case of her being a s***-disturber, she was actually putting herself in real danger. Appallingly stupid.
 
  • #34
Integral, weren't you in the Navy? Have you not seen what rules of engagment look like? Lethal force requries a perceived imminent threat of serious bodily harm. Pointing a gun or tampering with an explosive device most certianly qualifies - the bomb does not have to go off and the gun does not have to be fired.

Here's a sample ROE:
Level 5: Assaultive (Lethal Force). The subject usually has a weapon and will either kill or injure someone if he is not stopped immediately and brought under control. The subject must be controlled by the use of deadly force with or without a firearm or weapon.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement
 
  • #35
Here is an article exactly on point:
The International Association of Chiefs of Police, which represents the heads of police departments in the United States and across the world, has issued new guidelines saying that officers who confront a suicide bomber should shoot the suspect in the head.

The recommendations, the first from a major police organization to deal with the realities of a post-Sept. 11 world, take a more aggressive posture than typical lethal-force guidelines. The guidelines were published July 8 -- about two weeks before the London police, acting on a similar policy, fatally shot an innocent Brazilian seven times in the head because they mistook him for a suicide bomber.

The National Bomb Squad Commanders Advisory Board is developing the first national protocol for response to suicide bombers and is also recommending to police bomb squads nationwide that if a suspect is wearing a suicide bomb, an officer who needs to use deadly force should not shoot near the bomb.

U.S. police officers and federal agents typically have been authorized to use deadly force if lives are in imminent danger. But since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, the definition of imminent danger has changed, prompting law enforcement officials to rethink the rules of engagement.

"There is not a responsible chief or head of a law enforcement agency in this country who isn't now pondering the dilemma a suicide bomber presents to their officers," said U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer, who became the first chief in the nation to adopt a shoot-to-kill policy if his officers are confronted with a suicide bomber...

After the July 7 attacks on the London transit system by suicide bombers, the international police chiefs organization produced a detailed training guide for dealing with suicide bombers for its 20,000 law enforcement members. It recommends that if an officer needs to use lethal force to stop someone who fits a certain behavioral profile, the officer should "aim for the head" to kill the person instantly and prevent the setting off of a bomb if one is strapped to the person's chest.
It goes on to give guidelines that are looser than I suggested:
The police group's guidelines also say the threat to officers does not have to be "imminent," as police training traditionally teaches. Officers do not have to wait until a suspected bomber makes a move, another traditional requirement for police to use deadly force. An officer just needs to have a "reasonable basis" to believe that the suspect can detonate a bomb, the guidelines say.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/03/AR2005080301867_pf.html
 
  • #36
russ_watters said:
A circuit board and a lump of play-dough. It is my understanding (and thus the basis of my logic) that it was intended to look like a bomb.

She did not have anything intended to look like a bomb. Did you actually see the pictures? It was a breadboard with some LEDs arranged in the shape of a star (her name). Nobody who has ever played with electronics before would think that it looked anything like a bomb.

That said, I can understand her being questioned. She shouldn't have worn the shirt, but I've known plenty of absent-minded people. She probably didn't even consider that anyone could be so stupid as to think that looked like a bomb. OMG! Wires and lights! Help us all!

The fact that she was given criminal charges here is I think criminal in itself. This was clearly a silly mistake, and everyone should have laughed it off after they realized what was going on. Instead, security decided to possibly ruin this girl's life to make themselves look important.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
Well, there's no dispute that it was an incredibly stupid thing to do. I did see video of the shirt. It was a large, rectangular PCB with a 9V battery hanging off the side. Honestly, I could care less if the LEDs spelled out "I love puppies". It did not look friendly from the video I saw. The way I see it, the security did act accordingly, especially considering two factors:

1) She is a sophomore in college. That is perfect mind warping/brainwashing age for idealists , loyalists, whatever you want to call them, to be recruited into any kind of organization.

2) This was at Logan...where two of the 9/11 aircraft departed from. Do you think that pussyfooting around with security is anywhere in their vocabulary now? Heck no. If I were to go into Logan today I would be on edge myself.

I think this story goes to our nation's incredibly short attention span and the 'abuse' of our freedoms. Does anyone here really think this moron would have worn that shirt 6 months after 9/11 or even a year after? No. I don't think so. So why would it be ok to do it now? People need to stop passing through life without thinking about what they are doing.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
Some clarifications:

-The article says she was carrying the lump of clay (in her hands), not that it was part of the device. I don't know if the police saw it or not.

-The video I saw on cnn was of too poor quality to get a clear look a the board (possibly a glare). So all I see is a board with some protruding wires and a 9v battery. If you guys say it has her name on it, I'll take your word for it.

-The info booth worker asked her what it was and she did not respond - she just turned and walked away.

My position remains unchanged.
 
  • #39
Stingray said:
She did not have anything intended to look like a bomb. Did you actually see the pictures? It was a breadboard with some LEDs arranged in the shape of a star (her name). Nobody who has ever played with electronics before would think that it looked anything like a bomb.

That said, I can understand her being questioned. She shouldn't have worn the shirt, but I've known plenty of absent-minded people. She probably didn't even consider that anyone could be so stupid as to think that looked like a bomb. OMG! Wires and lights! Help us all!

The fact that she was given criminal charges here is I think criminal in itself. This was clearly a silly mistake, and everyone should have laughed it off after they realized what was going on. Instead, security decided to possibly ruin this girl's life to make themselves look important.
You think she wore that shirt accidentally? And was innocently carrying a lump of clay in her hands?

No way.
 
  • #40
FredGarvin said:
I think this story goes to our nation's incredibly short attention span and the 'abuse' of our freedoms. Does anyone here really think this moron would have worn that shirt 6 months after 9/11 or even a year after? No. I don't think so. So why would it be ok to do it now? People need to stop passing through life without thinking about what they are doing.

So, we should live in constant fear for the rest of our lives because of the actions of a few people six years ago? Boston is not Baghdad. There haven't been bombs going off all the time (or ever, really). I think your attitude is a very disturbing one.

Regarding the gate agent, maybe she didn't hear or understand her. May she didn't want to bother talking to someone who was not a member of security. Regardless, it was a little suspicious. As I said before, I can understand this girl being approached. It is maybe even reasonable that they drew their guns. But it is absolutely silly that the girl was charged with anything.

DaveC426913 said:
You think she wore that shirt accidentally? And was innocently carrying a lump of clay in her hands?

No way.

Yes. She was there to pick up her boyfriend, not to board a plane. She was wearing whatever she was wearing. Friends on other sites have said that it's part of her normal wardrobe. She wore that all the time, and probably didn't think about it. Having gone to Caltech as an undergrad (which I assume is similar to MIT), I don't find that very strange.

She's a EE student with artsy inclinations. Clay is fun. Maybe that's how she passes the time while waiting around. Some people do things like that.

Also, if she'd wanted to construct something that looked "threatening," that's very easy to do. She has plenty of training for it. What she made looks absolutely innocuous to anyone with the slightest bit of electronics experience. That alone is enough to say it was not a fake bomb.
 
  • #41
No offense, you are naive Stingray.
 
  • #42
cyrusabdollahi said:
No offense, you are naive Stingray.

You think she's a threat? Explain.
 
  • #43
russ_watters said:
Integral, weren't you in the Navy? Have you not seen what rules of engagment look like? Lethal force requries a perceived imminent threat of serious bodily harm. Pointing a gun or tampering with an explosive device most certianly qualifies - the bomb does not have to go off and the gun does not have to be fired.

Here's a sample ROE:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement

That is all good and fine, for a police state. So I guess most here think we should move more in that direction?

Yes, I was in the Navy, and I recall Spain in the early 70's where there was a policeman on every corner with a submachine gun. That is life in a police state, you live in fear of the police.

Is that really what the US is about?

Must I live considering every action I take as to how it will be reacted to by the man on the corner with a gun?

Sure glad I am not 20 looking forward to the future of this nation. :frown:
 
  • #44
cyrusabdollahi said:
No offense, you are naive Stingray.
Call me naive too.

We have long since shown that given the freedom to legislate we legislated away freedom. I am appalled at how little value so many here place on our personal freedoms.

In the past it seemed that they were being eroded away, now it looks as if it has gone beyond that to a full flash flood.

This argument is as old as the Nation, I am Jeffersonian, I believe the single most important concept of the American way is personal freedoms. Yes they are more important then a false perception of public safety.
 
  • #45
Stingray said:
You think she's a threat? Explain.

You are making too many assumptions. She wears it all the time, its a simple bread board anyone with any experience in electronics would know this, etc.

-She could wear it every day all day, guess what. You DONT wear that at an airport at this day and age, period.

-A cops job is NOT to know what a breadboard is or what kind of circuit is on the breadboard. This is an unreasonable assumption on your part.

-There was a guy who tried to blow up an airplane with C4 in his shoes a while back, remember? C4 looks like playdough and is exploded via electric signal, aka her 'circuit'.


http://www.fireandsafety.eku.edu/VFRE-99/Recognition/High/C4-1.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #46
Integral said:
Call me naive too.

We have long since shown that given the freedom to legislate we legislated away freedom. I am appalled at how little value so many here place on our personal freedoms.

In the past it seemed that they were being eroded away, now it looks as if it has gone beyond that to a full flash flood.

This argument is as old as the Nation, I am Jeffersonian, I believe the single most important concept of the American way is personal freedoms. Yes they are more important then a false perception of public safety.

This issue has NOTHING to do with personal freedoms, at ALL. Please tell me what freedom is being given up?
 
  • #47
I wonder what would have happened to her if she was at that Kerry speech down in Florida?
 
  • #48
Stingray said:
Yes. She was there to pick up her boyfriend, not to board a plane.
You will be just as dead in an airport as you will in a plane.

Stingray said:
She was wearing whatever she was wearing. Friends on other sites have said that it's part of her normal wardrobe. She wore that all the time, and probably didn't think about it. Having gone to Caltech as an undergrad (which I assume is similar to MIT), I don't find that very strange.

She's a EE student with artsy inclinations. Clay is fun. Maybe that's how she passes the time while waiting around. Some people do things like that.

Also, if she'd wanted to construct something that looked "threatening," that's very easy to do. She has plenty of training for it. What she made looks absolutely innocuous to anyone with the slightest bit of electronics experience. That alone is enough to say it was not a fake bomb.
Clearly, her defense plan was plausible deniability - i.e. exactly what you just said.


I'm all for personal freedom as well, but come, this is goading.
 
  • #49
I'm sure that's what the guardsmen said at Kent state too.
 
  • #50
cyrusabdollahi said:
This issue has NOTHING to do with personal freedoms, at ALL. Please tell me what freedom is being given up?

The freedom to wear stupid things around your neck, the freedom to enter or leave a airport without your life being threatened by ignorant thugs with guns.


Not sure why that needs explaining. You think living in fear of the police is the way it should be?
 
  • #51
cyrusabdollahi said:
-She could wear it every day all day, guess what. You DONT wear that at an airport at this day and age, period.

Yeah, modern airports are paranoid. I agree that she should have thought of that, but her misjudgement is not a criminal act in any way (or shouldn't be).

-A cops job is NOT to know what a breadboard is or what kind of circuit is on the breadboard. This is an unreasonable assumption on your part.

-There was a guy who tried to blow up an airplane with C4 in his shoes a while back, remember? C4 looks like playdough and is exploded via electric signal, aka her 'circuit'.

Actually, it is their job to have some discretion. Airport security is supposed to be trained in these things to some degree. I don't expect much, but for the third time, I'm not really arguing about the initial response anyway. I'm saying that it is ridiculous that she was given criminal charges. There was obviously no ill intent here.

Also, almost every single person on a plane is carrying on at least one "circuit." Detonators could easily be hidden in just about anything. According to you, circuits are most dangerous when they're out in the open with exposed flashing lights. I guess they score extra points when on a geeky girl who's been sitting around for awhile. Does that really make any sense to you?
 
  • #52
A lot of republicans have a lot of money/investments in military/'war' ---they'd love/'may not mind' to see a 'police' state here in the US---(they'd make a lot MORE money)
 
  • #53
DaveC426913 said:
You will be just as dead in an airport as you will in a plane.

My point was that people don't think as much about their appearance when just picking someone up.

Clearly, her defense plan was plausible deniability - i.e. exactly what you just said.

I'm all for personal freedom as well, but come, this is goading.

Yeah, sure. Why exactly would anyone want to cause a scene like this? If she was really goading, she did a poor job of it.

I've carried things in my luggage that looked a heck of a lot more bomb-like than this, and nobody bothered me. I guess if someone decided to react, reporters could have written a story which sounded pretty incriminating. Unfortunately, my freedom is restricted by having to worry about these things now. That's a slightly different issue than arose here, but I think they're closely related.
 
  • #54
well, I guess (they could have thought), she could have been bin Laden in disguise

-------------------------------

They could hire those Blackwater guys to watch the airports, too, I guess

----------------------------------

and there could be WMD's in Iraq still, too, I guess


-----------------------------------

and I could win the lotto this weekend, too, I guess

-------------------------------------

hey, cyrus, if you don't think this is about personal freedoms, how soon are you moving to Iraq?
 
Last edited:
  • #55
Integral said:
The freedom to wear stupid things around your neck, the freedom to enter or leave a airport without your life being threatened by ignorant thugs with guns.


Not sure why that needs explaining. You think living in fear of the police is the way it should be?

(1) You don't have any freedom to wear stupid things around your neck if it is a possible threat to the public. I can't wear a gun on a neck chain, can I?

(2) My life isn't threatened by ignorant thugs with guns at the airport, ever. And I am middle eastern.

(3) This isn't a police state, nor does this issue have anything to do with it being a police state.
 
  • #56
Actually, it is their job to have some discretion. Airport security is supposed to be trained in these things to some degree. I don't expect much, but for the third time, I'm not really arguing about the initial response anyway. I'm saying that it is ridiculous that she was given criminal charges. There was obviously no ill intent here.

Just because there was no intent does not mean it is excusable.

Also, almost every single person on a plane is carrying on at least one "circuit." Detonators could easily be hidden in just about anything. According to you, circuits are most dangerous when they're out in the open with exposed flashing lights. I guess they score extra points when on a geeky girl who's been sitting around for awhile. Does that really make any sense to you?

I don't care if every single person has a circuit, what's that got to do with *anything*? They don't have what appears to be a makeshift explosive device with a possible explosive material in their hand.
 
  • #57
rewebster said:
well, I guess (they could have thought), she could have been bin Laden in disguise

-------------------------------

They could hire those Blackwater guys to watch the airports, too, I guess

----------------------------------

and there could be WMD's in Iraq still, too, I guess


-----------------------------------

and I could win the lotto this weekend, too, I guess

-------------------------------------

hey, cyrus, if you don't think this is about personal freedoms, how soon are you moving to Iraq?

Are you retarded? Whats the point of this post...
 
  • #58
The point is:

she was a person, maybe stupid, but not a threat and not arrogant --would you have shot her?

----------
and then worried about it later? (because you were the one with the gun)

---------------

don't start name calling
 
Last edited:
  • #59
Do you not know how to read what I post?

Go back and read post #30.
 
  • #60
rewebster said:
The point is:

she was a person, maybe stupid, but not a threat and not arrogant --would you have shot her?

----------
and then worried about it later? (because you were the one with the gun)
I don't see the point to this question since she wasn't shot.

---------------

don't start name calling
You insulted cyrus when you told him to move to Iraq.

Both of you stop.
 

Similar threads

Programs Debt vs. Longer time to get degree
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
8K
Do Movies Teach Us Realistic Life Skills?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K
PF Fan Fiction: Mathematicians in Love
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K
BRS: PKI Cryptosystems for SA/Ms: A Tutorial
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K