Bostonist: Breaking: Fake Bomb-Toting MIT Student So Not Going to Final Club Now

EvilCornbread

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:38:01 -0500

Sailorman: I'm pretty sure that the police are using semiautomatic submachine guns, which aren't the full-auto versions that you're envisioning. "Semiautomatic" means that you don't need to cock the gun between shots, that you can simply keep pulling the trigger to shoot the next bullet. Probably pretty reasonable for security guards. "Submachine" simply means that it's a machine gun that uses pistol rounds. I'm no gun nut (never owned/held/shot one, probably never will), but you do yourself a disservice by not being knowledgeable about the terms. As far as the Gestapo that you mention, yes, there should be penalties for causing false alarms and distracting the security from their duties. What's to stop everyone from wandering around with bomb-like devices in airport terminals? How would the security personnel possibly be able to find anyone with a real bomb in that situation? And Loozerboy up top -- yeah, it does pretty much look like a bomb to me. It's got wires, a circuitboard, and a power source. Add in some putty, and it could definitely be a bomb. Yes, it turns out that it wasn't, but the police were completely in the right for considering her a threat -- she could easily have been some loon looking to blow up a waiting line at a terminal.

guest

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:56:50 -0500

I suspect you will be like most people and figure that Star Simpson had a "fake bomb" but this whole thing concerns me, how the police are dictating the discourse. A fake bomb would be some highway flares taped together. Or you know what really looks like a bomb -- a backpack or a briefcase. That thing she had was some flashing LEDs, yes it is different, and society may even make a rule that no sort of electronics with batteries, e.g. laptops, cellphones, GameBoys, etc. should be allowed in airports -- that is everyone's right. But the press does not have a right to call this a "fake bomb" and they are all doing that. If they called it "a strange electronic device that could cause suspicion" that would be correct. But by calling it a fake bomb they say that 1. it looks like a bomb (it doesn't) and 2. the person who made it is trying to make it look like a bomb, and from what I have read about Star, she wasn't trying to do that.

Sailorman

Sat, 22 Sep 2007 23:16:51 -0500

Another issue is why are police allowed to use submachine guns!!! Such guns are used to spray bullets over a wide area fast. Can any intelligent person (dept of homeland security top management obviously excluded due to lack of) remotely justify spraying bullets in a crowded public area?? A rifle or handgun would be effective but machine guns are out of the question except to people like Michael Chertoff. Fundamentally it comes down to what do we fear most. My greatest fear is not terrorists, but that some stupid Dept of Homeland Security machine gun toting jerk will kill me or members of my family and then say "sorry about that, but it's a post 9/11 world" \

guest

Sat, 22 Sep 2007 18:05:15 -0500

Two things..One .stormptroopers with sub machine guns at a public airport is scarier to me than that girl's t-shirt. But I do give them credit for NOT firing. That's unusual in what's becoming more and more of a shoot first policy..that's defended because of 9/11.

MJG

Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:55:43 -0500

To be fair to the police, how many people (other than MIT students) attach circuit boards and batteries to their clothes and go to the airport? It's not an everyday sight and it's bound to provoke some kind of reaction. The police certainly reacted too harshly. However, it was a dumb thing to do.

guest

Sat, 22 Sep 2007 10:24:04 -0500

I really don't see how any reasonable person could think that was a bomb.

guest

Sat, 22 Sep 2007 00:41:48 -0500

The news agencies are totally irresponsible. Does this look like a bomb, if not, how can it be a fake bomb. Reporters don't care the damage they cause to the student. The police has no clue on what the words on the shirt means. It is totally harmless. Do they know what "socket" mean. Course 6 just means EE CS major in MIT lingo. The circuit board does not have any resemblance to a bomb. She should be let go after explanation. Press forward with these kind of charges just bring further embarrassment to the govt at the end. Just let go. How can a city with some of the best minds governed by a bunch of idiots.

guest

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 23:22:33 -0500

As an EE student I feel insulted that such a simple circuit was thought of as a bomb. Not being able to differentiate between a absolutely innocuous circuit like the one worn by Simpson and a bomb shows the extreme ineptitude of airport security (something a high school physics student could do!); I mean aren't these guys given even basic training! Even a simple digital watch has a circuit that's 100 times more complicated. What disappoints me further is that MIT is supporting ignorant police force on this matter. Which suicide bomber would use a device with LED lights? I mean really, even if someone's a suicide bomber they are going to have the common sense to 'hide' their device instead of highlighting it with LEDs! I hope that the Logan Airport Administration think deeply on the events surrounding this incident and reach the logical conclusion of giving their force basic training instead of wasting more money on airport security.

Sailorman

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:47:27 -0500

Any real professional police with competence would realize that bombs NEVER have any flashing lights on them. Also they are hidden, not openly displayed. But then you have to understand that this attitude comes from Michael Chertoff , the "leader" who went to a PR conference in Georgia on the morning of hurricane Katrina. Anybody who thinks a 2X6 inch circuit board is a bomb is so stupid that they should be fired along with the same jerks who last January thought that a flashing cartoon sign was a bomb! I mean how stupid do you have to be to work for Dept of Homeland Security in Boston??

guest

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:03:11 -0500

Crazy biotch? Take a look at the comments -- unanimous that the student was the victim here. You're wrong, plus you're not funny.

MJG

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:17:36 -0500

Don't get carried away. This isn't a case of Patriot act excess. Once again, Massachusetts' finest made a mockery of police work. Certainly her accessorizing needed to be checked out. However, the ''bomb'' doesn't look so threatening as to require machine guns. Can't we borrow a taser from Florida? She won't be punished much either. I suspect she'll plead to some minor infraction and be sentenced to community service/probation.

guest

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:07:30 -0500

“Airport Employees, Police Mistake Electrical Artwork on Sweatshirt for Bomb, Call It ‘Fake Bomb’ to Spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt” Sounds like we need a little more training on what an actual bomb looks like.

guest

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:51:35 -0500

When she was wearing her hoodie, the circuit breadboard and 9V battery were INSIDE, so the only thing visible was a little green blinky LED star. Why would an MIT art-geek wear an ugly circuit board on the outside of her shirt? So everyone who's saying "but from far away it looks like a bomb"... that's because the only photo you've seen is the cop holding the sweatshirt inside-out.

guest

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:27:51 -0500

Ironically, a cell phone is much more likely to be used in a dangerous device than this obviously non-threatening bread board with LED's in the shape of a Star. (Get it?) However, the playdoh in hand does justify the course of action used by the fuzz.

guest

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:18:15 -0500

Fuck this chick and fuck aqua teen.

melanarchy

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:13:08 -0500

I'm sorry but a bomb maker isn't going to take the time to pretty up their bombs with flashing LEDs that's absurd, and a case of hollywood making innocuous things seem much more dangerous than they are. Threatening someone with anything that looks like a GUN is a very far cry from having some blinking lights on your shirt. Which is where your argument falls apart, because she wasn't threatening anyone, she was just walking around. I wouldn't encourage others to follow her example, but I would encourage a bit more discretion on the part of the authorities when it comes to assuming everything that is even slightly unusual is a threat. Incidentally she's already out on $750 bail, sounds like the judge didn't think she meant any harm either.

guest

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:42:30 -0500

How were the police supposed to determine that the device was harmless from 15 or 20 feet away??? Explosives can be made in almost any form, and in almost any texture (I used to make commercial explosives that look just like mayonnaise). How close would you be willing to get to such a person to determine what she had strapped to her, especially if there is a visible circuit board with blinking lights. And if she didn't stop when commanded by police, what would you do? Let her just walk anywhere she wanted? Let's say that she didn't have a device that looked like a bomb. Let's say, instead, that she took some wood and play dough and made what looked like an AK47, and started pointing it around at people (even if she wasn't at an airport). Would you still say that she did nothing wrong? The only difference between a fake gun and a fake bomb is that a bomb can be made to look like so many different things that you can't just look and say "oh, that is a bomb" or "nope, not a real bomb." Likewise, how would you expect police to determine if someone had a real gun, or a fake device? Folks, you need to step back and think a bit. Do you want to encourage others to follow her example?

Sailorman

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:03:04 -0500

These Gestapo tactics are outrageous and have no place in a free country. The State Police Major said it was an "innocuous device". So once they saw that it was nothing harmful, it should be the end of it. But no, they are going to charge her with "possession of a hoax device and disorderly conduct" and arraign her in court. Watch the prosecutors try to bully her into pleading guilty to a lesser charge. They don't want justice. They want a CONVICTION! Because getting a conviction means winning. I hope a courageous lawyer comes forward and offers to represent her pro bono and that she stands up to those Gestapo types because she did nothing wrong. Who is the next innocent person to be arrested for having an odd painted cell phone or a weird looking hat? I'm tired of hearing the excuse that "in this post 9/11 world we have to give up our freedoms" If we allow our formerly free country to be turned into a police state from within, then the terrorists will have won!

Loozrboy

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:39:28 -0500

Judging from the pictures, it looks like this wasn't so much a case of a crazy "artist" wearing a fake bomb to make a statement, as a nerd wearing harmless homemade electronics that were mistaken for a bomb by clueless paranoid nitwits. i.e. goddamn Mooninites all over again. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2007/09/mit_student_arr.html Honestly, does that look like a freaking bomb to you?

Kevin Bracken

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:28:42 -0500

let me amend that: city of infernal machines. (b) For the purposes of this section, the term “hoax device” shall mean any device that would cause a person reasonably to believe that such device is an infernal machine. http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/266-102a.5.htm

Kevin Bracken

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:26:08 -0500

lol. Welcome to Boston, city of hoax devices.

guest

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:22:41 -0500

Tempest in a teapot. Yeah, she was thoughtless. She's not a criminal. Let her pay her fine and be done with it. Move along people, nothing to see here.

guest

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:12:35 -0500

Technology IS art.

guest

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:15:34 -0500

Speaking as an artist myself, I find her actions very disconcerting. This was a thoughtless, selfish act. What was the statement other than sheer stupidity. She is very naive and doesn't seem to grasp the true meaning and power of Art. I would classify this as a middle school prank, devoid of conscience and meaning. Where was she during the World Trade Center Terrorist Attack? Perhaps she slept through that? Let her spend a few weeks with families of the victims of the Trade Center Attacks. Let's see what kind of Artist Statement she'll make after that! I refuse to honor her insidious act by calling it "Art" - it's not worthy of that title, nor of any further media coverage.

guest

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:02:31 -0500

Come to think of it, who goes to MIT for art?

guest

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:01:54 -0500

I hate the patriot act and so forth as much as the next guy, but yeah.. dumb bitch is giving art and MIT a bad name

melanarchy

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:54:49 -0500

Very very dumb, but the long part of that police quote includes several uses of the word "luck" referring to her still being alive. Regardless of how dumb you are I don't think luck should be involved when discussing survival of a police encounter. I know that the US isn't very well versed in the ways of the suicide bomber but don't the explosives generally go off if you kill the person? Also they seem very very concerned about her having play dough, I would be very surprised if the number of people caught in this country with a functioning explosive that reacts like play dough is greater than 0. Seems that, like Kip Halloway's goons, the airport police have been briefed to be afraid of things that don't happen.

guest

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:39:38 -0500

What a MORON!!!

guest

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:22:02 -0500

She is lucky she's not dead. They could have gunned her down first and discovered the bomb to be phony after.