Andy9o8 2
Recommended Posts
billvon 2,991
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
> we dont need people questioning the cops who put their lives on the line
> to defend it and have their methods questioned when they are right.
They weren't right.
> to defend it and have their methods questioned when they are right.
They weren't right.
quade 4
Quote. . . for one purpose and one purpose only: to deliberately frighten and alarm people into suspecting that she had a bomb, with the specific intent of creating a major disruption.
Citation please? I haven't read that anywhere.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Andy9o8 2
QuoteQuote. . . for one purpose and one purpose only: to deliberately frighten and alarm people into suspecting that she had a bomb, with the specific intent of creating a major disruption.
Citation please? I haven't read that anywhere.
OK, I should have begun this sentence with "There isn't the slightest doubt in my mind that..."
She claims it was just a piece of art she wanted to display on career day. I say she's a flat-out liar.
From the totality of the facts, viewed through the lens of my own nearly 50 years' life experience - not just in analyzing evidence, but in sizing up people - I'm fully confident in my analysis of her intent and her credibility. I stand by my post.
billvon 2,991
> for one purpose and one purpose only: to deliberately frighten and alarm
>people into suspecting that she had a bomb, with the specific intent of
>creating a major disruption.
I went to school with these people. And they did stuff like this just because it was nerdy and cool (to them.)
>viewed through the lens of my own nearly 50 years' life experience - not
>just in analyzing evidence, but in sizing up people - I'm fully confident in
>my analysis of her intent and her credibility.
I'll take your experience and raise you six years of living with (and occasionally being) one of these people.
>people into suspecting that she had a bomb, with the specific intent of
>creating a major disruption.
I went to school with these people. And they did stuff like this just because it was nerdy and cool (to them.)
>viewed through the lens of my own nearly 50 years' life experience - not
>just in analyzing evidence, but in sizing up people - I'm fully confident in
>my analysis of her intent and her credibility.
I'll take your experience and raise you six years of living with (and occasionally being) one of these people.
Andy9o8 2
Quote> for one purpose and one purpose only: to deliberately frighten and alarm
>people into suspecting that she had a bomb, with the specific intent of
>creating a major disruption.
I went to school with these people. And they did stuff like this just because it was nerdy and cool (to them.)
>viewed through the lens of my own nearly 50 years' life experience - not
>just in analyzing evidence, but in sizing up people - I'm fully confident in
>my analysis of her intent and her credibility.
I'll take your experience and raise you six years of living with (and occasionally being) one of these people.
I'll call your raise. I'd love to make my case to a jury. A (theoretical) initial desire to be nerdy and cool, as opposed to malicious or harmful, does not negate the fact that when she built that device, and made the deliberate decision to carry it around not just public, but at an airport, she knew fully well that, under those circumstances, people would suspect it was a bomb, and that it would cause fear, alarm and disruption. And if she knew that would happen and acted with that knowledge, then she intended it.
billvon 2,991
>she knew fully well that, under those circumstances, people would suspect
>it was a bomb . . .
Again, nope. Unless course VI has changed a LOT since I've been there, she probably thought it was nerdy and cool, and didn't think much beyond that. Not everyone has a 9/11 mindset - especially people who were 13 years old when it occurred.
>it was a bomb . . .
Again, nope. Unless course VI has changed a LOT since I've been there, she probably thought it was nerdy and cool, and didn't think much beyond that. Not everyone has a 9/11 mindset - especially people who were 13 years old when it occurred.
1969912 0
Here's the statute under which she was charged. I don't see how they will be able to prove intent, even if they can prove that it was a "hoax device", but you never know. Based on the evidence in the news reports, if I were a juror neither the "hoax device" nor the "intent" requirements have been met, so it would be not guilty. Unless they try to slap a bunch of phony costs onto her under subpart (d), it likely will never go to trial anyway. It would be interesting to know what ended up happening to the "Mooninite" terrorists from last January.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 266: Section 102A1/2. Possession, transportation, use or placement of hoax devices; penalty; law enforcement or public safety officer exemption
Section 102A1/2. (a) Whoever possesses, transports, uses or places or causes another to knowingly or unknowingly possess, transport, use or place any hoax device or hoax substance with the intent to cause anxiety, unrest, fear or personal discomfort to any person or group of persons shall be punished by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
(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. For the purposes of this section, the term “infernal machine” shall mean any device for endangering life or doing unusual damage to property, or both, by fire or explosion, whether or not contrived to ignite or explode automatically. For the purposes of this section, the words “hoax substance” shall mean any substance that would cause a person reasonably to believe that such substance is a harmful chemical or biological agent, a poison, a harmful radioactive substance or any other substance for causing serious bodily injury, endangering life or doing unusual damage to property, or both.
(c) This section shall not apply to any law enforcement or public safety officer acting in the lawful discharge of official duties.
(d) The court shall, after a conviction, conduct a hearing to ascertain the extent of costs incurred, damages and financial loss suffered.....
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/266-102a.5.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 266: Section 102A1/2. Possession, transportation, use or placement of hoax devices; penalty; law enforcement or public safety officer exemption
Section 102A1/2. (a) Whoever possesses, transports, uses or places or causes another to knowingly or unknowingly possess, transport, use or place any hoax device or hoax substance with the intent to cause anxiety, unrest, fear or personal discomfort to any person or group of persons shall be punished by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
(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. For the purposes of this section, the term “infernal machine” shall mean any device for endangering life or doing unusual damage to property, or both, by fire or explosion, whether or not contrived to ignite or explode automatically. For the purposes of this section, the words “hoax substance” shall mean any substance that would cause a person reasonably to believe that such substance is a harmful chemical or biological agent, a poison, a harmful radioactive substance or any other substance for causing serious bodily injury, endangering life or doing unusual damage to property, or both.
(c) This section shall not apply to any law enforcement or public safety officer acting in the lawful discharge of official duties.
(d) The court shall, after a conviction, conduct a hearing to ascertain the extent of costs incurred, damages and financial loss suffered.....
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/266-102a.5.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG
Andy9o8 2
Quote>she knew fully well that, under those circumstances, people would suspect
>it was a bomb . . .
Again, nope. Unless course VI has changed a LOT since I've been there, she probably thought it was nerdy and cool, and didn't think much beyond that. Not everyone has a 9/11 mindset - especially people who were 13 years old when it occurred.
Again, given the totality of the circumstances, your defense is unconvincing. If this had happened at some other public venue, I might give her the benefit of the doubt. But the fact that she chose to do this at an airport - of all places! - is the final hook that demonstrates her advance understanding and intent.
Andy9o8 2
I think her conduct fits squarely within the statute. And I think I could persuade a jury of that, too.
1969912 0
The "Mooninite Menace" (see link @ post #1) perpetrators were charged under the same statute, and here is what happened. It looks like they really didn't have much of a case, at least according to the judge. Certainly the two cases are different, but not that much different.
As an aside, Assuming you're an attorney, how do you keep people like me, most of the posters on this thread, and people like the commenters HERE from ending up as jurors? How would a prosecutor handle something like this during voir dire? Just curious. Thanks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Berdovsky and Stevens were arrested on the day of the incident and charged with placing a hoax device to incite panic, a felony charge that carries a five-year maximum sentence, and one count of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor.[18] Both pleaded not guilty to the two charges and were later released on a $2,500 cash bond.[2] At their arraignment Assistant Attorney General John Grossman claimed that the two were trying to "get attention by causing fear and unrest that there was a bomb in that location."[21] Michael Rich, the lawyer representing both men, disputed Grossman's claim, asserting that even a VCR could be found to fit the description of a bomb-like device.[21] Judge Leary said that it will be necessary for the prosecution to demonstrate an intent on the part of the suspects to cause a panic. The judge continues "It appears the suspects had no such intent, …but the question should be discussed in a later hearing."[21] A small crowd of supporters gathered outside of the courthouse to protest the perceived overreaction by authorities.
At a press conference held outside of the courthouse following their release from jail, Berdovsky, Rich and Stevens refused to comment on the case, as advised by their lawyer. Berdovsky and Stevens instead insisted on discussing hairstyles of the 1970s, prompting annoyed comments and accusations of apathy from the press.[8]
It was later revealed that surveillance cameras filmed Berdovsky videotaping officers removing the suspicious device from the Sullivan Square T station.
On May 11, 2007, the prosecutors dropped the charges after the men had performed 60 and 80 hours community service and apologized in statements read in court. [22]
[18] http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/266-102a.5.htm
(Emphasis added by 1969912)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_Mooninite_scare#The_Incident
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG
As an aside, Assuming you're an attorney, how do you keep people like me, most of the posters on this thread, and people like the commenters HERE from ending up as jurors? How would a prosecutor handle something like this during voir dire? Just curious. Thanks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Berdovsky and Stevens were arrested on the day of the incident and charged with placing a hoax device to incite panic, a felony charge that carries a five-year maximum sentence, and one count of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor.[18] Both pleaded not guilty to the two charges and were later released on a $2,500 cash bond.[2] At their arraignment Assistant Attorney General John Grossman claimed that the two were trying to "get attention by causing fear and unrest that there was a bomb in that location."[21] Michael Rich, the lawyer representing both men, disputed Grossman's claim, asserting that even a VCR could be found to fit the description of a bomb-like device.[21] Judge Leary said that it will be necessary for the prosecution to demonstrate an intent on the part of the suspects to cause a panic. The judge continues "It appears the suspects had no such intent, …but the question should be discussed in a later hearing."[21] A small crowd of supporters gathered outside of the courthouse to protest the perceived overreaction by authorities.
At a press conference held outside of the courthouse following their release from jail, Berdovsky, Rich and Stevens refused to comment on the case, as advised by their lawyer. Berdovsky and Stevens instead insisted on discussing hairstyles of the 1970s, prompting annoyed comments and accusations of apathy from the press.[8]
It was later revealed that surveillance cameras filmed Berdovsky videotaping officers removing the suspicious device from the Sullivan Square T station.
On May 11, 2007, the prosecutors dropped the charges after the men had performed 60 and 80 hours community service and apologized in statements read in court. [22]
[18] http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/266-102a.5.htm
(Emphasis added by 1969912)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_Mooninite_scare#The_Incident
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG
QuoteI'll call your raise. I'd love to make my case to a jury. A (theoretical) initial desire to be nerdy and cool, as opposed to malicious or harmful, does not negate the fact that when she built that device, and made the deliberate decision to carry it around not just public, but at an airport, she knew fully well that, under those circumstances, people would suspect it was a bomb, and that it would cause fear, alarm and disruption. And if she knew that would happen and acted with that knowledge, then she intended it.
Yep. I agree.
College students have no exemption from the law just because they think something makes them cool or the center of attention.
A bunch of wires, a circuit board, a battery, and some play-doh was designed to resemble one thing - a bomb containing plastic explosive. Otherwise, what was the purpose of the play-doh ?
What is the other thing that it was possibly supposed to appear to be?
btw, the hooded sweatshirt ala The Unabomber was a nice touch.
Laptops or cell phones may be used in bombs.
They won't get more than the normal scrutiny.
If you attach an object or compound to them that resembles an explosive, you are an idiot.
If your cell phone is attached to something resembling explosives and you are carrying it into an airport, I hope that airport security has a boatload of guns aimed at you.
She was wearing an object intentionally designed to resemble a bomb in the eye of the public.
If she thinks that this is funny, then she needs to grow up.
1969912 0
From what i have read, the putty stuff was in her hand only. I keep a ball of putty in my desk. It's kind of like Silly Putty, and is a great grip improver for rock climbing, as well as a stress reliever and ADHD helper during meetings.
http://www.wisdomking.com/product60155c85115.html
So far, the only somewhat reasonable arguments for "intent" are that she was in an airport. Will a judge instruct a jury to considet that, on its own, to be a sufficient basis for determining "intent"?
Clearly, if some wanker walked into a secured part of an airport with a vest with blobs of putty connected by wires attached to it, "intent" as well as "hoax device" would be fairly obvious. But this is a far cry from that.
BTW: My real interest, beyond stirring the pot a bit, is in the legal theory aspects of the situation. It's fascinating to me as an engineer.
"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG
http://www.wisdomking.com/product60155c85115.html
So far, the only somewhat reasonable arguments for "intent" are that she was in an airport. Will a judge instruct a jury to considet that, on its own, to be a sufficient basis for determining "intent"?
Clearly, if some wanker walked into a secured part of an airport with a vest with blobs of putty connected by wires attached to it, "intent" as well as "hoax device" would be fairly obvious. But this is a far cry from that.
BTW: My real interest, beyond stirring the pot a bit, is in the legal theory aspects of the situation. It's fascinating to me as an engineer.
"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG
Ok, let's assume that she didn't appear for it to be "a device resembling a bomb". She was approximating the appearance of a bomb, at all ? Really ? 
Next discussion, what did she appear for it be ?
If 3 kids wearing black trenchcoats and carrying duffel bags walk toward the entrance of a school, what do they intend to appear to be?
"Columbine" mass-murderer wannabees? Should they be searched? Should security be alarmed? Are they "just kids having some fun" ? Some jokes ?
Airports are not the venue for pranks. Personally, you and I can't stand around and make bomb jokes, or even bomb insinuations.
If I have to take off my friggin' shoes, she doesn't get special rights. She gets to go to a little room and get asked why she is so f-ing stupid.
n23x 0
There wasn't play doh attached to the device.
Read the article. She was playing with it in hand. But like I suggested to Max above, if I was intent on bombing a location with PBX, we all know that I'd hold it in my hands and play with it, rather than getting a primer in it so I could, I don't know, actually set it off.
Any person who's not a complete idiot (and is charged with separating real threats and imaginary threats) should have been able to make the following logical deductions:
1.) the wires are contained within the breadboard, there are no wires exiting the board to a "bomb". On top of that, the wiring is covered, it just appears to have the LEDs primarily exposed.
2.) the physical size of the device couldn't contain any reasonable quantity of explosive. (Even if we give you the unlikely possibility that the whole breadboard was comprised of "explosive").
You do recognize that the difference between this and just about ALL common household electronics is a case, right?
.jim
Read the article. She was playing with it in hand. But like I suggested to Max above, if I was intent on bombing a location with PBX, we all know that I'd hold it in my hands and play with it, rather than getting a primer in it so I could, I don't know, actually set it off.
Any person who's not a complete idiot (and is charged with separating real threats and imaginary threats) should have been able to make the following logical deductions:
1.) the wires are contained within the breadboard, there are no wires exiting the board to a "bomb". On top of that, the wiring is covered, it just appears to have the LEDs primarily exposed.
2.) the physical size of the device couldn't contain any reasonable quantity of explosive. (Even if we give you the unlikely possibility that the whole breadboard was comprised of "explosive").
You do recognize that the difference between this and just about ALL common household electronics is a case, right?
.jim
"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC
She created, and then was wearing/carrying, a bizarre-looking device - in a post-9/11 high-security venue - for one purpose and one purpose only: to deliberately frighten and alarm people into suspecting that she had a bomb, with the specific intent of creating a major disruption. Any further analysis is just masturbation. I have absolutely no sympathy for her.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites