Possesion of a hoax device a criminal offense?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
2,076
Location
Bemidji, MN
BOSTON - An MIT student wearing what turned out to be a fake bomb was arrested at gunpoint Friday at Logan International Airport and later claimed it was artwork, officials said.

Star Simpson, 19, had a computer circuit board and wiring in plain view over a black hooded sweatshirt she was wearing, said State Police Maj. Scott Pare, the commanding officer at the airport.

"She said that it was a piece of art and she wanted to stand out on career day," Pare said at a news conference. "She claims that it was just art, and that she was proud of the art and she wanted to display it."

Simpson was charged with disturbing the peace and possessing a hoax device. A not guilty plea was entered for her and she was released on $750 bail.

During the hearing, Simpson smiled as she entered wearing a T-shirt and sandals. After she posted bail, she left in a taxi with a man who identified himself as her boyfriend, but neither would answer more questions from reporters.

Prosecutor Wayne Margolis had requested $5,000 bail, saying Simpson showed a total disregard for the situation she was in — an airport after the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Ross Schreiber, who was appointed to represent Simpson, said she was not a risk to flee, was a good student with no prior convictions and she cooperated with authorities.

He said she had gone to the airport to meet her boyfriend. "She was there for legitimate purposes," Schreiber said.

Simpson was "extremely lucky she followed the instructions or deadly force would have been used," Pare said. "She's lucky to be in a cell as opposed to the morgue."

Simpson is a Massachusetts Institute of Technology sophomore from Hawaii, officials said.

The battery-powered rectangular device had nine flashing lights, and Simpson had Play-Doh in her hands, Pare said.

The phrases "Socket to me" and "Course VI" were written on the back of her sweatshirt, which authorities displayed to the media. Course VI appears to refer to MIT's major of electrical engineering and computer science.

Simpson was a member of MIT's swimming and diving team in 2006, according to the team's Web site, which lists her hometown as Kihei, Hawaii. MIT spokeswoman Patti Richards said aside from confirming she was a student, the school did not have any comment.

She was arrested about 8 a.m. outside Terminal C, home to United Airlines, Jet Blue and other carriers.

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. Simpson then walked outside, and the staffer notified a nearby trooper.

The trooper, joined by others with submachine guns, confronted her at a traffic island in front of the terminal.

"She was immediately told to stop, to raise her hands and not to make any movement, so we could observe all her movements to see if she was trying to trip any type of device," Pare said. "Had she not followed the protocol, we might have used deadly force."

Pare said Simpson took a subway to the airport, but he was not sure if she had the device on at that time.

The major praised the booth attendant, but said the incident is a reminder of the terrorism threat confronting the civil aviation system. Two of the four passenger jets hijacked on Sept. 11, 2001, took off from Logan.

The city was the focus of a major security scare Jan. 31 when dozens of battery-powered devices were discovered in various locations. Bomb squads were deployed and some transportation links were closed temporarily. They turned out to be a promotion for the Cartoon Network.


MY question for the legal forum is this. I can understand disturbing the peace. But possesion of a hoax device? Seriously? Is that even a real charge? Its gotta be on par with the vague but popular charge of making terroristic threats.

Simpson was charged with disturbing the peace and possessing a
hoax device.

Can someone one explain to my what this is?
 
MY question for the legal forum is this. I can understand disturbing the peace. But possesion of a hoax device? Seriously? Is that even a real charge? Its gotta be on par with the vague but popular charge of making terroristic threats.

Easy enough, Mass law:

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 by local, county or state public safety agencies and the amount of property damage caused as a result of the violation of this section. A person found guilty of violating this section shall, in all cases, upon conviction, in addition to any other punishment, be ordered to make restitution to the local, county or state government for any costs incurred, damages and financial loss sustained as a result of the commission of the offense. Restitution shall be imposed in addition to incarceration or fine; however, the court shall consider the defendant’s present and future ability to pay in its determinations regarding a fine. In determining the amount, time and method of payment of restitution, the court shall consider the financial resources of the defendant and the burden restitution will impose on the defendant.
 
Dumb, DUMB kid.

I like gals that exhibit a convergence of cuteness, IQ, and common sense.

In this case, two out of three shoulda earned her a head shot.
 
Pictures of the device:

mit.jpg


Logan-Airport-2.jpg


I'm kind of underwhelmed.
 
MY question for the legal forum is this. I can understand disturbing the peace. But possesion of a hoax device? Seriously? Is that even a real charge?

Google the terms "Boston" and "Mooninite" and you'll get your answer.

In this case, two out of three shoulda earned her a head shot.

That's absolutely the most ridiculous thing I've read on this forum today.
 
if that's a hoax bomb.... then we're expanding the definition quite a bit from what it originally was.

On the news some spokesperson mentioned that had she not complied with police, they would have had justified use of deadly force...... I strongly disagree.

Where does the line get drawn? Are we heading towards people getting shot down due to having horrible taste in what constitutes artistic expression?

I totally see that shirt as being something an MIT kid would make/wear.

"Bomb" would have been pretty far down on my list of guesses as to what it is. Even from the photos it's pretty clear from the wiring and design that it's not a bomb..... you don't have to be an expert to figure that one out... nor did you the last time this happened.

Mooninites round 2 IMO.
 
When I first read the story, I got the impression it was some nutty girl attempting to spook people.

Then I see what the cops said.

Simpson was "extremely lucky she followed the instructions or deadly force would have been used," Pare said. "She's lucky to be in a cell as opposed to the morgue."

In my book, that statement coming from any government worker from a situation like this amounts to treason, and Pare should be hung from a tree.

Then I see the actual hoax device. I have seen stupider thing worn by people who were proud of their major or profession. Like the Californian, I am underwhelmed.
 
It's art, people. Lots of people likely won't get it (I'm not sure I do), but that's the nature of the thing.

Overreaction. I'd guess the charges are a CYA attempt by the powers that be. "We almost killed some kid who made a piece of artwork designed to impress folks showing up a conference that day? Crap. Well, charge her with something, and we can drop it later. At worst it'll give us negotiating room once her lawyer contacts us..."
 
Yes, it's stupid to do anything remotely, vaguely interpretable as threatening within or nearby any mass transit hub. And yes, extremely smart college students tend to show lower-than-average common sense at times. However, the proper response would be for an officer to walk up and initiate a conversation to determine whether there was even a remote chance of a threat.

Terrorists != Mooninites. Terrorists do not make bombs out of a 9V battery and a discarded circuit board, glue them to their t-shirt, and walk around an airport asking questions. Helpful hint: if they're wearing it on the front of a t-shirt, it's probably not a bomb. Any terrorist with the basic motor skills necessary to put on a t-shirt and walk into an airport is going to realize that concealment is probably a good idea.

It's truly sad that our society's demands for security have pushed law enforcement to the point where failing to react to something like this with anything short of all-out force will bring serious criticism.
 
Quote:
In this case, two out of three shoulda earned her a head shot.

That's absolutely the most ridiculous thing I've read on this forum today.

Then for a moderator, you must not get around the forum much. What's your suggested reaction to a suicide bomber?
 
Another case of LEO's alluding to 9/11 to justify their overreaction.

Whats next? Getting taken down at gunpoint for wearing an ipod or carry a pocket calculator? Its electronic, after all.... so it MUST be a bomb. :rolleyes:
 
if that's a hoax bomb.... then we're expanding the definition quite a bit from what it originally was.

On the news some spokesperson mentioned that had she not complied with police, they would have had justified use of deadly force...... I strongly disagree.

Where does the line get drawn? Are we heading towards people getting shot down due to having horrible taste in what constitutes artistic expression?

I totally see that shirt as being something an MIT kid would make/wear.

"Bomb" would have been pretty far down on my list of guesses as to what it is. Even from the photos it's pretty clear from the wiring and design that it's not a bomb..... you don't have to be an expert to figure that one out... nor did you the last time this happened.

Mooninites round 2 IMO.
 
"Bomb" would have been pretty far down on my list of guesses as to what it is. Even from the photos it's pretty clear from the wiring and design that it's not a bomb..... you don't have to be an expert to figure that one out... nor did you the last time this happened.

Really? So a combination of that batteried gizmo and a putty like substance wouldn't scream bomb to you?
 
So where do you see the putty like substance? from the pics all I see is a cheap breadboard with a 9 volt battery probably powering some green LEDs that were probably blinking. Anyone with half a brain knows that you have to use red LEDs for a bomb.

Cops way over reacted. We need to get away from the Zero tolerance over reaction to anyhting that even remotly looks like it might even be a picture of something that might be possibly dangerous. This comes from the same mindless minset that that expells a kid for drawiing a crude picture of a gun.
 
Of course, had it actually been a bomb, and the cops did nothing, you'd hear people screaming it was LE's fault. It's a catch-22.

As for this comment:
Even from the photos it's pretty clear from the wiring and design that it's not a bomb..... you don't have to be an expert to figure that one out...
The average cop is not a member of the bomb squad or a demo expert. At first glance, yeah, it looks like a bomb to me.
 
What she was wearing clearly meets the standards as defined in section (b) of the MA law as a hoax device.

However:
...the intent to cause anxiety, unrest, fear or personal discomfort to any person or group of persons...
That will - IMO - be the prosecutors undoing. Seems to me it would be pretty tough to PROVE that the young lady intended to cause anxiety, unrest etc etc. as required by Section (a) of the law.

Any reasonable person would be able to anticipate the reaction to wearing the art she was wearing but that's a far cry from intent. What ever the case may be the days when teenagers or even young adults can be expected to be reasonable are long gone.
 
Seriously? Too much 24, methinks.

I'm surprised to learn how many explosives experts we have here at THR that you all know this is not a real device simply by looking at a photo.

If I saw a nutcase at an airport with a circuit board and a battery on her chest would I think it was a bomb?

Well I certainly would take the safe route and assume it was until shown otherwise, which is exactly what the LEOs here did.

And if she'd refused to cooperate and tried to resist I can certainly see a deadly force response.

The First Amendment protects stupidity, but only to a point. If you really think this girl made this thing as "art" then I got a bridge to sell you. She knew what would happen and she did it anyway. Making a statement? Just stupid? Who knows, but she darned well knew this is how it would end.

Sometimes your freedom of expression is outweighed by larger concerns, hence the "FIRE" in a crowded theater rules. This seems the same to me.

Seems to me it would be pretty tough to PROVE that the young lady intended to cause anxiety, unrest etc etc. as required by Section (a) of the law.

With PlayDoh in her hands? Sounds like an open and shut case to me. She's toast and rightfully so.

Terrorists do not make bombs out of a 9V battery and a discarded circuit board, glue them to their t-shirt, and walk around an airport asking questions.

No but crazy people do, remember this guy?

image571032x.jpg
 
I'm surprised to learn how many explosives experts we have here at THR that you all know this is not a real device simply by looking at a photo.

If I saw a nutcase at an airport with a circuit board and a battery on her chest would I think it was a bomb?
I never asserted any expertise in explosives. I merely refuted the statement, "at first glance, yeah, it looks like a bomb". No, at first glance, it looks like a breadboard with LEDs.
 
Seriously? Too much 24, methinks.
Possibly, but we need to consider what a reasonable person would think if they saw this, not the members of the THR Demo Squad.

Let's change the situation slightly. Instead of a faux bomb, she had an airsoft Beretta 92. As we know (as in us, the THR & shooting enthusiast community), Airsoft weapons look incredibly real but they have that little itty-bitty orange muzzle. So, the young lady in question goes to the airport, the mall, or the playground and walks around with it in her hand (i.e., unholstered). Should we lambast people for not recognizing it as Airsoft?



INGPCYHE0455.jpg

Real dynamite or just a paper towel tube painted red with some string on the end? How do you react when someone carries it at the airport?
 
Quote:
At first glance, yeah, it looks like a bomb to me.

Seriously? Too much 24, methinks.

I wonder how many people here actually know what a bomb would -- or should -- look like.
I recall the pizza guy who was killed in the post above ... was that some "off the shelf" bomb or something fabricated at home? It was pretty effective, whatever it was.
The only thing that made me suspicious about what that girl had was it didn't seem very big. The mideastern terrorists apparantly build up an entire vest with a number of explosive charges all wired together to a ingnition device. But AFAIK that still could have been a bomb, albeit a smaller one, and still dangerous.
I think the police would very likely have been justified in shooting her had she not complied. As an earlier poster remarked you can't expect all police to know exactly what a bomb should look like, and it's probably unreasonable to believe no one could cobble together something that doesn't resemble what bomb squad are used to, either.
Anyhow, for an MIT student, this woman used profoundly poor judgement in doing what she did. Thank God she didn't make a real bomb ... thank God the police didn't shoot her ... atleats we're theoretically safe from another bash-the-cop thread ....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top