Cops to Flashy Things: Stay Out of Boston!
Jesse Walker | October 2, 2007, 9:46am
Henry Jenkins offers a
balanced assessment of last month's Star Simpson incident, in which police arrested an MIT student at Boston's Logan Airport for wearing an alleged "hoax bomb." (It was a name badge with an LED display.) An excerpt:
One of the things that struck me in the news coverage of the incident was the frequency with which reporters described the security force as "taking no chances" in their response to Star....In this case, the police "took no chances" if you assume that Star was either wearing a bomb or trying to trick someone into believing she was armed.
But if we consider that police pulled machine guns on an unarmed 19 year old in a public place, then we might think that they took a fair number of chances.
"I don't know for sure what happened that day at Logan Airport," Jenkins concludes. "There are some nagging details that don't quite add up no matter how I look at the story. But it is pretty clear that there was a significant misunderstanding involved here, that the news media didn't consider alternative framings of the incident and that they were more invested in frightening the public than in finding out what actually occurred."
More on the story
here and
here. Boston's battle with lite brites recounted
here.
whit | October 2, 2007, 1:01pm | #
"They didn't have reasonable suspicion that it was an IED. "
i said ASSUMING that they had RS.
that's a technique for discussion. i don't know the exact fact pattern they had, and if it would qualify for RS under terry v. ohio. based on the fact that it appears that they received a phone call from the desk person who spoke to her ("it's art"), and that he would generally fit the aguilar/spinelli two prong test (veracity and basis of knowledge) (yes, i used to work in Mass legal system), they arguably may have
but again, i said that ASSUMING that was the case, because i was discussing the force used. obviously, fi they had no RS to believe she was so armed, then pretty much ANY use of force would be excessive. otoh, if they did have RS, then imo the force was reasonable under terry v. ohio
"They had reasonable suspicion that it was an unknown object.
The question is, should the government allow security personnel to act as if they suspect someone is carrying a bomb when they don't know, or should they act as if they have to confirm that the person is harmless, unless they have a real reason to suspect otherwise."
i think you need to read terry v. ohio. the mass state police (the agency that responded) certainly have.
but in brief, the whole point of a terry stop is to investigate when you do not have PC, but have more than a "hunch". that's what RS is.
regardless, given the nature of the RS (that it was an IED), the force used was appropriate for the investigation to take place.
if there was RS that she was a warrant suspect with a warrant for forgery, obviously not.
use of force decisions are always viewed based on the 'reasonable officer' standard (no, that's not oxymoronic)
and, policy aside, it's not what the "government allows". it's what the US (and Mass.) constitution allows. and based on what i have read, the force WAS reasonable, but yes... that's my opinion
whit | October 2, 2007, 1:19pm | #
"whit: how does it feel to be exactly what the terrorists want?
Terrorism works because of you.
reason is infuriating."
utter hysterical rubbish.
i really suggest you look into the use of force continuum and what is considered reasonable and not reasonable in these situations.
this is almost a textbook example of how it should go down.
the reality is that because it WASN'T a bomb, that it offers armchair dingdongs the opp to kick back and think how much smarter they are than the cops in this case, and how ridiculous it was , etc.
the reality is that situations like this are dynamic, and necessarily (much like poker) a situation where one is dealing with incomplete, fragmented, and sometimes contradictory evidence.
if they had NOT drawn down on her and done an approach of the sort they did, they would have been remiss in their duties. their job was to protect ALL the people at the facility. and while it sux that poor star had to look down the barrel of some gun(s), based on what was apparently known to the MSP at the time of the incident, the use of force was appropriate given the circ's.
she was not shot. millions of people use airports every day. they are exceptionally safe places, but when situations like this arise, we expect pro-active policework and quick response to potential threats.
terrorism works as much because of people who refuse to recognize potential threats, as it does becauase of people who overrespond.
i walk around with a CCW and a gun and have done so for 20 years while never drawing the thing. so, i am perfectly aware that i am neither paranoid, nor have the terrorists "won".
but i also understand the dynamics of use of force situations, and based on what i have read about this case, the cops' actions were appropriate
reason, does not include the luxury of 20/20 hindsight (as more than one SCOTUS and other judge has remarked in reviewing such cases).
whit | October 2, 2007, 1:49pm | #
"The phone call from the info desk should not have been interpretted as probably cause, but a hunch."
actually, it was probably interpreted (and based on what they knew at the time, it was reasonable imo) as REASONABLE SUSPICION which is more than a hunch, but less than PC.
" Airport security and other counter-terror personnel are being given instructions to treat anything out of the ordinary, any non-compliance, and anything that warrants further investigation as if it is a known threat."
again, what was the fact pattern? some sort of putty in her hand, power source, wiring, and lights on a homemade electronic device that she walked up to the desk with.
the whole point of a terry stop is to do further investigation. however, when you are ts'ing somebody believed to be carrying an IED than you draw down, you do not just walk up.
that is safer for EVERYBODY, to include the cops and the civilians. vs. getting people blown up.
"Terry stops most certainly do not authorize the police to draw several rifles on an individual and shoot her if she does not comply with orders, as the Staties' statement makes clear was their intent."
actually, terry stops DO. i suggest you read the decision and relevant case law. if you are making a TStop on somebody where you believe the person is armed with an IED, you most definitely can (and should) draw down, and if they do not obey orders, you DO shoot.
sorry, but that's the way it works. you don't get a "do over
"A statement from a non-security personnel that something needs to be checked out should not be interpretted by the police as probably cause to suspect an imminent threat to human life."
except you don't know that the statement was 'something needs to get checked out".
cops get dozens of those every day. the statement was more likely that the desk guy saw the above things i mentioned - wires, power source, putty in hands, etc.
not merely that something needed to be cheked out>
cops do that stuff every day without drawing down. the circ's were much different in this case.
"Someone's going to get killed that way. Oh, wait, people already have been."
they always have, and always will. the legal colloquialism is "lawful but awful". that's (fwiw) how many suicides by cops occur, etc.
the point is that she complied. if she didn't, it would have been justified (imo) based on the fact pattern apparently known tot he officers (as described) to shoot.
and yes, i have testified in inquests involving deadly force. i have instructed officers and civilians on firearms (and deadly force).
that's how it works.
i've carried concealed for 20 yrs without ever drawing it (i presented it once to some potential muggers, but never drew)
so, i'm not trigger happy,and iunderstand restraint. but in this situation, they handled it correctly as far as i can tell, based on what i have read about the fact pattern.
whit | October 2, 2007, 1:55pm | #
"This raises a good point. Airports, trains, etc. ask non-employees to report suspicious behavior -- behavior that sometimes should be checked out. But now we have to consider that reporting something might get an innocent person killed because the security officials can't be trusted to respond reasonably and cautiously. The more often the police overreact, the less I want to call them."
except they weren't just reporting 'suspicious behavior'
cops at airports and elsewhere confront people in thousands of circumstances a day based on "suspicious circs" and do not draw rifles on the person
we are talking about the facts of THIS CASE.
i've spent hundreds of hours in airports. i have never once seen cops draw down on somebody, but i have seen them make many many contacts with people, presumably many were suspicious circs.
the issue is the fact pattern in THIS case.
did the desk person call the MSP desk and say 'there's some suspicious girl?"
obviously not. they were armed for bear and responded tactically because, as is supported by numerous articles, they were ifnromed of the PUTTY, the wires, the battery, etc.
you are committing a ridiculous fallacy if you are conflating this case, and this fact pattern with ever "suspicious incident" cops respond to at airports. this was an EXCEPTIONAL incident based on exceptional circumstances, and as best i can glean, it was handled reasonably based on the fact pattern, observations, etc.
saying that this incident somehow proves that cops are just trigger happy nimrods pointing rifles at every person who sneezes at an airport is not supported by any evidence.
let's deal with THIS case, not draw unfounded parallels, to the average suspicious package or person that are dealt with routinely.
joe | October 2, 2007, 2:04pm | #
The fact pattern, whit, was that she had a light-up name-tag, a pla-dough rose, she walked up to the information counter to ask about a flight, and went back to her car.
You can try rephrasing that using all the scary language you want. It is not reasonable to assume that she represented a threat.
BTW, just in case you thought no one noticed you trying to move the discussion from "reasonable" to the legal standard of "reasonable doubt" - and thereby remove from the police the need to exercise judgement in deciding whether the blinky name tag was a suicide bomb - we noticed.
however, when you are ts'ing somebody believed to be carrying an IED
Nice use of the passive voice. In reality, these cops saw a light-up name tag, and they actively made the decision that it was reasonable to conclude it was a suicide bomb.
You are just assuming that it was reasonable for the police to confuse a name tag with a bomb, on the grounds that the police thought it was a bomb - circular logic that has no place in a free society.
actually, terry stops DO. No, they do not. They authorize the police to use reasonable force to secure a suspect. In case you haven't noticed, there is an actual debate going on over whether the force was reasonable, given the facts (not "fact pattern," Mr. Cop Talk. Facts.), while you are just assuming it was, on the grounds that the police acted as though it was.
There is no place for those assumptions in a free society.
whit | October 2, 2007, 2:09pm | #
"BTW, just in case you thought no one noticed you trying to move the discussion from "reasonable" to the legal standard of "reasonable doubt" - and thereby remove from the police the need to exercise judgement in deciding whether the blinky name tag was a suicide bomb - we noticed."
i didn't. i was addressing terry v. ohio. the issue is not "reasonable doubt". the issue is REASONABLE SUSPICION
try reading case law before you try to pretend you understand it.
"Nice use of the passive voice. In reality, these cops saw a light-up name tag, and they actively made the decision that it was reasonable to conclude it was a suicide bomb.
actually, as repeatedly explained, they received a call from the person at the desk who REPORTED what they saw in regards to when star approached the desk. i don't know the exact text of what this person said, but considering star was carrying putty, and had wires, lights, and a power source affixed to her shirtfront, the initial "trigger" so to speak was what they were TOLD, not what they saw.
"You are just assuming that it was reasonable for the police to confuse a name tag with a bomb, on the grounds that the police thought it was a bomb - circular logic that has no place in a free society."
i'm not assuming it. i am saying that based on my knowledge of the facts in this case (media articles, etc.) and my knowledge of terry v. ohio and my knowledge of deadly force law etc. (have testified in inquests), that it APPEARS to have been reasonable. i hardly know all the facts, nor do you.
i do know that she approached the desk, had putty in her hand, wires, power source, a circuit board, etc. and that she responded it was "art" when questioned by the desk person, and turned around and walked away, and that this person notified police of their observations, and that set the ball in motion.
whit | October 2, 2007, 2:15pm | #
"Once again: blinky name tag. Those are your exceptional circumstances. A name tag with blinking lights, and a pla dough rose."
false.
one: putty
two: wiring (if you look at a picutre of the decvice, it was clearly homemade in appearance)
three: power source
four: affixed to shirt
and that this information was RELAYED to police by the desk person.
based on that info, the cops responded.
also noted that given their RS of an IED, a rifle is a better choice than a handgun. ceteris paribus, a rifle is almost ALWAYS a better choice than a handgun since it offers greater accuracy.
cops are taught to shoot center of mass, NOT specifically at the head, and that's partially because they are mediocre shots, most shootings are not slow-tactical, but are excited instant response to threat (talking to somebody and they draw a knife and cops reacts near instantly, etc.).
in this case, it is superior to have a longer range/more accurate weapon because if they DID have to fire, they could actually try to make a headshot etc. and more quickly neutralize the threat (again, if she had deadman's switch - they were #($#($ probably regardless).
and again, feel free to read case law - i've read dozens of these cases, GIVEN the facts as presented, if she had not responded to their commands, they would have been justifiied in shooting her (imo) not based on 20/20 hindsight, but based on the (terry v. ohio) "facts and circumstances known to the officers at the time they acted"
whit | October 2, 2007, 3:14pm | #
"Most bombs that historically have actually exploded in public places and killed or injured people looked like completely innocuous things: a backpack, a brown paper lunch bag, a Fed Ex package."
correct. but those are with what LEO's refer to as "well organized" types. iow, your average terrorist is not going to advertise his shoddily made IED.
otoh, the mentally ill, suicide by cop etc. types often do engage in such bizarre behavior. remember the guy not too long ago that had the device around his neck (iirc he was forced to rob a bank, etc.)
clearly, if you see some dipshit with a bunch of wires, putty, etc. you are not dealing with an organized cell or something. you are either dealing with a hoax device (which you can't be sure is hoax until you check up close and personal) or is tryin to draw attention.
which would be consistent with walking up and having the thing in plain view when you ask about airline schedules.
if there is one thing that is clear when dealing with criminals is that they often do stuff that does NOT make sense on the surface.
the point is that cops can (and do) act on specific indicia of a threat. when somebody is carrying a backpack, it COULD be a bomb, but a cop cannot reasonably assume that and/or draw down. obviously.
when somebody presents one in open view, they can (and do).
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
