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).
<
