Boston Versus ATHF

[LosT]

Re: Boston Versus ATHF

Ok, two thoughts- a t-shirt with ACTUAL LEDs (not a screen print)- or smaller version as badges- thoughts?

LosT

[bascule]

Re: Boston Versus ATHF

Ok, two thoughts- a t-shirt with ACTUAL LEDs (not a screen print)- or smaller version as badges- thoughts?

Someone should sell microcontroller kits that can be used to do both (hint hint)

[CP99]

Re: Boston Versus ATHF

Ok, two thoughts- a t-shirt with ACTUAL LEDs (not a screen print)- or smaller version as badges- thoughts?

LosT

Mooninite DefCon badge! That has my full support, I can see the hack the badge contest now.

[Nikita]

Re: Boston Versus ATHF

The Defcon Artist is currently working on ideas without violating copyright infringement.

[DaKahuna]

Re: Boston Versus ATHF

Ok, two thoughts- a t-shirt with ACTUAL LEDs (not a screen print)- or smaller version as badges- thoughts?

LosT

My vote is for a smaller version as a badge.

[Thorn]

Re: Boston Versus ATHF

This is to answer some of the questions raised in this thread by a variety of people about why Boston PD may have responded to this whole thing in the manner in which they did so.

Emergency units in police departments are at their heart, paramilitary-organized reactionary forces.* By the very nature of what they do, they can only react to something that has happened or is happening. Rarely, except in the case of planned warrant executions which are usually instigated by Investigative divisions, do the emergency uniformed service people have any control over what they are doing before hand. Even in those circumstances, they only have a limited idea usually about what they are about to face.

What the emergency units do have going for them in most situations are SOPs. Standard Operating Procedures. In case you've never heard of them, an SOP is just what the name implies. They are standard procedures, cookbooks if you will, for what to do in a given situation.

Deviating from either an SOP can have dire results both professionally (suspension, demotion, dismissal) or personally (injury, death.) When you analyze why SOPs have evolved, it comes down to every one has come about because someone has fucked up, and the SOP has been adopted to prevent that same kind of fuck up in the future.

In most PDs the SOP for a patrol unit responding to a "suspicious device/package" is to call for the Bomb Squad and cordon off the area.

I'm sure that within 5 minutes of looking at the first sign, most of the cops had realized it probably was not an IED. However, if they were reported as suspicious, not knowing what exactly they are, along with fact that they were apparently self-powered, electronic devices of an unknown purpose, means that they follow the SOP until you have determined exactly what they are. The fact that the devices show some very obscure** cartoon characters doesn't help.

Generally, the SOP for bomb devices usually means that the squad must destroy it in a controlled manner if possible. One of the bomb squad interviewed on one show said exactly that. By the way, the reason why bomb squads generally blow up suspicious packages, is because by destroying such devices, you usually mitigate any effects of the device itself if it is explosive in nature, and you are able to keep people out of the the blast radius. Moving/opening/disarming the device or packege means that you have a much higher probablility of getting someone hurt or killed if it is actually explosive. Yes, you may have a very low probability of the package or device being an explosive, but you have a near 100% probablity of death/serious injury following any other action of if the device is explosive. So bombs squads play the odds in the safest way possible for the public and themselves. Ninety-nine times out of one hundred, it means they blow up a suitcase filled with somebody's dirty luggage and they look foolish on TV, but the one hundredth case gives a bigger bang than anticipated, and the guys on the squad breath a sigh of relief that they didn't have to try to open and defuse it.

As to de-escalating a situation and standing down, it can be done, but only after a (relatively) long time, a lot of information has been gathered and analyzed and only after senior officers make a decision to do so. Patrol officers have wide discretion about enforcement of laws, but they have little to no discretion about standing down in these kinds of situations.

Media actually makes some of this worse. The electronic media almost completely guarantees that all PDs will follow SOPs to the letter if the officers are within site of any lens. Any deviation is apparent to those reviewing the images of a scene. The public will criticize anything they perceive as wrong (after all they're all police experts having watched reruns of NYPD Blue, CSI and Law and Order for years) and senior officers will review such information at a much higher attention to detail than the general public will ever think about. Even if the street cops where inclined to throw the sign in the back of the cruiser and drive off, the media coverage means that they won't do it. Too many people will criticize, including the people who count; the sergeant, lieutenant, captain, etc.

As far as the charges against the two suspects, the terrorism charges should probably be dismissed without prejudice, -the intent for terroristic devices is clearly missing- and they should probably be charged whatever applies in Massachusetts regarding public disruptions and improper advertisement.

On the other hand, regarding the press conference, I have to wonder about the competence of their lawyers. Their lawyers shouldn't have let them near the press. Yeah, for those of us outside the Boston area, it was amusing. However they most certainly impressed the entire pool of potential jurors that even if it was unintentional they didn't particularly care about the disruption of which they stand accused of causing. If they didn't want to do the little dance for the press (and I don't blame them), the would have been better off not having said anything.

*This is the Uniform division: This is essentially Patrol as well as the specialized units which fall under the uniformed division. Those specialize units would things be such as Bomb squads, Mounted, SWAT teams, Dive squads, etc. In comparison, Investigative divisions are information gathering and intelligence extracting arms. Unfortunately, few police organizations recognize that fact, and even fewer set up their investigative arms along proper information theory lines. Most are still set up as reactionary forces. But we can discuss that in another thread...

The names and details vary, but most police organizations are split into these two divisions and functions.

**Hey, I'm outside of the ATHF 18-24 y.o. demographic, and cheerfully admit it. Prior to this thread, I'd never heard of ATHF. All but the youngest police officers would also be far from that demographic.

[Rance]

Re: Boston Versus ATHF

Thanks for the information Thorn, and this crow needs more salt and a pinch of pepper.

[theprez98]

Re: Boston Versus ATHF

This is to answer some of the questions raised in this thread by a variety of people about why Boston PD may have responded to this whole thing in the manner in which they did so.

As always, the voice of reason.

[renderman]

Re: Boston Versus ATHF

However they most certainly impressed the entire pool of potential jurors that even if it was unintentional they didn't particularly care about the disruption of which they stand accused of causing.

One nitpicky thing. They did not cause the disruption, it was the authorities shutting everything down. If someone freaks out at a napkin blowing in the breeze, do you blame McDonalds for the ensuing 4 hours investigative ordeal?

This draws alot of parallells in my mind to a situation a couple years ago where a guy had a sticker on his bike that said 'this bike is the bomb' or something very close.

While a stupid phrase to begin with, the owner found his bike in pieces at the business end of a police cut off saw one day. Someone got their nickers in a twist and they had to check it out. I can understand the SOP of checking it out, However applying that logic, they should then regard all bikes as suspicious and proceed slicing and dicing all of them 'to be sure'.

It's a slippery slope of how much paranoia you have and how you react to situations, however I'm still at a loss for how things escalated so quickly and to a level way beyond sane.

[bascule]

Re: Boston Versus ATHF

This draws alot of parallells in my mind to a situation a couple years ago where a guy had a sticker on his bike that said 'this bike is the bomb' or something very close.

Yeah, it was a student at a university who had a sticker for the band "This Bike is a Pipe Bomb" on his bike. Here's the story on that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Bike_is_a_Pipe_Bomb

On March 02, 2006 at 5:30 am an Ohio University police officer spotted a bicycle attached to the Oasis restaurant bearing a promotional sticker for the band. The officer saw the words, "This Bike Is a Pipe Bomb" and became concerned. The area was cordoned off, and part of the campus was closed for several hours. The bicycle was subsequently destroyed by the Athens bomb squad despite assurances from the bike's owner that it was just a sticker. The owner, a graduate student, was initially charged with inducing panic, a misdemeanor. However, the charges were dropped a few days later. Later the student was awarded money for the damages to his bicycle.

It also reminds of me April of last year when two girls in Ohio put Mario Brothers question mark blocks around their town:

http://www.pressthebuttons.com/2006/...uestion_b.html

[Thorn]

Re: Boston Versus ATHF

One nitpicky thing. They did not cause the disruption, it was the authorities shutting everything down. If someone freaks out at a napkin blowing in the breeze, do you blame McDonalds for the ensuing 4 hours investigative ordeal?

Render, reread the quoted phrase, as the words were chosen with some care. The word "accused" is the key. While they may or may not have actually caused the disruption, depending on someone's point of view, they most certainly are accused of it right now. From a legal standpoint, the accusation is the important thing.

The point I was trying to make was that their press conference did little to help their cause at least with potential jurors. The email statement that Peter Berdovsky released late that night, while more predicable and nowhere nearly as entertaining, goes a lot further in helping their position. However, few people will probably recall the email statement, while most people will certainly remember the couple of jerks performing the "hair" routine.

"I regret that this incident had created such anguish and disruption... I certainly never intended to do anything to frighten this community."
-Peter Berdovsky

[Nikita]

Re: Boston Versus ATHF

The point I was trying to make was that their press conference did little to help their cause at least with potential jurors. The email statement that Peter Berdovsky released late that night, while more predicable and nowhere nearly as entertaining, goes a lot further in helping their position. However, few people will probably recall the email statement, while most people will certainly remember the couple of jerks performing the "hair" routine.

Well, then wouldn't a change of venue be in order? I really, don't think it will go that far. Or better said, I don't think it should go that far. I personally liked them more after the press conference....

[Thorn]

Re: Boston Versus ATHF

Well, then wouldn't a change of venue be in order? I really, don't think it will go that far. Or better said, I don't think it should go that far. I personally liked them more after the press conference....

I suspect that it may not go that far, and they will plead to the lesser charges such as Disorderly Conduct.

As to a change of venue, jurist might have a better answer, but while a change of venue might be valid because people in the Boston area may be prejudiced because the were inconvenienced due to the incident. However, most judges that I know wouldn't be especially moved over an argument that the defendants had made a bad impression to potential jurors at their own press conference. In fact, most of the judges I know would tell the defense attorney something like "Tough luck, make sure your defendants don't hold any more press conferences." If that were the case, every defendant would hold bad press conferences.

[steampunk]

Re: Boston Versus ATHF

The point I was trying to make was that their press conference did little to help their cause at least with potential jurors. The email statement that Peter Berdovsky released late that night, while more predicable and nowhere nearly as entertaining, goes a lot further in helping their position. However, few people will probably recall the email statement, while most people will certainly remember the couple of jerks performing the "hair" routine.

Indeed. Although I do think it's very possible that the press conference was part of the advertising campaign.

[CP99]

Re: Boston Versus ATHF

The New York Times website is reporting on a monetary settlement on the situation.


"Turner Broadcasting System and a Manhattan marketing agency have agreed to pay $2 million in restitution and other costs for a Cartoon Network advertising campaign that set off fears of terrorism, the state attorney general, Martha Coakley, said today."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/05/us/05cnd-hoax.html