Boston cops make arrest in devices ploy

[cynatnite]

BOSTON - More than 10 blinking electronic devices planted at bridges and other spots in Boston threw a scare into the city Wednesday in what turned out to be a publicity campaign for a late-night cable cartoon. Most if not all of the devices depict a character giving the finger.

Boston police said Wednesday night that one person had been arrested, and authorities scheduled a news conference to provide details.

snip:
"We apologize to the citizens of Boston that part of a marketing campaign was mistaken for a public danger," Kent said. "We appreciate the gravity of this situation and, like any responsible company would, are putting all necessary resources toward understanding the facts surrounding it as quickly as possible."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070201/ap_on_re_us/suspicious_devices

[Edweird]

1. Hey boston. Over react much?

[asthmaticeog]

5. No shit. That's wicked retaaahded.

[joeunderdog]

96. On the "Special Reports" they kept coming back to for breaking news,

they actually said that the device had been "detonated." I was telling my wife to chill out, that it was just a bunch of BS, when they said the bomb squad detonated the device. Just when I was starting to believe that there actually WAS a bomb, I find out they must have detonated the fucking toy.

Way to stay on message, Liburl Boston media.

[GrantDem]

2. I'm sorry...

What part of this:



Looks like a terrorist act?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. Is that space invader wearing a turban?

You never know with those types.

[Edweird]

10. moononites of mass destruction

[uppityperson]

3. What about all the other cities they are hanging up in?

[cynatnite]

6. The company owned up to those...

and reported them to the authorities.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Anyone want to take bets...

that Turner had gotten approval from the city weeks ago?

[cynatnite]

13. No, they didn't...

they apologized, told the authorities about the others and ordered them taken down.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. We'll see.

[cynatnite]

19. You don't think someone else would've said something by now?

Hopeful thinking, isn't it?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. Why? It's a recent story.

Given government incompetence, it could take weeks to figure that sort of thing out.

[cynatnite]

28. I actually wasn't thinking of the govt....

I was thinking of the company. If the company wanted to protect its reputation someone would have been out front and center saying that they had permission from the other cities...except for Boston.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. The company's going to be talking to their lawyers.

Not running to the press.

[cynatnite]

How do you know? n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. Common sense.

Oh, I'm sorry, I guess in this day and age you can't rely on a thing like that.

What with terror and all.

[cynatnite]

38. Seems to me you'd have to be in the know...

Companies are usually pretty protective about their reputations. Since this one owned up to their mistake right off the bat, it seems to me that lawyering up would be redundant...unless criminal charges are filed against them.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

41. "Companies are usually pretty protective about their reputations."

Which is why I suspect they already got approval and the cops bungled it.

[cynatnite]

47. You're reaching and hoping...

If they had gotten approval it would already be all over the news by now.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. I think you're reaching and hoping.

[cynatnite]

56. How so?

I'm not the one making the HUGE leap that other cities knew when the company has already apologized and reported the others.

[uppityperson]

22. Did the police/people in those towns not notice?

If they looked dangerous, why were they allowed to stay up all over the USA for 2-3 weeks? amazing.

[cynatnite]

31. We have no idea since no one reported them in the other cities...

The company owned up to this and apologized. They screwed up and they know they did.

[uppityperson]

39. I wonder why, if they looked dangerous, they weren't reported sooner

or in some other cities also. Why were they allowed to stay up this long in this many places? Did no one notice? Did people notice and not be alarmed? To me this is as important a question as the part fearmongering played. If devices can be placed for 2-3 weeks and no one notices, reports, checks, what does this say for future real bombings?

[cynatnite]

49. I've been wondering if people didn't notice them...

I guess it depends on where and how they were placed. I don't know.

I agree that it's disturbing a possible real bomb could be put somewhere and no one ever notice. This also has the tendency to get people on edge as well. Every box of kleenex that doesn't get picked up and thrown away could be called in as a suspicious package.

We're damned either way, IMO.

[Bonobo]

7. Where was Ralph Nader that day!? Hmmm....

[951-Riverside]

9. If actual 911 calls were part of a publicity stunt I hope all involved are arrested. n/t

[Nikki Stone1]

11. In an age when ANY unidentified electronic device causes concern, this was criminal

Throw the book at the bastards.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. "In an age..."

Yeah, see, laws shouldn't change just because a bunch of suckers are paranoid.

[The Straight Story]

24. Well, I have to disagree just a tad

I get what you are saying of course - but then if the bush administration had been more attentative 9/11 would have just been a day where we caught people wanting to do something.

So now people are worried about their jobs - ignore the warning signs and something happens, you are screwn. Overreact and people bitch about that too. They found under-reacting had bad consequences.

We will find out eventually (those that don't know it already) that over-reacting does as well.

[Nikki Stone1]

33. Exactly. People feel that 9/11 was a result of under-reaction. That's what they've been told.

Hence the overreaction today.

[cynatnite]

43. I prefer over-reaction...

there are enough crazies that you just can't tell these days.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. If you prefer over reaction...

then you can go ahead and pay for it.

[cynatnite]

53. So, if the cops are called on something that might be dangerous...

they look at it and think, 'no big deal' and walk away. A minute later it goes off and kills people.

Isn't that under-reacting? Or perhaps, they shouldn't take chances like that with people's lives on the off chance that it's real?

These cops are damned if they do or damned if they don't. I prefer them to be damned and over-cautious than the alternative.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

55. And if you prefer overreations and mass hysteria...

what are you upset about?

[cynatnite]

57. Actually, I'm pissed that cops were pulled away from their jobs...

of protecting citizens over this garbage.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

58. But that's what you want.

An overreaction.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[cynatnite]

64. WTF?

Some stupid company looking to make a few bucks on a movie puts up devices that no one can be positive was dangerous or not and the authorities take it seriously...as they should.

Since it was a hoax, joke or whatever name you want to apply to it, cops were pulled away from their jobs of helping people on this shit.

You want these people, who risk their lives every day, to laugh it off or to not take it seriously.

I don't get that.

[frylock]

112. you prefer over-reaction?! like that brazilian bloke who was gunned down in the tube..

after the the 7/11 bombing?

[Nikki Stone1]

25. Despite the reasons for the current state of fear, it is, in fact, a present condition

And to do something that stokes that fear, in a major US city, is criminal.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

37. Then blame the cowards.

If a person jumps and shadows, the overreaction is their own damn fault.

[Nikki Stone1]

48. No. There is a mass climate of fear, based on a real event (9/11). This company stoked that fear

to make money for their television show.

To call people cowards because they fear another 9/11 is simply not fair.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

52. If people live in fear of terrorism, they're cowards.

No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

It's their own fault.

[Nikki Stone1]

65. No, it's a fear based on experience and a pretty awful one.

Most people are legitimately concerned about it happening again. My guess is that you had no loved ones either in New York or Washington that day.

[cynatnite]

66. Tell the Iraqi people that...

:eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

67. I'm telling it to the Americans.

Iraqis have legitimate things to be worried about.

[cynatnite]

70. You should have specified rather than making general statements...

besides, I think those living in the NYC range and DC range have reason to be concerned.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

72. I guess I should forget common sense applies.

Did you seriously think I was talking about Iraqis? Or were you just being obtuse.

"I think those living in the NYC range and DC range have reason to be concerned."

I don't.

[cynatnite]

74. Why are the people living in those areas cowards?

Living in Seattle I can understand why you'd be so cavalier about their emotions.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

76. No.

Just the ones jumping at shadows because they're afraid of terrorism.

[cynatnite]

78. Who would that be?

The cops?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

80. The cops...

and who ever phoned it in, and anybody else who thought it was a bomb.

[cynatnite]

86. You're saying the cops are cowards...

and the person who phoned it in (who probably has no idea what a bomb looks like) and people living in Boston that were afraid it might be real (who most may not know what a bomb looks like).

Wow, I'm impressed. To make such a superficial baseless assumption from so far away. Did Bill Frist teach you how to do that? :eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

87. Pretty much.

Although I'd imagine most of the cops knew it wasn't a bomb and were just going through the paces.

"To make such a superficial baseless assumption from so far away."

LOL, you mean like assuming a cartoon sign is a bomb?

[cynatnite]

89. Well, considering cops and such are usually experienced in these areas...

they know not to judge a book by it's cover.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

90. Well, the cops fucked up.

Now didn't they?

[cynatnite]

95. How so?

They did their jobs just as we expect them to and as they were trained to do.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

97. How?

They shut down a good portion of the city over a cartoon advertisement when there could have been real emergencies to attend to.

[cynatnite]

98. They shut it down because they THOUGHT it was an emergency...

it wasn't and cops were taken away from their jobs (I said it first, BTW) This company should pay for their idiotic publicity stunt by reimbursing the city the costs. It's their responsibility and their fuck-up. They apologized for it because they know they are at fault.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

99. Well, they thought wrong.

It's their responsibility, it's their fuck up.

[cynatnite]

103. Huh?

A big company like Turner puts crap up in order to make a buck off a movie they're promoting without telling anyone and it's NOT their fault? Are you fucking kidding me?

You can't even admit that this stupid company even has a little responsibility? :crazy:

[Nikki Stone1]

109. They had no way of knowing that they "thought wrong". They did what they deemed necessary

to prevent a large scale loss of life.

If they had been right, they'd have saved a bunch of lives. If they had not reacted at all and this had been more than a marketing stunt, there'd be a bunch of dead Bostonians. They made the right choice.

[The Straight Story]

54. Well...I dunno about that

If you live in a hood like I do and you call the cops as much as I have you tend to be suspicious when you see some guys walking down the street with a large cardboard box, who then pitch it when they see you (turns out it was stolen and my neighbor got his stuff back).

Once bitten, then threatened more, twice + shy.

[Hosnon]

15. Really? No judgment involved? Check out the picture of the "device" upthread.

If we are going to effectively fight terrorism, we've got to be able to pick out the things that may not be a threat.

[Nikki Stone1]

18. I saw it. If you're not in on the show, you have no idea what it is.

I could see being worried about it.

[cynatnite]

21. I never heard of the show before today n/t

[Hosnon]

27. That's true - I've never seen the show. Perhaps the answer is for companies

to voluntary inform law enforcement when they undertake an advertising campaign such as this.

[Nikki Stone1]

40. Or get a damned permit.

We shouldn't have to pay with municipal tax dollars for their private ad campaigns.

[Hosnon]

44. Or that. nt.

[cynatnite]

68. Excellent Point!

You win! You get a prize! Don't know what it is, but you'd get one. :)

[Nikki Stone1]

79. I'll take chocolate. :)

:)

[cynatnite]

100. Best I can do

:)

[Nikki Stone1]

107. Eye candy!

:D

[originalpckelly]

29. No, I say the people of America should stop cowering in fear of terrorism...

and stop being so afraid that they get scared at something that is obviously some type of small sign.

The first step to winning the war on terrorism is learning how to handle the fear of terrorism. Fear is a natural response, and it is almost impossible to eliminate, but the way we handle it determines our character. The character of this generation is evidenced by the fact we have given up the liberties hundreds of thousands of Americans have died defending, and now this anecdotal extreme sign of our lack of ability to use common sense in handling our fears.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. Agreed.

It's the people's own damn fault for jumping at shadows.

[Nikki Stone1]

35. That's a great sentiment, but how do the people know what threat is real and what isn't?

That's the problem.

[originalpckelly]

59. Well, that whole "common sense" thing might be useful...

of course on the other hand, let's say that this was a reasonable call on the part of the person who reported it, what about government personnel whom responded? They've been given more than common sense, can't they distinguish a sign from a bomb?

And let's even assume the reaction of the government was appropriate in this case, why don't those in the news media have the good sense not to terrorize an entire nation, all over an item which is merely suspicious?

I tell you why this story was put out: entertainment. That's the goal of the news business today, entertainment. Instead of being a type of public service, it's the modern day equivalent of Rome's Colosseum. If someone doesn't want people to gain entertainment from their own suffering, they shouldn't gain entertainment from the suffering of others.

And let's talk about the investors and executives of that network, why oh why are they in the business of making money off of other people's suffering?

I can understand the "journalists" (whom in this case are anything but, because they had no information at all) making money, because they at least are supposed to be involved in the actual act of public service, but the investors and executives are not actually involved in the public service of the news.

So, I suppose, the common sense is not merely on the part of the person(s) who reported these signs, but those who responded and those who covered the story, and we, the patrons of that news coverage.

[originalpckelly]

63. And actually, a little common sense on the part of the people who posted these signs...

would have been good as well. Had they been labeled, people would have had no doubt they were signs of some type.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

69. What kind of label would you like?

I mean, besides the big goofy cartoon character.

[originalpckelly]

73. Well, the name of the movie would be helpful...

how the hell is anyone supposed to know what this is for? Now, it didn't justify the national hysteria, but I must say, how is this an effective ad if no one knows what it is for?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

75. The argument being served up...

is that the terrists will just put movie labels on their bombs from now on.

"how the hell is anyone supposed to know what this is for?"

How the hell does one suppose an LED sign with a cartoon character is a bomb?

[cynatnite]

77. Oh, you have experience in bomb making?

Please tell us. How can you tell from looking that it's not a bomb?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

83. No, do you?

So why would you think it was a bomb?

[cynatnite]

88. I never knew one way or the other...

I never made the automatic assumption since I wasn't there and not privy to the facts.

Apparently you seem to appear to have some experience since you can judge a photograph. Even the experts in bombs weren't sure since they detonated them.

[Nikki Stone1]

105. Excellent point.

!

[originalpckelly]

82. Why are some people afraid of lightning or the dark?

Or the boogie monsters under their beds?
Or spiders? Snakes?

Fear is irrational, the thing here is that trained professionals should have been able to know this was not a bomb, and should have taken pictures of it and distributed them to the media, to alert the public that this sign was merely that and not a bomb.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

84. I guess they should be.

Lightning and spiders and snakes kill more people than terrorists do.

[Nikki Stone1]

104. But not in such large numbers all at once in large public areas

which city government has been charged to protect. One reaction to a suspicious item can save thousands of lives on a bridge or in tunnels or in buildings. One underreaction can kill all of those people.

[cynatnite]

92. There is irrational fear such as everyone is out to get you...

then there is reasoned fear. It's the kind that says 'better to be safe than sorry'. We've had home-grown terrorists and considering how unsafe the world is now because of bush, I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see bombs going off in churches, malls and bridges.

[Nikki Stone1]

101. There is no "common sense thing" when the results of underreacting could be fatal

If you get an envelope mailed to you and all it contains is white powder, it could be one of your friends playing a joke, or it could be someone more malicious, mailing something not so innocuous. Do you throw the envelope away, assume it's a joke and hope you don't die?

Same case here. You're a mayor or police chief. You've got suspicious items on public access ways, terrorist targets which you've been charged to protect. If you underreact, people could die in tunnels and bridges, etc. You overreact, people bitch at you. Any police or mayor prefers the second alternative.

The next time, this irresponsible company should get itself a damned permit and inform the city. After all, the tunnels and bridges are public property. Film companies get permits in LA all the time. No reason why this cable TV show shouldn't as well.

[cynatnite]

108. Remember when KO got a letter with white powder?

There were some awful things said about him over that by the Post and some freepers, IIRC. It was disgusting.

[Nikki Stone1]

110. Yeah. And that sent a chill through DU because we know that crazy folks are out there

And so are dangerous substances.

Should Olbermann have simply shrugged it off, said "probably a joke", and risked the lives of himself and his staff (however small that risk might have turned out to be)?

[Verde]

61. "In an age when ANY unidentified electronic device ..."

A box? A cell phone? Anything can be an electronic device. Exterior lights are just show. The below picture is too thin to be anything of any real destructive power to anyone with half a brain. (Unless it's a scifi super The Stand-like bacterial bomb).

[Nikki Stone1]

91. It could be or mean any number of things, to people with more than half a brain

And a number of items like this, scattered around the city with no explanation, would definitely cause concern, if the city was not informed and the marketing or production company did not get permits.

Forget your personal feelings for the moment and consider that you are the police chief in a major US city (one that terrorists actually passed through on their way to 9/11). You find unexplained items that can have electronic connections and a message of some kind, or both. You have a city to protect. Do you react to protect that city, or do you take the chance that it's nothing, just a joke (or a marketing ploy)? If you react, and it's nothing, the worst you get is some flack, but the people are safe. If you don't react and it IS something, people die.

It's a no-brainer. Of course you react. Unless you're highly irresponsible.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. Cartoon network, cartoon terrorism, cartoon presidency. nt

[AlCzervik]

17. Menino is still the mayor? I moved away 10 years ago and i cannot believe

he is still at city hall.

[-..__...]

71. The bloated buffoon never fails to embarrass himself and the city of Boston.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. Was it the shake, the fries, or the meatball? nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. It was Carl.

But Bart Oates told him to do it.

[ima_sinnic]

36. is dumb@$$ery contagious or something? (nt)

[Nutmegger]

42. Oh thank GAWD we're protected from "terra" now.

Any way to pin this on Iran?

[LostInAnomie]

46. Note to self: Do not leave my Lite-Brite laying around in Boston

What will be the next 70's era toy to terrorize a major city? :eyes:

[Nutmegger]

50. Not 70's but I hear those Rubik's Cubes hate us for our freedoms.

:scared:

[Kingshakabobo]

60. The mob wants blood.

I'm sure they will throw all kinds of ridiculous charges that won't stick. I heard 2-5 years mentioned...for what? Posting an illegal advertisement?

[-..__...]

62. Probably some bottom rung advertising person...

or temp hire/college student working an entry level position at an ad agency...
as in the poor schumck that normally stocks the monthly/weekly autos for sale and real estate
newspaper boxes.

[treestar]

81. Did they arrest Orson Wells for his stunt?

Probably not. There wasn't such hysteria back then.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

94. Orson Welles! I completely forgot about Orson Welles!

:rofl:

[TheCowsCameHome]

85. Whoa! That little sucker sure looks frightening.

Bwahahahahahahaa.

[5X]

93. So, they arrest the guy hired to put em up.

Probably was somebody without a job just trying to make a buck
and he shouldn't be the fall guy.

[Nikki Stone1]

106. They should arrest the marketing manager that authorized the project

Then fine the production company for the costs of city services today.

[hedgehog]

102. Woe to anybody at MIT who pulls a hack in the future.

They'll end up in Guantanamo.

[jmm]

111. I'd feel better about his if the police had done a more

thorough job. Granted it was an overreaction but I am worried about the sloppiness of it. For example why close down part of the Red line and 93 but leave Sullivan operating under it?

It should've been obvious these weren't threats. These been up for weeks and I know the ones in Somerville and Cambridge ones were very close to billboards with the same Mooninite character that had been up for months.

It would be nice to think something good could come out of this and a more comprehensive plan could be developed to deal with threats along highways and sub way stations in the area but I'm not holding my breathe.

[frylock]

113. the innocent shall suffer... BIG TIME!

[symbolman]

114. At LAST

REAL CARTOON EVIL DOERS.

This is what the Bush Admin has been hawking all along :)