We're arguing past each other.
Given that they thought she had a bomb, the response team did fairly well. That's not the problem (though the staffers fleeing the terminal without alerting, say, everyone else in the terminal *is* a problem).
It's the 'they thought she had a bomb' part that's the problem.
Prior to this incident at Logan, would any of you have considered wearing a circuit board necklace replete with blinking lights, exposed wires, a battery, and play dough in an airport?
I wouldn't have worn it to career day, either. So what?
So in your mind, every baggage handler and security guard should have a degree in Electrical Engineering? And if that were the case, wouldn't they find better paying - and less risky - jobs?
You have a fundamental problem with expectations. You *expect* underprivileged Americans to better handle possible life and death situations, but you don't *expect* overly privileged Americans to make good decisions.
You have a fundamental problem with argumentation. Your fundamental problem is that you're unable to avoid using strawmen.
Who said anything about a degree in electrical engineering? Who thinks such a degree is necessary for a basic working knowledge of explosives?
Well, apparently you do. I don't, nor have I ever indicated that I do.
I expect competence in my security. That's all.
For instance, after someone with (apparently) no qualifications says to the experts that 'I think that woman there might have a bomb', the proper first step is to, y'know, ascertain whether or not there's good reason to think that, and proceed from there.
The first step should not be 'move and you're dead'.
She wasn't shot.
Allow me to rephrase; she has a fundamental right not to be menaced with lethal force for no good reason. Better?
So the only thing that could *possibly* be construed as a weapon is a spray painted squirt gun?
Strawman.
If they knew that it was "certainly non-threatening", do you really think they would be pointing a gun at the woman? Again, you seem to be failing to grasp the simple fact that they THOUGHT she was carrying a bomb. Right or wrong, they can only act on what they believe.
You've misunderstood. The argument is that they shouldn't have thought she had a bomb in the first place.
Can you at least recognize that there was provocation? Even assuming GF's disco jersey theory is correct (despite her own statements to the contrary), she could not be utterly oblivious to how her make shift getup would be construed in an airport, especially Logan. Yet she did it anyway.
There was provocation only if you believe it's reasonable to expect people to say 'breadboard + LED + battery = bomb'. I don't happen to believe that. Her error was assuming there was more competence than there actually was.
What are the more appropriate ways to deal with someone you suspect to be equipped with an explosive device?
You're shifting the goalposts. See above.
The scope of what a terrorist can or cannot do is not confined by my imagination. 9/11 was evidence of that.
You cannot possibly be making that argument in good faith.
As above, please explain what a more reasonable response would be, bearing in mind that the individual was *thought* to be wearing an explosive device.
Did you not read what I wrote?
The 'thinking she had an explosive device' was the unreasonable part.
