DU POLL: Should the marketers behind the Boston flashing signs be charged with a crime?

[itsmesgd]

[Shipwack]

1. Missing option...

Yes... while they aren't evil or malicious, they stupidly decided to start an ill planned ad campaign that cost hte city dollars, impacted their rescue services, and inconvenienced hundreds, if not thousands.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Agreed, and further, they should be charged with something akin

to disturbing the peace of the public. They really created a havoc, albeit inadvertently, but nonetheless, the lives of hundreds of thousands were disrupted yesterday as a result of their actions.

[sendero]

64. "inadvertently"..

.... if there was no intent to incite panic, there was no crime. I hope you stay off of juries, you don't have the critical thinking skills required.

[itsmesgd]

4. Stupidity does not equal criminal intent

To be a crime you need two items 1. A criminal act, 2. Intent to commit a criminal act

[Orrex]

12. Not so!

If I run you over because I don't see you, I'm guilty of a crime even though I had no criminal intent. I might not be guilty of the same crime as the guy who hatched an elaborate scheme to run you over, but I'm still guilty.

[itsmesgd]

14. that would be a degree of criminal negligence. Do we need to rehash Criminal Justice 101?

Because we can if we need to do so.
How were these marketers criminally negligent in the placement of the signs?

[Orrex]

16. That was just one example.

I was taking issue with your assertion that a criminal act requires criminal intent.

[Kingshakabobo]

58. Your criminal intent would be your intent to be negligent/careless/reckless. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. Let's say a guy left his briefcase at a bus stop.

Some nut thinks it's a bomb, calls the cops, cops come out in forece, shut down the city, inconvience thousands, etc.

What crime would you charge the guy who left the briefcase with?

[Orrex]

15. What if the guy left his briefcase as part of an elaborate ad campaign?

Sure, if The Cartoon Network had just accidentally left a dozen of these things in strategically chosen locations all around the city, then it might not be a problem. But they undertook an extensive process to get these things into the public eye, so they can hardly be excused on the same grounds as the briefcase guy.

If they'd wanted to install a dozen new billboards around the city, they'd have needed to secure permission from the city, would they not? Why couldn't they simply have done the same in this case?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. Answer the question.

Should the guy who left the briefcase be charged with a crime?

[Orrex]

31. Not sure I see why the question is relevant

It's entirely different from the situation at hand.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

37. I think you know why it's relevant...

which is why you're not answering it.

But that's not important.

Answer the question.

[Orrex]

43. Here's why it's irrelevant

A guy accidentally leaving an item somewhere strikes me as fundamentally dissimilar to a concerted campaign to place a dozen items at locations of strategic visibility.

Since you seem keen on demanding that I answer your irrelevant question, perhaps you could explain why it's not irrelevant?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. So you're answer to the question is "no."

Have I got that right. You're dodging the question, but I'll go ahead and assume it's "no."

Now... let's say that guy has a briefcase, and the handle breaks, and he throws it in a dumpster, underneath a bridge, and somebody sees it, and calls the cops, and there's a panic, etc.

Now should that guy be charged with a crime?

[Orrex]

48. I see--so you weren't interested in the question you were asking.

Since your follow-up is likewise dissimilar to your original, I still fail to see the relevance. It's not "dodging" to dismiss an irrelevant question.

Let me ask you a different one, since you're so keen on hypotheticals:

Suppose that a dozen electronic devices are noticed around Boston, but no one bothers to do anything about them because they have an amusing cartoon character on them. A few weeks later they explode simultaneously, destroying a dozen bridges in the process.

Should the city's officials be held responsible in some way? Why or why not?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. Now that is an irrelevant question.

"Should the city's officials be held responsible in some way? Why or why not?"

I'd say "no." Because if everybody goes around jumping at shadows, then you're doing the terrorists job for them. Besides, a terrorist isn't going to disguise a bomb as a cartoon advertisement and leave it sitting around for weeks before detonating it. He's going to leave it in a briefcase or something else equally innocuous, and he's going to detonate it within minutes.

Now, answer my questions.

[Orrex]

56. Let's cut to the chase

I've prepared my answers to your two questions. Before I post them, why don't you go ahead and post the Gotcha! question that you're going to spring on me once I do?

[progressivebydesign]

33. That's an excellent question!

No, of course the briefcase dude would should not be charged. I think there is some degree of intent that courts deal with. The marketers that did this were obviously hoping for a publicity stunt (i.e. the Lucy/Ethel on the Empire State Building in martian costumes). The freak out by the City of Boston was something else entirely. I swear Americans are not so freaked out that they'd scream 'bomb' at a light brite giving someone the finger.... I'm not sure what the officials could have been thinking. But then again, I'm from L.A., and I'm used to strange art installations and movie promotions.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. Are you suggesting that the marketers...

wanted people to think they were bombs?

If that were so, then why did tens of thousands of people walk by them every day in ten different cities, and nobody thought they were bombs?

[Old and In the Way]

21. Exactly...the real question should be how the City of Boston handled this.

They assumed worst case scenario....why? Was there any evidence of imminent terrorist attack? What's the history of real bombs in Boston? If they had evaluated the 1st one in a relatively low key way, might they have been prepared to better understand the others that were called in? I'm not saying they reacted rightly or wrongly...I know it doesn't take much to disrupt Boston's already tenuous traffic problems. But these guerilla ads were done up in a number of cities with no such overt reaction that the City of Boston displayed.

I doubt the intent of this ad campaign was to create a terrorist panic. It's more of a comment on the state of our public fears. Maybe the terrorists are winning...

[itsmesgd]

25. The terrorists are definitely winning

or those who have committed the terrorist acts have won. We are so f'ing paranoid and we have given up so many of our civil liberties since 2001. We need to relax.

I, for one, would exchange an increase in risk for an increase in freedom (or a return to normalcy). Nothing bad happened prior to 9/11 and we have spent the past 5 years transitioning into a police state all because of one bad day- the origins of which still have yet to be conclusively proven.

[uppityperson]

23. Had that sort of thing happen on Puget Sound ferry a couple yrs ago

Someone reported a young man putting a day pack in a dumpster then hurrying off the ferry at arrival on non-Seattle side. They shut the ferry down, called in the dogs and bomb squad and found....an empty day pack in a dumpster, along with some used spiral notebooks, broken pencils etc. Someone going home from college cleaned out his old backpack on the way. Now, who should've gotten in trouble for this inconvenience? The man going about his normal life, the person who freaked out, the media who promoted the "be afraid" mentality? No one?

Yes, there are people who want to hurt other people, and more bombings will happen in the world. At what price paranoia though?

[redqueen]

55. Lucky for him it didn't turn into a media frenzy... n/t

[Hieronymus]

29. This happens in London all the time .. all over Europe too..

They shut off a several block radius when they find an odd package.

[havocmom]

Yep. Failure to exercise reasonable judgment lands other people in jail

These bozos who think any hair brained scheme should be tried need to fucking grow up. Some time in the clink might help them come to an understanding about the relationship to critical thinking to cause and affect.

Lay some blame on bushco too. They have given every arrested adolescent with an office the idea that any drunken frat boy prank is A-OK to execute.

[aquart]

2. Yes, because they are dangerous fools.

But my, what heavy-handed push polling. OP could write for CNN.

[itsmesgd]

8. how so "push polling"?

In my opinion those are the choices. Yes a crime, or Not a crime.

[blogslut]

5. I think it depends on the guy

;)




























The dreadlocks, I mean

[justiceischeap]

6. You're missing the point

The guys who were arrested were hired hands, they themselves aren't the marketers. The marketing company that hired them should be responsible. However, most likely, these 2 guys were asked to sign a waiver that frees the marketing company from any wrongdoing.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. Maybe a ticket for littering.

Anything more would be a witch hunt.

[Red Right and BLUE]

10. Absolutely not. nt

[RexDart]

11. The most I'd see them charged with...

would be something along the lines of tagging. Fine them $500 and make them clean bus stops for a couple of weekends. Anything else would just be piling on.

[newyawker99]

61. Hi RexDart!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[notadmblnd]

13. No, but the corporation they work(ed) for should

nt

[jayctravis]

17. Surely putting out any kind of lighted sign

requires a city permit of some kind. They should be fined for that...it wasn't any terrorism.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

18. Other cities didn't come to a standstill.....

... so why Boston?

So it's a Crime because Boston had problems but the other cities evidently were unaffected?

Or was the placement different in Boston to 'illicit fear'?

I think that would be my deciding factor of any punishment.

[AValdoux]

20. The same signs were up in NYC

and didn't cause a panic. Also they were up in Boston for three weeks before the panic started. When they found the first one, the bomb squad couldn't tell they weren't explosive devices? Why was the whole city put in the panic mode? When they were discovered in NYC, the marketers were contacted and asked about the locations of the remaining devices and all was handled rather calmly. I have more questions about the Boston authorities and their reaction.

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


AValdoux

[redqueen]

22. No... investigate the city services and find out why they responded

in such a ridiculous and overblown manner.

THAT is why the people freaked out... not cause they saw lite brites and wet their pants in pure terror.

Perhaps the city services management in the other nine cities who didn't react in that way can consult with those in Boston to get them up to speed in dealing with stuff like this in a sane and responsible way.

[progressivebydesign]

26. I agree on that... n/t

[PinkTiger]

27. Most law enforcement people are knee jerk types

And they aren't well-read, informed, overly intellectual, or "think outside the box" types. They are trained to NOT be creative, not to be thinkers. I get so irritated with them. Oh, well.

Rant over.

[redqueen]

32. The ones in the other nine cities seemed to do ok. n/t

[ContraBass Black]

63. And why the did it WEEKS AFTER the signs were posted.

[progressivebydesign]

24. Did people actually think a character giving the finger was a bomb?

I mean seriously... if someone was going to do something like evil, do you think they'd put a character on the thing? Maybe I lived in LA too long, but I'm so used to weird shit like that, I would have assumed it was public art.. like guerilla artists or something. When I first heard about the scare in Boston, I assumed they were non-descript metal boxes with wires... after seeing it, how could anyone believe they were anything but what they were or perhaps a misguided attempt at public art statement?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. Tens of thousands of people saw the sign...

in major cities all over the US. Nobody thought it was a vomv.

[progressivebydesign]

36. Sounds like the City officials are the ones that freaked out then.

Sounds like a PR stunt gone awry. The people who dreamed it up should be held responsible for any damage it caused, I think.. but the lowly street team should not be charged at all.

[redqueen]

30. Pic of the mysterious device.

[Orrex]

40. Looks nothing even remotely like this, right?

I mean, unexploded clusterbombs look like toys when they're found on the ground--why anyone would think that any bomb has to look like this

is beyond me.

Let's be clear: I'm no fan of bogus terror alerts, but the outrage over Boston's reaction is baffling to me.

If someone planted a dozen of these giving-the-finger-signs on your house, would you yank them off by yourself, or would you call someone?

[redqueen]

41. Sorry, but it doesn't look like that first pic to me. At all. n/t

[Orrex]

44. Sure, they don't look alike, but so what?

There's no reason to assume that any electronic device has to look like some preconception. And it's not as though TCN put up a bunch of posters on a wall somewhere--they installed electronic devices at strategically visible locations.

[redqueen]

50. See here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=100822&mesg_id=100899

[Orrex]

52. So I ask again

If you found a dozen electronic devices stuck to your house, would you yank them down yourself, or would you call someone?

[redqueen]

54. Well I don't watch 24, so maybe that's why... but

if they looked like a lite brite and ran on four D-cells, I'd take 'em down myself, yeah.

[WilliamPitt]

47. ...which no one saw on TV for hours.

Hindsight is cool.

[redqueen]

49. I'm not saying people shouldn't have been freaked out.

Being freaked out by city services shutting down major freeways and stuff is perfectly understandable.

They were stirred up into a frenzy by those who chose to respond and report it in the way they did.

[porphyrian]

34. Did they break a law, first of all? - n/t

[LeftCoast]

35. No - Absolutely not

This has to have been the stupidest overreaction ever.

[Missy M]

38. I wonder if everyone would be ridiculing the officials in Boston....

if they had arrested some guys for getting on a plane with box cutters. Everyone would be laughing and calling the officials fools and accuse them of over reacting. Wouldn't it have been nice if that had actually happened.

[redqueen]

42. I see your point... however

it took them weeks to even notice them... and they could have done a little checking before going into full terra terra terra alert mode.

[WilliamPitt]

46. How about "Be made to pay for the millions of tax dollars spent"?

[SayWhatYo]

51. I say fine them...

Really, they should perhaps be fined in order to pay for the expenses. I do wonder why they didn't contact the police immediately though... Or did they?

[DuaneBidoux]

57. People voting no: so Boston (and the taxpayer) just absorbs the cost for CNN?

[gatorboy]

59. Where's the option that the Cable News has to pay?

After all, they were the ones that caused such a panic with little to no information to go by.

[mdmc]

60. If they told the cops, then no crime

If they allowed the chaos to continue and refused to cooperate, then they should be charged.

[ContraBass Black]

62. Which crime?

There is a world of difference between charging them with permitted posting and charging them with inciting fear of imminent destruction.

Your poll does not allow the distinction.

[TheCowsCameHome]

65. The big story was the overblown response. What's next - WALK lights?

Boston became an instant laughingstock.

That's why Menino is burnt.