Boston Bomb Scare

This is insane. All I want to know is how was this not called off when they got to the first device. Cops get a hysterical phone call about some weird electrical device that looks like it could be a bomb. Understandably they go nuts call in the bomb squad and remove the thing. But once on the scene how did no one look at it and say, well theres some batteries a few electrical bits and a bunch of LEDs, its not a bomb. Go around and remove any others to prevent panic but they are nothing. No instead the cops did the panicking.

I heard that Turner broadcasting offered to pay for all of the police, about a million dollars. Which I think is a smart move on their part, and honestly they've gotten at least a million dollars worth of advertising out of the whole deal. But this idea that the people who planted the devices should be held criminally responsible for the panic is ludicrous. First off the fact that one out of ten cities freaked out should be a sign that it was Bostons reaction that was out of line not the advertisers. This notion that they must have known this would happen so it must have been their intention to create a panic, no they expected people to see a flashing cartoon character and the people would either recognize it and hopefully tune into the program or walk/drive past somewhat confused. I highly doubt that they ever considered the possibility that they would cause a panic that would shut down the city ever crossed their minds.

We're talking about personal responsibility, we're gettin' all libertarian and shit so lets go with it, if these people are expected to have the foresight to imagine and take responsibility for the reaction of others no matter how insane then what about the responsibility for those who actually created the panic and shut down the city? Why are they not responsible for the time loss of those hundreds of thousands of people who got stuck in traffic. Why is it that its the fault of the person who put up an ill-conceived ad campaign and there is no responsibility placed on those who actually created the disturbance. To me this is like someone sitting in a movie theater and lights a cigarette the person next to them could simply say excuse me but smoking inside is illegal in this state and I would appreciate it if you wouldn't smoke in here, or they could simple scream FIRE! and race out of the theater causing a stampede, then saying its the fault of that bastard with the cigarette. Oh sure cigarette gut broke the law and he should be punished for the crime he committed which was smoking inside a public building, but in this case they are trying to blame the stampede on him. He may have been the catalyst that started it but there is no way he could have expected the reaction that occurred.

I should back up real quick, I realize that this sounds like I'm blaming the police and I guess to an extent I am, I know they have a difficult job and that better safe than sorry is the general policy, but at what point does the state induced hysteria become a greater threat than the "attack."

"For people who are hip and live in the world of blogs and all sorts of cool alternative media, it's one thing," he said, "but for the rest of us ... they don't get it as a marketing or a clever event, they see it as a huge disruption of their lives.

Which is fine, but who really created the dirsuption in your life, the guy with the long hair, or th person who freaked out and thought that a cartoon character was a bomb?

Heres a couple articles, One from the Boston Herald and one from the Portsmouth Herald.