Tuesday, February 06, 2007

*NOTE: Make that "Media Log confuses." A reader has helpfully pointed out that there is, in fact, a CENTRAL place for "intent" in the state law at work here. Here's what I somehow managed to miss:

Whoever possesses, transports, uses or places or causes another to knowingly or unknowingly possess, transport, use or place any hoax device or hoax substance with the intent to cause anxiety, unrest, fear or personal discomfort to any person or group of persons shall be punished by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment. [emph. added]

Today's Herald story reporting that Peter Berdovsky and Sean Stevens videotaped law enforcement's Mooninite freak-out is a great scoop, assuming it holds up. Nice work by Michele McPhee.

That said, I'm puzzled by the "high-ranking BPD official" who claimed that this videotaping provides the proof of "intent" that prosecutors need to make their case. Here's the quote in question:

The minute they knew that police officers were racing across the city, firefighters were racing to the scene, and bomb techs were suiting up, and they did not call 911 [sic]. That--that forms intent. Their being there could provide the proof of intent prosecutors need.

Two problems here:

1. I'm no attorney, but on a common-sense level, this doesn't necessarily work. Yeah, maybe Pete-n-Sean had their videocamera at the ready because they knew exactly what was going to happen and wanted to capture it for posterity. Then again, maybe they're just a couple of tools who didn't expect things to snowball the way they did, thought it was hilarious, and wanted to get it on tape.

2. Beyond that, why does "intent" even matter? I ask this because Mass. law defines "hoax" in such a way that "intent" seems utterly superfluous. Here's the relevant passage:

For the purposes of this section, the term "hoax device" shall mean any device that would cause a person reasonably to believe that such device is an infernal machine. For the purposes of this section, the term "infernal machine" shall mean any device for endangering life or doing unusual damage to property, or both, by fire or explosion, whether or not contrived to ignite or explode automatically. [You can read the whole law here.]

What's the deal? there a J.D. in the house?

2/6/2007 10:39:56 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [4] |