# School doesn't want to talk about clock



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

For those of you who assured us that we would change our minds about "clock boy" once the school was allowed to tell their side of the story it seems the wait may be a bit longer. The school is suing not to have details released.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-district-sues-prevent-release-clock-details-145925669.html


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

And apparently neither does anyone else.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Clock boy was a fraud. He didn't make anything. He did take a partially dismantled clock not radio to school that would have triggered any first responder's concern about it being a bomb.

He had a chance to put his toy away. Instead he continued with show and tell.

Obama fawning over the kid was the icing on the cake. Short of the award of a deserved Medal of Honor, anything else praised by Obama should be suspect given his demonstrated lack of concern for other duties.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

For some reason the school absolutely does not want the details of the arrest of a 14 year old kid released. I wonder why?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> For some reason the school absolutely does not want the details of the arrest of a 14 year old kid released. I wonder why?


Wasn't there a lawsuit? If so that's SOP. No one talks per legal advice. The other potential is the cut off of federal funds to the school district.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Generally if there's evidence in a report like this that will help ones case those involved in lawsuits are more than anxious to have it made public. Why wouldn't they? It's usually only negative news that someone doesn't want released. This was an investigation done by a government agency. It's contents should be public knowledge.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

When the lawsuit asks for fifteen million dollars, are you going to blab to the media when the media has already glorified the plaintiff? You can't win via the media. The media has already tried and judged you.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

If the information in the report showed that I did nothing wrong, treated this student just as I would any other student in a similar situation and that religion had nothing up with it you bet your sweet bippy I'd be clamoring for its release. What better than a report from an outside government agency showing I'm in the right to put pressure on the other side? The report will become public at some point. Why wait to look good, unless you don't?

ETA- Acting like you have something to hide rarely helps a public relations campaign.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I'd still rely on legal advice. If you think back to Zimmerman Martin, Zimmerman kept his mouth shut. His lawyers played the media game.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

You asked my opinion on what I would do. You're free to follow whatever advice you wish regardless of how it makes you look.

Now I'll offer my prediction of what will happen going forward. Sometime in the next six months a settlement will be reached between the school and the boy. The details will remain confidential and there will be restrictions placed on both parties limiting what they can say. Apologists for the school will defend this as doing what is best for the school by eliminating a prolonged and costly legal battle. Sometime later the justice department report will be released. Despite how damning the evidence in that report may be against the school the same apologists will blame the Obama controlled justice department of issuing a biased report. Time will prove me right or wrong.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

The report came from a federal investigation. *Why hasn't the Just us Dept sued the school district if they found something?* The article is wrong. Clock boy didn't make anything. He took the innards out of a clock, put it into a small case and took it to school.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Proof clock boy was a fraud:

"The shape and design is a dead give away. The large screen. The buttons on the front laid out horizontally would have been on a separate board &#8211; a large snooze button, four control buttons, and two switches to turn the alarm on and off, and choose two brightness levels. A second board inside would have contained the actual &#8220;brains&#8221; of the unit. The clock features a 9v battery back-up, and a switch on the rear allows the owner to choose between 12 and 24 hour time. (Features like a battery back-up, and a 24 hour time selection seems awful superfluous for a hobby project, don&#8217;t you think?) Oh, and about that &#8220;M&#8221; logo on the circuit board mentioned above? Micronta."

http://blogs.artvoice.com/techvoice...gineering-ahmed-mohameds-clock-and-ourselves/


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Generally if there's evidence in a report like this that will help ones case those involved in lawsuits are more than anxious to have it made public. Why wouldn't they? It's usually only negative news that someone doesn't want released. This was an investigation done by a government agency. It's contents should be public knowledge.


If there is ongoing litigation, it's generally advisable to say nothing to the public.

Civil court cases aren't necessarily public record until after they are settled


----------



## Michael W. Smith (Jun 2, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> Now I'll offer my prediction of what will happen going forward. Sometime in the next six months a settlement will be reached between the school and the boy. The details will remain confidential and there will be restrictions placed on both parties limiting what they can say. Apologists for the school will defend this as doing what is best for the school by eliminating a prolonged and costly legal battle.


That's the whole problem with the legal system. You are put into a "Make this situation go away" mode because most times it usually is cheaper just to settle, rather than have a long, drawn out case with your lawyer charging an arm, and a leg, and another arm. And even then, if you are lucky enough to win the case, you have paid out alot more than if the case was just settled.

I don't think the settlement should be secret though. Those are public funds paying the settlement - whether money through property taxes, State funds, or Federal funds, it's still PUBLIC taxpayer money. 

Some will say "Well yeah, but insurance is what actually paid the settlement." Yes, it is most likely, but it was still public funds that paid the lawyer, and public funds that paid for the insurance premium!!


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

It is not surprising that the school is not releasing any records. Individual schools (in every district I've ever worked in) have a blanket policy that no information is ever authorized to be released to the media from the school. Everything must go through the superintendent's office. No exceptions.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lol it's funny how some wouldn't admit he made a clock unless the kid dug the copper ore out of the ground himself.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol it's funny how some wouldn't admit he *made a clock* unless the kid dug the copper ore out of the ground himself.


Why would anyone admit something he didn't do?
He connected a few wires to ready made parts
He didn't "make a clock" any more than you "make a cell phone" when you plug in your charger


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

SLFarmMI said:


> It is not surprising that the school is not releasing any records. Individual schools (in every district I've ever worked in) have a blanket policy that no information is ever authorized to be released to the media from the school. Everything must go through the superintendent's office. No exceptions.


The school isn't fighting the release of records. They are attempting to block a justice department letter outlining disciplinary policies and actions based on race, religion and national origin. The Texas Attorney General ordered the release.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

For those of you who keep trying to make this case about whether it was a clock or not or whether he built it or assembled it you're barking up the wrong tree. The case deals with whether the young man was singled out for treatment based on his religion and national origin that would have been handled differently if he were a blond haired, blue eyed Texan named Bobby. It appears the justice department feels they did engage in discriminatory actions and the school doesn't want that to be made public.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> For those of you who keep trying to make this case about whether it was a clock or not or whether he built it or assembled it you're barking up the wrong tree.* The case deals with whether the young man was singled out for treatment based on his religion and national origin *that would have been handled differently if he were a blond haired, blue eyed Texan named Bobby. It appears the justice department feels they did engage in discriminatory actions and the school doesn't want that to be made public.


I disagree with that. The kid was told to put it away by the first teacher. The next teacher had to contend with the alarm going off in her class. The kid has discipline problems. The clock incident wasn't his first trip to the rodeo. Nor apparently was it his sister's based on another hoax.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> I disagree with that. The kid was told to put it away by the first teacher. The next teacher had to contend with the alarm going off in her class. The kid has discipline problems. The clock incident wasn't his first trip to the rodeo. Nor apparently was it his sister's based on another hoax.


The court case, if it happens, will settle much of this. We'd likely know more if the letter and it's conclusions were made public. But we wouldn't want transparency, would we?


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> For those of you who keep trying to make this case about whether it was a clock or not or whether he built it or assembled it you're barking up the wrong tree. The case deals with whether the young man was singled out for treatment based on his religion and national origin that would have been handled differently if he were a blond haired, blue eyed Texan named Bobby. It appears the justice department feels they did engage in discriminatory actions and the school doesn't want that to be made public.


Give me a break!
We have kids being expelled because they ate a pop tart into the shape of a gun! If they hold their thumb up and their finger extended, they are expelled!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

po boy said:


> Give me a break!
> We have kids being expelled because they ate a pop tart into the shape of a gun! If they hold their thumb up and their finger extended, they are expelled!


And I've argued against things like that and other zero tolerance policies. If you object to things like that you should object to arresting a young man who made or posed no credible threat. Unless something else is at play.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why would anyone admit something he didn't do?
> He connected a few wires to ready made parts
> He didn't "make a clock" any more than you "make a cell phone" when you plug in your charger



Point made !
I suppose GM has never built a car since they buy "premade parts " ?


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> For those of you who keep trying to make this case about whether it was a clock or not or whether he built it or assembled it you're barking up the wrong tree. The case deals with whether the young man was singled out for treatment based on his religion and national origin that would have been* handled differently if he were a blond haired, blue eyed Texan named Bobby. It appears the justice department feels they did engage in discriminatory actions and the school* doesn't want that to be made public.


 Links?



mmoetc said:


> And I've argued against things like that and other zero tolerance policies. If you object to things like that you should object to arresting a young man *who made or posed no credible threat. Unless something else is at play.*


As determined by you! If Bobby had that gizmo in his backpack you would cheer his arrest!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

po boy said:


> Links?
> 
> 
> 
> As determined by you! If Bobby had that gizmo in his backpack you would cheer his arrest!


The link you want is the article mentioned in the OP which speaks of the justice departments letter outlining the abuses. 

It's good you can presume what I might or might not do. But in this case you're wrong. You'll just have to take my word for it. The question is, would you?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol it's funny how some wouldn't admit he made a clock unless the kid dug the copper ore out of the ground himself.


That's the funny part. The kid never made a clock. That's the myth. The kid was no stranger to being suspended. Another article mentioned his sister had made a bomb threat previously.

The kid that did that at the local high school ended up at another state run institution where he may still be incarcerated.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> The court case, if it happens, will settle much of this. We'd likely know more if the letter and it's conclusions were made public. But we wouldn't want transparency, would we?


Given his father's shenanigans, I'd love to see them all in court. You can bet your butt the imans at the school in Qater won't put up with his crap. It's been reported he wants to come back to the US. 

The fifteen million the family wants would come in handy for the father's political campaign in Sudan.

BTW, that clock he "invented", the family never bothered to pick it up at the police dept.


----------



## Vikestand (Feb 27, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> And I've argued against things like that and other zero tolerance policies. If you object to things like that you should object to arresting a young man who made or posed no credible threat. Unless something else is at play.


Funny how that works.


----------



## Vikestand (Feb 27, 2015)

I see a few posters who preach constitutional rights are some of the first ones who want to trample on them in certain cases.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Maybe the gov. has told them to zip it. We all know the gov. runs in first thing to apply their adjenda. So, they zip it and the citizens move on to bigger issues like the size of some cardashians rear.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> For some reason the school absolutely does not want the details of the arrest of a 14 year old kid released. I wonder why?





Darren said:


> Wasn't there a lawsuit? If so that's SOP. No one talks per legal advice. The other potential is the cut off of federal funds to the school district.


The reasons were outlined in the article.......

*"The Texas attorney general's office earlier this month ordered the Irving school district to provide a copy of the U.S. Department of Justice letter to The Dallas Morning News (http://bit.ly/21z8H32 ). Instead, the district on Thursday sued to prevent the release of the multi-page letter, which outlined allegations of "discipline of students on the basis of race, religion and national origin," the newspaper reported.

The district has been turning over sealed documents to comply with the investigation into the September arrest of 14-year-old Ahmed Mohamed. A charge of having a hoax bomb was later dropped but the Muslim teen was suspended.

His family has said the boy's religion was a factor in the school's response, but officials have denied the claim. The district has argued it's withholding the letter because it expects to be sued by the Mohamed family."*




mmoetc said:


> For those of you who keep trying to make this case about whether it was a clock or not or whether he built it or assembled it you're barking up the wrong tree. The case deals with whether the young man was singled out for treatment based on his religion and national origin that would have been handled differently if he were a blond haired, blue eyed Texan named Bobby. It appears the justice department feels they did engage in discriminatory actions and the school doesn't want that to be made public.






mmoetc said:


> You asked my opinion on what I would do. You're free to follow whatever advice you wish regardless of how it makes you look.
> 
> Now I'll offer my prediction of what will happen going forward. Sometime in the next six months a settlement will be reached between the school and the boy. The details will remain confidential and there will be restrictions placed on both parties limiting what they can say. Apologists for the school will defend this as doing what is best for the school by eliminating a prolonged and costly legal battle. Sometime later the justice department report will be released. Despite how damning the evidence in that report may be against the school the same apologists will blame the Obama controlled justice department of issuing a biased report. Time will prove me right or wrong.



I believe that's a good bet.

When the incident was first reported, I thought the school had over-reacted and took the boy's side.
After reading about the rest of his family, especially his father, I realized the school was set-up from the very beginning. It was well done and the scary part is, had it gone the opposite way with no reaction at all, it would be the classic "dry run" procedure that terrorists use to test a facility's security.


That's a dangerous game being played and playing it with school kids is unacceptable.

You're also correct in how I would feel about this administration's "unbiased" DOJ investigation.
The games Obama plays with the American people are dangerous too.
It's all fun and games until someone gets hurt.
:flame:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Point made !
> I suppose GM has never built a car since they buy "premise parts " ?


GM designs the cars and has parts built to their specifications.
They don't go out and buy a KIA and reassemble it


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by mmoetc View Post
> For those of you who keep trying to make this case about whether it was a clock or not or whether he built it or assembled it you're barking up the wrong tree. The case deals with whether the young man was *singled out for treatment based on his religion and national origin *that would have been handled differently if he were a blond haired, blue eyed Texan named Bobby. It appears the justice department feels they did engage in discriminatory actions and the school doesn't want that to be made public.


He was "singled out because he was the only one who brought what looked like a timing device for a bomb to school, against regulations.

It make little difference what DOJ thinks since we all know their credibility, and really you're just speculating as to why nothing has been released.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> For those of you who keep trying to make this case about whether it was a clock or not or whether he built it or assembled it you're barking up the wrong tree. The case deals with whether the young man was singled out for treatment based on his religion and national origin that would have been handled differently if he were a blond haired, blue eyed Texan named Bobby. It appears the justice department feels they did engage in discriminatory actions and the school doesn't want that to be made public.


Since 9/11, FDs, LEOs and yes education has been trained to prevent any more deaths at the hand of disturbed children. I have helped teach some myself from the FD side to the schools along with Law enforcement. 

Did they single out this kid because he was a darker shade of brown? Maybe but probably not imo. But they _could_ have. 

You seem to have tried and convicted them already though.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

mreynolds said:


> Since 9/11, FDs, LEOs and yes education has been trained to prevent any more deaths at the hand of disturbed children. I have helped teach some myself from the FD side to the schools along with Law enforcement.
> 
> Did they single out this kid because he was a darker shade of brown? Maybe but probably not imo. But they _could_ have.
> 
> You seem to have tried and convicted them already though.


And others have exonerated the school. I'm free to give my opinion, am I not. The school will have an opportunity if this comes to trial to sway my opinion that they acted wrongly and for the wrong reasons.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> GM designs the cars and has parts built to their specifications.
> 
> They don't go out and buy a KIA and reassemble it



Most kids don't have quite the resources GM has to get parts. 

My son just made a clock. He started with. A "101 electronics projects kit" it even has a board that let's you wire things between springs instead of soldering. 
Tomorrow those parts might be a radio. 

But don't go into his forth grade class and say he didn't make a clock or they will all call you a liar.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> Most kids don't have quite the resources GM has to get parts.
> 
> My son just made a clock. He started with. A "101 electronics projects kit" it even has a board that let's you wire things between springs instead of soldering.
> Tomorrow those parts might be a radio.
> ...


Again! The kid did not assemble the clock out of parts. There are videos on the internet showing what the kid did. He took a Radio Shack Micronta brand clock out of its case and put it into a small case. He made nothing from parts unless you consider putting a factory built clock into a different case, "making" a clock.

Your son actually assembled a clock out of parts using a prototyping board. Clock boy did not. 

Do you believe clock boy deserved an invitation to the White House when your son did not get one? Do you think it was a bit unusual when CAIR showed up immediately?

The situation around clock boy has a stench about it that should be obvious especially given previous actions of his father and sister.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Darren said:


> Do you believe clock boy deserved an invitation to the White House when your son did not get one? Do you think it was a bit unusual when CAIR showed up immediately?
> 
> The situation around clock boy has a stench about it that should be obvious especially given previous actions of his father and sister.



Lol honestly do you think him NOT making a clock somehow strengthens the government claim ?

"Child arrested for having clock. " would have been somehow a better media blitz ?

So now you are saying that putting premade guts in a case isn't making a clock. ?
Funny those clock kits to make a grandmother/father clock are exactly that. 

Just exactly how many parts must I assemble to "make" something ?

Do Shake the box models count as making a car ?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

The clock was already a clock before the kid was probably born. It's an old Radio Shack clock. Does the act of buying a clock mean you made it? NO! Does the act of changing the outer appearance of a car by adding mud flaps, hanging a squirrel tail on an antenna, or adding a Cherry Bomb muffler to the exhaust mean you manufactured a car? NO! 

The issue is the family and some of the red flags in this case. Why would a kid put a factory made clock in a case and take it to school? The kid was told by the first teacher to put it away. Later on supposedly a teacher inconvenienced by the alarm going off got the school administration involved. From there it went down hill for the kid when, again supposedly, he wasn't forthcoming with the cops.

Forty years ago I did something similar. I put a windup clock in a shoe box. I didn't build that clock any more than clock boy made a clock. The difference between me and clock boy is I used the clock as a makeshift timer to do something that eventually involved the fire dept. Through the grape vine I heard the initial reaction of the responders was that they were dealing with a bomb.

Fortunately for me 9/11 was long in the future and my prank was recognized as a prank. If I did the same thing today the FBI would probably track me down and have me indicted.

As a first responder, I've been through an explosive recognition class. With the current state of affairs, I would have reacted the same as the school did. I would immediately get law enforcement involved. The clock could have been a timing device to set off a bomb remotely.

If I had been the teacher, after the alarm sounded and nothing went BANG, I wouldn't have been sure there wasn't a bomb somewhere. The attempt to detonate it may have failed. I could have made an educated guess. The result would have been the same. In this state, clock boy would have been talking to the state police. If he didn't cooperate he would have been worse off here.

The school's reaction was prudent especially given his sister's reported earlier bomb threat.

Contrary to what the media would have you believe, the kid didn't prove he was a genius by putting a Radio Shack clock in a pencil case. I did something very similar and no one has ever accused me of being a genius. On the contrary I've been called a trouble maker. So is clock boy.

Do you understand how biased the media coverage has been? The media jumped on the fact he was Muslim, dark skinned and, to them, persecuted. It was a trifecta that got clock boy global attention.

What he really deserved was a paddling for being disruptive. Seeing how the media went charging off ballyhooing an incorrect story, I would be very careful, as the school district is, with any further revelations or comments. 

Any time Obama has gotten involved in publicizing something there's been an agenda that's been largely false. So it was with Trayvon Martin and so it is with clock boy.

The school district has every right to be wary.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Most kids don't have quite the resources GM has to get parts.
> 
> My son just *made* a clock. He started with. A "101 electronics projects kit" it even has a board that let's you wire things between springs instead of soldering.
> Tomorrow those parts might be a radio.
> ...


You're laboring under the delusion that your example compares to "clock-boy"
He didn't "*make* a clock"
Your son *assembled* a clock from a kit, but clock boy just wired a few pre-built parts together, then broke the rules by taking it to his classes.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Clock boy didn't wire parts together. He took the clock out of its case and stuck it in another case. He's not only a trouble maker, the kid's a liar too.

From the link below showing what he did:

"So there you have it folks, Ahmed Mohamed did not invent, nor build a clock. He took apart an existing clock, and transplanted the guts into a pencil box, and claimed it was his own creation. It all seems really fishy to me."

http://blogs.artvoice.com/techvoice...gineering-ahmed-mohameds-clock-and-ourselves/


----------



## Vikestand (Feb 27, 2015)

I have never heard of any of the sources you're posting......


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Vikestand said:


> I have never heard of any of the sources you're posting......


That's because it's a blog, and blogs are simply someone's opinion.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Duplicate


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> That's because it's a blog, and blogs are simply someone's opinion.


I hadn't heard of the blog either until I searched for someone with an electronics background who duplicated what clock boy did by finding the exact same clock. 

It ceases being an opinion when it's a statement of fact much like someone duplicating a scientific experiment. Since when is a scientific experiment an opinion? Likewise if someone duplicates an action of another, how does it become an opinion?

Clock boy is a fraud and a proven liar.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Darren said:


> I hadn't heard of the blog either until I searched for someone with an electronics background who duplicated what clock boy did by finding the exact same clock.
> 
> It ceases being an opinion when it's a statement of fact much like someone duplicating a scientific experiment. Since when is a scientific experiment an opinion? Likewise if someone duplicates an action of another, how does it become an opinion?
> 
> Clock boy is a fraud and a proven liar.


The facts: Ahmed Mohamed is a *14 year old* boy that put parts of a clock into a pencil box and showed his teacher. His teacher reported it (at no time did anyone at the school think it was a bomb) and the principal called local LEOs. The yokel locals arrested a *14 year old* kid, interrogated him for over an hour without a parent present, and shipped him to a juvenile detention center and fingerprinted him. Only after that was he released to his parents. 

This entire situation was fudged from the beginning, and never would have happened if he were a 14 year old _white_ boy. But being brown (and muslim) automatically made him a "terrorist". 

A grown man trying to duplicate it to debunk what a *14 year old kid* did is beyond pathetic. And unless he actually had the same parts that Ahmed Mohamed put in the pencil box he didn't duplicate anything-- and I'm not reading the BS in the blog to find out.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> The facts: Ahmed Mohamed is a *14 year old* boy that put parts of a clock into a pencil box and showed his teacher. His teacher reported it (at no time did anyone at the school think it was a bomb) and the principal called local LEOs. The yokel locals arrested a *14 year old* kid, interrogated him for over an hour without a parent present, and shipped him to a juvenile detention center and fingerprinted him. Only after that was he released to his parents.
> 
> This entire situation was fudged from the beginning, and never would have happened if he were a 14 year old _white_ boy. But being brown (and muslim) automatically made him a "terrorist".
> 
> A grown man trying to duplicate it to debunk what a *14 year old kid* did is beyond pathetic. And unless he actually had the same parts that Ahmed Mohamed put in the pencil box he didn't duplicate anything-- and I'm not reading the BS in the blog to find out.


Wow!
A 7 year old kid is suspended because his partial eaten pop tart had the shape of a gun. Mental midgets would know that pop tart wouldn't harm any one and he was white.

Sure idiocy!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

po boy said:


> Wow!
> A 7 year old kid is suspended because his partial eaten pop tart had the shape of a gun. Mental midgets would know that pop tart wouldn't harm any one and he was white.
> 
> Sure idiocy!


You can't or won't realize there is a huge difference between suspended from school and arrested? Do I really need to explain?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

very


Irish Pixie said:


> The facts: Ahmed Mohamed is a *14 year old* boy that put parts of a clock into a pencil box and showed his teacher. His teacher reported it (at no time did anyone at the school think it was a bomb) and the principal called local LEOs. The yokel locals arrested a *14 year old* kid, interrogated him for over an hour without a parent present, and shipped him to a juvenile detention center and fingerprinted him. Only after that was he released to his parents.
> 
> This entire situation was fudged from the beginning, and never would have happened if he were a 14 year old _white_ boy. But being brown (and muslim) automatically made him a "terrorist".
> 
> A grown man trying to duplicate it to debunk what a *14 year old kid* did is beyond pathetic. And unless he actually had the same parts that Ahmed Mohamed put in the pencil box he didn't duplicate anything-- *and I'm not reading the BS in the blog to find out.*


It's very obvious you didn't read the facts at the blog. 

Of course you're certainly entitled to your opinion. *You're not entitled to your own facts. Facts are facts.* 

What is pathetic is people that ignore the fact (the truth) that the kid who is regarded as a genius for making something, never did what the media would have you believe he did.

I'm constantly amazed by the hopefully rational people who allow a predisposition of some sort to blind themselves to* ALL *of the truth of an incident. The kid may have been singled out. I don't know about that. The truth I'm sure of is the kid did not invent or create something original.

Other facts about the kid remain to be determined. Why was he suspended previously? The school didn't arrest him. The cops did. What protocol gave them grounds for the arrest? Is the family suing the cops? Not yet. Why not?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Darren said:


> very
> 
> It's very obvious you didn't read the facts at the blog.
> 
> ...


What makes some blog writer's opinion fact? Cuz he says so? :happy2: 

I never said that Ahmed Mohamed invented or created anything. I said he put clock parts in a pencil box. What part of my facts, as they are not with your conjecture, are not true? And I point blank said I didn't read the BS on the blog.

A grown man trying to debunk a 14 year old is pathetic, there is no other way of looking at it. 

I'm sure there are many bigots that believe their opinion is fact on this issue...


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

The engineer at the blog found the exact same clock on ebay and explained when he saw the picture of the device why he knew it wasn't home built. The circuit board was the giveaway. 

As for thinking the device looked like a bomb. That was reported in that bastion of truth, the Washington Post. Note that they spread the falsehood that the clock was home built. Why did the kid lie about that?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nging-a-home-built-clock-to-school/?tid=a_inl


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Darren said:


> The engineer at the blog found the exact same clock on ebay and explained when he saw the picture of the device why he knew it wasn't home built. The circuit board was the giveaway.
> 
> As for thinking the device looked like a bomb. That was reported in that bastion of truth, the Washington Post. Note that they spread the falsehood that the clock was home built. Why did the kid lie about that?
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nging-a-home-built-clock-to-school/?tid=a_inl


Where did I say anything about the clock other than Ahmed Mohamed put parts of a clock into a pencil box? I never said that Ahmed Mohamed invented or created anything. You haven't pointed out which of the facts I provided aren't true. Can you?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

po boy said:


> Wow!
> A 7 year old kid is suspended because his partial eaten pop tart had the shape of a gun. Mental midgets would know that pop tart wouldn't harm any one and he was white.
> 
> Sure idiocy!


I'll agree it was idiocy. But it was also idiotic of the Texas school to handle things the way they did.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Somebody mishandled the situation, which is why I'm of the opinion there will be an out of court settlement. 

If the first teacher that saw the device was aware it could be perceived as a problem, it should have been confiscated until the parents were contacted. 

If the first teacher to see the item clearly noted, as several have indicated, that it was a crudely made replica, it would seem that others would have seen the same thing and there would have been no need to have him arrested but it may have warranted a suspension.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> Where did I say anything about the clock other than Ahmed Mohamed put parts of a clock into a pencil box? I never said that Ahmed Mohamed invented or created anything. You haven't pointed out which of the facts I provided aren't true. Can you?


*I'm interested in why you are incurious about a central part of the incident that is being used by the media to portray the kid as a genius.* When I find something that shows a part of an incident is a lie and it's spread by the media I wonder about all of the so-called facts of the incident. Why don't you?

Why did CAIR show up so quickly? Even in the case of Trayvon Martin, it took time for the family to get the "right" people in order to arrange Obama's cameo appearance and shop the story to a legitimate media outlet that finally unknowingly accepted the lie to began its spread.

In these times everyone is super sensitive to anything involving schools. Why did the kid take a clock out of it's factory case and put it in something so that it had the potential to make people apprehensive?

When I find one lie, I wonder about the rest of the story. Why don't you?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

wr said:


> Somebody mishandled the situation, which is why I'm of the opinion there will be an out of court settlement.
> 
> If the first teacher that saw the device was aware it could be perceived as a problem, it should have been confiscated until the parents were contacted.
> 
> If the first teacher to see the item clearly noted, as several have indicated, that it was a crudely made replica, it would seem that others would have seen the same thing and there would have been no need to have him arrested but it may have warranted a suspension.


People see things differently. The first teacher taught science. They probably looked at the device and never thought it could be a bomb. A later teacher heard it making noise. Someone at the school got the police involved. 

I would have done the same due to my training as a firefighter which not only involves explosive recognition but also training to see how seemingly disconnected bits and pieces of information from one source may tie to something in a distant area.

I've been through two training episodes that taught me how unobservant people can be. In one a guy picked up a Pepsi can and the instructor told him he was dead. A bomb can be secreted in something that small and be lethal.

In the other I was the "dead" person, when I opened a door. The instructor had placed a cable against a metal door which I later opened. The wire represented a live circuit. Both classes/excercises were designed to make people more observant.

Law enforcement goes through the same training. I believe the incident was handled correctly barring something that proves to me they treated the kid differently than any other suspect.

Bomb threats at schools are serious issues that are not taken lightly. As I mentioned previously, a local kid who made one was/is incarcerated.

The other issue is any time first responders are called to an incident, they have to take into consideration that it may be a diversion. How could they know the incident at the school was not part of a larger plan?

The killings at San Bernardino brought in law enforcement that might have been killed by the pipe bombs left behind. The training teaches that no matter what is known, the future may involve new variations that haven't been seen before.

Before the class I wouldn't have considered a Pepsi can lying at a scene as potentially being lethal. There are people out there that want to kill us. Law enforcement stands between them and us. We don't need to make it more difficult by introducing PC BS. Terrorists are not PC in case you haven't noticed.

I hope the kid is stuck in Qatar. He won't get away with his BS in class there.* I still want to know why he lied.*


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Darren said:


> *I'm interested in why you are incurious about a central part of the incident that is being used by the media to portray the kid as a genius.* When I find something that shows a part of an incident is a lie and it's spread by the media I wonder about all of the so-called facts of the incident. Why don't you?
> 
> Why did CAIR show up so quickly? Even in the case of Trayvon Martin, it took time for the family to get the "right" people in order to arrange Obama's cameo appearance and shop the story to a legitimate media outlet that finally unknowingly accepted the lie to began its spread.
> 
> ...


I'm "incurious" about the clock because it doesn't matter- it wasn't a bomb and the teacher never thought it was. I don't think the kid is a genius, I think he's fairly typical of his gender, taking things apart and putting them back together is normal. 

Why did he take apart the clock and put it in a sinister looking pencil case? Because he was a 14 year old boy. 

I don't see any lies, I see a bunch of idiots that arrested a 14 year old boy for fiddling with clock parts. I see a school administration that over reacted to the clock parts, I see local LEOs that should be fired for arresting a 14 year old boy that had a pencil case with clock parts in it, and finally I see the media that went berserk. All because the boy was brown and muslim, never would have happened if the kid was white and christian. That's my opinion. 

I'm done. The kid and his family have left the country, and they had every right to file a lawsuit against the school for calling in law enforcement over clock parts in a pencil case. They should file against local LEOs as well, they had no right to keep a 14 year old for over an hour without a parent present and there were other violations as well. 

I'd think bigots would be happy- one less brown muslim family in the US. Isn't that what bigots want?


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> You can't or won't realize there is a huge difference between suspended from school and arrested? Do I really need to explain?


Don't be silly, again!


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

What most people want is for everyone to be safe and go home to their families at the end of the day. That's it. If you draw attention in the manner that the kid did after 9/11, you can expect people will not be amused. Add a sister who commented about bombing something previously and you'll be on someone's mental Rolodex when you show up.

Incidents like that might suck. Getting killed or maimed sucks more.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> People see things differently. The first teacher taught science. They probably looked at the device and never thought it could be a bomb. A later teacher heard it making noise. Someone at the school got the police involved.
> 
> I would have done the same due to my training as a firefighter which not only involves explosive recognition but also training to see how seemingly disconnected bits and pieces of information from one source may tie to something in a distant area.
> 
> ...


But this wasn't a bomb threat and it was taken quite lightly. The boy was allowed to return to class until the police were called. Even after the police arrived and started questioning him about his "bomb" the school wasn't evacuated and searched. No search warrant was seemingly applied for to search his home for further "bomb making" materials. The questioning was done in the same building you say there might have been a bomb. None of the actions of the authorities spoke to them thinking there was any credible threat warranting their reaction.

I'll even agree that many, including the president, over reacted in lauding the boy's achievement in electronics. But that has nothing to do with the school's and police's overreaction and inappropriate response.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

po boy said:


> Don't be silly, again!


*I'm* not the one that compared being suspended from school with being arrested.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> But this wasn't a bomb threat and it was taken quite lightly. The boy was allowed to return to class until the police were called. Even after the police arrived and started questioning him about his "bomb" the school wasn't evacuated and searched. No search warrant was seemingly applied for to search his home for further "bomb making" materials. The questioning was done in the same building you say there might have been a bomb. None of the actions of the authorities spoke to them thinking there was any credible threat warranting their reaction.
> 
> I'll even agree that many, including the president, over reacted in lauding the boy's achievement in electronics. But that has nothing to do with the school's and police's overreaction and inappropriate response.


Exactly. They were so worried about bombs that school went on normally except for a 14 year old brown muslim boy who put clock parts in a pencil case and was arrested.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Neither did the police draw their firearms. What we don't know is what the school district policy states. Nor do we know how the kid responded to the police questions. So far the mayor is backing the police. What does she know that we don't?

I'm not going to criticize the police or the school district until the details are available. Until we know what happened when he was questioned, everything is supposition. I'm not going to assume the police acted wrongly until facts support that.

Of course you're always entitled to your opinion. That doesn't necessarily mean it's correct.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

The school or the media doesn't want to talk about the clock because THEY KNOW THEY HAVE BEEN HAD and it's embarrassing........
They are in the "stick you head in the sand and act like it didn't happen" phase.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> Neither did the police draw their firearms. What we don't know is what the school district policy states. Nor do we know how the kid responded to the police questions. So far the mayor is backing the police. What does she know that we don't?
> 
> I'm not going to criticize the police or the school district until the details are available. Until we know what happened when he was questioned, everything is supposition. I'm not going to assume the police acted wrongly until facts support that.
> 
> ...


Why would they have drawn their guns. Or do you just enjoy throwing out red herrings.

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Ir...ool-Evacuated-Over-Bomb-Threat-330104461.html

Here's the same school being evacuated and searched because of a called in bomb threat. Maybe it shows they learned something about appropriate response or maybe it shows they have a policy of evacuations in the case of credible threat. A policy that should have been followed if they thought the erstwhile clock was evidence of a potential bomb which is what you seem to think. And if they didn't have such a policy before they were quite remiss in their duties and are likely the only school district in the country to not have one calling for removing students from a potential threat. Of course if they didn't think it was a bomb and the boy made no threats indicating it was the interrogation and arrest seem a bit of an overreach. And that's the real point.

If you wish to know more details the answer is quite simple. Call for the release of the justice department letter like the Texas Attorney General has. It likely contains many of those details. It's what I originally posted about but what you keep trying to derail into a silly new game show- "Clock, or NoClock!".


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Given the actions of the Just-us Dept. I have doubts about how dispassionate the report may be. As I said before, if the Just-us Dept. found wrong doing *why haven't they taken legal action?* With the fraud associated with the kid, I understand why the school district is being cautious especially with the ongoing extortion attempt. The media has already decided the kid's innocence even when there's ample proof of his original deception and continued lying.

There's also the possibility the kid is being manipulated by the family. Something smells.

The extortion attempt is a red flag. Lots of people get arrested. Very few decide an hour or so of their time is worth fifteen million dollars. In the interviews of the kid following the incidence, he's happy and thrilled with his new found fame. He doesn't appear to be traumatized and withdrawn. The incident brought him scholarship offers which in retrospect do not seem to be deserved. PC BS is killing this country.

Of course the next thing will probably be the kid will suffer from latent PTSD. Until the legal issue is resolved, I'd advise the school district to tell the Texas AG where to go. If the AG's duties and powers are similar to the AG in WV, they're on thin ice putting a state entity at risk.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> Neither did the police draw their firearms. What we don't know is what the school district policy states. Nor do we know how the kid responded to the police questions. So far the mayor is backing the police. What does she know that we don't?
> 
> I'm not going to criticize the police or the school district until the details are available. Until we know what happened when he was questioned, everything is supposition. I'm not going to assume the police acted wrongly until facts support that.
> 
> Of course you're always entitled to your opinion. That doesn't necessarily mean it's correct.





Darren said:


> Given the actions of the Just-us Dept. I have doubts about how dispassionate the report may be. As I said before, if the Just-us Dept. found wrong doing *why haven't they taken legal action?* With the fraud associated with the kid, I understand why the school district is being cautious especially with the ongoing extortion attempt. The media has already decided the kid's innocence even when there's ample proof of his original deception and continued lying.
> 
> There's also the possibility the kid is being manipulated by the family. Something smells.
> 
> ...


But I'm sure you're willing to trust that same department's report in this case.http://www.cbsnews.com/news/darren-...brown-ferguson-killing-by-justice-department/. There are many others I'm sure you'd find equally trustworthy. Or is it only things you disagree with you don't trust.

As for why the justice department hasn't taken action. They have. Issuing the letter to the school district is an action. Letters like these are often issued to entitities and the entity is given a chance to respond and come up with its own corrective actions. Further action may follow depending on the school districts continued response. If you're not going to believe the letter's contents anyway how open are you really to the possibility the school acted inappropriately?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> For some reason the school absolutely does not want the details of the arrest of a 14 year old kid released. I wonder why?


Because it'd make Obama look even more stupid than he already looks?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Exactly. They were so worried about bombs that school went on normally except for a 14 year old brown muslim boy who put clock parts in a pencil case and was arrested.


You do know his dad is a muslim activist and orchestrated the whole thing right?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Thanks for providing the link to the Ferguson investigation. You are correct in that area. While the dept has chosen not to pursue some cases, now that you've drawn the distinction, I'm not aware of any of the investigations similar to the school district that have been bogus.

I'd have no problem believing the facts laid out in the letter. I'm still of the mind the school district should stay the course until the kid's family is out of the picture.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> You do know his dad is a muslim activist and orchestrated the whole thing right?


That's one of my concerns. That surfaced soon after the media started glorifying the kid. Everything seemed to flow a bit too smooth for the incident to be happenstance. 

CAIR showing up so fast was a huge red flag. The same thing happened with the San Bernardino shooters.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> Thanks for providing the link to the Ferguson investigation. You are correct in that area. While the dept has chosen not to pursue some cases, now that you've drawn the distinction, I'm not aware of any of the investigations similar to the school district that have been bogus.
> 
> I'd have no problem believing the facts laid out in the letter. I'm still of the mind the school district should stay the course until the kid's family is out of the picture.


The course of denial and trying to hide information. That's always a policy to supported.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> That's one of my concerns. That surfaced soon after the media started glorifying the kid. Everything seemed to flow a bit too smooth for the incident to be happenstance.
> 
> CAIR showing up so fast was a huge red flag. The same thing happened with the San Bernardino shooters.


The point is that there would have been no Cair and no media overreaction ( I'm not afraid to admit much of the media did overreact) or misplaced praise by the president (see, I said it again) if the school and police hadn't overreacted in the first place. If it was orchestrated to get a response( and I'm willing to admit it may have) it worked, likely beyond their greatest expectations. 

The school didn't react like they feared a bomb. The boy made no threats . The police didn't react like there was any credible threat yet they arrested the young man and marched him out the door of the school in handcuffs. For what? Disrupting a class. Something that should draw some punishment. Detention, in school suspension or whatever the disciplinary policy of the school called for. Not criminal charges. You keep wanting to make this about everything but the actions of the school and police. You question the motives of the boy and his family, the media response, the Justice Department , whether he built the device, assembled it or something else but you never address the actions of the school or police. You claim not to know their policy but when it is shown they evacuated for an actual bomb threat you are silent. You claim you don't have facts but stand behind the school not releasing more facts. You give us your expertise on how simple it is to hide a bomb but offer no explanation why police and school officials never searched for one or removed other students from potential danger. 

This case is about what the school did and why they reacted as they did yet you seek to make it about anything but that. More than one person here has openly acknowledged that his being Muslim had something to do with the reaction. It's not a stretch to think that school officials and police might share that attitude. I'll end by pointing out that the vast majority of recent school shootings have been committed by disaffected white males and I can't find one incident of a Muslim student blowing up a school in this country. Maybe your looking in the wrong place if school safety is really a concern.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

mmoetc said:


> The course of denial and trying to hide information. That's always a policy to supported.


Works for Obama


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Cornhusker said:


> Works for Obama


And you're always so supportive of that, right. Using what you claim are bad actions by others to justify your own is rarely a good idea.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> But this wasn't a bomb threat and it was taken quite lightly. The boy was allowed to return to class until the police were called. Even after the police arrived and started questioning him about his "bomb" the school wasn't evacuated and searched. No search warrant was seemingly applied for to search his home for further "bomb making" materials. The questioning was done in the same building you say there might have been a bomb. None of the actions of the authorities spoke to them thinking there was any *credible threat* warranting their reaction.
> 
> I'll even agree that many, including the president, over reacted in lauding the boy's achievement in electronics. But that has nothing to do with the school's and police's overreaction and inappropriate response.


A bomb *HOAX* is as much a crime as an actual "bomb threat".

If he had simply been more open when questioned it likely would have turned out differently.

The only "overreaction" is from the public


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> And you're always so supportive of that, right. Using what you claim are bad actions by others to justify your own is rarely a good idea.


I don't understand it either. It's like school kids, "Well, he did it first!" Boggles the mind.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> A bomb *HOAX* is as much a crime as an actual "bomb threat".
> 
> If he had simply been more open when questioned it likely would have turned out differently.
> 
> The only "overreaction" is from the public


You might have to explain what you mean by him being more open. Do you mean he should have gone along with cops and agreed he built a bomb as they kept asking him? He should have incriminated himself even though he built no bomb nor represented what he built as a bomb to anyone? It's never a good strategy to go along with the police and agree to things that they cannot prove. They're not there to help you, they're there to arrest you. The young man shouldn't have cooperated for as long as he did. He should have requested legal representation before answering any question. 

As for your hoax. The boy never represented his device as a bomb. He didn't secretly place a device that could be mistaken for a bomb in order to frighten or cause disruption. He openly displayed the device. No one ever seriously mistook it for a bomb or they would have reacted much differently. There was no hoax. No crime was committed. The boy disrupted a class and should have been disciplined for it. He shouldn't have been arrested and marched out of the school and if it weren't for his being Muslim he likely wouldn't have been.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> You might have to explain what you mean by him being more open. Do you mean he should have gone along with cops and agreed he built a bomb as they kept asking him? He should have incriminated himself even though he built no bomb nor represented what he built as a bomb to anyone? It's never a good strategy to go along with the police and agree to things that they cannot prove. They're not there to help you, they're there to arrest you. The young man shouldn't have cooperated for as long as he did. He should have requested legal representation before answering any question.
> 
> As for your hoax. The boy never represented his device as a bomb. He didn't secretly place a device that could be mistaken for a bomb in order to frighten or cause disruption. He openly displayed the device. No one ever seriously mistook it for a bomb or they would have reacted much differently. There was no hoax. *No crime was committed*. *The boy disrupted a class* and should have been disciplined for it. He shouldn't have been arrested and marched out of the school and if it weren't for his being Muslim he likely wouldn't have been.


There are an awful lot of assumptions in that post.

You really don't know what they asked nor what he told them since you weren't there, and neither was the media.

The police obviously thought there was a crime, hence the arrest.

You keep harping on the fact it wasn't a bomb when it really makes no difference. No one ever said it *was* a bomb.

It's the *appearance* that matters, and what he *could* have done with it.

It's not like we didn't already discuss all these things the first time around

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/u...defends-response-to-ahmed-mohameds-clock.html



> On Friday, the police chief in Irving, Larry Boyd, defended the officers who detained Ahmed.
> 
> He said in an interview on CNN that officers assigned to MacArthur High School had determined âfairly quicklyâ that the device was not a bomb. Then the issue, he said, was to determine why Ahmed had brought the device to school.
> 
> âWhat they were investigating was whether he *brought a device to school with the intention of creating alarm*,â Chief Boyd said.


You admitted above he "disrupted the class", so he did exactly what the police stated. The only thing hard to determine was "intent"

You can try to spin it into some anti-Muslim act, but that requires one to ignore who started the whole incident


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There are an awful lot of assumptions in that post.
> 
> You really don't know what they asked nor what he told them since you weren't there, and neither was the media.
> 
> ...


I haven't ignored anything. I freely admit the boy started it. The Muslim boy. And that is the point. Had his name been Bobby and his skin a different color it's likely he never would have met the police that day. I notice you didn't answer what you meant when you said he should have been more cooperative.

Your whole case rests on an assumption. An assumption that you know exactly why he did what he did. I have made certain assumptions myself. Assumptions I think will be born out by the justice department investigation.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I haven't ignored anything. I freely admit the boy started it. The Muslim boy. And that is the point.
> 
> * Had his name been Bobby and his skin a different color it's likely he never would have met the police that day*.
> 
> ...


There's no *evidence* that is the case, and I haven't assumed anything since I stated his intent is hard to determine, but the police thought for a while he *did* intend to cause a disruption, which is still what really happened whether that was his intention or not.

You keep wanting to pretend it's all about race and religion when it's really about an illegal/prohibited act.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

A boy named Ahmed bringing a homemade timing device to school in a box may have brought him more attention than a boy named Bobby, that isn't too hard to see or understand. The question is, does that admission make what the school did illegal or even wrong?
Yes, intent DOES become a factor in the law, that's written very plainly into many statutes, whether we like it or not and is the reason we have judges at trials.

Now, after reaching your own conclusions on that case, ask yourselves if you can apply the same reasoning equally, in a different one.
Bobby wears a shirt with a rebel flag to school. The shirt is harmless, he may or may not have any ill intent, does the school need an investigation by the DOJ if they haul him into the office, call the police to investigate the disruption and possible harmful "intentions" and suspend him for 3 days?
Can you excuse race or color as a factor in THAT decision as well?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Oh farmerbrown, you silly goose, you make way too much sense!! 

We will tear down historical monuments, and rewrite history books to make sure we don't hurt anyone's feelings; and we will turn a blind eye to the obvious so that we can say "look, see, no profiling here; no racism here". And that kind of empty headedness will cost us dearly.......

It took them HOURS to call the 2 Radicalized Muslims in CA "radicalized muslims of middle eastern decent".
If they would have been black, the media would have said "2 black suspects".
If they would have been white, the media would have said "2 christian white suspects"
But it took HOURS AND HOURS for them to say "radical muslim terrorists".
When we all knew, that's exactly what we were dealing with.

Go ahead, call me a 'profiler racist'......I don't care.
But if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has feathers like a duck, it's not a dang gorilla. It's a dang duck. DUH


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> A boy named Ahmed bringing a homemade timing device to school in a box may have brought him more attention than a boy named Bobby, that isn't too hard to see or understand. The question is, does that admission make what the school did illegal or even wrong?
> Yes, intent DOES become a factor in the law, that's written very plainly into many statutes, whether we like it or not and is the reason we have judges at trials.
> 
> Now, after reaching your own conclusions on that case, ask yourselves if you can apply the same reasoning equally, in a different one.
> ...


Why should Ahmed's timing device be treated differently than Bobby's? Would Bobby's gun be treated differently than Ahmed's? Look down the list of school shootings and pictures of the students who have brought weapons to school and shot teachers or other students and tell me who should be profiled. Or should all such threat's be treated equally. The law should be neutral as to skin tone or ethnicity. Your own words seem to imply you think differently. It's not such a stretch to think others agree with you. Others who might include school officials and police. 

Had the school investigated and suspended the boy for three days for disrupting the class, which I admit he did, we'd be having a different discussion. I'd likely be on your side that the school acted appropriately. But that isn't what happened. Change your scenario to meet the facts of the case. The police question Bobby for two hours and when they don't get the answers they wish they arrest Bobby, handcuff him and March him out of the building saying in their judgement his shirt made terroristic threats designed to intimidate blacks. Would your feelings be different? 

Disrupting a class is a school discipline matter. It should only become a police matter if an actual threat to safety occurs. Nothing in the reaction of the authorities in this case implies they percieved any threat. Their reaction was innappropriate and you should ask why. Of course it seems you already know why and agree with the reasoning. Perhaps if Ahmed were a rancher's son who had voiced his concern about grazing policies you'd feel differently.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Oh farmerbrown, you silly goose, you make way too much sense!!
> 
> We will tear down historical monuments, and rewrite history books to make sure we don't hurt anyone's feelings; and we will turn a blind eye to the obvious so that we can say "look, see, no profiling here; no racism here". And that kind of empty headedness will cost us dearly.......
> 
> ...


Or it could be a gorilla in a duck suit. That's what investigations are for. To determine what is and isn't. Or, as many here do, you can jump to conclusions and become suddenly silent when those initial conclusions are shown to be wrong.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Darren said:


> People see things differently. The first teacher taught science. They probably looked at the device and never thought it could be a bomb. A later teacher heard it making noise. Someone at the school got the police involved.
> 
> I would have done the same due to my training as a firefighter which not only involves explosive recognition but also training to see how seemingly disconnected bits and pieces of information from one source may tie to something in a distant area.
> 
> ...



I think this post pretty clearly explains the situation. 

A kid brings a clock to school. 
The science teacher recognizes it as a Clock. 
Other teachers recognize it as a Clock. 
It's a little disruptive And admin takes over. 
At this point the posters training takes over. 
If you are a trained carpenter and you have a hammer everything looks like a nail. 
The kid had a clock it was recognized by others as a clock and he called it a clock so there wasn't a bomb hoax. 
But the cops are like the poster, they are trained in bombs and threats so they see bomb threats everywhere. Besides like the poster they " hope the kid is stuck in Qatar. "
So since their training has trained the common sense out of them they arrest the kid. Yep they hammered that nail.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> Or it could be a gorilla in a duck suit. That's what investigations are for. To determine what is and isn't. Or, as many here do, you can jump to conclusions and become suddenly silent when those initial conclusions are shown to be wrong.



Ding ding ding... winner winner chicken dinner.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Or it could be a gorilla in a duck suit. That's what investigations are for. To determine what is and isn't. Or, as many here do, you can jump to conclusions and become suddenly silent when those initial conclusions are shown to be wrong.


Like calling Fort Hood "workplace violence".........I see your point.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Like calling Fort Hood "workplace violence".........I see your point.


I've never called it that and I have a problem with it being characterized as such. But that's no different than a young white man who walks into a church and kills nine people in a express attempt to start a race war being excused by many as being "misled" or being under the influence of various prescription drugs as an explanation for his actions and dismissing racism entirely.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> But that's no different than a young white man who walks into a church and kills nine people in a express attempt to start a race war being excused by many as being "misled" or being under the influence of various prescription drugs as an explanation for his actions and dismissing racism entirely.


The white kid, that was INVITED AND EMBRACED by the members of an all black church, was a hater. 
Hater of folks who are black.
What did his manifesto say? What did his facebook say? What did his friends and family say? Did he surround himself with 'rebel flags' and 'swastika's?

SO if the 'duck' walks like a duck; meaning lives a life full of hate towards blacks.
IF the 'duck' quacks like a duck; meaning his words, his writings etc. are full of hate towards blacks.
AND IF the 'duck' has feathers like a duck; meaning his decor, his clothing, his tattoos, his circle of friends, his activities are full of hate towards blacks....

THEN DUH he's, a duck.

There are 1,000's of folks w/ mental illnesses that DO NOT MURDER.
Then there are those (charlie manson comes to mind) that very well may be off their rocker; but, that makes them NO LESS of a duck.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> The white kid, that was INVITED AND EMBRACED by the members of an all black church, was a hater.
> Hater of folks who are black.
> What did his manifesto say? What did his facebook say? What did his friends and family say? Did he surround himself with 'rebel flags' and 'swastika's?
> 
> ...


Did I say differently? There were a few in these pages that didn't want to recognize that duck. There seem to be few here right now who don't seem to want to recognize the duck that the boy's religion played as great, if not a greater, part in the school's and law enforcement's decisions than any threat.

Threats need to be recognized and treated seriously. Exactly what threat did the boy pose? There was no bomb. There was no threat or hoax of a bomb. There was no reaction by school officials or law enforcement to indicate that anyone was in danger. Yet a young man was interrogated, handcuffed and arrested. For disrupting a class. Go stand in the corner young man and think about the consequences of your actions.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre is a crime.
Pointing a real pistol at a Cop is a crime.
Pointing a plastic replica pistol at a Cop is a crime.
Bringing a suitcase bomb to a school is a crime.
Bringing a replica of a suitcase bomb to a school is a crime.

If the kid was at an airport and this was his carry-on, what would Airport Security do? The citizens of this country weren't worried about Arabs with box cutters getting on a plane, 15 years ago. The citizens of this country weren't worried about a couple guys with pressure cookers in their backpacks a few years ago at Boston. Seems like we have been playing catch up all along. Time to be pro-active. Be aware of potential threats. Take steps to keep our children safe. 

When I was that kids age, I was with another kid that was shoplifting. We were detained at the store and the Cops were called. If they had taken us to the Station for further questioning, I doubt I'd be in line for a million dollar lawsuit. I went home, thankful they didn't call our parents. 

Did a 14 year old Arab understand that he had made a bomb replica? Absolutely. Did he intend to cause a stir? Absolutely. Was it a dry run for a real bombing? I don't know.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> Yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre is a crime.
> Pointing a real pistol at a Cop is a crime.
> Pointing a plastic replica pistol at a Cop is a crime.
> Bringing a suitcase bomb to a school is a crime.
> ...


But no one really seemed to think this was a bomb. Or even a replica of a bomb. It shouldn't matter the skin tone or religion of the person carrying the replica bomb at the airport, should it? Even you say his religion should cause him to be treated differently. Should young white males be the only ones searched for guns at the schoolhouse door? After all, they are much more likely, according to recent history, to be the ones doing the shooting. 

If the cops had questioned you for two hours and then arrested you with no evidence you shoplifted you might well be richer today.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> Yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre is a crime.
> Pointing a real pistol at a Cop is a crime.
> Pointing a plastic replica pistol at a Cop is a crime.
> Bringing a suitcase bomb to a school is a crime.
> ...



You might wish to rethink your first statement. 

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...g-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/


It might be a crime. It might save lives. It isn't always a crime.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> You might wish to rethink your first statement.
> 
> http://www.theatlantic.com/national...g-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/
> 
> ...


Sort of not the point. Feel free to read my post and ignore the first line. :boring:


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> But no one really seemed to think this was a bomb. Or even a replica of a bomb. It shouldn't matter the skin tone or religion of the person carrying the replica bomb at the airport, should it? Even you say his religion should cause him to be treated differently. Should young white males be the only ones searched for guns at the schoolhouse door? After all, they are much more likely, according to recent history, to be the ones doing the shooting.
> 
> If the cops had questioned you for two hours and then arrested you with no evidence you shoplifted you might well be richer today.


As I recall, people did think it was a bomb. Cops were called because everyone thought he had made a clock? It doesn't matter his skin color. But since Arabs are leading in the number of radical Islamic terrorist activities, it is possible common sense might overtake political correctness. No matter your color, show up at an airport with that "clock" and I'll bet you miss your flight.

This kid came from a politically radical family. He was aware of the implications.

Should a white kid, attending a mostly Black school be allowed to wear a Casper the Ghost costume to school? You and I might think it looks like a ghost costume, but in that setting, everyone needs to be sensitive to those that might construe it to be a KKK outfit. 

Should a Catholic boy, attending a private NY City Jewish school be allowed to wear a Halloween costume as Charlie Chaplin, but with tall boots and an arm band. Sort of looks like Chaplin, but to that group it looks like Hitler. If you want to know how that went, you can google it.

Should I be able to walk the streets near a national Marathon, carrying a pressure cooker? If not legally wrong, it is clearly morally wrong. Anyone doing such nonsense deserves to be closely checked out at the Police Station. 

As we strive for equality in all things, we still must be sensitive to the perceptions of others. 

Anything made to look like a weapon should be treated like a weapon. 

Turn it around. Teacher saw what looked to be a bomb. She tells the Principal. out of fears of racial profiling, they do nothing. Half the students are ripped to pieces. "Well, I didn't want to upset anyone." won't be an accepted excuse. You see something suspicious, you contact authorities.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> As I recall, people did think it was a bomb. Cops were called because everyone thought he had made a clock? It doesn't matter his skin color. But since Arabs are leading in the number of radical Islamic terrorist activities, it is possible common sense might overtake political correctness. No matter your color, show up at an airport with that "clock" and I'll bet you miss your flight.
> 
> This kid came from a politically radical family. He was aware of the implications.
> 
> ...


Simple questions. If anyone thought it was a bomb why wasn't the school evacuated? Why wasn't the bomb squad called? Why wasn't the boys home searched for bomb making materials? If everyone though it was a bomb why aren't you vilifying the school administrators for not reacting as such and putting every other student, teacher and employee of the school in danger?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Simple questions. If anyone thought it was a bomb why wasn't the school evacuated? Why wasn't the bomb squad called? Why wasn't the boys home searched for bomb making materials? If everyone though it was a bomb why aren't you vilifying the school administrators for not reacting as such and putting every other student, teacher and employee of the school in danger?


Could it be that everyone was running around wringing their hands afraid to act out of fear that some Liberal would accuse them of racial profiling?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *Disrupting a class *is a school discipline matter. It should only become a police matter if an actual threat to safety occurs. Nothing in the reaction of the authorities in this case implies they percieved any threat. Their reaction was innappropriate and you should ask why. Of course it seems you already know why and agree with the reasoning. Perhaps if Ahmed were a rancher's son who had voiced his concern about grazing policies you'd feel differently.


There you go again ignoring the fact it's also a criminal act under TX laws,
Race and religion aren't the issues



> But no one really seemed to think this was a bomb.


And again, that makes no difference in the laws violated
Why keep parroting what's irrelevant?



mmoetc said:


> Simple questions. If anyone thought it was a bomb why wasn't the school evacuated? Why wasn't the bomb squad called? Why wasn't the boys home searched for bomb making materials? If everyone though it was a bomb why aren't you vilifying the school administrators for not reacting as such and putting every other student, teacher and employee of the school in danger?


All those questions have been answered repeatedly.
Why pretend they haven't?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

haypoint said:


> Anything made to look like a weapon should be treated like a weapon.
> .




Lol but everything looks like a bomb !




Darren said:


> People see things differently. The first teacher taught science. They probably looked at the device and never thought it could be a bomb. A later teacher heard it making noise. Someone at the school got the police involved.
> 
> I would have done the same due to my training as a firefighter which not only involves explosive recognition but also training to see how seemingly disconnected bits and pieces of information from one source may tie to something in a distant area.
> 
> ...


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There you go again ignoring the fact it's also a criminal act under TX laws,
> Race and religion aren't the issues



Well if disrupting a class is a crime why were the criminals arrested. 
The school admin and the cops knew full well their activities were disruptive.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Well if disrupting a class is a crime why were the criminals arrested.
> The school admin and the cops knew full well their activities were disruptive.


There's no evidence that questioning him in the office disrupted any classes
so let's be realistic.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There you go again ignoring the fact it's also a criminal act under TX laws,
> Race and religion aren't the issues
> 
> 
> ...


Are you sure it's still against the law? It seem that the Texas Legislature and Governor Perry changed that law back in 2013. http://www.texastribune.org/2013/08/29/class-disruption-cases-head-principals-office-not-/. 

I'm old. I forget things. Maybe you can refresh my memory with your answer.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> Sort of not the point. Feel free to read my post and ignore the first line. :boring:


I did read your post and responded to it. I just thought it might save you some time in the future by actually having some knowledge about what yelling fire in a crowded theater really means.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> Could it be that everyone was running around wringing their hands afraid to act out of fear that some Liberal would accuse them of racial profiling?


Anything's possible. It doesn't seem probable considering their subsequent actions which you base on them fearing it was a bomb. But if you're right shouldn't you be criticizing the school officials and police for putting so many at risk? Unless they , and you, know there was no risk.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> Why should Ahmed's timing device be treated differently than Bobby's? Would Bobby's gun be treated differently than Ahmed's? Look down the list of school shootings and pictures of the students who have brought weapons to school and shot teachers or other students and tell me who should be profiled. Or should all such threat's be treated equally. The law should be neutral as to skin tone or ethnicity. Your own words seem to imply you think differently. It's not such a stretch to think others agree with you. Others who might include school officials and police.
> 
> Had the school investigated and suspended the boy for three days for disrupting the class, which I admit he did, we'd be having a different discussion. I'd likely be on your side that the school acted appropriately. But that isn't what happened. Change your scenario to meet the facts of the case. The police question Bobby for two hours and when they don't get the answers they wish they arrest Bobby, handcuff him and March him out of the building saying in their judgement his shirt made terroristic threats designed to intimidate blacks. Would your feelings be different?
> 
> Disrupting a class is a school discipline matter. It should only become a police matter if an actual threat to safety occurs. Nothing in the reaction of the authorities in this case implies they percieved any threat. Their reaction was innappropriate and you should ask why. Of course it seems you already know why and agree with the reasoning. Perhaps if Ahmed were a rancher's son who had voiced his concern about grazing policies you'd feel differently.



If you recall the first thread on this, I actually DID defend the kid for 3/4 of the thread.

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/general-chat/543343-teenager-electronic-clock-13.html

It wasn't until his father's profile was posted, the previous actions of his sister and the invitation from Qatar changed my mind from an innocent science student wrongfully persecuted to the suspicion that this was a set up made to LOOK like an injustice of prejudice.
Since it DID turn out to be harmless, we have one of two choices to believe, based on little more than intuition.
1) The kid got a bum wrap, was profiled and treated unfairly and deserves a big fat settlement top teach those lousy Texans a good lesson.
OR
2) The kid's family put him up to it, set out the perfect bait and will get away with a big scam if allowed to do so.

Intent is EVERYTHING in this case and almost impossible to know with certainty.

If little Bobby showed up at school with the stars and bars on his shirt on Black History Day, did he do it because his dad took him to a Civil War re-enactment last weekend and he was just trying to participate by sharing his interests and historical perspective in a relevant way with his school?
OR
Is his dad actually a closet Klansman and either trying to start a small scale race war or attract new members, and hopefully provide some seed money for his plans with a juicy lawsuit?

:shrug:
Ask Bobby, I guess........


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Are you sure it's still against the law? It seem that the Texas Legislature and Governor Perry changed that law back in 2013. http://www.texastribune.org/2013/08/29/class-disruption-cases-head-principals-office-not-/.
> 
> I'm old. I forget things. Maybe you can refresh my memory with your answer.


Apples and oranges.
You're link says they cannot issue "citations" for discipline problems.
There's no mention of "electronic devices" or "bomb hoax"

No *citations *were issued to Ahmed



> UNDER SB 393
> 
> Looking forward, school police officers can no longer issue tickets to students for misbehavior in school. *Officers can issue complaints*, but a prosecutor will decide whether to charge the student with a crime.


https://txssc.txstate.edu/topics/legislation/articles/senate-bill-393

A law passed in 2013 obviously didn't prevent a 2015 incident, so that alone should tell you it's not applicable in this case


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There you go again ignoring the fact it's also a criminal act under TX laws,
> Race and religion aren't the issues
> 
> 
> ...





Bearfootfarm said:


> Apples and oranges.
> You're link says they cannot issue "citations" for discipline problems.
> There's no mention of "electronic devices" or "bomb hoax"
> 
> ...


You really need to make up your mind. Your first defense was that it didn't matter that no bomb or facsimile existed because disrupting the class was enough to be cited. And you're right no citations were issued. He was arrested, handcuffed and taken to dentention though. Then when I pointed out that the law had changed you go back to claiming the bomb hoax which you said was irrelevant in the first place. Which is it? 

And you still haven't answered why, if there was fear of a bomb no evacuation or any other safety measures occurred.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> If you recall the first thread on this, I actually DID defend the kid for 3/4 of the thread.
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/general-chat/543343-teenager-electronic-clock-13.html
> 
> ...


The police did ask Ahmed. They just didn't like his answers and arrested him anyway. Maybe Bobby would have had better luck convincing them.

I understand the suspicion and that the boys acts and background likely contributed to this issue. But the question is, to me, whether the suspicions based on his religion and background were the reason for his arrest and not the actual threat he posed. I have no problem with anyone being arrested for a bomb threat or hoax. I just don't think that this rose to that level and arrest was appropriate. It seems to me he was arrested more for who he was than what he did and I find that unacceptable. It goes back to whether you should treat Ahmad's gun different than Bobby's gun. A question I notice you didn't address. 

As for your contention that this was some sort of dry run. If it was it was the worst one ever. A dry run to test whether a bomb and timer could be brought into the school would seem, to me, to involve stealth and deception. Not trumpeting the fact you have a device and showing it to various teachers drawing attention to yourself.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no evidence that questioning him in the office disrupted any classes
> 
> so let's be realistic.



Lol realistic ?
You honestly believe this fiasco didn't disrupt classes ?

from what I've heard it even disrupted classes and other schools.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> You really need to make up your mind. Your first defense was that it didn't matter that* no bomb or facsimile* existed because disrupting the class was enough to be cited. And you're right no citations were issued. He was arrested, handcuffed and taken to dentention though. Then when *I pointed out that the law had changed *you go back to claiming the bomb hoax which you said was irrelevant in the first place. Which is it?
> 
> And you still haven't answered why, if there was fear of a bomb no evacuation or any other safety measures occurred.


It doesn't matter there was no bomb, although I don't recall saying anything about a "facsimile". I think you threw that in on your own

The law didn't "change" since the law was from *2013* and the incident was 2015

There's no point in answering silly questions about evacuations when no one claimed there was a real bomb.

You know the laws that apply and continue to ignore them even though we've devoted hundreds of posts to the topic. 

You just keep repeating yourself and trying to play word games that aren't working


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It doesn't matter there was no bomb, although I don't recall saying anything about a "facsimile". I think you threw that in on your own
> 
> The law didn't "change" since the law was from *2013* and the incident was 2015
> 
> ...


You first stated that the young man was guilty of a bomb hoax. You haven't really explained what that really means or how there could be hoax if no one really believed there was a bomb. The evidence of that is the lack of appropriate reaction by the officials. No credible threat, no hoax.

You then said disrupting class was against the law. You said it at least twice. You were wrong. It wasn't against the law at the time of the incident therefor the young man couldn't be cited simply for disrupting the class.

You've proven no bomb threat or hoax and neither did the police. You've proven no other offense he should have been arrested for. You're right that I keep repeating myself and you've proven none of my statements false. You also still haven't answered why, if as you say, there was a bomb threat or hoax the officials didn't evacuate the school and investigate the threat or hoax. If the item is immediately recognizable as not being a bomb and no threats or representations are made that it is a bomb what hoax has taken place?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> The police did ask Ahmed. They just didn't like his answers and arrested him anyway. Maybe Bobby would have had better luck convincing them.


Yes, I read an article back when that had a summary dialogue of the police interview at the school that day.
It seemed familiar to me peep on how interrogations usually go. Lots of questions, some leading or incriminating and I thought the boy wise to repeat "It's just a clock" and nothing more. IOW, be smart and "lawyer up", and I said as much on that first thread.

And now, back to "Bobby"...........




mmoetc said:


> I understand the suspicion and that the boys acts and background likely contributed to this issue. But the question is, to me, whether the suspicions based on his religion and background were the reason for his arrest and not the actual threat he posed. I have no problem with anyone being arrested for a bomb threat or hoax. I just don't think that this rose to that level and arrest was appropriate. It seems to me he was arrested more for who he was than what he did and I find that unacceptable. It goes back to whether you should treat Ahmad's gun different than Bobby's gun. A question I notice you didn't address.


Yes, and the lack of a reply wasn't intentional. I was going to add that in edit, but I've had about 5 conversations with my wife since then, we both had a frustrating day. Tomorrow will no doubt be action-packed too!

What I was going to add at the end was this.


*And if it turned out little Bobby wore his shirt to try and instigate a disruption while pretending to be innocent and oblivious of the way it might be viewed by others.......I'd recommend that he have his little white butt tanned as part of his "education".*

The way it went for me, back in the day, was after a visit to the office where the principal got HIS licks in, I could look forward to more of the same from my parents. I _might_ have a shot at fooling mom (maybe, but doubtful) but dad had a "no excuses" policy when it came to breaking the rules, including doing the opposite of what the teacher told me to do.
Having teachers as parents has both pros and cons.  :flame:

Guns?
:nono:

Seriously?
Some of my earliest memories are my dad with guns.
That "no excuse" policy I mentioned?
Go ahead and multiply that by 10, lol.
No matter WHAT color your butt was originally, the punishment would be the same. Fortunately I never tested THAT one. :runforhills:



mmoetc said:


> As for your contention that this was some sort of dry run. If it was it was the worst one ever. A dry run to test whether a bomb and timer could be brought into the school would seem, to me, to involve stealth and deception. Not trumpeting the fact you have a device and showing it to various teachers drawing attention to yourself.


Not really, the best way is usually in the open, right under your nose.
That was just a random thought as I was writing, but I wouldn't be so sure about your assessments on testing security systems.
Maybe you never heard this joke, it's an oldie but a goodie.

http://www.funnypart.com/funny/smuggling-bicycles.shtml


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, I read an article back when that had a summary dialogue of the police interview at the school that day.
> It seemed familiar to me peep on how interrogations usually go. Lots of questions, some leading or incriminating and I thought the boy wise to repeat "It's just a clock" and nothing more. IOW, be smart and "lawyer up", and I said as much on that first thread.
> 
> And now, back to "Bobby"...........
> ...


Hope tomorrow is better for you. I've seen various iterations of that joke but it wasn't like the boy was trying to draw attention away from his device. Everything he did drew more to it. No real misdirection which is the basis of of the joke.

While your story of going home to more punishment is interesting it still doesn't address the question of whether the young man was arrested for who he was rather than what he did. I suppose well just have to agree to disagree about this.

But back to the original point of my starting this thread. It really wasn't to relitigate our differences about what happened that day. What of the school's refusal to release the justice department letter? Should the school be blocking information being released or should they be transparent? Are they the ones sitting in the interrogation room denying the truth .


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> Hope tomorrow is better for you. I've seen various iterations of that joke but it wasn't like the boy was trying to draw attention away from his device. Everything he did drew more to it. No real misdirection which is the basis of of the joke.
> 
> While your story of going home to more punishment is interesting it still doesn't address the question of whether the young man was arrested for who he was rather than what he did. I suppose well just have to agree to disagree about this.
> 
> But back to the original point of my starting this thread. It really wasn't to relitigate our differences about what happened that day. What of the school's refusal to release the justice department letter? Should the school be blocking information being released or should they be transparent? Are they the ones sitting in the interrogation room denying the truth .


Thanks.

No, the joke wasn't a perfect analogy, but I like a good joke. 
The point was, never overlook the obvious.
I don't think testing security was a real motive, not like $15 million dollars.

As to your questions, I go back to intent again.
Did everyone do everything right?
No.
Did the school do the wrong thing for the right reasons?
It looks that way.
Did they set out to harass a Muslim boy or were they more worried that something was possibly being planned to hurt a whole bunch of kids?
In hindsight I've seen too many overreactions since 9/11 that look a little foolish. Packages, tourist photographers, kid pranksters, you name it.
I'm not making excuses, just pointing out why people get nervous and decide looking foolish is preferable to looking dead. :lookout:
Once you start down that path, reverse is a hard gear to find, lol.

Same with your other question on blocking the release of the DOJ report.
Is the school trying to hide their sinister intent to run all the Muslim kids out of town with intense profiling, searches and arrests based on frivolous evidence?
Or is it the traditional legal stonewalling to minimize the economic liability they see in the coming lawsuit?
I don't like it when investigative reports are withheld either.
The lawyers may recommend it as a wise move, but the average citizen usually smells a rat. It may very well cost you more money in court to blurt out the truth, (Hey, I screwed up, but meant well) but some people have different priorities when it comes to credibility, honesty and respect.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> You first stated that the young man was guilty of a bomb hoax. You haven't really explained what that really means or how there could be hoax if no one really believed there was a bomb. The evidence of that is the lack of appropriate reaction by the officials. No credible threat, no hoax.
> 
> You then said disrupting class was against the law. You said it at least twice. You were wrong. It *wasn't against the law at the time of the incident* therefor the young man couldn't be cited simply for disrupting the class.
> 
> You've proven no bomb threat or hoax and neither did the police. You've proven no other offense he should have been arrested for. You're right that I keep repeating myself and you've proven none of my statements false. You also still haven't answered why, if as you say, there was a bomb threat or hoax the officials didn't *evacuat*e the school and investigate the threat or hoax. If the item is immediately recognizable as not being a bomb and no threats or representations are made that it is a bomb what hoax has taken place?


You still repeat things already answered.

You know what a "hoax" is, and you know his device resembled a bomb.
Asking for an "explanation" of what that means makes you look silly when it's in the statutes you want to ignore.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm
PENAL CODE



> TITLE 10. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND MORALS
> 
> CHAPTER 46. WEAPONS
> 
> ...


No one claimed they had "proven" anything, since "proof" isn't part of an arrest. That's part of a conviction, after a trial.

You claim "disrupting a class wasn't against the law" and yet *you* posted a link to a bill that stated is was in fact a Class C Misdemeanor

And again you repeat the silly question about why was there no evacuation, when that has been answered every time it was asked, so it appears you really just want to argue.

It's gotten too boring to be worth the effort any more.

If you "want answers" here's a few hundred of them:
http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/specialty-forums/general-chat/543343-teenager-electronic-clock.html

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/sp...-chat/543434-ahmed-didnt-even-make-clock.html

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/specialty-forums/general-chat/543881-whoda-thunk.html


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You still repeat things already answered.
> 
> You know what a "hoax" is, and you know his device resembled a bomb.
> Asking for an "explanation" of what that means makes you look silly when it's in the statutes you want to ignore.
> ...


Are you bored or can't you defend your words? You've spent a lot of time on these forums badgering others to admit mistakes, yet when it's pointed out you were wrong about disrupting a class being illegal and chargeable you do what you complain others doing. You should read the last link on this topic you provided. It specifically states that disrupting a class is no longer a police matter. It once was but no longer applies and could not have been used against this young man.

Even though you say its been answered every time you haven't offered an answer the last four or five times I've directly asked you why no evacuation took place in response to this hoax. It's a simple question? Why can't you answer it?

Now let's look at the law you posted. Two conditions apply. The first isn't valid because the device didn't reasonably look like and explosive or in incindiery device. There were no explosive or flammables attached so worst it looked like a timer, or a crudely made clock.

The second factor is a bit vague and it would be an interesting legal test to see what constitutes "alarm" or a "reaction". Almost everything one does is a reaction to something. The first teacher had a reaction. The second a different reaction. Could he have been charged for that first, benign , reaction. The law seem written as so. There was no "alarm". Alarm would have meant there was fear and concern. There seemed to be interest but no alarms were sounded, no evacuations and searches done, no one seemed all that alarmed or reacted with much alacrity. But it's a close as anyone's come to justifying his arrest so kudos for that. Of course, it didn't convince the prosecutor, nor does it convince me.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Thanks.
> 
> No, the joke wasn't a perfect analogy, but I like a good joke.
> The point was, never overlook the obvious.
> ...


And I say they started out doing the right thing for the right reasons but somehow took a very wrong turn. Investigating and disciplining the boy for disrupting the class and ensuring there was no further danger were appropriate. Running down the he's a Muslim path so we must look closer and treat him more harshly is where they derailed. School safety is important but as I've repeatedly pointed out fellow students have historically had much more to fear from Bobby than Ahmed. Yet would Bobby have been treated the same?

The reason I'm interested in the Justice department letter is that it probably contains information on more than this incident. It likely looks at how other disruptions and disciplinary problems were handled in the school. It likely doesn't show that the cases were handled the same and that other things than the actions of the student came into play. That, to me, is a problem.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol realistic ?
> You honestly believe this fiasco didn't disrupt classes ?
> 
> from what I've heard it even disrupted classes and other schools.


You're trying to claim it was the police and teacher's actions that were disruptive, while presenting no evidence to that effect.

Clock Boy started the "disruption"


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Are you bored or can't you defend your words? You've spent a lot of time on these forums badgering others to admit mistakes, yet when it's pointed out you were wrong about disrupting a class being illegal and chargeable you do what you complain others doing. You should read the last link on this topic you provided. *It specifically states that disrupting a class is no longer a police matter.* It once was but no longer applies and could not have been used against this young man.
> 
> Even though you say its been answered every time you haven't offered an answer the last four or five times I've directly asked you why no evacuation took place in response to this hoax. It's a simple question? Why can't you answer it?
> 
> ...


It also states it's still "a crime" but they won't issue "citations" in most cases
No need to keep repeating that either.

You've seen the statutes and you still keep saying "it's not a crime" when clearly everyone there thinks differently.



> Of course, it didn't convince the prosecutor, nor does it convince me


The fact the prosecutor didn't take it to trial doesn't mean there was no crime committed. It simply means they either didn't think they had enough evidence to convince a jury, or it was a PR decision.

To claim "it didn't look like a bomb" is ludicrous since that was the entire issue.

I'm done with this one since you're still in denial


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It also states it's still "a crime" but they won't issue "citations" in most cases
> No need to keep repeating that either.
> 
> You've seen the statutes and you still keep saying "it's not a crime" when clearly everyone there thinks differently.
> ...


Actually, it says it can become a crime if all school disciplinary policies have been exhausted or rejected. Since those conditions don't seem to apply in this case and no attempt was made to charge him for disrupting class the discussion of how this law works is largely moot. Writing a citation for a class C misdemeanor is quite different than arresting and handcuffing someone and taking them to detention. 

You're right. The entire issue is whether it looked like a bomb. It didn't to the first teacher. And it must not have looked like one to anyone else who could make a decision regarding the safety of the school. Any school official who doesn't order an evacuation and search of a school if they think a bomb is present, especially one planted by a Muslim terrorist ( for isn't that what many would have us believe this boy is?) should be immediately fired for putting every other student, teacher and employee at risk. But no one reacted like it was a bomb. Why not?

And no, I don't expect an answer to the question from you this time either. It's your pattern to ask questions and demand answers of others while ignoring tough questions yourself.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're trying to claim it was the police and teacher's actions that were disruptive, while presenting no evidence to that effect.
> 
> 
> 
> Clock Boy started the "disruption"



That's like saying Kennedy assassinated himself since he was there to be a target for Oswald. 

What the child did would have been of no consequence if not for the overreaction of others. 
If the principal would have simply placed it in his desk and had the child take it home with him at the end of the day we would not be discussing this.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> What the child did would have been of no consequence if not for the overreaction of others.


Exactly. 
You finally got it right:



> Quote:
> TITLE 10. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND MORALS
> 
> CHAPTER 46. WEAPONS
> ...


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Exactly.
> 
> You finally got it right:



Not finally ,you mean all along !

The last line in the quoted law is the stupidest thing I've ever seen in my entire life. It makes one person responsible for the ignorance of another.


----------

