# Teenager with electronic clock



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...-clock-Due-diligence-or-prejudicial-profiling

This is a story about a Texas 9th grader who brought a homemade electric clock to school. A teacher saw it and confiscated it because she thought it might be a bomb. The police ended up being called, questioned him then took him into jv in handcuffs.
The student's name is Ahmed Mohamed.

He and his parents say he was targeted because of his name and 9/11. 

The question is whether the whole thing was due to his supposed religion (no article says what that is), or was it reasonable. There is no information on the interview the police had before taking him off. So it is only a case of the usual subjects.

I do think it was probably mishandled by the school and the police. But again nothing is mentioned about any actions the school took but I wonder why they did not ask one of the science teachers about it. Then called his parents before they called the police although I suppose there's a rule about it. Or simply ask him to disassemble it himself.

It was a little disingenuous to have been told not to show it to anyone by one teacher and still have it go off in class. Simple having a teacher tell him not to let anyone else see it probably means that there is some rule against it. 

But it does show the harm of creating terror and overheated rhetoric- people change the way they behave. And no one likes where they end up. Except for the terrorists of course.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> There is *no information* on the interview the police had before taking him off. *So it is only a case of* the usual subjects.


*If *there is "no information" there is also no reason to attempt to reach any conclusions. since they are just more speculation. 

Actually there WAS information that stated it could have been mistaken for a real bomb, and that is why they decided to arrest him,



> I do think it was probably mishandled by the school and the police.


They know *all* the details, and you know only what was reported by a biased media source and the boy's family. I suspect anyone would have gotten the same treatment if they brought a device that resembled a bomb



> I wonder why they did not ask one of the science teachers about it


He showed it to a teacher, who told him not to show it to anyone else.
Showing it to more teachers wouldn't make it *look *less like a bomb.
It's not a question of whether or not it really *was* a bomb



> Excited about his creation, Ahmed said he first showed it to his engineering teacher on Monday morning, who warned him it looked like a bomb and that he shouldn&#8217;t show it to anyone else


If he had followed the teacher's advice there would have been no problems.

Was he "profiled"?

Who cares? 

It would be perfectly logical if he was


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

The family is Sufi Muslim. The father is rather well known. The clock Ahmed Mohamed made was for a school project. His science teacher was probably worried some idiot at the school would think it was a bomb. They don't have a rule there against science projects. Well wait this is Texas.....




> Ahmed Mohamed is a ninth-grader in Irving, Texas, who likes to tinker with electronics. On Monday, according to the Dallas Morning News, he built a simple electronic clock &#8212; a project he said took about 20 minutes &#8212; and strapped it inside a pencil case.
> He showed the project to his engineering teacher, who praised the design but advised him not to show it to other teachers. Later, in Ahmed's English class, the clock beeped while it was in his bag. When he showed the project to his teacher, she thought it looked like a bomb.
> He insisted that the clock wasn't a bomb, but the authorities at the school weren't impressed:
> The teacher kept the clock. When the principal and a police officer pulled Ahmed out of sixth period, he suspected he wouldn&#8217;t get it back.
> ...


http://www.vox.com/2015/9/16/9335793/ahmed-mohamed-irving-bomb-not/in/9102140


The butt covering going on in Irving right now would be funny if it wasn't so freaking sad.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If he had followed the teacher's advice there would have been no problems.
> 
> Was he "profiled"?
> 
> ...


The clock alarm went off in his backpack and his English teacher asked him to show her what it was. It wasn't his fault. Was he profiled who cares? Good grief.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

We don't know, that is true.

Texas has always marched to a different drummer, but there have been some very odd things - unusually odd things - happening here lately.

Wonder why?

But Texas schools do get weird sometime.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> The family is Sufi Muslim. The father is rather well known. The clock Ahmed Mohamed made was for a school project. His science teacher was probably worried some idiot at the school would think it was a bomb. They don't have a rule there against science projects. Well wait this is Texas.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nothing said it was a school project. It said it was his project. Could be a school project but it is an assumption to say so from that link.

And if the teacher said not to show it to anyone because they might think it was a bomb, then why was it unreasonable to criticize the school for thinking it just might be one?

Another rush to judgement from a one sided story?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> Nothing said it was a school project. It said it was his project. Could be a school project but it is an assumption to say so from that link.
> 
> And if the teacher said not to show it to anyone because they might think it was a bomb, then why was it unreasonable to criticize the school for thinking it just might be one?
> 
> Another rush to judgement from a one sided story?


The obvious thing to have done here would be to ask the science teacher who first looked at it and could tell what it really was. The school didn't bother doing that. You are correct it appears to have been an independent project rather than an assigned one. But kids make science projects everyday for school whether for extra credit or science fairs. Are those all banned? Or just the ones that scare the ignorant?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> The clock alarm went off in his backpack and his English teacher asked him to show her what it was. It wasn't his fault. Was he profiled who cares? Good grief.


I don't care if he was "profiled" since *reality* says in a room full of people in the US, a Muslim is more likely to be the terrorist, and a young Middle Eastern male named Mohammed is *more likely* to be a terrorist than Billy Joe-Bob Brown sitting beside him

"Profiling" is used as a derogatory term when it's just good common sense logic.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

He needs to sue the school and police department for enough money to bankroll a PhD from MIT.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

where I want to said:


> Nothing said it was a school project. It said it was his project. Could be a school project but it is an assumption to say so from that link.
> 
> And if the teacher said not to show it to anyone because they might think it was a bomb, then why was it unreasonable to criticize the school for thinking it just might be one?
> 
> Another rush to judgement from a one sided story?


They may have handled it poorly - and it appears they did.

If, however, the science teacher realized someone might think it was a bomb, why didn't he suggest the kid either leave it with him, or the office or some such thing?

I don't fault the school for being concerned, I think had I been a teacher, I would be concerned - Muslim or not. I have a healthy respect for what might look like a bomb, since I am truly ignorant of them. 

Handled badly? From the reports, it would seem so - but what would we be saying if it had been a bomb and the teacher had just said, 'hmmmmmm?'


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

One thing I don't understand is the police coming before the parents come. I know there cases where parents can't be located but that woukd seem to be the first thing to do. Well enough speculation for now.


----------



## RichNC (Aug 22, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't care if he was "profiled" since *reality* says in a room full of people in the US, a Muslim is more likely to be the terrorist, and a young Middle Eastern male named Mohammed is *more likely* to be a terrorist than Billy Joe-Bob Brown sitting beside him
> 
> "Profiling" is used as a derogatory term when it's just good common sense logic.


I don't know, Timothy McVeigh's name comes to mind?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

where I want to said:


> One thing I don't understand is the police coming before the parents come. I know there cases where parents can't be located but that woukd seem to be the first thing to do. Well enough speculation for now.


I wouldn't call the parents before calling the police.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Plenty of homegrown white ******* terrorists in America. They caught a group of them planning to plant bombs during the Jade Helm thing too.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

They thought it looked like a bomb ? Probably cause it had some wires. 
What's a bomb look like ? I can make one look like anything you want.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I wouldn't call the parents before calling the police.


Why not? Do you have kids? If the school had done that to one of mine there would be lawsuits on top of lawsuits filed against them.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

I think everything I came here to say has been covered already. I'll just add this... Half the stuff I've worked with in the last 5 years looks like a bomb. If someone wanted to bring in an actual bomb, I probably wouldn't look at it twice, which is kind of disturbing to think about.

And honestly, it wouldn't surprise me at all if this happened to a white kid, asian kid, hispanic, black, whatever. Columbine was 1999, and it was two strung out weirdo white kids. For the next few years there was a rash of bomb threats at high-schools around the country. This has been a thing for a while now.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

RichNC said:


> I don't know, Timothy McVeigh's name comes to mind?


Name every Causcasion, Christian terrorist you can think of in the US, and compare it to the list of Black and Middle Eastern Muslims, and I believe the numbers will show which is* more likely* to be involved in a terrorist act.

"Profiling" is about playing the odds, and not about "absolutes"

When bad things happen, people always say, "Why didn't someone *do something* to stop it?"

When someone investigates *possibilties*, people say "Why are they harassing these poor innocent kids?"

There's no winning anymore


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

As long as we're talking about profiling, don't these guys look like hard core Muslim extremists?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> The obvious thing to have done here would be to ask the science teacher who first looked at it and could tell what it really was. The school didn't bother doing that. You are correct it appears to have been an independent project rather than an assigned one. But kids make science projects everyday for school whether for extra credit or science fairs. Are those all banned? Or just the ones that scare the ignorant?



One of the troubles with articles like this is that they are not written to inform but to create soeculation. We don't know if the other teacher was asked. We don't know why the other teacher said not to show it to anyone.
And yes, as a person who once showed up with a science project deemed to be questionable safe, I canbsay schools can confiscate it and called oarents. But those where times when there was not so much hostility being aired everywhere.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> As long as we're talking about profiling, don't these guys look like hard core Muslim extremists?


"We" weren't profiling. I was asking some questions about what happened. Maybe you were profiling????


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Again,, perhaps handled badly.

And you can bet if it is found to be so - there will be lawsuits upon lawsuits - and all manner of things.

Now, though, real ignorance would be to ignore something that you think might be a bomb - especially in a school.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Why not? Do you have kids? If the school had done that to one of mine there would be lawsuits on top of lawsuits filed against them.


Frivoulous lawsuits are pointless.
The kid brought a "device" to school that *could have been* dangerous.
The parents can come pick him up at the jail if he's put under arrest.
They have no obligation to call the parents or wait for them to arrive before they take action.




> Plenty of homegrown white ******* terrorists in America. They caught a group of them planning to plant bombs during the Jade Helm thing too.


I didn't say there were *no *white terrorists.

Anyone *can *make and plant bombs, but odds show it's *more likely* it will be a Muslim. 

I still think anyone would have gotten the same treatment, but if they did "profile" (although there is no evidence they did) it wouldn't bother me in the least. 

He still built a device that could have easily been turned into a bomb, or used to imitate a bomb, and brought it to school for no good reason.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Irving Texas has a history of tension with the Islamic community it would appear. I wonder how much that played into this situation. The Mayor had her 15 minutes of fame with the Fox news crowd for ignorantly attacking Muslims. 

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/comm...amic-furor-focuses-on-irving-vote-tonight.ece


----------



## RichNC (Aug 22, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Frivoulous lawsuits are pointless.
> The kid brought a "device" to school that *could have been* dangerous.
> The parents can come pick him up at the jail if he's put under arrest.
> They have no obligation to call the parents or wait for them to arrive before they take action.
> ...


My goodness, he built a CLOCK!!


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Frivoulous lawsuits are pointless.
> The kid brought a "device" to school that *could have been* dangerous.
> The parents can come pick him up at the jail if he's put under arrest.
> They have no obligation to call the parents or wait for them to arrive before they take action.
> ...


Aren't you the one who likes to knock assumptions? Because you are full of them in this case.  

No good reason to bring it to school? Now I not only wonder if you have kids but if you ever attended public school yourself. There is no good reason to bring a clock you made yourself in to show your science teacher? Seriously?

It could have easily been turned into a bomb? Well I hope you believe in confiscating all electronic devices then because most of them can be as "easily" turned into a bomb as his clock. :facepalm:

I suppose it's possible that the ignorant teachers and cops involved (it looks like a movie bomb....) could have nailed another kid if they brought in a science project. But I think considering the thinking of the Mayor and the people who voted her in there is some definite Islamophobia there.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

RichNC said:


> My goodness, he built a CLOCK!!


One more wire leading to an explosive charge makes it a timing device for a bomb. 
:shrug:


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

As for your assumptions on Muslims and terror here are the facts:

Right wing whites are winning by a mile:

http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/deadly-attacks.html



> *Deadly Jihadist Attacks*
> 
> *Total number of people killed:26
> *
> ...


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> One more wire leading to an explosive charge makes it a timing device for a bomb.
> :shrug:


Cause ya know most kids have C-4 in their lockers just waiting to be attached to a homemade clock.


----------



## RichNC (Aug 22, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> One more wire leading to an explosive charge makes it a timing device for a bomb.
> :shrug:


Are you kidding me, seiriously, are you just having a bit of fun on the forum today, or have you lost your mind?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Aren't you the one who likes to knock assumptions? Because you are full of them in this case.
> 
> *No good reason to bring it to school? *Now I not only wonder if you have kids but if you ever attended public school yourself. There is no good reason to bring a clock you made yourself in to show your science teacher? Seriously?
> 
> I suppose it's possible that the ignorant teachers and cops involved (it looks like a movie bomb....) could have nailed another kid if they brought in a science project. But I think considering the thinking of the Mayor and the people who voted her in there is some definite Islamophobia there.


There was no good reason to bring it to school without asking first.
It wasn't a "school project" 

There wasn't a good reason to have the alarm set when he had been told not to show it to anyone else *because it might cause trouble*



> *It could have easily been turned into a bomb? Well I hope you believe in confiscating all electronic devices then because most of them can be as "easily" turned into a bomb as his clock. :facepalm:*


Most people can't turn anything into a bomb. 
Someone with the knowledge to *build* a clock could easily do it.

You think it's "normal" to want to show it to a teacher, but you call the teacher "ignorant" when he *warned *the kid it looked too much like a bomb.

I have no sympathy for him (And yes I have been to public school. I even took a gun to school on occasion AFTER asking for permission beforehand)

Back then most of the trucks in the parking lots had gunracks.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

I don't believe the teacher or any of the administration or police really thought it was a bomb. This was not handled as a potential bomb, but as a facsimile bomb. It doesn't appear that anyone felt there was any real danger. Like everyone else here, I don't know what took place in the police interview, but it doesn't sound like it was enough to make an arrest.

ETA: I see now that the arrest was for possession of a hoax bomb. Here we call that a facsimile, but it's the same thing. This kid is about to get wealthy.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There was no good reason to bring it to school without asking first.
> It wasn't a "school project"
> 
> There wasn't a good reason to have the alarm set when he had been told not to show it to anyone else *because it might cause trouble*
> ...


I'm wondering why the science teacher told him not to show it because some might think it was a bomb, and did nothing else. That's not ignorant - it's beyond that.

Again, what would everyone be saying if the classroom teacher hadn't said anything and it was a bomb?

We are still speculating --

As for problems with Muslims in Texas - not just Irving - that's one of those 'weird' things I was talking about. 

Something to keep you eye on --------


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

This group is nothing if not consistent.


----------



## sustainabilly (Jun 20, 2012)

Billy Joe-Bob Brown sitting beside him could be an anti-Hispanic, an anti-Semitic, a Catholic hater or a misogynistic chauvinist. Maybe he's got it in for all those Indians or Pakistanis that are buying up all the convenience stores; putting the deserving white folks out of work. Oh, and don't let's forget all those Asians. There's a whole bunch o'them. Could be his daddy never got the news that the cold war is over. So, he wishes all those dirty red commies would be blown up. 

Hey, maybe Billy Joe-Bob is an African American. Then we can add in all the white folks. Does Billy Joe listen to that heavy metal crap? It'll twist yer mind... make ya wanna kill yer momma an slap the snot outta some dang yankee! --That's right!-- Don't forget the ********, the yankees, gays of all stripes, and us dumb hillbillies.

But, he's probably just your average, everyday white supremacist. You know... the kind that can't abide any of those dang notamuricuns. 

_Now_ let's play the numbers game and see how it stacks up. Terrorism doesn't respect the same narrow guidelines that some Americans think it does. Just ask all the other countries, races, religions, genders, ethnic sub-groups, and establishment types.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

Not all Muslims are terrorist but all the terrorist have been Muslim!!!


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

M5farm said:


> Not all Muslims are terrorist but all the terrorist have been Muslim!!!


Possibly the stupidest thing I've read today, and that's really saying something considering some of the idiotic nonsense in other posts in this thread.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Trixie said:


> I'm wondering why the science teacher told him not to show it because some might think it was a bomb, and did nothing else. That's not ignorant - it's beyond that.
> 
> Again, what would everyone be saying if the classroom teacher hadn't said anything and it was a bomb?


My guess is the science teacher was smart enough to know it wasn't a bomb but he was also smart enough to know some of the other teachers are not that smart.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

All of the factors of the current era are combining to produce environments that can be nostalgic, convenient . novelty or terrorizing. Sometimes all at the same time.

That's the thing about being victims of terrorists. After an attack our enemies continue to milk opportunity out of the initial attack by messing with our minds as we try to be more secure and return to normalcy at the same time. Of course we also become victims of our own paranoia.

Our best defense is still as it always has been and to try to go about life as normal as our trained anti enemy forces quietly go about their duties as they always have. Sadly all this instant connect techno toy environment we have now makes it hard for most of us to concentrate on our normal lives.

Had the student better coordinated his project with his teacher to get it to class it could probably all been avoided.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

kuriakos said:


> My guess is the science teacher was smart enough to know it wasn't a bomb but he was also smart enough to know some of the other teachers are not that smart.


So if he was smart enough to know other teachers might not to know it - why didn't he tell the kid to leave it with him or in the office - or somewhere.

I don't know that not recognizing a bomb - makes you 'not smart'. 
It would seem if you saw something that you thought might be a bomb, it would be decidedly 'not smart' to do nothing.

I'm wondering how many teachers would recognize a bomb - or non bomb?
As far as I know, now anyway, it isn't part of their training.

Not saying the police might not have overreacted.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> As for your assumptions on Muslims and *terror* here are the facts:
> 
> Right wing whites are winning by a mile:
> 
> http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/deadly-attacks.html


You're counting victims and I'm talking about perpetrators.

I also think calling some of those events "terrorism" is a big stretch.
Some were even listed as murders and bank robberies

I also notice the site left out all the Muslim hijackers and 3000+ killed on 9/11


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Trixie said:


> So if he was smart enough to know other teachers might not to know it - why didn't he tell the kid to leave it with him or in the office - or somewhere.
> 
> I don't know that not recognizing a bomb - makes you 'not smart'.
> It would seem if you saw something that you thought might be a bomb, it would be decidedly 'not smart' to do nothing.
> ...


Actually nobody thought it was a bomb or even might be a bomb, from all the reports I've seen. They were all smart enough to see that, but several people thought it _looked like_ a bomb. That may be a valid reason to dig a little deeper, but they probably overreacted.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Cause ya know most kids have C-4 in their lockers just waiting to be attached to a homemade clock.


The Boston bombers used gunpowder from fireworks, and black powder can be made from three simple ingredients. They don't need military grade explosives



RichNC:


> Are you kidding me, seiriously, are you just having a bit of fun on the forum today, or have you lost your mind?


McVeigh used fertilizer and diesel fuel, attached to a timing device.
It's just the facts.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

kuriakos said:


> Actually nobody thought it was a bomb or even might be a bomb, from all the reports I've seen. They were all smart enough to see that, but several people thought it _looked like_ a bomb. That may be a valid reason to dig a little deeper, but they probably overreacted.


Maybe

I'm granting it seems like overkill what the police did - and I'm getting my info here.

It is possible to react incorrectly, but I don't know that it is really possible to overreact - as in doing acting immediately, when you see something you 'think might be a bomb' - especially in a school.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

If anyone really thought it might be a bomb, they would have reacted much more strongly. The school would have been evacuated and the bomb squad called in. None of that happened. A teacher simply confiscated it. I don't know many teachers who would confiscate something they thought to be a bomb. Many would probably run away without even worrying about getting their students out with them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Trixie said:


> So if he was smart enough to know other teachers might not to know it - *why didn't he tell the kid to leave it with him or in the office - or somewhere.*
> 
> I don't know that not recognizing a bomb - makes you 'not smart'.
> It would seem if you saw something that you thought might be a bomb, it would be decidedly 'not smart' to do nothing.
> ...


I guess he made the mistake of trusting the kid to follow his advice to not let anyone else see it.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I guess he made the mistake of trusting the kid to follow his advice to not let anyone else see it.


Yeah probably - 

Although wouldn't you think the teacher might believe it could cause panic, fright, etc.

I'm getting my info here - and am just responded to what I read here - so I could be wrong.

I guess I just don't think you could really be too careful -


----------



## beenaround (Mar 2, 2015)

government is highly inefficient and grossly abusive of power. Why is it so difficult a fact to grasp? Where did this happen? A GOVERNMENT school.

When you people wake up call me, I'll tell you what's going to happen next and more importantly what the answer is.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

beenaround said:


> government is highly inefficient and grossly abusive of power. Why is it so difficult a fact to grasp? Where did this happen? A GOVERNMENT school.
> 
> When you people wake up call me, I'll tell you what's going to happen next and more importantly what the answer is.


When I need you I will be sure to call


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Trixie said:


> Yeah probably -
> 
> *Although wouldn't you think the teacher might believe it could cause panic, fright, etc.*
> 
> ...


I'm sure the teacher thought that, which is why he gave the warning, but he had no reason to confiscate the kid's property if he thought the kid would follow the GOOD advice he was given.

The kid either forgot the alarm was set, or he did it intentionally as an excuse to show off his "toy" so as to look cool, but it backfired.


----------



## sustainabilly (Jun 20, 2012)

beenaround said:


> government is highly inefficient and grossly abusive of power. Why is it so difficult a fact to grasp? Where did this happen? A GOVERNMENT school.
> 
> When you people wake up call me, I'll tell you what's going to happen next and more importantly what the answer is.


I've been trying!! Please remove a layer or two of tin foil so this _dumb_ phone can get through?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Obama has invited the kid to the White House, and this is now the lead story on CBS Nightly News 

The whole world has gone insane


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Obama has invited the kid to the White House, and this is now the lead story on CBS Nightly News


He sounds like a smart kid.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> He sounds like a smart kid.


BO or the 14 year old? 

(I'm not all that impressed with either)


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

What luxury we all bask in. Now that the facts are compiled, witnesses interviewed, evidence examined, we get to sit in our Lazy-Boy and criticize the first responders. We should be ashamed to be criticizing those trying to insure safety.

The story could have gone another way. What if, out of fear of racial profiling, teachers ignored the tick, tick, tick coming from the backpack and in a class of 35 students a bomb went off? " I thought it might be a bomb, but I didn't want to hurt his feelings, so I ignored the (now) obvious signs of a bomb." Would anyone be criticizing that choice? 

A few days after the NYWTC attack on 9/11, two Islamic men, dressed in camo, with ten teenage boys were riding the ferry boat to Mackinac Island. They were taking photos of the Mackinac Bridge and speaking Aribic. This is the bridge that connects the 7 mile span between Lower Michigan and the U.P.
When they got off the ferry, local police questioned them. These men were Boy Scout leaders from Dearborn and were furious for being singled out. I think they sued the police department. IMHO, they need to be more understanding that everyone in this country has had to be more aware and since all attacks have been perpetrated by Islamic men, they should expect some fallout to occur. As my grandpappy used to say, as I approached a locked gate, "Shut up and get over it."

Don't forget the grade schoolers that were expelled from school for having a 1/2" long gumball machine trinket in the shape of a gun or knife, with the school citing a zero tolerance policy. Oh, right, those were white kids.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Wonder if this kid gets to meet the president. Same issue, current 

t Prince Of Wales Clock Bomb
bing.com/news
Discarded broken clock leads to bomb scare
Discarded broken clock leads to bomb scare
KRBD Â· 2 days ago
There was a bomb scare last week at the Hollis ferry terminal ... the day before the 9/11 anniversary &#8211; when an IFA employee at the Hollis terminal on Prince&#8230;
Novelty alarm clock causes bomb scare at ferry terminal
2KTUU Â· 3 days ago
Novelty Alarm Clock Shuts Down Hollis Terminal, Triggers Investigation
Alaska Native News Â· 1 day ago

http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=P...omb&qpvt=prince+of+wales+clock+bomb&FORM=EWRE


----------



## RichNC (Aug 22, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The Boston bombers used gunpowder from fireworks, and black powder can be made from three simple ingredients. They don't need military grade explosives
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In a pressure canner no less, did this young man have one of those stashed away in his locker or backpack, NOPE...and to do what McVeigh did he needed a truck again did this young man have a truck full of fertilizer tucked away in his locker or back back, nope, you are off the rails with this one BFF!!


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

RichNC said:


> In a pressure canner no less, did this young man have one of those stashed away in his locker or backpack, NOPE...and to do what McVeigh did he needed a truck again did this young man have a truck full of fertilizer tucked away in his locker or back back, nope, you are off the rails with this one BFF!!


Thank you for the Monday morning quarterback report.

Each attack has been a method we never thought of before. We are always playing catchup. Box cutters were allowed on planes. The sight of a pressure cooker was not alarming. An old car with a fuel can in the back seat parked at Times Square not alarming. A guy walking into a theatre with a baggy coat not alarming. A wad of something in a guy's underwear/crotch getting on a plane in Detroit, not alarming.

After 9/11 and numerous attacks and attempted attacks we reset the standard. What will the next attack be? My guess is that it won't be flying a jet into a skyscraper or a pressure cooker bomb or an underwear bomb. My guess is that within their detailed master plan to kill us all is ways we haven't imagined, yet.


----------



## RichNC (Aug 22, 2014)

Yes, and a 14 year old kid in a NASA tee-shirt with a clock he made to impress his science teacher it TERRIFYING...I give up.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

I think that they ban all clocks and cell phones or any thing that may be used to detonate a bomb in a school.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Old Vet said:


> I think that they ban all clocks and cell phones or any thing that may be used to detonate a bomb in a school.


Impractical.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Yes, since it wasn't a real danger, we can all sit around and talk about how stupid anyone was for being concerned.

We can condemn those who had the audacity to be concerned and act on that concern. They acted against a minority, person of color, brown skinned, another nationality - or whatever the current protected class is - and how dare they be so cruel, racist, and all the rest. For goodness sake!!!!!

Enough of that and everyone will be afraid to point out a possible danger and we will have another tragedy because they didn't want to ' insensitive'.

All those who condemn, will look so surprised and say - 'Oh, my goodness - who would have thought it.'


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

RichNC said:


> Yes, and a 14 year old kid in a NASA tee-shirt with a clock he made to impress his science teacher it TERRIFYING...I give up.


The kid that shot up Sandyhook Elementary didn't look terrifying. The boys that shot up Columbine looked harmless. The Boston Bomber seemed nice.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

If the "solution" is to view all nice, harmless boys in this country as potential terrorists, I give up.
The terrorists won.
They don't have to lift a finger, we did all the work for them.
:thumb:


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Of course, let's don't suspect all nice, harmless boys.

Now the problem is deciding who is nice and harmless...


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

This is probably the best thing that could happen to this boy, he is all over the news. He has gotten invitations from other scientists, he looks really smart. He'll probably get scholarships, attend a good university and land a good job, all because he has gotten noticed. And the whole profiled because his name was Mohammad thing can't hurt. 

What the school did was over react, and the police over reacted. I guess common sense is gone . After years working in an electronic store, some people act like electronics is magic. This lady teacher is probably one of them. I found most teachers have a lot of book knowledge but little practical knowledge. I exempt science and technology teachers from this.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

It's not that hard to tell the difference between kids...or adults.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/comm...ted-after-taking-homemade-clock-to-school.ece


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Impractical.


Why they don't run by the clock do they? 
They should be able to tell time by the sundial.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

A few years ago, a friend of mine married a guy in New York. They sent her son to a private Jewish school. Her son was about 15 years old. For Halloween, he headed off to school looking like Charlie Chaplin. Once at school, he tucked his pants into his tall boots and added a Nazi arm band to his costume. Come to find out the School was not impressed with this child's originality. Apparently, a Hitler outfit is not welcome. He was kicked out of school. Made national news. 

So, it isn't just the sweet Islamic boy that gets picked on for bringing a mass of wires and circuit boards in a metal case. White kids get detained and sent home, too.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Trixie said:


> Yes, since it wasn't a real danger, we can all sit around and talk about how stupid anyone was for being concerned.
> 
> We can condemn those who had the audacity to be concerned and act on that concern. They acted against a minority, person of color, brown skinned, another nationality - or whatever the current protected class is - and how dare they be so cruel, racist, and all the rest. For goodness sake!!!!!
> 
> ...


For the record, I'm not condemning their concern. They probably should have been concerned about something that looked like a bomb. But that concern was about an issue not involving immediate danger, since none of them thought it actually was a bomb, according to all reports I saw earlier today. 

They arrested the kid for possession of a hoax bomb, so the police obviously knew it wasn't a real bomb and nobody was in danger from it. From their own statement, it appears the arrest may have been lacking. Obviously they didn't share everything the kid said to them in the interview, but the police spokesman indicated the kid said nothing incriminating.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> It's not that hard to tell the difference between kids...or adults.
> 
> http://www.dallasnews.com/news/comm...ted-after-taking-homemade-clock-to-school.ece


My point was how do you tell a nice, harmless boy from one not nice, harmless.

Is there some way to tell?


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

kuriakos said:


> For the record, I'm not condemning their concern. They probably should have been concerned about something that looked like a bomb. But that concern was about an issue not involving immediate danger, since none of them thought it actually was a bomb, according to all reports I saw earlier today.
> 
> They arrested the kid for possession of a hoax bomb, so the police obviously knew it wasn't a real bomb and nobody was in danger from it. From their own statement, it appears the arrest may have been lacking. Obviously they didn't share everything the kid said to them in the interview, but the police spokesman indicated the kid said nothing incriminating.


No I get that.

It's just that it seems most people are and there is a grey area there. Was it overreacting - probably.

OK, next time a teacher sees someone with what she 'doesn't think is a bomb', is she going to investigate?? Should teachers be put in the position to make that call?

For the record, not to you, I don't feel the teacher should be considered ignorant because he/she doesn't know anything about bomb making or electronics.

It does seemed to be handled badly, but I'm thinking the first teacher he showed it to should/could have done something.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

RichNC said:


> In a pressure canner no less, did this young man have one of those stashed away in his locker or backpack, NOPE...and to do what McVeigh did he needed a truck again did this young man have a truck full of fertilizer tucked away in his locker or back back, nope, you are off the rails with this one BFF!!


He could have had a pipe bomb stashed away somewhere.

Those are perfectly capable of taking out one room and several people

The parts are less than $10 at any hardware store, and the ingredients for several powder recipes can be had from drug stores and grocery stores.

I have a good recipe for gunpowder that is mostly saltpeter and sugar that anyone can buy

It's not so much about what he "did"

It's about what was *possible*, and what couldn't be ignored without at least a cursory investigation.

The media is playing up the emotional evil Govt spin while making light of what *could have* been a tragic event


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

I hope I haven't posted this before - but old people 'sometimes' get a pass for such thing.

My daughter in law was out of state when 9/11 happened. She had her 2 year old son, Mother and Grandmother with her.

They got the first flight to Texas allowed after.

The government had announced there would be no more 'courtesy' flights allowed for a while.

As they all sat in the waiting area, they were nervous anyway, but a ME man in a pilot's uniform walked in, spoke to the check in clerk and sat down. Everyone begin getting squirmy, looking at each other, whispering, but no one did anything.

Finally, my daughter in law went up to the check in clerk and asked who the man was. She was unconcerned and said it was just a pilot get a jump flight. My daughter in law said she thought there weren't supposed to be any of those for a while. The clerk was still unconcerned, so my daughter in law said she wanted her to find out who he was for sure.

After some more discussion, the clerk called security. They came and took the man away.

Now it could have been totally innocent - they never knew - but maybe it wasn't. So should they have all sat there, fearing they would 'offend' someone and not ask?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by farmrbrown View Post
> It's not that hard to tell *the difference between kids...or adults*.


Is one less dead if their killer is a minor?


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

Time for me to get glasses. Thought the thread was "teenager with electronic duck"
Say the magic woid and get a prize.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Is one less dead if their killer is a minor?


No.
Dead is dead.
Kid is kid.
Adult is adult.

Good is good. 
Bad is bad.
And stupid trolling is just stupid.

Any other questions?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He* could have* had a pipe bomb stashed away somewhere.
> 
> Those are perfectly capable of taking out one room and several people
> 
> ...



I'm sure this will sound very familiar to you.

"I'm not going to discuss 'what ifs', only the facts. That's not reality."


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Nevada said:


> He sounds like a smart kid.


Obama?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Trixie said:


> My point was how do you tell a nice, harmless boy from one not nice, harmless.
> 
> Is there some way to tell?


If you're asking for an outward physical sign, the answer is no.
But did you get anything after reading the article?

What were your impressions?
Was this a nerdy type kid who wants to be an engineer and fixes all his dad's broken electronics in his own little workshop?
Or was this a kid who goes to a radical mosque and makes hateful statements about America?
Did his siblings or relatives have any problems, or were they grateful to be here?

My point is parents, teachers and friends usually know you, or at least should.
If you can't decide after years of experience, oh well.

The next question will be of course, "But what if it's a stranger?"
I already addressed the two choices in my previous posts, but I'll add the obvious.

A bomb planting terrorist, 100 times out of 100, isn't going to show you his nice little bomb first.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He could have had a pipe bomb stashed away somewhere.
> 
> Those are perfectly capable of taking out one room and several people
> 
> ...


Sure he could have. So the proper response by the folks in charge should have been to evacuate the school and roll out all their fancy bomb detection tools and dogs. They should have pulled in all this kids friends and questioned them to make sure there were no accomplices. They should have taken his computer abs phone and searched them for any jihadi contacts. They should have done the same for all this potential terrorist's friends and family. They should have tromped on a few more civil liberties to keep us all safe. Since they did none of that and obviously endangered every other student and teacher in this school because this kid COULD have had a pressure cooker full of dirty bomb somewhere they should all be fired and charged with endangering public safety. And because the kid is Muslim and obviously knows how to make a clock he should be constantly monitored to help restore your peace of mind.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> What luxury we all bask in. Now that the facts are compiled, witnesses interviewed, evidence examined, we get to sit in our Lazy-Boy and criticize the first responders. We should be ashamed to be criticizing those trying to insure safety.
> 
> The story could have gone another way. What if, out of fear of racial profiling, teachers ignored the tick, tick, tick coming from the backpack and in a class of 35 students a bomb went off? " I thought it might be a bomb, but I didn't want to hurt his feelings, so I ignored the (now) obvious signs of a bomb." Would anyone be criticizing that choice?
> 
> ...


It's one of the luxuries of living in a free country. It's a luxury that can disappear, along with the luxury of being free from authorities arresting you for your religous affiliation or skin color because they see some amorphous threat, if it's not fought for and protected. Part of the freedom of having those luxuries is the risk that comes with everyone being able to enjoy them. Not just the "right" people.

And for the record, I think zero tolerance policies that punish kids like you pointed to are stupid, misguided, and are largely strictly implemented by small minded people.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Sure he could have. So the proper response by the folks in charge should have been to evacuate the school and roll out all their fancy bomb detection tools and dogs. They should have pulled in all this kids friends and questioned them to make sure there were no accomplices. They should have taken his computer abs phone and searched them for any jihadi contacts. They should have done the same for all this potential terrorist's friends and family. They should have tromped on a few more civil liberties to keep us all safe. Since they did none of that and obviously endangered every other student and teacher in this school because this kid COULD have had a pressure cooker full of dirty bomb somewhere they should all be fired and charged with endangering public safety. And because the kid is Muslim and obviously knows how to make a clock he should be constantly monitored to help restore your peace of mind.


I believe they did enough investigation to reach the decision that further action wasn't needed, and contrary to lots of claims it doesn't seem he was ever "arrested" at all.

They may have even done some of the things you suggested, since you have no way of knowing what they really did.

Your reaction is more extreme than theirs.

What I stated is simply realistic, while your response seems a little hysterical, although I'm sure it's meant to be sarcasm. 

It's as much an "over reaction" as what you accuse the police of doing


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> It's one of the luxuries of living in a free country. It's a luxury that can disappear, along with the luxury of being free from *authorities arresting you for your religous affiliation or skin color* because they see some amorphous threat, if it's not fought for and protected. Part of the freedom of having those luxuries is the risk that comes with everyone being able to enjoy them. Not just the "right" people.
> 
> And for the record, I think zero tolerance policies that punish kids like you pointed to are stupid, misguided, and are largely strictly implemented by small minded people.


That didn't happen.

He was questioned and released with no charges filed, and there is no reason to think his religion had anything to do with it when it was based on the device itself.

I find it ironic BO invited the kid to come to the White House, which was placed on lock down yesterday due to a "suspicious package" in a nearby park.

Caution is OK there, but not in a school?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I believe they did enough investigation to reach the decision that further action wasn't needed, and contrary to lots of claims it doesn't seem he was ever "arrested" at all.
> 
> They may have even done some of the things you suggested, since you have no way of knowing what they really did.
> 
> ...


You might wish to reread the story. He was detained and questioned by four police officers without his parents or legal representation . He was arresested and taken from the school though the city later decided not to press charges. I do know they didn't do any of the things I said. The negative evidence of any if it happening is overwhelming. No school wide evacuation. No bomb sniffing dogs which would have been reported on social media by the kids themselves. No complaints from other kids or their or parents that they were investigated.

But none of that was really my point. I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole in an attempt to show how ridiculous "what if" and "might have happened" scenarios are. Sorry you missed it. What is hysterical is the reaction and support you and others express in support of the administrators and police in walking all over some very important civil liberties designed to, gasp, protect us all.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That didn't happen.
> 
> He was questioned and released with no charges filed, and there is no reason to think his religion had anything to do with it when it was based on the device itself.
> 
> ...


I didn't say it did but I have little doubt in my mind that religion and skin tone played a role. What I said was that if we're not willing to push back against the "minor" injustices inflicted on others they doing grow to be bigger injustices and affect all of us.

Caution is a wonderful thing. It can keep you safe. But using caution as an excuse for overreaction makes none of us safer. It could do just the opposite.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Ok the kid didn't build a bomb 
But
What did he have in mind ? Was he the kind to show it off to his friends and say " what's this look like to you " in hopes of making a scene ?
Since it was in his backpack at the time I'd give him the benifit of the doubt. But that one teacher didn't and things went from there. 
Like I said about bush before he took out Iraq perhaps he knows things we don't. 
I don't trust teachers much and I'm suspicious this one is making a example of the kid and blowing it out of proportion but honestly I can't find what he did wrong.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

And just so you don't think I want to throw caution to the wind here's a story that happened near here involving 14 year olds and a school. http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines...ue-to-threats-324278891.html?device=phone&c=y

Kids, threats, bomb making supplies, appropriate investigation and response. All of which were lacking , except for the kid, in Texas.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

RichNC said:


> My goodness, he built a CLOCK!!


Actually he built a clock in a metal box much larger than it needed to be. He also built it is a paranoid country where small kids are kicked out or have the cops called on them for bringing a toy rubber knife to school or drawing a picture of a gun.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

poppy said:


> Actually he built a clock in a metal box much larger than it needed to be. He also built it is a paranoid country where small kids are kicked out or have the cops called on them for bringing a toy rubber knife to school or drawing a picture of a gun.


So your justification is that he overbuilt a Ã§ludgy device with things he had on hand and other schools have abysmal zero tolerance policies making the actions of the police and school authorities proper. Paranoia will destroy ya.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

I have to wonder... will he be allowed to carry it on a plane without examining it? Will the SS look it over before he carries it into the WH? This is the perfect opportunity for the next racial profiling victim to have the real thing and nobody will dare question them for fear of being labeled a racist.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

The student's father had his 15 minutes of fame when he took up a challenge for a "trial" of the Koran staged by that Terry Jones. His reasons for accepting were that it was always good to have a chance to defend the Koran and besides it was a opportunity to take his family to Disney World- either a clever sense of humor or the exact opposite- I couldn't tell from the article.

Anyway there is an abundance of issues going on in the Irving Tx school district from a controversy over how to teach non english speaking students (issue of especial interest to recent immigrants from Mexico) through continuing issues over creationism to the creation (or not) of a 'sharia court' in the area. 

Who knows how all this plays into what happened........ not that it will stop those who do not need to know to decide.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...lam-controversy-in-ahmed-mohameds-texas-city/
http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/...ng-church-says-he-admires-terry-jones-7130292
http://www.vox.com/2015/9/16/9339063/ahmed-mohamed-elhassan
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/shariatexas.asp


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> I'm sure this will sound very familiar to you.
> 
> "I'm not going to discuss 'what ifs', only the facts. That's not reality."


You forgot the favorite buzzword: fantasy.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

> I believe they did enough investigation to reach the decision that further action wasn't needed, and contrary to lots of claims it doesn't seem he was ever "arrested" at all.


The kid was arrested, according to the statement of the police department that arrested him.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> So your justification is that he overbuilt a Ã§ludgy device with things he had on hand and other schools have abysmal zero tolerance policies making the actions of the police and school authorities proper. Paranoia will destroy ya.


Never said they were proper, but that's today's world. I heard today the actual clock he built did look like it could be a bomb but it was not the one in the picture circulated in the media. I hate when they show false pictures to mislead readers.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

dixiegal62 said:


> I have to wonder... will he be allowed to carry it on a plane without examining it? Will the SS look it over before he carries it into the WH? This is the perfect opportunity for the next racial profiling victim to have the real thing and nobody will dare question them for fear of being labeled a racist.


That's the point when these things get blown up. Will the next screener, teacher, police officer, etc., not question out of fear.

Actually, Pres. Obama, may send Air Force One for him.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> If you're asking for an outward physical sign, the answer is no.
> But did you get anything after reading the article?
> 
> What were your impressions?
> ...


I agree on some things - but how many times has some kid done something absolutely outrageous and the neighbors and teachers, even Sunday School teachers say, 'but he was such a nice, sweet helpful boy'.

Yes a teacher should know something about the kid - but only what she sees at school. How would she know if he went to the mosque and made hateful speeches - made hateful speeches on the internet?

Impressions are one thing - knowledge is another. 

Again, I think the whole thing could have been averted if that first teacher had given some thought to the environment we live in today and if they, in fact are having some problems in that area as some poster suggests - why didn't he tell the boy to not take it to school. If they have a zero tolerance for such things - why didn't that teacher do something then?

Was he afraid he would be raked over the coals for daring to question such a nice, innocent looking little boy, who was so smart and who just happened to be ME - a minority/protected class - or whatever?

Did he consider either taking the device to hold, alerting the school authorities, but somehow could see himself as being the teacher who dared question this boy - and being accused of doing it only because he was Muslim??


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kuriakos said:


> The kid was arrested, according to the statement of the police department that arrested him.


There are also conflicting reports on whether the school suspended him.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kuriakos said:


> The kid was arrested, *according to the statement *of the police department that arrested him.


I haven't seen that statement, and all charges were dropped


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I didn't say it did but *I have little doubt in my mind *that religion and skin tone played a role. What I said was that if we're not willing to push back against the *"minor" injustices* inflicted on others they doing grow to be bigger injustices and affect all of us.
> 
> Caution is a wonderful thing. It can keep you safe. But using caution as an excuse for overreaction makes none of us safer. It could do just the opposite.


What is "in your mind" doesn't mean it's true.
I believe the reaction would have been the same for anyone with a similar device, and I don't think there was any "over reaction" other than that of the media and the usual anti-Govt types.

There was no "injustice"

There was an investigation of a "suspicious device" much like the event that got the White House locked down



> I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole in an attempt to show how ridiculous "what if" and "might have happened" scenarios are. *Sorry you missed it*


I'm sorry you missed where I pointed out I knew you didn't really mean all that you said


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> And just so you don't think I want to throw caution to the wind here's a story that happened near here involving 14 year olds and a school. http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines...ue-to-threats-324278891.html?device=phone&c=y
> 
> Kids, threats, bomb making supplies, *appropriate investigation* and response. All of which were lacking , except for the kid, in Texas.


What they did in TX was also "appropriate" for the details of the situation.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Here's my beef with the situation. I get that some teachers thought the clock looked suspicious. I can sort of even understand why they thought they might need to bring in a police officer (after all, most schools are equipped with one full time anyways). What I don't get is why they refused to believe them when he told them it was a clock. I'm pretty sure there was SOMEONE at the school intelligent enough to actually look at the clock and see it actually was a clock. I don't get why they didn't call his parents until AFTER he was questioned alone, without a lawyer or someone there to represent him and lookout for his RIGHTS. 

I also don't get why the school still suspended him. FOR WHAT? For making a clock? Because the adults are too idiotic to realize it was JUST A CLOCK, even after they questioned him and examined the clock. 

You don't punish someone for something that "might have maybe happened one day possibly." That is just absolutely asinine.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by farmrbrown View Post
> I'm sure this will sound very familiar to you.
> 
> "I'm not going to discuss 'what ifs', only the facts. That's not reality."


It's a *fact* he was only one component short of a timebomb.
That's why there was an investigation to determine if it was likely he had that component.

As usual, you resort to childish personal jabs, which is why, more and more I just disregard all you say, since the end result is so often the same.

You can't just stick to the topic without making it about your delusions of grandeur or another poster, and it's boring.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's a *fact* he was only one component short of a timebomb.[\QUOTE]
> 
> 
> So what ? Thousands of trucks running up and down the roads today have All the components for a bomb
> ...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Bearfootfarm said:
> 
> 
> > It's a *fact* he was only one component short of a timebomb.[\QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You don't punish someone for something that "might have maybe happened one day possibly." That is just absolutely asinine.


No one was "punished" for any thing that "might" happen.
No legal charges were filed, and if the suspension remains in effect, it's for bringing the device that caused the uproar, which he obviously did.

The worst part about all of this is how everyone is making such a big deal out of a minor incident.

It's internet mob hysteria at it's finest, and really not worth wasting this much time on.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one was "punished" for any thing that "might" happen.
> No legal charges were filed, and if the suspension remains in effect, it's for bringing the device that caused the uproar, which he obviously did.
> 
> The worst part about all of this is how everyone is making such a big deal out of a minor incident.
> ...


Evidently the student expressed a desire to transfer to another school, but the school didn't want to lose a top student so it has released a public statement saying that he's welcome back.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/ahmed-mohameds-high-school-back-supports-teacher-reported/story?id=33829785

That school doesn't deserve him.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one was "punished" for any thing that "might" happen.
> No legal charges were filed, and if the suspension remains in effect, it's for bringing the device that caused the uproar, which he obviously did.
> 
> The worst part about all of this is how everyone is making such a big deal out of a minor incident.
> ...


You say he was punished for bringing something that caused an uproar. He brought a clock. How was he supposed to know ignorant teachers and police would get in an uproar? 

The police violated his civil rights and the school punished him because they were embarrassed at how they reacted, so they had to put the blame back on the 14 year old. 

I see you in this thread arguing your opinion same as everyone else, so don't go off on that holier-than-thou internet mob crap.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That didn't happen.
> 
> He was questioned and released with no charges filed, and there is no reason to think his religion had anything to do with it when it was based on the device itself.





Bearfootfarm said:


> I haven't seen that statement, and all charges were dropped


It's all in the link below.
But I just have to ask, how in the world do you get charges dropped if no charges are filed and you're not arrested in the first place?

There isn't any actual evidence that being named Ahmed Mohammed was the underlying reason, it was the clock that set off alarm bells, pardon the pun.
But hearing the boy relate the interrogation, there were subtle and not so subtle things that were asked and said.
I'm glad the police had enough sense to admit their mistake.
Once you make a few and deal with it correctly, life goes on.
A few good lessons in this story for all of us, huh?


https://www.texastribune.org/2015/09/16/irving-police-drop-charges-against-muslim-student/


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

I can't help but think back to my elementary and later school years.
The big thing at that time were the Apollo launches.
Several times a year we all gathered in the playground, launched and watched our own homemade rockets from popular kits sold back then. Even 3 stage Saturn replicas that went hundreds of feet, powered with black powder explosives and usually a successful return to earth with a parachute.
All under the supervision, encouragement and delight of the entire student body and staff.
My haven't we progressed............


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> You say he was punished for bringing something that caused an uproar. He brought a clock. How was he supposed to know ignorant teachers and police would get in an uproar?
> 
> The police violated his civil rights and the school punished him because they were embarrassed at how they reacted, so they had to put the blame back on the 14 year old.
> 
> I see you in this thread arguing your opinion same as everyone else, so don't go off on that holier-than-thou internet mob crap.


He wasn't supposed to know - but why call the teacher ignorant - are teachers suppose to make that call?

Also, one teacher it seems did know it could look like a bomb, but that was his field - so why did that teacher not do something then??? I would say that was the ignorant one - or rather negligent one.

Once again, was his ethnicity part of the equation - who knows.

I just wonder if everyone would be in such a lather to support him if that had been some white kid with the Stars and Bars on his T shirt?????


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

Wow, for it to be a bomb, you need more than a clock, you need a relay, and supporting circuitry, a heavy enough battery to trigger a detonator of some sort, and the main explosive. All they had was the clock. Any police officer should have seen that. Even a black powder explosive would require a rocket starter that takes 6 volts to trigger. (4 aa batts) plus some sort of interface between the clock alarm and the relay. I thought police were trained in this sort of stuff?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

What do y'all think the secret service would do in this situation if this (so called) unidentifiable clock was sent to the president?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Trixie said:


> He wasn't supposed to know - but why call the teacher ignorant - are teachers suppose to make that call?
> 
> Also, one teacher it seems did know it could look like a bomb, but that was his field - so why did that teacher not do something then??? I would say that was the ignorant one - or rather negligent one.
> 
> ...



I would, and the Mayor of Irving Texas said pretty much the same.
See link in post #67.



Marshloft said:


> What do y'all think the secret service would do in this situation if this (so called) unidentifiable clock was sent to the president?



I dunno.
I'd like to think they'd ask him what time it was.......:runforhills:


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I haven't seen that statement, and all charges were dropped


Whether you've seen it has nothing to do with whether it's true. He was arrested. Simple as that.

Yes, the charges were dropped later when the police realized they were wrong. It probably cut the settlement amount they will eventually reach down to about 10% of what it would be if they had prosecuted him.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> I would, and the Mayor of Irving Texas said pretty much the same.
> See link in post #67.
> 
> 
> ...


Respectfully, you might but I don't think everyone would.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/article35548035.html

Apparently in this article, it's not the school or police who are at fault for causing the high level of suspicion. Anyone notice something missing is the fault determination?


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

where I want to said:


> http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/article35548035.html
> 
> Apparently in this article, it's not the school or police who are at fault for causing the high level of suspicion. Anyone notice something missing is the fault determination?


I agree to a point - all this talk that all Muslims are just blood thirsty terrorists and are told in the Koran to kill all infidels, etc., can't help but produce a climate where bad things happen.

I don't agree that we should have foreign laws making decisions for us there.

Then, of course, you have the ones who are just determined it is only because he is Muslim, etc., etc.,

Although I have heard in England, I believe, they do allow Sharia law to make decisions amongst Muslims regarding divorce, child custody, etc.
I'm not sure how I feel - I'm on the fence about that.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

The question asked before that deserves an answer is, "What should have been done, if not instead?"
I go back to the teachers and parents.
Granted, in today's schools, a kid bringing in a case with a timing device in it will get some attention......
If the first teacher had said to the boy, "Pretty cool. How about I take this up front and clear it with the principal, just to make sure. And go ahead and call your dad so I can tell him it's ok and clear it with him, too."

Everybody gets to find out the info they need, and have a chance to reassure themselves or keep everyone safe and out of trouble.
No harm in being nosy about what kids are bringing and stopping any harm, but we whip out the handcuffs and make the evening news, why not use those great brains we are developing?


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> The question asked before that deserves an answer is, "What should have been done, if not instead?"
> I go back to the teachers and parents.
> Granted, in today's schools, a kid bringing in a case with a timing device in it will get some attention......
> If the first teacher had said to the boy, "Pretty cool. How about I take this up front and clear it with the principal, just to make sure. And go ahead and call your dad so I can tell him it's ok and clear it with him, too."
> ...


Yes, yes, and yes.

The whole incident could have been avoided - but that teacher realized it might cause problems. So rather than circumventing the problem he did nothing?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Evidently the student expressed a desire to transfer to another school, but the school didn't want to lose a top student so it has released a public statement saying that he's welcome back.
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/ahmed-mohameds-high-school-back-supports-teacher-reported/story?id=33829785
> 
> That school doesn't deserve him.


His suspension is over now anyway


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> You say he was punished for bringing something that caused an uproar. He brought a clock.
> 
> *How was he supposed to know ignorant teachers and police would get in an uproar? *
> 
> ...


He was* told *not to show it to anyone else.
He ignored that advice.

No civil rights were violated, and he was suspended for bringing the device, not for anything else.

The "internet mob mentality" is the only reason this is a "news event".

My comments on this forum didn't make it a world issue


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Were you pointing out that the first teacher who saw it, knew it might be taken the wrong way to say _anything_, and chose to remain silent rather than be labeled a bigot?

I thought about that too, but can't say for sure that it wasn't a simple thing that was overlooked.

It's not easy to give what you might see as good advice when it can be taken as endorsing a prejudice.
We all are aware of what goes on in the world and looking out for another shouldn't be such a difficult decision.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Trixie said:


> Yes, yes, and yes.
> 
> The whole incident could have been avoided - but that teacher realized it might cause problems. So rather than circumventing the problem *he did nothing*?


He didn't "do nothing"

He told him NOT to let anyone else see the device, and the kid had to show it off anyway.

It could have been avoided if he had left his toys at home.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

He violated school policy:
Possession and Use of Other 
Personal Electronic Devices
Except as described below, students are not permitt
ed to possess or use personal electronic devices 
such as MP3 players, video or audio recorders, 
DVD players, cameras, games, e-readers, or other 
electronic devices at school, unl
ess prior permission has been obt
ained. Without such permission, 
teachers will collect the items and turn them in to 
the principal&#8217;s office. The principal will determine 
whether to return items to students 
at the end of the day or to contac
t parents to pick up the items. 
In limited circumstances and in accordance with law,
 a student&#8217;s personal electronic device may be 
searched by authorized personnel. [See 
Searches
 on page 102 and policy FNF.] 
Any disciplinary action will be in 
accordance with the Student Code 
of Conduct. The district is not 
responsible for any damaged, lost
, or stolen electronic device.

And the teacher followed school policy

T
elecommunications and Other El
ectronic Devices (All Grade Levels)
Use of district-owned equipment and its network systems is not private and will be monitored by the 
district. [See policy CQ for more information.] A
ny searches of personal telecommunications or other 
personal electronic devices will be conducted in
 accordance with law, and the device may be 
confiscated in order to perform a lawful search. 
A confiscated device may be turned over to law 
enforcement to determine whether a crime has been committed. [See policy FNF(LEGAL) and 
Electronic Devices and Technology 
Resources on page 48 for more information.] 


http://www.irvingisd.net/cms/lib010/TX01917973/Centricity/Domain/1469/2015-2016%20Student%20Handbook%20-%20ENGLISH.pdf

Not saying I agree or disagree with the reaction of the school and police but the school did follow policy. 
It is a shame when kids can't make and show off little inventions. I hope he ends up at a school that appreciates his talent.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> It is a shame when kids can't make and show off little inventions.


He could have, had he followed the policy
All he had to do was ask ahead of time:



> unless *prior permission* has been obtained.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He was* told *not to show it to anyone else.
> He ignored that advice.
> 
> No civil rights were violated, and he was suspended for bringing the device, not for anything else.
> ...


In this case, Bearfoot is correct. When I checked on civil rights of juveniles, Texas law and police procedures and SCOTUS rulings, I was a bit surprised to find that everything was by the book.
It might not be approved by all parents but your kid can be questioned without your presence and Miranda rules are the same.
Once charged, THEN parents have to be notified and given access to the minor and what was learned in questioning is somewhat subject to exclusion depending on circumstance much like anyone else.
Interesting though, was the fact that he just kept telling the police "It's a clock" and nothing more, which was smart. Not answering anything else was one of the reasons given for taking him into custody.
Any good lawyer will tell you the less you say the better, even if you end up in jail, no reason to say something that can be used against you later.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Some have claimed the device was "in his backpack" and "wouldn't have been noticed if it hadn't beeped".

USA Today says it was in a "briefcase" and he got up during class and plugged it into a wall outlet, at which time it started beeping.



> According to Irving police, Ahmed's case contained a digital clock that the student had taken apart and rearranged. Police said the student had the briefcase in his English class, where he plugged it into an electrical outlet and it started to make noise.
> 
> Ahmed said his English teacher confiscated his case. A few hours later, the student said the school's principal and resource officer pulled him out of class. Police confiscated the case along with Ahmed's tablet computer.


He didn't "invent" or "build" a clock.
He took a clock apart and put it back together using some different parts

He wanted the attention

https://regmedia.co.uk/2015/09/16/irvingstudentclock.jpg


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

It was a setup.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Danaus29 said:


> He violated school policy:
> Possession and Use of Other
> Personal Electronic Devices
> Except as described below, students are not permitt
> ...


Which teacher followed policy? The first one he reportedly showed it to who took no action to confiscate the device and gave him permission, at least implied, to possess the item on school grounds? Or the second one who reacted quite differently? An even not so good lawyer could have some fun there.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Well now!
Yes I'm late to this party.. But better late, then never..

If anyone, note I said anyone brings a briefcase with some sort of timing device built inside of it to a school, it should be checked thoroughly and the person bringing it should be held until it is cleared.. 

If liberals can suspend a student for biting a pop tart into the shape of a gun, than arresting and suspending this student for making a "clock" look like a bomb should qualify to the same if not harsher punishment..


No profiling etc.. 

Yes I know some won't like this because I included liberals and minorities etc in the above.. If one has to follow the laws/rules, then all do..

Yes I also understand that liberals and minorities are ABOVE the law / rules...

Ironic how only some have to abide by the rules and others are only "innocent children" build timing devices in briefcases..


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Trixie said:


> He wasn't supposed to know - but why call the teacher ignorant - are teachers suppose to make that call?


Ignorant as in lacking knowledge of electronic devices. 



Bearfootfarm said:


> He was* told *not to show it to anyone else.
> He ignored that advice.


So when it beeped and the teacher asked him to show what it was he should have ignored his teacher? Yeah, that would have gone over well.




> No civil rights were violated


Well I found this quote in this article. 



> Texas Family Code is clear this was not supposed to happen.
> 
> âA child may not be left unattended in a juvenile processing office and is entitled to be accompanied by the childâs parent, guardian, or other custodian or by the childâs attorney,â Section 52.025 (PDF) states.


Here's the whole PDF.



beowoulf90 said:


> If liberals can suspend a student for biting a pop tart into the shape of a gun, than arresting and suspending this student for making a "clock" look like a bomb should qualify to the same if not harsher punishment..


Pffft. Here we go. Blame it on the liberals, again. No liberal person (or ANY person, for that matter) I know ever agreed with that stupid pop tart incident.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Danaus29 said:


> Not saying I agree or disagree with the reaction of the school and police but the school did follow policy.
> It is a shame when kids can't make and show off little inventions. I hope he ends up at a school that appreciates his talent.
> [/SIZE] [/FONT]


Thank you for posting that. So he was probably suspended because he violated school policy, not because the device caused an uproar.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

MDKatie said:


> Ignorant as in lacking knowledge of electronic devices.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It was liberal policy for the "zero tolerance" rules from the start.. Liberals are the ones that pushed it and now enforce it..

Yet are the ones that don't abide by it..

We used to have rifle teams and such at school and surprisingly we didn't shoot each other. We even drove to school with our shotguns and rifles hanging in the truck.. Yet again we didn't shoot each other..

So when you figure out who created this "zero tolerance" garbage, then you can blame me for playing politics...


----------



## Declan (Jan 18, 2015)

...and America falls further behind in science and technology.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MDKatie said:


> Ignorant as in lacking knowledge of electronic devices.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Libby's never own any of this crap. They created. They own it. 

This muzzy clock is as stupid a controversy as the pop tart gun.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

beowoulf90 said:


> It was liberal policy for the "zero tolerance" rules from the start.. Liberals are the ones that pushed it and now enforce it..
> 
> Yet are the ones that don't abide by it..
> 
> ...


I believe it's more of a conservative agenda to assume all Muslims are making bombs and are a threat to our society. Perhaps the liberals are more concerned with gun safety. And you are the one who brought up politics, that's why I quoted you.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

MDKatie said:


> I believe it's more of a conservative agenda to assume all Muslims are making bombs and are a threat to our society. Perhaps the liberals are more concerned with gun safety. And you are the one who brought up politics, that's why I quoted you.


And such statements are why no civilized conversation can happen. Assuming that people who you find disagreeable have extreme positions, and have those extreme positions for the nasiest of reasons. Then apply that to all.
I'm sure that the are some who could be termed conservatives who do think that all Muslims are making bombs, just as there are liberals who think that all conservatives are racial bigots. Probably a much higher percentage of liberals believing their fanstasy than the conservatives thinking theirs.
It's much easier to avoid thinking about complex and difficult subjects looking at things that way.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

This link has an article and supposedly the picture of Ahmed's clock and also the picture of an IED triggering device used in training. How many would know which is a clock by looking at the pictures? I sure wouldn't and I doubt any teacher or cop would either. His clock does look like it could be a bomb to me.

https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/09/16/a-clock-or-a-bomb-trigger/


----------



## Declan (Jan 18, 2015)

poppy said:


> This link has an article and supposedly the picture of Ahmed's clock and also the picture of an IED triggering device used in training. How many would know which is a clock by looking at the pictures? I sure wouldn't and I doubt any teacher or cop would either. His clock does look like it could be a bomb to me.
> 
> https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/09/16/a-clock-or-a-bomb-trigger/


How many IED's have cords to be plugged into a wall outlet?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Declan said:


> How many IED's have cords to be plugged into a wall outlet?


If it did not have a battery, how did it sound in his backpack? Unless his back pack was plugged in.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

The kid with the pop tart gun wasn't arrested. This one was. I expect schools to have stupid rules and stupid administrators to enforce them, but I hold police to a higher standard.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

farmrbrown said:


> I'm sure this will sound very familiar to you.
> 
> "I'm not going to discuss 'what ifs', only the facts. That's not reality."


Post of the day! If any of us had trotted out nonsense like BFF is handing out in this thread he would never let it go.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Trixie said:


> I agree to a point - all this talk that all Muslims are just blood thirsty terrorists and are told in the Koran to kill all infidels, etc., can't help but produce a climate where bad things happen.
> 
> I don't agree that we should have foreign laws making decisions for us there.
> 
> ...



Well you could start with the 2 religious groups here in America who have been doing that for a very long time now: Orthodox Jews and Catholics and other Christians. If you are interested you can look up the Beit Din and the Vatican to start.  

Both Jews and Christians are adjured by the Bible to keep their legal matters amongst themselves and not take them to public authorities. I would assume Islam has a similar instruction.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He was* told *not to show it to anyone else.
> He ignored that advice.
> 
> No civil rights were violated, and he was suspended for bringing the device, not for anything else.
> ...


He was asked by a teacher what made the alarm noise. Was he supposed to disobey the teacher? And before you trot out your excuse that he should have turned it off I would say have you never forgotten an alarm before on your phone or watch? It's ironic you expect so much foresight and thought from a 14 yo boy but not from the trained adults around him.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

BlackFeather said:


> Wow, for it to be a bomb, you need more than a clock, you need a relay, and supporting circuitry, a heavy enough battery to trigger a detonator of some sort, and the main explosive. All they had was the clock. Any police officer should have seen that. Even a black powder explosive would require a rocket starter that takes 6 volts to trigger. (4 aa batts) plus some sort of interface between the clock alarm and the relay. I thought police were trained in this sort of stuff?


None of that is needed.
Gunpowder can be ignited with heat alone, and running current through a wire that creates too much resistance will generate the needed heat. 

1 AAA battery and a common flashlight bulb can do that

A 9 volt transistor battery and steel wool will generate enough heat to start a fire. You're knowledge of what it takes seems quite limited

http://www.bing.com/search?q=9+volt...=-1&sk=&cvid=03bac75dbc4e479684b6bac0635f2233

His device didn't use a battery at all. He plugged it into an outlet


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Which teacher followed policy? The first one he reportedly showed it to who took no action to confiscate the device and gave him permission, at least implied, to possess the item on school grounds? Or the second one who reacted quite differently? An even not so good lawyer could have some fun there.


The second followed the policy. The police also followed the policy.

The first didn't "give him permission" to SHOW it to anyone, and specifically instructed him not to do so.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> Ignorant as in lacking knowledge of electronic devices.
> 
> So *when it beeped* and the teacher asked him to show what it was he should have ignored his teacher? Yeah, that would have gone over well.
> 
> ...


It would never have "beeped" if he hadn't carried it to the outlet and plugged it in. He did that intentionally to attract attention, since there is no other logical reason for that action.

You keep accusing the first teacher of being "ignorant" when all he said was "it *LOOKS LIKE* a bomb, so *don't* show it to anyone else"

Where is the ignorance?

I'm pretty sure he's not the one "lacking knowledge about electronic devices" and their potential to cause problems even if it's only based on* appearance*


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> He was asked by a teacher what made the alarm noise.
> 
> *Was he supposed to disobey the teacher?*
> 
> And before you trot out your excuse that he should have turned it off I would say have you never forgotten an alarm before on your phone or watch? It's ironic you expect so much foresight and thought from a 14 yo boy but not from the trained adults around him.


He plugged it into an outlet.

He didn't simply "forget" the alarm was set. He deliberately activated it in class

He *disobeyed* the first teacher who told him NOT to let anyone else see it at all


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Post of the day! If any of us had trotted out nonsense like BFF is handing out in this thread he would never let it go.


LOL
The "nonsense" is coming from those ignoring the facts and running on emotion and misinformation.

Farmrbrown is just taking his usual personal jabs that he can't seem to resist, and taking statements out of context. I don't pay attention to his childish games anymore now that I've learned the pattern


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Declan said:


> How many IED's have cords to be plugged into a wall outlet?


It makes no difference, since it's not a requirement for an IED to have it's own power supply


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You keep accusing the first teacher of being "ignorant" when all he said was "it *LOOKS LIKE* a bomb, so *don't* show it to anyone else"
> 
> Where is the ignorance?
> 
> I'm pretty sure he's not the one "lacking knowledge about electronic devices" and their potential to cause problems even if it's only based on* appearance*


Where did I say the first teacher? I was actually referring to the second one and allll the other administrators that likely saw the device while the whole ordeal was going on. The first teacher was smart enough to realize that it was a clock.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It would never have "beeped" if he hadn't carried it to the outlet and plugged it in. He did that intentionally to attract attention, since there is no other logical reason for that action.
> 
> You keep accusing the first teacher of being "ignorant" when all he said was "it *LOOKS LIKE* a bomb, so *don't* show it to anyone else"
> 
> ...


He was ignorant - or negligent because he saw a kid with something' that looks like a bomb and shouldn't show it to anyone else'. That would seem to me he realized it could frighten some, cause chaos.

Knowing that, he should have done something else.

It's not like when we were in school or even like when our kids were in school. It's a whole 'nother world out there.


----------



## Declan (Jan 18, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It makes no difference, since it's not a requirement for an IED to have it's own power supply


It is a CLOCK. Clocks have cords. The kid said it was a clock. The kid told the police for 5 hours it was a clock and the police still concluded he wasn't being honest. Some people just refuse to admit to their own stupidity. In this case, I do not think that person is the student.

If anything this thread reminds me of how easily the government manipulates people into wars. It actually requires more discipline and intellect to avoid conflict than it does to get them to cheer you on because of some theoretical nonsense that simply does not comport with actual circumstances. 

We should invade somewhere just to show them dirty Muslims that we won't tolerate no time keepin' machines here in "Murica.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> Where did I say the first teacher? I was actually referring to the second one and allll the other administrators that likely saw the device while the whole ordeal was going on. The first teacher was smart enough to realize that it was a clock.


All that matters is what it looked like.
No one ever claimed it was an actual bomb.

The device alone was enough to violate the school policies


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Declan said:


> It is a CLOCK. Clocks have cords. The kid said it was a clock. The kid told the police for 5 hours it was a clock and the police still concluded he wasn't being honest. Some people just refuse to admit to their own stupidity. In this case, I do not think that person is the student.
> 
> If anything this thread reminds me of how easily the government manipulates people into wars. It actually requires more discipline and intellect to avoid conflict than it does to get them to cheer you on because of some theoretical nonsense that simply does not comport with actual circumstances.
> 
> We should invade somewhere just to show them dirty Muslims that we won't tolerate no time keepin' machines here in "Murica.


It makes no difference if this "clock" had a cord or batteries, since clocks can and do have both.

It also makes no difference what the "device" was, since the investigations had more to do with his intentions than the device itself. 

Many want to focus only on the object itself and pretend it couldn't have been used for other purposes. 

The school and the police followed the proper procedure for the circumstances, and the media, along with Ahmed and his father turned it into an "anti-Muslim" event.

It's quite possible that was the intent the entire time, since he went out of his way to make sure the device was seen by many people.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Trixie said:


> He was ignorant - or negligent because he saw a kid with something' that looks like a bomb and shouldn't show it to anyone else'. That would seem to me he realized it could frighten some, cause chaos.
> 
> Knowing that, *he should have done something else.*
> 
> It's not like when we were in school or even like when our kids were in school. It's a whole 'nother world out there.


Ahmed is the one who should have done something else.
I think it was all intentional


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He plugged it into an outlet.
> 
> He didn't simply "forget" the alarm was set. He deliberately activated it in class
> 
> He *disobeyed* the first teacher who told him NOT to let anyone else see it at all


And you know this how? I had no idea your psychic powers were so impressive. :wizard:


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> Which teacher followed policy? The first one he reportedly showed it to who took no action to confiscate the device and gave him permission, at least implied, to possess the item on school grounds? Or the second one who reacted quite differently? An even not so good lawyer could have some fun there.


They both followed school policy. One told him not to show it to anyone else (may confiscate, not must confiscate) and the other did confiscate it and turned it over to police. I agree, the lawyers will have some fun with it. Probably won't change anything any more than people protesting being searched before entering government buildings changed things.

The science teacher could have asked young Ahmed to leave the clock in his classroom which would have avoided the other situation and what probably should have been done but since I wasn't there I can't say that that would have been the best course of action.

I can see where a 14 year old boy who is interested in electronics and enjoys inventing and fixing things would have been proud of his invention and willing to show it around. Unfortunately government run schools are not the socially appropriate places for such things.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

I am not willing to suggest it was deliberate on the kids part to scare people - maybe he just wanted to show it off.

Still, the first teacher knew the school policies - knew it might look like a bomb to others, so much so that he told him he shouldn't show it to anyone.

Sounds like the teacher should have taken some action -


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Trixie said:


> I am not willing to suggest it was deliberate on the kids part to scare people - maybe he just wanted to show it off.
> 
> Still, the first teacher knew the school policies - knew it might look like a bomb to others, so much so that he told him he shouldn't show it to anyone.
> 
> Sounds like the teacher should have taken some action -


Telling him not to show anyone is "taking action"

The "deliberate" part is Ahmed making it a point to draw attention even when he was instructed not to.

The investigation was to determine his intentions


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> And you know this how? I had no idea your psychic powers were so impressive. :wizard:


There's nothing "psychic" about reading reports
Links were posted. You have to read all the posts to keep up.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ined-police-mistake-clock-fake-bomb/72348060/



> Quote:
> According to Irving police, Ahmed's case contained a digital clock that the student had taken apart and rearranged. Police said the student had the briefcase in his English class, where *he plugged it into an electrical outlet* and it started to make noise.
> 
> Ahmed said his English teacher confiscated his case. A few hours later, the student said the school's principal and resource officer pulled him out of class. Police confiscated the case along with Ahmed's tablet computer.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Telling him not to show anyone is "taking action"
> 
> The "deliberate" part is Ahmed making it a point to draw attention even when he was instructed not to.
> 
> The investigation was to determine his intentions


If that teacher knew the school policy, he should know it could cause problems. 

If he knew it might, he should have done something. Just saying,, 'don't show it', isn't taking action. 

But, he didn't take the actions that could have averted all this, and we now have a huge lawsuit, tons of ammo for the 'awful racists people' crowd, and school district taxpayers are going to be out a big chunk.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Trixie said:


> If that teacher knew the school policy, he should know it could cause problems.
> 
> If he knew it might, he should have done something. Just saying,, 'don't show it', isn't taking action.
> 
> But, he didn't take the actions that could have averted all this, and *we now have a huge lawsuit, tons of ammo for the 'awful racists people' crowd*, and school district taxpayers are going to be out a big chunk.


Maybe that's all a part of his "deliberate" actions


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I believe this was a staged event. The parents "staged" this event.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I really don't think the kid was racially targeted but I do think a whole lot of people turned a fairly simply thing into a mess. 

As a parent, when my kids wanted or needed to bring in projects that might cause some form of upset (live animals, one turtle intended for dissection or my gifted kid created a science marvel), I made arrangements with the appropriate teacher ahead of time, drove the kid to school, walked them inside to the office for a prearranged meeting with the teacher involved and handed over kid and project, while discussing an appropriate time to pick them up in the same manner. 

As a rule, the project was put in a safe place in the office until it could be properly presented without causing an upset. 

I can see where the briefcase could have caused concerns and if it had been handled correctly in the beginning.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> I believe this was a staged event. The parents "staged" this event.


It sure didn't take BO long to get in on the act, when it often takes him days or weeks to learn of truly important events


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Well the PART of the school policy quoted was interesting but where is the rest of it ?
There are exceptions to the rule. And I find it hard to belive that watches are not on them


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Well the PART of the school policy quoted was interesting but where is the rest of it ?
> There are exceptions to the rule. And I find it hard to belive that watches are not on them


A wristwatch wouldn't be considered a "personal electronic device" although now that "smart watches" are becoming more common that may change.

The devices listed are generally larger than a watch, and more capable of causing distractions. 

It appear Ahmed's device was nothing more than a kit that can be bought on Amazon for less than $15 and it wouldn't require much more than basic intelligence to put it together. It's not something he "designed" or "built" so much as something he assembled, following the instructions.

Here are some similar clock kits on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...ital+clock+kit

It may well be it was all a set up by his father to gain political attention, since he's a know activist

The last time he pulled a big publicity stunt he got a trip to Disney World
This time it looks like he will be going to DC

http://www.vdare.com/posts/cool-clock-ahmed-no-its-a-mockup-of-a-briefcase-bomb



> Aside from his presidential bids, Mohamed also made headlines for his bizarre role in Rev. Terry Jonesâ incendiary Quran trial. In 2012, when the Florida pastor made good on his threat to burn a Quran in his Gainesville church and put the Quran on âtrial,â Mohamed, who refers to himself as a sheik, was apparently the one Muslim willing to play along as the defense in the mock trial. â[The church] put an ad on their channel: âWhoever feels in himself he has the power to defend Quran is welcome,ââ he told the Dallas Observer.
> 
> Muslim leaders in Texas, meanwhile, doubted his claims to religious and scholarly leadership. âThis so-called leader, we have never heard of this person,â Imam Zia ul Haque Sheikh, head of the Islamic Center of Irving, told the Seattle Times. âI believe the whole thing is made up.â
> 
> ...


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

A neighbor applied for a government loan, 45 years ago. He was denied for really poor reasons. Angered that his farming dream shattered, his life turned upside down, he felt like lashing out at the government. He took 3 signal flares, a battery and an alarm clock and placed them atop an Air Force fuel storage tank. Then he wrote a scathing letter to the President, identifying the location of a potential bomb. The device couldn't do anything. My neighbor was arrested, placed in prison for over a decade. He remains on probation and cannot own a firearm. It looked like a bomb. This was long before 9/11 or any other sort of domestic terrorism. But they took it serious. It should be taken far more serious now. 
The tragedy here isn't that a boy was fingerprinted. The tragedy is that people will be slow to react in similar events.
People are suspicious of strangers. Every group of immigrants have struggled against racism. Jews, Italians, Irish, Blacks, Asians, etc. Just this latest group of Muslim immigrants have a fraction that wants to wipe us off the face of the earth. In our diligence to save our lives, we will sometimes overstep our bounds of hospitality. Accept it or return to your homeland.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

haypoint, I'm not sure what your story has to do with the boy and the clock. Your story was about someone who deliberately led the government to believe had built a bomb. Ahmed did not do that. He simply built a clock. At no point did he ever refer to it as a bomb, or lead people to believe it wasn't anything except a clock. 

And your last sentence is especially nice. Deal with being treated poorly or go home? Wow.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> haypoint, I'm not sure what your story has to do with the boy and the clock. Your story was about someone who deliberately led the government to believe had built a bomb. Ahmed did not do that. He simply built a clock. At no point did he ever refer to it as a bomb, or lead people to believe it wasn't anything except a clock.
> 
> And your last sentence is especially nice. Deal with being treated poorly or go home? Wow.


No, but be ready to accept the reality that there are road blocks in life and people unfairly judge people that are different. Many races came here, struggled and assimilated. Unrealistic to expect the Persian rugs gets rolled out before you are every turn.

Sorry I didn't make my point clearer. People get punished for creating things that look like bombs. My neighbor and Achmed. When my neighnor's empty threat was discovered, he went to prison. When the kid's fake bomb was discovered, he gets invited to the White House.

Recently, the people of this country have been victims of terrorists, some homegrown but most Muslim. We spend billions in attempts to be safer.We have a heightened awareness and high expectations that Cops and Schools will keep our children safe. Most Muslims are non-violent. But if recent estimates are accurate, the 10% that see us as infidels would outnumbers.

We weaken our economy with increased security measures. But our world has changed. Mistakes will be made. Prior to 9/11 box cutters were allowed on planes. Prior to Boston, pressure cookers weren't bombs. Will a metal box with wires be the next bomb?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> haypoint, I'm not sure what your story has to do with the boy and the clock. Your story was about someone who deliberately led the government to believe had built a bomb. Ahmed did not do that. He simply built a clock. At no point did he ever refer to it as a bomb, or lead people to believe it wasn't anything except a clock.
> 
> And your last sentence is especially nice. Deal with being treated poorly or go home? Wow.




No, but be ready to accept the reality that there are road blocks in life and people unfairly judge people that are different. Many races came here, struggled and assimilated. Unrealistic to expect the Persian rugs gets rolled out before you at every turn.

Sorry I didn't make my point clearer. People get punished for creating things that look like bombs. My neighbor and Achmed. When my neighnor's empty threat was discovered, he went to prison. When the kid's fake bomb was discovered, he gets invited to the White House.

Recently, the people of this country have been victims of terrorists, some homegrown but most Muslim. We spend billions in attempts to be safer.We have a heightened awareness and high expectations that Cops and Schools will keep our children safe. Most Muslims are non-violent. But if recent estimates are accurate, the 10% that see us as infidels would outnumber us.

We weaken our economy with increased security measures. But our world has changed. Mistakes will be made. Prior to 9/11 box cutters were allowed on planes. Prior to Boston, pressure cookers weren't bombs. Will a metal box with wires be the next bomb?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MDKatie said:


> haypoint, I'm not sure what your story has to do with the boy and the clock. Your story was about someone who deliberately led the government to believe had built a bomb. Ahmed did not do that. *He simply built a clock.* At no point did he ever refer to it as a bomb, or lead people to believe it wasn't anything except a clock.
> 
> And your last sentence is especially nice. Deal with being treated poorly or go home? Wow.


I say he did contrive this story, or rather his parents did knowing full well a middle eastern kid named Mohamed would be suspicious carrying a home made clock in a brief case to school. The story writes itself.



Some people look under every rug, and around every corner for a "persecuted" class.. Or maybe there are such a large number of gullible people.. Both really are driving this country off a cliff....


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

If it was staged to cause a controversy, the police took the bait. They should have been smarter than that.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

kuriakos said:


> If it was staged to cause a controversy, the police took the bait. They should have been smarter than that.


I think in hind sight, they know that. But that is how life away from the News and social media works, you make choices in micro seconds and access as you obtain additional information, often erroring on the side of caution.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

haypoint said:


> I think in hind sight, they know that. But that is how life away from the News and social media works, you make choices in micro seconds and access as you obtain additional information, often erroring on the side of caution.


It is called atmospheric conditions...

A front is coming in, a storm is brewing.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

HDRider said:


> I say he did contrive this story, or rather his parents did knowing full well a middle eastern kid named Mohamed would be suspicious carrying a home made clock in a brief case to school. The story writes itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Some people look under every rug, and around every corner for a "persecuted" class.. Or maybe there are such a large number of gullible people.. Both really are driving this country off a cliff....




I didn't consider that it was all a set up when it happened. A science nerd takes a homemade project to school........
But after reading Bearfoot's link, I can't help but believe you may be right. What a terrible way to use your child as a pawn.



*"Mohamed has also run for president of Sudan on two separate occasions.

Heâd run again in 2015 on a National Reform Party ticket. An April 2015 Bloomberg report referred to the Texan as having âthe most ambitious agendaâ of the incumbent President Umar al-Bashirâs competitors. â¦

Neither Mohamed nor his party would end up appearing on the ballot. â¦

Aside from his presidential bids, Mohamed also made headlines for his bizarre role in Rev. Terry Jonesâ incendiary Quran trial. In 2012, when the Florida pastor made good on his threat to burn a Quran in his Gainesville church and put the Quran on âtrial,â Mohamed, who refers to himself as a sheik, was apparently the one Muslim willing to play along as the defense in the mock trial. â[The church] put an ad on their channel: âWhoever feels in himself he has the power to defend Quran is welcome,ââ he told the Dallas Observer.

Muslim leaders in Texas, meanwhile, doubted his claims to religious and scholarly leadership. âThis so-called leader, we have never heard of this person,â Imam Zia ul Haque Sheikh, head of the Islamic Center of Irving, told the Seattle Times. âI believe the whole thing is made up.â In that same interview, Mohamed, who refers to himself as a sheikh, elaborated on his motivations for getting involved with Jones. âHe said he agreed to serve as the defense attorney at Jonesâ mock trial because the Quran teaches that Muslims should engage in peaceful dialogue with Christians,â the Seattle Timesâ Annie Gowen wrote. âBut there was also a more pragmatic reason. It was spring break and he wanted to take his wife and five kids to Disney World: to âkill two birds with one stone,â as he put it.â He also claims he didnât know the trialâ in which the Quran was âfound guiltyâ of âcrimes against humanityââ would result in the Quran actually being set on fire. According to the Seattle Times, some of Mohamedâs small group of followers asked that he no longer lead prayers, while others refused to drive for his taxi company."*




Bearfootfarm said:


> A wristwatch wouldn't be considered a "personal electronic device" although now that "smart watches" are becoming more common that may change.
> 
> The devices listed are generally larger than a watch, and more capable of causing distractions.
> 
> ...



Thank you for your due diligence in digging that out story.
:thumb:


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

haypoint said:


> I think in hind sight, they know that. But that is how life away from the News and social media works, you make choices in micro seconds and access as you obtain additional information, often erroring on the side of caution.


I don't think their error was on the side of caution, and this wasn't a case of a decision made in micro-seconds. They knew before they made the arrest that there was no actual bomb and no actual danger. They erred on the side of teaching the kid a lesson because they didn't like his attitude in the interview. Just my opinion based on the police statements after the fact.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kuriakos said:


> If it was staged to cause a controversy, the police took the bait. They should have been smarter than that.


They followed the most logical policy, which was to investigate the device and his motives. 

Those blaming the Govt and the school are the ones swallowing the bait.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kuriakos said:


> I don't think their error was on the side of caution, and this wasn't a case of a decision made in micro-seconds. They knew before they made the arrest that there was *no actual bomb and no actual danger.* They erred on the side of teaching the kid a lesson because they didn't like his attitude in the interview. Just my opinion based on the police statements after the fact.


There doesn't have to be an actual bomb to be an actual crime and real danger from the panic it could cause. 

They were investigating a possible bomb *or* a bomb hoax.

His sister was also once suspended from middle school for an alleged bomb threat

Why pretend there had to be a real bomb for any action to be taken?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

When the SWAT team busts down your door and yells, " Everyone down!" do you stand up because you haven't committed a crime? No. You comply and allow the investigation to run its course.
If you are a 14 year old boy with a bomb replica and the cops take you to the station is it a violation of your rights? Nope. You let the investigation run its course. 

Don't comment until you've added this info:
http://www.vdare.com/posts/cool-clock-ahmed-no-its-a-mockup-of-a-briefcase-bomb

Obama sympathizes with Travon Martin and traitor Bergdoll's parents, confides with Al Sharpton, invites leaders of White Lives Matter, despite their public call to kill Cops, to the White House and now the School Bomb hoax family. But no invite to family of citizens slain by ISIS, no family of Cops slain protecting Black communities. I see a pattern.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

HDRider said:


> Or maybe there are such a large number of gullible people.. Both really are driving this country off a cliff....


I'd say the large number of paranoid and cynical people (as well as conspiracy theorists) are more to blame for the fear mongering and pot stirring in this country. That's all the media focuses on, and some people swallow it hook, line, and sinker. :TFH:


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They followed the most logical policy, which was to investigate the device and his motives.
> 
> Those blaming the Govt and the school are the ones swallowing the bait.


An arrest is not necessary to investigate.



> Why pretend there had to be a real bomb for any action to be taken?


I have pretended no such thing. I haven't criticized even once that action was taken. The specific action of arresting him was unnecessary, however.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kuriakos said:


> An arrest is not necessary to investigate.
> 
> 
> 
> *I have pretended no such thing*. I haven't criticized even once that action was taken. The specific action of arresting him was unnecessary, however.


Then why keep repeating "there was no real bomb"?



> They knew before they made the arrest that there was no actual bomb and no actual danger.


Do you have evidence he was charged with making an actual bomb?

You have no way of knowing what they found in the investigation, nor why it was decided to make an arrest. 

The people who did know are the only ones qualified to determine the "necessary" actions, and they don't need help from the social media crowds


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Well the PART of the school policy quoted was interesting but where is the rest of it ?
> There are exceptions to the rule. And I find it hard to belive that watches are not on them


POST #126, down at the bottom. It doesn't highlight but it is the link to the district's student handbook.

In fact I'll post it again, just for you:
http://www.irvingisd.net/cms/lib010/TX01917973/Centricity/Domain/1469/2015-2016%20Student%20Handbook%20-%20ENGLISH.pdf


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Then why keep repeating "there was no real bomb"?


Because there wasn't, and several people here appear to be under the impression that it was unclear whether there was a real bomb. It was quite clear there wasn't one, so I'm making it quite clear here that it was quite clear to them.



> Do you have evidence he was charged with making an actual bomb?


No, I don't, because he wasn't. As I posted on day one of this thread, he was arrested for possession of a hoax bomb because the police knew there was no real bomb.



> You have no way of knowing what they found in the investigation, nor why it was decided to make an arrest.


Incorrect. I know enough about both of those to form an opinion, simply from reading police statements already linked in this thread. I'm not going off anything in social media, but by the words right out of the mouths of the police.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kuriakos said:


> Because there wasn't, and several people here appear to be under the impression that it was unclear whether there was a real bomb. It was quite clear there wasn't one, so I'm making it quite clear here that it was quite clear to them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I haven't seen anyone who was "unclear" about whether it was a real bomb or not. 

If you had already stated the arrest was for a "hoax bomb" it makes your later statement about there not being a real bomb rather pointless

Most of the hype over the whole event is based on social media distortions of fact. 

The more I learn about it the more it appears it's a publicity stunt orchestrated by his father


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I haven't seen anyone who was "unclear" about whether it was a real bomb or not.
> 
> If you had already stated the arrest was for a "hoax bomb" it makes your later statement about there not being a real bomb rather pointless
> 
> ...


Correct


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

The key difference between this and a bomb hoax is that in a hoax someone tells people something IS a bomb. 
And in this case someone said it's a clock. 
If there was anyone saying it was a bomb it was the cops , perhaps they should be imprisioned for a bomb hoax ?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> The key difference between this and a bomb hoax is that in a hoax someone tells people something IS a bomb.
> And in this case someone said it's a clock.
> If there was anyone saying it was a bomb it was the cops , perhaps they should be imprisioned for a bomb hoax ?


They never said it was a bomb.

They all said it *looked like* a bomb, and possessing such a device at a school is a crime.

No one has to "tell" anyone it's real or not, and despite what some have said, it's just one step away from being an actual bomb, since a single wire attached to an explosive or incendiary charge is all it takes.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I haven't seen anyone who was "unclear" about whether it was a real bomb or not.


Good for you. Neither have I, nor have I said anything to that effect. People here were unclear about what the police thought, though.



> If you had already stated the arrest was for a "hoax bomb" it makes your later statement about there not being a real bomb rather pointless


Yes, it is rather pointless to repeat myself to people who won't get it the second or third time if they didn't get it the first. But since you repeat yourself all the time, I'm sure you understand where I'm coming from trying to clear up misinformation. To clarify once more, ALL of my statements regarding "no real bomb" have been about what the police knew at the time, not the simple fact that there was no real bomb.



> The more I learn about it the more it appears it's a publicity stunt orchestrated by his father


It may well be. I don't have enough information on that part of it to speculate, although the police chief of the department who investigated did say, "there&#8217;s *no evidence* to support the perception he intended to create alarm."

I added the bold just for you, since you appear to love bold type.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

It was a set up. I read today the kid's dad is a Muslim activist whose brother owns a trucking company named Twin Towers Transportation. How in your face can it get?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> It may well be. I don't have enough information on that part of it to speculate, although the police chief of the department who investigated did say, "there&#8217;s *no evidence* to support the perception he intended to create alarm."


Yes, once he was arrested on "*reasonable suspicion*" and more thoroughly investigated, they concluded there wasn't enough evidence to justify an indictment.

Exactly how the process is designed to work.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, once he was arrested on "*reasonable suspicion*" and more thoroughly investigated, they concluded there wasn't enough evidence to justify an indictment.
> 
> Exactly how the process is designed to work.


Absolutely wrong. Reasonable suspicion is not enough to make an arrest. Probable cause is required.

If there was *no evidence* after a thorough investigation, it's impossible for there to have been probable cause before that investigation. That's why investigations usually come before arrests, not after.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

kuriakos said:


> Absolutely wrong. Reasonable suspicion is not enough to make an arrest. Probable cause is required.
> 
> If there was *no evidence* after a thorough investigation, it's impossible for there to have been probable cause before that investigation. That's why investigations usually come before arrests, not after.


Nonsense. People are arrested for reasonable suspicion all the time. Investigations first works okay in things like tax fraud, murder, burglary, and other crimes where immediate threat doesn't exist. In the case of a possible bomb, immediate threat does exist and the person will be arrested on suspicion. Try it yourself and see.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

poppy said:


> Nonsense. People are arrested for reasonable suspicion all the time. Investigations first works okay in things like tax fraud, murder, burglary, and other crimes where immediate threat doesn't exist. In the case of a possible bomb, immediate threat does exist and the person will be arrested on suspicion. Try it yourself and see.


You don't know what you're talking about. Do a little research and you'll see that reasonable suspicion is not legitimate grounds for arrest in the United States of America. No need for law school. Just go to a junior high civics class to learn that. Where there is an immediate threat (there wasn't in this case) it's usually very easy to establish probable cause for arrest. I've been involved in thousands of arrests from every side of it except being arrested. I know what I'm talking about.

And to clarify once again, at the time of the arrest, the police did not believe there was a potential bomb or an immediate threat, so that hypothetical has no relevance to this discussion.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kuriakos said:


> Absolutely wrong. Reasonable suspicion is not enough to make an arrest. Probable cause is required.
> 
> If there was *no evidence* after a thorough investigation, it's impossible for there to have been probable cause before that investigation. That's why investigations usually come before arrests, not after.


There was plenty of "probable cause" to reasonably suspect he wanted to create a bomb hoax with that device

Arrests often come before investigations are complete, and charges are often dismissed before any further action is taken

I see no reason to believe the officers there, knowing all the details, did anything wrong



> And to clarify once again, at the time of the arrest, the police did not believe there was a potential bomb or an immediate threat, so that hypothetical has *no relevance* to this discussion.


And yet you continue to mention it in nearly all your posts.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

haypoint said:


> Obama sympathizes with Travon Martin and traitor Bergdoll's parents, confides with Al Sharpton, invites leaders of White Lives Matter, despite their public call to kill Cops, to the White House and now the School Bomb hoax family. But no invite to family of citizens slain by ISIS, no family of Cops slain protecting Black communities. I see a pattern.


Obama has shown his prejudice consistently.
He is a bigot, and anybody who says he's not is either a liar or an idiot.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

MDKatie said:


> I believe it's more of a conservative agenda to assume all Muslims are making bombs and are a threat to our society. Perhaps the liberals are more concerned with gun safety. And you are the one who brought up politics, that's why I quoted you.



You had better check the other thread on muslim gun ownership.. 

You will see, That I don't care what their religion is if they are legal citizens of the United States, they have a Right to own firearms.. 

REGARDLESS OF RELIGION..


So I don't have some "hatred" for muslims..


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

beowoulf90 said:


> So I don't have some "hatred" for muslims..


Where did I ever say you did?


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There was plenty of "probable cause" to reasonably suspect he wanted to create a bomb hoax with that device


Impossible. Probable cause requires evidence. The police chief himself said there was *no evidence* that he had intent to create alarm. Evidence doesn't evaporate, so if there was no evidence after the investigation, then there was no evidence before the investigation, and thus no probable cause.



> And yet you continue to mention it in nearly all your posts.


Because stupid people keep bringing it up as if it was a factor in the arrest when it wasn't.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

kuriakos said:


> Impossible. Probable cause requires evidence. The police chief himself said there was *no evidence* that he had intent to create alarm. Evidence doesn't evaporate, so if there was no evidence after the investigation, then there was no evidence before the investigation, and thus no probable cause.
> 
> 
> 
> Because stupid people keep bringing it up as if it was a factor in the arrest when it wasn't.


That first statement is applied irrationally. For example, if a school official tells the police that this kid has an electronic device that looks to be a timer to a bomb. The officer looks at it , asks the kid some questions (to which the kid answers evasively because- tah tah- he has lied to his teacher because what he really did was take an old clock, put it in a new case and tell his teacher he built it himself). The policeman does not have the personal knowledge to know whether it is a bomb part or not. But he decides that the statement from the school official and the kid's evasive answers constitute probable cause. 
Later the kid 'fesses up and a more experienced person recognizes it is not a bomb part. So in the end there is no evidence (in the way you use it) but there certainly was probable cause to investigate further.
If your statement was true, finding there was no evidence automatically mean there was never probable cause and the law would not mention probable cause at all- only tested evidence. No street arrests would ever be possible under that interpretation.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kuriakos said:


> Impossible. Probable cause requires evidence. The police chief himself said there was *no evidence* that he had intent to create alarm. Evidence doesn't evaporate, so if there was no evidence after the investigation, then there was no evidence before the investigation, and thus no probable cause.


The "evidence" for *reasonable belief *of a crime (probable cause) was the device itself, and his unwillingness to cooperate with the investigation at the school. 

The police statement explained it and before you wanted to use that as "credible evidence" of an arrest. 

It's perfectly *reasonable *to assume he intended to cause panic and make an arrest based on that "probable cause", along with any other information they had at the time.



> Because *stupid people* keep bringing it up as if it was a factor in the arrest when it wasn't.


By that do you mean those who don't automatically agree with you?

The whole incident screams "set up" and the boy was well coached


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

where I want to said:


> That first statement is applied irrationally. For example, if a school official tells the police that this kid has an electronic device that looks to be a timer to a bomb. The officer looks at it , asks the kid some questions (to which the kid answers evasively because- tah tah- he has lied to his teacher because what he really did was take an old clock, put it in a new case and tell his teacher he built it himself). The policeman does not have the personal knowledge to know whether it is a bomb part or not. But he decides that the statement from the school official and the kid's evasive answers constitute probable cause.
> Later the kid 'fesses up and a more experienced person recognizes it is not a bomb part. So in the end there is no evidence (in the way you use it) but there certainly was probable cause to investigate further.
> If your statement was true, finding there was no evidence automatically mean there was never probable cause and the law would not mention probable cause at all- only tested evidence. No street arrests would ever be possible under that interpretation.


You have too much wrong for me to even bother picking it apart. It's all been covered already. If you didn't get it before, there's no point in me repeating it.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The "evidence" for *reasonable belief *of a crime (probable cause) was the device itself, and his unwillingness to cooperate with the investigation at the school.


Still wrong. Reasonable belief of a crime (a term you just made up, not an actual legal standard) is not probable cause. Probable cause is a well-established legal principle. You can't just make up your own definition to suit your arguments.

The device itself did not establish intent, which is an element of the crime he was arrested for. Unwillingness to cooperate with the investigation is NEVER allowed as probable cause, as everyone has that right.



> The police statement explained it and before you wanted to use that as "credible evidence" of an arrest.


There you go making things up again. I never used the term "credible evidence" and I don't know what you're talking about. The kid was arrested. You were the one who wrongly said he wasn't.



> It's perfectly *reasonable *to assume he intended to cause panic and make an arrest based on that "probable cause", along with any other information they had at the time.


Wrong again. An assumption is NEVER a legal basis for probable cause.



> By that do you mean those who don't automatically agree with you?


No, just people who feel qualified to tell me how criminal law works when they really don't even know such a basic principle as probable cause, and to top it off they throw in misinformation or hypotheticals that don't apply to what actually happened in this case.



> The whole incident screams "set up" and the boy was well coached


Again, that's entirely possible, but the police chief, who actually saw all of the investigative product, said there was no evidence of the crime he was arrested for. You only want to go by what the authorities say when it backs up what you believe?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Again, that's entirely possible, but the police chief, who actually saw all of the investigative product, said there was no evidence of the crime he was arrested for. You only want to go by what the authorities say when it backs up what you believe?


He also said the arrest was legal and *reasonable*
It seems you also want to cherry pick which statements to believe.

Also "probable" and "reasonable" can be used interchangably and still have the same meaning.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Probable+Cause


> Probable cause is not equal to absolute certainty. That is, a police officer does not have to be absolutely certain that criminal activity is taking place to perform a search or make an arrest. Probable cause can exist even when there is some doubt as to the person's guilt.


I believe the police got it right, based on what they knew
You can say "not so" as often as you like.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

I find it incredible that with all the bombings, shootings, etc. that anyone would fault the school or the police for erring on the side of caution.
In fact, any time any kid, muslim or not brings in something that looks like a suitcase bomb, you'd have to be pretty stupid to ignore it.
The kid knew it would cause a stir, he's just another manipulative little muslim creep like his daddy and of course the nasty Obama.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause
"Whether or not there is probable cause depends on the totality of the circumstances, meaning everything that the arresting officers know or reasonably believe at the time the arrest is made. -However, probable cause remains a flexible concept, and what constitutes the âtotality of the circumstancesâ often depends-on how te court interprets the reasonableness standard."






kuriakos said:


> You have too much wrong for me to even bother picking it apart. It's all been covered already. If you didn't get it before, there's no point in me repeating it.


That is always your answer - everyone is wrong because you know better. Well. It does qualify as an answer. But the worth of it is really questionable.

If the exact same scenario occured except that in the end it was determined that the device was a bomb component, according to you that retroactively goes back and creates probable cause while if it wasn't a bomb component , it retroactively creates the absense of probably cause. 

That is not a reasonable idea. It simply negates the very idea of probable cause, which is "flexible", taking in the surrounding circumstances. There may not end up being a crime at all yet there may have been valid probable cause.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He also said the arrest was legal and *reasonable*
> It seems you also want to cherry pick which statements to believe.


Of course he did. He's about to get sued. He can't admit being wrong. I believe he believes it, though.



> Also "probable" and "reasonable" can be used interchangably and still have the same meaning.
> 
> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Probable+Cause


Only if you want to twist your way out of being wrong. Probable cause is one thing and reasonable suspicion is another. They're both well-established legal principles and they are not even remotely interchangeable.



> I believe the police got it right, based on what they knew
> You can say "not so" as often as you like.


Yeah, and I believe you're wrong. You can say you're right as often as you like, but you've shown several times already that you don't understand the law, so my opinion is probably worth more to the reasonable folks here. Or should I say "probable" folks? Oh, that doesn't work, does it?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

kuriakos said:


> Of course he did. He's about to get sued. He can't admit being wrong. I believe he believes it, though.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Of course he's about to get sued, that's the point of this whole stupid exercise.
Boy disassembles an old clock, remakes it to look like a suitcase bomb, school naturally calls the cops, boy and his activist daddy start whining about discrimination, liberals all over the country throw their tiny brains out the window and agree with bigoted muslim activists and the moron of a "president" who invited said activist to the White House.
Of course muslim activist accepted and of course, brain dead Obama fans are defending the litigious muslim scammers
But what do we expect from complete idiots?


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Imagine if the police had simply not arrested the kid. That sure would have put a kink in the plan.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kuriakos said:


> Imagine if the police had simply not arrested the kid. That sure would have put a kink in the plan.


I suspect the school suspension would have satisfied the father, since his daughter was also suspended for a bomb threat, and it would have gotten media attention.

You like to keep telling everyone they are wrong, and you "know more", but a couple of sources have been shown that prove "probable cause" isn't a concrete term, and absolute certainty isn't a requirement for arrest.

The fact someone claims they will "sue" is meaningless, as I'm sure you know.
Anyone who pays a filing fee can sue anyone for anything, real or imagined


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Is it a bomb? Nope, no bomb. Does it look like a bomb to non-bomb experts? Maybe. But don't let this debate derail your understanding of what bombs are made of. The answer to the basic question, "Is this a part to a bomb?" That answer is critical to this discussion.

Explosives often require an igniter. Dynamite requires a blasting cap. A fuel based bomb requires a spark or heat igniter. Generally, a timer is involved, providing the terrorist time to evacuate. In movies, the timer is discovered and disabled in the last second.

While a 9 volt battery can provide enough electrical energy to ignite a charge, an AC cord plugged to a standard outlet works better.

If I were to build a bomb, I'd start out with an older clock, one that has exposed wires and enough voltage going to the alarm to serve as an igniter. The new printed circuit boards are harder to tap into and don't operate on a high enough voltage. I don't know how to use a cell phone as an ignition source. But an older alarm clock would be easy.

So we know the kid didn't have a bomb. He didn't have a clock he made himself, either. However, it is clear that he had the ignition timer portion required for a bomb.

Feel better?


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I suspect the school suspension would have satisfied the father, since his daughter was also suspended for a bomb threat, and it would have gotten media attention.


Maybe, but we'll never know.



> You like to keep telling everyone they are wrong, and you "know more", but a couple of sources have been shown that prove "probable cause" isn't a concrete term, and absolute certainty isn't a requirement for arrest.


Yeah, I do know more. I've dedicated my life to practicing criminal law, so I know how it works better than people playing lawyer on the internet. And I know more about this case than the people jumping in with misinformation because I actually read the links and I have a halfway decent memory. Never said absolute certainty is required for arrest, just probable cause, and the words directly from the police chief and the police spokesman show they didn't have it. The arrest wouldn't have held up if they had tried to prosecute and it would have put their insurance on the hook for a bigger payout.



> The fact someone claims they will "sue" is meaningless, as I'm sure you know.
> Anyone who pays a filing fee can sue anyone for anything, real or imagined


True. I've been sued a few times myself. Haven't lost yet. I bet this police department settles, though. They will technically not admit fault, but a settlement says something. We'll see.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Yeah, *I do know more*. I've dedicated my life to practicing criminal law, so I know how it works better than people playing lawyer on the internet. And *I know more* about this case than the people jumping in with misinformation because I actually read the links and I have a halfway decent memory.
> 
> Never said absolute certainty is required for arrest, just probable cause, and *the words directly from the police chief and the police spokesman show they didn't have it*. The arrest wouldn't have held up if they had tried to prosecute and it would have put their insurance on the hook for a bigger payout.


Actually their words show they did have enough to justify an arrest *in their minds* since that is exactly what they said and did. 

Prosecutors often decide not to press charges, but that doesn't mean the arrest was illegal.

You just keep repeating how much you know while the evidence refutes those claims.

I'm going with the police on this one rather than the random dude on the internet.



> I bet this police department settles, though. They will technically not admit fault, but a settlement says something. We'll see.


A settlement mostly says it's cheaper to pay off than try to fight, even if you've done nothing wrong. 

It's certainly not proof of wrongdoing, but you know that already.

I still think the father orchestrated the whole charade.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

kuriakos said:


> Maybe, but we'll never know.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If in fact you are a lawyer, and not some internet Google nerd, then you know that an arrest is not a conviction.
You can be arrested for suspicion.
I'm not a lawyer, but I have been cuffed and stuffed, questioned and detained while the cops sorted things out.
Never crossed my mind to sue anybody, but then I'm not a professional victim or a liberal.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They never said it was a bomb.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Then are we going to arrest everybody ?
Anything can look like a bomb. 
And any clock , cellphone or remote control is just one wire from a bomb. 
So we arrest every kid with a backpack and a cellphone ? After all they wouldn't have both those things if they weren't planning on disrupting school would they ?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Then are we going to arrest everybody ?
> Anything can look like a bomb.
> And any clock , cellphone or remote control is just one wire from a bomb.
> So we arrest every kid with a backpack and a cellphone ? After all they wouldn't have both those things if they weren't planning on disrupting school would they ?


You don't think this kid and his father cooked up this little farce?
Don't be gullible


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Cornhusker said:


> You don't think this kid and his father cooked up this little farce?
> Don't be gullible


And what if they did? The over reaction by the school and police is on them. No one held a gun to their heads and forced them to arrest out the young man in handcuffs and walk him out the doors of the school under arrest. If I call you a vile name and you overreact and shoot me who's fault is it? Mine for using a word you don't like or yours for overreacting? A reasoned reaction would have made this a non incident and non story. The father would have failed in his supposed quest. Maybe a lesson can be learned.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> And what if they did? The over reaction by the school and police is on them. No one held a gun to their heads and forced them to arrest out the young man in handcuffs and walk him out the doors of the school under arrest. If I call you a vile name and you overreact and shoot me who's fault is it? Mine for using a word you don't like or yours for overreacting? A reasoned reaction would have made this a non incident and non story. The father would have failed in his supposed quest. Maybe a lesson can be learned.


There is a lesson and it is the media teaching it. The outcome of this event is not how I want society changed. I want teachers and Cops to respond to perceived bombs in schools, subways, buses without second guessing. 

IMHO, Cops are dying because they are hesitating in situations where they should react. Evil people are needlessly creating situations that require instant reactions. You can look at [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz7oKHDJQuA[/ame].

We spend millions in trying to keep the public safe from terrorists and every fake event adds to that cost. It undermines the freedoms we once enjoyed. As we ramp up security to live safe, we lose freedoms. The answer isn't to just let the terrorists kill us. The answer is to quickly deal with terrorists and punish those that make pretend devices. 

I'm going with the belief that the teachers made a good call with what they knew. I support them. I refuse to second guess them. Their job is hard enough. I think the Cops responded to this event in the proper manner. It turned out the rest of the bomb wasn't in his locker, the basement of his house or in his Uncle's truck, "Twin Towers Transportation". Yup, that's a fact, his uncle runs a company with that name. So, are these folks victims of an over reaction or are they simply toying with the stupid Americans?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

I want them to smartly respond to threats. I don't want them wasting time and money on five cops questioning, then arresting and processing a 14 year old boy for something they didn't even think was enough of a credible threat to evacuate the school. No bomb was found because no ever existed and the police and school officials apparently were never really worried about one. It's over reactions and the justification of them that undermine our freedoms, not the events themselves. It's saying their jobs are tough so we should give them a pass that undermines our freedoms. Recent history has shown you have more to fear from a white male in a movie theater than a Muslim kid in a school. In fact, kids have more to fear from Bobby or Dylan who brings a gun to school than Ahmed who brings a clock.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I want them to smartly respond to threats. I don't want them wasting time and money on five cops questioning, then arresting and processing a 14 year old boy for something they didn't even think was enough of a credible threat to evacuate the school. No bomb was found because no ever existed and the police and school officials apparently were never really worried about one. It's over reactions and the justification of them that undermine our freedoms, not the events themselves. It's saying their jobs are tough so we should give them a pass that undermines our freedoms. Recent history has shown you have more to fear from a white male in a movie theater than a Muslim kid in a school. In fact, kids have more to fear from Bobby or Dylan who brings a gun to school than Ahmed who brings a clock.


You are racially profiling Bobby and Dylan. 

If we allowed racial profiling, perhaps grandma wouldn't be groped by TSA and we would focus on the guys that look like Achmed's father, you know the ones actually killing Americans. But apparently looking, walking and quacking does not make you a duck.

As a percentage of the population, teenage Muslims in the US have killed and injured more people than the insane white teens. Boston Marathon skews your preferred argument.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

mmoetc said:


> And what if they did? The over reaction by the school and police is on them. No one held a gun to their heads and forced them to arrest out the young man in handcuffs and walk him out the doors of the school under arrest. If I call you a vile name and you overreact and shoot me who's fault is it? Mine for using a word you don't like or yours for overreacting? A reasoned reaction would have made this a non incident and non story. The father would have failed in his supposed quest. Maybe a lesson can be learned.


Maybe next time it will blow up and kill some kids because nobody wants to be in trouble for making a muslim feel bad.
Then who do you blame?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> You are racially profiling Bobby and Dylan.
> 
> If we allowed racial profiling, perhaps grandma wouldn't be groped by TSA and we would focus on the guys that look like Achmed's father, you know the ones actually killing Americans. But apparently looking, walking and quacking does not make you a duck.
> 
> As a percentage of the population, teenage Muslims in the US have killed and injured more people than the insane white teens. Boston Marathon skews your preferred argument.


I didn't mention Bobby or Dylan's race or religion. Profiling, while being a dirty word in some circles, can be a useful tool. Of course it's only useful it it identifies those who pose a real threat. And of the various attacks and shootings in our schools, either by outsiders or students themselves, no have come from 14 year old Muslim kids with poorly made electronic gear. Had the boston marathon bombing occurred in a school your argument might hold some water. Name one mass killing in an American school that profiling Muslims would have stopped.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I didn't mention Bobby or Dylan's race or religion. Profiling, while being a dirty word in some circles, can be a useful tool. Of course it's only useful it it identifies those who pose a real threat. And of the various attacks and shootings in our schools, either by outsiders or students themselves, no have come from 14 year old Muslim kids with poorly made electronic gear. Had the boston marathon bombing occurred in a school your argument might hold some water. Name one mass killing in an American school that profiling Muslims would have stopped.


As long as you set the parameters of your argument narrow enough you win the argument. While the US had been attacked my Muslim men in the past, running a 747 into a building was a first. Pressure cooker bombs at a marathon was a first. Then shoe bomber, underwear bomb, propane tanks in parked car and so forth. Because some tactic has no history, doesn't make in less of a threat. In fact, the argument could be made that since each act of terrorism has been in a different way, that we should be alert to new and different methods.

Nope, no Muslim based school time bomb ever killed a single US student. So the schools are safe from Muslim terrorists?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> You don't think this kid and his father cooked up this little farce?
> 
> Don't be gullible



I'm not sure. 
I think it's likely. 
But if they did they made the point that the kid wouldn't be treated fairly. 
No if the kid had claimed it was a bomb it would be different. 
If it had bomb components it would be different. 
But it was a silly clock. 
No one thought it was dangerous. 
So you don't punish the kid for what others might think. 
Some of your comments have lead me to "feel" you might have bomb making materials Should we through you in prison because you might be a threat to the president?.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

In fact that does seem a common factor in Muslim attacks. There have rarely seemed to be attacks in the name of Islam on people who are acquainted. Muslim terrorists seem to favor killing total strangers. In volume. Quanitity seems important, not quality.
Where as nonMuslim terrorists seem to kill people they know. Or at least people in catagories they know. Even that ugly man in Charleston sat down with the Bible study group and interacted with them before killing.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> As long as you set the parameters of your argument narrow enough you win the argument. While the US had been attacked my Muslim men in the past, running a 747 into a building was a first. Pressure cooker bombs at a marathon was a first. Then shoe bomber, underwear bomb, propane tanks in parked car and so forth. Because some tactic has no history, doesn't make in less of a threat. In fact, the argument could be made that since each act of terrorism has been in a different way, that we should be alert to new and different methods.
> 
> Nope, no Muslim based school time bomb ever killed a single US student. So the schools are safe from Muslim terrorists?


Thus far and I hope it stays that way. And it doesn't appear this arrest made anyone any safer.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

AmericanStand said:


> I'm not sure.
> I think it's likely.
> But if they did they made the point that the kid wouldn't be treated fairly.
> No if the kid had claimed it was a bomb it would be different.
> ...


What a huge assumption that the kid was arrested for having a device 'everyone' knew was not dangerous. An assumption made only to further an antiauthority agrument. 
Frankly, if I showed up at a school with a pressure cooker full of nails, I certainly would soon find myself explaining to the police that I only used it as a handy container to hold the stuff I needed for a school project. And the absence of any explosive would not stop it.
An argument that something that looks dangerous should not create concern until it has proven dangerous is totally unrealistic.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> I'm not sure.
> I think it's likely.
> But if they did they made the point that the kid wouldn't be treated fairly.
> No if the kid had claimed it was a bomb it would be different.
> ...


He claimed he made a clock.
He did not make a clock.
He disassembled a store bought clock and stuck it in a pencil case.
He didn't invent anything, he made a dummy bomb.
He wanted it perceived to be dangerous in hopes somebody would take the bait.
Gets ol Dad back in the spotlight where he can play the victim, just where he wanted to be.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Thus far and I hope it stays that way. And it doesn't appear this arrest made anyone any safer.


Maybe it would have made for a wiser student had the media if internet synpathizers not given him all out of proportion rewards for a problem he created. A group so willing to ignore everything that doesn't line up with their prejudices in order to align with PC-ity that what would have been an embarassment in a nonfavored group turned into gold for him.
Now he realizes that Monday morning internet quarterbacks can be so very easily controlled to his great advantage that he will likely try in it the real world where the consequences are more real and less pleasant.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Actually their words show they did have enough to justify an arrest *in their minds* since that is exactly what they said and did.
> 
> Prosecutors often decide not to press charges, but that doesn't mean the arrest was illegal.
> 
> ...


Just like I thought. You're going with the police, except for the part where they said there's no evidence to support the charge. You choose not to believe that part. Typical emotional non-reasoning. I guess I should be used to it by now.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Cornhusker said:


> You can be arrested for suspicion.


Absolutely, you can, but not *only* for suspicion. They need much more than suspicion for a legal arrest. Lots of illegal arrests happen too, though.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I want them to smartly respond to threats. I don't want them wasting time and money on five cops questioning, then arresting and processing a 14 year old boy for something they didn't even think was enough of a credible threat to evacuate the school. No bomb was found because no ever existed and the police and school officials apparently were never really worried about one. It's over reactions and the justification of them that undermine our freedoms, not the events themselves. It's saying their jobs are tough so we should give them a pass that undermines our freedoms. * Recent history has shown you have more to fear from a white male in a movie theater than a Muslim kid in a school*. In fact, kids have more to fear from Bobby or Dylan who brings a gun to school than Ahmed who brings a clock.


No bomb was needed for a crime to have been committed

There was no "over-reaction" by anyone other than the media

Recent history has also shown you cannot be complacent about dealing with possible threats

No one's freedom was "undermined". Save the emotional rhetoric

You've been played by a Muslim activist


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Then are we going to arrest everybody ?
> Anything can look like a bomb.
> And any clock , cellphone or *remote control* is just one wire from a bomb.
> So we arrest every kid with a backpack and a cellphone ? After all they wouldn't have both those things if they weren't planning on disrupting school would they ?


His "electronic device" violated a specific school policy as well as some criminal statutes. 

Your examples are simply ridiculous, although a "remote control" could also be on the list.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kuriakos said:


> Absolutely, you can, but not *only* for suspicion. They need much more than suspicion for a legal arrest. Lots of illegal arrests happen too, though.





> Just like I thought. You're going with the police, except for the part where they said there's no evidence *to support* the charge. You choose not to believe that part. Typical emotional non-reasoning. I guess I should be used to it by now.


He wasn't arrested "without evidence" since the device itself is evidence.

The fact they decided not to seek an indictment doesn't make the arrest illegal.

It's not unusual to get MORE evidence after an arrest.

They know more than you about the events, no matter how many times you claim your knowledge is superior.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> His "electronic device" violated a specific school policy as well as some criminal statutes.
> 
> 
> 
> Your examples are simply ridiculous, although a "remote control" could also be on the list.



Please explain why they are ridiculous ?
Each device mentioned has been used to trigger a bomb.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Please explain why they are ridiculous ?
> Each device mentioned has been used to trigger a bomb.


There's no need to explain why they are ridiculous since they weren't unusual items, whereas a pieced together "clock" was a prohibited item already.

He had no *valid* reason to have it at school without permission, unlike most of the common items you named.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

I wonder - has anyone heard the reason why he simply put the parts from an old factory clock into a case? What was the purpose? I've only seen the media say he made a clock. They apparently have not asked but it woukd be interesting to see if there was any modification that merited the idea he actually built anything.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Apparently, the kid has told the news media a lot more than he told the police, according to the town's mayor. So, we'll only hear their version of truth.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He wasn't arrested "without evidence" since the device itself is evidence.


Not evidence of the crime he was arrested for. The device doesn't establish intent, and according to the police, neither did anything else.



> It's not unusual to get MORE evidence after an arrest.


It is unusual, however, to end up with less evidence after the arrest. No evidence after the arrest, but they had some to justify the arrest? Where did that evidence go?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kuriakos said:


> Not evidence of the crime he was arrested for. The device doesn't establish intent, and according to the police, neither did anything else.
> 
> It is unusual, however, to end up with less evidence after the arrest. No evidence after the arrest, but they had some to justify the arrest? Where did that evidence go?


They *said* they had enough to justify the arrest, and you keep insisting we should believe what they said.

It's pointless to keep repeating yourself and also contradicting yourself, and going is these circles is tiresome.

I'm not convinced you know more about it than they do.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They *said* they had enough to justify the arrest, and you keep insisting we should believe what they said.


I say we should believe their statements of fact, but not their opinions. You believe their opinions and disregard the facts. Typical emotional approach.

"No evidence" is a statement of fact. "The arrest was legal and right" is a statement of opinion.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kuriakos said:


> I say we should believe their statements of fact, but not their opinions. You believe their opinions and disregard the facts. *Typical emotional approach.*
> 
> "No evidence" is a statement of fact. "The arrest was legal and right" is a statement of opinion.


And all that is *your* opinion

(As well as being repetitive)

I like theirs better, and that's not going to change


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

where I want to said:


> I wonder - has anyone heard the reason why he simply put the parts from an old factory clock into a case? What was the purpose? I've only seen the media say he made a clock. They apparently have not asked but it woukd be interesting to see if there was any modification that merited the idea he actually built anything.



This is just what I've read on line..So take it for what it's worth..

The family went to Radio Shack and bought a timer.

They took it apart and reassembled it inside of a briefcase.

The alarm went off when the "clock" counted down to zero... 


Now my opinion..

From the above, this was no clock, this kid is just another idiot who will die trying to further his fathers social / political agenda...
The family is and have been very active in islamic politics and the father has even ran for president, twice, of Sudan if I recall correctly from the news headlines..

So why did this kid get an invite to the WH so quickly?

Even the kids that won the National Little League Championship didn't get an invite and they are closer to DC than this wanna be suicide bomber kid..


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no need to explain why they are ridiculous since they weren't unusual items, whereas a pieced together "clock" was a prohibited item already.
> 
> 
> 
> He had no *valid* reason to have it at school without permission, unlike most of the common items you named.



You are right they arnt unusuall but they all can be used for the same reason , to set off a bomb. 
Just exactly the same thing that is the base cause of concern about this kids clock. 

Kids take lots of things to school just to show their friends.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

AmericanStand said:


> You are right they arnt unusuall but they all can be used for the same reason , to set off a bomb.
> Just exactly the same thing that is the base cause of concern about this kids clock.
> 
> Kids take lots of things to school just to show their friends.


And get into trouble. But rarely get invited to the White House for it. Not to mention thousands of people praising them for having in effect done nothing.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

where I want to said:


> And get into trouble. But rarely get invited to the White House for it. Not to mention thousands of people praising them for having in effect done nothing.


I believe it was all staged from the beginning.
Obama got in there pretty fast, so he may have been in on it and maybe even planned it.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

where I want to said:


> And get into trouble. But rarely get invited to the White House for it. Not to mention thousands of people praising them for having in effect done nothing.



No kids take lots of things to school and DONT get in trouble. 

It's a place of learning not a prison of punishment. 

Well in theory.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

I read days ago he knew it would cause contraversy. so he did it deliberatly. We are in a time where everything is being done to make muslims look good. What a joke.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> No kids take lots of things to school and DONT get in trouble.
> 
> It's a place of learning not a prison of punishment.
> 
> Well in theory.


I read about a little girl who got suspended for having a plastic butter knife in her lunchbox to spread mayo or something on her sandwich.
She should have been a muslim, nobody would mess with her then, and she'd be visiting the White House.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

7thswan said:


> I read days ago he knew it would cause contraversy. so he did it deliberatly. We are in a time where everything is being done to make muslims look good. What a joke.


Of course they knew it would cause controversy
It's all a scam, from the fake bomb to the White House invite.
This is Obamanation, and they are fooling the stupid people every day.
Luckily a lot of people are no longer falling for the bigot's bait


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

AmericanStand said:


> No kids take lots of things to school and DONT get in trouble.
> 
> It's a place of learning not a prison of punishment.
> 
> Well in theory.


That theory got shot out of the water- literally. Beside I remember there being a whole lot more punishment in the schools of my youth. And that was before anyone actually did much more than cherry bomb a toilet. And no teacher needed the police- each one of them had more than enough authority to scare 99% of their students. And the ones they couldn't were suspended.

Where did you go to school that you have such a rosy view of them?


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Cornhusker said:


> Of course they knew it would cause controversy
> It's all a scam, from the fake bomb to the White House invite.
> This is Obamanation, and they are fooling the stupid people every day.
> Luckily a lot of people are no longer falling for the bigot's bait


Did you see the stack of teckno stuff that has been given to the little snot. Somehow people see him as sooo smart. Some wacky times we live in.


----------

