#IStandWithAhmed (or Inventing While Muslim is a thing?)

[Arctish]

No, I made the claim that the Principal sucks at his job because he doesn't support his students as they pursue knowledge and skill beyond the classroom. He should be proud to have kids so enthusiastic they take what they learn in school and come up with their own after-school projects. I said he sucked because instead of giving the kid a helpful lesson in the need for prior approval before bringing things into school, he chose to give the kid a harsh lesson in arbitrary exercises of authority, and what it feels like to be arrested, handcuffed, and marched out of school for a bullshit reason.

That's not what you said originally and it is even dumber and more disconnected from reality than originally.

I originally said the Principal is a twat. Since you didn't understand what I meant or why I said it, I explained.

that kid is none of these things you are saying.

- - - Updated - - -

For million'th time "looked like a hoax bomb"

For the millionth-plus-one time, no it didn't.

The only hoax being perpetrated is by the authorities, who are claiming that something that could be used in a hoax is the exact same thing as something which was used in a hoax.

The kid is a liar,

What did he lie about?

and that thing looks like a hoax bomb, period.

I added more to my previous post. I don't know if you saw this:

Ahmed showed the thing to a teacher who knew what it was, and to the English teacher who heard the alarm go off and asked what it was. Both times he truthfully told them "it's a clock". When he was called into the Principal's Office, he showed it to the Principal and told him the same thing, "it's a clock". There was no hoax. So if Ahmed was arrested because his clock "looked like a hoax bomb", that means anyone with anything that might conceivably be used as a hoax bomb could be arrested, too, right?

Well, both the Boston Bombers and the guy who bombed the Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta used backpack bombs. In fact, it was the unattended backpack that drew the attention of the security guard in Atlanta, which prompted him to evacuate the area and probably saved a lot of lives. That means backpacks look like hoax bombs, especially the ones sitting on cafeteria chairs with no students nearby. So I guess anyone wearing a backpack, or leaving their backpack unattended in that school, can be arrested and taken away in handcuffs.

Do you think the Principal is going to have the students who leave their stuff on chairs arrested, too? What are the limits of "looked like a hoax bomb"? Any why is it okay to arrest someone for having something that could be used in a hoax, even though they didn't use it that way? That sounds like being arrested for a thought crime.

 

[barbos]

That's not what you said originally and it is even dumber and more disconnected from reality than originally.

I originally said the Principal is a twat. Since you didn't understand what I meant or why I said it, I explained.

You said what I said you said.

that kid is none of these things you are saying.

- - - Updated - - -

For million'th time "looked like a hoax bomb"

For the millionth-plus-one time, no it didn't.

The only hoax being perpetrated is by the authorities, who are claiming that something that could be used in a hoax is the exact same thing as something which was used in a hoax.

The kid is a liar,

What did he lie about?

He lied about building a clock.

and that thing looks like a hoax bomb, period.

I added more to my previous post. I don't know if you saw this:

Ahmed showed the thing to a teacher who knew what it was, and to the English teacher who heard the alarm go off and asked what it was. Both times he truthfully told them "it's a clock". When he was called into the Principal's Office, he showed it to the Principal and told him the same thing, "it's a clock".

You are fucking dense, do you know why? Because I said you are. What he said does not fucking matter in that case, do you fucking understand that?
Using your logic any criminal can simply say "I am not guilty" and then go free.

 

[Arctish]

I originally said the Principal is a twat. Since you didn't understand what I meant or why I said it, I explained.

You said what I said you said.

Here's the first post in which I mentioned the Principal:

I don't expect the cop to know what the project does, but I don't expect the cop to assume it must be a triggering device or a hoax bomb because the owner might be muslim either. A rational standard of probable cause for detainment or arrest is not "it kinda sorta looks like a television prop I saw once." It was ludicrous then, it is ludicrous now.

I expect a school Principal to know what electronic gizmos made by students in his school's robotics classes look like. My kid's class made things like that all the time, right there inside the school, and showed them off to other kids and favorite teachers.

That school's Principal is a twat.

that kid is none of these things you are saying.

For million'th time "looked like a hoax bomb"

For the millionth-plus-one time, no it didn't.

The only hoax being perpetrated is by the authorities, who are claiming that something that could be used in a hoax is the exact same thing as something which was used in a hoax.

The kid is a liar,

What did he lie about?

He lied about building a clock.

Do you mean he lied about manufacturing the clock parts, or about putting the clock parts into a new case, or about it being a clock?

and that thing looks like a hoax bomb, period.

I added more to my previous post. I don't know if you saw this:

Ahmed showed the thing to a teacher who knew what it was, and to the English teacher who heard the alarm go off and asked what it was. Both times he truthfully told them "it's a clock". When he was called into the Principal's Office, he showed it to the Principal and told him the same thing, "it's a clock".

You are fucking dense, do you know why? Because I said you are. What he said does not fucking matter in that case, do you fucking understand that?
Using your logic any criminal can simply say "I am not guilty" and then go free.

But what was he guilty of? He made a new clock out of clock parts and a pencil box. That's not a crime.

He brought it to school to show his teacher. That might be against school policy, but it's not a crime.

He told everyone who saw it that it was a clock, which it fucking is. He never implied or led people to believe it was a bomb, which BTW is required for the hoax part of the hoax bomb scenario.

So he was arrested because someone thought he could have been thinking about using it to perpetrate a hoax. IOW, he was arrested for what someone supposed might possibly be the thoughts in his head, not for anything he actually said or did, and despite what he actually said and did.

ETA: you clipped out this part of my post:

There was no hoax. So if Ahmed was arrested because his clock "looked like a hoax bomb", that means anyone with anything that might conceivably be used as a hoax bomb could be arrested, too, right?

Well, both the Boston Bombers and the guy who bombed the Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta used backpack bombs. In fact, it was the unattended backpack that drew the attention of the security guard in Atlanta, which prompted him to evacuate the area and probably saved a lot of lives. That means backpacks look like hoax bombs, especially the ones sitting on cafeteria chairs with no students nearby. So I guess anyone wearing a backpack, or leaving their backpack unattended in that school, can be arrested and taken away in handcuffs.

Just how far does this "looked like a hoax bomb" extend? Does it extend to the things security personnel are trained to look for, like parcels with too many postage stamps, unattended backpacks, and small wooden boxes with no labels? If some kid brings in a homemade jewelry box to show the shop teacher, would s/he be arrested for building something that looks like a hoax Unibomber bomb?

 

[Artemus]

You are fucking dense, do you know why? Because I said you are. What he said does not fucking matter in that case, do you fucking understand that?
Using your logic any criminal can simply say "I am not guilty" and then go free.

You seem to have the burden of proof confused. If the authorities cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is guilty, a criminal (or an innocent person, for that matter) can indeed simply say "I am not guilty" and then go free.

It is of course impossible for the student to prove that he wasn't trying to create a hoax bomb. That doesn't make him guilty of creating a hoax bomb.

 

[Playball40]

I haven't heard anyone claim he invented a clock, but I have seen people setting up a strawman argument knocking down the non-existent claim he invented a clock.

The mainstream narrative is he took electronic clock parts from one case and put them into another case, and this was so innocuous that the jackboot overreaction of his school Principal and the cops was a national disgrace.



Yeah, that pretty much sums it up, but you forgot the part about the cop saying "I knew it was you" or words to that effect. How could the cop have known any such thing, when Ahmed hadn't been in any sort of trouble before? Was it the kid's name that aroused the cop's suspicion? It certainly couldn't have been due to any priors on his record, because there weren't any.

Fact: Ahmed admits he knew some might view it as suspicious or a threat, and yet chose this particular case to put the clock into anyway, and claims to have taken actions to mitigate the possibility of a perceived threat.
Fact: He intentionally plugged in the device and set the alarm to go off in the middle of class,

Did he plug it in, or are you speculating? The reports I read said the clock was in the kid's backpack when the alarm went off.

which got the teachers attention. The cops therefore may have reasonable grounds to investigate a "bomb hoax" scenario. It's not completely out of the question given this fact pattern, and warrants follow-up.
Fact: The three day suspension was almost certainly for making it go off in the middle of class as a result of what the school thought were actions intended to make people suspicious, which isn't a completely implausible viewpoint given the facts.

Fact: What you just posted is not a fact.

Also, fact: the kid is 14 years old, and can be expected to act with all the foresight, thoughtfulness, and maturity typically exhibited by boys his age. I'm sure his clock wasn't the only electronic device to ever accidently start making noise in English class.

Very reasonable speculation: Had the scenario been different, where the teacher saw something sticking out of his bag and asked what it was, and he said, "this is an alarm clock I took out of its case put in a pencil box, want to see?" "Sure...Oh my, why did you bring that to school?" "I brought it to show Mr. X, the engineering teacher.", the outcome almost certainly would've been different.

The only thing I can't explain are the handcuffs. Unreasonable under any interpretation of the facts (he was not violent or out of control, and did not pose any physical threat). It is probably this stupid action of the cops that made the case become so big in the first place, with the viral photo and everything.

Yes, it was.

We know he plugged it in and set the alarm to go off in the middle of class, as the clock had no other power source.

I read no such thing. Do you have a citation for this claim?

 

[Artemus]

We know he plugged it in and set the alarm to go off in the middle of class, as the clock had no other power source.

We know no such thing. The principal and the police had the clock for hours before that picture was taken. Did it not occur to you that maybe, just maybe, the battery was missing because one of them "heroically risked life and limb" by removing the battery to defuse the "bomb"?

The levels of "evidence" being offered are ridiculous. I see from earlier in the thread that since the creativity demonstrated in the project was only at the level we would expect from a 14 year old kid rather than at the level of child prodigy as initially reported, the only possible explanation is that he was creating a hoax bomb. Yeah, right. People who should know much better (Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher, for example) are making fools of themselves on a national scale.

 

[dismal]

He did not put it pack together, he merely transplanted guts from one case to another.

Clock bombs don't have count downs. they are ordinary clocks with alarm buzzer replaced with bomb trigger, You set up alarm at time you want it to blow and leave it.

That's ridiculous. How are the audience going to feel any sense of tension without a countdown?

Real bombs have a countdown; the red wire is the one to cut to defuse them, but you have to consider cutting the other wires first - even going so far as to place the jaw of the wire cutter over them - and you must wait until less than five seconds remains on the countdown before cutting the wire, at which point the countdown will stop, but will continue to display the time left, in case some of the audience were distracted by their popcorn at the critical moment.

Ideally, once the bomb is defused, the kidnap victim has been released, the crowd has dispersed, and/or the bomb moved a safe distance from the intended target, it should explode spectacularly anyway. After all, audiences love explosions.

EVERYONE knows these things.

Generally with about 5 seconds left you want to attach the bomb to the back of the bad guy's pants and toss him over some sort of ledge.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Generally with about 5 seconds left you want to attach the bomb to the back of the bad guy's pants and toss him over some sort of ledge.

Either that or just run from the bomb and then accidentally trip over the electrical cord and unplug it right before it explodes. Then the bad guy can just be eaten by a lion.

 

[dismal]

I forgot about 9-11, that does look fishy.
The other new information is that there was no battery and he had that thing plugged during the class.
If it is true then I don't know, I am not so sure it was not a hoax of some kind. Setting up alarm in the class with it plugged would be hard and very deliberate.
Clocks usually can run for a few minutes without any external power including backup battery. So it was possible he for some reason took battery off and plugged it into AC, but that would make no sense.

Also I assumed he said he was trying to impress his engineering teacher, not english one.
Anyway, I agree with that dude, it all looks fishy, they kid who was called a bomb-maker in school, brings a fake-bomb looking device right after 9-11.

Looks like Richard Dawkins is getting in on it too:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/sep/20/richard-dawkins-questions-ahmed-mohamed-motive-backlash

In a tweet, the scientist linked to a YouTube video entitled Ahmed Mohammed [sic] Clock is a FRAUD, in which user Thomas Talbot alleges Mohamed’s clock “is in fact not an invention. The ‘clock’ is a commercial bedside alarm clock removed from its casing”.

In his tweet, Dawkins said: “If this is true, what was his motive? Whether or not he wanted the police to arrest him, they shouldn’t have done so.” His next tweet said of the video: “This man seems to know what he’s talking about.”

Hey, Dawkins agreed with me

The alarm going off during class does add an interesting aspect to this that I hadn't considered.

As you mention, there is no backup battery attached, this means he plugged it in somewhere in the classroom and set the alarm to go off during the middle of class (old alarm clocks like this one with no battery attached have no preset alarms, all data is erased).

What was his intent with that stunt?

Probably to disrupt the class, and amuse his classmates by annoying the teacher.

If that warrants arrest, then I should have spent a sizeable fraction of my school days in jail.

But he seems to know ahead of time that some people find the device suspicious. His engineering teacher told him not to show it to anyone else. He also has said that he wrapped the power cord around it would "less suspicious".

“I closed it with a cable, so… because, I didn’t want to lock it to make it seem like a threat so I just used simple cable…. so it won’t look that much suspicious”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mW4w0Y1OXE

He admits he knew some might find it suspicious, yet he does the alarm clock prank anyway.

No, he still shouldn't have been arrested, but the school's actions are starting to look a little bit more reasonable.

No.

No they are not.

They were unreasonable from the start; they don't get more reasonable because the Twitterati have been able to come up with a bunch of spurious nonsense.

As I said, if that warrants arrest, then I should have spent a sizeable fraction of my school days in jail. I didn't, because my school took reasonable actions - they confiscated toys and the materials used for pranks, they gave out detentions and made us write lines, and they told our parents we were being disruptive, and let them discipline us for it. What they did not do is call the police, and have us arrested and marched out of school in handcuffs. Because that would have been completely unreasonable.

Um, the school wasn't the one that arrested him. Did you also skip over the part where I said that still shouldn't mean he should be arrested? However, the possibly that he intended it as a hoax bomb prank has a little bit of credibility to it. If not a hoax bomb, the fact is that he intentionally set off a device he admits some might find suspicious or a threat means he knew the teacher might take it the wrong way. And she did.

So let's summarize the facts:

1. He knew some might see it as a suspicious or as a threat. Why? Only one possible explanation: it might be mistaken for a bomb or some other suspicious device.
2. His engineering teacher told him not to show it to any other teachers. Why? Only one plausible explanation: it might be mistaken for a bomb or some other suspicious device.
3. Later, he plugs it in during class and sets the alarm to go off.

Why? Did he want to arouse suspicion, as a prank? That seems like what the cops were trying to find out, but all they got were passive-aggressive answers that it is "just a clock". Ok, everyone acknowledges that, but why put it in that particular case? Why set it off during class?

In the end, he wasn't charged with anything.

Still, the following actions were unreasonable:

1. Putting him in handcuffs.
2. Not allowing him a lawyer or parent present during questioning
3. I'm unsure of the 3 day suspension in light of these facts. It seems like maybe a 1 day suspension is not completely out of line, or at least detention. Not for transferring the clock to this case and bringing it to school to show his engineering teacher, but for knowing that some might find it suspicious or a threat and setting it to go off in the middle of class anyway.

This is a decent summary of relevant facts but I think there is still a bit of a "fog of war" going on here and much of this relies on the kid's own tales not any official investigation.

A couple facts not mentioned here that the conspiracy minded have pointed out:

1) The kid's father is apparently some sort of anti-islamofacist activist
2) Very quickly after the incident the kid was tweeting out pics of the family happily heading off to meet their lawyer

 

[barbos]

We know he plugged it in and set the alarm to go off in the middle of class, as the clock had no other power source.

I read no such thing. Do you have a citation for this claim?

That's logical inference from apparent absence of the battery in the picture.

 

[barbos]

This is a decent summary of relevant facts but I think there is still a bit of a "fog of war" going on here and much of this relies on the kid's own tales not any official investigation.

A couple facts not mentioned here that the conspiracy minded have pointed out:

1) The kid's father is apparently some sort of anti-islamofacist activist
2) Very quickly after the incident the kid was tweeting out pics of the family happily heading off to meet their lawyer

3. Kid'd father lets his 14 year old son repair/work on his car.
4. Or lying runs in the family

 

[Artemus]

That's logical inference from apparent absence of the battery in the picture.

It is an unsupportable inference since the clock was in the principal's and police's possession for hours and batteries can be trivially removed.

 

[dismal]

I read no such thing. Do you have a citation for this claim?

That's logical inference from apparent absence of the battery in the picture.

But if the preferred narrative requires a battery me must assume one existed. It's science!

 

[Jayjay]

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up, but you forgot the part about the cop saying "I knew it was you" or words to that effect. How could the cop have known any such thing, when Ahmed hadn't been in any sort of trouble before? Was it the kid's name that aroused the cop's suspicion? It certainly couldn't have been due to any priors on his record, because there weren't any.

The police chief clarified that on MSNBC interview. According to him, what the officer said was the exact opposite: "That's not who I thought it would be". I think that version makes much more sense, so Ahmed probably just misheard the cop.

 

[Jayjay]

We know he plugged it in and set the alarm to go off in the middle of class, as the clock had no other power source.

That's not uncertain. We don't know if the battery was there or not, but certainly, if the clock had been plugged in the teacher should have noticed. To me it seems rather more likely that the clock was on a battery at that time. As for setting an alarm, forgetting that the alarm is on is a simple mistake, and it going off sometime during a class is not that unlikely.

 

[barbos]

That's logical inference from apparent absence of the battery in the picture.

It is an unsupportable inference since the clock was in the principal's and police's possession for hours and batteries can be trivially removed.

Until you provide evidence for battery existence it will be supported by what I said it was supported.

 

[Artemus]

It is an unsupportable inference since the clock was in the principal's and police's possession for hours and batteries can be trivially removed.

Until you provide evidence for battery existence it will be supported by what I said it was supported.

There are a couple possibilities raised: There was never a battery or the battery was removed. Neither are supportable without further evidence. But please note that I'm not the one who said "we know that the device was plugged in."

 

[ZiprHead]

I forgot about 9-11, that does look fishy.
The other new information is that there was no battery and he had that thing plugged during the class.
If it is true then I don't know, I am not so sure it was not a hoax of some kind. Setting up alarm in the class with it plugged would be hard and very deliberate.
Clocks usually can run for a few minutes without any external power including backup battery. So it was possible he for some reason took battery off and plugged it into AC, but that would make no sense.

I assume the battery was removed by the police. Battery backed-up alarm clocks will still keep time and sound the alarm when unplugged.

 

[barbos]

Until you provide evidence for battery existence it will be supported by what I said it was supported.

There are a couple possibilities raised: There was never a battery or the battery was removed. Neither are supportable without further evidence. But please note that I'm not the one who said "we know that the device was plugged in."

I did not say it either, in fact it was me who actually first discussed it (after watching that video)
I merely answered the question about how do we know it was plugged and I answered that it was logical inference from the facts we knew so far. I suggest you to actually read what is posted or linked in this thread so you don't ask stupid questions.

I forgot about 9-11, that does look fishy.
The other new information is that there was no battery and he had that thing plugged during the class.
If it is true then I don't know, I am not so sure it was not a hoax of some kind. Setting up alarm in the class with it plugged would be hard and very deliberate.
Clocks usually can run for a few minutes without any external power including backup battery. So it was possible he for some reason took battery off and plugged it into AC, but that would make no sense.

I assume the battery was removed by the police. Battery backed-up alarm clocks will still keep time and sound the alarm when unplugged.

Assuming is not good enough here, because if there was no battery then kid is a toast.

 

[Artemus]

I did not say it either, in fact it was me who actually first discussed it (after watching that video)
I merely answered the question about how do we know it was plugged and I answered that it was logical inference from the facts we know so far. I suggest you to actually read what is posted or linked in this thread so you don't ask stupid questions.

***sigh***

I never said you did. I said I didn't say it. The trail was

We know he plugged it in and set the alarm to go off in the middle of class, as the clock had no other power source.

I read no such thing. Do you have a citation for this claim?

That's logical inference from apparent absence of the battery in the picture.

Perhaps you should follow your own advice and read what was posted before you insult people?