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

[barbos]

3) The kid's suspension was probably uncalled for, but given how many other things there are that we don't know, it's hard to say.

Zero tolerance disagrees, if you suspend kids for making unintentional and crappy sculptures of a gun out of food then you must suspend for hoax bombs.

 

[Jayjay]

Thanks. Bill Maher was his usual self, but even he thought the kid deserves an apology. But the most interesting part was Mark Cuban's point that he actually called the kid, and he called the school. "All he had to do was to engage with the teacher, and he didn't." Furthermore, during Mark's call with Ahmed he didn't really say anything, it was his sister who was giving the answers (but at the same time it confirmed that Ahmed was genuinely interested in magnets or whatnot).

That's not to say Ahmed was a bad kid, but it does suggest that his behaviour played a part in what led to him being arrested.

- - - Updated - - -

3) The kid's suspension was probably uncalled for, but given how many other things there are that we don't know, it's hard to say.

Zero tolerance disagrees, if you suspend kids for making unintentional and crappy sculptures of a gun out of food then you must suspend for hoax bombs.

Maybe kids shouldn't be suspended for crappy food sculptures either.

 

[Jayjay]

How is that "Unfortunately"?

Because your argument is wrong.

How is my position is illogical?

If it looked like a bomb to the school authorities, they should have cleared the building before they called the police. This is been explained a number of times. I can explain it for you but I cannot understand it for you.

It seems you have some trouble understanding it yourself. Something can look like a bomb without actually being a bomb, obviously so. For example:

This may look like a bomb but anyone who sees this picture will likely not imagine that Adam West dressed up as batman would actually carry a real explosive device and thus would conclude that it's most likely a prop. Likewise, someone who sees this device:

might conceivably think that it looks like a bomb, but is not dangerous because of the obvious lack of any explosives. Now that it has been explained in terms a 14-year old child should understand, can we put this stupid argument to the rest finally? Nobody thought the "clock" was a real bomb at any point, nobody is claiming they thought it was a bomb, and that's why nobody evacuated the school or called the bomb squad.

 

[barbos]

Thanks. Bill Maher was his usual self, but even he thought the kid deserves an apology.

Too late for that, kid is flying high now
Jorge Ramos was a complete idiot
Maher completely destroyed him twice.
Chris Matthews as usual makes sense.

But the most interesting part was Mark Cuban's point that he actually called the kid, and he called the school. "All he had to do was to engage with the teacher, and he didn't." Furthermore, during Mark's call with Ahmed he didn't really say anything, it was his sister who was giving the answers (but at the same time it confirmed that Ahmed was genuinely interested in magnets or whatnot).

Yes, Cuban noticed that correctly. The whole mess could have been avoided by simply calling his engineering teacher, instead he acted as a bad guy from 24. I can give him some benefit of the doubt because of his age, but very little of it. I mean during interviews he talks about his engineering teacher just fine, but not with his other teachers/police during incident. So "setup" theory kinda makes sense.

That's not to say Ahmed was a bad kid, but it does suggest that his behaviour played a part in what led to him being arrested.

That's totally right and police have said that too. That's their job description detect suspicious things/people, question and then let them go or arrest.

- - - Updated - - -

3) The kid's suspension was probably uncalled for, but given how many other things there are that we don't know, it's hard to say.

Zero tolerance disagrees, if you suspend kids for making unintentional and crappy sculptures of a gun out of food then you must suspend for hoax bombs.

Maybe kids shouldn't be suspended for crappy food sculptures either.

Maybe, but current rules are current rules. Same thing is apparently with a dress code in US schools, there are rules and teachers know they are kinda dumb but they still have to enforce them because alternatives are worse.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Watch Maher video to the end.

I have, But maher isn't in this Clock is a fraud video and I am not asking Maher, I am asking you. You can't speak for yourself?

- - - Updated - - -

Where? Where has Uyger been shown, and not THEORIZED, to be COMPLETELY wrong?

Is he over the top? Yes. Hyperbolic even? Yes. But how is he COMPLETELY wrong?

Hyperbolic is given when it comes to Uygur. He is completely wrong everywhere.

Well if he is wrong EVERYWHERE, then you should have no problem providing say, five specifics that exemplify his error.

I have, But maher isn't in this Clock is a fraud video and I am not asking Maher, I am asking you. You can't speak for yourself?

- - - Updated - - -

Where? Where has Uyger been shown, and not THEORIZED, to be COMPLETELY wrong?

Is he over the top? Yes. Hyperbolic even? Yes. But how is he COMPLETELY wrong?

Hyperbolic is given when it comes to Uygur. He is completely wrong everywhere.

Well if he is wrong EVERYWHERE, then you should have no problem providing say, five specifics that exemplify his error.

I already have.

I have, But maher isn't in this Clock is a fraud video and I am not asking Maher, I am asking you. You can't speak for yourself?

- - - Updated - - -

Where? Where has Uyger been shown, and not THEORIZED, to be COMPLETELY wrong?

Is he over the top? Yes. Hyperbolic even? Yes. But how is he COMPLETELY wrong?

Hyperbolic is given when it comes to Uygur. He is completely wrong everywhere.

Well if he is wrong EVERYWHERE, then you should have no problem providing say, five specifics that exemplify his error.

I already have.

No, you have not. Is that because you can't?

Then you should be able to point to it or make an actual argument. But you have not. Instead, you have resorted to name calling and unsubstantiated claims.
LOL - that one broke every irony meter in this galaxy. Why not actually address the issues in this thread instead of spouting your opinion on an irrelevant issue.

From what I can tell, in this thread you have attacked Ahmed's engineering abilities (which are irrelevant to the issue), claimed that people are defending Ahmed because he is brown-skinned and/or Muslim (which confuses defense with criticism of the authorities behavior, and ignores the issue of the actual reactions of the authorities), defended the authorities reactions based on "it looked like a bomb" (which does not explain their inconsistent behavior or the suspension), claimed it is the father's publicity stunt (which is irrelevant, since the father did not over-react) and resorted to name calling. None of which are relevant or cogent arguments.

There is absolutely no evidence that I can see that you have read my posts in this thread. I have posted that I could understand why school authorities thought the clock might be a bomb. But if they did, the school should have been evacuated. But it wasn't. And once they determined it was a school project, that should have been the end of the issue. But it wasn't. Handwaved appeals to "zero tolerance" are totally unconvincing, because zero tolerance does not mandate suspensions for administrative mistakes or misdeeds. I know this because I read their policy and have had experience with "zero tolerance" attempted misapplications with a number of children.

They initially thought it was suspicious or could be a bomb, but after further examination determined it was not, that there was no actual threat. They then asked what his intent was with putting it in that kind if a case in that manner. Why set off the alarm?

How do we know he "set off" the alarm? Could he have set the alarm and forgotten it? I do that with my cell phone sometimes, set an alarm and forget I did.

Was it to make it look like a hoax bomb and scare people (which is in fact a crime in addition to a school rule violation)? And he refused to explain.

Did he refuse to explain, not explain adequately because he was nervous, or did he just not tell the police what they wanted to hear?

This has been confirmed from multiple sources (Mark Cuban, the school, the police).

If the school authorities thought he was intentionally trying to scare people, why would they need to apologize?

Because they handled this whole affair in a shitty manner, haphazard manner that ended with a boy being arrested for NOTHING.

Ahmed himself even admits he knew people might view it suspiciously or as a threat and yet chose that particular case to put it in anyway and bring it to school and liberally show it around.

How many people does he have to show it to be liberally showing it around and art any point did he ever say it was anything other than a clock?

The only ones that need to apologize are the police.

I would agree with you, were it not for that letter.

I don't see the school having done anything outrageous here.

Outrageous, no. Thoughtless and stupid yes.

 

[laughing dog]

Because your argument is wrong.

How is my position is illogical?

If it looked like a bomb to the school authorities, they should have cleared the building before they called the police. This is been explained a number of times. I can explain it for you but I cannot understand it for you.

It seems you have some trouble understanding it yourself. Something can look like a bomb without actually being a bomb, obviously so. For example:

This may look like a bomb but anyone who sees this picture will likely not imagine that Adam West dressed up as batman would actually carry a real explosive device and thus would conclude that it's most likely a prop. Likewise, someone who sees this device:

might conceivably think that it looks like a bomb, but is not dangerous because of the obvious lack of any explosives. Now that it has been explained in terms a 14-year old child should understand, can we put this stupid argument to the rest finally? Nobody thought the "clock" was a real bomb at any point, nobody is claiming they thought it was a bomb, and that's why nobody evacuated the school or called the bomb squad.

If no one thought it was a bomb, there was no reason to deal with any potential threat nor was there any reason to be scared. Nor was there any reason to do anything else. Now that has been explained in terms that a 4 year should understand, can we put your stupid argument to rest?

 

[Jayjay]

I believe none of the pro-ahmed people commented on that.

Why should anyone watch an 8 minute video for no apparent reason other than your recommendation?

To make it shorter, you could watch jjust Mark Cuban's comments on his contact with the kid and the school from 0:55 to 2:20.

 

[laughing dog]

3) The kid's suspension was probably uncalled for, but given how many other things there are that we don't know, it's hard to say.

Zero tolerance disagrees, if you suspend kids for making unintentional and crappy sculptures of a gun out of food then you must suspend for hoax bombs.

Zero tolerance does no such thing. Nor does basic reasoning. Perpetuating moronic and wrong decisions on previous moronic and wrong decisions is moronic.

- - - Updated - - -

Why should anyone watch an 8 minute video for no apparent reason other than your recommendation?

To make it shorter, you could watch jjust Mark Cuban's comments on his contact with the kid and the school from 0:55 to 2:20.

Why should anyone watch a 90 second video for no apparent reason other than your recommendation? Why not just make the make the argument?

 

[Jayjay]

How do you know they effed up, if you don't know the facts of the case? For example, what if it turns out that the clock doesn't run on battery, which would mean that Ahmed deliberately plugged it in during class so that he could get "caught" and show off his device, would that change your opinion at all about his motivations?

Dude, we established that he did in fact plugged it during English class (he have said so in the interview)

Was it? I watched the Dallas Morning News interview again, and he just says he "put it in place" whatever that means. But I'm not clear on whether it was plugged it. It probably was though, since otherwise there wouldn't be much to show, but that doesn't explain the alarm.

 

[Jayjay]

Why should anyone watch an 8 minute video for no apparent reason other than your recommendation?

To make it shorter, you could watch jjust Mark Cuban's comments on his contact with the kid and the school from 0:55 to 2:20.

Why should anyone watch a 90 second video for no apparent reason other than your recommendation? Why not just make the make the argument?

Because it reveals relevant points about Ahmed's behaviour and gives a plausible alternative reason why the school officials and the police did what they did. I could of course just type out a transcript for your benefit, but fuck it. Do you your own homework.

 

[barbos]

Dude, we established that he did in fact plugged it during English class (he have said so in the interview)

Was it? I watched the Dallas Morning News interview again, and he just says he "put it in place" whatever that means. But I'm not clear on whether it was plugged it. It probably was though, since otherwise there wouldn't be much to show, but that doesn't explain the alarm.

No, other video I posted few pages back. He literally says "I plugged it and alarm immediately went off and, teacher asked what it is ....."
So, yes, he deliberately plugged it in during english class and there have never been any battery there.

 

[laughing dog]

Why should anyone watch an 8 minute video for no apparent reason other than your recommendation?

To make it shorter, you could watch jjust Mark Cuban's comments on his contact with the kid and the school from 0:55 to 2:20.

Why should anyone watch a 90 second video for no apparent reason other than your recommendation? Why not just make the make the argument?

Because it reveals relevant points about Ahmed's behaviour and gives a plausible alternative reason why the school officials and the police did what they did. I could of course just type out a transcript for your benefit, but fuck it. Do you your own homework.

You're the one who claims there is a plausible reason for their behavior. If you wish to be taken seriously, make the case or STFU.

 

[Jayjay]

Because your argument is wrong.

How is my position is illogical?

If it looked like a bomb to the school authorities, they should have cleared the building before they called the police. This is been explained a number of times. I can explain it for you but I cannot understand it for you.

It seems you have some trouble understanding it yourself. Something can look like a bomb without actually being a bomb, obviously so. For example:

This may look like a bomb but anyone who sees this picture will likely not imagine that Adam West dressed up as batman would actually carry a real explosive device and thus would conclude that it's most likely a prop. Likewise, someone who sees this device:

might conceivably think that it looks like a bomb, but is not dangerous because of the obvious lack of any explosives. Now that it has been explained in terms a 14-year old child should understand, can we put this stupid argument to the rest finally? Nobody thought the "clock" was a real bomb at any point, nobody is claiming they thought it was a bomb, and that's why nobody evacuated the school or called the bomb squad.

If no one thought it was a bomb, there was no reason to deal with any potential threat nor was there any reason to be scared. Nor was there any reason to do anything else. Now that has been explained in terms that a 4 year should understand, can we put your stupid argument to rest?

Because it looked like a bomb, and was making one teacher uncomfortable. You are just going around in circles. The kid was arrested for a hoax bomb, which is apparently something that the police have their own category for, so it looked sufficiently like a bomb to make the teacher and the police think that maybe it was a part of a bomb or was intended to cause alarm. But it wasn't enough like a bomb to make them actually call the bomb squad or run for the hills. A bit like your dumbass argument looks legitimate enough to make many people falsely believe it makes sense, but any intelligent person can see it's a fallacy.

 

[Jayjay]

Why should anyone watch an 8 minute video for no apparent reason other than your recommendation?

To make it shorter, you could watch jjust Mark Cuban's comments on his contact with the kid and the school from 0:55 to 2:20.

Why should anyone watch a 90 second video for no apparent reason other than your recommendation? Why not just make the make the argument?

Because it reveals relevant points about Ahmed's behaviour and gives a plausible alternative reason why the school officials and the police did what they did. I could of course just type out a transcript for your benefit, but fuck it. Do you your own homework.

You're the one who claims there is a plausible reason for their behavior. If you wish to be taken seriously, make the case or STFU.

I already did so in my first reply to the video. I only made it easier for you to double check the info. Basically, Mark Cuban talked to some people in the school (though he does mention it's twice removed so it is basically unconfirmed rumours) that Ahmed brougth it to five classes and the sixth one was the english teacher, and that he didn't engage with the teacher or provide any explanation what the device was.

 

[laughing dog]

Because your argument is wrong.

How is my position is illogical?

If it looked like a bomb to the school authorities, they should have cleared the building before they called the police. This is been explained a number of times. I can explain it for you but I cannot understand it for you.

It seems you have some trouble understanding it yourself. Something can look like a bomb without actually being a bomb, obviously so. For example:

This may look like a bomb but anyone who sees this picture will likely not imagine that Adam West dressed up as batman would actually carry a real explosive device and thus would conclude that it's most likely a prop. Likewise, someone who sees this device:

might conceivably think that it looks like a bomb, but is not dangerous because of the obvious lack of any explosives. Now that it has been explained in terms a 14-year old child should understand, can we put this stupid argument to the rest finally? Nobody thought the "clock" was a real bomb at any point, nobody is claiming they thought it was a bomb, and that's why nobody evacuated the school or called the bomb squad.

If no one thought it was a bomb, there was no reason to deal with any potential threat nor was there any reason to be scared. Nor was there any reason to do anything else. Now that has been explained in terms that a 4 year should understand, can we put your stupid argument to rest?

Because it looked like a bomb, and was making one teacher uncomfortable. You are just going around in circles. The kid was arrested for a hoax bomb, which is apparently something that the police have their own category for, so it looked sufficiently like a bomb to make the teacher and the police think that maybe it was a part of a bomb or was intended to cause alarm. But it wasn't enough like a bomb to make them actually call the bomb squad or run for the hills. A bit like your dumbass argument looks legitimate enough to make many people falsely believe it makes sense, but any intelligent person can see it's a fallacy.

Except your argument is internally inconsistent. If it obviously was not a bomb, and if the student was not claiming it was a bomb, then it is not possible for it to be bomb hoax, as any intelligent person could understand if he or she bothered to use their brain.

 

[Jayjay]

3) The kid's suspension was probably uncalled for, but given how many other things there are that we don't know, it's hard to say.

You just tacitly admitted they effed up with the suspension.

Yes, when did I say it wasn't? Given what we know, the suspension was uncalled for because it happened after the police had cleared him of any wrongdoing. The suspension was certainly out of line. I think arresting him was out of the line too, because the only benefit of that was to get his prints and "scare him straight" or something, which was an overkill. The cops could have easily called the parents to pick Ahmed up from the school.

The interrogation doesn't seem like it was an overkill, it depends on Ahmed's behaviour, and right now it seems that he wasn't forthcoming with the purpose of the device, so the jury is still out on that one.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Because your argument is wrong.

How is my position is illogical?

If it looked like a bomb to the school authorities, they should have cleared the building before they called the police. This is been explained a number of times. I can explain it for you but I cannot understand it for you.

It seems you have some trouble understanding it yourself. Something can look like a bomb without actually being a bomb, obviously so. For example:

This may look like a bomb but anyone who sees this picture will likely not imagine that Adam West dressed up as batman would actually carry a real explosive device and thus would conclude that it's most likely a prop. Likewise, someone who sees this device:

might conceivably think that it looks like a bomb, but is not dangerous because of the obvious lack of any explosives. Now that it has been explained in terms a 14-year old child should understand, can we put this stupid argument to the rest finally? Nobody thought the "clock" was a real bomb at any point, nobody is claiming they thought it was a bomb, and that's why nobody evacuated the school or called the bomb squad.

If no one thought it was a bomb, there was no reason to deal with any potential threat nor was there any reason to be scared. Nor was there any reason to do anything else. Now that has been explained in terms that a 4 year should understand, can we put your stupid argument to rest?

Because it looked like a bomb, and was making one teacher uncomfortable. You are just going around in circles. The kid was arrested for a hoax bomb, which is apparently something that the police have their own category for, so it looked sufficiently like a bomb to make the teacher and the police think that maybe it was a part of a bomb or was intended to cause alarm. But it wasn't enough like a bomb to make them actually call the bomb squad or run for the hills. A bit like your dumbass argument looks legitimate enough to make many people falsely believe it makes sense, but any intelligent person can see it's a fallacy.

Slight correction, the teacher claimed it looked like a bomb. It doesn't actually look like a bomb. Just a bunch of electronics. If you can actually demonstrate that it "looks like a bomb", then I'll retract my statement.

 

[Jayjay]

Because your argument is wrong.

How is my position is illogical?

If it looked like a bomb to the school authorities, they should have cleared the building before they called the police. This is been explained a number of times. I can explain it for you but I cannot understand it for you.

It seems you have some trouble understanding it yourself. Something can look like a bomb without actually being a bomb, obviously so. For example:

This may look like a bomb but anyone who sees this picture will likely not imagine that Adam West dressed up as batman would actually carry a real explosive device and thus would conclude that it's most likely a prop. Likewise, someone who sees this device:

might conceivably think that it looks like a bomb, but is not dangerous because of the obvious lack of any explosives. Now that it has been explained in terms a 14-year old child should understand, can we put this stupid argument to the rest finally? Nobody thought the "clock" was a real bomb at any point, nobody is claiming they thought it was a bomb, and that's why nobody evacuated the school or called the bomb squad.

If no one thought it was a bomb, there was no reason to deal with any potential threat nor was there any reason to be scared. Nor was there any reason to do anything else. Now that has been explained in terms that a 4 year should understand, can we put your stupid argument to rest?

Because it looked like a bomb, and was making one teacher uncomfortable. You are just going around in circles. The kid was arrested for a hoax bomb, which is apparently something that the police have their own category for, so it looked sufficiently like a bomb to make the teacher and the police think that maybe it was a part of a bomb or was intended to cause alarm. But it wasn't enough like a bomb to make them actually call the bomb squad or run for the hills. A bit like your dumbass argument looks legitimate enough to make many people falsely believe it makes sense, but any intelligent person can see it's a fallacy.

Except your argument is internally inconsistent. If it obviously was not a bomb, and if the student was not claiming it was a bomb, then it is not possible for it to be bomb hoax, as any intelligent person could understand if he or she bothered to use their brain.

It wasn't going to explode, but that doesn't mean it didn't look like a bomb or "infrastructure" for one as the police said for a casual viewer. There are degrees of obviousness. In this case, obviousness requires one to look inside the case and first think "Is this a bomb? Should I run to safety?" before figuring out "no, because there aren't explosives in there". That's rather different than a clock that doesn't look even remotely like a bomb so that the idea that it might be one never comes up.

Consider this video that barbos posted a few pages ago:

LOL:

Here, a guy makes a similar bomb and opens it on a bus stop, and claims that it is a clock. People get visibly rattled about it. Why is that? Because it looks fucking suspicious for someone to have a suitcase with a timer inside.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Watch Maher video to the end.

I have, But maher isn't in this Clock is a fraud video and I am not asking Maher, I am asking you. You can't speak for yourself?

- - - Updated - - -

Where? Where has Uyger been shown, and not THEORIZED, to be COMPLETELY wrong?

Is he over the top? Yes. Hyperbolic even? Yes. But how is he COMPLETELY wrong?

Hyperbolic is given when it comes to Uygur. He is completely wrong everywhere.

Well if he is wrong EVERYWHERE, then you should have no problem providing say, five specifics that exemplify his error.

I have, But maher isn't in this Clock is a fraud video and I am not asking Maher, I am asking you. You can't speak for yourself?

- - - Updated - - -

Where? Where has Uyger been shown, and not THEORIZED, to be COMPLETELY wrong?

Is he over the top? Yes. Hyperbolic even? Yes. But how is he COMPLETELY wrong?

Hyperbolic is given when it comes to Uygur. He is completely wrong everywhere.

Well if he is wrong EVERYWHERE, then you should have no problem providing say, five specifics that exemplify his error.

I already have.

I have, But maher isn't in this Clock is a fraud video and I am not asking Maher, I am asking you. You can't speak for yourself?

- - - Updated - - -

Where? Where has Uyger been shown, and not THEORIZED, to be COMPLETELY wrong?

Is he over the top? Yes. Hyperbolic even? Yes. But how is he COMPLETELY wrong?

Hyperbolic is given when it comes to Uygur. He is completely wrong everywhere.

Well if he is wrong EVERYWHERE, then you should have no problem providing say, five specifics that exemplify his error.

I already have.

No, you have not. Is that because you can't?

Because your argument is wrong.

How is my position is illogical?

If it looked like a bomb to the school authorities, they should have cleared the building before they called the police. This is been explained a number of times. I can explain it for you but I cannot understand it for you.

It seems you have some trouble understanding it yourself. Something can look like a bomb without actually being a bomb, obviously so. For example:

This may look like a bomb but anyone who sees this picture will likely not imagine that Adam West dressed up as batman would actually carry a real explosive device and thus would conclude that it's most likely a prop. Likewise, someone who sees this device:

might conceivably think that it looks like a bomb, but is not dangerous because of the obvious lack of any explosives. Now that it has been explained in terms a 14-year old child should understand, can we put this stupid argument to the rest finally? Nobody thought the "clock" was a real bomb at any point, nobody is claiming they thought it was a bomb, and that's why nobody evacuated the school or called the bomb squad.

If no one thought it was a bomb, there was no reason to deal with any potential threat nor was there any reason to be scared. Nor was there any reason to do anything else. Now that has been explained in terms that a 4 year should understand, can we put your stupid argument to rest?

Because it looked like a bomb, and was making one teacher uncomfortable. You are just going around in circles. The kid was arrested for a hoax bomb, which is apparently something that the police have their own category for, so it looked sufficiently like a bomb to make the teacher and the police think that maybe it was a part of a bomb or was intended to cause alarm. But it wasn't enough like a bomb to make them actually call the bomb squad or run for the hills. A bit like your dumbass argument looks legitimate enough to make many people falsely believe it makes sense, but any intelligent person can see it's a fallacy.

Except your argument is internally inconsistent. If it obviously was not a bomb, and if the student was not claiming it was a bomb, then it is not possible for it to be bomb hoax, as any intelligent person could understand if he or she bothered to use their brain.

It wasn't going to explode, but that doesn't mean it didn't look like a bomb or "infrastructure" for one as the police said for a casual viewer. There are degrees of obviousness. In this case, obviousness requires one to look inside the case and first think "Is this a bomb? Should I run to safety?" before figuring out "no, because there aren't explosives in there". That's rather different than a clock that doesn't look even remotely like a bomb so that the idea that it might be one never comes up.

Consider this video that barbos posted a few pages ago:

LOL:

Here, a guy makes a similar bomb and opens it on a bus stop, and claims that it is a clock. People get visibly rattled about it. Why is that? Because it looks fucking suspicious for someone to have a suitcase with a timer inside.

It is suspicious to have a stranger sit next to you or walk up to you where you are standing, open a case and start talking to you about bombs.

 

[ZiprHead]

Basically, Mark Cuban talked to some people in the school (though he does mention it's twice removed so it is basically rumous) that Ahmed brougth it to five classes and the sixth one was the english teacher, and that he didn't engage with the teacher or provide any explanation what the device was.

My guess is, since the kid has never been in trouble before, he got very nervous when the clock got him in trouble. I know, when I was that age and being very shy to boot, being keel-hauled by a bunch of authority figures would have freaked me out.

Personally, I think the engineering teacher screwed up when he told the kid to keep it to himself. He should have confiscated the clock and told the kid to pick it from him at the end of the day. Then, none of this would have happened.