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

[Arctish]

Provide a fact and we'll discuss it.

Here is one: Ahmed interview with Good Morning America (I think) where he shows guts of DVD player and says "This is not going to be last thing I invented" And he has "I can't believe this shit my dad taught me works" smirk on his face too

What part did you want to discuss? Whether he said "This is not going to be last thing I invented", whether it was true, whether he was smirking, whether his Dad taught him shit, whether he couldn't believe it works.......?

How about the fact the police violated Ahmed's civil rights when they questioned him without either of his parents being present, and would not allow him to contact them?

That comes from a punk who tried to first amendment his principal. So am sorry if I am a bit skeptical of his claims. If his understanding of laws and constitution as good as his engineering skills then his opinion is not worth a bucket of warm pee.
Kids are questioned by police without parent present all the time. It was just that - a talk, he behaved like an ass and that was what made police suspicious.

His civil rights are not a matter of opinion. They are a matter of law. If you read the article you'll see he's not the one making the case his rights were violated, and not the only source of information that the police failed to follow the law, so your skepticism is misplaced.

The police violated Ahmed's civil rights when they questioned him without his parents, guardian, or legal representative present. They also violated his rights by not allowing him to contact his parents, and they further violated the law when they failed to immediately notify his parents when they took him into custody.

 

[angelo]

Post a link, barbos. And then present your case that Ahmed actively sought his "15 minutes of fame" and took steps to generate it. All I see you and Nexus doing is bitching that he got famous and trying to insult your way out of caring why.

All the necessary proof have been provided to you. The whole family starting with asshole father are attention whores and opportunists.

I wish I was a fly on the wall when this family are in private and alone!

 

[angelo]

Are you accusing that journalist in lying?
What's next? Accusing in TV journalists in manufacturing fake interviews with Ahmed using doubles?
The guy is a fucking attention whore and fucking liar.
And what is your evidence that Police acted improperly or illegally?

No, I think the journalist was telling the truth. I think the 14 year old who saw his story trending on Twitter was awed and excited to see his story trending on Twitter. I think the kid who asks his parents for permission to do things asked his parents for permission to do things. I think the kid who put together gadgets at his desk really did show the reporter his desk when the reporter asked to see it. I think everything in that story was true, and it amounts to nothing more than a normal 14 year old reacting to sudden fame and astounding offers. There is nothing, I repeat nothing, in that article that suggests Ahmed actively sought the attention he has been receiving. The charge that he's an attention whore is unsupported, and at this point I'm going to conclude you can't support it, just as you can't support your claim he's a liar.


All you're doing is spouting hatred and nonsense as a means to justify your lack of concern that a 14 year old was taken away in handcuffs because he brought a clock to school, and bitching that the kid got famous because his sister posted a picture of it.

For fuck sake!! If the brat wasn't an attention whore, along with his family. Why not clam up and refuse all interviews?

 

[Will Wiley]

Yeah, even students in our elementary schools are sexual abusers that need the police to control according to our school officials.

He's old enough to have known better.

Yeah, doesn't he know he lives in a police state.

 

[barbos]

Here is one: Ahmed interview with Good Morning America (I think) where he shows guts of DVD player and says "This is not going to be last thing I invented" And he has "I can't believe this shit my dad taught me works" smirk on his face too

What part did you want to discuss? Whether he said "This is not going to be last thing I invented", whether it was true, whether he was smirking, whether his Dad taught him shit, whether he couldn't believe it works.......?

You are not going discuss anything.

How about the fact the police violated Ahmed's civil rights when they questioned him without either of his parents being present, and would not allow him to contact them?

That comes from a punk who tried to first amendment his principal. So am sorry if I am a bit skeptical of his claims. If his understanding of laws and constitution as good as his engineering skills then his opinion is not worth a bucket of warm pee.
Kids are questioned by police without parent present all the time. It was just that - a talk, he behaved like an ass and that was what made police suspicious.

His civil rights are not a matter of opinion. They are a matter of law. If you read the article you'll see he's not the one making the case his rights were violated, and not the only source of information that the police failed to follow the law, so your skepticism is misplaced.

Where did I say his civil rights were matter of opinion?

The police violated Ahmed's civil rights when they questioned him without his parents, guardian, or legal representative present.

Nope.

They also violated his rights by not allowing him to contact his parents, and they further violated the law when they failed to immediately notify his parents when they took him into custody.

Immediately is such a vague concept.
Anyway I would like to see these rights before discussing. I have my doubts that you interpret and apply them correctly.
For example, if police had suspicion that his parents were on it too then whole "contact his parents" concept goes out of the window for obvious reasons.

 

[Jayjay]

Here is one: Ahmed interview with Good Morning America (I think) where he shows guts of DVD player and says "This is not going to be last thing I invented" And he has "I can't believe this shit my dad taught me works" smirk on his face too

What part did you want to discuss? Whether he said "This is not going to be last thing I invented", whether it was true, whether he was smirking, whether his Dad taught him shit, whether he couldn't believe it works.......?

How about the fact the police violated Ahmed's civil rights when they questioned him without either of his parents being present, and would not allow him to contact them?

That comes from a punk who tried to first amendment his principal. So am sorry if I am a bit skeptical of his claims. If his understanding of laws and constitution as good as his engineering skills then his opinion is not worth a bucket of warm pee.
Kids are questioned by police without parent present all the time. It was just that - a talk, he behaved like an ass and that was what made police suspicious.

His civil rights are not a matter of opinion. They are a matter of law. If you read the article you'll see he's not the one making the case his rights were violated, and not the only source of information that the police failed to follow the law, so your skepticism is misplaced.

The police violated Ahmed's civil rights when they questioned him without his parents, guardian, or legal representative present. They also violated his rights by not allowing him to contact his parents, and they further violated the law when they failed to immediately notify his parents when they took him into custody.

I'd liek to see the specific law that say that the police can't talk to children without their parents' being present. Note that he was questioned before he was taken into custody, and as far as I can tell the parents were informed promptly. You wrote earlier that it was his sister who took the handcuff photo (though I couldn't confirm if true, not sure who took it). That would imply that his family was present at the juvenile detention center as soon as he was brought in, wouldn't it?

What happened during the school before the police made the determination to take him into custody might not be subject to as stringent rules as treatment of people once they are arrested. I'm not saying that not calling the parents at that point was ok, but it might not be a matter of law, but within the school and police officers' discretion. It'll be interesting to see if the lawsuit goes anywhere.

 

[barbos]

What part did you want to discuss? Whether he said "This is not going to be last thing I invented", whether it was true, whether he was smirking, whether his Dad taught him shit, whether he couldn't believe it works.......?

How about the fact the police violated Ahmed's civil rights when they questioned him without either of his parents being present, and would not allow him to contact them?

That comes from a punk who tried to first amendment his principal. So am sorry if I am a bit skeptical of his claims. If his understanding of laws and constitution as good as his engineering skills then his opinion is not worth a bucket of warm pee.
Kids are questioned by police without parent present all the time. It was just that - a talk, he behaved like an ass and that was what made police suspicious.

His civil rights are not a matter of opinion. They are a matter of law. If you read the article you'll see he's not the one making the case his rights were violated, and not the only source of information that the police failed to follow the law, so your skepticism is misplaced.

The police violated Ahmed's civil rights when they questioned him without his parents, guardian, or legal representative present. They also violated his rights by not allowing him to contact his parents, and they further violated the law when they failed to immediately notify his parents when they took him into custody.

I'd liek to see the specific law that say that the police can't talk to children without their parents' being present. Note that he was questioned before he was taken into custody, and as far as I can tell the parents were informed promptly. You wrote earlier that it was his sister who took the handcuff photo (though I couldn't confirm if true, not sure who took it). That would imply that his family was present at the juvenile detention center as soon as he was brought in, wouldn't it?

Actually, some say father asked to put handcuffs back on before they took the picture

 

[Will Wiley]

Arctish, read the damn article with "15 minutes of fame" conversation in it. Ahmed is a fucking attention whore, period
here is an article for you:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...med-moahmed-the-most-famous-boy-on-earth.html

Are you serious???

 

[barbos]

Arctish, read the damn article with "15 minutes of fame" conversation in it. Ahmed is a fucking attention whore, period
here is an article for you:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...med-moahmed-the-most-famous-boy-on-earth.html

Are you serious???

About what?

 

[Will Wiley]

Do you think Obama should have weighed in on ZT policies sooner? Or are you criticizing him for reacting at all?

The question should be whether he'd give a stuff if it was a white person!

I'm not a particular fan of Obama (apart from the fact he is streets ahead of nearly all the other imbeciles vying for the presidency)...but I'd guess not as much.
But leadership calls for thinking of problems in ways that aren't as simplistic as you imagine.

Good on Barry for taking that opportunity to do sometuing useful

- - - Updated - - -

Are you serious???

About what?

About your woeful attempt to malign that kid based on what you read on the internet

 

[Arctish]

What part did you want to discuss? Whether he said "This is not going to be last thing I invented", whether it was true, whether he was smirking, whether his Dad taught him shit, whether he couldn't believe it works.......?

How about the fact the police violated Ahmed's civil rights when they questioned him without either of his parents being present, and would not allow him to contact them?

That comes from a punk who tried to first amendment his principal. So am sorry if I am a bit skeptical of his claims. If his understanding of laws and constitution as good as his engineering skills then his opinion is not worth a bucket of warm pee.
Kids are questioned by police without parent present all the time. It was just that - a talk, he behaved like an ass and that was what made police suspicious.

His civil rights are not a matter of opinion. They are a matter of law. If you read the article you'll see he's not the one making the case his rights were violated, and not the only source of information that the police failed to follow the law, so your skepticism is misplaced.

The police violated Ahmed's civil rights when they questioned him without his parents, guardian, or legal representative present. They also violated his rights by not allowing him to contact his parents, and they further violated the law when they failed to immediately notify his parents when they took him into custody.

I'd liek to see the specific law that say that the police can't talk to children without their parents' being present.

The article I linked had an embedded link to a pdf file of the relevant section of Texas family law. You can also find it by doing a google search for "texas juvenile justice code". The article quotes the sections of Texas law that state:

(b)A person taking a child into custody shall promptly give
notice of the person ’ s action and a statement of the reason for
taking the child into custody, to:
(1)the child ’ s parent, guardian, or custodian; and
(2)the office or official designated by the juvenile
board.

and

(c)A child may not be left unattended in a juvenile
processing office and is entitled to be accompanied by the child ’ s
parent, guardian, or other custodian or by the child ’ s attorney.

Note that he was questioned before he was taken into custody, and as far as I can tell the parents were informed promptly. You wrote earlier that it was his sister who took the handcuff photo (though I couldn't confirm if true, not sure who took it). That would imply that his family was present at the juvenile detention center as soon as he was brought in, wouldn't it?

What happened during the school before the police made the determination to take him into custody might not be subject to as stringent rules as treatment of people once they are arrested. I'm not saying that not calling the parents at that point was ok, but it might not be a matter of law, but within the school and police officers' discretion. It'll be interesting to see if the lawsuit goes anywhere.

Ahmed was questioned by the police in the Principal's office, and that's fine. The police have to do some preliminary investigation in order to decide whether something warrants further action. But the police were supposed to notify his parents when they took him into custody, and he had the right to be accompanied by them in the juvenile detention center. Ahmed wasn't allowed to call them despite his repeated requests, and his parents were not notified until after he'd been in custody for some time. He was not accompanied by them in the detention center as he is entitled to by law.

As reported by Policy.Mic that is

Simply Illegal: American Civil Liberties Union Texas staff attorney Satinder Singh confirmed to Mic that if all of those details were true, they would constitute a serious violation of Mohamed's civil rights.

"The basic rule is that once an officer makes a decision that he is going to arrest the student, they have to take them to a juvenile processing center ... [the minor is] allowed to have a parent or guardian guide them through that whole process," Singh said.

 

[barbos]

About your woeful attempt to malign that kid based on what you read on the internet

I did not ask you. And once again, are you accusing journalist of lying?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

barbos,

Why do you hate this kid?

 

[Jayjay]

What part did you want to discuss? Whether he said "This is not going to be last thing I invented", whether it was true, whether he was smirking, whether his Dad taught him shit, whether he couldn't believe it works.......?

How about the fact the police violated Ahmed's civil rights when they questioned him without either of his parents being present, and would not allow him to contact them?

That comes from a punk who tried to first amendment his principal. So am sorry if I am a bit skeptical of his claims. If his understanding of laws and constitution as good as his engineering skills then his opinion is not worth a bucket of warm pee.
Kids are questioned by police without parent present all the time. It was just that - a talk, he behaved like an ass and that was what made police suspicious.

His civil rights are not a matter of opinion. They are a matter of law. If you read the article you'll see he's not the one making the case his rights were violated, and not the only source of information that the police failed to follow the law, so your skepticism is misplaced.

The police violated Ahmed's civil rights when they questioned him without his parents, guardian, or legal representative present. They also violated his rights by not allowing him to contact his parents, and they further violated the law when they failed to immediately notify his parents when they took him into custody.

I'd liek to see the specific law that say that the police can't talk to children without their parents' being present.

The article I linked had an embedded link to a pdf file of the relevant section of Texas family law. You can also find it by doing a google search for "texas juvenile justice code". The article quotes the sections of Texas law that state:

(b)A person taking a child into custody shall promptly give
notice of the person ’ s action and a statement of the reason for
taking the child into custody, to:
(1)the child ’ s parent, guardian, or custodian; and
(2)the office or official designated by the juvenile
board.

and

(c)A child may not be left unattended in a juvenile
processing office and is entitled to be accompanied by the child ’ s
parent, guardian, or other custodian or by the child ’ s attorney.

Note that he was questioned before he was taken into custody, and as far as I can tell the parents were informed promptly. You wrote earlier that it was his sister who took the handcuff photo (though I couldn't confirm if true, not sure who took it). That would imply that his family was present at the juvenile detention center as soon as he was brought in, wouldn't it?

What happened during the school before the police made the determination to take him into custody might not be subject to as stringent rules as treatment of people once they are arrested. I'm not saying that not calling the parents at that point was ok, but it might not be a matter of law, but within the school and police officers' discretion. It'll be interesting to see if the lawsuit goes anywhere.

Ahmed was questioned by the police in the Principal's office, and that's fine. The police have to do some preliminary investigation in order to decide whether something warrants further action. But the police were supposed to notify his parents when they took him into custody, and he had the right to be accompanied by them in the juvenile detention center. Ahmed wasn't allowed to call them despite his repeated requests, and his parents were not notified until after he'd been in custody for some time. He was not accompanied by them in the detention center as he is entitled to by law.

As reported by Policy.Mic that is

Simply Illegal: American Civil Liberties Union Texas staff attorney Satinder Singh confirmed to Mic that if all of those details were true, they would constitute a serious violation of Mohamed's civil rights.

"The basic rule is that once an officer makes a decision that he is going to arrest the student, they have to take them to a juvenile processing center ... [the minor is] allowed to have a parent or guardian guide them through that whole process," Singh said.

That's my understanding also. What we don't know is exactly what happened, becuase the police records are not public and Ahmed himself is an unreliable witness. But I ask again: if the sister was at the juvenile detention center at the time when he was still in cuffs to take that picture, doesn't it imply that Ahmed's family must have been notified according to the law?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He's old enough to have known better.

Yeah, doesn't he know he lives in a police state.

And if you were her parents what would you say about the situation?

 

[Arctish]

What part did you want to discuss? Whether he said "This is not going to be last thing I invented", whether it was true, whether he was smirking, whether his Dad taught him shit, whether he couldn't believe it works.......?

How about the fact the police violated Ahmed's civil rights when they questioned him without either of his parents being present, and would not allow him to contact them?

That comes from a punk who tried to first amendment his principal. So am sorry if I am a bit skeptical of his claims. If his understanding of laws and constitution as good as his engineering skills then his opinion is not worth a bucket of warm pee.
Kids are questioned by police without parent present all the time. It was just that - a talk, he behaved like an ass and that was what made police suspicious.

His civil rights are not a matter of opinion. They are a matter of law. If you read the article you'll see he's not the one making the case his rights were violated, and not the only source of information that the police failed to follow the law, so your skepticism is misplaced.

The police violated Ahmed's civil rights when they questioned him without his parents, guardian, or legal representative present. They also violated his rights by not allowing him to contact his parents, and they further violated the law when they failed to immediately notify his parents when they took him into custody.

I'd liek to see the specific law that say that the police can't talk to children without their parents' being present.

The article I linked had an embedded link to a pdf file of the relevant section of Texas family law. You can also find it by doing a google search for "texas juvenile justice code". The article quotes the sections of Texas law that state:

(b)A person taking a child into custody shall promptly give
notice of the person ’ s action and a statement of the reason for
taking the child into custody, to:
(1)the child ’ s parent, guardian, or custodian; and
(2)the office or official designated by the juvenile
board.

and

(c)A child may not be left unattended in a juvenile
processing office and is entitled to be accompanied by the child ’ s
parent, guardian, or other custodian or by the child ’ s attorney.

Note that he was questioned before he was taken into custody, and as far as I can tell the parents were informed promptly. You wrote earlier that it was his sister who took the handcuff photo (though I couldn't confirm if true, not sure who took it). That would imply that his family was present at the juvenile detention center as soon as he was brought in, wouldn't it?

What happened during the school before the police made the determination to take him into custody might not be subject to as stringent rules as treatment of people once they are arrested. I'm not saying that not calling the parents at that point was ok, but it might not be a matter of law, but within the school and police officers' discretion. It'll be interesting to see if the lawsuit goes anywhere.

Ahmed was questioned by the police in the Principal's office, and that's fine. The police have to do some preliminary investigation in order to decide whether something warrants further action. But the police were supposed to notify his parents when they took him into custody, and he had the right to be accompanied by them in the juvenile detention center. Ahmed wasn't allowed to call them despite his repeated requests, and his parents were not notified until after he'd been in custody for some time. He was not accompanied by them in the detention center as he is entitled to by law.

As reported by Policy.Mic that is

Simply Illegal: American Civil Liberties Union Texas staff attorney Satinder Singh confirmed to Mic that if all of those details were true, they would constitute a serious violation of Mohamed's civil rights.

"The basic rule is that once an officer makes a decision that he is going to arrest the student, they have to take them to a juvenile processing center ... [the minor is] allowed to have a parent or guardian guide them through that whole process," Singh said.

That's my understanding also. What we don't know is exactly what happened, becuase the police records are not public and Ahmed himself is an unreliable witness. But I ask again: if the sister was at the juvenile detention center at the time when he was still in cuffs to take that picture, doesn't it imply that Ahmed's family must have been notified according to the law?

Still in cuffs, or handcuffed again as he was going through the admission process at the detention center? He was photographed, fingerprinted, questioned, and pressured to make a written statement before his parents arrived. Early indications were that his sister arrived before his parents, but I don't know who told her or when.

Anyway, the point is that the police knew they weren't dealing with a bomb, knew Ahmed had never said, implied, or led others to believe it was anything other than a clock, and did not follow Texas law wrt juveniles in custody. They were supposed to notify his parents when they took him into custody, and Ahmed had the right to be accompanied by his parents the entire time he was at the detention center. Even their Chief of Police Larry Boyd had no answers when asked why that didn't happen despite Ahmed's repeated requests to contact his parents.

 

[Jayjay]

What part did you want to discuss? Whether he said "This is not going to be last thing I invented", whether it was true, whether he was smirking, whether his Dad taught him shit, whether he couldn't believe it works.......?

How about the fact the police violated Ahmed's civil rights when they questioned him without either of his parents being present, and would not allow him to contact them?

That comes from a punk who tried to first amendment his principal. So am sorry if I am a bit skeptical of his claims. If his understanding of laws and constitution as good as his engineering skills then his opinion is not worth a bucket of warm pee.
Kids are questioned by police without parent present all the time. It was just that - a talk, he behaved like an ass and that was what made police suspicious.

His civil rights are not a matter of opinion. They are a matter of law. If you read the article you'll see he's not the one making the case his rights were violated, and not the only source of information that the police failed to follow the law, so your skepticism is misplaced.

The police violated Ahmed's civil rights when they questioned him without his parents, guardian, or legal representative present. They also violated his rights by not allowing him to contact his parents, and they further violated the law when they failed to immediately notify his parents when they took him into custody.

I'd liek to see the specific law that say that the police can't talk to children without their parents' being present.

The article I linked had an embedded link to a pdf file of the relevant section of Texas family law. You can also find it by doing a google search for "texas juvenile justice code". The article quotes the sections of Texas law that state:

(b)A person taking a child into custody shall promptly give
notice of the person ’ s action and a statement of the reason for
taking the child into custody, to:
(1)the child ’ s parent, guardian, or custodian; and
(2)the office or official designated by the juvenile
board.

and

(c)A child may not be left unattended in a juvenile
processing office and is entitled to be accompanied by the child ’ s
parent, guardian, or other custodian or by the child ’ s attorney.

Note that he was questioned before he was taken into custody, and as far as I can tell the parents were informed promptly. You wrote earlier that it was his sister who took the handcuff photo (though I couldn't confirm if true, not sure who took it). That would imply that his family was present at the juvenile detention center as soon as he was brought in, wouldn't it?

What happened during the school before the police made the determination to take him into custody might not be subject to as stringent rules as treatment of people once they are arrested. I'm not saying that not calling the parents at that point was ok, but it might not be a matter of law, but within the school and police officers' discretion. It'll be interesting to see if the lawsuit goes anywhere.

Ahmed was questioned by the police in the Principal's office, and that's fine. The police have to do some preliminary investigation in order to decide whether something warrants further action. But the police were supposed to notify his parents when they took him into custody, and he had the right to be accompanied by them in the juvenile detention center. Ahmed wasn't allowed to call them despite his repeated requests, and his parents were not notified until after he'd been in custody for some time. He was not accompanied by them in the detention center as he is entitled to by law.

As reported by Policy.Mic that is

Simply Illegal: American Civil Liberties Union Texas staff attorney Satinder Singh confirmed to Mic that if all of those details were true, they would constitute a serious violation of Mohamed's civil rights.

"The basic rule is that once an officer makes a decision that he is going to arrest the student, they have to take them to a juvenile processing center ... [the minor is] allowed to have a parent or guardian guide them through that whole process," Singh said.

That's my understanding also. What we don't know is exactly what happened, becuase the police records are not public and Ahmed himself is an unreliable witness. But I ask again: if the sister was at the juvenile detention center at the time when he was still in cuffs to take that picture, doesn't it imply that Ahmed's family must have been notified according to the law?

Still in cuffs, or handcuffed again as he was going through the admission process at the detention center? He was photographed, fingerprinted, questioned, and pressured to make a written statement before his parents arrived. Early indications were that his sister arrived before his parents, but I don't know who told her or when.

There are many things we dont know about what happened because the records are not public and Ahmed's story is unreliable. But it seems that the questioning and the pressure to make a written statement happened at the school and not at the juvenile detention center. And if the sister was present when Ahmed was brougth in, it's reasonable to assume that the parents had been notified at least. I don't know what the law says about taking photographs or fingerprints without parents being present, to me that sounds like just normal steps to go through. The law you quoted says that a child can't be left unattended once taken into custody. Was he left unattended? I don't think so.

Anyway, the point is that the police knew they weren't dealing with a bomb, knew Ahmed had never said, implied, or led others to believe it was anything other than a clock, and did not follow Texas law wrt juveniles in custody. They were supposed to notify his parents when they took him into custody, and Ahmed had the right to be accompanied by his parents the entire time he was at the detention center. Even their Chief of Police Larry Boyd had no answers when asked why that didn't happen despite Ahmed's repeated requests to contact his parents.

His answer on an MSNBC interview was that it wasn't illegal. Maybe that was just his opinion though. As for police knowing that they weren't dealing with a bomb, that's a red herring because they didn't arrest him for a bomb, they arrested him for a "hoax bomb".

 

[laughing dog]

That's my understanding also. What we don't know is exactly what happened, becuase the police records are not public and Ahmed himself is an unreliable witness. But I ask again: if the sister was at the juvenile detention center at the time when he was still in cuffs to take that picture, doesn't it imply that Ahmed's family must have been notified according to the law?

Maybe a student at the school witnessed him being taken away in and called the sister.

 

[Arctish]

I don't know what the law says about taking photographs or fingerprints without parents being present, to me that sounds like just normal steps to go through. The law you quoted says that a child can't be left unattended once taken into custody. Was he left unattended? I don't think so.

(c)A child may not be left unattended in a juvenile
processing office and is entitled to be accompanied by the child ’ s
parent, guardian, or other custodian or by the child ’ s attorney.

I don't think he was left unattended either, but that's not the issue. The issue centers on the second part of that clause.

Anyway, the point is that the police knew they weren't dealing with a bomb, knew Ahmed had never said, implied, or led others to believe it was anything other than a clock, and did not follow Texas law wrt juveniles in custody. They were supposed to notify his parents when they took him into custody, and Ahmed had the right to be accompanied by his parents the entire time he was at the detention center. Even their Chief of Police Larry Boyd had no answers when asked why that didn't happen despite Ahmed's repeated requests to contact his parents.

His answer on an MSNBC interview was that it wasn't illegal. Maybe that was just his opinion though. As for police knowing that they weren't dealing with a bomb, that's a red herring because they didn't arrest him for a bomb, they arrested him for a "hoax bomb".

The red herring is the "hoax bomb". The police knew there was no bomb, and they knew there was no hoax. They arrested Ahmed because they believed his device could have been used in a bomb hoax. Chief Boyd had no answer to the question of why Ahmed was arrested for a possible future use for his clock without any evidence he had ever thought of using it that way, why he wasn't allowed to call his parents, and why he was unaccompanied by a parent in the juvenile detention center as wanted and is entitled to be.

 

[barbos]

(c)A child may not be left unattended in a juvenile
processing office and is entitled to be accompanied by the child ’ s
parent, guardian, or other custodian or by the child ’ s attorney.

I don't think he was left unattended either, but that's not the issue. The issue centers on the second part of that clause.

Anyway, the point is that the police knew they weren't dealing with a bomb, knew Ahmed had never said, implied, or led others to believe it was anything other than a clock, and did not follow Texas law wrt juveniles in custody. They were supposed to notify his parents when they took him into custody, and Ahmed had the right to be accompanied by his parents the entire time he was at the detention center. Even their Chief of Police Larry Boyd had no answers when asked why that didn't happen despite Ahmed's repeated requests to contact his parents.

His answer on an MSNBC interview was that it wasn't illegal. Maybe that was just his opinion though. As for police knowing that they weren't dealing with a bomb, that's a red herring because they didn't arrest him for a bomb, they arrested him for a "hoax bomb".

The red herring is the "hoax bomb". The police knew there was no bomb, and they knew there was no hoax. They arrested Ahmed because they believed his device could have been used in a bomb hoax. Chief Boyd had no answer to the question of why Ahmed was arrested for a possible future use for his clock without any evidence he had ever thought of using it that way, why he wasn't allowed to call his parents, and why he was unaccompanied by a parent in the juvenile detention center as wanted and is entitled to be.

Bullshit. They arrested him because it looked like infrastructure for a bomb and suspect was not forthcoming with answers, plus it did look like a hoax bomb.
So stop bringing up this retarded notion of "It was not a bomb"
I want and in fact demand Police to arrest people for hoax bombs! And that's what they did.