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

[Arctish]

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.

Which is just another way of saying they arrested him because they thought his clock could be useful in a bomb hoax - not that they had any evidence Ahmed agreed with them or had ever thought of using his clock that way. And that part about him being "not forthcoming" was weasel-speak for "we couldn't get him to agree his clock was a hoax device; he just kept telling us it was a clock that he brought to school to show his teacher, which we already knew".

"When questioned why he brought the device to the school, the student "would only say it was a clock, and was not forthcoming at that time about any other details," Boyd said."

It was a fucking clock. He brought it to school to show it to his teacher. There are no other relevant details. But the cops wanted him to say it was something else, and when he wouldn't they said he was "not forthcoming". And you think "not forthcoming" is a reason to arrest him.

So stop bringing up this retarded notion of "It was not a bomb"

But it wasn't a bomb.

The only thing retarded here is your argument that is was, or could have been, or might maybe be thought was one if you only saw it for a split second in bad lighting or were really stupid, and despite the fact Ahmed was showing it to people in good lighting, telling them it was a clock, and showing them how he put it together from clock parts and a pencil case.

I want and in fact demand Police to arrest people for hoax bombs! And that's what they did.

No. They said they arrested him for having a clock that they thought could have been used as a prop in a bomb hoax. He was not arrested for an actual or attempted bomb hoax, or because they had evidence he might have been contemplating perpetrating a bomb hoax.

If you believe their given reason, they arrested him on suspicion he had committed a thought crime. Personally, I think they arrested him because they suspected him of intending to scare someone, somewhere with his device, and wanted to intimidate him. But 'scared straight' only works when the subject is going crooked. If you try it on a kid who didn't do or plan to do anything wrong, all that happens is everyone sees you being an asshole ignoring the law and abusing your authority.

 

[barbos]

Which is just another way of saying they arrested him because they thought his clock could be useful in a bomb hoax - not that they had any evidence Ahmed agreed with them or had ever thought of using his clock that way. And that part about him being "not forthcoming" was weasel-speak for "we couldn't get him to agree his clock was a hoax device; he just kept telling us it was a clock that he brought to school to show his teacher, which we already knew".

So stop bringing up this retarded notion of "It was not a bomb"

But it wasn't a bomb.

The only thing retarded here is your argument that is was, or could have been, or might maybe be thought was one if you only saw it for a split second in bad lighting or were really stupid, and despite the fact Ahmed was showing it to people in good lighting, telling them it was a clock, and showing them how he put it together from clock parts and a pencil case.

I want and in fact demand Police to arrest people for hoax bombs! And that's what they did.

No. They said they arrested him for having a clock that they thought could have been used as a prop in a bomb hoax. He was not arrested for an actual or attempted bomb hoax, or because they had evidence he might have been contemplating perpetrating a bomb hoax.

If you believe their given reason, they arrested him on suspicion he had committed a thought crime. Personally, I think they arrested him because they suspected him of intending to scare someone, somewhere with his device, and wanted to intimidate him. But 'scared straight' only works when the subject is going crooked. If you try it on a kid who didn't do or plan to do anything wrong, all that happens is everyone sees you being an asshole ignoring the law and abusing your authority.

I am glad you agree that arrest was justified and legal.

 

[Arctish]

I am glad you agree that arrest was justified and legal.

I don't know what the laws are where you live, but arresting someone for a possible future infraction isn't justified or legal in the US.

 

[Juma]

What is wrong with you?
1) ahmed was genuinly proud of what he had built,
2) school and police overacted extremely a incoherently, most probably because the muslim context.
3) Some big social actors felt that they could use there platform to do something good.
4) some moronic little shits decides that that was wrong because the project was not, in their eyes, sufficiently advanced.

That, my friends, is a perfect example of TOTALLY MISSING THE POINT.

Attention whore, or not, IS TOTALLY NOT THE POINT!

But then I can totally believe that you shitty excuses for people dont give a damn because you hate thus guy for getting what you want SO much... Attention....

 

[barbos]

What is wrong with you?
1) ahmed was genuinly proud of what he had built,
2) school and police overacted extremely a incoherently, most probably because the muslim context.
3) Some big social actors felt that they could use there platform to do something good.
4) some moronic little shits decides that that was wrong because the project was not, in their eyes, sufficiently advanced.

That, my friends, is a perfect example of TOTALLY MISSING THE POINT.

Attention whore, or not, IS TOTALLY NOT THE POINT!

But then I can totally believe that you shitty excuses for people dont give a damn because you hate thus guy for getting what you want SO much... Attention....

Total bullshit. It's remarkable how much bullsht you managed to squeeze in this post.
What is wrong with YOU?

 

[Juma]

What is wrong with you?
1) ahmed was genuinly proud of what he had built,
2) school and police overacted extremely a incoherently, most probably because the muslim context.
3) Some big social actors felt that they could use there platform to do something good.
4) some moronic little shits decides that that was wrong because the project was not, in their eyes, sufficiently advanced.

That, my friends, is a perfect example of TOTALLY MISSING THE POINT.

Attention whore, or not, IS TOTALLY NOT THE POINT!

But then I can totally believe that you shitty excuses for people dont give a damn because you hate thus guy for getting what you want SO much... Attention....

Total bullshit. It's remarkable how much bullsht you managed to squeeze in this post.
What is wrong with YOU?

If it is bullshit it would have been pretty easy to show what was wrong with it. <Removed for violation of terms of service>

 

[barbos]

Total bullshit. It's remarkable how much bullsht you managed to squeeze in this post.
What is wrong with YOU?

If it is bullshit it would have been pretty easy to show what was wrong with it. But you didnt bother because you are such a despiccable attention whore.

It have been shown a million times already.

 

[Juma]

If it is bullshit it would have been pretty easy to show what was wrong with it. But you didnt bother because you are such a despiccable attention whore.

It have been shown a million times already.

I forgot "drama queen".

 

[Jayjay]

(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.

Fair enough. It will be interesting to see if the law suit has any merit based on this, or if there will be a law suit at all. To me, it seems like a rather impractical literal interpretation of a person's rights. Suppose the police detains a child, calls his parents, and the parent says that he's gotta work and will be able to get to the detention center in, say, six hours. What does the police do during those six hours? Do they make him wait in line outside the juvie? It doesn't seem to make much sense to hold on to the view that they can't even process the detainee until a custodian is present.

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".

I meant that it is a red herring with regards to the question of civil rights violation. If the law says that the parents must be notified before taking a minor into custody, or that a parent must be present when taking photographs and fingerprints at the juvenile detention center, then that would be true regardless of whether it was a stupid prank, a successful bomb threat, or even a real bomb.

How justified the cops were in arresting him at all is an interesting topic but separate from any civil rights violation.

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.

A kid brings a device to school that looks like a bomb, that he knows looks suspicious, and shows it in every class despite at least one teacher's suggestion not to do so, until someone confiscates it and calls the police. Kid has no explanation why he made it. To me that certainly sounds like a silly prank attempt rather than a "case mod", and even if the cops didn't have to arrest him, there do appear to hae been sufficient grounds for them to have made that call.

Until the police records are public, it'll be really hard to say if the decision was at all reasonable or not.

 

[Arctish]

Fair enough. It will be interesting to see if the law suit has any merit based on this, or if there will be a law suit at all. To me, it seems like a rather impractical literal interpretation of a person's rights. Suppose the police detains a child, calls his parents, and the parent says that he's gotta work and will be able to get to the detention center in, say, six hours. What does the police do during those six hours? Do they make him wait in line outside the juvie? It doesn't seem to make much sense to hold on to the view that they can't even process the detainee until a custodian is present.

I'm not sure either but I think the kid can request a public defender, or perhaps someone from family services to accompany him.

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".

I meant that it is a red herring with regards to the question of civil rights violation. If the law says that the parents must be notified before taking a minor into custody, or that a parent must be present when taking photographs and fingerprints at the juvenile detention center, then that would be true regardless of whether it was a stupid prank, a successful bomb threat, or even a real bomb.

How justified the cops were in arresting him at all is an interesting topic but separate from any civil rights violation.

True. And it's tangled up with the school's responsibility for the safeguarding of students. The school is the responsible party until the police take custody. At that point I think they both have to contact the parents and tell them the whereabouts of their children. One is a civil rights matter, and the other is probably state law.

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.

A kid brings a device to school that looks like a bomb, that he knows looks suspicious, and shows it in every class despite at least one teacher's suggestion not to do so, until someone confiscates it and calls the police. Kid has no explanation why he made it.

Not true. He had an explanation. He made it because he thought it was cool, and he wanted to show his teacher what he could do.

It doesn't matter that his explanation did not satisfy the adults in the room. Fourteen year old kids (and plenty of grown-ups for that matter) do things 'just because', and that's all there is to it.

To me that certainly sounds like a silly prank attempt rather than a "case mod", and even if the cops didn't have to arrest him, there do appear to hae been sufficient grounds for them to have made that call.

Until the police records are public, it'll be really hard to say if the decision was at all reasonable or not.

There might be more to the story, but I doubt the more is enough to justify taking the kid out of school in handcuffs. The Chief of Police has announced there won't be any charges due to lack of evidence of any wrongdoing:

No Charges

Ahmed Mohamed will not be charged with possessing a hoax bomb because there's no evidence the 14-year-old meant to cause alarm Monday at MacArthur High School in the Dallas suburb of Irving, according to police Chief Larry Boyd.

 

[angelo]

There might be more to the story, but I doubt the more is enough to justify taking the kid out of school in handcuffs. The Chief of Police has announced there won't be any charges due to lack of evidence of any wrongdoing:

The brat should've been charged with causing a nuisance at least!

 

[barbos]

There might be more to the story, but I doubt the more is enough to justify taking the kid out of school in handcuffs. The Chief of Police has announced there won't be any charges due to lack of evidence of any wrongdoing:

Handcuffs are not punishment, they are for his own damn protection.
Had the ClockBoy done something stupid during transport you and his stupid parents would have been the first blaming police for not putting handcuffs on him.

 

[barbos]

There might be more to the story, but I doubt the more is enough to justify taking the kid out of school in handcuffs. The Chief of Police has announced there won't be any charges due to lack of evidence of any wrongdoing:

The brat should've been charged with causing a nuisance at least!

Well, he was suspended by the school.

 

[Jayjay]

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.

A kid brings a device to school that looks like a bomb, that he knows looks suspicious, and shows it in every class despite at least one teacher's suggestion not to do so, until someone confiscates it and calls the police. Kid has no explanation why he made it.

Not true. He had an explanation. He made it because he thought it was cool, and he wanted to show his teacher what he could do.

It doesn't matter that his explanation did not satisfy the adults in the room. Fourteen year old kids (and plenty of grown-ups for that matter) do things 'just because', and that's all there is to it.

We don't know what he said to the cops apart from "it's a clock". In particular, we don't know if he said he thought it was cool, or that he wanted to show his teacher what he could do. That's just stuff he said afterwards to the media. We already know he knew it looked suspicious, so why did he keep bringing it to every class and showing it to teachers? "Just because" is only another way of saying that it was a prank.

To me that certainly sounds like a silly prank attempt rather than a "case mod", and even if the cops didn't have to arrest him, there do appear to hae been sufficient grounds for them to have made that call.

Until the police records are public, it'll be really hard to say if the decision was at all reasonable or not.

There might be more to the story, but I doubt the more is enough to justify taking the kid out of school in handcuffs. The Chief of Police has announced there won't be any charges due to lack of evidence of any wrongdoing:

No Charges

Ahmed Mohamed will not be charged with possessing a hoax bomb because there's no evidence the 14-year-old meant to cause alarm Monday at MacArthur High School in the Dallas suburb of Irving, according to police Chief Larry Boyd.

Yup. But people are sometimes taken into custody and then released without a charge.

 

[barbos]

Yup. But people are sometimes taken into custody and then released without a charge.

And afterwards they always get an invitation to White House, Google, Facebook and MIT

 

[Jayjay]

Yup. But people are sometimes taken into custody and then released without a charge.

And afterwards they always get an invitation to White House, Google, Facebook and MIT

... and Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Presumably for a toga party.

 

[barbos]

And afterwards they always get an invitation to White House, Google, Facebook and MIT

... and Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Presumably for a toga party.

Well, I don't care much for SA or Qatar, in fact I don't mind if that family stay there forever.

 

[Arctish]

There might be more to the story, but I doubt the more is enough to justify taking the kid out of school in handcuffs. The Chief of Police has announced there won't be any charges due to lack of evidence of any wrongdoing:

Handcuffs are not punishment, they are for his own damn protection.
Had the ClockBoy done something stupid during transport you and his stupid parents would have been the first blaming police for not putting handcuffs on him.

Baloney. There was no reason to take him into custody, much less restrain him. Her hadn't committed a crime. He wasn't violent. They accomplished nothing by arresting him that they could not have accomplished by confiscating the device and sending him back to his classes.

You are advocating police state tactics to deal with minor disturbances, and arresting juveniles for nothing more than possession of something that could be used to commit a crime in the future. The society you want sounds horrible, and I'm glad I don't live there.

 

[Arctish]

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.

A kid brings a device to school that looks like a bomb, that he knows looks suspicious, and shows it in every class despite at least one teacher's suggestion not to do so, until someone confiscates it and calls the police. Kid has no explanation why he made it.

Not true. He had an explanation. He made it because he thought it was cool, and he wanted to show his teacher what he could do.

It doesn't matter that his explanation did not satisfy the adults in the room. Fourteen year old kids (and plenty of grown-ups for that matter) do things 'just because', and that's all there is to it.

We don't know what he said to the cops apart from "it's a clock". In particular, we don't know if he said he thought it was cool, or that he wanted to show his teacher what he could do. That's just stuff he said afterwards to the media. We already know he knew it looked suspicious, so why did he keep bringing it to every class and showing it to teachers? "Just because" is only another way of saying that it was a prank.

We know beyond a reasonable doubt he kept telling the cops it was a clock even though they kept suggesting it might be used for another purpose. And we know it was indeed a clock.

We know beyond a reasonable doubt he brought it to school to show it to his teacher, and that he did show it to him.

We know beyond a reasonable doubt the teacher told him to not show it to the other teachers, and the evidence suggests this was because his engineering teacher knew it would make the other teachers nervous.

We know beyond a reasonable doubt that Ahmed did not show it to any other teachers until it made noise in English class, and the English teacher wanted to know what was beeping. We know beyond a reasonable doubt that Ahmed showed the English teacher the device, explained that it was a clock, and told her about how he had put it together.

We know beyond a reasonable doubt that nothing Ahmed said or did was done with the intention of making others believe he had a bomb, and that in fact, no one thought the thing was a bomb, or that he was hoaxing them.

And yet some people are convinced he was pulling a prank, that he's a master strategist, and also retarded.

To me that certainly sounds like a silly prank attempt rather than a "case mod", and even if the cops didn't have to arrest him, there do appear to hae been sufficient grounds for them to have made that call.

Until the police records are public, it'll be really hard to say if the decision was at all reasonable or not.

There might be more to the story, but I doubt the more is enough to justify taking the kid out of school in handcuffs. The Chief of Police has announced there won't be any charges due to lack of evidence of any wrongdoing:

No Charges

Ahmed Mohamed will not be charged with possessing a hoax bomb because there's no evidence the 14-year-old meant to cause alarm Monday at MacArthur High School in the Dallas suburb of Irving, according to police Chief Larry Boyd.

Yup. But people are sometimes taken into custody and then released without a charge.

True. But when the reasons for taking a juvenile into custody don't withstand scrutiny, there's usually some sort of outcry, or at least there should be.

 

[barbos]

Handcuffs are not punishment, they are for his own damn protection.
Had the ClockBoy done something stupid during transport you and his stupid parents would have been the first blaming police for not putting handcuffs on him.

Baloney. There was no reason to take him into custody,

There was.

much less restrain him. Her hadn't committed a crime. He wasn't violent.

Have you ever seen police arresting anybody without handcuffing?

They accomplished nothing by arresting him that they could not have accomplished by confiscating the device and sending him back to his classes.

Why confiscate it?

You are advocating police state tactics to deal with minor disturbances, and arresting juveniles for nothing more than possession of something that could be used to commit a crime in the future. The society you want sounds horrible, and I'm glad I don't live there.

That was not minor disturbance.