thebeave
Contributor
We all have our price. Call me a civil rights sellout or a civil rights whore, but hell yeah, I'd flush 'em down the toilet in exchange for millions. I think most people would do the same.
-
Features
#IStandWithAhmed (or Inventing While Muslim is a thing?)
- Thread starter AthenaAwakened
- Start date
We all have our price. Call me a civil rights sellout or a civil rights whore, but hell yeah, I'd flush 'em down the toilet in exchange for millions. I think most people would do the same.
Arctish
Centimillionaire
I think there are entire political parties built on that philosophy. They throw out a bone now and then and watch their base roll over like lap dogs.
But, whatever floats your boat, ya know? You want to sell out the only thing between you being a citizen and you being less than chattel, go right ahead. Just don't complain when you get cheated out of your promised millions and find you no longer have the right to seek redress.
Arctish
Centimillionaire
There's no contradiction between thinking Ahmed is pretty ordinary and laughing at your shitty 'hoax clock' claims, either. But there is a contradiction between claiming to care about human rights, citizens' rights, and civil rights, and failing to care about a 14 year old being arrested and removed from school in handcuffs because he brought a homemade pencil case clock to school.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 46,082
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Careful everyone, the thread has gone Godwin.
The kid was arrested for make a bomb that lacked explosives. That seems like a bit of a miscarriage there. The parents seem to be milking it for what they think it could be worth, but jebus, it isn't as if the kid wasn't arrested for not committing a crime.
So we are at an impasse of a false dichotomy... think the lawsuit is absurd vs think the lawsuit is legit.
thebeave
Contributor
I presume you are referring to the current Democrat administration who is denying college students their due process when it comes to accusations of sexual assaults?
My discussion about selling out my civil rights for cash was merely a kind of thought experiment. Sorta like asking if you would kill baby Hitler, if you could go back in time. No one would ever make me an offer about trading my civil rights for money.
barbos
Contributor
It is most certainly his father. We can speculate about how it all started but not how it is evolving. This father has effectively admitted to a journalist that he is an opportunistic bastard when he was discussing his "plans" with Ahmed and his sister. These people are dumb. Does not mean they would not get paid though, in US dumb people are often get the money.
Last edited:
This is where we fundamentally disagree. No one has a human, citizen or civil right not to be arrested. Nor a right not to be handcuffed while being arrested. An arrest is never a violation of rights. The arrest is just a step in the process of the criminal proceedings to determine if wrongdoing was done by the accused.
Now excessive force during an arrest is a violation of rights since its not the purpose of law enforcement to punish people. Also not having a fair trial is a violation of rights. However investigation and arrest are a normal and reasonable actions for the government to take when dealing with crime.
Arctish
Centimillionaire
I am referring to the civil rights of all Americans, even the ones you don't like.
Don't be so sure about not getting an offer. It wasn't all that long ago that the Bush Administration offered security in exchange for your right to not be subject to unreasonable search and seizure and the right to face your accusers in a court of law. The Obama Administration has offered security in exchange for being allowed to drop drones on citizens without having to present evidence they posed a threat.
Your civil rights are only as secure as you and your fellow Americans keep them. If you don't give a shit about possible civil rights violations, then you risk having yours violated as well.
barbos
Contributor
Kid was arrested for making hoax bomb.
thebeave
Contributor
On the subject of the violation of Ahmed's civil rights, there's this:
http://irvingblog.dallasnews.com/2015/11/did-police-mistreat-ahmed-mohamed-a-juvenile-law-expert-weighs-in.html/
http://irvingblog.dallasnews.com/2015/11/did-police-mistreat-ahmed-mohamed-a-juvenile-law-expert-weighs-in.html/
Arctish
Centimillionaire
In this country, an arrest made without probable cause is a violation of civil rights. The cops can't just arrest you because they feel like it. There is a minimum threshold that has to be crossed before they place you in handcuffs and take you away. The Mohamed family lawyers wrote this to the City of Irving:
They're right about that sort of thing being a civil rights violation.
It was quickly determined there was no bomb, and even the Chief of Police admitted there was no evidence of a hoax or other situation in which someone might have come to harm. Given the reactions of a lot of people here and elsewhere, it's certainly plausible it was Ahmed's religion that prompted his arrest, not his clock.
There was no crime.
barbos
Contributor
Problem here is that politicians will ultimately decide whether or not to settle and politicians look at public opinion if there is enough supporters of this family they will pay money. So justice system does not really work when you get public support as in this case. As long as media on his side there will be no actual justice.
barbos
Contributor
You CAN be arrested even if there is no crime. Although I believe in this particular case there was a crime, but there was not enough evidence to successfully prosecute.
Arctish
Centimillionaire
"Probable cause is the key issue in the arrest process. The police need probable cause to make an arrest or obtain an arrest warrant from a judge.
(For more information on the probable cause concept, see How much "probable cause" do cops need? For an explanation of the standard needed for a detention, rather than an arrest, see What is reasonable suspicion?)
Establishing "PC"
To establish probable cause, police officers must be able to point to objective circumstances leading them to believe that a suspect committed a crime. A police officer can’t establish probable cause by saying only something like, “I just had a hunch that the defendant was a burglar.”
Judges, not police officers, have the last word on whether probable cause exists. A police officer may be sincere in believing that the facts establish probable cause. But if a judge examines that same information and disagrees, then probable cause does not exist (or did not exist, if the question is being decided after an arrest)."
<link>
No one who saw the pencil case clock thought it really was a bomb. The cops suspected Ahmed might have been intending to use it to perpetrate a hoax, but had no evidence to support that suspicion. Therefore, probable cause to arrest him has not been established.
If Ahmed's religion influenced how the police and school officials treated him, as it appears to have influenced the Mayor's remarks, then Ahmed's civil rights were violated.
Someone saw the case and thought it was a hoax bomb that's why the cops were called. And the case itself was evidence to support that suspicion of a hoax just not enough to more forward with prosecution. This kid is no victim of the system just his family's opportunism.
zorq
Veteran Member
Well there definately was a civil rights violation here. At no point was he mirandized even though he was hauled away to the police station in shackles and clearly arrested. Further he was detained at the school for more than an hour and a half, and denied his legal request to contact his parents. There were definitely unarguable civil rights violations here.
Whether these violations would net a lot of money in a civil suit is unknown, but I'm guessing they would be unlikely to amount to 8 figures.
Whether these violations would net a lot of money in a civil suit is unknown, but I'm guessing they would be unlikely to amount to 8 figures.
Arctish
Centimillionaire
The English teacher saw it and thought it violated school policy, so she contacted the Principal's Office.
The Principal saw it and thought something merited calling in the police, but he hasn't said what. He certainly didn't think it was a bomb. Ahmed had already shown it to his engineering/robotics teacher and gotten feedback, and never indicated the thing was anything other than a clock. The whole 'hoax bomb' scenario came from the minds of the police and perhaps the Principal.
If the Principal had confiscated the thing and sent Ahmed back to class, we never would have heard about it. The whole discussion is centered on probable cause, and the role Ahmed's religion played in the decision to take him out of school in handcuffs for the not-crime of bringing a clock to school, and the other not-crime of maintaining his clock was a clock.
thebeave
Contributor
Did you read the link I posted above? It addresses your concerns about violations of his civil rights:
Claim: Police should have read Ahmed his rights.
Ahmed complained to reporters that police never read him his rights. He recalled reciting them himself as police were leading him down the hall in handcuffs.
“He should have been Mirandized before the on-campus interrogation — which he obviously was not free to end — even commenced,” Ahmed’s lawyer wrote to City Hall.
But that’s wrong, Peterson said.
“Police don’t Mirandize juveniles,” she said. To prevent any question of intimidation, the law requires children to be read their rights by a judge, in a room with no police officers present. This often happens after questioning.
Even if police had botched the Miranda warning, Peterson said, that would only mean anything Ahmed told them couldn’t be used against him in court. And since the boy wasn’t charged in the end, it’s a moot point.
Bollinger said that questioning Ahmed before he was read his rights was still improper, and “shows a disregard for their own rules.”
Claim: Police should have let Ahmed call his parents.
Ahmed’s lawyers claim authorities broke the law on Sept. 14 by questioning the boy without his parents present — first at school, in a room full of police officers, and again at the police station before his mother and father arrived.
“Ahmed asked nearly immediately if he could contact his parents — which as you know, is his right under the Texas Juvenile Justice Code,” attorney Kelly Hollingsworth wrote to officials. “His request was refused.”
But that’s wrong, Peterson said.
“There there is no right for the child to call their parents,” she said. “The only magic words are ‘I want to talk to my lawyer.’ He didn’t say that.”
The law requires police to promptly notify Ahmed’s parents after taking him into custody. What constitutes “prompt” and “in custody” is often decided in court.
Peterson agreed with Ahmed’s attorney that the boy was likely in custody once his principal led him into a room full of police officers for questioning — rather than about 90 minutes later, when they put handcuffs on him and took him to a police station.
But she said the family would still have a hard time arguing that police unnecessarily delayed notifying Ahmed’s parents.
She cited a well-known court case where police were found to have broke the law by holding a child for days before telling the parents. Ahmed’s roughly 3-hour detention didn’t come close to those to that.
Sure they could have simply confiscated the hoax bomb but they felt they needed to do more to discourage future hoaxes. He wasn't arrested for the non-crime of bringing a clock to school. Once you take the wires out of a well designed clock case and shabbily put them in a large case and bring that case somewhere it doesn't belong its no longer just a clock its a hoax bomb.