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

[laughing dog]

That does not follow. Possibility of getting caught does not mean that Ahmed could not still in theory use the device as described.

There is no evidence he intended that 1) the clock would look lie a bomb, 2) he was trying to pretend it was a bomb, or 3) that he was going to pretend it was a bomb. Hence, your "in theory" reply is rather unconvincing, to say the least.

 

[fromderinside]

Yes, and the charges were dropped after the investigation. Normal procedure.

That's not quite normal according to leftists. Police officers should have killed themselves because they dared to arrest innocent person.

Oh, barbos. You're so gay.

Now back to the thread.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

https://reason.com/blog/2015/09/15/student-builds-device-that-is-not-a-bomb

We additionally know that Ahmed was not going to bring it to a bathroom and leave it there OR that he was going to leave it under a car because he showed it to his engineering teacher. It is highly illogical for him to show it to his teacher and then leave it somewhere alone because it would automatically trace back to him from his teacher's testimony. Therefore, that was not his intent. Therefore, there should have been no concern of a hoax based on police statements.

That does not follow. Possibility of getting caught does not mean that Ahmed could not still in theory use the device as described.

It would be highly unlikely and stupid for the kid who was so socially smart he could con all of America and there is no charge for conspiracy to commit a hoax, but even so there would be no probable cause for hoaxing anyone because he said over and over it was a clock and it was.

 

[dismal]

That does not follow. Possibility of getting caught does not mean that Ahmed could not still in theory use the device as described.

It would be highly unlikely and stupid for the kid who was so socially smart he could con all of America and there is no charge for conspiracy to commit a hoax, but even so there would be no probable cause for hoaxing anyone because he said over and over it was a clock and it was.

If only the pop tart gun kid had been smart enough to say over and over again "it's a pop tart"...

 

[ZiprHead]

Pop-Tart gun boy wasn't suspended because of the Pop-Tart gun. He was suspended because he had a history of disruption and he was again disrupting, running around the facility shooting at people with the Pop-Tart gun. The pop-tart was inconsequential.

"As much as the parents want this case to be about a 'gun,' it is, rather, a case about classroom disruption from a student who has had a long history of disruptive behavior," Nussbaum wrote in his opinion, which was dated June 26, the Washington Post reported. He asserted that the suspension came as a result of disciplinary problems the boy had, and not just because of what he did with the breakfast pastry.

"Had the student chewed his cereal bar into the shape of a cat and ran around the room, disrupting the classroom and making 'meow' cat sounds, the result would have been exactly the same," Nussbaum wrote, according to the Post.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/examiner-recommends-school-board-uphold-pop-tart-suspension/

 

[Tom Sawyer]

"Had the student chewed his cereal bar into the shape of a cat and ran around the room, disrupting the classroom and making 'meow' cat sounds, the result would have been exactly the same," Nussbaum wrote, according to the Post.

That's an incredibly random and yet amazingly specific example. Did someone once do that in his class? I'm really curious as to how he came up with that sentence.

 

[ZiprHead]

"Had the student chewed his cereal bar into the shape of a cat and ran around the room, disrupting the classroom and making 'meow' cat sounds, the result would have been exactly the same," Nussbaum wrote, according to the Post.

That's an incredibly random and yet amazingly specific example. Did someone once do that in his class? I'm really curious as to how he came up with that sentence.

Couldn't say. But poptart boy was given an honorary membership to the NRA. :sick001:

 

[Jayjay]

That does not follow. Possibility of getting caught does not mean that Ahmed could not still in theory use the device as described.

There is no evidence he intended that 1) the clock would look lie a bomb, 2) he was trying to pretend it was a bomb, or 3) that he was going to pretend it was a bomb. Hence, your "in theory" reply is rather unconvincing, to say the least.

The clock did look like a bomb. Whether someone could have pretended it was a bomb was the topic that the police chief was commenting on. I was not suggesting that he actually did, only the logical fallacy of saying that he possibly couldn't have because he would have been caught. If that was a valid defense then there would be no crimes that could be prosecuted as being intentional.

 

[Jayjay]

That does not follow. Possibility of getting caught does not mean that Ahmed could not still in theory use the device as described.

It would be highly unlikely and stupid for the kid who was so socially smart he could con all of America and there is no charge for conspiracy to commit a hoax, but even so there would be no probable cause for hoaxing anyone because he said over and over it was a clock and it was.

So are you saying that the cops should have immediately realized that he had no intention of using the bomb-looking device he brought to school, because he was a known con man and obviously not leave any witnesses alive to tell about it?

 

[laughing dog]

There is no evidence he intended that 1) the clock would look lie a bomb, 2) he was trying to pretend it was a bomb, or 3) that he was going to pretend it was a bomb. Hence, your "in theory" reply is rather unconvincing, to say the least.

The clock did look like a bomb.

No, it really didn't. Not to the school personnel.

Whether someone could have pretended it was a bomb was the topic that the police chief was commenting on. I was not suggesting that he actually did, only the logical fallacy of saying that he possibly couldn't have because he would have been caught. If that was a valid defense then there would be no crimes that could be prosecuted as being intentional.

Since Ahmed did not pretend it was a bomb and there was no evidence he had, the chief's comment was pointless.

 

[Jayjay]

The clock did look like a bomb.

No, it really didn't. Not to the school personnel.

The English teacher flat out said she thought it looked like a bomb. The engineering teacher adviced Ahmed to not show it to anyone.

Whether someone could have pretended it was a bomb was the topic that the police chief was commenting on. I was not suggesting that he actually did, only the logical fallacy of saying that he possibly couldn't have because he would have been caught. If that was a valid defense then there would be no crimes that could be prosecuted as being intentional.

Since Ahmed did not pretend it was a bomb and there was no evidence he had, the chief's comment was pointless.

The chief's comment was that without explanation, if left unattended somewhere, it could be mistaken for a bomb. That has nothing to do with what Ahmed said, except that apparently he could not adequately explain why he would make such a contraption.

 

[laughing dog]

No, it really didn't. Not to the school personnel.

The English teacher flat out said she thought it looked like a bomb. The engineering teacher adviced Ahmed to not show it to anyone.

Whether someone could have pretended it was a bomb was the topic that the police chief was commenting on. I was not suggesting that he actually did, only the logical fallacy of saying that he possibly couldn't have because he would have been caught. If that was a valid defense then there would be no crimes that could be prosecuted as being intentional.

Since Ahmed did not pretend it was a bomb and there was no evidence he had, the chief's comment was pointless.

The chief's comment was that without explanation, if left unattended somewhere, it could be mistaken for a bomb. That has nothing to do with what Ahmed said, except that apparently he could not adequately explain why he would make such a contraption.

So what if someone might mistake something for a bomb? That is still a pointless remark. And Ahmed is under no legal, moral or even rational obligation to explain anything - a child is not responsible for the stupidity of adults.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The chief's comment was that without explanation, if left unattended somewhere, it could be mistaken for a bomb.

Then that would be a conspiracy to hoax charge. There's no such thing.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

And here's what the evil engineering teacher/advisor who told him to keep his "invention" on the down-low looks like:

http://www.irvingisd.net/Domain/2792

Of course, the teacher's story was that he thought it was a little bombish looking, but we all know that deep down inside, the teacher really thought it was very innocent looking. He just secretly hates brown skinned people, but won't openly admit it.

Damn racists.

Suppose he had been a cooking instructor instead. If he had a Chechen Muslim 9th grader bringing a giant pot of post-Thanksgiving turkey soup to school to show the cooking instructor, he would have also given the kid some advice of "Better be careful what conclusions some people may jump to. Don't leave the pot somewhere by itself. Don't show it to everybody."

The conclusion isn't that pots look exactly or even almost exactly like a pressure cooker. The conclusion is that a Chechen Muslim with a cooking pot of soup may scare some people where a Christian or some other non-Muslim with the same cooking pot of soup may not produce the same fear.

Yeah, things in life are complicated and multivariate.

 

[Arctish]

The English teacher flat out said she thought it looked like a bomb. The engineering teacher adviced Ahmed to not show it to anyone.

Whether someone could have pretended it was a bomb was the topic that the police chief was commenting on. I was not suggesting that he actually did, only the logical fallacy of saying that he possibly couldn't have because he would have been caught. If that was a valid defense then there would be no crimes that could be prosecuted as being intentional.

Since Ahmed did not pretend it was a bomb and there was no evidence he had, the chief's comment was pointless.

The chief's comment was that without explanation, if left unattended somewhere, it could be mistaken for a bomb. That has nothing to do with what Ahmed said, except that apparently he could not adequately explain why he would make such a contraption.

So what if someone might mistake something for a bomb? That is still a pointless remark. And Ahmed is under no legal, moral or even rational obligation to explain anything - a child is not responsible for the stupidity of adults.

Ahmed did adequately explain why he made the clock and brought it to school. He made it and brought it in to show his engineering teacher what he could do. The only reason the cops said this explanation was inadequate was because they were fishing for another explanation.

 

[Arctish]

The chief's comment was that without explanation, if left unattended somewhere, it could be mistaken for a bomb.

Then that would be a conspiracy to hoax charge. There's no such thing.

An unattended backpack could be mistaken for a bomb. Is the Chief saying he's going to arrest kids who leave their backpacks on cafeteria chairs, and charge them with intent to perpetrate a bomb hoax unless they can adequately explain why they left their backpack on a chair (a student offering the explanation "I forgot to take it with me" will be considered "not forthcoming" with other possible reasons, and this will further justify the arrest)?

 

[angelo]

No, it really didn't. Not to the school personnel.

The English teacher flat out said she thought it looked like a bomb. The engineering teacher adviced Ahmed to not show it to anyone.

Whether someone could have pretended it was a bomb was the topic that the police chief was commenting on. I was not suggesting that he actually did, only the logical fallacy of saying that he possibly couldn't have because he would have been caught. If that was a valid defense then there would be no crimes that could be prosecuted as being intentional.

Since Ahmed did not pretend it was a bomb and there was no evidence he had, the chief's comment was pointless.

The chief's comment was that without explanation, if left unattended somewhere, it could be mistaken for a bomb. That has nothing to do with what Ahmed said, except that apparently he could not adequately explain why he would make such a contraption.

Why ? Practicing for the real thing perhaps?

 

[barbos]

Ahmed did adequately explain why he made the clock and brought it to school. He made it and brought it in to show his engineering teacher what he could do. The only reason the cops said this explanation was inadequate was because they were fishing for another explanation.

He absolutely did not do that.

 

[Arctish]

The chief's comment was that without explanation, if left unattended somewhere, it could be mistaken for a bomb. That has nothing to do with what Ahmed said, except that apparently he could not adequately explain why he would make such a contraption.

Ahmed did adequately explain why he made the clock and brought it to school. He made it and brought it in to show his engineering teacher what he could do. The only reason the cops said this explanation was inadequate was because they were fishing for another explanation.

He absolutely did not do that.

Yes, he absolutely did explain why he brought the clock to school: to show his engineering teacher what he could do. His explanation was not only adequate, it was fully supported by evidence.

 

[barbos]

The chief's comment was that without explanation, if left unattended somewhere, it could be mistaken for a bomb. That has nothing to do with what Ahmed said, except that apparently he could not adequately explain why he would make such a contraption.

Ahmed did adequately explain why he made the clock and brought it to school. He made it and brought it in to show his engineering teacher what he could do. The only reason the cops said this explanation was inadequate was because they were fishing for another explanation.

He absolutely did not do that.

Yes, he absolutely did explain why he brought the clock to school: to show his engineering teacher what he could do. His explanation was not only adequate, it was fully supported by evidence.

That's not an adequate explanation and it is not supported by evidence.