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

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yes, and that's what he did - explained nothing. And Police arrested him because he did not explain anything.

Since he is under no obligation to explain it all, one wonders why you are still harping over this.

Because the lack of an adequate explanation was the stated reason for his detainment.

If that is true, then the cops violated his civil rights.

The inability or disinclination to explain something to the satisfaction of a cop does not give the cop Probable Cause to make an arrest. You don't seem to understand this point. Perhaps that's how it is where you live, but that's not how it works here in the US.

Additionally, promising things for a confession is illegal.

 

[angelo]

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.

Would you be such an apologist for clockboy had he been just a Caucasian?

 

[ZiprHead]

I know I would be.

 

[Arctish]

I already asked the Americans here how much their civil rights are worth.

And I think those who did answer, would have gladly spent a few hours chatting with the police and taken a trip to the police station for $15 million. Calling this little fumble a civil rights violation is an insult to real civil rights violations.

The only person who said he would surrender his civil rights for the promise of $15 million dollars quickly realized that once he surrendered his rights, he had no way of getting his payoff. No civil rights = no legal standing = you just screwed yourself, and now everybody else can screw you, too.

Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to move to the back of a bus so a white man could take her seat. How much were her civil rights worth? She seemed to think they were extremely valuable, and so did a lot of her supporters.

 

[Arctish]

Would you be such an apologist for clockboy had he been just a Caucasian?

I know I would be.

Me too.

This isn't about the kid being Muslim, or smart, or an idiot, or likable, or unlikable, or socially awkward, or socially skilled, or any other personal characteristic you could name. The issue for me is how the school administration and the police should treat a 14 year old who brought an electronic gizmo to school.

So many people have been attacking this kid on a personal level. I believe the reason is because they hope to foster antipathy for Ahmed which can then be used to justify not giving a shit whether his civil rights were violated. But it doesn't matter if you like him. He could be the biggest asshole in Texas, and it would not change the rightness or wrongness of his being taken from school in handcuffs and suspended for 3 days for bringing in a home made pencil case clock.

 

[angelo]

Since he is under no obligation to explain it all, one wonders why you are still harping over this.

- - - Updated - - -

Calling this little fumble a civil rights violation is an insult to real civil rights violations.

Any violation of civil rights is a real civil rights violation.

If the civil rights of suspects is so important it's no wonder there's been another atrocity in that disabled home where 14 most helpless people in our community of humanity were butchered by followers of the religion of Peace!!

And what exactly did he do?

The evidence supporting this explanation consists of him doing what he said

What he said and says is not supported by reality.

he wanted to do: showing it to his engineering teacher during his first class period. And he has an established history of bringing home made electronic gizmos to school

Such as.....?

to show to his teachers, which also supports his explanation why he made the case mod clock

That's not what he said.

and why he had it in his backpack.

The evidence is more than sufficient to support the explanation, and the explanation is sufficient by itself.

No, there is no evidence whatsoever to support his "explanation"

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

...14 most helpless people in our community ...

Social workers at the San Bernadino County Mental Health Department annual Christmas Party?

 

[barbos]

Yes, and that's what he did - explained nothing. And Police arrested him because he did not explain anything.

Since he is under no obligation to explain it all, one wonders why you are still harping over this.

Because the lack of an adequate explanation was the stated reason for his detainment.

If that is true, then the cops violated his civil rights.

The inability or disinclination to explain something to the satisfaction of a cop does not give the cop Probable Cause to make an arrest. You don't seem to understand this point. Perhaps that's how it is where you live, but that's not how it works here in the US.

Probable cause is a hoax bomb which he failed to explain.

 

[laughing dog]

Since he is under no obligation to explain it all, one wonders why you are still harping over this.

Because the lack of an adequate explanation was the stated reason for his detainment.

Which is probably one of the prongs of the violation of his civil rights.

 

[Arctish]

The inability or disinclination to explain something to the satisfaction of a cop does not give the cop Probable Cause to make an arrest. You don't seem to understand this point. Perhaps that's how it is where you live, but that's not how it works here in the US.

Probable cause is a hoax bomb which he failed to explain.

I just bolded the part you don't understand.

The inability or unwillingness to explain something to the satisfaction of a cop doesn't amount to Probable Cause. In this country the police need more than that to make an arrest.

 

[barbos]

Probable cause is a hoax bomb which he failed to explain.

I just bolded the part you don't understand.

The inability or unwillingness to explain something to the satisfaction of a cop doesn't amount to Probable Cause. In this country the police need more than that to make an arrest.

It does, if the thing looks like a hoax bomb
let me bold it for you
It does, if the thing looks like a hoax bomb
Here you go, put bolded part in you little head.

 

[Jayjay]

Yes, and that's what he did - explained nothing. And Police arrested him because he did not explain anything.

Since he is under no obligation to explain it all, one wonders why you are still harping over this.

Because the lack of an adequate explanation was the stated reason for his detainment.

If that is true, then the cops violated his civil rights.

The inability or disinclination to explain something to the satisfaction of a cop does not give the cop Probable Cause to make an arrest. You don't seem to understand this point. Perhaps that's how it is where you live, but that's not how it works here in the US.

Perhaps I misstated it. Obviously, the contraption that Ahmed brought to school was the probable cause. Ahmed's inability to explain it was the reason why it took a while to figure out that it was not intended as a hoax which meant the police decided to take him in to make sure, according to the police chief. So while not speaking or being able to explain yourself is not itself a crime, it is not at all remarkable that a matter that could otherwise be explained on the spot might lead to an arrest.

 

[Arctish]

I just bolded the part you don't understand.

The inability or unwillingness to explain something to the satisfaction of a cop doesn't amount to Probable Cause. In this country the police need more than that to make an arrest.

It does, if the thing looks like a hoax bomb
let me bold it for you
It does, if the thing looks like a hoax bomb
Here you go, put bolded part in you little head.

No, not even then. The police need evidence of a crime and a reasonable suspicion a person committed it in order to have Probable Cause to arrest him/her. Having in your possession an item that could be used in a crime is not a crime. Being unable to explain to a cop's satisfaction why you have it is not Probable Cause to arrest you for it.

 

[laughing dog]

Since he is under no obligation to explain it all, one wonders why you are still harping over this.

Because the lack of an adequate explanation was the stated reason for his detainment.

If that is true, then the cops violated his civil rights.

The inability or disinclination to explain something to the satisfaction of a cop does not give the cop Probable Cause to make an arrest. You don't seem to understand this point. Perhaps that's how it is where you live, but that's not how it works here in the US.

Perhaps I misstated it. Obviously, the contraption that Ahmed brought to school was the probable cause. Ahmed's inability to explain it was the reason why it took a while to figure out that it was not intended as a hoax which meant the police decided to take him in to make sure, according to the police chief. So while not speaking or being able to explain yourself is not itself a crime, it is not at all remarkable that a matter that could otherwise be explained on the spot might lead to an arrest otherwise.

There was no need to explain it. He said it was a clock. He acted like it was a clock. He did not act nor portray his device as a bomb. The school adm. over-reacted and so did the police. Instead of acknowledging that over-reaction, the police double downed and questioned him without his parents, and the school ended up suspending him. The whole thing is a travesty of reason and rationality.

 

[Jayjay]

And I think those who did answer, would have gladly spent a few hours chatting with the police and taken a trip to the police station for $15 million. Calling this little fumble a civil rights violation is an insult to real civil rights violations.

The only person who said he would surrender his civil rights for the promise of $15 million dollars quickly realized that once he surrendered his rights, he had no way of getting his payoff. No civil rights = no legal standing = you just screwed yourself, and now everybody else can screw you, too.

A corollary: if Ahmed has legal standing, then that means he has civil rights, therefore his rights were not violated. Do you see a problem with this argument? Civil rights are not an on/off switch. You can have some rights but not others, and not all rights are equally important.

Clearly "the right not to be bothered for a few hours while police investigate a possible crime" isn't near the top of the list of civil rights, if it should be on the list at all. There was no permanent damage and Ahmed even said he thought it was cool. It's pure hyperbole to equate this with racial segregation for example.

 

[barbos]

It does, if the thing looks like a hoax bomb
let me bold it for you
It does, if the thing looks like a hoax bomb
Here you go, put bolded part in you little head.

No, not even then. The police need evidence of a crime and a reasonable suspicion a person committed it in order to have Probable Cause to arrest him/her. Having in your possession an item that could be used in a crime is not a crime. Being unable to explain to a cop's satisfaction why you have it is not Probable Cause to arrest you for it.

Do you have some kind of reading comprehension disorder?

 

[Arctish]

Since he is under no obligation to explain it all, one wonders why you are still harping over this.

Because the lack of an adequate explanation was the stated reason for his detainment.

If that is true, then the cops violated his civil rights.

The inability or disinclination to explain something to the satisfaction of a cop does not give the cop Probable Cause to make an arrest. You don't seem to understand this point. Perhaps that's how it is where you live, but that's not how it works here in the US.

Perhaps I misstated it. Obviously, the contraption that Ahmed brought to school was the probable cause. Ahmed's inability to explain it was the reason why it took a while to figure out that it was not intended as a hoax which meant the police decided to take him in to make sure, according to the police chief. So while not speaking or being able to explain yourself is not itself a crime, it is not at all remarkable that a matter that could otherwise be explained on the spot might lead to an arrest otherwise.

If Ahmed hadn't already showed his clock to his engineering teacher and sought his input, there might be some question about why he was carrying it around in his backpack. But he was called into the Principal's Office and questioned by the cops after he showed it to his engineering teacher, so there really isn't a reasonable argument to be made that Ahmed was going to use it in a bomb hoax. That ship sailed the moment he pulled it out in his engineering class, demonstrated that it was a clock, and identified himself as the one who made it.

 

[Arctish]

No, not even then. The police need evidence of a crime and a reasonable suspicion a person committed it in order to have Probable Cause to arrest him/her. Having in your possession an item that could be used in a crime is not a crime. Being unable to explain to a cop's satisfaction why you have it is not Probable Cause to arrest you for it.

Do you have some kind of reading comprehension disorder?

No.

Do you have some kind of comprehension disorder that interferes with your ability to understand that Probable Cause in the US is not whatever you want it to be?

 

[Arctish]

The only person who said he would surrender his civil rights for the promise of $15 million dollars quickly realized that once he surrendered his rights, he had no way of getting his payoff. No civil rights = no legal standing = you just screwed yourself, and now everybody else can screw you, too.

Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to move to the back of a bus so a white man could take her seat. How much were her civil rights worth? She seemed to think they were extremely valuable, and so did a lot of her supporters.

A corollary: if Ahmed has legal standing, then that means he has civil rights, therefore his rights were not violated. Do you see a problem with this argument? Civil rights are not an on/off switch. You can have some rights but not others, and not all rights are equally important.

Clearly "the right not to be bothered for a few hours while police investigate a possible crime" isn't near the top of the list of civil rights, if it should be on the list at all. There was no permanent damage and Ahmed even said he thought it was cool. It's pure hyperbole to equate this with racial segregation for example.

I cited Rosa Parks for a reason. She was arrested for refusing to give up her seat on a bus to a white man. Should that be on the list of civil rights? How about the right to not be arrested for not-crimes? How about the right to be treated with the same respect and courtesy as other American citizens? At what point does it become important that Ahmed might have been taken out of school in handcuffs because the cops think like angelo does?

 

[Jayjay]

Since he is under no obligation to explain it all, one wonders why you are still harping over this.

Because the lack of an adequate explanation was the stated reason for his detainment.

If that is true, then the cops violated his civil rights.

The inability or disinclination to explain something to the satisfaction of a cop does not give the cop Probable Cause to make an arrest. You don't seem to understand this point. Perhaps that's how it is where you live, but that's not how it works here in the US.

Perhaps I misstated it. Obviously, the contraption that Ahmed brought to school was the probable cause. Ahmed's inability to explain it was the reason why it took a while to figure out that it was not intended as a hoax which meant the police decided to take him in to make sure, according to the police chief. So while not speaking or being able to explain yourself is not itself a crime, it is not at all remarkable that a matter that could otherwise be explained on the spot might lead to an arrest otherwise.

There was no need to explain it. He said it was a clock. He acted like it was a clock. He did not act nor portray his device as a bomb. The school adm. over-reacted and so did the police. Instead of acknowledging that over-reaction, the police double downed and questioned him without his parents, and the school ended up suspending him. The whole thing is a travesty of reason and rationality.

How do you know what he said or how he acted? He might have, but we don't know since the transcripts are not public. Whether it was an overraction is not a fact, it's your personal opinion. Many others here who have seen exactly the same evidence disagree, and more importantly, the people who were actually there (the teachers, the police) are saying they found the device suspicious. There is really no point in beating that dead horse until new evidence surfaces.

But the point here is the logic and facts we know. For example, your contention that police should let a suspect go based only on the suspect's say-so is just ridiculous. If you brought, say, an AK-47 to a daycare center, would you say that there is "no need to explain it"? Or if you said it was a hat rack and not a gun, that should be taken at face-value? Or if you merely act like you aren't going to shoot anyone, that makes it A-OK?