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

[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.

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.

As I already addressed before, that does not logically follow. Possibility of getting caught doesn't mean that a person could not commit an offense.

 

[Jayjay]

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?

None of these are applicable to Ahmed. He was not arrested for a non-crime, he was arrested for suspected crime. It's not unheard of; people get questioned and sometimes arrested for crimes they didn't do all the time. And although the cops did leave him unattended in the juvenile processing center (according to his lawyer), which would be illegal, there is no reason to think that he was in general being treated differently from any other American. The entire affair was over in a few hours, time which he would have spent "detained" in school anyway.

 

[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.

As I already addressed before, that does not logically follow. Possibility of getting caught doesn't mean that a person could not commit an offense.

But it diminished the possibility he intended to use it in a hoax to the point of obscurity, and it fully supports his contention he brought his clock to school to show it to his teacher.

His Principal had little reason to think Ahmed was going to use a pencil case with a clock face and a power cord sticking out of it as a hoax bomb. He had even less reason to think so once it was understood Ahmed had already shown the device to a teacher and identified himself as it's maker. And yet the Principal called in the cops, who acted as though Ahmed had committed a crime just by having the thing in his backpack.

 

[Arctish]

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?

None of these are applicable to Ahmed. He was not arrested for a non-crime, he was arrested for suspected crime.

No, he was arrested because they thought he might have been thinking about committing a crime at some point in the future. But even if he had been thinking about it, merely thinking about it isn't a crime!

There was no crime. There was no hoax. There were no actions taken in the furtherance of a hoax. The only actions Ahmed took were ones that actually undermined the use of the device in a hoax: showing the device to a teacher, identifying himself as the one who made it, and revealing it's clock functions.

There was no crime. There might have been a violation of school policy, but even that's unclear. The first teacher who saw the device apparently didn't think it violated school policy. He reportedly told Ahmed it was a nice clock and told him to put it away. The second teacher who saw it apparently did think it violated school policy. She contacted the Principal and Ahmed was sent to the office so the Principal could talk to him about it. But even if the Principal decided the pencil case clock looked suspicious or dangerous enough to be in violation of school policy, Ahmed having it in his backpack was not a crime. And without evidence a real, actual, genuine against-the-law crime had been committed, there was no Probable Cause to arrest him.

It's not unheard of; people get questioned and sometimes arrested for crimes they didn't do all the time. And although the cops did leave him unattended in the juvenile processing center (according to his lawyer), which would be illegal, there is no reason to think that he was in general being treated differently from any other American. The entire affair was over in a few hours, time which he would have spent "detained" in school anyway.

Sitting in the Principal's office while he decides if you violated a school policy is not the same as being under arrest. Not even close. Although, if the reason the Principal is being such a hard ass is because he doesn't like 'your kind', it could be a violation of your civil rights.

 

[angelo]

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

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

Does it matter who the victims were, or its okay because perhaps it's just some social workers?

 

[bilby]

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

Does it matter who the victims were, or its okay because perhaps it's just some social workers?

It seemed to matter to you, when you thought you could make a cheap rhetorical point out of it.

 

[Arctish]

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

Does it matter who the victims were, or its okay because perhaps it's just some social workers?

WTF kind of question is that? Are you judging people based on their profession now, instead of merely judging them based on their religious affiliation and ethnicity?

 

[angelo]

Does it matter who the victims were, or its okay because perhaps it's just some social workers?

WTF kind of question is that? Are you judging people based on their profession now, instead of merely judging them based on their religious affiliation and ethnicity?

Don 2 was referring to my statement about the shooting at a disabled facility, and the to the most innocent of victims by saying, and as I understood it, that the victims weren't what I described as as,but social workers!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

WTF kind of question is that? Are you judging people based on their profession now, instead of merely judging them based on their religious affiliation and ethnicity?

Don 2 was referring to my statement about the shooting at a disabled facility, and the to the most innocent of victims by saying, and as I understood it, that the victims weren't what I described as as,but social workers!

So now you not only want to be wrong, but you want to be wrong twice?

 

[barbos]

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.

So as long as I show it it's OK?
good to know, try it next time you fly, bring a bomb.

 

[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.

So as long as I show it it's OK?
good to know, try it next time you fly, bring a bomb.

Well, if you bring a bomb, you'll be committing a crime. That sort of thing will get you arrested.

But if all you have is a clock in a pencil case, and you don't pretend it's a bomb, then you shouldn't be arrested because having a clock you aren't pretending is a bomb isn't a crime.

I know, it's kinda quirky, but US law is like that.

 

[barbos]

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.

So as long as I show it it's OK?
good to know, try it next time you fly, bring a bomb.

Well, if you bring a bomb, you'll be committing a crime. That sort of thing will get you arrested.

But if all you have is a clock in a pencil case, and you don't pretend it's a bomb, then you shouldn't be arrested because having a clock you aren't pretending is a bomb isn't a crime.

I know, it's kinda quirky, but US law is like that.

hoax bomb, bring a hoax bomb.

 

[Arctish]

So as long as I show it it's OK?
good to know, try it next time you fly, bring a bomb.

Well, if you bring a bomb, you'll be committing a crime. That sort of thing will get you arrested.

But if all you have is a clock in a pencil case, and you don't pretend it's a bomb, then you shouldn't be arrested because having a clock you aren't pretending is a bomb isn't a crime.

I know, it's kinda quirky, but US law is like that.

hoax bomb, bring a hoax bomb.

Well, perpetrating a bomb hoax is a crime. Doing that sort of thing will get you arrested.

But if all you have is a clock in a pencil case, and you don't pretend it's a bomb so you aren't actually perpetrating a hoax, then you shouldn't be arrested because having a clock you aren't pretending is a bomb isn't a crime.

You see, in America people have the presumption of innocence. The cops need evidence you are committing or have already committed an actual, genuine crime before they can arrest you. Because otherwise they could arrest you for jack shit, and that would be wrong.

 

[barbos]

Well, perpetrating a bomb hoax is a crime. Doing that sort of thing will get you arrested.

And that's what happened to ClockBoy here.

 

[barbos]

You see, in America people have the presumption of innocence.

That's not how police operates, Courts/justice system yes, but not the police

 

[angelo]

If clockboy and his politico father do get some compensation, the islamists will laugh all the way to their bomb making facility. As the authorities will think twice before apprehending any suspects in future.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

angelo & barbos, you guys should do stand up.

 

[Arctish]

Well, perpetrating a bomb hoax is a crime. Doing that sort of thing will get you arrested.

And that's what happened to ClockBoy here.

He pretended his clock was a bomb? When did he do that?

Oh, riiiiight. He didn't, but that's not going to stop you from making the claim.

 

[barbos]

And that's what happened to ClockBoy here.

He pretended his clock was a bomb? When did he do that?

Oh, riiiiight. He didn't, but that's not going to stop you from making the claim.

Pretending is not required.

 

[Arctish]

Well, perpetrating a bomb hoax is a crime. Doing that sort of thing will get you arrested.

And that's what happened to ClockBoy here.

He pretended his clock was a bomb? When did he do that?

Oh, riiiiight. He didn't, but that's not going to stop you from making the claim.

Pretending is not required.

Perpetrating a hoax is required for there to be a crime of perpetrating a hoax.

Pretending the clock was a bomb was required in order for him to perpetrate the hoax you describe because his clock wasn't actually a bomb.