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

[Arctish]

Notice how the prejorative term for Ahmed has changed from "clockboy" to"clockbrat"?

All from people who have never met the young man and don't know a thing about him?

Yes, I noticed that.

I also noticed that the posters who say he's an idiot are curiously disinclined to argue with the posters who say Ahmed is quite intelligent, that he planned the entire incident in order to support jihadi terrorists in prison, set the cops back on their heels, and undermine the "if you see something, say something" campaign, or at the very least was a key player in a conspiracy to collect a $15 million payoff. And the poster who linked to a video of a young woman claiming Muslims are treated the same as other students in MacArthur High School has so far not criticized the video of a man claiming Muslims know damn well they aren't going to be treated the same as other students in MacArthur High School.

It almost seems like they want to denigrate him to justify (in their own minds) the injustice of what happened to him.

I do have to say, the arguments put forth against Ahmed in this thread are among the most idiotic, irrational, emotion-based unsubstantiated assertions I have ever witnessed on this board. What is it about this boy that scares some of you so much?

Using antipathy to justify apathy is an old trick. It doesn't matter if injustice has been done. If you don't like the guy it happened to, you won't care that it happened.

 

[Jaecp]

Yes, I noticed that.

I also noticed that the posters who say he's an idiot are curiously disinclined to argue with the posters who say Ahmed is quite intelligent, that he planned the entire incident in order to support jihadi terrorists in prison, set the cops back on their heels, and undermine the "if you see something, say something" campaign, or at the very least was a key player in a conspiracy to collect a $15 million payoff. And the poster who linked to a video of a young woman claiming Muslims are treated the same as other students in MacArthur High School has so far not criticized the video of a man claiming Muslims know damn well they aren't going to be treated the same as other students in MacArthur High School.

It almost seems like they want to denigrate him to justify (in their own minds) the injustice of what happened to him.

I do have to say, the arguments put forth against Ahmed in this thread are among the most idiotic, irrational, emotion-based unsubstantiated assertions I have ever witnessed on this board. What is it about this boy that scares some of you so much?

Using antipathy to justify apathy is an old trick. It doesn't matter if injustice has been done. If you don't like the guy it happened to, you won't care that it happened.

Of course not, Arctish, it's not important that Ahmed is smart or dumb, just that he's bad.

 

[Arctish]

I'm sitting at my desk holding a container of stir-fry beef and mushrooms. It is possible for me to throw it at someone as part of a nasty prank. It's possible I have seriously considering doing it. But there's no evidence I brought in the container so I could assault someone, and no evidence I have an intent to commit assault. Does that mean I should be arrested for assault anyway? If the cops ask me why I brought in the container, and I say it's because I wanted to have stir-fry for dinner and I'm "not forthcoming" with other possible reasons, is that evidence I was planning an assault?

Bad example. Stir-fry beef and mushrooms in a standard plastic or cardboard container are a perfectly normal meal at a workplace environment. But if you brought, say, ripe tomatoes to a town hall meeting, then someone might suspect you were planning to throw them at someone rather than eat them.

No, it's a good example of something that could be used in a prank, but could also have been brought to school for a much more likely and benign reason. But let's go with tomatoes:

If I bring a bag of tomatoes to school, and my English teacher suspects I might be planning to throw them at the marching band, but I keep telling the Principal and the cops the tomatoes are my lunch and they find no evidence I intended to throw them, could I be arrested for "suspicion of menacing"? Should I be taken out in handcuffs because I was "not forthcoming" about other possible reasons for bringing tomatoes to school?

Yep. Smartass kids who bring a bag of tomatoes to school pretending they are "lunch" are obviously not being honest.

I see what you did there. It's called assuming your conclusion. It's a logical fallacy.

You have assumed the kid was a smart ass only pretending the tomatoes were his lunch, and therefore concluded he was not being honest, because if he was being honest he would have admitted the tomatoes weren't lunch. You are completely ignoring the possibility the tomatoes really were going to be lunch, and you appear to have added the pejorative term 'smart ass' to justify it.

Let's suppose the kid isn't a smart ass, and has a history of bringing produce to school for lunch. Now what? Should he be arrested because of the English teacher's suspicions? What about the fact he was "not forthcoming" about other possible reasons for bringing vegetables to school? Does his inability or unwillingness to speculate about other uses for tomatoes justify his being removed from school in handcuffs?

A short trip to the police station might scare them straight, and even if the tomatoes were lunch it's a minor mistake and there's no permanent harm done.

Except for the violation of his civil rights, and the part about police acting outside the limits of their authority.

BTW, I think your idea about scaring vegans straight is funny, in a mordant kind of way.

And without evidence a real, actual, genuine against-the-law crime had been committed, there was no Probable Cause to arrest him.

They had the device, which obviously looked like a bomb,

No, it did not obviously look like a bomb.

Ahmed's teachers disagreed. Your opinion is coloured by the fact that when you heard about the incident and first saw the pictures of it, you already knew what it was and why Ahmed did it.

I think you are forgetting his engineering teacher saw it before the English teacher or the Principal did, and found no reason to be alarmed.

His engineering teacher also said it looked like a bomb, according to Ahmed. Hence, "teachers" in plural.

You'll have to provide a quote in context for that. I don't recall reading the engineering teacher said it looked like a bomb. I have read the teacher said it was nice before telling Ahmed to put it away and not show it around.

There is no broad consensus that the clock looked like a bomb, only that it could have looked "suspicious" to someone unfamiliar with electronics, and that it was reasonable for the Principal and school resource officers to investigate. Their actions became unreasonable when the kid was arrested for having a "hoax bomb" even though Ahmed had been telling people the device was a clock - which it was - and never did anything to lead anyone to think otherwise.

What Ahmed should have explained is why he made the device. If someone brings a "clock" that looks like a bomb to school, the reasonable assumption is that he intended it to look like what it did, barring some alternative explanation.

The reasonable assumption is that he brought in a clock in a pencil case to show to his engineering teacher, like he says he did, because what he actually did was bring in a clock in a pencil case and show it to his engineering teacher.

I'm noticing a huge disconnect between eye-witness reactions and internet perceptions.

No one who saw the clock thought they were seeing a bomb. Some people who saw it thought it could be used in a hoax. But you keep saying it looked like a bomb. Why is that? If it wasn't sufficiently bomb-like to provoke the sort of reaction people have to seeing a bomb, why do you insist it looked like a bomb?

All you and I have seen is that one picture provided by the police in support of their claim that it looked like a hoax device. They show it partially disassembled, and presumably in a way that best supports their position. But no one who saw it IRL was alarmed. The engineering teacher let Ahmed walk out of class with it. The Principal sat there with the thing in his office while he and the cops questioned Ahmed about it. The English teacher, as far as we know, wasn't frightened for even a moment. So why the insistence it looked like a bomb?

I think the reactions of the people who saw the pencil case clock IRL should be given more weight than the perceptions of people who have only seen that one picture provided by the police. They weren't frightened by it, so it couldn't have looked all that much like a bomb, now could it? And even if it did kinda sorta look like a bomb, whether or not that was intentional is a completely different question.

 

[zorq]

So all you need is Occam's Razor and common sense to blow your conspiracy theories out of the realm of probability. The same as most of the other conspiracy theories out there.

Occam's Razor is for theories about science of the natural world. The more simplified the better. This concept doesn't apply to people and their conspiracies.

Doesn't it apply to all theories?

Consider the mystery of the whistling tea kettle.

Should we suppose that the butler who works in the house simply put the kettle on the stove? Or should we suppose that a bugler broke in through the kitchen window and blackmailed the butler into putting the kettle on the stove? Or should we suppose that the ghosts living in the walls possessed the butler and forced him to put the kettle on the stove?

All three are possibilities. Absent any additional evidence, who are you going to call? The butler, 911, or the GhostBusters?

 

[zorq]

You see, a bizarre and carefully concocted homegrown conspiracy plot (which may happen once in a blue moon) is far more unlikely than childish goofing around. (which happens with every single child almost all the time) So all you need is Occam's Razor and common sense to blow your conspiracy theories out of the realm of probability. The same as most of the other conspiracy theories out there.

Your theory does not fit known facts well, such as: his asshole father, his asshole sister, himself being an asshole, his lying, now this $15mil lawsuit, and finally that happening the next day after 9-11 anniversary. There is way too many coincidences.

You mean my theory that the kid was messing around with a clock in a pencil case and that he brought it to school to show his teacher?
Let's check.

Children of asshole fathers engage in childish goofing around too. It fits.
Brothers of asshole sisters engage in childish goofing around too. It fits.
Asshole children engage in childish goofing around too. It fits.
Lying children engage in childish goofing around too. It fits.
Childish goofing around has been known to happen 365 days a year including September-12th. It fits.

And finally because this doesn't apply to the events the day Ahmed was arrested:
People who feel they have been treated unfairly have been known to engage the help of a lawyer to achieve some semblance of justice.
It fits.

Of course it hasn't definitively been demonstrated that the boy, his father, or his sister are "assholes," or "liars" which kind of eliminates 4 of the "coincidences" you listed which you seem to think support your conspiracy theory.

 

[laughing dog]

What Ahmed should have explained is why he made the device. If someone brings a "clock" that looks like a bomb to school, the reasonable assumption is that he intended it to look like what it did, barring some alternative explanation.

Since Ahmed did not act like it was a bomb nor pretended like it was a bomb and since no one at the school thought it was a bomb, the reasonable assumption without an explanation is that it was not intended to look like a bomb.

 

[barbos]

Your theory does not fit known facts well, such as: his asshole father, his asshole sister, himself being an asshole, his lying, now this $15mil lawsuit, and finally that happening the next day after 9-11 anniversary. There is way too many coincidences.

You mean my theory that the kid was messing around with a clock in a pencil case and that he brought it to school to show his teacher?
Let's check.

Children of asshole fathers engage in childish goofing around too. It fits.
Brothers of asshole sisters engage in childish goofing around too. It fits.
Asshole children engage in childish goofing around too. It fits.
Lying children engage in childish goofing around too. It fits.
Childish goofing around has been known to happen 365 days a year including September-12th. It fits.

And finally because this doesn't apply to the events the day Ahmed was arrested:
People who feel they have been treated unfairly have been known to engage the help of a lawyer to achieve some semblance of justice.
It fits.

Of course it hasn't definitively been demonstrated that the boy, his father, or his sister are "assholes," or "liars" which kind of eliminates 4 of the "coincidences" you listed which you seem to think support your conspiracy theory.

Nothing in your "theory" fits facts.

 

[zorq]

Nothing in your "theory" fits facts.

My theory is that Ahmed always was telling the truth about his motivations for creating and bringing his pencil-case clock to school.

Please, name a single fact that defies this theory.

 

[barbos]

Nothing in your "theory" fits facts.

My theory is that Ahmed always was telling the truth about his motivations for creating and bringing his pencil-case clock to school.

Please, name a single fact that defies this theory.

The fact that after "impressing" his engineering teacher he went to "impress" his english teacher after he was directly ordered not to "impress" anybody.

 

[zorq]

My theory is that Ahmed always was telling the truth about his motivations for creating and bringing his pencil-case clock to school.

Please, name a single fact that defies this theory.

The fact that after "impressing" his engineering teacher he went to "impress" his english teacher after he was directly ordered not to "impress" anybody.

Was he "directly ordered" or given a helpful suggestion? Was that an "order" really to "not impress anybody," Or was it something else like an "order" to put it away because it wasn't show time right now?

Either way. When a person claims their motivation is to show people their thing, why would it defy facts for that person to then keep showing that thing to people after they have been warned not to?

It wouldn't.

Try again.

 

[Nexus]

Occam's Razor is for theories about science of the natural world. The more simplified the better. This concept doesn't apply to people and their conspiracies.

Doesn't it apply to all theories?

No. In science its simply a method to formulating theoretical models. Occam's razor is not an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypothesis to prevent them from being falsified; therefore, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable.

Consider the mystery of the whistling tea kettle.

Should we suppose that the butler who works in the house simply put the kettle on the stove? Or should we suppose that a bugler broke in through the kitchen window and blackmailed the butler into putting the kettle on the stove? Or should we suppose that the ghosts living in the walls possessed the butler and forced him to put the kettle on the stove?

All three are possibilities. Absent any additional evidence, who are you going to call? The butler, 911, or the GhostBusters?

There's no experiment here to determine the validity of the three competing theories. Therefore simplicity in testing can't apply ie neither can occam's razor. You would need to investigate for more evidence not simply declare the butler did it alone since its the simplest explanation.

 

[barbos]

The fact that after "impressing" his engineering teacher he went to "impress" his english teacher after he was directly ordered not to "impress" anybody.

Was he "directly ordered" or given a helpful suggestion? Was that an "order" really to "not impress anybody," Or was it something else like an "order" to put it away because it wasn't show time right now?

Either way. When a person claims their motivation is to show people their thing, why would it defy facts for that person to then keep showing that thing to people after they have been warned not to?

It wouldn't.

Try again.

When person claims their motivation which defy the facts you don't take these motivations as truth.

 

[zorq]

Doesn't it apply to all theories?

No. In science its simply a method to formulating theoretical models. Occam's razor is not an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypothesis to prevent them from being falsified; therefore, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable.

Consider the mystery of the whistling tea kettle.

Should we suppose that the butler who works in the house simply put the kettle on the stove? Or should we suppose that a bugler broke in through the kitchen window and blackmailed the butler into putting the kettle on the stove? Or should we suppose that the ghosts living in the walls possessed the butler and forced him to put the kettle on the stove?

All three are possibilities. Absent any additional evidence, who are you going to call? The butler, 911, or the GhostBusters?

There's no experiment here to determine the validity of the three competing theories. Therefore simplicity in testing can't apply ie neither can occam's razor. You would need to investigate for more evidence not simply declare the butler did it alone since its the simplest explanation.

I'm conflating theory with hypothesis here because I'm not really talking about science in particular.

But read what you just wrote. Occam's razor isn't about designing experiments. It's about choosing which hypotheis to pursue. Occam's razor can tell us which one to pursue first. Which hypothesis would you pursue first in the mystery of the whistling tea kettle?

Don't you think Occam's razor is likely to help you out?

Frankly the notion of not overcomplicating your untested hypothesies is useful all the time. Not just in a professional scientific environment.

Some people on this thread have an intricate and unlikely hypothesis for the motivations and actions of Ahmed. But there are simpler and more likely explanations that also fit the evidence presented. Don't you think Occam might have something to say about that?

- - - Updated - - -

Was he "directly ordered" or given a helpful suggestion? Was that an "order" really to "not impress anybody," Or was it something else like an "order" to put it away because it wasn't show time right now?

Either way. When a person claims their motivation is to show people their thing, why would it defy facts for that person to then keep showing that thing to people after they have been warned not to?

It wouldn't.

Try again.

When person claims their motivation which defy the facts you don't take these motivations as truth.

I told you to try again. I'm still waiting for a fact that defies my theory that he has been telling the truth. Where are these theory defying facts?

 

[barbos]

2015 September 11 was a Friday. I am pretty sure it was somehow mentioned during school day.
And then Ahmed mentioned it during dinner on Sunday. Then his father probably gave a lecture how America is to blame for everything and then ahmed's sister recollected the time when she was suspended for bomb threats by asshole teachers in the same stupid school district. Conversation went on and on, then sister suggested that it would be fair to actually have a fake bomb scare in the school, father agreed that was a good idea and could be good PR. So they told little Ahmed to make a fake hoax bomb which would cause an alarm and then he gets suspended. Ahmed took an old clock and put inside pencil box, it took him an a half an hour to make. .....

 

[zorq]

2015 September 11 was a Friday. I am pretty sure it was somehow mentioned during school day.
And then Ahmed mentioned it during dinner on Sunday. Then his father probably gave a lecture how America is to blame for everything and then ahmed's sister recollected the time when she was suspended for bomb threats by asshole teachers in the same stupid school district. Conversation went on and on, then sister suggested that it would be fair to actually have a fake bomb scare in the school, father agreed that was a good idea and could be good PR. So they told little Ahmed to make a fake hoax bomb which would cause an alarm and then he gets suspended. Ahmed took an old clock and put inside pencil box, it took him an a half an hour to make. .....

Maybe you are confused. I asked you for FACTS, not fantasy.

 

[barbos]

No. In science its simply a method to formulating theoretical models. Occam's razor is not an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypothesis to prevent them from being falsified; therefore, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable.

Consider the mystery of the whistling tea kettle.

Should we suppose that the butler who works in the house simply put the kettle on the stove? Or should we suppose that a bugler broke in through the kitchen window and blackmailed the butler into putting the kettle on the stove? Or should we suppose that the ghosts living in the walls possessed the butler and forced him to put the kettle on the stove?

All three are possibilities. Absent any additional evidence, who are you going to call? The butler, 911, or the GhostBusters?

There's no experiment here to determine the validity of the three competing theories. Therefore simplicity in testing can't apply ie neither can occam's razor. You would need to investigate for more evidence not simply declare the butler did it alone since its the simplest explanation.

I'm conflating theory with hypothesis here because I'm not really talking about science in particular.

But read what you just wrote. Occam's razor isn't about designing experiments. It's about choosing which hypotheis to pursue. Occam's razor can tell us which one to pursue first. Which hypothesis would you pursue first in the mystery of the whistling tea kettle?

Don't you think Occam's razor is likely to help you out?

Frankly the notion of not overcomplicating your untested hypothesies is useful all the time. Not just in a professional scientific environment.

Some people on this thread have an intricate and unlikely hypothesis for the motivations and actions of Ahmed. But there are simpler and more likely explanations that also fit the evidence presented. Don't you think Occam might have something to say about that?

- - - Updated - - -

Was he "directly ordered" or given a helpful suggestion? Was that an "order" really to "not impress anybody," Or was it something else like an "order" to put it away because it wasn't show time right now?

Either way. When a person claims their motivation is to show people their thing, why would it defy facts for that person to then keep showing that thing to people after they have been warned not to?

It wouldn't.

Try again.

When person claims their motivation which defy the facts you don't take these motivations as truth.

I told you to try again. I'm still waiting for a fact that defies my theory that he has been telling the truth. Where are these theory defying facts?

I gave you that fact.

- - - Updated - - -

2015 September 11 was a Friday. I am pretty sure it was somehow mentioned during school day.
And then Ahmed mentioned it during dinner on Sunday. Then his father probably gave a lecture how America is to blame for everything and then ahmed's sister recollected the time when she was suspended for bomb threats by asshole teachers in the same stupid school district. Conversation went on and on, then sister suggested that it would be fair to actually have a fake bomb scare in the school, father agreed that was a good idea and could be good PR. So they told little Ahmed to make a fake hoax bomb which would cause an alarm and then he gets suspended. Ahmed took an old clock and put inside pencil box, it took him an a half an hour to make. .....

Maybe you are confused. I asked you for FACTS not fantasy.

Confused here is you. It was my theory which fits all the facts, unlike yours which does not fit any.

 

[zorq]

I gave you that fact.

Which fact? Please write a fact that actually contradicts my theory.

Maybe you are confused. I asked you for FACTS not fantasy.

Confused here is you. It was my theory which fits all the facts, unlike yours which does not fit any.

I am confused as to how you think anything you just wrote is any kind of fact. Who do you think you are fooling?

 

[barbos]

Which fact? Please write a fact that actually contradicts my theory.

Maybe you are confused. I asked you for FACTS not fantasy.

Confused here is you. It was my theory which fits all the facts, unlike yours which does not fit any.

I am confused as to how you think anything you just wrote is any kind of fact. Who do you think you are fooling?

Reading comprehension problems?

 

[zorq]

Which fact? Please write a fact that actually contradicts my theory.

Maybe you are confused. I asked you for FACTS not fantasy.

Confused here is you. It was my theory which fits all the facts, unlike yours which does not fit any.

I am confused as to how you think anything you just wrote is any kind of fact. Who do you think you are fooling?

Reading comprehension problems?

LOL

 

[Jayjay]

I'm sitting at my desk holding a container of stir-fry beef and mushrooms. It is possible for me to throw it at someone as part of a nasty prank. It's possible I have seriously considering doing it. But there's no evidence I brought in the container so I could assault someone, and no evidence I have an intent to commit assault. Does that mean I should be arrested for assault anyway? If the cops ask me why I brought in the container, and I say it's because I wanted to have stir-fry for dinner and I'm "not forthcoming" with other possible reasons, is that evidence I was planning an assault?

Bad example. Stir-fry beef and mushrooms in a standard plastic or cardboard container are a perfectly normal meal at a workplace environment. But if you brought, say, ripe tomatoes to a town hall meeting, then someone might suspect you were planning to throw them at someone rather than eat them.

No, it's a good example of something that could be used in a prank, but could also have been brought to school for a much more likely and benign reason. But let's go with tomatoes:

If I bring a bag of tomatoes to school, and my English teacher suspects I might be planning to throw them at the marching band, but I keep telling the Principal and the cops the tomatoes are my lunch and they find no evidence I intended to throw them, could I be arrested for "suspicion of menacing"? Should I be taken out in handcuffs because I was "not forthcoming" about other possible reasons for bringing tomatoes to school?

Yep. Smartass kids who bring a bag of tomatoes to school pretending they are "lunch" are obviously not being honest.

I see what you did there. It's called assuming your conclusion. It's a logical fallacy.

No, it's merely the most plausible explanation. A kid bringing bunch of tomatoes (an odd choice for a lunch) to school on the very same day there is a marching band is at the very least suspicious. And just beucase he says is his lunch isn't evidence, because even kids are capable of lying.

You have assumed the kid was a smart ass only pretending the tomatoes were his lunch, and therefore concluded he was not being honest, because if he was being honest he would have admitted the tomatoes weren't lunch. You are completely ignoring the possibility the tomatoes really were going to be lunch, and you appear to have added the pejorative term 'smart ass' to justify it.

Actually I did not ignore the possibility. I considered the alternative in the very next sentence you quoted: "...even if the tomatoes were lunch it's a minor mistake and there's no permanent harm done."

Smart-ass is not a pejorative term if the hypothetical kid actually was being a smart-ass.

Let's suppose the kid isn't a smart ass, and has a history of bringing produce to school for lunch. Now what? Should he be arrested because of the English teacher's suspicions? What about the fact he was "not forthcoming" about other possible reasons for bringing vegetables to school? Does his inability or unwillingness to speculate about other uses for tomatoes justify his being removed from school in handcuffs?

Actually, only reason not to do so would be that it is a minor offense to throw a tomato at someone compared to building a bomb or succesfully orchestrating a bomb scare. The kid probably couldn't be arrested in handcuffs even if he actually did throw produce at the marching band. But certainly, it would be reasonable to for example ban him from seeing the marching band altogether (because even absent tomatoes he might throw a rock or a shoe or otherwise heckle the band).

A short trip to the police station might scare them straight, and even if the tomatoes were lunch it's a minor mistake and there's no permanent harm done.

Except for the violation of his civil rights, and the part about police acting outside the limits of their authority.

BTW, I think your idea about scaring vegans straight is funny, in a mordant kind of way.

We are talking about children, who are already being forcibly "detained" in school from 9 to 5 and are expected to follow rules set by grown-ups. The minor harm from giving an innocent kid a tour to the police station (which Ahmed thought was "cool" precisely because he knew he was innocent) is not a civil rights violation, but if there actually was a kid who thought bringing look-alike bombs was funny then the experience might teach them an important life lesson.

Who said anything about vegans? If the kid who brought tomatoes to school really was a vegan, but failed to explain it, nor had any kind of note from his parents, how reasonable is it to assume that he did it because he was a vegan?

And without evidence a real, actual, genuine against-the-law crime had been committed, there was no Probable Cause to arrest him.

They had the device, which obviously looked like a bomb,

No, it did not obviously look like a bomb.

Ahmed's teachers disagreed. Your opinion is coloured by the fact that when you heard about the incident and first saw the pictures of it, you already knew what it was and why Ahmed did it.

I think you are forgetting his engineering teacher saw it before the English teacher or the Principal did, and found no reason to be alarmed.

His engineering teacher also said it looked like a bomb, according to Ahmed. Hence, "teachers" in plural.

You'll have to provide a quote in context for that. I don't recall reading the engineering teacher said it looked like a bomb. I have read the teacher said it was nice before telling Ahmed to put it away and not show it around.

He said that in an MSNBC interview with Chris Hayes:

http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/all-in-exclusive-with-ahmed-mohamed-526948931844

At about 1:15:

Ahmed: "The first teacher, he was impressed but he adviced me not to show it other people."
Chris: "He told you not to show any other people?"
Ahmed: "Yes."
Chris: "Why do you thin he said that?"
Ahmed: "He told me it looks like a bomb."

There is no broad consensus that the clock looked like a bomb, only that it could have looked "suspicious" to someone unfamiliar with electronics, and that it was reasonable for the Principal and school resource officers to investigate. Their actions became unreasonable when the kid was arrested for having a "hoax bomb" even though Ahmed had been telling people the device was a clock - which it was - and never did anything to lead anyone to think otherwise.

What Ahmed should have explained is why he made the device. If someone brings a "clock" that looks like a bomb to school, the reasonable assumption is that he intended it to look like what it did, barring some alternative explanation.

The reasonable assumption is that he brought in a clock in a pencil case to show to his engineering teacher, like he says he did, because what he actually did was bring in a clock in a pencil case and show it to his engineering teacher.

I'm noticing a huge disconnect between eye-witness reactions and internet perceptions.

Because the whole story is not public yet on one hand, and we have more information available to us that the police did not on the other hand. We can only make educated guesses on what was being said, and how Ahmed reacted. For example, I don't think we don't know if he even mentioned the engineering teacher to the police (maybe he forgot, or thought that it would just get him into more trouble). Yet, you are assuming that the police knew everything we know about the clock, and you fill in the blanks in the story with the most favourable interepretation for Ahmed.

No one who saw the clock thought they were seeing a bomb. Some people who saw it thought it could be used in a hoax. But you keep saying it looked like a bomb. Why is that? If it wasn't sufficiently bomb-like to provoke the sort of reaction people have to seeing a bomb, why do you insist it looked like a bomb?

Because A) it looks like a bomb to me, and while realizing my own opinion is as biased as yours, B) two out of two teachers who Ahmed showed the device to said it looks like a bomb. There is a very crucial distinction between "thinking that they were seeing a bomb" and "thinking that it looks like a bomb", and nobody is claiming the former. At most, the English teacher or the principal thought it may have been "infrastructure" for a bomb.

All you and I have seen is that one picture provided by the police in support of their claim that it looked like a hoax device. They show it partially disassembled, and presumably in a way that best supports their position. But no one who saw it IRL was alarmed. The engineering teacher let Ahmed walk out of class with it. The Principal sat there with the thing in his office while he and the cops questioned Ahmed about it. The English teacher, as far as we know, wasn't frightened for even a moment. So why the insistence it looked like a bomb?

I think the reactions of the people who saw the pencil case clock IRL should be given more weight than the perceptions of people who have only seen that one picture provided by the police. They weren't frightened by it, so it couldn't have looked all that much like a bomb, now could it? And even if it did kinda sorta look like a bomb, whether or not that was intentional is a completely different question.

I agree that people who saw the pencil case are the ones to listen to; and both teachers said it looks like a bomb. Of course they didn't think it was going to explode, but nobody is making that claim, and being fooled to think that "A is B" isn't a precondition for "A looks like B". If you see a miniature toy car you can say it looks like a car, but at the same time it's obvious that it isn't one.

the question whether it was intentional is precisely what the cops were trying to figure out, and if Ahmed wasn't forthcoming or acted like he was hiding something, it's not unreasonable to think that it may have taken a moment.