I thought it was the latter with no charges filed. If true, is that really that big of a deal considering all of the threats to our schools we've seen come to fruition?
Mohammed? Questioned at school in office. He was then led out of school in handcuffs, went to juvy where he was finger printed, had a mug shot taken, and was questioned more before release. Not sure if that counts as "arrested". He was not charged.
All standard procedure when you call in a bomb threat, get caught with lookalike weapon, pull a fire alarm, etc... at school.
Did he do those things? Even the police said it was obvious it wasnt a bomb. So unless he said something suggestive, I'd argue pretty strongly that he put a clock in a pencil case and did not have a lookalike weapon. He certainly wasnt charged.
It is enough to be considered a lookalike weapon.
A kid can paint a water gun black, and when police get it in their hands, they immediately know it's not real. Does not change the outcome. It's prohibited on school property.
To ignore this fact over and over, that police should just know it was fake and therefore just let it go, shows a complete lack of understand for how zero tolerance, schools, and even police operate.
I don't understand why that point just can not seem to get through to some of you.
The police determined it wasn't a credible threat. I understand zero tolerance for weapons or fake weapons, but IMO it's impossible to 100% prove that Ahmad's intent was solely to embarrass the school. One other question, why do some people keep exaggerating the size of the device? It's very clearly a pencil case, and you can scale the size based off of looking at the plug for the outlet. I keep seeing the container described as a luggage bag or briefcase.
whether or not it was actually a bomb right there on-site. Did they call in a possible bomb? They didn't bring in bomb experts/dogs?
So then it was more than likely known it wasn't a bomb--but was it an asshole kid with an agenda? Seems like it give his current location. So then he should be treated as a possible bomb hoaxer.
He should go fuck himself. And yes, while I support the President overall, he has been landing on the sides of some issues I can't support.
You're all over the map. The cops knew it wasn't a bomb when they looked at the case. They didn't know he was an asshole at the time and that shouldn't be relevant. I can see punishing the kid but the handcuffs, etc were over the top.
If it was a bomb hoax, they could have tazed him for all I care. Fuck that corksmoker and him and his dad's "points".
Shouldn't the exact timeline answer those questions? A timeline that shows exactly what happened and when...
Regardless, if my 14 year old son wanted to make a clock for school I would strongly advise against putting it in a briefcase. I mean, come on.
Im not sure what your point is. I gave you the timeline. At the time he was led out of school in handcuffs, the police absolutely did not believe it was a bomb. From wikipedia (because I dont want to find another source, sorry):
Quote:
The English teacher confiscated the clock and reported him to the school principal's office, and the police were called. The principal and a police officer then took him out of class and led him to a room where four other officers were waiting.[7] Police indicated that he was interrogated only in order to clarify his intentions when he brought the clock to school.[12] According to Mohamed, he was not allowed to contact his family during the questioning and he was threatened by the principal with being expelled unless he would sign a written statement.[7] After interrogating him for about an hour and a half, he was taken out of the school in handcuffs and into police custody. Following his arrival at a juvenile detention center, Mohamed was fingerprinted, forced to take a mug shot, and further questioned before being released to his parents.[12][13][14][15]
Police determined that he had no malicious intent, and he was not charged with any crime.[12][16] Irving Police Chief Larry Boyd said that "the officers pretty quickly determined that they weren't investigating an explosive device", and that Mohammed was arrested over the prospect that it was a "hoax bomb".[17]
RE: There's no question it was poor judgement by the kid Â
On Wednesday, Irving Police Chief Larry Boyd said that Mohamed would not be charged with any wrongdoing.
“We have no evidence to support that there was an intention to create alarm or cause people to be concerned,” Boyd said during a news conference after news of Mohamed’s arrest prompted a national outcry.
I wonder what his parents were thinking. "Oh, that's cool. I'm sure your teachers will be impressed".
Eh, I dont agree. If you believe his side of things, it was a naive HS freshman who probably didnt think about whether this would/could be mistaken for a bomb. I dont know if we want our kids being that cynical. Then again if you believe the douchebag family version, yeah it's terrible judgment.
RE: And for the crowd that thinks he knowingly built a hoax bomb Â
On Wednesday, Irving Police Chief Larry Boyd said that Mohamed would not be charged with any wrongdoing.
“We have no evidence to support that there was an intention to create alarm or cause people to be concerned,” Boyd said during a news conference after news of Mohamed’s arrest prompted a national outcry.
Link - ( New Window )
Using that same logic, I guess you don't think OJ committed the murders?
Lack of evidence does not mean he didn't intend to deceive people into thinking it was a bomb.
On Wednesday, Irving Police Chief Larry Boyd said that Mohamed would not be charged with any wrongdoing.
“We have no evidence to support that there was an intention to create alarm or cause people to be concerned,” Boyd said during a news conference after news of Mohamed’s arrest prompted a national outcry.
Link - ( New Window )
Using that same logic, I guess you don't think OJ committed the murders?
Lack of evidence does not mean he didn't intend to deceive people into thinking it was a bomb.
So by your logic everyone is guilty? Think about what you're saying.
RE: RE: And for the crowd that thinks he knowingly built a hoax bomb Â
On Wednesday, Irving Police Chief Larry Boyd said that Mohamed would not be charged with any wrongdoing.
“We have no evidence to support that there was an intention to create alarm or cause people to be concerned,” Boyd said during a news conference after news of Mohamed’s arrest prompted a national outcry.
Link - ( New Window )
Using that same logic, I guess you don't think OJ committed the murders?
Lack of evidence does not mean he didn't intend to deceive people into thinking it was a bomb.
You are confusing no evidence, preponderance of the evidence, and a jury finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. OJ's acquittal does not mean that there was NO EVIDENCE that he murdered those two people.
The police chief quoted above said that "We have no evidence to support that there was an intention to create alarm or cause people to be concerned". "No evidence" is a very strong phrase. Now they're not saying it was no evidence of him making a hoax bomb, but it's pretty close to it, isnt it? And isnt a hoax bomb a crime of intent more than anything? One for which he wasnt charged...
I wonder what his parents were thinking. "Oh, that's cool. I'm sure your teachers will be impressed".
Eh, I dont agree. If you believe his side of things, it was a naive HS freshman who probably didnt think about whether this would/could be mistaken for a bomb. I dont know if we want our kids being that cynical. Then again if you believe the douchebag family version, yeah it's terrible judgment.
I agree with this, we don't want to deter children from being expressive or provocative (in a constructive way), but his science teacher told him, not to show it to anyone else because it could "alarm the staff". He showed it to several other teachers after that warning until his English teacher saw it and....was alarmed. He should not have been surprised with the alarm especially since the teacher he brought it in to show warned him and he should have been able to explain this to police.
the family history and fathers comments and all their actions post-incident stuff are secondary and speculative but they definitely make you question the naivety of the incident overall. It just seems suspicious.
RE: RE: RE: There's no question it was poor judgement by the kid Â
I wonder what his parents were thinking. "Oh, that's cool. I'm sure your teachers will be impressed".
Eh, I dont agree. If you believe his side of things, it was a naive HS freshman who probably didnt think about whether this would/could be mistaken for a bomb. I dont know if we want our kids being that cynical. Then again if you believe the douchebag family version, yeah it's terrible judgment.
I agree with this, we don't want to deter children from being expressive or provocative (in a constructive way), but his science teacher told him, not to show it to anyone else because it could "alarm the staff". He showed it to several other teachers after that warning until his English teacher saw it and....was alarmed. He should not have been surprised with the alarm especially since the teacher he brought it in to show warned him and he should have been able to explain this to police.
the family history and fathers comments and all their actions post-incident stuff are secondary and speculative but they definitely make you question the naivety of the incident overall. It just seems suspicious.
Or he was uncooperative because he asked to speak to his parents (as he was possibly told to do or saw from TV) and his request was denied. I believe wrongfully (not sure).
There is a lot we dont know. Obviously his family could waive privacy, and if they pursue this litigation I assume they will have to do it. I dont know why anyone would have their heels dug in at this point on a definitive account/rationales.
Sure Deej, it's from the Mark Cuban story because the family won't allow release of information - not sure of the veracity, since it is Breitbart, but Cuban does acknowledge the two talked, I have no reason to believe this isn't true.
Quote:
According to the Florida entrepreneur Mark Cuban, the boy showed his strange device to as many as six teachers until one finally called the cops. At least one teacher warned him the device would alarm school staff.
According to the Florida entrepreneur Mark Cuban, the boy showed his strange device to as many as six teachers until one finally called the cops. At least one teacher warned him the device would alarm school staff.
(Florida?). Here is what Cuban actually said:
Quote:
Cuban added that Mohamed is a “great kid,” and “this is once removed, right? So I talked to the people in Irving, Texas, that work with people at MacArthur, the school. And I said, ‘What happened? What did you hear?’ This is, again, secondhand. He said, the kid, Ahmed, took the clock, put it in the first class. Teacher said, ‘Great. Looks great. It looks great.’ Kid picks it up, takes it to the second class. Teacher said, ‘Okay, whatever. It’s great. It’s great.’ Ahmed didn’t really comment, from what I heard. Takes it to the third class, same thing. Then he got to a point, again, secondhand, where one of the teachers, an English teacher, apparently, said, ‘Look, you’ve got to put it in your backpack, because it’s going to make some people nervous, and it’s making me nervous.’ And again, secondhand, he didn’t — he wasn’t responsive to it at all. And so, it took six classes before anything happened.”
Cuban is making the opposite point really. First teacher saw it, no problem. Second, third, fourth, fifth -- same. The sixth teacher was the "English teacher". That's the teacher who took away the clock/bomb and called the principal's office. It wasnt an earlier teacher. According to Cuban. DMN reports the story differently:
Quote:
He showed it to his engineering teacher first thing Monday morning and didn’t get quite the reaction he’d hoped for.
“He was like, ‘That’s really nice,’” Ahmed said. “‘I would advise you not to show any other teachers.’”
He kept the clock inside his school bag in English class, but the teacher complained when the alarm beeped in the middle of a lesson. Ahmed brought his invention up to show her afterward.
“She was like, it looks like a bomb,” he said.
“I told her, ‘It doesn’t look like a bomb to me.’”
The teacher kept the clock. When the principal and a police officer pulled Ahmed out of sixth period, he suspected he wouldn’t get it back.
They led Ahmed into a room where four other police officers waited. He said an officer he’d never seen before leaned back in his chair and remarked: “Yup. That’s who I thought it was.”
But still, the 1st teacher here isnt telling him that it would cause alarm, at least according to this quote. And the description of what happened in the English class doesnt seem like much of an attempt to scare. Putting the two accounts together, 5/6 teachers didnt have a problem. So lets not necessarily tar the kid as an obvious hoax bomber (not that you personally are doing it) because one person thought it looked like a bomb.
didn't they find out enough to make this look like a very frivolous suit, at the very least?
Do you think whether he invented the clock or just stripped a commercial alarm clock is particularly relevant to whether he should have been arrested for a bomb hoax? Seems irrelevant to me.
Were there other things discovered?
It's more than that. There was a lot of family history, history with this child, and if I remember correctly, there was at least some strong circumstantial evidence to suggest he intentionally put this together to look like a bomb.
Ahmed never claimed his device was anything but a clock, said police spokesman James McLellan. And police have no reason to think it was dangerous. But officers still didn’t believe Ahmed was giving them the whole story.
“We have no information that he claimed it was a bomb,” McLellan said. “He kept maintaining it was a clock, but there was no broader explanation.”
Asked what broader explanation the boy could have given, the spokesman explained:
“It could reasonably be mistaken as a device if left in a bathroom or under a car. The concern was, what was this thing built for? Do we take him into custody?”
So 5/6 teachers didnt think it was a bomb. The police didnt think it was a bomb. Ahmed didnt claim it was a bomb. One English teacher thought it looked like a bomb. And the police say that if he did something with the pencil case that he in fact did NOT do -- leave it under a car or in a bathroom -- it could be mistaken for a bomb. So the police took him into custody.
Sorry, but that reeks of bullshit to me. I dont know if it was racism, overcaution or what. He didnt need to go to juvy if these are the facts. Im sure Britt will call me dense, because I am.
didn't they find out enough to make this look like a very frivolous suit, at the very least?
Do you think whether he invented the clock or just stripped a commercial alarm clock is particularly relevant to whether he should have been arrested for a bomb hoax? Seems irrelevant to me.
Were there other things discovered?
It's more than that. There was a lot of family history, history with this child, and if I remember correctly, there was at least some strong circumstantial evidence to suggest he intentionally put this together to look like a bomb.
Can you link to the evidence?
No one including the police thought it was a bomb Â
On Wednesday, Irving Police Chief Larry Boyd said that Mohamed would not be charged with any wrongdoing.
“We have no evidence to support that there was an intention to create alarm or cause people to be concerned,” Boyd said during a news conference after news of Mohamed’s arrest prompted a national outcry.
Link - ( New Window )
Deej,
Just because the police didn't have any evidence doesn't mean they didn't believe it was a hoax. You're a lawyer, you know this is a difference between believing and proving. Also, your going on what was released publicly.
RE: RE: And for the crowd that thinks he knowingly built a hoax bomb Â
Just because the police didn't have any evidence doesn't mean they didn't believe it was a hoax. You're a lawyer, you know this is a difference between believing and proving. Also, your going on what was released publicly.
Believing things based on no evidence is called fantasy. Or pure speculation. We dont arrest people based on that. We dont suspend based on that. In a polite society we dont even talk about things based on no evidence.
"No evidence" is not the absence of "proof". It is a much more extreme position. I can have some evidence of something without "proof", especially when we need to define a level of evidence constituting proof. Lets put all evidence on a 0-100 scale. Proof may be 51% (preponderance), smoking gun (100%), beyond a reasonable doubt (95%? 99%?), clear and convincing (~66-80%?). Thus I could have some evidence, say 30%, and not meet any of these standards of proof. "No evidence" strikes me as 0%. That's a whole 'nother bag. It's not mere failure of a level of proof.
As for what was released publicly, the police said "no evidence". Should I speculate that it was a big lie? Why?
RE: RE: RE: And for the crowd that thinks he knowingly built a hoax bomb Â
Just because the police didn't have any evidence doesn't mean they didn't believe it was a hoax. You're a lawyer, you know this is a difference between believing and proving. Also, your going on what was released publicly.
Believing things based on no evidence is called fantasy. Or pure speculation. We dont arrest people based on that. We dont suspend based on that. In a polite society we dont even talk about things based on no evidence.
"No evidence" is not the absence of "proof". It is a much more extreme position. I can have some evidence of something without "proof", especially when we need to define a level of evidence constituting proof. Lets put all evidence on a 0-100 scale. Proof may be 51% (preponderance), smoking gun (100%), beyond a reasonable doubt (95%? 99%?), clear and convincing (~66-80%?). Thus I could have some evidence, say 30%, and not meet any of these standards of proof. "No evidence" strikes me as 0%. That's a whole 'nother bag. It's not mere failure of a level of proof.
As for what was released publicly, the police said "no evidence". Should I speculate that it was a big lie? Why?
Deej,
You don't know my background and all I know about yours is that your a lawyer. I'm one of the last people you need to lecture on why or why you don't arrest people.
You investigate/arrest people all the time based on PC, but PC doesn't always equal hard evidence that you can charge. Your making all sorts of hard assumptions on the boys side of things, but none on the side of the school or LE. I don't know why specifically they arrested/detained him and possibly never will.
RE: RE: RE: RE: And for the crowd that thinks he knowingly built a hoax bomb Â
You investigate/arrest people all the time based on PC, but PC doesn't always equal hard evidence that you can charge. Your making all sorts of hard assumptions on the boys side of things, but none on the side of the school or LE. I don't know why specifically they arrested/detained him and possibly never will.
What is hard evidence? You arrest people if you have a crime you can charge with the evidence at hand. You dont arrest people you cant charge.
Im not making "hard assumptions". Im merely taking the police at their word that they had "no evidence to support that there was an intention to create alarm or cause people to be concerned" on the boy's part.
What point are you making? That it is possible that it was his intent notwithstanding a total lack of evidence? I agree, possible. But not grounds for being hauled off to jail, finger printed, and have your mug shot taken. Honestly, I dont even know how it is arguable.
That's really your take on the Cuban comments? We don't need to debate this. I know it's futile. People usually have their mind made up and see things the way they want (both people usually).
We know for a fact the first teacher he showed it to was the engineering teacher. That teacher said don't show it to anyone else. We don't know about any other comments the engineering teacher may have said to Ahmed because those details have not been made public.
He showed it to multiple other teachers and eventually one (his English teacher) confused it for a bomb.
Cuban also expressed skepticism on other aspects of his story in general
To the initial point of the thread. I'd need to see some compelling evidence of misconduct or racial bias to believe a lawsuit is warranted. The most egregious point so far (without hearing the other side or me knowing the actual law) seems like detaining a minor and questioning him without parental consent. If that's the law.
you're right that all you need to arrest is PC. But if you have "no evidence" of intent on an intent based crime, you have no PC. That's what I mean re you dont arrest when you cant charge. There are some circumstances where the police might make an arrest before being about to charge. But the window is really short anyway -- 72 hours I think.
here is a link to video of Cuban's comments, starting at 53 seconds, and really starting at 1:38. Cuban's point is 100% in the kid's support. I take it in fact that Cuban maybe made a mistake. But his point is that the 6th teacher is the one who said dont show anyone else, not an earlier teacher. (Cuban later says he should not have been arrested but should have answered the questions.)
What do you think Cuban is saying? Do you really think AFTER WATCHING THIS that Cuban's point is that some other teacher warned Ahmed earlier in the day? Nonsense dude. Cuban conflated the earlier teacher and the reporting teacher, so he definitely wasnt saying Ahmed was warned. Link - ( New Window )
We know for a fact the first teacher he showed it to was the engineering teacher. That teacher said don't show it to anyone else. We don't know about any other comments the engineering teacher may have said to Ahmed because those details have not been made public.
But we dont know why. Maybe the reason was that the first teacher thought that some of his colleagues were idiots. Like people who believed that Jade Helm 15 was a government plot to invade the SW. Not that it actually looked like a bomb. 5 of 6 teachers apparently did not think it looked like a bomb.
We know for a fact the first teacher he showed it to was the engineering teacher. That teacher said don't show it to anyone else. We don't know about any other comments the engineering teacher may have said to Ahmed because those details have not been made public.
But we dont know why. Maybe the reason was that the first teacher thought that some of his colleagues were idiots. Like people who believed that Jade Helm 15 was a government plot to invade the SW. Not that it actually looked like a bomb. 5 of 6 teachers apparently did not think it looked like a bomb.
I wish we could attach a turbine to your arms. With all the hand waving you do, we could solve our energy problems for 30 years.
You investigate/arrest people all the time based on PC, but PC doesn't always equal hard evidence that you can charge. Your making all sorts of hard assumptions on the boys side of things, but none on the side of the school or LE. I don't know why specifically they arrested/detained him and possibly never will.
What is hard evidence? You arrest people if you have a crime you can charge with the evidence at hand. You dont arrest people you cant charge.
Im not making "hard assumptions". Im merely taking the police at their word that they had "no evidence to support that there was an intention to create alarm or cause people to be concerned" on the boy's part.
What point are you making? That it is possible that it was his intent notwithstanding a total lack of evidence? I agree, possible. But not grounds for being hauled off to jail, finger printed, and have your mug shot taken. Honestly, I dont even know how it is arguable.
Actually you do. You really believe every case the police work gets prosecuted? Every LE agency in the country works 100's if not 1000's of investigations that never see a courtroom or get charged. Somtimes a DA looks at them and decides their may be issues with how evidence was siezed, maybe they don't believe the evidence is strong enough, maybe they don't think its worth the battle in court, but I assure you, case are worked all the time that involve arrests and don't go to court.
Why this never went further then his detention/arrest is a matter that can only be answered by those directly invovled. Even then we may never know because we'd have to hope they give a candid answer, which also may never happen. Did the police detain/arrest because of policy, racism or PC? We don't know thier thought process, we can only attempt to go over media reports and come up with our best guess.
you're right that all you need to arrest is PC. But if you have "no evidence" of intent on an intent based crime, you have no PC. That's what I mean re you dont arrest when you cant charge. There are some circumstances where the police might make an arrest before being about to charge. But the window is really short anyway -- 72 hours I think.
Again, we don't know why they arrested or detained. The only person who can answer this is the responding officers who may never give a candid response. They may have felt they had PC, maybe it was policy or racist. LE officers make judgement calls on experience all the time. Many times they believe they have PC and when they or another go over all the facts they may find out they had PC for the arrest, but nothing more. PC doesn't always equal charges.
I've said over and over on this thread that Bomb threats, fire alarms being pulled, fake weapons, etc... get the same treatment at schools. Kids get taken out in cuffs, etc... That it's standard protocol what happened to Mohamed.
But those kids never actually get charged. I think it's more of a scared straight thing than anything.
I believe Mohamed and his family gamed the system. Â
And they would know the system, too, considering the sister had been put up for expulsion the year before for a threat to "blow up" the school. They were very familiar with the protocol, IMO.
was murdered and got $5M this kid thinks he deserves $15M?
I don't know if he gamed this system or not. I think it's entirely plausible given the family history and actions post-incident that it is true - they did game the system, but who knows, it's possible that wasn't the case. Without the release of the information we won't know (if we ever do).
but if he just took his scholarships and 15 minutes of fame and lived his life I'd find it more believable, but when he tweets very shortly after being released from jail "going to see my lawyer" while a huge smile, and the family near hysteria that #istandwithahmed is trending #1 on twitter, they seemed almost giddy, I lose some of my faith he's on the level and get suspicious.
something about the whole incident seems off to me.
police and teachers are automatically the guilty ones.
The facts of the day are murky, but clearly the school and police were being bigots. CLEARLY! Forget the absurdity and obscurity of the entire ordeal including parties involved; a Muslim kid was detained and investigated for a bomb hoax at a school in America. The school and police are clearly bigots! End of story! Support and pay the kid!
Because I see people working so hard everyday to make a difference.
You guys aren't going to believe this because it sounds so sappy, but I guarantee you its 1000% true and dead accurate.... I was coming out of my break room with my lunch the other day, and a couple doors down a colleague of mine was having a very vocal argument with a kid he had pulled out of class for disruption. The school resource officer (police officer) was also walking by. We acknowledged each other, and the situation down the hall, with a nod, and he said "I don't know how you guys do it, you are some of the most patient people I know." I thought about it for a second and said "you and I are very much alike in that regard." He kind of laughed but not in a "it's funny" sort of way, and I went in my classroom to eat lunch.
The general public truly has no idea. It would be a real eye opener if they did.
you're right that all you need to arrest is PC. But if you have "no evidence" of intent on an intent based crime, you have no PC. That's what I mean re you dont arrest when you cant charge. There are some circumstances where the police might make an arrest before being about to charge. But the window is really short anyway -- 72 hours I think.
Again, we don't know why they arrested or detained. The only person who can answer this is the responding officers who may never give a candid response. They may have felt they had PC, maybe it was policy or racist. LE officers make judgement calls on experience all the time. Many times they believe they have PC and when they or another go over all the facts they may find out they had PC for the arrest, but nothing more. PC doesn't always equal charges.
Of course we know why he was arrested. The police report said he was charged with building a hoax bomb.
As for the rest of this, we're going in circles. I agree the police may arrest thinking they have PC and then later conclude they do not. You wont acknowledge that the police said they have no evidence of the key element of the hoax weapon crime -- intent. NO EVIDENCE. How do you go from PC to no evidence--what changed? It's like arreting someone for murder and then saying that you have no evidence that the cause of death was homicide.
I see it. What if he didnt break a rule?
Quote:
In comment 12642526 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
In comment 12642513 Deej said:
Quote:
In comment 12642495 B in ALB said:
Quote:
I thought it was the latter with no charges filed. If true, is that really that big of a deal considering all of the threats to our schools we've seen come to fruition?
Mohammed? Questioned at school in office. He was then led out of school in handcuffs, went to juvy where he was finger printed, had a mug shot taken, and was questioned more before release. Not sure if that counts as "arrested". He was not charged.
All standard procedure when you call in a bomb threat, get caught with lookalike weapon, pull a fire alarm, etc... at school.
Did he do those things? Even the police said it was obvious it wasnt a bomb. So unless he said something suggestive, I'd argue pretty strongly that he put a clock in a pencil case and did not have a lookalike weapon. He certainly wasnt charged.
It is enough to be considered a lookalike weapon.
A kid can paint a water gun black, and when police get it in their hands, they immediately know it's not real. Does not change the outcome. It's prohibited on school property.
To ignore this fact over and over, that police should just know it was fake and therefore just let it go, shows a complete lack of understand for how zero tolerance, schools, and even police operate.
I don't understand why that point just can not seem to get through to some of you.
The police determined it wasn't a credible threat. I understand zero tolerance for weapons or fake weapons, but IMO it's impossible to 100% prove that Ahmad's intent was solely to embarrass the school. One other question, why do some people keep exaggerating the size of the device? It's very clearly a pencil case, and you can scale the size based off of looking at the plug for the outlet. I keep seeing the container described as a luggage bag or briefcase.
Regardless, if my 14 year old son wanted to make a clock for school I would strongly advise against putting it in a briefcase. I mean, come on.
Quote:
whether or not it was actually a bomb right there on-site. Did they call in a possible bomb? They didn't bring in bomb experts/dogs?
So then it was more than likely known it wasn't a bomb--but was it an asshole kid with an agenda? Seems like it give his current location. So then he should be treated as a possible bomb hoaxer.
He should go fuck himself. And yes, while I support the President overall, he has been landing on the sides of some issues I can't support.
You're all over the map. The cops knew it wasn't a bomb when they looked at the case. They didn't know he was an asshole at the time and that shouldn't be relevant. I can see punishing the kid but the handcuffs, etc were over the top.
Back at ya.
Regardless, if my 14 year old son wanted to make a clock for school I would strongly advise against putting it in a briefcase. I mean, come on.
Im not sure what your point is. I gave you the timeline. At the time he was led out of school in handcuffs, the police absolutely did not believe it was a bomb. From wikipedia (because I dont want to find another source, sorry):
Police determined that he had no malicious intent, and he was not charged with any crime.[12][16] Irving Police Chief Larry Boyd said that "the officers pretty quickly determined that they weren't investigating an explosive device", and that Mohammed was arrested over the prospect that it was a "hoax bomb".[17]
“We have no evidence to support that there was an intention to create alarm or cause people to be concerned,” Boyd said during a news conference after news of Mohamed’s arrest prompted a national outcry.
Link - ( New Window )
Eh, I dont agree. If you believe his side of things, it was a naive HS freshman who probably didnt think about whether this would/could be mistaken for a bomb. I dont know if we want our kids being that cynical. Then again if you believe the douchebag family version, yeah it's terrible judgment.
Quote:
On Wednesday, Irving Police Chief Larry Boyd said that Mohamed would not be charged with any wrongdoing.
“We have no evidence to support that there was an intention to create alarm or cause people to be concerned,” Boyd said during a news conference after news of Mohamed’s arrest prompted a national outcry.
Link - ( New Window )
Using that same logic, I guess you don't think OJ committed the murders?
Lack of evidence does not mean he didn't intend to deceive people into thinking it was a bomb.
Regardless, if my 14 year old son wanted to make a clock for school I would strongly advise against putting it in a briefcase. I mean, come on.
Not a briefcase.
Quote:
and the police thought that when he was arrested:
Quote:
On Wednesday, Irving Police Chief Larry Boyd said that Mohamed would not be charged with any wrongdoing.
“We have no evidence to support that there was an intention to create alarm or cause people to be concerned,” Boyd said during a news conference after news of Mohamed’s arrest prompted a national outcry.
Link - ( New Window )
Using that same logic, I guess you don't think OJ committed the murders?
Lack of evidence does not mean he didn't intend to deceive people into thinking it was a bomb.
So by your logic everyone is guilty? Think about what you're saying.
Quote:
and the police thought that when he was arrested:
Quote:
On Wednesday, Irving Police Chief Larry Boyd said that Mohamed would not be charged with any wrongdoing.
“We have no evidence to support that there was an intention to create alarm or cause people to be concerned,” Boyd said during a news conference after news of Mohamed’s arrest prompted a national outcry.
Link - ( New Window )
Using that same logic, I guess you don't think OJ committed the murders?
Lack of evidence does not mean he didn't intend to deceive people into thinking it was a bomb.
You are confusing no evidence, preponderance of the evidence, and a jury finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. OJ's acquittal does not mean that there was NO EVIDENCE that he murdered those two people.
The police chief quoted above said that "We have no evidence to support that there was an intention to create alarm or cause people to be concerned". "No evidence" is a very strong phrase. Now they're not saying it was no evidence of him making a hoax bomb, but it's pretty close to it, isnt it? And isnt a hoax bomb a crime of intent more than anything? One for which he wasnt charged...
Quote:
Shouldn't the exact timeline answer those questions? A timeline that shows exactly what happened and when...
Regardless, if my 14 year old son wanted to make a clock for school I would strongly advise against putting it in a briefcase. I mean, come on.
Not a briefcase.
No case at all. Have your kid carry it. Preferably taped to his body, under his clothes.
Quote:
I wonder what his parents were thinking. "Oh, that's cool. I'm sure your teachers will be impressed".
Eh, I dont agree. If you believe his side of things, it was a naive HS freshman who probably didnt think about whether this would/could be mistaken for a bomb. I dont know if we want our kids being that cynical. Then again if you believe the douchebag family version, yeah it's terrible judgment.
I agree with this, we don't want to deter children from being expressive or provocative (in a constructive way), but his science teacher told him, not to show it to anyone else because it could "alarm the staff". He showed it to several other teachers after that warning until his English teacher saw it and....was alarmed. He should not have been surprised with the alarm especially since the teacher he brought it in to show warned him and he should have been able to explain this to police.
the family history and fathers comments and all their actions post-incident stuff are secondary and speculative but they definitely make you question the naivety of the incident overall. It just seems suspicious.
Quote:
In comment 12642601 AP in Halfmoon said:
Quote:
I wonder what his parents were thinking. "Oh, that's cool. I'm sure your teachers will be impressed".
Eh, I dont agree. If you believe his side of things, it was a naive HS freshman who probably didnt think about whether this would/could be mistaken for a bomb. I dont know if we want our kids being that cynical. Then again if you believe the douchebag family version, yeah it's terrible judgment.
I agree with this, we don't want to deter children from being expressive or provocative (in a constructive way), but his science teacher told him, not to show it to anyone else because it could "alarm the staff". He showed it to several other teachers after that warning until his English teacher saw it and....was alarmed. He should not have been surprised with the alarm especially since the teacher he brought it in to show warned him and he should have been able to explain this to police.
the family history and fathers comments and all their actions post-incident stuff are secondary and speculative but they definitely make you question the naivety of the incident overall. It just seems suspicious.
Or he was uncooperative because he asked to speak to his parents (as he was possibly told to do or saw from TV) and his request was denied. I believe wrongfully (not sure).
There is a lot we dont know. Obviously his family could waive privacy, and if they pursue this litigation I assume they will have to do it. I dont know why anyone would have their heels dug in at this point on a definitive account/rationales.
turns up nothing. You have a story to link to?
turns up nothing. You have a story to link to?
Sure Deej, it's from the Mark Cuban story because the family won't allow release of information - not sure of the veracity, since it is Breitbart, but Cuban does acknowledge the two talked, I have no reason to believe this isn't true.
Ahmed warned the device might alarm school staff - according to Mark Cuban - ( New Window )
(Florida?). Here is what Cuban actually said:
Cuban is making the opposite point really. First teacher saw it, no problem. Second, third, fourth, fifth -- same. The sixth teacher was the "English teacher". That's the teacher who took away the clock/bomb and called the principal's office. It wasnt an earlier teacher. According to Cuban. DMN reports the story differently:
“He was like, ‘That’s really nice,’” Ahmed said. “‘I would advise you not to show any other teachers.’”
He kept the clock inside his school bag in English class, but the teacher complained when the alarm beeped in the middle of a lesson. Ahmed brought his invention up to show her afterward.
“She was like, it looks like a bomb,” he said.
“I told her, ‘It doesn’t look like a bomb to me.’”
The teacher kept the clock. When the principal and a police officer pulled Ahmed out of sixth period, he suspected he wouldn’t get it back.
They led Ahmed into a room where four other police officers waited. He said an officer he’d never seen before leaned back in his chair and remarked: “Yup. That’s who I thought it was.”
But still, the 1st teacher here isnt telling him that it would cause alarm, at least according to this quote. And the description of what happened in the English class doesnt seem like much of an attempt to scare. Putting the two accounts together, 5/6 teachers didnt have a problem. So lets not necessarily tar the kid as an obvious hoax bomber (not that you personally are doing it) because one person thought it looked like a bomb.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
didn't they find out enough to make this look like a very frivolous suit, at the very least?
Do you think whether he invented the clock or just stripped a commercial alarm clock is particularly relevant to whether he should have been arrested for a bomb hoax? Seems irrelevant to me.
Were there other things discovered?
“We have no information that he claimed it was a bomb,” McLellan said. “He kept maintaining it was a clock, but there was no broader explanation.”
Asked what broader explanation the boy could have given, the spokesman explained:
“It could reasonably be mistaken as a device if left in a bathroom or under a car. The concern was, what was this thing built for? Do we take him into custody?”
So 5/6 teachers didnt think it was a bomb. The police didnt think it was a bomb. Ahmed didnt claim it was a bomb. One English teacher thought it looked like a bomb. And the police say that if he did something with the pencil case that he in fact did NOT do -- leave it under a car or in a bathroom -- it could be mistaken for a bomb. So the police took him into custody.
Sorry, but that reeks of bullshit to me. I dont know if it was racism, overcaution or what. He didnt need to go to juvy if these are the facts. Im sure Britt will call me dense, because I am.
Quote:
In comment 12641141 Matt M. said:
Quote:
didn't they find out enough to make this look like a very frivolous suit, at the very least?
Do you think whether he invented the clock or just stripped a commercial alarm clock is particularly relevant to whether he should have been arrested for a bomb hoax? Seems irrelevant to me.
Were there other things discovered?
It's more than that. There was a lot of family history, history with this child, and if I remember correctly, there was at least some strong circumstantial evidence to suggest he intentionally put this together to look like a bomb.
Can you link to the evidence?
Quote:
On Wednesday, Irving Police Chief Larry Boyd said that Mohamed would not be charged with any wrongdoing.
“We have no evidence to support that there was an intention to create alarm or cause people to be concerned,” Boyd said during a news conference after news of Mohamed’s arrest prompted a national outcry.
Link - ( New Window )
Deej,
Just because the police didn't have any evidence doesn't mean they didn't believe it was a hoax. You're a lawyer, you know this is a difference between believing and proving. Also, your going on what was released publicly.
Deej,
Just because the police didn't have any evidence doesn't mean they didn't believe it was a hoax. You're a lawyer, you know this is a difference between believing and proving. Also, your going on what was released publicly.
Believing things based on no evidence is called fantasy. Or pure speculation. We dont arrest people based on that. We dont suspend based on that. In a polite society we dont even talk about things based on no evidence.
"No evidence" is not the absence of "proof". It is a much more extreme position. I can have some evidence of something without "proof", especially when we need to define a level of evidence constituting proof. Lets put all evidence on a 0-100 scale. Proof may be 51% (preponderance), smoking gun (100%), beyond a reasonable doubt (95%? 99%?), clear and convincing (~66-80%?). Thus I could have some evidence, say 30%, and not meet any of these standards of proof. "No evidence" strikes me as 0%. That's a whole 'nother bag. It's not mere failure of a level of proof.
As for what was released publicly, the police said "no evidence". Should I speculate that it was a big lie? Why?
Quote:
Deej,
Just because the police didn't have any evidence doesn't mean they didn't believe it was a hoax. You're a lawyer, you know this is a difference between believing and proving. Also, your going on what was released publicly.
Believing things based on no evidence is called fantasy. Or pure speculation. We dont arrest people based on that. We dont suspend based on that. In a polite society we dont even talk about things based on no evidence.
"No evidence" is not the absence of "proof". It is a much more extreme position. I can have some evidence of something without "proof", especially when we need to define a level of evidence constituting proof. Lets put all evidence on a 0-100 scale. Proof may be 51% (preponderance), smoking gun (100%), beyond a reasonable doubt (95%? 99%?), clear and convincing (~66-80%?). Thus I could have some evidence, say 30%, and not meet any of these standards of proof. "No evidence" strikes me as 0%. That's a whole 'nother bag. It's not mere failure of a level of proof.
As for what was released publicly, the police said "no evidence". Should I speculate that it was a big lie? Why?
Deej,
You don't know my background and all I know about yours is that your a lawyer. I'm one of the last people you need to lecture on why or why you don't arrest people.
You investigate/arrest people all the time based on PC, but PC doesn't always equal hard evidence that you can charge. Your making all sorts of hard assumptions on the boys side of things, but none on the side of the school or LE. I don't know why specifically they arrested/detained him and possibly never will.
You investigate/arrest people all the time based on PC, but PC doesn't always equal hard evidence that you can charge. Your making all sorts of hard assumptions on the boys side of things, but none on the side of the school or LE. I don't know why specifically they arrested/detained him and possibly never will.
What is hard evidence? You arrest people if you have a crime you can charge with the evidence at hand. You dont arrest people you cant charge.
Im not making "hard assumptions". Im merely taking the police at their word that they had "no evidence to support that there was an intention to create alarm or cause people to be concerned" on the boy's part.
What point are you making? That it is possible that it was his intent notwithstanding a total lack of evidence? I agree, possible. But not grounds for being hauled off to jail, finger printed, and have your mug shot taken. Honestly, I dont even know how it is arguable.
We know for a fact the first teacher he showed it to was the engineering teacher. That teacher said don't show it to anyone else. We don't know about any other comments the engineering teacher may have said to Ahmed because those details have not been made public.
He showed it to multiple other teachers and eventually one (his English teacher) confused it for a bomb.
Cuban also expressed skepticism on other aspects of his story in general
To the initial point of the thread. I'd need to see some compelling evidence of misconduct or racial bias to believe a lawsuit is warranted. The most egregious point so far (without hearing the other side or me knowing the actual law) seems like detaining a minor and questioning him without parental consent. If that's the law.
What do you think Cuban is saying? Do you really think AFTER WATCHING THIS that Cuban's point is that some other teacher warned Ahmed earlier in the day? Nonsense dude. Cuban conflated the earlier teacher and the reporting teacher, so he definitely wasnt saying Ahmed was warned.
Link - ( New Window )
We know for a fact the first teacher he showed it to was the engineering teacher. That teacher said don't show it to anyone else. We don't know about any other comments the engineering teacher may have said to Ahmed because those details have not been made public.
But we dont know why. Maybe the reason was that the first teacher thought that some of his colleagues were idiots. Like people who believed that Jade Helm 15 was a government plot to invade the SW. Not that it actually looked like a bomb. 5 of 6 teachers apparently did not think it looked like a bomb.
Quote:
We know for a fact the first teacher he showed it to was the engineering teacher. That teacher said don't show it to anyone else. We don't know about any other comments the engineering teacher may have said to Ahmed because those details have not been made public.
But we dont know why. Maybe the reason was that the first teacher thought that some of his colleagues were idiots. Like people who believed that Jade Helm 15 was a government plot to invade the SW. Not that it actually looked like a bomb. 5 of 6 teachers apparently did not think it looked like a bomb.
I wish we could attach a turbine to your arms. With all the hand waving you do, we could solve our energy problems for 30 years.
Thanks. That's sweet.
Quote:
You investigate/arrest people all the time based on PC, but PC doesn't always equal hard evidence that you can charge. Your making all sorts of hard assumptions on the boys side of things, but none on the side of the school or LE. I don't know why specifically they arrested/detained him and possibly never will.
What is hard evidence? You arrest people if you have a crime you can charge with the evidence at hand. You dont arrest people you cant charge.
Im not making "hard assumptions". Im merely taking the police at their word that they had "no evidence to support that there was an intention to create alarm or cause people to be concerned" on the boy's part.
What point are you making? That it is possible that it was his intent notwithstanding a total lack of evidence? I agree, possible. But not grounds for being hauled off to jail, finger printed, and have your mug shot taken. Honestly, I dont even know how it is arguable.
Actually you do. You really believe every case the police work gets prosecuted? Every LE agency in the country works 100's if not 1000's of investigations that never see a courtroom or get charged. Somtimes a DA looks at them and decides their may be issues with how evidence was siezed, maybe they don't believe the evidence is strong enough, maybe they don't think its worth the battle in court, but I assure you, case are worked all the time that involve arrests and don't go to court.
Why this never went further then his detention/arrest is a matter that can only be answered by those directly invovled. Even then we may never know because we'd have to hope they give a candid answer, which also may never happen. Did the police detain/arrest because of policy, racism or PC? We don't know thier thought process, we can only attempt to go over media reports and come up with our best guess.
Again, we don't know why they arrested or detained. The only person who can answer this is the responding officers who may never give a candid response. They may have felt they had PC, maybe it was policy or racist. LE officers make judgement calls on experience all the time. Many times they believe they have PC and when they or another go over all the facts they may find out they had PC for the arrest, but nothing more. PC doesn't always equal charges.
But those kids never actually get charged. I think it's more of a scared straight thing than anything.
It worked.
I don't know if he gamed this system or not. I think it's entirely plausible given the family history and actions post-incident that it is true - they did game the system, but who knows, it's possible that wasn't the case. Without the release of the information we won't know (if we ever do).
but if he just took his scholarships and 15 minutes of fame and lived his life I'd find it more believable, but when he tweets very shortly after being released from jail "going to see my lawyer" while a huge smile, and the family near hysteria that #istandwithahmed is trending #1 on twitter, they seemed almost giddy, I lose some of my faith he's on the level and get suspicious.
something about the whole incident seems off to me.
The facts of the day are murky, but clearly the school and police were being bigots. CLEARLY! Forget the absurdity and obscurity of the entire ordeal including parties involved; a Muslim kid was detained and investigated for a bomb hoax at a school in America. The school and police are clearly bigots! End of story! Support and pay the kid!
THIS is what America has come to...
You guys aren't going to believe this because it sounds so sappy, but I guarantee you its 1000% true and dead accurate.... I was coming out of my break room with my lunch the other day, and a couple doors down a colleague of mine was having a very vocal argument with a kid he had pulled out of class for disruption. The school resource officer (police officer) was also walking by. We acknowledged each other, and the situation down the hall, with a nod, and he said "I don't know how you guys do it, you are some of the most patient people I know." I thought about it for a second and said "you and I are very much alike in that regard." He kind of laughed but not in a "it's funny" sort of way, and I went in my classroom to eat lunch.
The general public truly has no idea. It would be a real eye opener if they did.
Quote:
you're right that all you need to arrest is PC. But if you have "no evidence" of intent on an intent based crime, you have no PC. That's what I mean re you dont arrest when you cant charge. There are some circumstances where the police might make an arrest before being about to charge. But the window is really short anyway -- 72 hours I think.
Again, we don't know why they arrested or detained. The only person who can answer this is the responding officers who may never give a candid response. They may have felt they had PC, maybe it was policy or racist. LE officers make judgement calls on experience all the time. Many times they believe they have PC and when they or another go over all the facts they may find out they had PC for the arrest, but nothing more. PC doesn't always equal charges.
Of course we know why he was arrested. The police report said he was charged with building a hoax bomb.
As for the rest of this, we're going in circles. I agree the police may arrest thinking they have PC and then later conclude they do not. You wont acknowledge that the police said they have no evidence of the key element of the hoax weapon crime -- intent. NO EVIDENCE. How do you go from PC to no evidence--what changed? It's like arreting someone for murder and then saying that you have no evidence that the cause of death was homicide.
Drink.