#IStandWithAhmed

[SKL]

 

And again, what is your point?  Let's assume for the sake of argument, he "fibbed" to use your words.  What does that prove?  Does it justify what happened to him in any way, shape or form?  What is the point?

 

It doesn't "prove" anything.  It just means be careful what you believe from this source.  It means don't get your blood pressure up or take serious action without some corroboration of his claims.

[Caroline]

The reason some of us are pointing out Ahmed's misuse of the word "invention" is because most people are taking everything he said about this case at face value. If he fibbed about his so-called "invention" then I don't think we can take everything else he said at face value. And since we have no other source of facts (as far as what happened before the cops got involved), we should withhold judgment until we do.

He invented a pencil case clock. It's to be used during testing. You see, most kids don't wear watches these days. They keep time on their phones. Phones aren't allowed out during testing, but pencil boxes are. Therefore, yes, it is an invention. No fibbing.

[SKL]

Okway, so lets say he lied. And it wasn't really a clock at all, it really was a bomb! Except..no...it was later shown to be a clock. 

 

Well, maybe he lied and he really was trying to convince people it was a bomb...it really was a hoax bomb. Except the police chief says there is no evidence for that. 

 

So...which part of his story are you questioning?

 

Nobody is trying to say it might have been a bomb.

 

That is not what anyone is upset about.  People are upset because of how he says he was treated for what he says he did (or didn't do).

 

I'm waiting to hear what the school releases after the parents give permission (if they give permission).

[amsunshine]

And I don't think knowing his project was not an "invention" is olding a "brilliant" 14yo to an unrealistically high standard.

 

Not too long ago we were talking about another 14yo (a very sheltered one whom nobody considers brilliant), and most people want him to be condemned for life for some things that he did at that age.

 

I remember being 13yo and I knew that the electronics I then put together (based on someone else's model) were not "inventions."  At any rate, I think it's appropriate to be skeptical of some of his more surprising statements.

 

So, again I ask, what is your point?

[*Lulu*]

And I don't think knowing his project was not an "invention" is olding a "brilliant" 14yo to an unrealistically high standard.

 

Not too long ago we were talking about another 14yo (a very sheltered one whom nobody considers brilliant), and most people want him to be condemned for life for some things that he did at that age.

 

I remember being 13yo and I knew that the electronics I then put together (based on someone else's model) were not "inventions." At any rate, I think it's appropriate to be skeptical of some of his more surprising statements.

Stop.

 

There is no comparison between a 14 year old assembling a clock and a 14 year old sexually abusing younger children.

 

That you would try to present the two as equal is jaw-dropping-ly offensive.

[ktgrok]

Nobody is trying to say it might have been a bomb.

 

That is not what anyone is upset about.  People are upset because of how he says he was treated for what he says he did (or didn't do).

 

I'm waiting to hear what the school releases after the parents give permission (if they give permission).

 

Which part are you doubting then??? 

 

He says he was arrested..I'm assuming you aren't doubting that. 

 

Could he have lied about the one person saying they expected it to be him? Sure. Does that change much of anyhthing? Not really. He was still arrested for having a clock.

 

As for what he did or didn't do, please, speculate. Tell me what on earth you think he could have done or not done that would have justified being arrested for making a hoax bomb, when the police say there is no evidence of him doing that. 

[SKL]

Stop.

 

There is no comparison between a 14 year old assembling a clock and a 14 year old sexually abusing younger children.

 

That you would try to present the two as equal is jaw-dropping-ly offensive.

 

I'm not saying they are equal, I'm saying let's not suddenly pretend a "brilliant" 14yo is too dumb to understand common vocabulary.  They taught the term "invention" early in my kids' 2nd grade science book.  The whole "this is a child" sounds like a convenient argument rather than a sincere one.

[amsunshine]

I'm not saying they are equal, I'm saying let's not suddenly pretend a "brilliant" 14yo is too dumb to understand common vocabulary.  They taught the term "invention" early in my kids' 2nd grade science book.  The whole "this is a child" sounds like a convenient argument rather than a sincere one.

 

 

This is so silly!  Nobody has called him "brilliant" except the people that are trying to attack him.  I, for one, have always maintained that he seems like just an ordinary kid, doing ordinary kid things to satisfy his ordinary curiosity.  

[*Lulu*]

I'm not saying they are equal, I'm saying let's not suddenly pretend a "brilliant" 14yo is too dumb to understand common vocabulary. They taught the term "invention" early in my kids' 2nd grade science book. The whole "this is a child" sounds like a convenient argument rather than a sincere one.

And dragging the Duggars into this thread sounds like an attempt to derail discussion rather than address the issue:

 

Child. Arrested.

 

I suppose Godwin's Law needs amending; Nazis or Duggars are the inevitable destination of a thread of unusual size.

[Butter]

The reason some of us are pointing out Ahmed's misuse of the word "invention" is because most people are taking everything he said about this case at face value.  If he fibbed about his so-called "invention" then I don't think we can take everything else he said at face value.  And since we have no other source of facts (as far as what happened before the cops got involved), we should withhold judgment until we do.

 

Is it "fibbing" if you use the wrong word or don't use a word the way it actually means?  I used to consistently misuse the word "mitigating" all the way into my 20s.  Was I fibbing?  Or did I just think it meant something different than it does? (Spoiler alert: I thought it mean something else - in fact the opposite of what it really means.) (ETA: My IQ is very high and I have been called brilliant on many occasions.  I still had the definition of that particular word wrong.)

 

"If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants."

-Isaac Newton

 

Interestingly, this quote was in the book we are reading in science that we started this morning.  The book pointed out Newton may have been totally making of fun of the guy he said it to as the other guy (Robert Hooke) was Newton's rival and also very short.  This is neither here nor there, I just thought it was funny.

[amsunshine]

I'm not saying they are equal, I'm saying let's not suddenly pretend a "brilliant" 14yo is too dumb to understand common vocabulary.  They taught the term "invention" early in my kids' 2nd grade science book.  The whole "this is a child" sounds like a convenient argument rather than a sincere one.

 

Furthermore, your kids were not first generation immigrants.  You are being unreasonable, and are clinging to minutiae which are not relevant to the issue of what happened to him.

[SKL]

Which part are you doubting then??? 

 

He says he was arrested..I'm assuming you aren't doubting that. 

 

Could he have lied about the one person saying they expected it to be him? Sure. Does that change much of anyhthing? Not really. He was still arrested for having a clock.

 

As for what he did or didn't do, please, speculate. Tell me what on earth you think he could have done or not done that would have justified being arrested for making a hoax bomb, when the police say there is no evidence of him doing that. 

 

I'm saying there might have been a reason for someone at the school to be scared or to believe he had a motive to alarm.  That person may have been wrong, but it matters whether/why they sincerely believed this incident needed to be investigated and Ahmed deserved to be suspended.

 

The only way the police could conclude they didn't have evidence to book him for a "hoax bomb" was by investigating.  You don't decline to investigate an concern like that in a school just because the kid's community might not like it.  So is the uproar really over the fact that the cops investigated this?  Or is it over what led up to that?

[SKL]

This is so silly!  Nobody has called him "brilliant" except the people that are trying to attack him.  I, for one, have always maintained that he seems like just an ordinary kid, doing ordinary kid things to satisfy his ordinary curiosity.  

 

His supporters have called him brilliant.

 

[justasque]

The reason some of us are pointing out Ahmed's misuse of the word "invention" is because most people are taking everything he said about this case at face value.  If he fibbed about his so-called "invention" then I don't think we can take everything else he said at face value.  And since we have no other source of facts (as far as what happened before the cops got involved), we should withhold judgment until we do.

If Ahmed is calling his creation an "invention", but it's really more of an art project - take these bits and pieces and glue them into a box and call it a "clock" or a "robot" or an "invention" or a 'cheese sandwich" even though it's more a "pretend" clock or robot or invention or cheese sandwich - that's within the age-appropriate range of behavior and OK.  

The point is that, according to the admittedly limited information we have about this case,

1) Ahmed was enthusiastic and interested and motivated enough to make something,

2) That something was not a bomb,

3) Ahmed knew that it was not a bomb, didn't say it was a bomb, and corrected people who told him they thought it looked like one,

4) The adults behaved in a way that makes it clear they did not think the creation was a bomb (e.g they did not evacuate the building, etc.)

5) Ahmed was nonetheless detained and handcuffed and taken off school property to a juvenile detention facility,

6) Ahmed was not given access to his parents during his detention.

 

If this had happened to my kid, the one and only thing that would matter to me was that the adults who I had trusted to care for my child had violated that trust by detaining him without probable cause to do so and without notifying me.  

 

I agree that news stories do not always tell the full story.  However, thus far no one has offered an ounce of probable cause or even reasonable suspicion to believe that Ahmed intended to "hoax" anyone into believing that his creation was a bomb.  Which it wasn't.  Or that anyone had believed that the creation was an actual bomb.  Which it wasn't.

 

My reaction to the story doesn't hinge on the exact nature of Ahmed's creation process.  It's about a juvenile being detained, in an over-the-top way, on the premise that he did something (bring a "hoax bomb" to school) which he did not do.

[amsunshine]

His supporters have called him brilliant.

 

 

Maybe his parents or relatives have, but what family wouldn't say that/be proud of their own?  Most detached supporters have not.

[SKL]

Furthermore, your kids were not first generation immigrants.  You are being unreasonable, and are clinging to minutiae which are not relevant to the issue of what happened to him.

 

You're right, my kids are direct immigrants who had only been hearing English for <6 years when they entered 2nd grade.  So?  I still think they will know what "invention" means by age 14, especially if they are into STEM.

 

I believe he was not trying to be totally honest, based on watching him speak in an interview.  It's my right to believe that.

 

I'm just saying let's hear the school's version before jumping to conclusions, but obviously it's too late for that.

 

I gotta go now.

[amsunshine]

You're right, my kids are direct immigrants who had only been hearing English for <6 years when they entered 2nd grade.  So?  I still think they will know what "invention" means by age 14, especially if they are into STEM.

 

I believe he was not trying to be totally honest, based on watching him speak in an interview.  It's my right to believe that.

 

I'm just saying let's hear the school's version before jumping to conclusions, but obviously it's too late for that.

 

I gotta go now.

 

Ok, well, I guess if it's reasonable to hold a kid to such a high standard as this at 14 "especially if (he is) into STEM", then it must also reasonable to hold the adults, at an award winning STEM school, to high standards, too.  That means they should have immediately known this device was neither a bomb, nor a hoax bomb.  Also, since these people were so well-versed with STEM and technology, they should have seen that this kid just took apart and reassembled a clock on his own.  So there was no need to cause any commotion or call the police.

 

Otherwise, you are saying that the kid is brilliant and should have known better, and the adults were stupid.  Not logical.

[catz]

Maybe his parents or relatives have, but what family wouldn't say that/be proud of their own?  Most detached supporters have not.

 

The only quote I can find that calls him brilliant is from his father.  I don't even think English is his first language, just for the record.

 

"My son is a very brilliant boy," Mohamed said. "We need people like him in this country."

[unsinkable]

What if an inappropriate, inadvertent word use triggered the school and the police to react the way they did?

 

It's pretty easy for me to imagine a scenario where Ahmed misspoke and the adults reacted to the misstatement.

[amsunshine]

What if an inappropriate, inadvertent word use triggered the school and the police to react the way they did?

 

It's pretty easy for me to imagine a scenario where Ahmed misspoke and the adults reacted to the misstatement.

"Call the police! It's an invention!"

[Word Nerd]

Here is the Irving Police Department's statement.

 

"The student only would say it was a clock and was not forthcoming at that time about any other details.

 

"Having no other information to go on, and taking into consideration the device’s suspicious appearance and the safety of the students and staff at MacArthur High School, the student was taken into custody for possessing a hoax bomb."

 

Where is the mysterious trigger word in that explanation of what happened during the questioning, which matches Ahmed's?

[justasque]

Here is the Irving Police Department's statement.

 

"The student only would say it was a clock and was not forthcoming at that time about any other details.

 

"Having no other information to go on, and taking into consideration the device’s suspicious appearance and the safety of the students and staff at MacArthur High School, the student was taken into custody for possessing a hoax bomb."

 

Where is the mysterious trigger word in that explanation of what happened during the questioning, which matches Ahmed's?

 

See, that's what makes no sense.  If the device appeared "suspicious", why was it not treated as a possible actual bomb?  OR, if they considered it a possible "hoax bomb", where is the hoax if the student represented it as a clock and only a clock?  AND - if the student was "not forthcoming", why on earth did they not contact his parents, who could potentially help them clarify what was going on with the child, BEFORE hauling him off to juvie?  A talk with the principal, along with his parents?  Appropriate.  Police involvement?  Unnecessary.  Actual detention including handcuffs and a trip to juvie?  Completely unacceptable.

[zoobie]

The reason some of us are pointing out Ahmed's misuse of the word "invention" is because most people are taking everything he said about this case at face value. If he fibbed about his so-called "invention" then I don't think we can take everything else he said at face value. And since we have no other source of facts (as far as what happened before the cops got involved), we should withhold judgment until we do.

No, it means he uses the word differently than you do. Idk what terms of art nerdy 14 year old boys use. My DD makes stuff with cardboard and duct tape and calls it an "invention." My DS does the same with Legos. Neither is filling out a US Patent application while doing so. No rational person would assume he's claiming to have invented the freaking clock. Parsing the language usage of a child who has been interrogated and arrested by police and calling him a LIAR because his usage of the word "invention" doesn't match up with how yours is ridiculous.

[zoobie]

His supporters have called him brilliant.

 

His FATHER called him brilliant. His supporters have called him INNOCENT. I don't give a rat's ass if he's sub-average IQ.

[Corraleno]

And I don't think knowing his project was not an "invention" is holding a "brilliant" 14yo to an unrealistically high standard.

 

Not too long ago we were talking about another 14yo (a very sheltered one whom nobody considers brilliant), and most people want him to be condemned for life for some things that he did at that age.

 

I remember being 13yo and I knew that the electronics I then put together (based on someone else's model) were not "inventions."  At any rate, I think it's appropriate to be skeptical of some of his more surprising statements.

 

Seriously???????

 

 

One 14 year old boy naively  misused a word when referring to a clock he built.  That is not illegal, it hurts no one, and was probably unintentional.

 

Another 14-15 year old boy sexually molested 5 children, including sticking his hands inside the underpants of a 5 year old, for his own sexual pleasure. It's illegal, it's disgusting, it damaged people, and it was entirely intentional despite knowing that what he did was very very wrong.

 

Which one was interrogated, arrested, hauled off in handcuffs, fingerprinted, and denied access to his parents?

 

The one who built a freaking CLOCK.

[LucyStoner]

So you're saying he should have been a little more "Professor from Gilligan's Island" in his creative pursuits. Pineapples, coconuts, whittled shards of wood, and crap from the boat -- maybe the people could have handled that.

 

Unless the crap from the boat had wires, because in 2015 people think wires are self-combustible.

Well, who grew the coconuts and pineapples? Did Gilligan build that boat?

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Well, who grew the coconuts and pineapples? Did Gilligan build that boat?

 

Define "build."

[LucyStoner]

Define "build."

Well, from the way some people are taking I suppose you can't build from a kit or from parts you took from something else.

 

Maybe if you printed them all yourself on a 3-D printer. Nah, young teens are just lying schmucks if they didn't invent and build the 3-D printer themselves.

 

I really should tell my son he's a hack and take away all of this suspicious, self combusting circuitry and wires unless he can prove it's of his own unique invention.

 

This is all starting to sound like Dolores Umbridge. Who did you steal this wand from?! Where did you get your magic?!

[zoobie]

Seriously???????

 

 

One 14 year old boy naively misused a word when referring to a clock he built. That is not illegal, it hurts no one, and was probably unintentional.

 

Another 14-15 year old boy sexually molested 5 children, including sticking his hands inside the underpants of a 5 year old, for his own sexual pleasure. It's illegal, it's disgusting, it damaged people, and it was entirely intentional despite his knowing that what he did was very very wrong.

 

Which one was interrogated, arrested, hauled off in handcuffs, fingerprinted, and denied access to his parents?

 

The one who built a freaking CLOCK.

The 14-15 year old child molester went on to have multiple affairs and expose his wife and children to sexually transmitted diseases. But he's a white Christian, so he's a fine, upstanding citizen who made some youthful errors in judgment. (Also, the majority of people here were advocating for him to get some actual therapy and you know, not work for a hate group who marginalizes and wants to imprison people because of their sexuality, but that's close enough to "condemning him for life" because who on earth would be particular about semantics at a time like this?)

 

The 14 year old, brown, Muslim kid is an untrustworthy lying liar because he called his clock an "invention" instead of "a pencil box filled with a working reproduction of a time-telling apparatus."

[Butter]

I asked my 15 year old and she said she's known kids around her age (including 14 year old high school freshman) who have put things together in a different place from where they started and called it an invention.  She is puzzled why adults would be so concerned with his use of the word invention.  Kids take pictures of their dinner and claim to have "invented" chili on hot dogs (or whatever common food) on instagram all the time.  Apparently calling something an invention when it obviously is not is common nowadays.

[Mimm]

Even if he completely lied and took apart a clock and pretending to have invented it and had delusions of grandeur and brought it to school for the purpose of fooling his teachers into thinking he was super special and intelligent... he STILL shouldn't have been arrested and interrogated over it! So who cares?? Unless he came to school and said, "Look at this bomb I built," which absolutely no one is claiming he did, then the adults in this situation overreacted and did the wrong thing every step of the way.

 

And SKL, it's funny you'd bring up Josh Duggar, since you seemed to think everyone was being too hard on him. Yet... apparently we're going too easy on Ahmed. Because he might have misused the word, "invention". I'm all for proper grammar, of course, but this seems to be a bit extreme.

[unsinkable]

Here is the Irving Police Department's statement.

 

"The student only would say it was a clock and was not forthcoming at that time about any other details.

 

"Having no other information to go on, and taking into consideration the device’s suspicious appearance and the safety of the students and staff at MacArthur High School, the student was taken into custody for possessing a hoax bomb."

 

Where is the mysterious trigger word in that explanation of what happened during the questioning, which matches Ahmed's?

We don't know all the conversations that occurred or how they evolved. We only know what Ahmed said he said. Even the police statement doesn't tell us what the conversations were with the school personnel.

[unsinkable]

See, that's what makes no sense. If the device appeared "suspicious", why was it not treated as a possible actual bomb? OR, if they considered it a possible "hoax bomb", where is the hoax if the student represented it as a clock and only a clock? AND - if the student was "not forthcoming", why on earth did they not contact his parents, who could potentially help them clarify what was going on with the child, BEFORE hauling him off to juvie? A talk with the principal, along with his parents? Appropriate. Police involvement? Unnecessary. Actual detention including handcuffs and a trip to juvie? Completely unacceptable.

But some articles have said there was a police officer assigned/at the school.

 

What are the particulars of how he got involved?

[zoobie]

Even if he completely lied and took apart a clock and pretending to have invented it and had delusions of grandeur and brought it to school for the purpose of fooling his teachers into thinking he was super special and intelligent... he STILL shouldn't have been arrested and interrogated over it! So who cares?? Unless he came to school and said, "Look at this bomb I built," which absolutely no one is claiming he did, then the adults in this situation overreacted and did the wrong thing every step of the way.

 

And SKL, it's funny you'd bring up Josh Duggar, since you seemed to think everyone was being too hard on him. Yet... apparently we're going too easy on Ahmed. Because he might have misused the word, "invention". I'm all for proper grammar, of course, but this seems to be a bit extreme.

Exactly. Child molestation? Solicitation? No big deal. Lay off, you haters. But crimes against vocabulary? HANG HIM!

[ktgrok]

I'm saying there might have been a reason for someone at the school to be scared or to believe he had a motive to alarm.  That person may have been wrong, but it matters whether/why they sincerely believed this incident needed to be investigated and Ahmed deserved to be suspended.

 

The only way the police could conclude they didn't have evidence to book him for a "hoax bomb" was by investigating.  You don't decline to investigate an concern like that in a school just because the kid's community might not like it.  So is the uproar really over the fact that the cops investigated this?  Or is it over what led up to that?

 

The police can investigate without handcuffing you and taking you to juvenile detention. 

[justasque]

We don't know all the conversations that occurred or how they evolved. We only know what Ahmed said he said. Even the police statement doesn't tell us what the conversations were with the school personnel.

 

 

Here is the Irving Police Department's statement.

 

"The student only would say it was a clock and was not forthcoming at that time about any other details.

 

"Having no other information to go on, and taking into consideration the device’s suspicious appearance and the safety of the students and staff at MacArthur High School, the student was taken into custody for possessing a hoax bomb."

 

Where is the mysterious trigger word in that explanation of what happened during the questioning, which matches Ahmed's?

 

I would agree, except that the police statement references the so-called "suspicious appearance" and states they have "no other information to go on".  

 

Now of course there may be more information out there that isn't being shared, but going on the police's own justification/explanation of their actions, there was no probable cause to believe that Ahmed intended to hide a "hoax bomb" intent, and therefore no reason to escalate the disciplinary intervention to the level they did.  

[justasque]

Out of curiosity, I Googled - this is the school's Code of Conduct.  Note the significant number of discipline management techniques that could have been used before escalating to arresting Ahmed and sending him to juvie for questioning and processing (which was done before notifying his parents).
 

Techniques

The following discipline management techniques may be used alone, in combination, or as part
of progressive interventions for behavior prohibited by the Student Code of Conduct or by
campus or classroom rules:

ï‚· Verbal correction, oral or written.
 Cooling-off time or ―time-out.‖
ï‚· Seating changes within the classroom or vehicles owned or operated by the district.
ï‚· Temporary confiscation of items that disrupt the educational process.
ï‚· Rewards or demerits.
ï‚· Behavioral contracts.
ï‚· Counseling by teachers, school counselors, or administrative personnel.
ï‚· Parent-teacher conferences.
ï‚· Detention, including outside regular school hours.
ï‚· Sending the student to the office or other assigned area, or to in-school suspension.
Removal from the Regular Educational Setting
ï‚· Withdrawal of privileges, such as participation in extracurricular activities, eligibility for
seeking and holding honorary offices, or membership in school-sponsored clubs and
organizations.
 Penalties identified in individual student organizations‘ extracurricular standards of
behavior.
ï‚· Restriction or revocation of district transportation/bus privileges.
ï‚· School-assessed and school-administered probation.
ï‚· Out-of-school suspension, as specified in the Out-of-School Suspension section of this
Code.
ï‚· Placement in a DAEP, as specified in the DAEP section of this Code.
ï‚· Placement and/or expulsion in an alternative educational setting, as specified in the
Placement and/or Expulsion for Certain Offenses section of this Code.
ï‚· Expulsion, as specified in the Expulsion section of this Code.
ï‚· Referral to an outside agency or legal authority for criminal prosecution in addition to
disciplinary measures imposed by the district.
ï‚· Other strategies and consequences as determined by school officials.

Notification

The campus behavior coordinator shall promptly notify a student‘s parent by phone or in person
of any violation that may result in in-school or out-of-school suspension, placement in a DAEP,
placement in a JJAEP, or expulsion. The campus behavior coordinator shall also notify a
student‘s parent if the student is taken into custody by a law enforcement officer under the
disciplinary provisions of the Education Code. A good faith effort shall be made on the day the
action was taken to provide to the student for delivery to the student‘s parent written notification
of the disciplinary action. If the parent has not been reached by telephone or in person by 5:00
p.m. of the first business day after the day the disciplinary action was taken, the campus behavior
coordinator shall send written notification by U.S. Mail. If the campus behavior coordinator is
not able to provide notice to the parent, the principal or designee shall provide the notice.
Before the principal or appropriate administrator assigns a student under 18 to detention outside
regular school hours, notice shall be given to the student‘s parent to inform him or her of the
reason for the detention and permit arrangements for necessary transportation.

[unsinkable]

Of course there is more information that isn't being shared. The school district wants permission to share it and so far hasn't received permission.

[Joker]

I wouldn't be giving the school permission to share information unless I had in writing what they would share. This school called police, he was arrested, people are upset, and they would like to cover their butts! There's no way I would trust them to release information about my child without some rules first.

[amsunshine]

We don't know all the conversations that occurred or how they evolved. We only know what Ahmed said he said. Even the police statement doesn't tell us what the conversations were with the school personnel.

 

However, the police investigated the case (meaning that part of what they did is talk to school personnel), and in their statement (linked above), they explicitly said:

 

"The follow-up investigation revealed the device apparently was a homemade experiment, and there is no evidence to support the perception he intended to create alarm."

 

What more is there to know? 

[unsinkable]

However, the police investigated the case (meaning that part of what they did is talk to school personnel), and in their statement (linked above), they explicitly said:

 

"The follow-up investigation revealed the device apparently was a homemade experiment, and there is no evidence to support the perception he intended to create alarm."

 

What more is there to know?

I've said it a number of times. How did they get to the point of the clock being shown to the teacher who took it away to the police being involved. What was said to whom. Who took what action. Etc.

 

If anyone DOESN'T want to know that, that is fine. But I do want to know bc I think knowing the details are important in order to prevent this from happening again.

[amsunshine]

I've said it a number of times. How did they get to the point of the clock being shown to the teacher who took it away to the police being involved. What was said to whom. Who took what action. Etc.

 

If anyone DOESN'T want to know that, that is fine. But I do want to know bc I think knowing the details are important in order to prevent this from happening again.

 

Ok, I'm confused -- how will this knowledge help you to prevent this from happening again?   Are you on staff there?  

 

If the police have gone so far as to say there is no evidence to show an intent on Ahmed's part to create alarm, that means the teacher(s)/administrator(s) overreacted and had no valid basis to accuse him of creating a hoax bomb.  They messed up.   Not sure why knowing any more details than that would be helpful.

 

I'm sure they are handling this in-house to make sure it doesn't happen again.  Or at least I would hope so. 

[ktgrok]

I've said it a number of times. How did they get to the point of the clock being shown to the teacher who took it away to the police being involved. What was said to whom. Who took what action. Etc.

 

If anyone DOESN'T want to know that, that is fine. But I do want to know bc I think knowing the details are important in order to prevent this from happening again.

 

But the police DO know this, and they said there is no evidence he was trying to create alarm. So...are we now saying the police are lying too? Or can we all agree that he wasn't trying to cause alarm, therefore no hoax bomb, no actual bomb, and no freaking reason to arrest him?

[unsinkable]

Ok, I'm confused -- how will this knowledge help you to prevent this from happening again? Are you on staff there?

 

If the police have gone so far as to say there is no evidence to show an intent on Ahmed's part to create alarm, that means the teacher(s)/administrator(s) overreacted and had no valid basis to accuse him of creating a hoax bomb. They messed up. Not sure why knowing any more details than that would be helpful.

 

I'm sure they are handling this in-house to make sure it doesn't happen again. Or at least I would hope so.

I'm glad you're so confident in their abilities to handle it.

 

I'm not.

[Slojo]

 

Maher’s response?

Check it out on youtube.

“No, the message is you can see why they would err on the side of caution because only 25 miles away somebody DID try to kill people…What if it had been a bomb? So the teacher is supposed to see something that looks like a bomb and go, ‘Oh wait, this might just be my white privilege talking…I sure don’t want to be politically incorrect, so I’ll just let it go.â€

 

No "white privilege talking" is having a situation in which the brown Muslim kid actually did not make a bomb, not having the device ever really been mistaken for a bomb -- and no one along the chain of command once stopping to think, hmm... does this really need to go this far for this kid? How did we get here? Questions that should have been asked LOOONG before the hand cuffs...  Maybe read a report or two on disproportionate minority contact with authoritarian policies and negative outcomes?  

 

The whole thing just makes one want to go "cuckoo for cocoa puffs."

I'm glad you're so confident in their abilities to handle it.

 

I'm not.

No - more like confident that the principal and school district do not want to be in the national news again for this kind of thing -- there's all kinds of motivators, some noble, some not -- some neither here nor there, just practical. 

[Slojo]

The only quote I can find that calls him brilliant is from his father.  I don't even think English is his first language, just for the record.

 

"My son is a very brilliant boy," Mohamed said. "We need people like him in this country."

Oh - his father called him "brilliant?" Well, he joins a very long line of proud parents who all think their little darlings are a little bit brilliant. Heck sometimes I think my kids are "brilliant" - nothing other than run-of-the-mill irrational love and regard for one's offspring -- some of us drink a little too much of our kid's Koolaid, but generally harmless, if not mildly annoying. And maybe he is brilliant -- that's neither been proven or disproven. 

 

And, umm, as long as he's a productive, law-abiding member of society -- we, umm, do need people like him in this country. He's done nothing to prove otherwise.

 

So. To the idea that this was a carefully orchestrated stunt designed to go viral. Well, if it is Ahmed or his family are certainly ridiculously brilliant. And incredibly talented PR whizzes who should open a firm. And more power to 'em.

 

Truthfully though, it stretches the imagination to assume that any 14 year old kid is that brilliant.

 

Yep, apparently that family has acquired some super, duper special Jedi mind tricks that they are able to direct over the entire country -- making the President, Google, Reddit, Space Camp, Harvard, MIT and that little girl from the Cheerios commercial all do their bidding. MUHAHAHA!!!!  Come join us and we will rule the dark side together! Forget about clocks...

[SKL]

OK so, to give you guys the benefit of the doubt, I asked my 8yo daughters this question (without any background) as I drove them to our evening destination:  "who can tell me what an invention is?"  My non-STEMmy kid who tests about 100 IQ responded, "It's something you make, that is new, that nobody has ever done before."  So then I said, "if I took apart a clock and put it back together in a different box, would that be an invention?"  "No."  (My kids have not heard of this Ahmed / clock situation so there was no bias there.)

 

So no, I don't think I'm being unreasonable when I say he was fibbing when he called his project an "invention."

[amsunshine]

OK so, to give you guys the benefit of the doubt, I asked my 8yo daughters this question (without any background) as I drove them to our evening destination: "who can tell me what an invention is?" My non-STEMmy kid who tests about 100 IQ responded, "It's something you make, that is new, that nobody has ever done before." So then I said, "if I took apart a clock and put it back together in a different box, would that be an invention?" "No." (My kids have not heard of this Ahmed / clock situation so there was no bias there.)

 

So no, I don't think I'm being unreasonable when I say he was fibbing when he called his project an "invention."

Seriously, what is your point?

[Joker]

OK so, to give you guys the benefit of the doubt, I asked my 8yo daughters this question (without any background) as I drove them to our evening destination:  "who can tell me what an invention is?"  My non-STEMmy kid who tests about 100 IQ responded, "It's something you make, that is new, that nobody has ever done before."  So then I said, "if I took apart a clock and put it back together in a different box, would that be an invention?"  "No."  (My kids have not heard of this Ahmed / clock situation so there was no bias there.)

 

So no, I don't think I'm being unreasonable when I say he was fibbing when he called his project an "invention."

 

So, if my 13 and 15 year old dds had a different answer, would it matter to you?

 

 

I do have to wonder why some are hung up on the word "invention". It seems like a rather lame excuse to not acknowledge what happened.

 

Does it not matter that it wasn't a bomb? Does it not matter that the police have publicly stated it was a clock and not a bomb? What, exactly, is it you're looking for at this point?

[idnib]

Seriously, what is your point?

 

Her point was that if a kid is misleading people by saying he invented something he didn't, what else is he lying about?

 

Nobody has yet to explain what else he has said that they now refuse to believe due to this "deceit."