TexasCHLforum.com

VoiceofReason wrote:

EEllis wrote:Why report the truth when you can make people look stupid and racist.

In this case, the media didn't have to make anyone “look stupid and racist”. The school and police did a good job of that by themselves, and people have been jumping on that bandwagon every since.

It has now become a competition as to who can look the most stupid and racist.

Beiruty wrote:So what is hoax bomb? And do you show a hoax bomb to your teacher???! In layman terms, hoax bomb is device wired and made to look like bomb but no real explosive material. Something like this yu'all kidos:

SA_Steve wrote:Pretty clear they knew it was not a bomb from the get-go.
no evacuation
folks wait in the same room with the clock for the cops to come

maybe they figured if it was not plugged into the 110 V wall socket that it was safe enough

philip964 wrote:

EEllis wrote:

goose wrote:[

If there was a criminal investigation going on, I hope they offered him legal counsel and such. I honestly know nothing about how that works with minors.

If they did something they shouldn't then they can't use what info they acquired. I assume they conducted themselves in a legal manner mainly because it's in their own self interest.

My understanding a police officer is not to conduct criminal questioning of a minor without permission of his parents.

I do not think they got the permission of his parents. So why question him if it was all going to be inadmissible? Was it an emergency, they could not tell it was not a bomb so they needed to question him on how to prevent the explosion and loss of life at the school?

Or was everyone really wanting him to have his 15 minutes of fame, and show the world Texas is full of racists? Is the lawsuit next, will the taxpayers of Irving now have pay the family a settlement from both the school district and the city

VMI77 wrote:
You and others keep saying it looks like a bomb or a hoax bomb...hooey. As the photo above shows it looks like, and is, a disassembled alarm clock. I get that scientific and technical knowledge in this country is at pretty pathetic levels, but one would pretty much have to be a technophobe or have a pretty lurid imagination to turn something so obviously prosaic into an explosive device. The idea of a hoax bomb is to make people think it's a bomb. That could have easily been accomplished by adding something that could be mistaken for an explosive charge. That "hoax bomb" wouldn't have hoaxed my grandma.

I guess we need a new law making it illegal to disassemble an alarm clock, or defining disassembled alarm clocks as "hoax bombs," otherwise, charging this kid with a crime like making a hoax bomb, and getting it to stick, may be a little difficult.

goose wrote:[

If there was a criminal investigation going on, I hope they offered him legal counsel and such. I honestly know nothing about how that works with minors.

goose wrote:

goose wrote: I guess I don't have any skin in this game. And we don't even have to agree. I just don't get the ride downtown.

This is not true. We all have skin in this game. The reason I have invested my time into this discussion is that we all are subject to taking a ride downtown. I really want those rides to be for halfway decent reasons. As I said, I just don't get this one.

EEllis, I hope that we have gotten here cordially. I have to go mostly offline for the weekend. (edited to correct spelling)

goose wrote:

EEllis wrote:

After school resource officers determined the device was not a bomb, Boyd said, officers investigated whether Mohamed brought the device to school with the intent to create alarm. Boyd said it was against the law to make a hoax bomb and cause people to be scared and call law enforcement.

The school principal or vice principal and officers talked to Mohamed as they tried to figure out what was happening, Boyd said.

"There were factors and details to this that for whatever reason weren't shared at the time," Boyd said. "Once we were able to get all of that information, that allowed us to get to the point where we could settle the matter."

http://news.yahoo.com/police-review-han ... nance.html

Something that I saw mentioned that hasn't been repeated is that he didn't really build anything. Reportedly he took apart an alarm clock that was bought at walmart and just reassembled it in a large briefcase styled pencil case. When questioned by cops trying to figure out why , his motive and reasoning, he was reticulant and would just repeat that it was just a clock but not why he brought it to school or any explanation for why he put it together so it looked like it did.Or at least that was the impression the report gave. I don't know how accurate that is or if the explanations we have been hearing just came later and who knows what the cops were told.

http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/da ... /72339246/

Found a report from a local station. The kid plugged the thing in after being told by a different teacher that he should put the clock away and not show it because someone might think it's a bomb.

According to Irving police, Ahmed's case contained a digital clock that the student had taken apart and rearranged. Police said the student had the briefcase in his English class, where he plugged it into an electrical outlet and it started to make noise.

and

Officers said Ahmed was being "passive aggressive" in his answers to their questions, and didn't have a "reasonable answer" as to what he was doing with the case. Investigators said the student told them that it was just a clock that he was messing around with.

"We attempted to question the juvenile about what it was and he would simply only say it was a clock. He didn't offer any explanation as to what it was for, why he created this device, why he brought it to school," said James McLellan, Irving Police.

So I have less sympathy after reading this. The arrest might not have been necessary but it seems legal and a decision made by police not the school. This is a device that most people view as resembling a bomb. The kid was told not to show it because people might think it was a bomb. He thin plugged it in and had it start beeping in the middle of an english class. Then wouldn't explain why he brought it to school or what the purpose of it was.

My issue with this whole mess is that, IMO, even these articles you reference indicate that there was never a bomb scare. If a teacher told him to keep it, carry it around but not show anyone, we are dealing with a behavioral discipline issue not a bomb issue hoax or otherwise. When was the last time police were called and an arrest made because a kid didn't follow instructions to keep something quiet? The device was making noise, a discipline issue. Take it away. Give him detention. Heck, suspend him for disrupting class. That I would get. Kids have been bringing all kinds of classroom disruptions to school for years. I just don't understand the cops and the handcuffs if no one thought it was an issue until it beeped and disrupted class. I guess I don;t have any skin in this game. And we don't even have to agree. I just don't get the ride downtown.

JALLEN wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Well the reports indicated that the device was taken by a teacher and was found not to be a bomb by school resource officers. The police were called not on a bomb but a hoax device. It certainly seems to give what many people believe to be the impression of a possible bomb. Then you add in the situation, plugging in the device drawing attention to it in an english class. The refusal to give any explanation. You certainly have the framework for charges. I tend not to second guess people on site unless I have some reason and I haven't seen that here. :shrug: Seems like the kid brought the grief on himself.

I'm not sure that is factual. It certainly doesn't square with initial versions, where the teacher and the officer said that the student repeatedly claimed it was a clock, and only that, that several hours elapsed between the first teacher seeing it and the cops getting a call. Of course, once the press conference with CAIR and lawyers was held, and Obama tweeted an invite, the networks started running with it and asking questions, the stakes got higher and stories refined.

If there was a rational fear of a possible bomb, and no evacuation ordered, that seems like a problem.

I didn't think you have to second guess. The first guess is appalling enough.

JALLEN wrote:

EEllis wrote:


So you condemned the adults involved because they thought the clock looked like a bomb and you had no idea what it looked like? Since bombs can look like ordinary items the fact that the clock looks like a bomb should mean nothing? Ok, I don't get your point but it's not something I'm going to get worked up over. Honestly, and I'm not trying to say this is anyone in particular here, but it seems people just enjoy getting worked up. Certainly I have to wonder why the kid was arrested, tho one article seemed to indicate that it seemed like the kid was not acting like someone who just brought a science project to school not realizing the possible consequences, but the instant and absolute certainty that there was no basis for any concern smacks of either faux outrage or naivety.

There was no evacuation of the school, so the clown show was stupidity on the part of the school and then the cops, and the ongoing attempts to "improve their lie" to shift attention to the family, to anybody else, so they would be seen as justified in overreacting.

Either it was dangerous, or potentially so, and everyone should have gotten out on the double, or it was seen to be harmless and calling the cops and the subsequent events were appalling nonsense.

I'm not worked up over this. It happened. I am concerned that people in charge are so ahhh, ehhh, uhhh, disingenuous.

goose wrote:

EEllis wrote:

goose wrote:

EEllis wrote:

goose wrote:

EEllis wrote: ...but the instant and absolute certainty that there was no basis for any concern smacks of either faux outrage or naivety.

Is this directed at the faculty that chose not to call the bomb squad instantly? They were pretty certain there was no basis for any concern. Maybe they were naive?

No my understanding is they thought it was a Faux bomb and called on that basis. That would still be a crime and should be reported. The thing I find interesting is that people seem to assume that from a quick news blurb that it's obvious everyone was wrong but that they know better. The naivety I mention is from the belief that in this day and age you can show a device that looks like it could be a bomb and not have people react.

I didn't realize that we were debating the validity of commenting on the news, in an off-topic internet forum. My bad.

Saying that I find it interesting is debating the validity? If you say so.

EEllis wrote: So you condemned the adults involved because they thought the clock looked like a bomb and you had no idea what it looked like?

I did perceive that you were discussing/debating/conversing/speaking in an interested manner. Now were just getting into semantics to see how we can slice the onion.

After school resource officers determined the device was not a bomb, Boyd said, officers investigated whether Mohamed brought the device to school with the intent to create alarm. Boyd said it was against the law to make a hoax bomb and cause people to be scared and call law enforcement.

The school principal or vice principal and officers talked to Mohamed as they tried to figure out what was happening, Boyd said.

"There were factors and details to this that for whatever reason weren't shared at the time," Boyd said. "Once we were able to get all of that information, that allowed us to get to the point where we could settle the matter."

According to Irving police, Ahmed's case contained a digital clock that the student had taken apart and rearranged. Police said the student had the briefcase in his English class, where he plugged it into an electrical outlet and it started to make noise.

Officers said Ahmed was being "passive aggressive" in his answers to their questions, and didn't have a "reasonable answer" as to what he was doing with the case. Investigators said the student told them that it was just a clock that he was messing around with.

"We attempted to question the juvenile about what it was and he would simply only say it was a clock. He didn't offer any explanation as to what it was for, why he created this device, why he brought it to school," said James McLellan, Irving Police.

goose wrote:

EEllis wrote:

goose wrote:

EEllis wrote: ...but the instant and absolute certainty that there was no basis for any concern smacks of either faux outrage or naivety.

Is this directed at the faculty that chose not to call the bomb squad instantly? They were pretty certain there was no basis for any concern. Maybe they were naive?

No my understanding is they thought it was a Faux bomb and called on that basis. That would still be a crime and should be reported. The thing I find interesting is that people seem to assume that from a quick news blurb that it's obvious everyone was wrong but that they know better. The naivety I mention is from the belief that in this day and age you can show a device that looks like it could be a bomb and not have people react.

I didn't realize that we were debating the validity of commenting on the news, in an off-topic internet forum. My bad.

goose wrote:

EEllis wrote: ...but the instant and absolute certainty that there was no basis for any concern smacks of either faux outrage or naivety.

Is this directed at the faculty that chose not to call the bomb squad instantly? They were pretty certain there was no basis for any concern. Maybe they were naive?

Beiruty wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:This is how the waters get tested and the frog ends up getting boiled. There is more here than meets the eye. Common sense tells you not to bring that thing to school. Another agenda is in play here!

Be realistic. He is just 14 yrs old US kid, no malicious connections with anyone else.