Nobody thought it was actually a bomb. A *hoax *bomb, hell yes, that’s what the arrest and suspension were for.
No, but who was going to believe him?
His name is Ahmed Mohamed.
No. As cited multiple times in this thread, the offense requires intent. No intent, no offense. Therefore no indication of intent, no probable cause.
I mean, no indication of intent other than being a Muslim. Because bombs.
It’s funny that the entire incident started with an alarm.
By which reasoning it is literally impossible for a sincere arrest under this law to be improper. If I’m a cop who is alarmed enough by your six-month-old’s My Little Pony doll to react with a baby’s arrest, by your reasoning it’s a proper arrest. Have I got it right?
I think the essential part of this, in regards to the arrest, is the part so many people want to say does not matter.
Did he invent/build a digital clock? If he actually did, he put together components to create an actual digital clock, and built it in a case, and he wanted to impress a teacher, then the arrest and everything else is pretty much bullshit.
If he slapped an existing clock into a case, and then deliberately set it off in class, after he was told by another teacher to not show it to anybody, then the arrest makes sense.
The clock is an essential piece, it’s the main part of the story. If he actually built it, and could do it again on camera, showing his skills, that is one thing.
It’s quite another if he can’t actually build a digital clock from scratch. If, as it appears, it was an existing clock he just put in a case and brought to school, and then he set it off in class, then yes, you probably will get arrested for that shit.
But if he really is some budding genius, and he actually made a clock, and is just clueless about how the world works, then the arrest was absurd.
They recognized it as a hoax bomb. Thus not needing to clear the building or call in a bomb squad.
It’s not “my reasoning” - that is the plain language of the law. It is predicated on “alarm or reaction of any type by an official of a public safety agency”.
The intent can be seen in that he took a perfectly innocent clock and made it look more bomblike. If he wanted it to just look like a clock, he would have left it in the original case. Anyone who is supporting this kid having engineering skills based on the clock is doing him a great disservice. All he did is was remove it from its housing and screw it into a case. You know, making it look m ore like a bomb.
They recognized it as a clock - they recognized it as no threat - and since no one ever implied that it was intended to be used in a hoax, nor was it left to act in a suspicious like manner - how did they recognize it as a “hoax bomb”?
Which really means that the principal and/or teacher(s) should be charged with the “hoax bomb” since they caused the alarm or reaction - one they themselves DID NOT HAVE.
Why do you think the original teacher that saw the device told the student NOT to show it to anyone? Do you think it just might be because he thought it looked pretty alarming (:))?
Since the student, in spite of being told, explicitly, not to show it to anyone, went out of his way to take it out during an English class, plug it into the wall and set the alarm on it so that it beeped, I would say combined with the original warning from the teacher the intent is right there.
Neither the principal nor the teacher(s) “manufactured, sold, purchased, transported, or possessed” the device.
If anyone thought it was actually a bomb, it would be a whole nother story.
Just for those with short memories, the Unabomber made very small bombs. A pencil case with a timing device in it, left in a classroom, would cause a huge ration of shit these days, no matter who made it and left it there.
only intent of showing it off - not intent to alarm - we have no indication that he intended the alarm to go off, only that it did.
As for possession - who was in posession of it when the police were called?
Look - we can go round and rount - you infer intent of it to be a “hoax bomb” - that the kid intended for it to be mistaken as a ‘bomb’ - which is the same idiotic inference that the teachers, principle and police made - with aboslutely no evidence to back it up beyond the kids name and religion.
Like, one that doesn’t making the Irving school district’s employees and the local police look like a bunch of morons or racists?
Was it “left” in the classroom to be found?
I find myself suddenly reminded of an NYPD officer issuing a balloon-popping ticket.
I’m 100% certain it wouldn’t matter what color you are, if you brought a case to school, with a timing device built into it, and you had no good reason to explain it.
Which is why it actually matters if he actually built a digital clock to show his teacher. If it is just an existing clock shoved into a case, that is wrong on many levels.
This does not mean I don’t think some Texans and school officials are racist pigs, cause I know some of them are.
Which is why the clock matters.
God, you are such a fucking idiot.
He had a good reason to bring it - to show his engineering/teacher .
A “timing device” - it was a fucking clock - he thought it was “neat” - doens’t require anything other than that.
He didn’t keep it hidden - he didn’t keep it secret - he didn’t let it out of his possesion or “left in a corner to be found” - he did nothing wrong.
Get a fucking clue.