Engineering while brown/non-Christian

Status
Not open for further replies.

log in or register to remove this ad

J

Janx

Hero
Yeah, I just saw that.

I'm not sure his science teacher handled it entirely well either. Tell him to not show it to other folks was probably smart, given what actually happened. But I think he should have probably been more pro-active to help the kid avoid this situation, perhaps by offering to hold it for him until after school, speaking up on his behalf.

What this kid basically learned is that no adult/role model advocated on his innocence.
 

T

tomBitonti

Adventurer
The Washington Post has a story as well:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-after-bringing-a-home-built-clock-to-school/

It seems the problem is ignorant teachers, and an inept principle, and inept police, and inept FBI.

The evidence for ethnic discrimination seemed to be from the FBI questioning. From the Washington Post article, I couldn't say that the schools handling of the situation was discriminatory (albeit, it showed a lot of ignorance).

The school has a Robotics class (or club?), and such clubs seem to be very normal. (I volunteered at a local school to help build an entry to a US Robotics competition.) Robotics clubs build a lot of stuff that would look about the same as what this student built. Schools really need to become more aware and more tolerant of activities which they promote, and which are a normal part of the curriculum.

I am thinking, having access to a drone (either flying, or ground based) and remote triggers is going to be very very common. If schools have a problem with students having "electronic stuff" they need to have a clear policy of what can be brought into class rooms.

Thx!

TomB
 

T

tomBitonti

Adventurer
From the Washington Post article:

During questioning, officers repeatedly brought up his last name, Mohamed said. When he tried to call his father, Mohamed said he was told he couldn’t speak to his parents until after the interrogation was over.
Click to expand...

Is that legal? Can a child be denied access to their parent?

I mean, it should have been obvious to the FBI that the device was not a bomb. I don't see any pressing circumstances.

Also, I wonder how much of the processing was automatic once the teacher thought that the student had a bomb. A lot of what happened may be standard procedure, and hard to not do once certain flags were tripped.

Edit: Found this:

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.co...ense/can-cops-question-my-child-about-a-crime

But it's from a Defense point of view, and, there may be other issues because the FBI was involved, and there was a "bomb threat".

Thx!

TomB
 
Last edited:

Dannyalcatraz

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
The FBI probably wouldn't have had access to the kid until after he was in custody. They probsbly didn't take long to figure it out.

But this question: "Is that legal? Can a child be denied access to their parent?" My time in the criminal system was short, but IMHO, noooooo. He's a minor. They shouldn't even be questioning him without a legal guardian.
 
Last edited:


J

Janx

Hero
Dannyalcatraz said:
The FBI probably wouldn't have had access to the kid until after he was in custody. They probsbly didn't take long to figure it out.

But this question: "Is that legal? Can a child be denied access to their parent?" My time in the criminal system was short, but IMHO, noooooo. He's a minor. They shouldn't even be questioning him without a legal guardian.
Click to expand...

Which is where my feelings on most police searches/questioning comes in.

A cop should act like he will be caught and dispossed or executed if he fingers the wrong suspect. Meaning, by all means, feel free to ask to search my car. But if you are wrong, you forfeit your job, house, assets to me. Now, decide just how guilty you think I am before you ask to search me.

Obviously that'd be quite an extreme rule, but there needs to be a direct consequence to cops for proceeding on false or incorrect grounds to make them second guess whether this is worth the risk. Right now, there ain't a lot of risk for them to be wrong unless they're wrong to a rich person who can sue them.
 

T

tomBitonti

Adventurer
Well, while I agree that there should be consequences to egregious mistakes, or flat out disregard for rules, law enforcements needs to have latitude to make mistakes.

At issue (it seems) is a question of being pro-active: When to seek out possible problems, and when to react to problems which have occurred.

Thx!

TomB
 

Dannyalcatraz

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
Janx said:
Which is where my feelings on most police searches/questioning comes in.

A cop should act like he will be caught and dispossed or executed if he fingers the wrong suspect. Meaning, by all means, feel free to ask to search my car. But if you are wrong, you forfeit your job, house, assets to me. Now, decide just how guilty you think I am before you ask to search me.

Obviously that'd be quite an extreme rule, but there needs to be a direct consequence to cops for proceeding on false or incorrect grounds to make them second guess whether this is worth the risk. Right now, there ain't a lot of risk for them to be wrong unless they're wrong to a rich person who can sue them.
Click to expand...

That's completely impractical. There are cases in which police have interviewed and/or searched the cars & dwellings of more suspects than there are policemen in the force.

Cops are human. They can and do make mistakes.

The trick is balancing the rights if those being searched with the rights of those seeking justice- a.k.a. the right of society to have its laws enforced. Police are the instrument by which the state investigates crime, and they have to have the ability to be wrong without fear of prosecution...as long as they are wrong for the right reasons and they are not EGREGIOUSLY wrong.

Otherwise, you can't have any meaningful form of policing agency.
 

T

tomBitonti

Adventurer
From the CNN article:

"They arrested me and they told me that I committed the crime of a hoax bomb, a fake bomb," the freshman later explained to WFAA after authorities released him.
Click to expand...

And:

Irving Police spokesman Officer James McLellan told the station, "We attempted to question the juvenile about what it was and he would simply only tell us that it was a clock."

The teenager did that because, well, it was a clock, he said.

On Wednesday, police announced that the teen will not be charged.

Chief Larry Boyd said that Ahmed should have been "forthcoming" by going beyond the description that what he made was a clock. But Boyd said that authorities determined that the teenager did not intend to alarm anyone and the device, which the chief called "a homemade experiment," was innocuous.
Click to expand...

Police: Hey, what's that?

Child: A clock.

Police: No really, what is it?

Child: Really, its just a clock.

Police: No, really, what were you trying to make?

As well, from the Washington Post article:

But the English teacher kept the clock, and during sixth period, Mohamed was pulled out of class by the principal.
Click to expand...

Given the late response, if the teacher or principle really thought there was a possible bomb, where is the urgency? The whole response is just so bizarre. Was the issue a bomb hoax?

I'm reminded of a case where a Black person glanced across the street, and was charged when a white woman on the other side felt threatened. Something I read about a long time ago.

When is an injury wholly invented by the recipient?

Thx!

TomB
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top