Engineering while brown/non-Christian

[Janx]

Damn right, to most people's perceptions, a ramshackle disassembled clock is just a distressingly small piece of explosive short of being a bomb. And the actual differences are way outside the paygrade of teachers, principals & local cops.

yet the teacher waited until the end of class to turn it in. Why didn;t she pull the fire alarm and jump on top of it to save all the kids?

 

[was]

yet the teacher waited until the end of class to turn it in. Why didn;t she pull the fire alarm and jump on top of it to save all the kids?

...According to the articles that I read, she didn't wait. The clock beeped in the middle of the class period. She confiscated it immediately and called the principal who then removed the student.

...The confusion lies in the length of time it took the principal to act. The articles are vague on that point. Some of them indicate he acted "later in the day" and others indicate 'later in the class". It may be a while before we know for sure.

 

[Umbran]

...According to the articles that I read, she didn't wait. The clock beeped in the middle of the class period. She confiscated it immediately and called the principal who then removed the student.

That does not match the reports I see:

During English class, the clock beeped, annoying his teacher. When he brought the device up to her afterward, she told him “it looks like a bomb,” according to Mohamed.

“I told her, ‘It doesn’t look like a bomb to me,'” he told the Dallas Morning News.

But the English teacher kept the clock, and during sixth period, Mohamed was pulled out of class by the principal and a police officer.

So, he brought it up to his English teacher *afterward* (presumably at the end of class), and some time later there's a cop and a trip to the principle's office. This is *not* an immediate thing, there's a delay long enough to call the police, have one show up, get briefed, and then go to the kid's class.

So, nobody ever thought there was ever a real threat. It was all about whether they'd claim the kid was trying to scare people with a fake bomb. I'm okay with the teacher and principle having a talk with the kid. I'd even be okay with them calling in the parents for a talk about it. But the cop, and taking the kid off in handcuffs? That was completely bogus.

Not giving the kid access to a parent while being questioned by police? Well beyond completely bogus.

Let us remember that Irving, Texas, has been in the new in the past for its racial profiling policies.

And, by the way, it appears that at least some kids in his school are on his side in this:

http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/09/kids-irving-high-school-support-ahmed-mohamed/#

 

[was]

TYhat does not match teh reports I see:

So, he brought it up to his English teacher *afterward*, and some time later there's a cop and a trip to the principle's office. This is *not* an immediate thing.

And, by the way, it appears that at least some kids in his school are on his side in this:

http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/09/kids-irving-high-school-support-ahmed-mohamed/#

"When the clock, which Ahmed put inside his school bag, beeped in the middle of an English class, Ahmed brought it to his teacher, who reportedly told him it looked like a bomb, according to Ahmed. The teacher confiscated the clock, and Ahmed was later yanked out of class by the school's principal and a police officer."

"Later, Ahmed’s clock beeped during an English class and, after he revealed the device to the teacher, school officials notified police, and he was interrogated by officers. “She thought it was a threat to her,” Ahmed told reporters. “So, it was really sad that she took a wrong impression of it.”

"The teenager said another teacher became aware of it when the device beeped during the lesson. She was like - it looks like a bomb," he said.
The homemade clock consisted of a circuit board with wires leading to a digital display. Later in the day the boy was pulled out of class, interviewed by senior teachers and four police officers, and put into juvenile detention."

...Like I said earlier, there are a lot of reports out there and many of them are not in agreement. Some do not even reveal that the teacher who confiscated it was the second teacher to see the device.

...The protesting students would be better served showing up at the next school board meeting with the clocks. This principal doesn't have the power to change policies set by them.

 

[tomBitonti]

Damn right, to most people's perceptions, a ramshackle disassembled clock is just a distressingly small piece of explosive short of being a bomb. And the actual differences are way outside the paygrade of teachers, principals & local cops.

And if they actually thought it was a bomb, they would have raised an alarm and evacuated the school. They didn't so they must not have thought it was a bomb. If the device were a bomb, the schools response was laughably slow.

The question, as it seems, was whether the device was intended to be used as a part of a bomb hoax. A very different question.

The whole response was bizarre: The teacher looks at the device and confiscates it. But thought that it looked like a bomb. The teacher has, right there, shown a conclusion that the device was very probably not a bomb. Or, doesn't have their brain fully wired. (OMG that could be a bomb! Naw, couldn't be, but it sure looks like it could be one. Ok then, lets confiscate it an contact the principal.) If the teacher thought the device was, or had a real chance to be a bomb, their reaction is completely wrong. If the teacher thought mere that the device looked like it was a bomb but wasn't, then we are already looking a different issue.

Thx!

TomB

 

[tomBitonti]

From what I am gathering, the student is "guilty" of bringing a suspicious looking device to school.

But, not of bringing a bomb to school.

Nor, of creating an actual bomb hoax.

Nor, of intending to create an actual bomb hoax.

Maybe, the school could make a case that the student brought in a weapon facsimile. That seems to be the only school policy which applies.

Actually making a hoax bomb is certainly against the law, as would intending to use a fake bomb in a hoax. However, that seems to require intent, which is not demonstrated. Is the presence of the suspicious item sufficient to bring an arrest? It would seem to be sufficient to question the student, but it doesn't seem to be enough for an arrest. The actual evidence in this case seems to be device itself (which doesn't seem to show intent) and the statement of the teacher and principal (which don't seem to offer any evidence of intent).

What seems the sticky point is the suspicion (of the teacher and principal) that an actual bomb hoax was intended, and the acceptance (by the police) of those suspicions as sufficient cause for an arrest.

Thx!
TomB

 

[Umbran]

...Like I said earlier, there are a lot of reports out there and many of them are not in agreement. Some do not even reveal that the teacher who confiscated it was the second teacher to see the device.

You don't cite the sources, so we cannot consider them particularly critically. The Washington Post and the New York Times had versions that match what I posted.

...The protesting students would be better served showing up at the next school board meeting with the clocks. This principal doesn't have the power to change policies set by them.

Ah. I think you are largely missing the point. Whether they are making the best tactical move isn't really the thing. It isn't like school administrations commonly care about the wisdom of their 14-year-old charges on matters of security policy anyway.

However, in the middle of the kid being faced with fear and likely discrimination due to his race and/or religion, his young peers support him. *THAT* is the meaningful bit.

 

[Umbran]

Damn right, to most people's perceptions, a ramshackle disassembled clock is just a distressingly small piece of explosive short of being a bomb. And the actual differences are way outside the paygrade of teachers, principals & local cops.

As an aside: If the local cops are being used to implement security policy related to bombs, it darned well *should* be within their pay grade to recognize what one is. If the local cops haven't been trained on what common explosives look like, there's a problem

 

[was]

You don't cite the sources, so we cannot consider them particularly critically. The Washington Post and the New York Times had versions that match what I posted.

...Sorry, my sources were quoted in a previous post in this discussion. I avoided reposting for brevity purposes but here they are again:

http://www.businessinsider.com/ahmed...-school-2015-9
http://www.todayonline.com/world/ame...him-time-obama
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34266389
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09...ock_to_school/

Ah. I think you are largely missing the point. Whether they are making the best tactical move isn't really the thing. It isn't like school administrations commonly care about the wisdom of their 14-year-old charges on matters of security policy anyway.

However, in the middle of the kid being faced with fear and likely discrimination due to his race and/or religion, his young peers support him. *THAT* is the meaningful bit.

...I'm not at all attempting to minimize the plight of this poor student. However, going back to past comments I made on this topic, changing these policies needs to be done at the school board level. And as a fully-licensed teacher, I can tell you that school administrations actually do care very much about what their students think and feel. Students who do not feel secure in their classrooms do not learn very well.

 

[Umbran]

From what I am gathering, the student is "guilty" of bringing a suspicious looking device to school.

Or, as has been colloquially said - committing engineering while brown.

What seems the sticky point is the suspicion (of the teacher and principal) that an actual bomb hoax was intended, and the acceptance (by the police) of those suspicions as sufficient cause for an arrest.

Irving, Texas, has been in the news in the past for overly-aggressive racial profiling policies among its police. There is a major question as to whether any white student would have faced the same treatment. So, the sticky point may be less about the kid's intentions, and more about the adults' intentions and motivations.