If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Not 100% sure by any means, but the chain of events isn't really adding up.
Though not conclusive, it looks like what he built doesn't function unless it's plugged into the mains. It has the 9V lead, but there seems to be indication that doesn't have enough juice to actually run it, only to keep the time accurate when there's a power outage.
Again, not conclusive, but if I could run it off a 9V, absolutely no way I'd leave an unshielded AC transformer in it.
Plugging it in during English class, after the teacher who it was meant to impress told him not to show it to anyone...
Then there's the fact this just happens to be a ridiculously media savvy family.
As I said, not quite ready to throw down, but at this point, I'd really like to hear statements from some of the other people involved.
Dawkins has come out against him which I thought was a bit odd.
Still even if the reaction was deliberately provoked, having him arrested without evacuating the school is an immense dick move.
In theory.
I commented on this in the police thread. That was certainly my first impression. Where it appeared to go wrong was all these adults power-tripping on a kid.
The thing is, a hoax bomb is illegal. Like, really illegal, but does not necessarily involve evacuating, or calling the bomb squad.
If that notion was just manufactured out of thin air, the cops overreacted. No question. The kid wanted to start some shit? I think it starts getting a little hazy.
There is a bit more to this story than meets the eye. The kid's dad is Sheikh (self proclaimed) Mohamed El-Hassan and runs a small Sufi center in Texas and has a history of his own. It would not be a stretch to think the father is behind it.
Here is the father with Robert Spncer of Jihad Watch.
It starts at the 30 minute mark.
He was the "defense attorney" when the idiot from Florida put the koran on trial of few years back.
This is a critique of his "clock".
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
The clock video critique is solid - it's definitely a disassembled desk clock. Takes dexterity with a screwdriver, not much else. I'm willing to believe the kid took it in to fool teacher for class credit.
The father planning it - not willing to buy that yet. If this were deliberate, it could turn into a police & guns situation, with kid accidentally shot because he had a gun phone in hand.
The father planning it doesn't really pass the test. As you say, too dangerous, and the con would require too many uncontrolled variables to fall into place.
The father milking it, when what should have happened was a "what in the actual **** were you thinking?"
The latter seems plausible to me.
(
Last edited by subego; Sep 21, 2015 at 07:12 PM.
)
I'm willing to believe the kid took it in to fool teacher for class credit.
AFAICT, the claim is it was to sell his engineering teacher on starting up a robotics program.
That's another thing which doesn't really fit. What exactly is he demonstrating about robotics, the "maker" aspects of robotics, and that he should help lead the way.
His teacher's grade on the attempt was "put that away before you get in trouble". I'd have yelled at him about the transformer, too... Jesus, that's genuinely dangerous.
You can see some sort of string thing around the lock to the case.
I've been too lazy to watch the video, so I'm not 100% this is true, but the claim is in an interview he said he tied the lock up to make it look less suspicious.
This is my understanding of the controversy. The kid's device doesn't look like a clock. It appeared to be a bomb. "If you see something ... say something." and all that jazz. Ok cool. So the teacher says something and that's fine. The police come and immediately determine it's not an explosive device. No evacuation. No panic. No alarm. When questioned the kid says it's a clock. So up until that point everything is reasonable and not subject to criticism. So the million dollar question is after all that why is the kid then handcuffed and arrested? That's the issue to me it seems.
As far as I can piece it together, what would have ended the situation is him explaining the whole robotics team angle. "I made this to show my engineering teacher, and propose a maker/robotics program".
What supposedly happened is he never left "it's a clock" angle.
Cop: What is this?
Kid: It's a clock.
Cop: What is it for?
Kid: Telling time.
Cop: Why did you bring it?
Kid: To tell time.
Cop: Okay Mr. Wiseass, you wanna do this downtown?
If he in fact did explain the maker/robot program thoroughly, then the cops were way out of line. If the kid behaved like a jackass? As I said above. Starts to get hazy.
There's something in this story that bothered me a lot, and didn't get much coverage. The kid was questioned by the police extensively at school, then cuffed and taken to the station for more questions. All without the parents present. They didn't call the parents, or offer the kid a phone call. Not until after the cops were finished with all questions.
The teachers get the privilege of asking kids questions (on school grounds) without the parents present. The LAW doesn't get that privilege. Calling the parents is supposed to be automatic.
The two questions I have with that is wether the principal is some form of de jure guardian, and whether a juvenile needs to be arrested before the proscriptions kick in. I don't know these answers.
If a cop stops a kid on the street, are they not allowed to ask questions?
I suppose the principal can allow cops to question a kid at school (with school staff present), but has a duty to notify the parents. The kid is in his/her trust.
However, once the cuffs go on, the kid should not be questioned without a parent at least present. An adult is expected to ask for a lawyer. A kid can't be expected to know the adult rules.
I think there is going to be an increasing debate about that sort of thing. The cops seem to think they can ask questions, give orders and arrest you if you don't comply with either of those things. If you exercise your rights by not answering and not complying and then by refusing to be arrested without grounds then they call in a dozen more cops and you get beaten and charged with resisting your unfounded arrest.
Hopefully a few expensive lawsuits and a few OTT cops thrown under buses as a result will calm the situation down.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I suppose the principal can allow cops to question a kid at school (with school staff present), but has a duty to notify the parents. The kid is in his/her trust.
However, once the cuffs go on, the kid should not be questioned without a parent at least present. An adult is expected to ask for a lawyer. A kid can't be expected to know the adult rules.
And that's the key. Was he questioned after the cuffs went on.
Unless given a reason to think otherwise, I'd assume not, because I'd assume the cops know that's illegal.
Even if it wasn't a kid, general cop MO is going to be to get as much possible out of you before the cuffs go on because... well, because it's easier to pull the wool over your eyes if you don't have counsel present.
I think there is going to be an increasing debate about that sort of thing. The cops seem to think they can ask questions, give orders and arrest you if you don't comply with either of those things. If you exercise your rights by not answering and not complying and then by refusing to be arrested without grounds then they call in a dozen more cops and you get beaten and charged with resisting your unfounded arrest.
Hopefully a few expensive lawsuits and a few OTT cops thrown under buses as a result will calm the situation down.
Since you have an absolute and clearly delineated right to remain silent, both before and after arrest, it's a rare occurrence for someone to go down just for not speaking.
As for as not complying with a legal order, or resisting arrest in any way (which includes trying to protect your face from a cop going Babe Ruth on it with a nightstick)... it isn't the cops think they can beat the shit out of you, they legally can.
I mentioned this in the other thread, in terms of tools we give cops to deal with situations, there's nothing between verbalizing and manhandling.
There's something in this story that bothered me a lot, and didn't get much coverage. The kid was questioned by the police extensively at school, then cuffed and taken to the station for more questions. All without the parents present. They didn't call the parents, or offer the kid a phone call. Not until after the cops were finished with all questions.
The teachers get the privilege of asking kids questions (on school grounds) without the parents present. The LAW doesn't get that privilege. Calling the parents is supposed to be automatic.
I brought that up immediately.Not to mention it wasn't one cop asking friendly questions it was four interrogating him.
Originally Posted by subego
The two questions I have with that is wether the principal is some form of de jure guardian, and whether a juvenile needs to be arrested before the proscriptions kick in. I don't know these answers.
That'd be a loophole you could drive a car through.
Originally Posted by subego
If a cop stops a kid on the street, are they not allowed to ask questions?
I think they can ask all they want, but the kid doesn't have to answer. If they detain them... things get complicated.
That'd be a loophole you could drive a car through.
Which half?
Regarding the number of cops, I can see why it'd be SOP to send multiple cops if you have a school incident. Not so they're sure to be 4-on-1 against children, but because if you have hundreds of children over a fairly large area, you don't want to be short handed if things go south.
Say, if there was the need for a sudden evacuation, you want a couple cops outside with the kids, and want more available if someone needs to go back inside.
Regarding the number of cops, I can see why it'd be SOP to send multiple cops if you have a school incident. Not so they're sure to be 4-on-1 against children, but because if you have hundreds of children over a fairly large area, you don't want to be short handed if things go south.
C'mon dude. Cops can be on the premises without going 4-on-1 in the interrogation room.
I doubt his dad knew, but he sure has milked it since. During all this I did let others influence my opinion, leading me to think the kid was completely innocent of any wrongdoing (just guilty of bad decision-making), I should have stuck with my first impression.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
And that's the key. Was he questioned after the cuffs went on.
Unless given a reason to think otherwise, I'd assume not, because I'd assume the cops know that's illegal.
Even if it wasn't a kid, general cop MO is going to be to get as much possible out of you before the cuffs go on because... well, because it's easier to pull the wool over your eyes if you don't have counsel present.
story link - original source appears to be the kid. Though I don't see the police contradicting it.
Mohamed said police handcuffed him and took him to Irving police headquarters for interrogation, fingerprints and mug shots. He said his family surname repeatedly came up in police questioning.
"I tried making a phone call to my father. They said, ‘You’re in the middle of an interrogation. You can’t have a phone call,'" he said.
Well, if they took him in and tried to throw the book at him, then it's hard for me to come up with a scenario other than the cops being utter assholes.
I assume most cops are familiar with "inadmissible". When cops don't take pains to avoid this while collecting evidence, it's hard to come up with an explanation other than incompetence or assholery (or worse).
I reject this completely. My analysis is based on it being a ****ing kid and cops trying to intimidate him by presence alone.
What situation requires four cops in the interrogation room?
The Principal is acting in the school's best interest, not the child's. He has a fundamental conflict.
Fair enough, but I widened my claim to include "staff". Does a teacher have the same conflict of interest?
As for intimidating the kid, I'm not going to claim four cops are somehow equal or less intimidating than one, and I'm sympathetic to the idea cops use intimidation tactics.
That said, I think it's a little much to call cops in for a potential bomb threat, and then expect some of the responding officers to excuse themselves from the interrogation because their presence may intimidate the suspect.
So it's a 1986 Radio Shack count down timer taken out of its case, NO MODS, nothing actually built or modified by the kid. Circuit board has USA flag and serial number/part number too. Kid was interviewed over the phone and his older sister (Whos had issues) was telling him what to say. It seems this was a prank done on purpose. Is he gonna give back the money since he's committing a fraud?
Not even a little surprised, what a piece of work.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Top