Ommmm.... one more thing about that clock bomb kid

I agree with all your points, but you avoid the elephant. What is the boundary between arresting someone and not arresting them? I certainly do not have the answer, but in essence he was arrested for what?

Claiming to have built a clock that he did not build? So is plagiarism in high school now something we will arrest people for? Was he arrested for making threats? I saw no such indication--if he did I have no problem with arresting him, but if he did not, then what was he arrested for? For an "implied threat"? Be very, very careful where that will lead you: there is NO difference between walking into a mall and being arrested for making an "implied threat" with a partially disassembled clock--or with a holstered (and otherwise legal) gun.

I do NOT support what I suspect was a manufactured publicity piece. I agree with you there. But seeking publicity is not a crime, nor does it seem he committed one in the execution. I am truly troubled by this one--i seriously don't like any of the lines of thought it leads to.

I really, really want to hear COG's thought on this one. If he us to be logically consistent (and he usually is) I expect he should be troubled by this one as well.

But in the meantime I will ask you and Kayla again: what, specifically, was his arrestable act? Originally Posted by Old-T

The media claims aside, was he really arrested or just detained? When did this happen? At the school or at the station when he started giving out bullshit answers.

As for seeking media attention....tough call but the line has to be drawn in a new place since 9/11. I look at our grade schools having children detained for using a stick as a gun, or being suspended for pointing a Pop Tart (shaped like a gun) at another student, or in this case a kid brings something to school that most people identify as a bomb at first glance. The Columbine shooters had pipe bombs, who is to say that someone planning an attack might be caught setting up some "party favors" a day or two before the attack.

We still don't know the real (proven) explanation for seeking this attention. We have what he said (I just showing this to my teachers), the assumption (he wanted attention), and the suspicion (it was a test). What was the reason for any of those answers? He didn't build it so why did he feel that he had to show it to a teacher? If he wanted attention then why? Politics? Appeasing his radical father? A cry for attention because of emotional issues? And the suspicious reason...prelude to a terrorist attack? A school shooting? Testing the response for someone else?

It was decided about a hundred years ago that you could not yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Maybe it's time we updated what is frowned upon (pointing airsoft guns at policemen, wearing a fake dynamite vest, claiming that you want to kill your fellow students, or making realistic terroristic threats)

His arrestable act? He wasn't charged by the police so I think it's a moot point. I do have to point out that the family has not given permission for the school to make an official statement about what happened, which is kind of like taking away free speech rights for the teachers and administration. So much for our Constitution and our assumed right to know.

I can understand why a teacher, untrained in explosives would panic when seeing something like this. That's what bombs look like on TV. But law enforcement should know better. It was clear that this was a stand alone clock. There were no explosives attached to it. No one was in danger. It was a clock. LE should have so informed the school that. Instead, they overreact. That's part of the police state. You can be arrested for "looking like" a criminal. Arrested if you might be thinking about committing a crime. Pretty scary. This kid, if anything, is guilty of cheating on an assignment. Instead, he was arrested for having brown skin and holding a broken clock.

Pardon the pun, but this has been blown way out of proportion. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Like Obama said, he never built that. Reducing this to a failed science project is putting your head in the sand. Any student should have recieved scrutiny and if they started to play games when questioned, removed from the school until they had some answers.

Irving Mayor: Barack Obama Tweeted Out Support of Muslim Clockmaker BEFORE Clock Picture Was Released...http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015...-was-released/

Irving Mayor: Barack Obama Tweeted Out Support of Muslim Clockmaker BEFORE Clock Picture Was Released...http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015...-was-released/


Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Fuck the bastards

Irving Mayor: Barack Obama Tweeted Out Support of Muslim Clockmaker BEFORE Clock Picture Was Released...http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015...-was-released/


Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

As for seeking media attention....tough call but the line has to be drawn in a new place since 9/11.
True, and where that line is is the real, and difficult, question. But it is far too easy for some to sidetrack the thread to avoid THINKING and throw rocks at Obama's stupid comment. Identifying his comment as stupid is easy, refinding the line in a way that does not violate free speech is much harder. My question still stands.

I look at our grade schools having children detained for using a stick as a gun, or being suspended for pointing a Pop Tart (shaped like a gun) at another student,
And in my mind THAT is the mindset that is scary. How many people have died of pop-tart violence recently? This overreaction--even worse, this liberal arts (not necessarily Liberal) stupid simplistic world view is much scarier than a real bomb. Both sides want simplistic answers to hideously tough issues about freedom vs safety. 14 years after 9/11 we have refused to have that conversation as a society.

or in this case a kid brings something to school that most people identify as a bomb at first glance. The Columbine shooters had pipe bombs, who is to say that someone planning an attack might be caught setting up some "party favors" a day or two before the attack.
See COG's comment on this part. I agree with it.

We still don't know the real (proven) explanation for seeking this attention.
We have what he said (I just showing this to my teachers), the assumption (he wanted attention), and the suspicion (it was a test). What was the reason for any of those answers? He didn't build it so why did he feel that he had to show it to a teacher? If he wanted attention then why? Politics? Appeasing his radical father? A cry for attention because of emotional issues? And the suspicious reason...prelude to a terrorist attack? A school shooting? Testing the response for someone else?
Agree. But again, where is the line? Can I arrest someone for standing on Pennsylvania Ave and looking at the White House? Can I arrest someone for SUSPECTING they MIGHT be scouting out a bombing target? What if the person does it by holding an anti-abortion poster for hours as a cover to watch the patter of security? Difficult problem, one which the feces throwers on here would hurt their brains if they tried to address. Simpler for them to just make homophobic insults back and forth.

It was decided about a hundred years ago that you could not yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Maybe it's time we updated what is frowned upon (pointing airsoft guns at policemen, wearing a fake dynamite vest, claiming that you want to kill your fellow students, or making realistic terroristic threats)

His arrestable act? He wasn't charged by the police so I think it's a moot point.
So you are fine with taking a six year old kindergartener out of school in handcuffs for having a pop tart "gun", so long as she is eventually not charged? Or extend it: round up protesters at a Planned Parenthood office--who are complying with the court orders--cuffing them, taking them away to the police station, and then releasing them without pressing charges? Why, maybe they are scouting out a good spot for a sniper. What if they carry a partially disassembled clock and a sign that says "Your Time Is Running Out--We Will Stop Abortions In America." Is that a threat, or does it refer to a continued movement to change RvW or amend the constitution? WHO DECIDES WHERE THE LINE IS???

I do have to point out that the family has not given permission for the school to make an official statement about what happened, which is kind of like taking away free speech rights for the teachers and administration. So much for our Constitution and our assumed right to know. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I agree with you that when something like this happens in a school, the school should be able to address what happened. No disagreement with you on this point.

Read Che. The more we refuse to address the tough questions, the more we want simplistic answers to tough questions, the more he laughs at us.

Irving Mayor: Barack Obama Tweeted Out Support of Muslim Clockmaker BEFORE Clock Picture Was Released...http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015...-was-released/


Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

the kid is a terrorist..only a fool or anti american sympathizer with an agenda would say he didn't set out to terrorize..perhaps hes an immature, led by his father, terrorist..but one none the less

as for obama,...hes just an ideolological wasteland of misplaced sympathies and ingrained hatreds.. his racism and desire to strike at white America or amercan traditionalisms bubble up and burst forth despite his efforts to disguise them..his reflex cannot be controlled

I agree with you that when something like this happens in a school, the school should be able to address what happened. No disagreement with you on this point.

Read Che. The more we refuse to address the tough questions, the more we want simplistic answers to tough questions, the more he laughs at us. Originally Posted by Old-T

Sometimes the answer is simple, we just have to decide want exactly we want. I never said anything about taking six year olds out in cuffs but what if the six year old was a threat? So now we have to consider what constitutes a threat. You may not believe this but my brother was in his third grade classroom when one of his friends pulled out a .38 caliber revolver from home and fired all six bullets at the teacher. He missed everytime and she was a well liked teacher. This was all the way back in the 1960s. He was what? Eight, nine years old? I would consider that a threat. If I saw someone taking pictures of a government building, a lot of pictures from different angles then I would be concerned. Would I call the police? Not yet. If I followed them and saw them taking pictures of door ways and security check points...you're damned right I'd call the police and hang around to tell them what I saw.

El Al airlines and Israeli security uses profiling to find threats before they happen. They are very good at it. We don't do it and we're not that good because of that. We need to start using some good sense and some good training. Pop Tarts? Sheer stupidity. Pulling down formulas for making fertilizer bombs off the Internet? I'd be concerned.

So we should be assuming guilty until proven innocent? Lots of people did not behave too well on this one, but Kayla, can you explain to me when it is justified to take a 9th grader out in handcuffs and when it is not? If I think the saying on their shirt is threatening language? If they have a backpack that is large enough to contain a pressure cooker? If they have a thermos that contains more than 3.4 ounces of a potentially explosive liquid?

Tell me please, what IS the threshold of presumed guilt? Sadly things are not as clear cut as it might be nice to have. How many rights are YOU willing to remove, from whom, in what circumstances? I hate to point it out but some jurisdictions have a long history of making some of those decisions based upon age, color, etc. Originally Posted by Old-T

Well, to me, I advocate it in protection of others. NOT offense of others. In a post 9/11 world and I saw a package like that clock made by any kid but especially a muzlim (yes that is definitely stereotyping and I'm aware but I'm truly at peace with it. I'd rather have you guys mad than clean up body parts) But that's about it. Kids with weapons (Even fake) should be stopped and questioned, but as far tshirts and ass hanging out of your pants and bad language... hell no. This is America. I truly only sided with the city on this because of what it was. I looked at the pic carefully and I have to strongly disagree with COG. That looks EXACTLY like a bomb. Do you watch TV ever? They can slip all sort of explosives in the lining. (Well and my buddy that does bomb ordnance looked at it and said "holy shit".)

Hey PS I know this is old news but he keeps getting all this strange attention adn i was wondering where you guys stood.

Sometimes the answer is simple, we just have to decide want exactly we want. I never said anything about taking six year olds out in cuffs but what if the six year old was a threat? So now we have to consider what constitutes a threat. You may not believe this but my brother was in his third grade classroom when one of his friends pulled out a .38 caliber revolver from home and fired all six bullets at the teacher. He missed everytime and she was a well liked teacher. This was all the way back in the 1960s. He was what? Eight, nine years old? I would consider that a threat. If I saw someone taking pictures of a government building, a lot of pictures from different angles then I would be concerned. Would I call the police? Not yet. If I followed them and saw them taking pictures of door ways and security check points...you're damned right I'd call the police and hang around to tell them what I saw.

El Al airlines and Israeli security uses profiling to find threats before they happen. They are very good at it. We don't do it and we're not that good because of that. We need to start using some good sense and some good training. Pop Tarts? Sheer stupidity. Pulling down formulas for making fertilizer bombs off the Internet? I'd be concerned. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Profiling. Sounds good. Let's put a yellow star of David on the group we think needs to be watched and paid special attention to.

Also glad to know you approve of Big Brother checking how often I browse which sites on line. You DO approve, since that is the only way to tell I am downloading bomb making instructions.

As I said, some very tough choices and implications. Not as simple as many would like it to be.

Oh Jesus Christ. Everybody is still beating around the bush with this punk.

You know EXACTLY why he brought that to school. To get the very reaction that the entire episode has morphed in too.

Punk little piece of shit.

Profiling. Sounds good. Let's put a yellow star of David on the group we think needs to be watched and paid special attention to.

Also glad to know you approve of Big Brother checking how often I browse which sites on line. You DO approve, since that is the only way to tell I am downloading bomb making instructions.

As I said, some very tough choices and implications. Not as simple as many would like it to be. Originally Posted by Old-T

We're talking about two different things. You talking about race and religion, I'm talking about peoples actions and tells. If someone such as yourself is going the race route then you fail as a profiler.

[QUOTE=LovingKayla;1057330669]I looked at the pic carefully and I have to strongly disagree with COG. /QUOTE]

I think we could settle this with a wrestling match.

I just want to know where yall stand. Originally Posted by LovingKayla

I had wondered where you had been. Let's see first the boy got famous because the schools have gotten dumb as a box of rocks. If this had happened before say 1980 the teacher would have told him "nice now unplug it so it doesn't beep during class" and that would be that. Now schools think zero tolerance means max punishment. And they can't tell the difference between a dissembled clock and something that could actually explode.

Now let's look at his trip. He goes to the country where his parents were from. Who wouldn't be excited about that? So is Kalya ragging on the boy because he is excited about going back to where his father had been an important political figure. I guess to Kayla that's something to fault the boy for.

Next the boy gets put into a photo op by the president over there because the boy is known and newworthy. When your a strong arm leader who doesn't mind killing people, if you're smart you go to the photo op. But since you're a young boy it means that Kayla can throw shade at you because well people take advantage of a single event in your life.

So in conclusion what does Kayla want? Stone the kid? Send him to prison? Put him on the terrorist list so he can't travel? I guess because Kayla seems to imply that because he went on this trip something bad should happen to him because like always she be a hatin'

[QUOTE=CuteOldGuy;1057331463]

I looked at the pic carefully and I have to strongly disagree with COG. /QUOTE]

I think we could settle this with a wrestling match. Originally Posted by LovingKayla

8 to 5 on Kayla.