As the police always say, handicuffing a suspect is for safeties sake. We have watched terrorists using small children to detonate bombs around the world. Why not in the US under the right circumstances. That is what law enforcement is up against.
Too many questions and loose ends on this story. This kid's dad is an "activist" (which is the nicest way to describe a demagogue) and a political candidate in another country. This "clock" turned out to be nothing more than the guts of an existing clock that he took apart. He built nothing. So if he built nothing, then why did he take it to school to show his teachers (which is what he said that he was doing)? When asked several direct questions this kid gave evasive answers. This is not how it was presented by the press.
Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn
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?