Muslim Kid Gets Arrested, Handcuffed, Fingerprinted For Bringing a DIY Clock to School

School administrators and cops thought it looked like a bomb, even though, apparently, none of them thought it actually was a bomb.

It does sort of look "like a bomb," in a vague way -- there are wires and a circuit board and a timer display. And it's in a case. (But be careful about scale on that -- look at the extension cord plug beside the case. This is not a suitcase; this is a smaller case. The kid claims it's a pencil box.)

I understand the reason for suspicion and for having to go through the process of asking the kid about it and all -- imagine what would happen to these civil servants if they did nothing, and then it turned out, oh yeah, it was a bomb -- but apparently the kid kept saying it was a clock, and has a plausible explanation as for why he had the home-built clock (he's an "inventor," and this is his hobby), and, again, no one actually ever thought this was a bomb, or represented it as a bomb -- so why go down the dumb trail of arresting the kid?

Had there not been any arrest, and had the left outraged about the suspicion and asking question about the device, I'd take the side of officials: they are instructed by We the People to have a zero tolerance policy with "weapons." I think that's stupid as shit, but that's the stupid rule we (collectively) have given them.

The problem comes when they keep going down the same road. I get the reason for suspicion; I even get the RACIST suspicion about the kid because his name is Ahmad Mohamad. While people are shrieking about that, I think I've read some news stories with people with similar names actually building bombs. Pretty sure about that.

I get suspicion, I get vigilance, I get asking questions.

But what I don't get is that when every signal you get after your first one is an ALL CLEAR signal, why you would keep on the same braindead path set by that initial suspicion and arrest him, fingerprint him, search him, handcuff him.

They may charge him with having a "hoax bomb" -- yet they themselves admit that the kid never represented it as a bomb, and always maintained it was a homebuilt clock. And, in fact, none of the administrators and cops investigating thought it was a bomb.

So how can this be a hoax bomb when no one thought it was a bomb, and the person to be charged never represented it as a bomb?

This feels like the same shit animating the Social Justice Warriors, to me.

Burns defines emotional reasoning as assuming "that your negative emotions necessarily reflect the way things really are: 'I feel it, therefore it must be true.'" Leahy, Holland, and McGinn define it as letting "your feelings guide your interpretation of reality." But, of course, subjective feelings are not always trustworthy guides; unrestrained, they can cause people to lash out at others who have done nothing wrong. Therapy often involves talking yourself down from the idea that each of your emotional responses represents something true or important.

They have a feeling; someone "made" them upset. (Made in quotes, because they actually made themselves upset.)

They believe, wrongly, that that emotion must stand for something real. The SJW get hurt or offended and believe that emotion means something, and must extract contrition, instead of just thinking "Oh I got upset over nothing. No biggie. Let's move on."

Similarly, it seems like these people got a little worried about something that looked like a bomb -- but which they were pretty sure wasn't a bomb -- and are certain too that that emotion must mean something, that someone was at fault for making them temporarily, mildly, barely concerned about something they were pretty sure wasn't a bomb.

What is the big problem with just saying "Oh, I had a reasonable suspicion that turned out to be false, this kid has plausible answers for everything, and, let's face it, this doesn't even look that much like a bomb; where's the actual explosvies?, for one thing. Oh, and the simplest bombs just use an actual analog clock as a timer; what's all this motherboard business? "

But it seems instead of admitting that that emotion was wrong, we have to follow that emotion all the way through as if it was real; someone made us feel a certain way, and here now are the consequences for that.

Some will say the kid was "dumb" for bringing a device which people could dumbly mistake for a bomb. First of all, I don't know how "dumb" it is for an electronics geek to bring his electronics project to school. But even conceding it's "dumb:" Okay: And...? Does that justify everyone else attempting to match and exceed his dumb move by being much, much dumber ourselves?

Video of the kid explaining his "invention" here.

By the way: Obama has invited this kid to the White House.

He has yet to so much as call Kathy Steinle's family.

He doesn't even pretend to care about American citizens apart from their usefulness to him in pushing his own partisan themes.

Two Questions: People on the "arrest him" side of things have brought up a couple of good questions. I don't think these prove the case, but they're good questions.

ThunderB wants to know, obviously, why the timer beeped off in English class. I can think of innocent reasons for this (because he set the timer the day before when he built the thing, and didn't change it, etc.), but yeah, it's a good question as to why this thing beeped and thus drew attention to itself. Had the thing not beeped, none of this would have unfolded.

Someone else points out the kid said he only closed the pencil-case with a cable and not a lock because he did not want it to look like "a threat." Well okay, thanks for that then kid, but this does indicate the kid knew that this thing could well be viewed as "a threat;" so why bring it to school, and why whine about getting hassled over it?

posted by Ace at 03:02 PM

| Access Comments