14-year-old Texas boy arrested for bringing homemade clock

[Cow Poke]

They are probably worried that he could say something that would damage their case in a lawsuit.

You mean like the truth?

[Sea of red]

Bill Maher sucks.

[Sea of red]

You mean like the truth?

Which is?

[Cow Poke]

Bill Maher sucks.

Well, lookie there! We agree on something!

[Cow Poke]

A more serious answer about why I abuse CAPS....

I was typing WAY before Al Gore invented the internet. (dang, I just did it again)

I don't have all my fingers on my right hand, and nerve damage (especially when I am tired) apparently causes the nerves in my right hand to "misfire", and my right hand doesn't always type in coordination with my left hand. For example, if I'm typing "work", it might come out wrok, and I have to backspace and retype. (I actually "touch type" using the proper keys) (At least, that's the target)

Over the years, I have come up with a number of ways to deal with this, and using the mouse while typing makes things worse. It's really easy to hit the Caps Lock key with my left pinky, type the word, then hit Caps Lock key again. WAY easier (crap) than highlighting and hitting 'bold' or 'italics' or some other way to draw attention to a word or phrase.

HOWEVER (poop!) this is not the first time somebody brought up the allegation that I'm "yelling" when I'm actually typing quite calmly.

So, I realize it's "on me" to figure out a way to stop the habit of Caps Locking stuff just because it's easier for me.

Your complaint is legitimate, and I'll try harder to do better. Seriously, it's obvious that you're not the only person who thinks I'm "yelling" or being emotional when I'm not at all. My bad. But I hardly EVER (drat!) type in anger. I just don't get angry very often.

[rogue06]

The child's behavior that day involved the Pop-Tart but the school's response (and the school did not cite Sandy Hook as a justification

Again, this was all part the reasoning given only after the incident in response to the public pressure which started mounting. It was never cited in the initial suspension.


It just seems odd that in this case that you're willing to bend over backwards to defend the school officials for over-reacting while in the Texas case you aren't willing to give them the slightest benefit of the doubt. Personally I think they're both examples of over-reaction.

[Sam]

Again, this was all part the reasoning given only after the incident in response to the public pressure which started mounting. It was never cited in the initial suspension.


It just seems odd that in this case that you're willing to bend over backwards to defend the school officials for over-reacting while in the Texas case you aren't willing to give them the slightest benefit of the doubt. Personally I think they're both examples of over-reaction.

In the one case, you have evidence suggesting that the suspension was due to prolonged behavioral disturbances and not, as the legend goes, simply because the kid made a Pop-Tart gun. That wasn't some fumbling attempt to save face by the school officials; that was the determination of the hearing examiner who reviewed the incident, the child's school record, and the school's response. It's not bending over backwards to note that assessment cuts against the depiction you gave (what has become the popular legend of the event).

In this incident, there is no prior behavioral issues that would have led to this dramatic of a response. And to say I'm not willing to give the school officials "the slightest benefit of the doubt" is careless; I've said from the start that reasonable caution was warranted. The school officials had a pretty wide spectrum of options, including calling in the engineering teacher and calling the parents, that didn't involve calling the police or allowing it to escalate to the kid's arrest.

You've got the basic context of the Pop-Tart case wrong and you haven't given any reason to suggest that there's more to the clock case that would lead to a different conclusion.

[rogue06]

In the one case, you have evidence suggesting that the suspension was due to prolonged behavioral disturbances and not, as the legend goes, simply because the kid made a Pop-Tart gun.

No Sam you don't. The "prolonged behavioral disturbances" were only offered up as a justification well after the incident. It was little more than an excuse.

[Cow Poke]

The kid said in that video

You mean the heavily edited video (wasn't that the complaint about the PP videos) where it's just a whole bunch of sound bites?

that he used a cable to close the case because a locked case would look suspicious, not that he thought the contents of the case looked suspicious.

And why, exactly, would he need a "cable" to close a metal pencil case that has a latch built-in?

[Sam]

You mean the heavily edited video (wasn't that the complaint about the PP videos) where it's just a whole bunch of sound bites?



And why, exactly, would he need a "cable" to close a metal pencil case that has a latch built-in?

Pay attention to what Adrift was claiming the kid said and what the kid was actually talking about in the video. That's the issue on the table; Adrift was using ~1:26 to say that the kid knew the clock device looked suspicious, indicating that he knew it looked like a "movie bomb". That wasn't what the kid was saying, however.

[Sam]

No Sam you don't. The "prolonged behavioral disturbances" were only offered up as a justification well after the incident. It was little more than an excuse.

Really digging in there, eh? You're claiming that the kid's school record was doctored or something? That the hearing examiner was in on the cover-up? That the media's initial take, not having access to the kid's disciplinary record, couldn't have been hyperbolic or wrong?

That's another long walk, Rogue.

[Juvenal]

Here's another thought (since I'm doing such a wonderful job of winning friends )....

Everybody loves ya, CP, if only for the endearing way the drool comes dripping off your chin.

I think there's a pretty strong case for this being simply a "deconstructed" commercially manufactured alarm clock.

Cause ya saw a doof say so on YouTube, right?

Y'all don't have to do this to yourselves. Ya know that, right?

OK, perhaps a fact that is not yet known to the hyperblogosphere.....

CONTEXT (because none of this happened in a vacuum)

Irving, Texas - where this all took place.

Irving, Texas has been quite a hotbed of controversy over a Muslim "Sharia Court". I'll cite an article, but note AHEAD OF TIME that the article has some misleading information in it.
An Islamic Court apparently has NOT been set up, but a FORM of it was attempted. The city of Irving came up with an ordinance against it, AFTER which the claim was made that a Muslim Sharia Court was never intended.

There's a lot of controversy over this, depending on what source you read.

Here is a Politi-Fact article on it, but it doesn't include ALL the story.

Here is another link from another perspective.

The FACT is that there has been quite a bit of controversy over whether a "Muslim Tribunal" or "Sharia Court" or some other form of mediation based on Islam was attempted or established. This is part of the backdrop against which this latest incident happened.

Now, ya see, I was aware of the "sharia scare" in Irving, and, to be honest, I thought of dumping that bomb into the convo, but in the end I decided not to, cause, well, that would be a cheap shot.

Who knew you'd pull out that hogleg on your own and shoot yourself directly in the head with it?



So, to be clear then, the context for the Islamaphobic arrest of this kid is the rampant Islamaphobia in Irving.



Oh, damn ... I couldn't make this stuff up.

[Juvenal]

(poop!)

I'm telling mossy.

[rogue06]

Really digging in there, eh? You're claiming that the kid's school record was doctored or something? That the hearing examiner was in on the cover-up? That the media's initial take, not having access to the kid's disciplinary record, couldn't have been hyperbolic or wrong?

That's another long walk, Rogue.

Come on Sam you aren't that thick.

When he was suspended there was nothing said about his past behavior (which apparently was never serious enough to warrant calling the parents or asking for a parent-teacher conference -- it looks like they never even sent a note home to the parents requesting them to sign it). He was explicitly suspended for nibbling a pop tart into the shape of a gun and waving it around. That was the only reason given. Nothing about previous behavior problems.

Then, only after the parents conducted several interviews including on national TV and pressure started mounting on the schools did they suddenly start saying that it was actually due to a record of rambunctious behavior. It is a case of post hoc rationalizing. It looks like the school knew it had over-reacted and fearing a potential lawsuit (a real fear in this litigious society) they needed something to justify their actions.

[rogue06]

I'm telling mossy.