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

[Cow Poke]

You're too kind. Not to me, of course, but to the people who were most certainly not arguing the possibility of the kid having intentionally made his electronics project to look like a "movie bomb" but were, in fact, either arguing that he did intentionally do so (Cow Poke)

Citation, please.

[Sam]

Citation, please.

#364, for one:

He very obviously (in my opinion) built something that looked like what one would expect a movie/tv show bomb to look like. I'm certain he thought it was cool (why else would he show it off). He's not a terrorist. I'm not calling him a terrorist. I'm not saying he was attempting to emulate a terrorist. He was just goofing around. The fact that you played around with rocket motors is great, I guess. This kid wasn't doing anything nearly as creative. He literally took off the housing of a clock, and put it in a case.

The ONLY thing I might add is the POSSIBILITY that he was either trying to get attention, and/or trying to prove a point. I'm pretty sure about the former, not so sure about the latter.

And we can move on to #374:

Eh, I don't know. I read that his father was known for pulling some attention grabbing stunts, but I think this is just down to kids being kids.

I agree... and I had his father's alleged activism in mind, but it's why I said "not so sure about the latter".

I remember when I was in grade school I had a teacher who was a hardcore pacifist, and she had some negative things to say about the local Hasbro manufacturer in town for creating/marketing GI Joes that she felt profited on war and violence. In a show of protest, I brought a bunch of my GI Joes in and put them around my desk. Looking back, that was such a ridiculous thing to do. All it did was tick her off, and made me look like a heel. Maybe he was going for something like that, I don't know. Again though, I think it's more likely than not that he was just showing off something that he thought looked cool. Man, if I made something that looked that cool at age 14, I'd pretend I was James Bond or something.

Yes, I'm more likely to believe that.

And then #389, where you accused "liberals" of having "got took" on the case, not just the possibility of the kid intending to make a "movie bomb":

And we can add in your "Amens" to Adrift's posts where he was very explicitly arguing the case that kid "obviously" intended to make a hoax bomb.

The whole context of that section is you agreeing with Adrift about the kid's intention to make a hoax bomb. You only expressed a lack of confidence in whether the kid did it for attention or "to make a point". At the very least, you were agreeing that the kid having intended to make a hoax bomb was the plausible scenario, rather than an accusation wholly devoid of evidence.

[Cow Poke]

#364, for one:

And we can move on to #374:

And then #389, where you accused "liberals" of having "got took" on the case, not just the possibility of the kid intending to make a "movie bomb":



And we can add in your "Amens" to Adrift's posts where he was very explicitly arguing the case that kid "obviously" intended to make a hoax bomb.

The whole context of that section is you agreeing with Adrift about the kid's intention to make a hoax bomb. You only expressed a lack of confidence in whether the kid did it for attention or "to make a point". At the very least, you were agreeing that the kid having intended to make a hoax bomb was the plausible scenario, rather than an accusation wholly devoid of evidence.

Thanks

[Cow Poke]

There's an element here of "everybody gets a trophy" on steroids.

The kid, in this instance, didn't invent anything at all - he took the parts from a deconstructed clock, and put them in a metal pencil case. Kudos to him for knowing how to reassemble something somebody else actually invented and patented, but sheeeeessh!!!! Celebrity status for that?

Now, the fact that he put the display INSIDE the metal case where you'd have to open the case to see what time it is*, exposing yourself to 110v electricity and components, is just dumb.

Unless, of course, he was "inventing" a "movie bomb" which always seems to have that same characteristic.




*isn't that the primary function of a "clock"? So we can see what time it is?

[Starlight]

I think that's what liberals are doing here.

I think most liberals have no view on this incident because there's insufficient evidence. My view is that the evidence about what happened and why is sufficiently murky that we can conclude very little, which is why I haven't posted in this thread until now. Bill Maher was saying exactly the same thing on his show this week.

So the "liberals", as a whole, are not taking any particular position on this issue. All the coverage I have seen on this in liberal sources has involved liberals arguing with other liberals about whether the kid's Muslim background did or didn't justify the authority figures involved having a greater level of suspicion in terms of the possibility of the case being a bomb.

[rogue06]

It doesn't look like a bomb to me, but most people don't know much of anything about electronics either because it does have a superficial resemblance to a TV bomb.

I had been avoiding saying anything until now but having a wee bit more than a passing knowledge of improvised, field expedient and homemade explosives, incendiaries and infernal devices (yes, there is a reason why I used that particular phrasing but won't get into it here), the device does superficially resemble something that could detonate a bomb. It is only after a bit of a closer look by someone who does know what to look for that it becomes apparent that it would perform somewhat poorly in this role -- but still could work with only the barest of modifications. I do not blame the teachers or your average police officer for being cautious especially if, as some reports suggest, Ahmed was not being very forthright with them when they questioned him.

[Cow Poke]

I think most liberals have no view on this incident because there's insufficient evidence.

I'm talking about the ones who are pitching fits and having emotional meltdowns on this here on Tweb, and calling us "sick" if we have an opinion that doesn't agree with theirs.

My view is that the evidence about what happened and why is sufficiently murky that we can conclude very little, which is why I haven't posted in this thread until now. Bill Maher was saying exactly the same thing on his show this week.

Yeah, I haven't ardently defended the cops or authorities - I'm just opposed to stringing them up to dry because the people who are doing so don't have all the facts. As I have said repeatedly - they weren't there, and neither was I. Nor do they know the policies in effect that may have required the calling of police or whatever.

So the "liberals", as a whole, are not taking any particular position on this issue.

The "liberals" here are taking a hysterical position.

All the coverage I have seen on this in liberal sources has involved liberals arguing with other liberals about whether the kid's Muslim background did or didn't justify the authority figures involved having a greater level of suspicion in terms of the possibility of the case being a bomb.

Perhaps you can invite some of those liberals to come and calm down the liberals in this thread.

As a matter of fact, I expresses surprise earlier when one of our less mature liberals started screaming about this being a "conservative" battle. I didn't step into this because I'm conservative, I stepped into it because I was stunned by the sudden and illogical condemnation of authorities before the facts were all in.

[Cow Poke]

Well, Sam and I are apart of left-wing conspiracy.

I think you're trying to say, in your own charming way, that you and Sam are "a part of", not "apart of" which would indicate you were separate from it.

[Cow Poke]

I think most liberals have no view on this incident because there's insufficient evidence.

It did seem odd to me, however, that most of the websites that are challenging the hysteria on this are conservative websites. It does, indeed, seem to be a liberal / conservative split.

[Teallaura]

#364, for one:

And we can move on to #374:

And then #389, where you accused "liberals" of having "got took" on the case, not just the possibility of the kid intending to make a "movie bomb":



And we can add in your "Amens" to Adrift's posts where he was very explicitly arguing the case that kid "obviously" intended to make a hoax bomb.

The whole context of that section is you agreeing with Adrift about the kid's intention to make a hoax bomb. You only expressed a lack of confidence in whether the kid did it for attention or "to make a point". At the very least, you were agreeing that the kid having intended to make a hoax bomb was the plausible scenario, rather than an accusation wholly devoid of evidence.

There isn't a single definite statement in any of that. CP's statements are ALL caveated that it's 'possible' or otherwise indicates that the opinion expressed is contingent. Not a single categorical statement in the bunch.

An amen can indicate anything from complete agreement to respect for the poster - if that's your best evidence then the point stands.

[Cow Poke]

There isn't a single definite statement in any of that. CP's statements are ALL caveated that it's 'possible' or otherwise indicates that the opinion expressed is contingent. Not a single categorical statement in the bunch.

Exactly -- it's useless to try to reason with Sam on this, though -- he's full bore dogmatically committed to seeing what he wants to see. I SUSPECT, from the overall context, that he may have been trying to prove a point -- that a Muslim kid walking into school with a "clock" would be accused of making a bomb. It's more LIKELY, in my opinion, that he was just doing it to get attention, which I have said numerous times. I'm still wide open to more evidence, like what the teachers actually said, and a timeline in which this all occurred -- there seems to be disagreement on that.

The bulk of Sam's case is built on "what the kid said".

An amen can indicate anything from complete agreement to respect for the poster - if that's your best evidence then the point stands.

I started a thread on this exact topic, but can't seem to find it. Specifically, that an amen can mean that you agree with a salient point the person made, but does NOT imply that you are in 100% agreement with everything they said. We don't have "selective amens". AND... ... I am notorious for accidentally hitting "amen" when I'm trying to report a post.


ETA: Oh, and I accidentally amen'd your post!

[klaus54]

Try getting shocked by 115 VAC at 400 Hz.

That would "Hertz" I suppose.

But I'm not sure what the Hz has to do with shocking. It would depend on the wattage.

[Cow Poke]

That would "Hertz" I suppose.

But I'm not sure what the Hz has to do with shocking. It would depend on the wattage.

Amperage.

[Cow Poke]

An amen can indicate anything from complete agreement to respect for the poster - if that's your best evidence then the point stands.

Ah, found it!!!!

I have a friend who's quite the comedian. He's a pastor, and loves to tell about ornery things he did as a kid. (When I tell these stories to friends, they say, "yeah, sure -- a 'friend', huh?" -- indicating they think this was me! )

One of his "routines" was a list of things to do from the congregation to "encourage" your pastor.

One of my favorites was "the misplaced amen". He would say, "at random, in the middle of the preacher's sentence, yell AMEN". It was supposed to be especially "effective" if it was obviously out of place....

"We have seen a decrease in funding for..." AMEN!!!!

Yeah, it's dumb. But you'd have to know Tuck.

ANYWAY --- I've seen several times here on Tweb where somebody comments about an "amen" that somebody else posted, even attacking that person (me, on at least one occasion) for "supporting" a particular comment in a long post, where it was the overall post that was "amen'd".

I often amen somebody if they say something that makes sense, or with which I agree, even though I may not particularly like them as a person (as much as we know "persons" from their online persona) It doesn't necessarily mean that I'm endorsing that poster, or the ENTIRETY of what they said.

I just think it's a bit odd to attack somebody for "amen'ing" another poster because you ASSUME they must agree with a specific something that may have been said in a much larger context.

In fact, I gotta admit that the orneriness in me causes me, on occasion, to amen somebody just because I know it ticks somebody else off.

I'm trying to work on that.

So, there, Sam!

[Sam]

There isn't a single definite statement in any of that. CP's statements are ALL caveated that it's 'possible' or otherwise indicates that the opinion expressed is contingent. Not a single categorical statement in the bunch.

An amen can indicate anything from complete agreement to respect for the poster - if that's your best evidence then the point stands.

You're straining credulity. Read the thread. In no sense was Cow Poke couching his claim and in no sense can you read through that section and think that he was only making a tentative suggestion of what was possible. He was "pretty sure" that the kid made the clock to look like a "movie bomb" for attention, maybe to "make a point". He was adamant that I was ignoring "all the facts" that pointed to the kid's motive being an intentional hoax bomb. Even now, he's writing that he SUSPECTS the kid intentionally made a hoax bomb to "make a point" but thinks it's LIKELY he made a hoax bomb to garner attention.

You first tried to claim that I was off on a "crazed tangent" not being able to acknowledge the possibility that the kid intentionally made a hoax bomb and that I was making the kid out to be a "moron" because he didn't answer a specific question appropriately. I pointed out that both of these claims were false, that you were fabricating a question/answer pair as though it had literally happened and that "Cow Poke is wrong because he has become increasing set in the conviction that the kid did intentionally make the clock to look like a "movie bomb", not because he merely postulated the possibility." You claimed "No, CP never made that statement - go find it if you think he did. By my count he has denied making such a categorical claim five or six times in posts addressed to you." I showed that Cow Poke was making statements that were increasingly confident in his conviction that the kid intentionally set out to make a "movie bomb". And Cow Poke repeatedly "Amen'd" Adrift's posts that were making the same case; whatever he claims now, it's impossible to look at that section in its entirety and not reasonably conclude that Cow Poke was doing far more than just noting the possibility, remote as it may be, that the kid's motive was to make a hoax bomb.

Now you're reduced to trying to strain those posts so that there "isn't a single definite statement." It's a transparently poor showing.