Hacker News Reader

Comment by witty_username | Hacker News Reader

> The newspaper quoted a police spokesman, James McLellan, as saying that Ahmed never claimed his device was anything but a clock, and the police have no reason to think it was dangerous.

But officers still did not believe Ahmed was giving them the whole story.

“We have no information that he claimed it was a bomb,” Mr. McLellan said. “He kept maintaining it was a clock, but there was no broader explanation.

“It could reasonably be mistaken as a device if left in a bathroom or under a car. The concern was, what was this thing built for? Do we take him into custody?”

Duh, the thing tells the time. And are they saying that if I don't explain why I made something it can be presumed to be a bomb? (especially given "and the police have no reason to think it was dangerous.")

View on HN

I feel like the common sense explanation of why he built it, "because he could", is what scares them so much. Because they can't and can't imagine how to even begin. People fear what they don't understand and him being Brown, Muslem, and doing things that they can't understand is like the trifecta of terror and ignorance. Fear, bigotry, and ignorance this is what the the reaction to it looks like.

>“He kept maintaining it was a clock, but there was no broader explanation."

Did it really need a broader explanation? It's a clock.

People tend to assume that everyone else thinks like them. Because the arresting officer couldn't wouldn't build a clock for the enjoyment of learning (as opposed to some "broader purpose" like blowing up a building), then nobody else should either. Simple explanation, but likely true.

> It could reasonably be mistaken as a device

Oh no. A device!?

"It could reasonably be mistaken as a device if left in a bathroom or under a car."

Okay, so charge him with a hoax bomb if he does that, but he didn't so what's the deal?

>so what's the deal?

What you just did is the deal.

What do I mean? You just said that had he left the device in a bathroom it would be more reasonable to charge him with the crime. They shifted the debate over and you followed with it. Instead of arguing if a kid should be charged over leaving a clock in the bathroom, you've now given them that ground and have moved on to debating charging them for having a clock at all.

Of course, on an individual level this doesn't do much. But they are pulling this sort of trick on the whole of society. At that scale, it is not ineffective.

If he had taken the plastic case off an existing electronic clock and brought it in, would they have had the same reaction? If it was a different kid?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com