He assembled two broken clocks together into a $20 box he bought. He didn't make a clock, exactly, but he didn't claim to.
And it changes nothing. To claim that he was trying to make it look like a bomb for attention is absurd.
And it changes nothing. To claim that he was trying to make it look like a bomb for attention is absurd.
Obviously any suggestion of intent still doesn't excuse the way the police reportedly handled things, or make Dawkins' attitude any less ridiculous.
Even if Ahmed was being a delinquent, I can in no way understand how anyone can think this is true. Unless the father encouraged his son to take a bomb lookalike to school, how the hell could he, a 14 year old boy, have foreseen the act as attracting as much attention as it has? How could anyone?
What is more absurd: that a teenager violated a school rule to get attention, or that a whole bunch of school administrators and police officers couldn't tell an alarm clock apart from a bomb?
That may make unwarranted assumptions about competence of the particular officials involved. Though, I'd say that if they thought it was a bomb, then their reaction was just as bad as if they didn't, for a different set of reasons.
This is a case of parents using their child as a publicity stunt (pessimistic theory).
Can we at least admit that movies have approximately zero relevance to reality?
In the same way that a person dressed in the black garb worn by stagehands, by theatrical convention, passes as invisible. The appearance of bombs in movies is an artistic convention designed to provide dramatic tension.
> Because while I agree the whole thing was handled poorly, it's not completely implausible to think that was a bomb.
The school action would be even more ludicrously inappropriate if they did think it was a bomb.
There are only two scenarios here that are tenable. Either he built a real bomb and brought it to school or he didn't build a real bomb.
If he didn't build a real bomb then the question becomes whether or not he attempted to scare people with a hoax bomb.
Unquestionably he didn't build a real bomb. Moreover, he didn't attempt to scare anyone with a fake bomb either. He brought a clock to school. He insisted to everyone that it was a clock. And he tried to avoid showing it to people.
That is not a hoax bomb in any sense of the word. If you don't have a hoax bomb and you don't have a real bomb then what do you have? Panic, and bigotry. Nothing more.
Zero-tolerance policies are their own can of worms, but neither such policies nor any possible explanation of their enforcement explains the characterizations made after the fact by both school and law enforcement officials regarding the supposed "hoax bomb".
http://pol.tasb.org/Policy/Download/367?filename=FOD(LEGAL)....
These are the relevant documents. They are short enough to read them in less than 5 minutes. Can you tell me what the legally-mandated punishment is for bringing a non-weapon that resembles a weapon onto school grounds is?
It's easy to bikeshed about "characterizations", but there are legally no other ways the school district could have reacted on the day they were making decisions.
Can you explain the relevance since -- except in the sense that every digital clock in existence resembles a fictional weapon through the Hollywood tendency to depict bombs as digital clock displays -- the actual device in question does not in any meaningful sense resemble a weapon.
Further, you answer your own question.
Remember that chicken fingers qualify as weapons under these policies.
Whether it's true or false is another issue (I don't claim to know his motivations) but absurd?