Clock kid sues for $15 million

[Soldati Senza Confini]

What. Is. The. Evidence?

Do you have statements from the parents or Ahmed to indicate that it was intentional? Evidence that he showed the device voluntarily to more than a couple of people? Statements that he might have hinted that it might have been something other than a clock, which is what it was? Was this his first time bringing some sort of cobbled-together or reassembled device to school (hint: it wasn't)? Did he try to show it to more than a few people in the hopes that someone would get the wrong idea? Was there any way to foresee that the police would deny him his Constitutional rights?

What evidence do you have other than your own biased take on the events of the day?

I have went over this already in my previous posts.

And they scoff when we say that racial profiling was a contributer to the arrest and that we're "jumping to conclusions!"

I haven't seen anyone scoff at that.

This thread is mired with it. Even to the point that someone decided to say "well people shouldn't be required to have the reading comprehension of an adult".

[Valystria]

What is that relevant to?


I am not interested in a military career.


At no point was it alleged that it was a real bomb. They knew it was a hoax weapon. The school handled the situation as they were required to.

1) To the fact that you're screaming "WELL THE KID IS FAMOUS AND SHIT, CAN WE LET IT GO NOW?!" Would you let go a charge of assault and battery just because you were consoled by someone else, yes or no? It's a rather simple question.

2) Not my point. My point is that, unless you can read minds as far as Qatar, you probably shouldn't be in NSG.

3) No they did not. If you think it is a hoax weapon first you have to make sure it isn't a real weapon, and for that you have to call an expert in explosives and not touch the thing, which the teacher clearly did not comply.

1) It depends on the situation.

2) If you applied that standard to everyone there wouldn't be anyone left in NSG.

3) You realize the student himself admitted it was a hoax weapon?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/11/23/ahmed_mohamed_demands_15_million_for_texas_school_hoax_bomb_clock_arrest.html

- It says that during the questioning, Ahmed’s principal threatened to expel him if he didn’t admit that his clock was a hoax bomb—though he had never claimed it was anything but a clock.

- School officials insinuated that Ahmed wasn’t telling reporters the truth about his arrest, and publicly pressured his parents to let them release his private student records.

So it's either each and every one of the school officials are lying, or the student is.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

1) To the fact that you're screaming "WELL THE KID IS FAMOUS AND SHIT, CAN WE LET IT GO NOW?!" Would you let go a charge of assault and battery just because you were consoled by someone else, yes or no? It's a rather simple question.

2) Not my point. My point is that, unless you can read minds as far as Qatar, you probably shouldn't be in NSG.

3) No they did not. If you think it is a hoax weapon first you have to make sure it isn't a real weapon, and for that you have to call an expert in explosives and not touch the thing, which the teacher clearly did not comply.

1) It depends on the situation.

2) If you applied that standard to everyone there wouldn't be anyone left in NSG.

3) You realize the student himself admitted it was a hoax weapon?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/11/23/ahmed_mohamed_demands_15_million_for_texas_school_hoax_bomb_clock_arrest.html

- It says that during the questioning, Ahmed’s principal threatened to expel him if he didn’t admit that his clock was a hoax bomb—though he had never claimed it was anything but a clock.

- School officials insinuated that Ahmed wasn’t telling reporters the truth about his arrest, and publicly pressured his parents to let them release his private student records.

So it's either each and every one of the school officials are lying, or the student is.

1) Again, yes, or no? I am not asking "well it depends", since this is clear-cut issue. Again, would you?

2) Of course, this is ignoring the very obvious fact that you aren't a mind reader and therefore don't know.

3) You should read what it says before actually commenting on what it actually says:

The letters also single out Mayor Beth Van Duyne and her interview with Glenn Beck in the immediate aftermath where she painted Mohamed—without evidence—as a jihadist who planned to get arrested to further “civilization jihad.” Mohamed’s family is seeking $10 million from the city of Irving and $5 million from the local school district, as well as written apologies from the Irving Mayor Van Duyne and the city police chief.

I'm sorry, but when your article also paints Mayor Beth Van Duyne as a Islamophobe, it doesn't fare well for the town in general either based upon the very article you seem to want to draw conclusions from.

[Gauthier]

I have went over this already in my previous posts.


I haven't seen anyone scoff at that.

This thread is mired with it. Even to the point that someone decided to say "well people shouldn't be required to have the reading comprehension of an adult".

It's the Magic of Belief. If enough people clap their hands while chanting Ahmed Mohamed is a Not Bright Opportunistic Scammer Terrorist who tried to scare and extort the school with a hoax briefcase bomb then reality will snap and bend to conform to that belief.

[Infected Mushroom]

Maybe someone else built it for him or got it for him from abroad and then instructed him to use it

I've also heard that some terrorist cells use children for some operations

If someone competent built it, it wouldn't look like a digital clock in a pencil case. It would look like a backpack. You can fit a lot more explosives and plenty of nails and shit for shrapnel.

maybe he did it to minimise detectability; its a trade off between size of the explosion and visibility... and then the kid accidentally threw the whole plan out

[Infected Mushroom]

the average reasonable person doesn't have to think it is a bomb, it's enough to establish that the average reasonable person COULD (without negligence or unnatural levels of technical illiteracy); hence from the fact that I can point to several other people whose first impression is that it is a bomb... I can conclude that it is possible for reasonable people to think it is a bomb on a first impression.

Unless you want to assert that all of us are unreasonable. But reasonable really just means average member of the community and why should you have any reason to think I intentionally/accidentally picked all outliers?

I don't know, why should we think your representative population isn't?

if at least one reasonable person could have thought it looked like a bomb (as many posters have demonstrated it is possible through their input and their first impression); then its reasonable to say that a reasonable person COULD have seen it as a bomb

its too much of a stretch to just automatically assume all such posters are ''unreasonable'', the evidence is right here in this forum as many have remarked that it looks like a bomb; its not just my first impression

[Infected Mushroom]

And yet all the evidence suggests that's exactly what happened.


I care. Therefore, you are mistaken.


What does retraded mean? I am unfamiliar with that word.

Re...traded? I haven't traded the conclusion...


contrarian
Opposing or rejecting popular opinion or current practice:

The popular opinion surrounding this matter happens to be incorrect. It is better to be a contrarian than to be wrong.


I would be impressed at the brilliance of clock kid's plot were it not so unethical.

Makes me wonder if you haven't been paying attention or if you just think that being edgy and cool and not noticing that a payout isn't even guaranteed has been repeatedly, countless times, mentioned throughout this thread.

At this point, I am not even sure if the detractors suffer from a severe lack of reading comprehension or they just simply can't, and won't, bother with anything that impacts the "dirty goat fucking opportunist sand nigger" narrative a la InfoWars.

character attacks do not advance the inquiry

[Infected Mushroom]

I have went over this already in my previous posts.


I haven't seen anyone scoff at that.

Like I told IM: "Shit I pull out of my ass and I play with it as if it was play-doh" doesn't count as "evidence".

No kidding. Your body doesn't have magical properties (as far as we know).

[Galloism]

I don't know, why should we think your representative population isn't?

if at least one reasonable person could have thought it looked like a bomb (as many posters have demonstrated it is possible through their input and their first impression); then its reasonable to say that a reasonable person COULD have seen it as a bomb

its too much of a stretch to just automatically assume all such posters are ''unreasonable'', the evidence is right here in this forum as many have remarked that it looks like a bomb; its not just my first impression

I mostly contest that sufficient proof has been offered that you are a reasonable person for this purpose.

[Infected Mushroom]

if at least one reasonable person could have thought it looked like a bomb (as many posters have demonstrated it is possible through their input and their first impression); then its reasonable to say that a reasonable person COULD have seen it as a bomb

its too much of a stretch to just automatically assume all such posters are ''unreasonable'', the evidence is right here in this forum as many have remarked that it looks like a bomb; its not just my first impression

I mostly contest that sufficient proof has been offered that you are a reasonable person for this purpose.

because I'm sure labelling people you don't agree with as unreasonable is a very mature debate tactic... actually, hmmm not really

see a LOT of posters have remarked that their first impression or that they feel a reasonable impression would be that this thing looked like some kind of bomb or potential bomb; its far more believable to say that at least one poster is ''reasonable'' (hence passing the reasonableness threshold) then to conclude that all of them are ''unreasonable''

[Gauthier]

I mostly contest that sufficient proof has been offered that you are a reasonable person for this purpose.

because I'm sure labelling people you don't agree with as unreasonable is a very mature debate tactic... actually, hmmm not really

see a LOT of posters have remarked that their first impression or that they feel a reasonable impression would be that this thing looked like some kind of bomb or potential bomb; its far more believable to say that at least one poster is ''reasonable'' (hence passing the reasonableness threshold) then to conclude that all of them are ''unreasonable''

The Dunning-Kruger Effect in action.

[Galloism]

I mostly contest that sufficient proof has been offered that you are a reasonable person for this purpose.

because I'm sure labelling people you don't agree with as unreasonable is a very mature debate tactic... actually, hmmm not really '

I'm not saying you're unreasonable. I'm merely remarking that your claim "I thought it, therefore a reasonable person would" is a connection that is without proven basis.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Makes me wonder if you haven't been paying attention or if you just think that being edgy and cool and not noticing that a payout isn't even guaranteed has been repeatedly, countless times, mentioned throughout this thread.

At this point, I am not even sure if the detractors suffer from a severe lack of reading comprehension or they just simply can't, and won't, bother with anything that impacts the "dirty goat fucking opportunist sand nigger" narrative a la InfoWars.

character attacks do not advance the inquiry

I REALLY would not be talking about "character attacks" if I were you, personally, as you've gone past that point pages ago.

[Gauthier]

because I'm sure labelling people you don't agree with as unreasonable is a very mature debate tactic... actually, hmmm not really '

I'm not saying you're unreasonable. I'm merely remarking that your claim "I thought it, therefore a reasonable person would" is a connection that is without proven basis.

Do you know of any reasonable person who believes dogs should be banned? Or if government should be based on Game of Thrones?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I mostly contest that sufficient proof has been offered that you are a reasonable person for this purpose.

because I'm sure labelling people you don't agree with as unreasonable is a very mature debate tactic... actually, hmmm not really

see a LOT of posters have remarked that their first impression or that they feel a reasonable impression would be that this thing looked like some kind of bomb or potential bomb; its far more believable to say that at least one poster is ''reasonable'' (hence passing the reasonableness threshold) then to conclude that all of them are ''unreasonable''

It's NSG, I really wouldn't be saying that this is a paragon of reasonableness if I were you.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm not saying you're unreasonable. I'm merely remarking that your claim "I thought it, therefore a reasonable person would" is a connection that is without proven basis.

Do you know of any reasonable person who believes dogs should be banned? Or if government should be based on Game of Thrones?

It's ironic, really, that IM is launching at the defensive about how character attacks are not valid when he pretty much was saying pages ago that Ahmed was literally a vicious opportunistic scroundel who didn't know any limit to their shamelessness or depravity.

It almost makes you wonder.

[Gauthier]

Do you know of any reasonable person who believes dogs should be banned? Or if government should be based on Game of Thrones?

It's ironic, really, that IM is launching at the defensive about how character attacks are not valid when he pretty much was saying pages ago that Ahmed was literally a vicious opportunistic scroundel who didn't know any limit to their shamelessness or depravity.

It almost makes you wonder.

Or he was merely certifying that character attacks are not valid by doing them himself.

[Valystria]

1) It depends on the situation.

2) If you applied that standard to everyone there wouldn't be anyone left in NSG.

3) You realize the student himself admitted it was a hoax weapon?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/11/23/ahmed_mohamed_demands_15_million_for_texas_school_hoax_bomb_clock_arrest.html




So it's either each and every one of the school officials are lying, or the student is.

1) Again, yes, or no? I am not asking "well it depends", since this is clear-cut issue. Again, would you?

2) Of course, this is ignoring the very obvious fact that you aren't a mind reader and therefore don't know.

3) You should read what it says before actually commenting on what it actually says:

The letters also single out Mayor Beth Van Duyne and her interview with Glenn Beck in the immediate aftermath where she painted Mohamed—without evidence—as a jihadist who planned to get arrested to further “civilization jihad.” Mohamed’s family is seeking $10 million from the city of Irving and $5 million from the local school district, as well as written apologies from the Irving Mayor Van Duyne and the city police chief.

I'm sorry, but when your article also paints Mayor Beth Van Duyne as a Islamophobe, it doesn't fare well for the town in general either based upon the very article you seem to want to draw conclusions from.

1) I would answer your question if it were at all relevant to anything.

2) I hadn't made any claims that I was a mind reader, and it wouldn't be relevant if I had.

3) I did read what it says.

The mayor's beliefs do not change how the evidence very strongly suggests the student's actions were a carefully thought-out plot taking advantage of knowing how the zero tolerance procedures operate.

Again, either each and every one of the school officials are lying, or the student is lying. Take your pick.

[Galloism]

Again, either each and every one of the school officials are lying, or the student is lying. Take your pick.

Given the culture of schools and police departments, that's basically a toss-up.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

1) Again, yes, or no? I am not asking "well it depends", since this is clear-cut issue. Again, would you?

2) Of course, this is ignoring the very obvious fact that you aren't a mind reader and therefore don't know.

3) You should read what it says before actually commenting on what it actually says:



I'm sorry, but when your article also paints Mayor Beth Van Duyne as a Islamophobe, it doesn't fare well for the town in general either based upon the very article you seem to want to draw conclusions from.

1) I would answer your question if it were at all relevant to anything.

2) I hadn't made any claims that I was a mind reader, and it wouldn't be relevant if I had.

3) I did read what it says.

The mayor's beliefs do not change how the evidence very strongly suggests the student's actions were a carefully thought-out plot taking advantage of knowing how the zero tolerance procedures operate.

Again, either each and every one of the school officials are lying, or the student is lying. Take your pick.

See, you could only make this claim if you were a mind reader. What says in point #2 doesn't match your assumption in #3

Again, are you a mind reader? And if you are, why are you here in NSG instead of doing something productive with that awesome superpower like catching terrorists or some shit?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

1) Again, yes, or no? I am not asking "well it depends", since this is clear-cut issue. Again, would you?

2) Of course, this is ignoring the very obvious fact that you aren't a mind reader and therefore don't know.

3) You should read what it says before actually commenting on what it actually says:



I'm sorry, but when your article also paints Mayor Beth Van Duyne as a Islamophobe, it doesn't fare well for the town in general either based upon the very article you seem to want to draw conclusions from.

1) I would answer your question if it were at all relevant to anything.

2) I hadn't made any claims that I was a mind reader, and it wouldn't be relevant if I had.

3) I did read what it says.

The mayor's beliefs do not change how the evidence very strongly suggests the student's actions were a carefully thought-out plot taking advantage of knowing how the zero tolerance procedures operate.

Again, either each and every one of the school officials are lying, or the student is lying. Take your pick.

There is literally no evidence other than your speculation that it was a carefully thought out plot, and you have continued to fail to link me to any of the posts that you claim to have written in which said evidence was allegedly presented. You have absolutely no leg to stand on, here.

[North Arkana]

If someone competent built it, it wouldn't look like a digital clock in a pencil case. It would look like a backpack. You can fit a lot more explosives and plenty of nails and shit for shrapnel.

maybe he did it to minimise detectability; its a trade off between size of the explosion and visibility... and then the kid accidentally threw the whole plan out

OBJECTION!

Conjecture.

[Dakini]

...to someone who is totally unaware of how wires, circuit boards and clockfaces all work, sure.

But their opinions are worthless.

If I can reasonably think it was a bomb, others can too.

If you can actually reasonably think that's a bomb, that says a lot about you and none of it is good.

The level of knowledge and expertise about bombs that the school authorities had probably approaches the limited extent of my own.

You don't need to be knowledgeable about bombs, you need to be vaguely aware of electronics. The one teacher the student wanted to show the clock to totally recognized it for what it was.

Hence the groups involved behaved reasonably

As has already been pointed out several times, if anyone thought this was actually a bomb, they behaved incredibly stupidly by failing to take any sort of safety precautions.

and that is going to be a factor in any subsequent attempts to sue the school.

Probably not.

It also seems that this was all part of some kind of a scheme for the child and his family to try and sue for millions of dollars in the first place. I agree with Valystria's theory. Clock Kid does not deserve my sympathy.

Who cares about your sympathy? He deserves compensation for having his civil rights trampled and his family deserves compensation for having their lives disrupted by this incident.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If I can reasonably think it was a bomb, others can too.

If you can actually reasonably think that's a bomb, that says a lot about you and none of it is good.

The level of knowledge and expertise about bombs that the school authorities had probably approaches the limited extent of my own.

You don't need to be knowledgeable about bombs, you need to be vaguely aware of electronics. The one teacher the student wanted to show the clock to totally recognized it for what it was.

Hence the groups involved behaved reasonably

As has already been pointed out several times, if anyone thought this was actually a bomb, they behaved incredibly stupidly by failing to take any sort of safety precautions.

and that is going to be a factor in any subsequent attempts to sue the school.

Probably not.

It also seems that this was all part of some kind of a scheme for the child and his family to try and sue for millions of dollars in the first place. I agree with Valystria's theory. Clock Kid does not deserve my sympathy.

Who cares about your sympathy? He deserves compensation for having his civil rights trampled and his family deserves compensation for having their lives disrupted by this incident.

As it has been pointed out to me by following that trail of logic, not only does he believe the average person doesn't have any knowledge about how simple electronics work, but he also believes the average person has the reading comprehension of a first grader.

[Valystria]

1) I would answer your question if it were at all relevant to anything.

2) I hadn't made any claims that I was a mind reader, and it wouldn't be relevant if I had.

3) I did read what it says.

The mayor's beliefs do not change how the evidence very strongly suggests the student's actions were a carefully thought-out plot taking advantage of knowing how the zero tolerance procedures operate.

Again, either each and every one of the school officials are lying, or the student is lying. Take your pick.

See, you could only make this claim if you were a mind reader. What says in point #2 doesn't match your assumption in #3

Again, are you a mind reader? And if you are, why are you here in NSG instead of doing something productive with that awesome superpower like catching terrorists or some shit?

You aren't saying why the student's plot is implausible. You're only character attacking anyone who disagrees with you.

Drawing a conclusion from the evidence doesn't require mind reading abilities.

1) I would answer your question if it were at all relevant to anything.

2) I hadn't made any claims that I was a mind reader, and it wouldn't be relevant if I had.

3) I did read what it says.

The mayor's beliefs do not change how the evidence very strongly suggests the student's actions were a carefully thought-out plot taking advantage of knowing how the zero tolerance procedures operate.

Again, either each and every one of the school officials are lying, or the student is lying. Take your pick.

There is literally no evidence other than your speculation that it was a carefully thought out plot, and you have continued to fail to link me to any of the posts that you claim to have written in which said evidence was allegedly presented. You have absolutely no leg to stand on, here.

I shouldn't need to elaborate on how suspicious it is for a student aware of zero tolerance protocol to bring a hoax device that looks like an IED to school and then demanding $15 million dollars afterwards.

It is conspiratorial to suggest every one of the school officials are lying. The evidence here is against the student.