Summations Only

By 'TV shows' I didn't mean Looney Tunes.

Couldn't find one, right?Thousands of images of bombs...a long page of time bombs, most of them photographs, and tabs to look at several different pages of bombs. And the whole web to find something that looks like that boy's clock. And you didn't.Hint on those images: They include explosives.

I have to admit that my impression regarding what the device seems to be is the same as petrophysics1. As far as the electronics board is concerned, I don't see any signs of amateur assembly. It looks like the kids part in this was assembling everything into a box so that the display would peak out of the front. Maybe the result was cool looking even if it were not actually a work of genius.I still don't see anything nefarious about what the kid did, but I would personally be embarrassed to have to explain how little I actually did to the president. I think Obama would be a bit put off too. Showing it to a teacher seems to be the right amount of showing off to do.

In all the comments from Ahmed, I don't see any claims of fabricating or modifying a PC board. It would be unfair to draw conclusions from Ahmed's way of referring to his clock (he says that he "built" it and calls it an "invention") that assume things he never said. I confess disappointment that Ahmed's achievement was only to move the innards of a digital clock into a modified case, but he never made specific claims that later turned out to be false. I imagined something a bit more challenging, maybe taking an existing PC board and making a few modifications, maybe a few changed connections and an extra component or two, something reasonably within the capabilities of a member of a middle school robotics club. Agreed. But now he has, through no fault of his own, become a symbol for squashed initiative and must follow it where it leads. He seems to be navigating the maze well.--Percy

When I was 13 I participated in a science fair. Our group had constructed our own amplifier (from plans from scratch using parts purchased at Radio Shack) that took a microphone as input and ran the sound into a flashlight lightbulb. About a yard away was a photocell whose output fed another amplifier (that someone in the group just happened to have at home) that drove a speaker. Speaking into the microphone caused the lightbulb to glow, the light fell on the photocell, and sound came out of the speaker. We were transmitting sound with light. During setup our constructed amplifier failed, so we borrowed a reel-to-reel tape recorder from the vice principle and used its amplifier. We didn't use it as a tape recorder, we never recorded anything, there wasn't even a tape in it.We didn't win anything, but our picture appeared in the local paper with a description, "When they speak into the microphone the sound is recorded and a light flashes." I was embarrassed to think that people would think our group was so lame that that's all we had done, and this is back in the sixties. I'm a little puzzled why Ahmed thought that mounting the innards of a digital clock inside a pencil case was worth mentioning to anyone. Seems pretty lame, even by the standards of the sixties.--Percy

They damn well should be. I am. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? What probable cause did the police have?

Then we have different standards. Again, ringo, you don't need a real bomb to make a bomb threat. If the school reported a bomb threat, looking inside the case and determining that there is no explosive does not mean that the kid did not make a bomb threat. Credible school official says that the kid made a bomb threat is sufficient reason.And of course 'innocent until proven guilty' is a standard for a trial. There was no trial and there is not going to be a trial because there are no charges. Obviously we don't have to have proof of guilt before we even make an arrest.

Did the school suggest that Ahmed had made a threat?The first thing the police should have noticed is that there was no bomb. The first question they should have asked is, "Did he make a threat?" If the answer was, "No," they should have walked away. If the answer was, "Yes," then why wasn't that reported and why wasn't he charged? You didn't answer the question: What probable cause did the police have?If they had probable cause, why wasn't it reported? Why aren't the police defending themselves with it?

Isn't one of the larger issues here the idiotic 'Zero Tolerance' policies that now exist in our schools? From what I have seen, it almost appears as though school administrators are actually been incentivized to not think critically anymore. Whether it be a perceived bomb threat, some phrase on a T-shirt, making a gun shape with your thumb and forefinger, it's all part in parcel with this notion that every possible situation must be handled as if it is a worst case scenario.Did the school over-react here? Of course. But that seems to be the norm nowadays.

I can appreciate a Zero Tolerance policy for ACTUAL weapons. Bring a gun to school, get arrested. The same would apply to toy weapons, since they could be perceived as an actual threat.But construing EVERYTHING as a possible threat is not only idiotic; it also diverts security resources from actual threats. And it's also likely to cause a Boy Who Cried Wolf effect: the more empty threats that are blown out of proportion, the less likely students and staff are to take an actual threat seriously.

Not thinking critically may have been an issue, yes.

Apparently so. The police apparently decided, after an inquiry that took longer than ringo thinks it should have, that there was no bomb threat. Again, the fact that the clock did not contain an explosive does not end the inquiry.The kid was not charged because the police concluded that the kid did not make a bomb threat. Taking the kid into custody, but not charging him after making an investigation is not of itself a bad thing. All that's required to make an arrest is a legally sufficient level of suspicion. Charges should be brought only if the conclusion is that the defendant is probably guilty. Two different standards.If you have a point, your questions don't seem to get to that point.I'm reserving judgment until I hear the full story. What i have heard so far does not preclude the possibility that the police acted correctly. I don't see any reason to rush to express my indignation.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

What about the fact that he, a 14 year old boy, was questioned by police at both the school and police station prior to his parents being contacted and allowed to be present. Isn't there a standard in law enforcement that a minor cannot be questioned without a parent or guardian present? What are your thoughts on the fact that the school and police skipped on this portion during the questioning?ABE - Never mind, as I read more about it, the police are not required to contact a parent just to begin questioning. Where they erred was on continuing the questioning after Ahmed requested the opportunity to call his parents. So, once he asked to phone his father, shouldn't the police have instantly stopped the questions instead of continuing through the questions for another hour?Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

Could not agree more. In fact, this is an argument I have been making in deference to the NSA's spying program. As someone who performs business analysis as part of their job, I am fully cognizant of what happens when you attempt to track too many parameters and data points. It invariably becomes 'noise'. With that, your metrics are meaningless and are likely leading to false positives far more than they lead to net tangibles.

Wasn't the teacher who ultimately 'sounded the alarm' an English teacher?I may sound like a condescending douche, but I would not put English teachers too high on the rating scale when it comes to technical acumen. My suspicion is that is part of the problem here. A teacher with limited knowledge of electronics and circuitry makes a judgement call likely referencing what they 'thought' bombs looked like based on hours of television programming.But as I indicated, to play a little devil's advocate, the zero tolerance policies are exacerbating the situation with regards to these knee-jerk reactions to anything that might seem marginally threatening. To make matters worse, this school isn't located too far from that 'Draw Mohammed' exhibit that occurred in Texas where two gunman tried to shoot up the place but were shot first by security. Naturally, the local populace is probably a little on edge as a result.Then again, it is Texas too. Shoot first and ask questions later. And never go jogging without your firearm lest a rabid coyote crosses your path.