@zoosermom:
The only problem with your statement is that it is in the code of conduct several ways has one problem with it, it isn’t true. Someone published the school’s code of conduct, and there is nothing in it about electronics, there is nothing in it about clocks. The only item that could be remotely seen with the device might be the line about bringing something that looks like a weapon or could cause harm, but the way the code is written it almost explicitly talks about things that look like guns, like a water pistol or whatnot. There is nothing in the code of conduct that says you shouldn’t bring things to school some might construe as a bomb. The policy doesn’t even ban bringing a gun to school, as long as it is unloaded, so how could this be a violation of school policy? I have no problem with the teacher reporting the device, she could have thought it violated policy, but the way that policy in fact is written the school would have a very hard time saying how the device violated policy. If they had a policy like the school you mentioned against electronics, yes, but someone posted that policy in this thread earlier, and there is nothing even that close to what the boy did, one of the things about school policies is that schools have been rapped, hard, when they claim a policy bans something and it isn’t explicitly enumerated, broad based claims like “it looked threatening” would not pass muster in court, even in texas, things like school policies that are that vague are meaningless. They specify things like bb guns, they specify ammunition, they specify things like box cutters and knives, but something that looks like a bomb possibly…no where enumerated and I defy someone to show me the policy that is clear and direct.
And the problem is what happened later, after the teacher reported it, they knew it wasn’t a bomb, that is completely clear (how do I know this? They never called the bomb squad, never evacuated the school, which they would of had they really been worried about it). Likewise, there is zero logic that the kid intended a hoax to shake things up, the way he did it would make no sense in that context. The fact that he understood it could cause problems is found out is irrelevant, that would make him a stupid kid, not a provocateur, to argue he intended it to be a hoax because he knew it might cause issues is stretching the intent, from not thinking fully of the consequences, to being deliberately out to commit a hoax. Even if the kid did violate policy (which any lawyer worth his salt could blow out of the water, laws that are vague are unenforcable and saying, as one school moron did "it is obvious to anyone that a clock can be taken as a bomb’, misses the point they knew it wasn’t a bomb all along, violating a school policy doesn’t justify having the local cops take him out in handcuffs in front of everyone else (which was deliberate) and interrogating him the way they did, and the only reason they did it that only could conclude, knowing it wasn’t a bomb, is that the cops thought he was a smart a** muslim, and wanted to put him ‘in his place’, not exactly a big surprise in that school district from other things I have read.
