@Cobrat - Is there a source for the last quote ('you’re one of them")?
Cobra is right, Lithium batteries can be explosive, there have been recalls on the battery packs in Electric and hybrid cars, and Boeing had to ground the 787’s at one point because of issues with the batteries. Fortunately not too many people were hurt by them, and Boeing was testing the 787 when that happened if I recall properly.
^ ^
What I wrote wasn’t a quote, but a paraphrase of what I heard earlier. This interview is the source for the actual quote which I paraphrased because I didn’t remember the exact wording:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkCRA-Aoq5U
In the interview, Ahmed said one of the officers said “That’s who I thought it was” which clearly implied he was being profiled, especially considering it was said not to long after he was asked whether the police officers made similar remarks or insinuations that he was a “bombmaker” and a “terrorist” that he was subjected to by some middle school classmates.
Actually, there were already a few airliners which bought the airliners and were operating them when it happened. Granted, it was at the very early stages of the 787s being offered for sale and possible experimentation to iron out remaining bugs not caught during the pre-release QA process was still occurring.
The 787s were already in service when the battery fires occurred. One was on an All Nippon Air flight after it landed.
Yes @cobrat, correct. And Police Officer Boyd is on record as saying in an interview that the resource officer employed by the high school claims he said just the opposite when Ahmed came into the room. The high school resource officer claims he said “that is not who I thought it would be.” So who knows for sure.
Let’s not forget Ahmed was only at the school for about 3 weeks.
I disagree, the officers said that because of the prior history with his father. If you had a father that was a known member of the KKK and a son that brought similar device to a mostly black school, don’t you think the police would have said the same thing based on family history??
Would you expect authority figures being criticized and even lampooned for their conduct to make any admissions which prove the critics and lampooners correct…especially when it could lead to serious judgements against them from lawsuits and even possible criminal civil rights convictions? I’d think not…
Also, local law enforcement may be facing legal scrutiny over their decision to deny Ahmed the right to contact his parents during interrogation and that may have violated his civil rights if this article writer is correct about the local laws:
I am not in a position to judge who said what - I wasn’t there so how can I offer any real insight into whose statement has veracity? Both sides might state what is in their best interest. But clearly others were present in the room so unless privacy considerations prevent it, perhaps we will hear from those other people.
If it wasn’t a direct quote cobrat then you know you don’t put it in quotation marks. But you already know that being out of Stuy! 
I hope you’re not being serious here.
You’re actually comparing someone who legitimately exercised his first amendment rights to debate and criticize someone for openly disparaging and criticizing his religion with being a member of domestic terrorist groups with a nefarious history and lineage more than a century old?
And this in the context of an incident in a school district and area where the mayor and school district already has had documented incidents of profiling religious minority groups and an issue with being extremely punitive with K-12 students.
If Ahmed’s rights were infringed upon under Texas law then law enforcement should be held accountable. I don’t think anyone would argue with you there.
I think sharia law far pre-dates the KKK, why do you think advocating one evil is ok under the first amendment is ok but the other isn’t?
It will be interesting to see how this plays out, I think if this actually goes to trial, that we will see who is telling the truth. If in fact the school has pertinent information that they claim they cannot talk about, then it will have to come up in court, they cannot claim shield laws when it comes to court like that. Likewise, the police will have to answer to their conduct, if they made statements like ‘that is who I thought it would be’, it will come out in testimony, as will police records and the fact that they questioned the kid without a parent or lawyer.
My guess is this won’t go to court, that the parents will sue, and the school and the cops will settle. Unknown whether the federal government will get involved, for civil rights violations, at that point more might come out.
I see like the mayor and the Irving School district we have another person who has been taken in by the paranoia and prejudice against a religious minority group.
Moreover, according to some articles describing the past history of the paranoia over Muslims by the mayor, Irving School Districts, and other Texas districts with similar prevailing atmospheres of such prejudicial fearmongering, what they were decrying are essentially voluntary religiously based mediation programmes that also exist among various Christian, Jewish, and other religious groups.
Also, there are many different forms of Sharia law as there are many different sects of Islam…even within the two large Sunni and Shiite groupings. By saying “Sharia” is evil or according to some of Ahmed’s middle school classmates that “all Muslims are terrorists”, that’s painting just as an overbroad generalizing brush as saying all Catholics are under the control of the pope* or all/vast majority of Americans are violent trigger-happy gun nuts who gorge themselves at major fastfood chains like McDs**.
- A common statement made not too long ago in the US by many in the protestant White majority to cast negative insinuations against Catholic political candidates. Even as late as the late '50s/early '60s...there were folks denouncing JFK's presidential candidacy because of his Catholic faith by the American protestant majority with prejudices with origins dating back centuries to the Reformation era. This prejudice was strong enough in the then US mainstream that JFK felt compelled to issue statements reassuring the American public he won't base his policies on his Catholic faith or dictates from the Pope....something I doubt previous presidents who identified/perceived publicly as protestant felt compelled to do.
** This one seems to be popular among some Western Europeans I met in undergrad and later.
“My guess is this won’t go to court, that the parents will sue, and the school and the cops will settle. Unknown whether the federal government will get involved, for civil rights violations, at that point more might come out.”
That is my prediction, too: it will be settled.
Cobrat - the issue is very complex, but the fact remains that Sharia law is based on the religious doctrines set forth in the Quran and the U.S. has a system based on the separation of church and state. Beth Van Duyne the mayor of Irving has been very fothcoming and transparent about her issues with establishing Sharia law based courts in Texas. She has stated that she has no problem with arbitration or mediation but that is not her understanding of what they are looking to establish.
A 47 second clip of her position on the issue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVK0DsXNA84
Cobrat, you need to look at the facts
- The kid did not “invent” anything as the tile of this thread implies, he only took apart an existing clock and but it into another case that made it look like a possible menacing device. Why would he do this???
- The kid brought a device that could, by reasonable non-tech people, could be considered a ‘hoax bomb’ - A count down timer is not a clock most people’s reasoning.
- The kid was TOLD not take said device around the school because it could be perceived as a threatening device
- The kid not only took the device to other classes but plugged it in and allowed the alarm to go off in another class
- The kid’s family has a history of advocating for sharia law in the US. Please post an example of the sharia law that his family advocates the does not conflict with the US Constitution.
Please post substantiation for this. I need hardly add that advocating for voluntary mediation, that both sides agree to, does not qualify as establishing sharia law. Two people can agree to resolve a private dispute using Muslim rules, or Christian rules, or Klingon rules, without any conflict with the US Constitution. I’m looking for substantiation that people in Ahmed Mohamed’s family have advocated for establishing government courts in the US that follow sharia law.
So after 500 posts, I think we’re pretty much agreed that the kid was treated this way because … well, because of his family’s faith.
That was kind of the premise of the thread, wasn’t it?
And yet another thread turns into an irrelevant history lecture about the meanies beating up on the downtrodden. Time to go watch The Voice.
Most of them do.
Seems it’s not so much as learning from the past as being bludgeoned by someone else’s opinion of it. Over and over again.