12-Year-Old Sikh Boy Arrested In Texas After Bringing a Power Bag To School (salon.com)

AaronW writes: A 12-year-old Sikh boy in Dallas, Texas was accused by another student of bringing a bomb to school. Apparently he had a powerbag; a backpack with a built-in phone charger. Rather than send him to the principal's office or ask for an explanation, the teacher instead called the police, who promptly arrested him and threw him into a juvenile detention center for three days. The school promptly suspended Armaan, and the police released him after three days but required that he wear an ankle bracelet. Verifiable details are scant, for this case — probably because the whole thing seems to revolve around some 12-year-old kids talking to each other. Armaan's story is that another student said his bag looked like it had a bomb in it, and that he would report it. Believing it to be a joke, Armaan laughed. The police say he "admitted" to joking about a bomb, and they insist their actions were justified. A school district spokesman says the family was notified, but the parents say they had to dial 911 to find somebody who could tell them where their son was being held.

Comments

Re:Sue em.

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you get that from 'The police say he "admitted" to joking about a bomb'?

Re:No sense of humor

[BitterOak]

Sadly when dealing with law enforcement you can't make jokes.

I don't think anyone is alleging that he made jokes to law enforcement. From what I understand a friend of his joked that his bag looked like it had a bomb in it and and he laughed. Law enforcement was brought in after the fact.

Re: John Oliver

[ClickOnThis]

You are probably in more danger of being shot by a black. Stats prove that.

No, they don't

Re: John Oliver

[ClickOnThis]

You are probably in more danger of being shot by a black. Stats prove that.

No, they don't

On the other hand, perhaps you are, if you're also black.

Re: John Oliver

[Anonymous Coward]

Take another look at what you linked to. The row labelled "Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter" support the AC's assertion, not yours, but only slightly. However, that document doesn't break anything down by the weapon used, so it's not a useful source.

SIKHS ARE NOT MUSLIMS

[broward]

http://sikhism.about.com/od/To...

they are a respectable warrior culture with fairly high integrity.

they are not engaged in a jihad against Western culture.

if it's a 'V' you see (turban) it's a Sikh

[smoothnorman]

Dangit folks, learn your turban: Sikh's tie their turban's so that there's an inverted V at the forehead. and if one had to belong to a religious sect then being Sikh is in the top three (they're much nicer to females than your average Baptist). I'd sooner share a lunch with a Sikh than nearly any 'follower of Abraham' (for the curry, if naught else)

Re:John Oliver

[harrkev]

Armed victims aren't stopping shootings or deterring them. Also you have a poor sense of how targets are being sought.

Too bad actual FACTS don't back you up.

Case in point -- about two miles from my house. An armed honest person stopped a potential mass murderer. So, yeah, try to tell me that what happened in my neighborhood did not actually happen. When given the choice of believing you or the truth, I know which one I will go with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And ... more examples.

http://concealednation.org/201...

Maybe just just don't know about it because the media does not want to report it.

From Wikipedia (with links to source studies):

Lower end estimates include that by David Hemenway, a professor of Health Policy at the Harvard School of Public Health, show approximately 55,000-80,000 such uses each year.[8][9]

Another survey including DGU questions was the National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms, NSPOF, conducted in 1994 by the Chiltons polling firm for the Police Foundation on a research grant from the National Institute of Justice. NSPOF projected 4.7 million DGU per year by 1.5 million individuals after weighting to eliminate false positives.[7] Another estimate has estimated approximately 1 million DGU incidents in the United States.

So, depending upon how you define it, good guys use guns to prevent crime between 55,000 to 4,700,000 times per year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Go peddle your lies elsewhere.

Re: Sue em.

[alvinrod]

Good luck with the current police unions in place. A copy pretty much have to go to jail before they'll get tossed out, and cops can get away with practically anything. Even if they do actually get charged, the odds are still slim against a conviction.

Re: Sue em.

[whistlingtony]

No... This was a chain of stupidity, and the Police could have broken that chain. There are multiple stupid people here. The police are stupid on this one too. I'm also pretty sure we have more choices than A. Blaming police for obvious stupidity and letting lowlifes ransack our homes and B. Letting police off the hook and them doing their jobs when some lowlife threatens my home. Black and White fallacy!

Re:Screw your gun rights

[Bruce Perens]

Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homocide in the Home. They say 2.7 to 1. That's just the first I found with a Google search. And the fatal school shootings list is really obscenely frequent now.

Pardon me for getting exasperated, but I shouldn't really have to tell you to read the news! This stuff is right in front of you.

Re: John Oliver

[allo]

In the netherlands, 1.9% have guns. Maybe you're confusing it with switzerland, where its 27.2%

Re: John Oliver

[Boronx]

They don't get to carry them around on base because the army understands that having everyone carry guns around is a recipe for more shootings, not less.

Re:John Oliver

[sjames]

Not quite. Let's review, harrkev objects to banning all guns because a few might misuse them to commit crimes and points out that someone already determined to break the law isn't going to be stopped by another law.

ragefan apparently has a thinko and seems to claim that harrkev said NOBODY should be restricted from anything because they might disobey the law.

I attempt (apparently too subtly) to cause a rethink by applying the same thinko in reverse (can you call it a thinko if it's on purpose?).

Then you whooshed.

Re: Sue em.

[msauve]

There are limits to the immunity given to government employees when they deny civil rights, especially in federal court. 42 U.S.C. section 1983, provides:

Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress...

Unreasonable false arrest and detention I believe is covered by that.