Slashdot Mirror


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.

49 of 954 comments (clear)

  1. Wow. by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's pretty sick.

    1. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No; it's kidnapping. A 12 year old with a charger is clearly outside their official roles so whatever immunity the people involved here have from their jobs should be ignored. Everybody involved in locking him away should be charged with kidnapping or conspiracy. Put them down for 10 years minimum. Only when this happens regularly, reliably and visibly to many police officers and judges will these people begin to do their jobs and actually investigate whether there was a real threat or not.

    2. Re:Wow. by penguinoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hm, I thought that they arrest the person under charges of calling in the fake bomb threat, like with "clock boy". They got the wrong kid! Should have arrested the racist who called in a fake bomb threat. And if they think the product Armaan purchased is threateningly bomb-like, they should arrest all the stores that sell it and the manufacturers. I mean, allowing the open manufacture and sale of fake bomb threat backpacks, what is the world coming to.

      Or they could examine the perfectly harmless object owned by the "scary foreigner 12 year old" then tell the people involved in this to grow up.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    3. Re:Wow. by iplayfast · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I believe that when the officers of the law start arresting the youth because they are afraid of terrorists attack, a terrorist attack is no longer necessary. The terrorists have won.

    4. Re:Wow. by jblues · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can imagine something like:

      In the past, kid receives racist taunts. Makes a complaint. Investigation favors those making the taunts - they were clearly joking. Kid told to lighten up and develop social skills.

      Kid gets taunted about having a bomb. Decides to lighten up and joke along. Gets sent to juvenile detention for joking about security matters.

      --
      If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
    5. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In light of recent events the school and police acted appropriately.

      Detaining a 12-yo child for three days over a misunderstanding at best (racist stereotype on the part of some other kid, plus school and law enforcement, at worst) is never "appropriate". Period.

      I might have shot the kid in the head

      Would you shoot a white kid in the face over a plastic turd? That's about the size of it, were it not for bigotry.

    6. Re:Wow. by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1, Insightful

      To me the story is that beyond the inherent racism in treating all Muslims as potential terrorists (thanks Trump, etc), this kid was a Sikh, not a Muslim. So not only are Americans dumb enough to mistake a phone charger for a bomb, we can't even get our multiple racisms straight.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
  2. Sue em. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Take them for all the money that can be had. False arrest charges would be nice too.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re: Sue em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A community that supports that behavior should expect higher rates.

    2. Re: Sue em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He was 12, talking to another 12 year old, thinking it was a joke between them.

      The cops couldn't check the "bomb" begot arresting him and holding him for three days? A 12 year old? Really?

      What an asinine comment.

    3. Re:Sue em. by Dredd13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The question is was the statement credible. Ie. Was it.

      {solemn voice}"Yes. I have a bomb."

      Or was it:

      {Laughter}"Yeah, dude. I totalllly have a bomb in there. Of course I do."

      Considering that the TSA considers the second to be a reason to deny you air travel, even though no court in the world would consider it a credible admission of such, we have no way of knowing which of these two scenarios played out in the principal's office.

    4. Re: Sue em. by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps that community will fire the morons they hired for cops, and find cops that aren't simpering halfwits.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:Sue em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Congrats, you're a dumb reactionary, like the idiots that arrested this kid.

      The south has a long way to go before they'll be ready to join us in the 21st century.

    6. Re:Sue em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      False arrest? The kid lied and said it was a bomb. No false anything there except for a bomb threat.

      They questioned a minor, presumably after searching him, without his parents there?

      Who knows what they told him to get him to confess; because the police never lie and the never misrepresent--oh wait.

      There are some people who need to be wearing ankle bracelets after this; unfortunately they're still wearing uniforms and carrying guns.

    7. Re:Sue em. by meerling · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's Texas. A state where the bigotry is so thick they think it's patriotic.

    8. Re: Sue em. by Dahamma · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Initially arresting the child because of a school zero tolerance policy might not be the police's fault. Holding a child for 3 days and requiring him to wear an ankle bracelet after knowing he had a backpack with a phone charger is most definitely the police's fault.

    9. Re:Sue em. by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At the age of 12 he would be a couple of years too young to wear a turban or carry a ceremonial blade. Sikh boys of that age would, however, have long hair tied up in a bun and covered by a head cloth. So those things would have fed the rampant xenophobia of the Texans involved. The kid was some kind of long haired hippy towel head.

      The Sikh way is highly tolerant of other religions and beliefs, and profoundly pacifist. These factors along with his appearance quite likely made him an outcast in his peer group, and teachers and school administrators may well have recognized him as some kind of weirdly disruptive influence.

      I do not understand why the police held him for three days. What possible justification could there be for that? There is a gross systemic failure there.

      --
      Will
  3. John Oliver by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think it was who said that one failed terrorist attack and we all have to take our shoes off before boarding a plane but 31 shootings later still no new gun laws. This country has it's priorities completely backwards :(...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:John Oliver by harrkev · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think it was who said that one failed terrorist attack and we all have to take our shoes off before boarding a plane but 31 shootings later still no new gun laws. This country has it's priorities completely backwards :(...

      Taking guns away from honest citizens helps them how? You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that somebody desiring to kill others would somehow obey gun laws. Plus, the laws that are always proposed after a shooting would, in general, have done nothing to stop the incident that actually caused the law to be proposed.

      You have also failed to show how your comment is relevant to this story about a Sikh boy (a religion, I might add, that is not generally known to kill people).

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    2. Re:John Oliver by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that somebody desiring to kill others would somehow obey gun laws.

      Somehow that person always manages to get ahold of several guns. As long as that keeps happening you get to hear this over and over again until you come up with a better solution.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    3. Re:John Oliver by harrkev · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Somehow that person always manages to get ahold of several guns. As long as that keeps happening you get to hear this over and over again until you come up with a better solution.

      Maybe the solution is to NOT disarm the victims? Nobody seems to commit mass murders at police stations or NRA headquarters.

      A mass shooter passed a background check, so we need universal background checks. Yeah, makes sense to me.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    4. Re:John Oliver by Moof123 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Honest citizens are still mostly badly trained dumbasses. I am more afraid of accidentally being shot by some redneck who drank too much and got in an argument than I am from being blown up by ISIS. The statistics bear this out. Do you live your life by real numbers or just gut feelings?

    5. Re:John Oliver by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Taking guns away from honest citizens helps them how?

      Same way it does in Japan, Australia and pretty much every other first world nation that's not the USA: It reduces the number of guns in circulation, making it less likely you (or your little kids) will be shot.

    6. Re:John Oliver by harrkev · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Same way it does in Japan, Australia and pretty much every other first world nation that's not the USA: It reduces the number of guns in circulation, making it less likely you (or your little kids) will be shot.

      So, getting shot to death somehow makes you MORE dead than somebody stabbed to death? Curios. Please explain the logic behind this. Isn't the real reason to ban guns to reduce the overall homicide rate? If so, banning guns FAILS at this.

      Case in point, Australia. They cracked down on guns HEAVILY. Result? The homicide rate was reduced by about as much as it was in the US. Overall violent crime, however, has dropped a lot in the US, while it has NOT done that in Australia. Some years the violent crime rate was up, some years it was down, but the US has seen a distinct downward trend.

      Another point for you in Australia, which banned lots of guns around 1996:
      In 1995, guns were used in 18.38% of homicides.
      In 2012, guns were used in 17.5% of homicides.

      http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTool...

      Yea, less than ONE PERCENT of change. Wow, what a difference.

      Now, let's look at Japan, where they are NOT culturally diverse, respect for the law is a lot higher, the society stresses conforming, and suspects do not have the same legal protections that we do here. They also have no guns, and a MUCH higher suicide rate. I am not to dishonest as to ignore the other differences and say that if they had guns, that the suicide rate would drop to US levels. Apparently, you are not so honest and just like to look at the one difference that matters to you and are free to ignore the other differences.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    7. Re: John Oliver by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, but with appropriate enforcement, the number and availability of guns, legal or otherwise, can be driven down to numbers such that gun crime is negligible. See for example: Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan.

      There's no magic to it on their part, just a lack of political will on our part. All we need is for politicians to grow a pair and tell the NRA to go fuck itself.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    8. Re:John Oliver by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If he needs more than a handful of examples (actually, people with guns stop many thousands of crimes every year - far more incidents than include people being murdered with guns, in case you're curious), then why does the political left insist that the handful of incidents involving terrorists is grounds to deny law abiding people constitutionally protected rights? You don't think that a small number of incidents should be used to make you wrong, but you're happy to let a small number of incidents (none of which would have been prevented by the proposed rights stripping, of course) is fine to show that you're right?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    9. Re: John Oliver by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I notice you're cleverly using suicides in both directions to suit your point.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    10. Re:John Oliver by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...then why does the political left insist that the handful of incidents involving terrorists is grounds to deny law abiding people constitutionally protected rights?

      Because throwing more guns into the mix hasn't solved the problem. Still waiting for a better answer.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    11. Re:John Oliver by Boronx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      5 out of hundreds of mass shootings over the years? The solution isn't adequate, to say the least.

    12. Re:John Oliver by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because throwing more guns into the mix hasn't solved the problem.

      What do you mean? Millions more people own guns now than they did 30 years ago, and violence crimes of all kinds, including those involving guns, have been going steadily down, and are down 46% since the 1990's. So, more honest people own legal guns, and we have much, much less violent crime.

      Still waiting for a better answer.

      Better answer to what? The problem in just a handful of urban areas where almost all of the non-suicide gun deaths occur? That is a problem. Those are areas with the most draconian gun laws, but they still seem to have a problem. Why? Because they have a rampant violent gang crime problem in those small parts of those four cities. Other areas have much high rates of gun ownership, and only a tiny fraction of that sort of violence. Trying to figure out what to do with those specific urban areas? Ask the liberals who have run the city councils and executive offices in those cities for the last several decades straight. Maybe they have some insight into why their approach to inner-city crime and gang activity doesn't work as well as it does everywhere else. Take away the crime in those four spots, and the US's murder rate is 17th down the list, well behind other countries that have far, far stricter gun laws.

      You want a "better answer?" Address the culture problems in that handful of urban areas, and ask your favorite media outlets to report this stuff in some sort of honest context.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    13. Re:John Oliver by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What do you mean? Millions more people own guns now than they did 30 years ago, and violence crimes of all kinds, including those involving guns, have been going steadily down, and are down 46% since the 1990's. So, more honest people own legal guns, and we have much, much less violent crime.

      The USA's gun death rate is far far far higher than places like Canada, France, UK, etc.

      Those are areas with the most draconian gun laws, but they still seem to have a problem. Why? Because they have a rampant violent gang crime problem in those small parts of those four cities.

      And how would that have stopped last week's shooting?

      You want a "better answer?" Address the culture problems in that handful of urban areas, and ask your favorite media outlets to report this stuff in some sort of honest context.

      In other words: "Nah that's your problem, not mine, so long as I can keep my guns."

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    14. Re:John Oliver by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The USA's gun death rate is far far far higher than places like Canada, France, UK, etc.

      Because (1) more of their suicides use other methods, and (2) four urban gang violence hotspots account for the overwhelming majority of the rest of it. Something you'd really like to avoid discussing, it seems.

      And how would that have stopped last week's shooting?

      How would what have stopped it? Having less gang violence? Right: murderous jihaddis really don't care about "normal" crimes or the laws that are generally aimed at such situations. We should really consider ourselves lucky that the two jihaddis that attacked in California didn't opt for the Boston method. If they'd tossed one cheap backpack pressure cooker bomb into that same room, they'd have killed WAY more people. Obviously they had an appreciation for explosives, but didn't have the time to put them to work as planned. What sort of pre-emptive laws are you really anticipating that would stop people like that from killing if they want to?

      In other words: "Nah that's your problem, not mine, so long as I can keep my guns."

      We don't have Chicago's murder problem where I live. That problem is highly localized. So yes, it actually IS their problem. Or are you saying that we should have the federal government take over law enforcement in that liberal paradise, and that making that city's highly concentrated gang murder problem a federal responsibility would make it go away?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  4. Horrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is a horrible miscarriage of justice. If we're to accept this story on face value, the failures and stupidity at every level of government is distressingly palpable. How absurd is it that no one at the school or police department performed even the most minimal investigation much less inform the parents. Isn't it outright illegal for police to talk to children to interrogate them without the parents having the option to be present?

  5. Oh goodie by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Soon we'll hear accusations that the student's father's sister's cousin's former room mate was also unverifiably be accused of making bomb threats.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    1. Re:Oh goodie by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Whether you mod me down or not you're still going to hear a smear-campaign against the kid because somehow that excuses the injustices brought to him.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  6. Re:Do we need an organized message? by theIsovist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's 1% of the problem. The other 99% of the problem is that they see someone who looks different from carrying an unknown device and think "bomb."

  7. Home of the brave? by jareth-0205 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dear America,

    Please get a grip on yourselves.

    Signed,

    The Rest of the World.

    1. Re:Home of the brave? by siphonophore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If Clockboy taught us anything it's to suspend judgement about this type of story.

      --
      Dance like you're hurt, Love like you need money, and work when somebody's watching.
      -Scott Adams
    2. Re:Home of the brave? by JBMcB · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Dear rest of the world,

      America is a very, very large place with a wide variety of people, culture, geography, and ideologies.

      Look at where you are now, draw a two thousand kilometer circle around you, and tell me someone in that circle hasn't done something crazy.

      That is all.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    3. Re:Home of the brave? by jareth-0205 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dear rest of the world,

      America is a very, very large place with a wide variety of people, culture, geography, and ideologies.

      Look at where you are now, draw a two thousand kilometer circle around you, and tell me someone in that circle hasn't done something crazy.

      That is all.

      You are of course somewhat correct, I was being inflammatory. But I would resist putting this down to "someone crazy". Many people colluded here in this, the teachers that acted together, and the police that continued it. You're talking about quite a few people where none of them went "it's a fucking battery pack, calm down". Add to that that nobody is backing down, what should be happening is an admission that that was a mistaken overreaction, and apology, and this would diffuse. But no, the police are finding absurd things around a laugh to support their actions. And it never seems to happen to someone in the racial majority, it's always someone who is different (but no that's apparently nothing to do with it, again, denials). Everybody denies that there's a problem, and desperately tries to find evidence to support their overreaction.

      He provable brought nothing of consequence to school, but was held for 3 days and then made to wear a tracking device. What the fuck.

  8. No sense of humor by Moof123 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sadly when dealing with law enforcement you can't make jokes. It is a related issue to the whole "zero tolerance" mindset that has besieged school policy. Being reasonable is no longer a reasonable expectation.

    A normal human can be expected to crack a joke when confronted with a bizarre situation, such as a teacher asking a seemingly insane question as to whether your clock, or backpack is a bomb. Using humor to diffuse a tense situation is one of those social skills we pick up as a way to survive being crammed into overcrowded schools with a bunch of numb skull peers. But normal human behavior will get you tazed, pepper sprayed, arrested, or even shot these days.

    Similarly we have a lot of cases of folks freezing up while being barked at by armed cops and being shot for not dropping the "weapon" (real or imagined). Normal human behavior for sure, but you die as a result. Trying shield yourself from a rain of blows? To a cop that can be seen as "resisting arrest" and justify a further rain of blows, a choke hold, or a tazing. Using body language like gesticulating with your arms and hands as you try to talk things out with some meat head pointing a gun at you? To a cop that is "acting erratically", maybe even causing him to "fear for his life". Not answering questions per your Miranda rights? "Acting un-cooperatively."

    1. Re:No sense of humor by Orgasmatron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The exact mechanics of this specific incident aren't important. Moof123 is totally correct about the root problem.

      The local school boards, the states, the federal government, the unions and the courts mercilessly beat down everyone working in education that made the mistake of exercising ordinary adult judgment. If you think it is bad now, just wait until the kids that we've been raising now, in an environment without adults acting like adults, are in charge.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
  9. Calling the police... by Ecuador · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For me, the most disturbing thing is that there are (many apparently) teachers out there who call the cops on young children. Racism has always been there, but as far as I remember for anything less than knife-wielding 17 year old gangster students, it would be a school affair, dealt between teachers, parents, principle. Nowadays, they just call the cops on kids...

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
  10. We've already failed, apparently by kheldan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's looking more and more like a certain Sunni extremist group has already obtained one of their primary objectives: polarizing the United States against anyone of middle-eastern origin. I know this is at this point a 'Planet Texas' problem, but the problem is growing everywhere: people are already primed to be afraid of anyone who looks like they might conceivably be Muslim, and you give them any half-assed reason for a knee-jerk reaction, and you have what happened in this news story. One has to wonder how long it'll be, before someone (a cop, most likely) 'shoots and asks questions later', and some kid or other innocent dies just because they looked (or were in fact) Muslim -- and they weren't doing a damned thing wrong or even planned to do a damned thing wrong. After that, it'll likely be an avalanche. Something has to be done to stop this chain of events, now, before it gets to that point, but I'll be damned if I know what we need to do. Other than kick Trump out of the whole campaign process, and furthermore duct-tape him to a chair and stuff a sock in his mouth; that guy is doing at least as much damage to the whole situation as so-called Islamic State assholes are.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  11. Re:Do we need an organized message? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From a good-to-society perspective, it is bad to discourage people who can make things from making them, and showing them to their school peers, just because mundanes would not understand them and feel threatened. We don't want everyone to be a mundane, we'd not be able to feed our society if that was the case.

  12. Re:Do we need an organized message? by Mal-2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It wasn't even homemade, it was a commercial product with a phone charger in it.

    Should the lesson be "doing anything remotely suspicious while brown is punishable, and suspicious is what officials want it to be"?

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  13. Re:Screw your gun rights by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The odds are much higher that you will use that weapon against your own family than that you will ever use it in any way that actually protects them from harm.

    My dad was a reserve and was called up for both World War II and Korea. He killed people in Germany, and had a Purple Heart and a panel of decorations. He brought home a Luger which he'd taken off of some German. He destroyed the firing pin, because he knew that his family would be safer without an operating weapon in the home.

    Guns are pretty reliable. Your brain isn't. Everybody has a crazy day in their life. Everyone.

    So, I figure that not having guns all around us is better for our freedom overall.

  14. Re:12 year old Sikh boy by fnj · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Islamophobia

    You need an elementary education in cultures of the world. Sikhism has nothing to do with Islam. It's not even an Abrahamic faith, any more than Hinduism or Buddhism or Shintoism are. Christianity and Juadaism have more commonality with Islam than any of them.

  15. I hate this line of reasoning by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Um, wouldn't "them" in this case be the local government which means the local community, i.e. people who are paying taxes in that town? Best case the police department is insured and the insurance company would pay any settlement and then just jack up insurance rates on the rest of their customers to make the money back. Yeah, good idea.

    I really hate this type of reply.

    It attempts to sway the reader into thinking that responsibility and/or justice will be expensive. It tries to dissuade the reader from commonsense actions which would tend to prevent future transgressions.

    Don't fine the company - they'll only jack up their prices and it's the customers who would pay. Don't sue the government, they'll just jack up the taxes and the people will pay.

    This might cost the taxpayers in one or two instances, but it would have a chilling effect on other abuses in other districts. It's an overall gain for the taxpayers everywhere.

    We don't have to sit outraged and powerless while these sorts of abuses happen. One or two groups of taxpayers can take the hit and we will all benefit. They will benefit later when we take the hit for other types of abuse.

    Let's work together to stop this nonsense.

    Including, saying that commonsense punishments are futile.