Slashdot Mirror


Online Fame Distracts 9th-Grader Who Built That Clock Mistaken For A Bomb (washingtonpost.com)

An anonymous Slashdot reader writes: This week the Washington Post ran a long profile of Ahmed Mohamed, the 14-year-old boy whose home-made clock got him arrested after school officials and the local police mistook it for a bomb last summer. The Justice Department is currently investigating the incident -- while the school district is suing the Texas attorney general, and the boy's family is suing the school district. But Ahmed has just returned back to Texas, and spoke to the press -- including a local Fox news affiliate which later broadcast a commentary saying his family was obsessed with fame and plotted the arrest.

Over the last year Ahmed's read everything that appeared online about him, but never responds because he doesn't want to give in to anger. The Post writes that while some kids at school called him ISIS Boy, "Sympathetic crowdfunders raised $18,000 for his education. He visited the White House, the Google Science Fair and the president of his home country of Sudan (a wanted war criminal, but Mohamed said it would be rude not to accept the invitation)." Though he'd like to return to the U.S. someday for college, he's been living in Qatar, where a government organization paid for private schooling for him and his sister. But the Post says he still sometimes imagines what his life might've been like if the incident had never happened. "By now he could have invented something new -- not just a clock that only took him a few minutes to put together from parts in his family's garage, which was full of '90s-era electronics from when his uncle ran a chain called Beeper Warehouse."

319 comments

  1. He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    He took a click out of its casing and took it to school at the suggestion of his father, hoping to start a racial incident. They succeeded.

    1. Re:He didn't "build" anything by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1, Informative

      Correct; it was a Heathkit clock, and a fairly old one at that. The photos show a circuit board printed with "Micronta" which is a Tandy/Radio Shack trademark.

    2. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So what does a Micronta clock have to do with Heathkit?

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    3. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Micronta is a RS thing, and RS used to (re)sell Heathkit ... kit.

      Oh, yeah, RS is Radio Shack. Rat Shack. What else?

    4. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why was this labeled flamebait? It's exactly what happened. It's the editors fault for saying he built it in the article title.

    5. Re:He didn't "build" anything by glitch! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The photos show a circuit board printed with "Micronta" which is a Tandy/Radio Shack trademark.

      Yes, he took apart an alarm clock, made it look like a Hollywood bomb, and claimed he "invented" it. He is a liar, a swindler, and a piece of shit human. He tried to play the media with his pity party. Then he left the country. Good riddance! But someone left the door open and the vermin got back in again.

      --
      A dingo ate my sig...
    6. Re:He didn't "build" anything by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is actually true of most people who get their 15 minutes of fame these days. I mean shit, the black lives matter movement is all over the media, but they don't give a shit about an actual black life unless it involves all of 1) a gun 2) a cop 3) a stolen case of cigarettes, a stolen bike, or a stolen car. But, that's the world we live in today: The best way to get presidential involvement is to be a liar, a cheater, or a petty thug who happened to receive an overzealous (but in many cases, deserved) response. And everybody reading this knows it.

    7. Re:He didn't "build" anything by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      So what does a Micronta clock have to do with Heathkit?

      Uh-oh, somebody's not a real nerd.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, right.

      I'm cuckoo for cocoa puffs!

    9. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 4, Informative

      On the contrary, I have built MANY Heathkits, up to and including a 70s era 25" color TV and a "Hero Jr" robot.

      But Heathkit was a separate company, never a Tandy/Radio Shack brand, like Micronta, Radio Shack's kit line were called "ArcherKits", and were nowhere near as nice as Heathkits....

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    10. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Pseudonym · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why was this labeled flamebait? It's exactly what happened.

      It is not what happened. What actually happened is a sequence of events that could have happened to any of us when we were kids.

      A 14 year old kid took a clock apart and put it back together. The word "invention" was thrown around (he may or may not have used the word himself; this is unclear), but the kid was absolutely clear about his motives: he wanted to understand how it worked. Many, many Slashdotters can relate to this. This happened to me when I was a kid.

      He was proud of himself and took it to school to show it off to a world which isn't very impressed by such things. He was told to put it away but couldn't help himself. Many, many Slashdotters can relate to this. This happened to me when I was a kid.

      What most Slashdotters can't relate to is having the cops called on you and being the subject of a viral shitstorm for doing this. This did not happen to me when I was a kid. The kid is not an inventor. He might be a genius (his measured IQ may well be in the top 2%), or he might not be. The central point is that he is one of us, and we take care of our own. When normal geek childhood is criminalised, that's news for nerds and stuff that matters.

      There has been a lot of talk (with no actual evidence, I might add) that the kid's father somehow engineered this, or wanted an incident, or to make a point. Even if that were true, the point was indeed made. So many social media commenters (and sadly Slashdot comments have devolved to the level of social media commenters) concentrate on what the kid did wrong, and don't stop to ponder just why it's so easy for incidents like this to happen if your skin has a bit of melanin in it.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    11. Re:He didn't "build" anything by DogDude · · Score: 1, Troll

      What movie shows a "bomb" in a pencil case with a tiger hologram on it? Who are you to call people names like that?

      “This is what happens when we (IPD) screw something up,” one Irving Police Department detective wrote in an email later uncovered as part of a public records request from Vice. “That thing didn’t even look like a bomb.”

      You've got some Trump jizz on your chin.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    12. Re:He didn't "build" anything by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      Or he's just a kid who used a word wrongly. Why don't we dredge up every piece of shit thing you said when you were in school and hold you to it?

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    13. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was encouraged by a teacher to put the clock away and not show it, but he ignored the advice and caused a stir.

      Do you prefer licking authority's boots, or asscrack? I understand both have an earthy flavor, of sorts.

    14. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      and a "Hero Jr" robot.

      Holy fucking blast from the past: I remember lusting after one of those; must've been thirty years ago...

    15. Re:He didn't "build" anything by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Or he's just a kid who used a word wrongly. Why don't we dredge up every piece of shit thing you said when you were in school and hold you to it?

      As for using words incorrectly...

    16. Re:He didn't "build" anything by jrumney · · Score: 2

      If what you say is true, it is quite concerning that his father had such confidence that such actions would spark a racially motivated incident.

    17. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please keep your jizz fetish out of this discussion.

    18. Re:He didn't "build" anything by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      What word did I use incorrectly?

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    19. Re:He didn't "build" anything by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm looking at a Heathkit micrometer, and at least the power supply is clearly marked "Micronta".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    20. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please keep your asscrack-licking fetish out of this discussion.

    21. Re: He didn't "build" anything by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Me too. Too bad all of Heathkit's stuff was so expensive. I only built an AM radio and the metronome. There used to be a Heathkit store that I'd ride the bus past everyday and it always amazed me that they could sell enough to keep a store open.

    22. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Beeftopia · · Score: 2

      took it to school at the suggestion of his father, hoping to start a racial incident.

      There's no actual evidence for the conspiracy theories. The police didn't charge him for a hoax bomb and they actually investigated it.

      Everything else is just pure speculation.

    23. Re:He didn't "build" anything by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Now that I look closely, it was a Radio Shack kit, not a Heathkit. But if Micronta was making parts for Radio Shack kits, doesn't it support the possibility that this kid did in fact build his clock the same way I built this old multitester (which doesn't work, by the way)?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    24. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Mashiki · · Score: 0

      You mean the context of lil'bobby who dindu nuffin', but had a rap sheet longer then both of our arms, was known to police, and had in some cases robbed a store earlier on the same day and there was a APB out on them?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    25. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only a fucking retard would take the name "Black Lives Matter" and completely disregard the context out of which it arose and then judge it purely based on the name and get angry about it.

      You mean Michael Brown didn't assault a cop and try to take his gun? He wasn't shot as a direct result of this and a failure to comply with lawful orders?

      Hate to break it to you, but "hands up, don't shoot" was a lie from the start, the grand jury agreed, and still the racial supremacist movement that is BLM still uses it as a mantra.

    26. Re:He didn't "build" anything by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 2

      So killing someone without trial is okay in your book.

      Good to know you support a literal police state where police can kill anyone because idiots like you will support them.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    27. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No you fucking moron. It's in the context of the police using acceptable lethal force and people crying racism.

    28. Re:He didn't "build" anything by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Like Walter Scott? An innocent man who tried to run from a homicidal cop? Executed with bullets in the back. He was asking for it.

    29. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > don't stop to ponder just why it's so easy for incidents like this to happen if your skin has a bit of melanin in it.

      Or just ponder how easy it is to get everyone elses attention if your skin has a bit of melanin in it, hmmmm?

    30. Re:He didn't "build" anything by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 2

      But the point is they weren't using acceptable lethal force. Have you been hiding under a fucking rock, you ignoramus?

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    31. Re:He didn't "build" anything by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      I love how arseholes love to ignore the many other examples where they were killed despite obviously not being a threat at all.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    32. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      okay, why did the media make a big deal of the people they make a big deal of, instead of the people you think should be made a big deal of?

      Answer: The best way to get presidential involvement is to be a liar, a cheater, or a petty thug who happened to receive an overzealous (but in many cases, deserved) response. And everybody reading this knows it.

    33. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What.
      You should have used "Which".

    34. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zero tolerance and paranoia harm innocent children regardless of skin color. Why? Because Columbine. Why did this case blow up on social media? Because social media loves getting outraged and pretending it's engaging in activism.

    35. Re: He didn't "build" anything by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1, Troll

      And I love how even bigger assholes think that, in the grand scheme of things, this happens "many" times and is the rule rather than the exception.

      Yes, cops are human. Yes, cops kill innocent people sometimes. But to attribute it to racism, especially in cases like Zimmerman who had a long pro-civil rights history, is just politically correct assfuckery meant to insert a motive that was never there.

    36. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      When he reaches for a gun, yeah.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    37. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Or just ponder how easy it is to get everyone elses attention if your skin has a bit of melanin in it, hmmmm?

      Yes, because it's everyone's life dream to face violent arrest and even death by cop for shits and giggles. At the age of 14.

    38. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The grand juries seem to disagree. How many of these cops have been convicted of manslaughter/murder? I think the unacceptable use of lethal force argument fails the test.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    39. Re: He didn't "build" anything by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      Considering that cops killing black people have shown to be not correlated with black crime rates, it's looking very likely to be a rule. Keep denying facts all you want.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    40. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Runaway1956 · · Score: 0

      Dozens of young black males have been killed pointlessly by the police. Other young black males have been justifiably killed by the police. If you can pretend that all of their killings were UNjustified, then you are no less a racist than those who claim they were all justified.

      Each and every case must be examined individually. Yes, it is reasonable that some of the most violent blacks are "put down". Some of them have less value to society than a stray dog. Others should result in the cops spending the rest of their lives in prison. First and foremost among those, is the killing of Tamir Rice.

      Again, only a racist can fail to see the difference between Tamir Rice and the animal killed in Ferguson. It depends on which flavor of racist you happen to be, which side you come down on.

      The whole "Black Lives Matter" failed to actually offend me, early on. Because, well, Black lives do matter. But when BLM hit back against "all lives matter", and again hit back at "blue lives matter", that set them apart as a bunch of racists.

      ALL LIVES MATTER, or you're just another racist.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    41. Re:He didn't "build" anything by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 0

      So when police claim they are always reaching for the gun, you'll believe them no question, despite mounting video evidence that is almost never the case.

      Good to know so many people on Slashdot are in support of a literal police state.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    42. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or he's just a kid who used a word wrongly.

      The fact that he claims that his current fame prevents him from further "invention" kind of debunks your apologist theory. Stop making excuses for people who are lying and manipulating you, cuck, and just admit your gullibility.

    43. Re:He didn't "build" anything by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 2

      Cops have been shown to lie under oath. Good to know you'll just accept whatever cops say without question.

      So many Slashdotters want a literal police state these days.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    44. Re:He didn't "build" anything by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 0

      Classic tactic: racists calling everyone else the racist.

      Here's a hint: someone being violent is NOT a reason to kill them. Bunch of fascists suggesting that it's okay to kill anyone just for being violent.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    45. Re:He didn't "build" anything by tsotha · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He was most likely put up to it by his activist dad, particularly since he knew exactly what to say to the cops - he told them the truth, but in such a way that they would think he's lying. That's not something you know when you're 14.

    46. Re:He didn't "build" anything by tsotha · · Score: 1

      So killing someone without trial is okay in your book.

      It is if he attacks a cop.

    47. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is actually true of most people who get their 15 minutes of fame these days.

      You know, if you had stopped here, you'd have at least spared yourself from engaging in your own political aggrandizement that tends to discredit your words.

      Really, I could question at your "these days" since I'd say that it's something well established as much older, for example, Mark Twain was writing about it, but I'd forgive you that ignorance. It's not like I expect you to have any historical review of the past media. You, however, decided to dig your own hole and jump in by your decision to engage in your own partisan bullshitting.

      I mean shit, the black lives matter movement is all over the media, but they don't give a shit about an actual black life unless it involves all of 1) a gun 2) a cop 3) a stolen case of cigarettes, a stolen bike, or a stolen car.

      Sure man, right. That's why people like you forget the overall context of Ferguson Missouri's documented abuses and malfeasances, or the Chicago PD's, or the NYPD's, or any number of others. Yes, Black Lives Matter has been about the deaths of black individuals by police, but that doesn't reflect on the individuals consideration of other concerns any more than the various Breast Cancer "Think Pink" campaigns mean to disparage other forms of cancer, or other medical disabilities. Even Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have brought up the subject, but you're not going to pay attention to it whenever they do.

      That's why the "All Lives Matter" rejoinder rarely works. It isn't coming from people expressing a genuine interest in the preservation of all life, it is coming from people who are creating a feigned indignation at what to them, is yet another annoying protest group who should just shut up and stop complaining. At least say the truth, you want to close your eyes, and not see, shut your ears to the noise, and get on with your comfortable life. No more inconvenient haranguing that there are wrongs in the world that won't be settled. You just want to believe that Congress really cares that a little girl has lost faith in America, so you don't have to worry about that Cesspool on the Potomac, not really.

      Or something. I don't know, but whatever it is, I think you don't have the stomach to face the harder truths.

      But, that's the world we live in today: The best way to get presidential involvement is to be a liar, a cheater, or a petty thug who happened to receive an overzealous (but in many cases, deserved) response. And everybody reading this knows it.

      Funny, I thought it was cutting a check to a campaign account. What you're talking about just gets a useless photo op and no real action at best.

      But heck man, you could at least have chosen to make your examples for your resentment a bipartisan affair, yet you didn't, so I'm going to doubt your ability to call out any bullshit on the other side of things. No fretting over the media's obsession over some missing pretty little rich white girl, while they ignore any number of others, either poor, or too brown, or too male. Or some fraud pretending to be authentic country redneck. Or some belligerent actual redneck making all sorts of threatening remarks and blustering around as if they were truly tough. Or some offended pea-brained moron who gets upset that Lil' Orphan Annie is recast with a black focus, or that a female version of Ghostbusters was created.

      No, I doubt you can name any of the frauds, hypocrites, and liars among the right, the ones who are actually as bad as you want to make out Black Lives Matter to be. And yeah, you can find that among the left, but damn, what cause is so pure that you won't find somebody making bank off it? If there's one thing a con artist has, it's a lack of shame. So tell me why that means as much as you want it to mean.

      Or maybe you can surprise me, and admit you've learned a lesson, and next time, you'll at least be even-handed in

    48. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And black people never lie am I right??

    49. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a hint for you, racists are obsessed with race, go look in the mirror.

      But I suspect you'll just continue to cry wolf.

    50. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's hilarious how the person "sexconker" was referring to was relying almost entirely on slang or otherwise bastardized language.Just a hundred years ago, roughly 20% of what "the evil atheist" wrote would fail to make sense or be legible to many people. Go another fifty years back and you're actually almost at 20% remaining legibility. Even today there are numerous ways to interpret "or he's just a kid who used a word wrongly. why don't we dredge up every piece of shit thing you said when you were in school and hold you to it" that are presumably embarassing and pointless to the person who wrote them.

    51. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, cops are human. Yes, cops kill innocent people sometimes. But to attribute it to racism, especially in cases like Zimmerman who had a long pro-civil rights history, is just politically correct assfuckery meant to insert a motive that was never there.

      Zimmerman wasn't a cop, racist or not, he was a member of a neighborhood watch, and ultimately, whatever you think about race, he should not have done what he did. Zimmerman bears the onus for the death of Trayvon Martin and will always be responsible for it. That Florida's nearly incompetent legal system had to be forced to prosecute him and even then, couldn't get him convicted, is yet another problem. They could have at least made him stand up in court and assert his affirmative claim of self-defense, but the prosecutor, nope, couldn't manage it. And that sure worked out. Zimmerman had a slew of problems, then had the gall to try to make money off selling the gun he shot someone with? The man's not right. By his deeds, we have known him. And it ain't a pretty picture.

      Then again, they still haven't gotten the police officer who went out to his car to get his gun and shot a guy for texting in a movie theater to trial yet. I suspect they're hoping he'll die before prison. They don't want to risk another deliberate flubbing.

      That state, Bugs Bunny had the right idea. Cut it the fuck away.

      PS, Jonathan Ferrell, check it out.

    52. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's nothing like "exactly what happened".

      that's what's called a "narrative".

    53. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Uberbah · · Score: 0

      I mean shit, the black lives matter movement is all over the media, but they don't give a shit about an actual black life unless it involves all of 1) a gun 2) a cop 3) a stolen case of cigarettes, a stolen bike, or a stolen car

      Willfully obtuse. Willful stupidity. They are protesting because cops are free to straight-up murder people in public, on camera, and suffer no consequences for doing so. But you knew this already.

      The best way to get presidential involvement is to be a liar, a cheater, or a petty thug who happened to receive an overzealous (but in many cases, deserved) response. And everybody reading this knows it.

      Everyone with two functioning neurons knows that the cops and the school district would have been shouting from the rooftops that Ahmed was engaged in a hoax if they could do so. They didn't, and they wont, because there wasn't a shred of evidence to suggest that was the case, outside the fevered imaginations of puritans wanting to burn the 14 year old witch. This, you also know.

      Yes, cops are human. Yes, cops kill innocent people sometimes.

      It was an extraordinary achievement when the cop that murdered Oscar Grant was sentenced to prison - the first cop in the history of California to be sent to prison for killing someone 'in the course of his duties'. For all of 18 months. Because 999 times out of a thousand, they get off scot free - just ask Kelly Thomas. Whereas if you shot a cop in the back, after you had handcuffed him and he was lying face down on the ground, how much time do you think you would have served? Could you have caved in a cop's skull with a baton and your fists without consequences? Cops are free to shoot people without warning, shoot people who are complying with their 'lawful orders', shoot people who are restrained, and even beat them to death for being homeless and schizophrenic- yet go right back on the force after taking a paid vacation.

      To borrow Clinton's line on the economy, it's the police culture of impunity, shit for brains.

    54. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Alypius · · Score: 3, Interesting

      despite mounting video evidence that is almost never the case.

      Citation needed. I'd be willing to bet that the GP was alluding to that Gentle Giant (TM) in Ferguson, where the evidence supported the officer. But hey, let's perpetuate the lie that was "Hands Up, Don't Shoot!"

    55. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the police had plenty of evidence to press said charges and chose not to because the liberal movement were there threatening to break down the doors of reason with the battering rams of Social Justice and Political Correctness if they budged an inch.

    56. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlrss your dad sets you to it, and trains you on what to say, in order to get attention...
      You are an idiot.

    57. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worse: According to a contemporary report by the NYT, Ahmed was told by his "engineering" teacher who first saw the clock not to show it to anyone else, but he went ahead anyway and set an alarm to go off during English class. The English teacher freaked out at the mass of components and wires. Not surprising!

    58. Re:He didn't "build" anything by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 2

      Which explains why cops can just say "they were attacking me" and idiots will believe them without question.

      So obviously, you would allow riot control police to just start shooting everyone in the crowd.

      It's funny and concerning how so many people are willing to let the police be the judge, jury and executioner.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    59. Re:He didn't "build" anything by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      Classic tactic: racists calling everyone else the racist.

      ...Wow, you actually said that.

      Reflect on it for a minute and then come back and explain to me why you feel that you aren't a racist.

      Here's a hint: someone being violent is NOT a reason to kill them. Bunch of fascists suggesting that it's okay to kill anyone just for being violent.

      The thing is, you yourself are behaving much like a fascist would, and you're being bigoted. The only difference between you and any other bigot is that you think speaking on behalf of minorities automatically gives you the high ground. But I'm here to tell you that you're quite wrong.

      That said, if somebody is behaving violently, sometimes that is reason to kill them. It really depends on the circumstances. If we follow what you just said however, then the cops had no business shooting at the Pulse Nightclub shooter, and they should have just asked him to lay down his weapons and turn himself in. Of course, a rational person would say that's both insane and irrational. But, I don't think anybody has ever accused you of being neither sane nor rational.

    60. Re:He didn't "build" anything by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You must pay attention to different media than I do.

    61. Re:He didn't "build" anything by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      And I was talking about more than just that one case.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    62. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The grand juries seem to disagree. How many of these cops have been convicted of manslaughter/murder? I think the unacceptable use of lethal force argument fails the test.

      Stephen Rankin just was. There have been others. But is it enough?

      Perhaps the failure to bring cops to justice even in egregious cases is a discredit to the legal system in itself, take Freddie Gray. He died. The only people who could have hurt him were the cops who had him in custody. The only people who could be responsible for his death? The cops who had him in custody.

      A grand jury did indict them. A judge gave them a pass. Not a jury of their peers. Not a jury of Freddie Gray's peers. A judge, who has not the wisdom of Solomon. He's just lucky, damn lucky, it didn't kick off a powder keg again.

      Somebody better hope that there is actual clean-up in the Baltimore PD (and the Chicago, and LAPD, and NYPD, and others with a documented history of misconduct that reveals a perilous degree of abuse), before it reaches a crisis point. Somebody has to watch the watchers.

      Or we'll get an explosion.

    63. Re:He didn't "build" anything by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      That said, if somebody is behaving violently, sometimes that is reason to kill them.

      Uh no. Unless they are actually about to kill someone, then no. EVEN IF it looks like another person may get punched a few times, that is still not a reason to kill someone.

      If we follow what you just said however, then the cops had no business shooting at the Pulse Nightclub shooter, and they should have just asked him to lay down his weapons and turn himself in.

      Only if you're an idiot who can't tell the difference between a positive statement and a negative statement. I only said someone being violent is not a reason to kill them. I never said never kill anyone even if they are violent. LEARN THE DIFFERENCE.

      Reflect on it for a minute and then come back and explain to me why you feel that you aren't a racist.

      Don't need a minute. What I said isn't racist because I didn't say anything "whites should get what's coming to them".

      Your inability to tell the difference between a negative and positive statement is becoming a theme here.

      You would consider it racist because you set up a hypocritical position where anyone who points out there is a imbalance between races are racists themselves. But apparently you don't reflect on your statements.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    64. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Considering that cops killing black people have shown to be not correlated with black crime rates, it's looking very likely to be a rule. Keep denying facts all you want.

      Yeah when you say not correlated, you mean cops kill blacks at a far lower rate than the crime rates indicate should be the rate.

      Why don't you come back and compare the crime rate for black crime, the black on black homicide rate and the homicide by cop for blacks.

      Then you can apologize for being full of shit.

    65. Re: He didn't "build" anything by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      Black on black homicide is high, therefore cops should have equal rights to kill black people. Okay.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    66. Re: He didn't "build" anything by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Zimmerman wasn't a cop, racist or not, he was a member of a neighborhood watch, and ultimately, whatever you think about race, he should not have done what he did.

      I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that the physical evidence and witness testimony fully supports his version of the events that transpired. And I don't know about you, but if somebody is slamming my head into pavement, and I had a gun on me, I would have done exactly as he did. Even the witnesses who were in favor of Trayvon Martin made this much clear.

      They could have at least made him stand up in court and assert his affirmative claim of self-defense, but the prosecutor, nope, couldn't manage it.

      You're quite uneducated, to be honest. No prosecutor anywhere ever can make the accused testify in their own defense; that would be a clear violation of the 5th amendment. And you know what? No defendant ever does unless either they're insane or they've literally run out of options. Why? Because the prosecutor will get to cross examine you, and during a cross examination a good prosecutor can make you look guilty of assassinating a pope that is still very much alive. The Zimmerman case was so airtight that they didn't even want to prosecute to begin with, as even the detectives who investigated the case honestly believed it to be justified homicide. There never, at any time, would have been any reason for Zimmerman "stand up" in court.

    67. Re: He didn't "build" anything by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Considering that cops killing black people have shown to be not correlated with black crime rates, it's looking very likely to be a rule. Keep denying facts all you want.

      It's a good thing I'm not in the position to attack your credibility on this one, because you're doing a pretty good job of ruining it all by yourself.

      No further comment.

    68. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh no. Fuck your lies. Blacks commit more violent crimes than any other demographic.

      They die more often because they are more violent, and the correct response to a violent person is to remove them from society, with a bullet if necessary to prevent further violence.

      You're too stupid and too brainwashed to see it. You should be removed too, next time you act out.

    69. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You managed to bully and browbeat your opponent into falling into your traps, so let me stand up for them and just do the obvious:

      Hey, you. Go ahead and explain, point out and all that, exactly where and how the person you're responding to matches the description of being one or more of "a bunch of fascists" who may or may not be "suggesting that it's okay to kill anyone just for being violent".

      By the way, this is all going to make really great material to suddenly wire into the P.A. during your own funeral, especially if you die a deservedly violent death.

    70. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Black on black homicide is high, therefore cops should have equal rights to kill black people. Okay.

      Amazing. You're completely illiterate but somehow operate a computer.

    71. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dozens of young black males have been killed pointlessly by the police. Other young black males have been justifiably killed by the police. If you can pretend that all of their killings were UNjustified, then you are no less a racist than those who claim they were all justified.

      Not really, there are, believe it or not, people who are opposed to the taking of any life, and who consider it offensive to use force, especially deadly force.

      These virtuous souls have a very high degree of moral courage, and some of them have died for their beliefs. But that's just your poor reasoning being corrected, I suspect you could come up with another phrasing, if you thought about it for a second.

      But you didn't. You really should.

      Each and every case must be examined individually. Yes, it is reasonable that some of the most violent blacks are "put down". Some of them have less value to society than a stray dog. Others should result in the cops spending the rest of their lives in prison. First and foremost among those, is the killing of Tamir Rice.

      Again, only a racist can fail to see the difference between Tamir Rice and the animal killed in Ferguson.

      You really don't know what you're saying here. I hope. I pray. Even ignoring the aforementioned persons above who abhor any and all killing at all, you are ultimately suggesting the culling of the population in order to advance an agenda of putting people down because of their personal value to society.

      Even those who accept claims of self-defense would be aghast at your suggestion, and the death penalty would go right off the table if it were portrayed in the manner you suggest. Not in the open. Yeah, I know it goes on in some people's minds, but the people who keep the death penalty do at least have to come up with some other reasoning for it.

      But you're not even talking about a directed effort, your examples are individuals acting on their own merits and answering for their own conduct. For that, no, no, you'd be suggesting a course that'd be outright despicable. A vigilante's course.

      No, no, if the cop in Ferguson gets any claim, it's self-defense, the preservation of his own life in the face of a threat. Maybe I won't believe it, but I can recognize some validity to that argument. Same with the one in Ohio, though I'd be even less likely to believe the claim, given what's known of it.

      If any of them brought what you say...they'd be rightfully condemned, not because of their racism, but because the very idea is anathema.

      It depends on which flavor of racist you happen to be, which side you come down on.

      The whole "Black Lives Matter" failed to actually offend me, early on. Because, well, Black lives do matter.

      Oh good for you, too bad for the rest of us, that didn't apply to everyone else.

      They very quickly sputtered into outrage and denial.

      But when BLM hit back against "all lives matter", and again hit back at "blue lives matter", that set them apart as a bunch of racists.

      Not really, especially since the "blue lives matter" campaign is not racially based, but ostensibly profession. In any case, however, recognizing that such attempts to pain "Black Lives Matter" as the "offensive" phrasing, and calling them out for their hypocrisy and generally disreputable nature is just bad reasoning.

      There are people who genuinely care about all lives. They aren't wringing their hands in feigned indignation at another group and pointing fingers of accusation.

      It is, instead, a bunch of defensive cops (or their willing stooges) who can't even realize when they have made a mistake.

      Sorry, but your excuse for grousing about the BLM movement is pretty shoddy. It's like you don't even know what they're pushing back against. Or do you, and you just don't want to admit it?

      ALL LIVES MATTER, or you're just another racist.

    72. Re:He didn't "build" anything by tsotha · · Score: 1

      It's funny and concerning people refuse to look into this case and realize the cop was protecting himself. But go ahead, pretend nobody bothered to investigate this.

    73. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best part of his funeral is going to be when he shows up at it and he's actually still alive, carrying in a poster "JE SUIS MYSELF", and then proceeding to hold a gun to some elderly woman while literally fucking a couple of her infant grandchildren to death in front of her with his tiny, servile, cuck penis. Meanwhile you've made it all the better by ensuring that the P.A. system features his convoluted rhetoric, "you're all a bunch of fascists just suggesting that it's okay to kill anyone just for being violent". The reason that's going to be the best part is because several of his relatives will jump up and speak up in support of him not having to be dead.

    74. Re: He didn't "build" anything by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      But muh feelings.

    75. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that the physical evidence and witness testimony fully supports his version of the events that transpired. And I don't know about you, but if somebody is slamming my head into pavement, and I had a gun on me, I would have done exactly as he did. Even the witnesses who were in favor of Trayvon Martin made this much clear.

      You mentioned George Zimmerman right after commenting about cops so I hope you can understand my specific mention of Zimmerman not being an example of a police officer in any way. But you will note i made no accusations towards you, nor did I characterize you for it, I note this for late on in my post, but moving on, Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman are the only two people who knew what happened, and one of them cannot quite testify due to the actions of the other. But i don't know about you, but if some random person confronts me, I might well slam their head into the pavement as part of defending myself.

      And no witness can deny that it was George Zimmerman who set the stage for that. He chose to get out of his car. Only he knows what was in his head, if he truly sought out Martin or was stupid. Well, unless the CIA had a satellite watching I guess.

      You're quite uneducated, to be honest. No prosecutor anywhere ever can make the accused testify in their own defense; that would be a clear violation of the 5th amendment.

      And this is where you get needlessly belligerent. I feel a little chagrin at myself for not making a clearer statement, but it is tempered by the observation that you chose to be hostile. The only regret I have is choosing to be brief, and not bringing up this issue beforehand. Believe it or not.

      So to assuage you, let me put it another way, the prosecution needed to conduct an effective strategy where Zimmerman had to account for himself, in his own sworn testimony.

      The Fifth Amendment may not allow compulsion of testimony from the accused, but it doesn't prohibit making a good case on its own.

      And you know what? No defendant ever does unless either they're insane or they've literally run out of options. Why? Because the prosecutor will get to cross examine you, and during a cross examination a good prosecutor can make you look guilty of assassinating a pope that is still very much alive.

      All the more reason to face up to it then. Failing to do so, when the offense is one you have to admit doing to claim your purported defense, does not impress me.

      The Zimmerman case was so airtight that they didn't even want to prosecute to begin with, as even the detectives who investigated the case honestly believed it to be justified homicide.

      Pardon me, but I guess you missed my remark where I said Florida's legal system had to be forced to actually make him stand to account, or something similar. I meant it. Sorry if I was unclear, but the detectives involved? I doubt their actions in regards this matter. Their beliefs, even if they come to them in the absence of racial animus, are not convincing,n ot only due to their actions in this case, but the general problems of Florida itself, which are many and diverse.

      Believe it or not, sometimes there is a reason to do things by the book, and for the book to be thorough and rigorous in its strictures.

      Not wanting to prosecute, not making a demonstration of a very vigorous investigation, that is a problem. And Florida walked into it with their legislature being so profoundly upset at people being charged when it was claimed to be self-defense that they revised their standards downwards

      That, in case, you didn't understand, set a stage, and even though Zimmerman did not as I recall make a claim based on it, that the excop in the theater may, well, I think my reasons for lacking confidence are sound.

      There never, at any time, would have been any reason for Zimmerman "stand up" in

    76. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But muh feelings.

      Ah, the snide derisive one-liner? I'll give ArmoredDragon credit for managing more effort than that. You would however, prefer to dismiss the subject in a brusque manner that just asserts superiority by portraying another opinion as merely based on "feelings" which are obviously less important than whatever standards you espouse.

      But sadly, for you, it is not that easy. The truth is that there are valid reasons to consider and examine the conduct of the law enforcement system and the handling of the taking of human life, reasons that would satisfy even the most obstreperous Vulcan wannabe.

      Ultimately, i suppose they could be booked down to asking how much do you want somebody to answer for when they take a life? And how confident do you want to be that the justice system will deliver on its promises to every citizen. OK, I am not good at being brief myself. That is a bit of a failing on my part.

      I guess you'll be the only one delivering the zingers.

    77. Re:He didn't "build" anything by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Even if your claim is true and he did plan the whole thing as a publicity stunt, it only worked because he knew that if the school saw a brownish Muslim student with some electronics they'd go into full bomb-scare-panic, while a white Christian student with exactly the same device would have been ignored.

    78. Re:He didn't "build" anything by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Movies use visual language. The movie word for bomb is 'big red clock display.' It might also be 'lots of exposed wires.' Everyone recognises that in movies, this is what a bomb looks like, because if movies depicted a bomb realistically it might take the audience too long to realise what is going on. Action movies move fast, if the audience is lost for ten seconds it'll take them another thirty to figure out what just happened.

      Unfortunately people are often stupid and panicky, and when scared (either of the bomb, or of being accused of endangering students by not overreacting to the bomb) they can forget that movie bombs are not realistic.

    79. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > He was told to put it away but couldn't help himself. Many, many Slashdotters can relate to this. This happened to me when I was a kid.

      Actually, from what I recall of the story as printed at the time, he DID put it away in his bag, not showing it off, until the alarm went off and it started beeping during a later class.
      Those convinced it was all a stunt will of course argue that he intentionally set the alarm to go in class, but I'd say it could well have been set randomly, or the time setting moved, during him showing it to the science teacher - we'll never know.

    80. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have a shred of evidence for that so stop passing out pitchforks to the crowd. Artvoice said he apart an old alarm clock and put it in a hobbyist case. Not really an "invention" but he's not a 14 year old kid not a patent attorney. At worst he exaggerated his skill to impress his schoolmates. Not the first teenager to do that. http://blogs.artvoice.com/tech...

    81. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude. In the post, the very post above, it states that the kid said 'His family plotted the arrest'. Ergo it was all a LIE. He didn't invent anything. He didn't build anything. If anything he destroyed a perfectly good clock and used it to get arrested at his family's direction.

    82. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question becomes: who is investigating this?

      Cops? Former cops?

      I've read it's actually very difficult to win a medical malpractice suit because second and third opinions usually cover each other doctor's ass .

    83. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Or just ponder how easy it is to get everyone elses attention if your skin has a bit of melanin in it, hmmmm?

      Indeed. I don't know why people with more melanin tend to attract the attention of the police and other unthinking authority figures more than people with less melanin. Perhaps we should all ponder on this.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    84. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      It's a mix of facts and narrative. The "He took a [clock] out of its casing and took it to school" part is a fact. The "at the suggestion of his father, hoping to start a racial incident" is a narrative.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    85. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Pseudonym · · Score: 2

      If you read the post carefully, it states that "a local Fox news affiliate [...] later broadcast a commentary saying his family was obsessed with fame and plotted the arrest". If unsubstantiated commentary from a local Fox News affiliate now counts as evidence, Deity help us all.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    86. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      You seem to be quite adept at calling everyone racist. Three people have already responded, and they are very much on target. One of the AC's suggests that you've bullied and browbeat me, but that part is inaccurate. You have ATTEMPTED to bully and browbeat me, but failed.

      Any violent person is subject to having lethal force used against them. It's the "violent" part that qualifies them. Some AC below suggests that the person punching another person shouldn't be subject to a violent and/or lethal response. Context matters, though. Some street tough is swinging on another street tough - there is no convincing reason for me to intervene. Same street tough is beating up on a woman, I should probably defend the woman, but probably not to the level of using lethal force. Same street tough on a different day is assaulting an elderly person - let's make this person female again. Two or three punches may well kill the feeble old gal. A higher level of response is called for, IMHO. Potentially lethal force is in order. Finally, in another scenario, the same rat bastard is using a hammer to hit a bunch of little kids in the head. He is definitely using potentially lethal force against people who are entirely defenseless. This time around, lethal force is clearly justified. I can, and will, pull whatever weapon is at my disposal, and do my damndest to ensure that he is no longer able to swing that hammer. In fact, I would be in favor of the famous "double tap". One bullet to the head, and another to the heart, to ensure that he doesn't get back up again.

      What's that you say? I should have only shot him ONCE, so that the hospital might save him? Oh - sorry, he didn't fall fast enough after the first shot, I thought I had missed him, so I took the second shot. I didn't really MEAN to kill him, but it was necessary to stop him hitting any more little children in the head with that hammer.

      And, finally, I don't give a flying fuck what color that bastard was. Nor do I care what color, race, or religion his victims were. Even if I know him, he's the same color, race, religion, and culture that I am, and he's attacking innocent people who are all different from me, I defend the innocents.

      And THAT is what the police should be doing.

      It is very unfortunate that the police are NOT doing that very thing. Race figures into their decisions very much. We don't read about young white males being killed in the playground because they are playing with a toy gun. We don't read of young white males being shot dead when they reach for their identification. We DO, however, read about young white males who are shot dead when they assault a police officer.

      Now, you can make another stab at parsing words, correcting grammar, and making up bullshit excuses why no one should ever be shot dead by a cop. But, you cannot paint me as a racist. Trying to do so only marks you as an ignorant fool.

      Sometimes, young black men perform actions for which they should be shot down. Other times, young black men are gunned down without justification. If you choose to defend BOTH GROUPS, then you are indeed a racist.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    87. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a curiosity: were you masturbating when you wrote that wall of text? And did you need any help, in the form of japanese kiddie porn?

    88. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep reading. His older sister pulled a similar stunt.

    89. Re: He didn't "build" anything by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      There were no witnesses to the start of the confrontation. There were witnesses during, whose attention was drawn by the sound of fighting, but none were present when Zimmerman and Trayvon met. If there were then the investigation would have been a lot easier. While the physical evidence shows there was certainly a fight, there is no way to tell who started the violence.

    90. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      How do we teach people to not rape, steal, and kill each other?

      Yes, I'm Mr TFTFY today. Deal with it.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    91. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > but the kid was absolutely clear about his motives: he wanted to understand how it worked.

      Lying sack of crap. People who want to want to learn about electronics will disassemble and build their own devices. People who are interested in ATTENTION will pretend to build something, plug it in during ENGLISH class, then act surprised when it goes off.

    92. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Alypius · · Score: 1

      And you still haven't cited your sources for claiming that it's "almost never the case."

    93. Re: He didn't "build" anything by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      You should might consider moving to North Korea, their justice system seems to align a lot closer with your world view. Fortunately in the US that is not how we do things.

    94. Re: He didn't "build" anything by cryptizard · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is more about it being the rule that when a police officer kills an unarmed black man they are almost never held accountable. That is a rule. You can argue a case here or a case there, but it is literally almost unheard of for a police officer to be fired let alone prosecuted for killing an unarmed black person. Even when they are caught on video using an illegal choke hold against a man who is not resisting, or shoot a guy trying to pull out his wallet after he said "I am about to pull out my wallet."

    95. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frankly it is disgusting how all of the highest rated comments on this story are pile-ons for this narrative that this kid wanted all of this. It makes me sick to my stomach how all of his fellow geeks are so willing to turn on him because he's muslim. Reminds me of how so many people were eager to turn on Star Simpson because she was brown.

      Bigotry over compassion. No wonder trump has done so well.

    96. Re:He didn't "build" anything by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      So you are saying that the adult cops were outsmarted by a 14 year old, and that we should not put any blame on them?

    97. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The teacher first told him to just put it away. It was only after Ahmed became belligerent that the teacher was forced to escalate. At no time was the school in "panic mode." They were just dealing with a kid that was intentionally being a pain in the ass and acting in a specific manner that forced the school and police to increase involvement.

          Ahmed and his family's actions tapped into the adolescent craving to see adults as stupid.

          In fact if you read the statements of school and police personnel you can almost hear them sigh and wish they could get back to the routine. It wasn't a manipulation of racism. It was a specific manipulation of policies that are race neutral. The worst you can accuse anybody in the school or police of doing was they were following policy for CYA purposes even though they knew it was a hoax. The old timey term for this kid and his family is provocateur.

    98. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am tired of this bs explanations. The behavior led to the them being shot is the problem. Stop making excuses. Normal people don't act like this ex convicts in most cases.

    99. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really are obtuse in your views. Most cases are side with the cops since most criminals don't have normal thinking

    100. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      His sister was suspended earlier because another student accused her of making a bomb threat. Do you have a reliable source for that being a "stunt"?

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    101. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bigot? 1975 called.. they want their 8 track back

    102. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you responded to his post that was clearly referring to a very specific example and used it to make your own ironic and hypocritical generalization. Bravo.

    103. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...you are ultimately suggesting the culling of the population in order to advance an agenda of putting people down because of their personal value to society."

      This is a complete misrepresentation of what he/she said. He said the opposite in fact. He was basing his opinion entirely on the individual's action, irrespective of race and alignment. A "culling of a population" inherently implies a race, alignment, nationality, etc. You totally got his/her point wrong.

    104. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, in the Ferguson case, it was investigated by the federal department of justice, led by a very partial attorney general and they declined to press federal charges. So, you know, it was investigated.

    105. Re:He didn't "build" anything by ninjaz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Steve Wozniak (co-founder of Apple) spent the night in jail when he was high school for doing this kind of thing, and didn't get to meet the president:

      http://www.businessinsider.com...

    106. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That's why people like you forget the overall context of Ferguson Missouri's documented abuses and malfeasances, or the Chicago PD's, or the NYPD's, or any number of others."

      Can you imagine what it must be like to be a cop in Ferguson or Chicago? Day after day of being called out over and over to domestic situations, petty thuggery, shootings, rapes, drug issues, etc.? Do I think the police in Ferguson are biased and guilty of malfeasance? Yes, I probably think so. Do I think I could do that job without eventually succumbing to a "fuck this shit" attitude? I'd have to think about it. You'll notice in many of these stories even black police officers are involved, likely after eventually getting worn down by years of having to deal with a crime ridden, pestilent segment of society. Sounds awful but I'm willing to listen to why I'm wrong.

    107. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Ive read on the internet, therefore its true" -ancient SJW mantra

    108. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhhh no. Many white children have been killed because they had fake plastic guns. There's a reason why fake guns must have a red tip, and it isn't to protect black people, dipshit.

    109. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were all criminals. They all deserved death. The police are heroes, and you are an enemy of a free and safe society.

    110. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 2

      "Micronta" didn't make anything. It was a brand name that Tandy used on clocks, multimeters, and other test equipment, which were generally made by Asian subcontractors.

      AFAIK, RS never offered a line powered digital clock as a kit. Certainly not the one repackaged by this kid. There are several sites online which compare his project to the original clock. It does appear to have been nothing more than removing the guts and putting them in another box.

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    111. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

      Heathkit built a micrometer? That needs a power supply?

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    112. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were no witnesses to the start of the confrontation. There were witnesses during, whose attention was drawn by the sound of fighting, but none were present when Zimmerman and Trayvon met. If there were then the investigation would have been a lot easier. While the physical evidence shows there was certainly a fight, there is no way to tell who started the violence.

      So it seems. Though with the behavior of the police, I have a sliver of a doubt. But we do know who is responsible for starting any course that lead to violence. Who is the reason there was any kind of encounter. George Zimmerman. He got out of his car.

      I'd have sweated him. Hard. He should have been made to answer for it. The local police there? They didn't.

      That doesn't do them any good.

    113. Re:He didn't "build" anything by dj245 · · Score: 1

      He was most likely put up to it by his activist dad, particularly since he knew exactly what to say to the cops - he told them the truth, but in such a way that they would think he's lying. That's not something you know when you're 14.

      The whole thing smells rotten to me too, but I have to disagree with your reasoning. A 14 year old kid can be just as shifty and generally suspicious as adults. He didn't have to know how to be truthful but suspicious. That might just be his character. Plenty of people just seem to be "up to something" or "hiding something" all the time. Those behaviors didn't just appear at age 18.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    114. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      That said, if somebody is behaving violently, sometimes that is reason to kill them.

      Uh no. Unless they are actually about to kill someone, then no. EVEN IF it looks like another person may get punched a few times, that is still not a reason to kill someone.

      The OP proceeded to explain his initial statement and gave hypotheticals, which agree that you don't kill someone for simply punching someone else (though there are indeed some situations where punching someone can be considered lethal force and should be responded to appropriately). You either fail at reading comprehension, or are a troll.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    115. Re:He didn't "build" anything by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. It was a publicity stunt. It's no different than the Clinton campaign hiring Kahn to speak at their convention and then a few days later the guy decides that he doesn't want all the publicity... after the world learns that he was scamming green cards.

    116. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a curiosity: were you masturbating when you wrote that wall of text? And did you need any help, in the form of japanese kiddie porn?

      Nope, your real intent is derision. At least admit to your purpose, either way says a lot about your character, but choosing to portray yourself under an obviously empty pretense is not a better course of action.

    117. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't build anything?

      But you take existing things like text input fields and buttons, and then perform witchcraft with them by doing the highly technical task of "using them", and claim not only that you built/invented a website but you sue anyone that claims otherwise for large sums of money, and our governments copyright office even agrees that you built it and should have all money make rights to your built/invented idea for all of eternity(minus 1 second, you know, to be legal)

      If you can "build" a website out of long existing bits and pieces, why isn't doing the same with a clock and its case not also "building"?

      If anything I think you owe the kid $150,000 per click you have in your house.
      After all we know he kid had a clock at a certain time, yet no proof you owned one. Clearly he had a clock first and you owe him royalties :p

    118. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that why there is a push to call the legal law enforcement officers.

      Policing is old. Enforcement at the barrel of a gun is the new.

    119. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...you are ultimately suggesting the culling of the population in order to advance an agenda of putting people down because of their personal value to society."

      This is a complete misrepresentation of what he/she said. He said the opposite in fact. He was basing his opinion entirely on the individual's action, irrespective of race and alignment. A "culling of a population" inherently implies a race, alignment, nationality, etc. You totally got his/her point wrong.

      He said the following:

      Yes, it is reasonable that some of the most violent blacks are "put down". Some of them have less value to society than a stray dog.

      That's a direct quote from Runaway1956. How am I to take it other than "culling the population" ? Yes, it is based on an individual action, however that is no real vindication, as it's reprehensible even if not a directed course of government. It's not racist, perhaps, though I could quibble over the lack of a reference to whites in similar circumstances, but honestly, my distaste is such that it would not be much of a remedy were such additions added, but it is certainly endorsing the virtue of eliminating those unfit for the rest of society, so actually, I won't ask for any such thing, as it might be construed as ignoring the real problem.

      I don't know how you're interpreting his words to something else, but I can't see mine as a misrepresentation, let alone the opposite, and certainly nothing laudable in itself. That Runaway1965 has another post where those words are echoed, well, I'm quite satisfied at my comprehension and portrayal being accurate.

      It's a damn fucking scary sentiment. Outright disturbingly callous. Racist or not, it's a very troublesome on its own, bigotry is not limited to racism.

    120. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Many? You must have about a thousand links to back that up then?

      https://www.theguardian.com/us...

      What really gets me is this link - https://nypost.com/2015/10/11/...

      So-called "experts" are telling us that it is reasonable that children with toys are shot and killed. I insist that it is NOT reasonable for children with toys to be killed.

      How 'bout that latest incident, in which a mentally handicapped boy was holding a TOY TRUCK, the officer shot at him, and instead hit the boy's caretaker/guardian/counselor?

      Yeah, stupid kids get killed all the time, but it is unacceptable that we allow idiot cops to do the killing.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    121. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      But, I'm not offering BS explanations. I'm stating, flat out, that our police state is fucked up. Kids don't need an excuse to act like kids. Cops need a rational reason for shooting a kid to death. In the case of Tamir Rice, we get no rational reason, only bullshit excuses. Have you watched the video? The cops all but drive over him before exiting the car. There is no two second, or five second, certainly not enough time to shout commands. They jump out, and shoot. Their minds were made up before they arrived at the scene. Get on top of the "nigga with a gun" and kill him. There is no other rational explanation for what we see on the video. Lots of excuses, but no rational explanation.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    122. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope one day you he caught in a mixup with the law and they treat you the same way. Then you will change your tune. You privelaged white piece of shit.

      You make me ashamed to be white.

    123. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you imagine what it must be like to be a cop in Ferguson or Chicago? Day after day of being called out over and over to domestic situations, petty thuggery, shootings, rapes, drug issues, etc.?

      The same as cops anywhere and everywhere else throughout history? Or how cops think of themselves, and how they're keeping that rabble in line, and anyone who challenges them on it, well, they just don't understand.

      Do I think the police in Ferguson are biased and guilty of malfeasance? Yes, I probably think so. Do I think I could do that job without eventually succumbing to a "fuck this shit" attitude? I'd have to think about it. You'll notice in many of these stories even black police officers are involved, likely after eventually getting worn down by years of having to deal with a crime ridden, pestilent segment of society. Sounds awful but I'm willing to listen to why I'm wrong.

      If so, then they should get counseling and serious consideration. Really, you don't have to be entirely wrong, for the situation to be handled wrong. The police, if they're getting so indifferent, then they are still part of the problem. regardless of how you feel about the cause. At most, you're giving us a reason to address the problem, nothing else. Understanding is not necessarily forgiveness. It can be a tool to prevention of a problem, without changing the response to when a problem is recognized.

      So are you wrong? Maybe. A lot of it depends on how you're thinking in the end. Knowing that you can dehumanize other human beings? That's not something you are wrong about, and it could happen in a number of positions, prison guard, soldier, religious inquistor, psychologist, doctor, con man, bank officer, stock analyst, airline pilot, spy, tinker, tailor, soldier, father, mother, sister, brother.

      But maybe all it gives us is a clue of what signs to watch out for.

       

    124. Re:He didn't "build" anything by mabu · · Score: 1, Funny

      He took a bunch of components that other people created and put them in a different enclosure.

      Shame he left the country... He would have had a bright career at Apple.

    125. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm, yes it is. The cops were particularly irritated when we they realized we could remember their badge numbers as well as detailed answers given verbatim to the same stupid questions over and over. It only happened when I was with Black or Asian kids. (I'm white.) Afterward they always told me that if I wasn't with them, the cops wouldn't have behaved the same way. They said the cops probably thought my father was a lawyer. He wasn't, but I didn't appreciate the cops even as a kid. Never been to jail, never arrested, never a crime. But lots of cops to deal with. :(

    126. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're ...

      Excellent retort is ruined by ad hominem attack on the messenger. Personal emotion distracts from relevant points.

    127. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Aighearach · · Score: 0

      So when police claim they are always reaching for the gun, you'll believe them no question, despite mounting video evidence that is almost never the case.

      Good to know so many people on Slashdot are in support of a literal police state.

      No, but they'll pretend to be if the conversation leads to a place where it makes the black guy look bad.

      That is just how they talk in the South. Every single conversation, if one of the people they're talking about is black, then up is down and down is up, at least in that half of the sentence.

      And if you want a good laugh... you always hear people in the news talk about "State's rights," just look that one that up for the history and you'll find out the upsidedown world you live in. Remember, about 40% of the viewers are from a region that still supports the original "State's rights" argument. And just a hint for people who haven't looked it up yet: it isn't about State's having rights. At all. It is about slavery in non-slavery States, or at least non-State federal territories.

    128. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Racism is racist, regardless of if you found some idiotic words that purport to blame the blacks for your racism. Racism is still racist, even then.

    129. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      A lot of these racists even forget that the 2nd Amendment would theoretically apply to black people, even in the rare case that a gun was involved.

      I wish I could shoot every scary looking white guy with a gun I see, I'd have to buy a lot of ammo because we have a lot of scary hicks where I'm from.

    130. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Aighearach · · Score: 0

      It's funny and concerning people refuse to look into this case and realize the cop was protecting himself. But go ahead, pretend nobody bothered to investigate this.

      That's just horse shit, and in fact, blatantly racist horse shit.

    131. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      A dead guy?! Blah blah blah, blah blah!

      See, here is the thing: Only a really incredible racist would think that words whining about media coverage somehow counter the claim that a person was shot in cold blood. How the media reacts has nothing to do with the subject of an innocent person being killed. Nothing at all. Racists are racist and there is no way around it.

    132. Re: He didn't "build" anything by S48D31F68E4S2 · · Score: 1

      > A 14 year old kid took a clock apart and put it back together. No, he did not put it back together again. He put it in a pencil box with exposed wires hanging everywhere. That's a key point behind why those at his school were concerned: it looked nothing like a clock. Right off the bat, you misrepresent what happened to re-cast him as just a normal kid - you know, like "one of us". The rest of your sophistry can be safely ignored at this point, except for this little gem: You state that, "The central point is that he is one of us, and we take care of our own." That's a balkanizing tribalistic, self segregating point of view, which is a mentality that drives racism. And then you feign distress when "incidents like this to happen if your skin has a bit of melanin in it." The cognitive dissonance priceless.

    133. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Before I realized you had linked the actual story, I was going to give a link in addition to calling you a fucking liar.

      But you already have the link.

      You're a fucking liar, and you absolutely did not think that what Woz did was "this kind of thing." That is completely horseshit and you know it. Pathetic.

    134. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      What most Slashdotters can't relate to is having the cops called on you and being the subject of a viral shitstorm for doing this.

      No, but they can sure as fuck relate to being the sort of person who calls the cops on the kid!

    135. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are protesting because cops are free to straight-up murder people in public, on camera, and suffer no consequences for doing so.

      To quote you:

      Willfully obtuse. Willful stupidity.

      If true, we'd never see a cop face charges, let alone get convicted for such a thing.

      Poor Stephen Rankin, the most recent ex-cop to get convicted of such a thing... the court must not have gotten the memo that what he did was ok per your standard.

    136. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zimmerman wasn't a cop, racist or not, he was a member of a neighborhood watch, and ultimately, whatever you think about race, he should not have done what he did.

      I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that the physical evidence and witness testimony fully supports his version of the events that transpired. And I don't know about you, but if somebody is slamming my head into pavement, and I had a gun on me, I would have done exactly as he did. Even the witnesses who were in favor of Trayvon Martin made this much clear.

      Even if we accept his version of events, if he'd followed the recommendation of the 911 dispatcher and stayed in his car, neither the head-slamming or the shooting would have happened.

    137. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was most likely put up to it by his activist dad, particularly since he knew exactly what to say to the cops - he told them the truth, but in such a way that they would think he's lying. That's not something you know when you're 14.

      Is there an actual recording of the interview to back up that statement?

    138. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The police photo of the device is available at Wikipedia. It shows wires and electronics, but I don't see anything that looks like an explosive, even an unrealistic Hollywood version. The adults involved should have known right away that it wasn't a bomb, even a hoax bomb.

    139. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you reach for a police officer's gun, you deserve to die, because you are too fucking stupid to remain alive.

      Choices have consequences, I own up to mine, but my father was around to teach me that...

      Maybe if black men would raise their damn kids then they'd make better choices in life, such as not reaching for an officer's gun.

    140. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Statistics would lead us to believe that a violent death would likely be at the hands of a young black man, which likely gives you a boner you sick fuck.

    141. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't buy your kids plastic guns...
      Why is that so hard to learn?

    142. Re:He didn't "build" anything by tsotha · · Score: 2

      When people start shrieking "racist!" I know they've reached the end of valid arguments.

    143. Re:He didn't "build" anything by sjames · · Score: 1

      In some cases it turned out the shooting was justified (but not the rapid circling of the wagons that made people think they had something to hide). In others, the victim was shot in the back while running unarmed or shot in the legs while laying on the street with hands up and no weapon. Sometimes video even shows a weapon being planted after the fact.

    144. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      This has been coming for a long time. After the end of the Cold War, without a common enemy, we decided to turn on ourselves instead. The new civil rights movement is anti-GMO, anti-vaccine, anti-technology. The new McCarthyism is "SJWs under the bed".

      If it's any consolation, it can't last.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    145. Re: He didn't "build" anything by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Plus the state AG and the county coroner. People who are still chanting "hand up don't shoot" are just idiots. This has to be one of the most investigated encounters between two people in the history of US law enforcement.

    146. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing I'll say is no, it's not the same everywhere for cops. I live in a city of just under 200,000 people (Burlington, ON) and I think our last homicide was about 20 years ago. I know for a fact the cops here are generally pretty bored. Without DUIs and the odd domestic call, we probably wouldn't need them. I imagine being a cop in Ferguson is a little tougher in the morale department.

    147. Re:He didn't "build" anything by fche · · Score: 1

      "So killing someone without trial is okay in your book."

      Absolutely, if the killing is done in the process of defending one's self or others from a terrible danger.

    148. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      That's a balkanizing tribalistic, self segregating point of view, [...]

      You're new around here, aren't you? When it's Nerds vs The World, Slashdot is all for tribalism and self-segregation.

      Of course, nowadays it's Rednecks vs Everyone Else or SJWs vs Everyone Else depending on your particular brand of crazy. But I fondly remember the old days.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    149. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      When people start shrieking "racist!" I know they've reached the end of valid arguments.

      Right, because everybody knows racism ended in 1964.

    150. Re: He didn't "build" anything by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      That's the big difference in the laws in various states. What he did in Florida is legal in terms of self defense. However in Colorado it would get you in trouble. In CO, if you START a fight, you are then obliged to escape if you lose, not shoot to end what you started. He picked a fight with a kid, lost a fight, end ended it with the kid's death. In Florida that is legal.

    151. Re: He didn't "build" anything by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      lol okay, good stuff dude. That's actually called fascism. It sounds like you might fit better in North Korea, have fun we won't miss you.

    152. Re:He didn't "build" anything by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      multitester thing. As I said, it never worked because unlike Omar the Clock-builder, I suck at building things that require solder.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    153. Re:He didn't "build" anything by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      It was a CAIR-sponsored stunt as part of the ongoing propaganda war against the West: http://universalfreepress.com/...

    154. Re:He didn't "build" anything by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Presumably not, but so what? What does that have to do with Michael Brown's death?

    155. Re:He didn't "build" anything by tsotha · · Score: 2

      The cops weren't "outsmarted" by anyone. And no, we should not put blame on him. The blame goes to his family, the press, and political interests in the US that want to use these kinds of made-up stunts as "teachable moments".

    156. Re:He didn't "build" anything by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Sure, a fourteen year old knows how to act suspicious. But he doesn't understand the legal line such that he can walk up to it but not cross.

    157. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can be ashamed all you want, I'm Irish. My folk never owned slaves, so you can take that white guilt stick and continue to shove it up your ass.
      In fact my ancestors were drafted to fight for the north during the civil war, you know the side opposing the south?
      Fucking retard.

      And black lives matters can continue to encourage cop killing, just like Islam beheads people in the name of peace.

    158. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the police had plenty of evidence to press said charges and chose not to because the liberal movement were there threatening to break down the doors of reason with the battering rams of Social Justice and Political Correctness if they budged an inch.

      The police had no such evidence, they only managed to refrain since the tiniest iota of sense trickled into their brains so they could realize that they had nothing to gain from pursuing such a sham prosecution, while idiots like you can instead push the conspiratorial story to satisfy yourself without consequence, they'd have paid once their oppressive manipulations came out.

    159. Re: He didn't "build" anything by dywolf · · Score: 0

      what witness testimony?
      there was only two witnesses to the incident.
      and one of them died that night.
      there were no other witnesses

      you are talking out your arse.

      Zimmermann instigated the fight and then killed the kid claiming self-defense.
      which typically doesn't fly under self-defense; you don't get to start it and then claim self-defense.
      but Florida has that stupid SYG law.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    160. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That he didn't build a clock isn't speculation, it is pure fact.

    161. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My multimeter worked when I built it as a young girl. Of course, I followed instructions.

    162. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing poor, ignorant, unintelligent brown people have SJWs like you to look out for their best interests...

    163. Re:He didn't "build" anything by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and juries used to let lynch mobs off.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    164. Re: He didn't "build" anything by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      And, since we don't know how the fight started, we don't have the proof we'd need to convict Zimmerman. Simple.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    165. Re: He didn't "build" anything by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I believe that's the Florida law also. However, we don't know that he picked the fight. He certainly bears some moral responsibility, since nobody would have died if he'd just stayed in his truck like the police wanted him to, but that's not proof that he started the actual confrontation.

      I doubt there's a single state where you can start a fight, lose, and kill your opponent legally. That's just too big a loophole.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    166. Re: He didn't "build" anything by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If the thing had looked like a bomb, a lot of people in his school should be fired for gross endangerment. If I suspected something was a bomb, I wouldn't confiscate it and keep it in my desk while I continued on normally. He never claimed it was a bomb. Therefore, he not only didn't make a bomb, he didn't make a hoax bomb. Therefore, the authorities were definitely in the wrong.

      That his skin color and/or religion were related to the mistreatment is more speculation, but the mistreatment is clear.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    167. Re: He didn't "build" anything by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      No, that's how California, Florida, and many other states have it. If you fear for your life, you can end it with death, even if you started it. Now, convincing a jury is different of course. But that's the nice thing about Colorado law, it specifies that it is not 100% stand your ground. If you started it, then your actions would then be considered murder. And how did Zimmerman not start it? Would you let some creep follow you home to your family? I'd try to lose him, and eventually I'd have to try to get him to let me leave safely. If that meant hitting his head on the ground, I would do everything to not lead him to my home where my family was. Zimmerman clearly started it.

    168. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was most likely put up to it by his activist dad, particularly since he knew exactly what to say to the cops - he told them the truth, but in such a way that they would think he's lying. That's not something you know when you're 14.

      Yep. In fact, he had shown it to several teachers throughout the day. They were disinterested. So then he started trying to provoke them. He kept trying to get them excited by saying "Does this look like a bomb? Oh look look! Doesn't it look like a bomb?" He made such a deal of it and his last teacher thought his behavior so abnormal, she kicked the whole thing off after being provoked by 'little Ahmed.'

      It is his father behind it all.

    169. Re:He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if your claim is true and he did plan the whole thing as a publicity stunt, it only worked because he knew that if the school saw a brownish Muslim student with some electronics they'd go into full bomb-scare-panic, while a white Christian student with exactly the same device would have been ignored.

      Since you clearly don't live in the real world, you know, the one that has been made craven by the press over anything involving a bomb. (Make a bomb joke while waiting near TSA personnel at an airport. I dare you.) There would be the exact same reaction by the school. What there wouldn't be is the so-called Press leaping on it and making it an International Incident. ~

    170. Re: He didn't "build" anything by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Of course, I followed instructions.

      Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's where I went wrong.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    171. Re: He didn't "build" anything by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      And no witness can deny that it was George Zimmerman who set the stage for that. He chose to get out of his car. Only he knows what was in his head, if he truly sought out Martin or was stupid. Well, unless the CIA had a satellite watching I guess.

      That isn't even relevant.

    172. Re: He didn't "build" anything by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      That's the big difference in the laws in various states. What he did in Florida is legal in terms of self defense. However in Colorado it would get you in trouble. In CO, if you START a fight, you are then obliged to escape if you lose, not shoot to end what you started. He picked a fight with a kid, lost a fight, end ended it with the kid's death. In Florida that is legal.

      There isn't any evidence anywhere to suggest that he started a fight. Getting out of your car and following somebody isn't starting a fight. Especially when the 911 tapes and physical evidence suggest that Zimmerman returned to his car, and the girl he was speaking to on the phone (remember that fat girl who spoke really quietly on the witness stand) even testified that Martin wanted to turn around and confront Zimmerman instead of proceeding home.

    173. Re: He didn't "build" anything by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      Right. You would proceed home while some creep was following you? To your family? No way. No one who loves their family would lead some dude following me home to my family. That sort of thing is the start of a fight.

    174. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple: the concentration of melanin is correlated with criminality, as defined by witness reports or arrests or convictions. You can argue that is because discrimination causes criminality, or because criminality causes discrimination, but the correlation is there.

    175. Re: He didn't "build" anything by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Correct. Neither guilt nor innocence can be proven, and as the US criminal justice system includes a presumption of innocence, no conviction is possible. But people hate ambiguity, so they latch on to one of the to good stories that can be told. Either the story of the racist who, believing all black men to be criminals, pulled a gun in his paranoia and shot a youth who was just out to buy some snacks. Or the story of the thug who, when confronted by a concerned member of neighbourhood watch, immediately attacked and savagely beat him until he was able to exercise his second amendment right to defend himself. Both of those are good stories for people to tell each other and believe in, and they have more power than an admission that the true events are unknowable.

    176. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      I would argue that the one cause of the correlation is that different socio-economic groups commit different types of crime. So-called "white collar" criminals aren't arrested or convicted at anywhere near the rate that "blue collar" criminals are. Similarly, possessing powder cocaine doesn't attract anywhere near the same sentence as possessing crack cocaine does (weighted appropriately).

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    177. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And no witness can deny that it was George Zimmerman who set the stage for that. He chose to get out of his car. Only he knows what was in his head, if he truly sought out Martin or was stupid. Well, unless the CIA had a satellite watching I guess.

      That isn't even relevant.

      It is entirely relevant as understanding the chain of events lets us know what choices and actions were made that lead to the outcome, but I can guess why you want to avoid the subject.

      Because it makes George Zimmerman responsible. You are afraid of that, as it means he has to be accountable. That he has to say why he did what he did, and convince the rest of us that it was, if not right and proper, at least not criminal.

      So don't say it isn't relevant. You can't, and neither can George Zimmerman. He chose to get out of his car. He chose to stop going to the pharmacy, and instead took lead in the course of events that lead to a confrontation. He has to admit to that. He can't be indifferent to it. He can't let it go. He has to face up to it, and take ownership of it.

      Otherwise, he's simply going to be too dishonest to believe. So should you. Think about it. Why shouldn't you admit that George Zimmerman could have avoided killing another human being if he had only chosen otherwise? Why shouldn't you acknowledge that the prudent course of wisdom would have been for George Zimmerman to stay in his car? He should. He should know it, and say he would choose that now, with the benefit of hindsight. Then he can be given credit for learning from his conduct. If he can't, then he can't be trusted to not have chosen to get out with deliberate malice on his mind.

      It's the same with the Sanford police. They were far too hands-off with their approach. Which they blamed on the Florida Legislature, who convinced themselves it was so terrible that people who kill another person are seriously questioned, but they made the mistake of destroying people's confidence that such things will be thoroughly investigated. They tend to be dumb like that, causing more problems. Just look at how they handled the redistricting amendments that were passed by the people.

      But I digress, that's not too relevant to the immediate instance, though it is to the problems people have in Florida, and other places.

      In George Zimmerman's case though, his actions are relevant. Even the ones after the jury made their decision, because it's not like juries are never wrong. And I think George Zimmerman has made a very convincing demonstration of his character.

      Oh well, at least we can hope he faces true justice in the great beyond.

    178. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And no witness can deny that it was George Zimmerman who set the stage for that. He chose to get out of his car. Only he knows what was in his head, if he truly sought out Martin or was stupid. Well, unless the CIA had a satellite watching I guess.

      That isn't even relevant.

      Whups, sorry, messed up the quote tags somehow, my bad.

      It is entirely relevant as understanding the chain of events lets us know what choices and actions were made that lead to the outcome, but I can guess why you want to avoid the subject.

      Because it makes George Zimmerman responsible. You are afraid of that, as it means he has to be accountable. That he has to say why he did what he did, and convince the rest of us that it was, if not right and proper, at least not criminal.

      So don't say it isn't relevant. You can't, and neither can George Zimmerman. He chose to get out of his car. He chose to stop going to the pharmacy, and instead took lead in the course of events that lead to a confrontation. He has to admit to that. He can't be indifferent to it. He can't let it go. He has to face up to it, and take ownership of it.

      Otherwise, he's simply going to be too dishonest to believe. So should you. Think about it. Why shouldn't you admit that George Zimmerman could have avoided killing another human being if he had only chosen otherwise? Why shouldn't you acknowledge that the prudent course of wisdom would have been for George Zimmerman to stay in his car? He should. He should know it, and say he would choose that now, with the benefit of hindsight. Then he can be given credit for learning from his conduct. If he can't, then he can't be trusted to not have chosen to get out with deliberate malice on his mind.

      It's the same with the Sanford police. They were far too hands-off with their approach. Which they blamed on the Florida Legislature, who convinced themselves it was so terrible that people who kill another person are seriously questioned, but they made the mistake of destroying people's confidence that such things will be thoroughly investigated. They tend to be dumb like that, causing more problems. Just look at how they handled the redistricting amendments that were passed by the people.

      But I digress, that's not too relevant to the immediate instance, though it is to the problems people have in Florida, and other places.

      In George Zimmerman's case though, his actions are relevant. Even the ones after the jury made their decision, because it's not like juries are never wrong. And I think George Zimmerman has made a very convincing demonstration of his character.

      Oh well, at least we can hope he faces true justice in the great beyond.

      Anyway, to make this post a little less redundant:

      There isn't any evidence anywhere to suggest that he started a fight. Getting out of your car and following somebody isn't starting a fight. Especially when the 911 tapes and physical evidence suggest that Zimmerman returned to his car, and the girl he was speaking to on the phone (remember that fat girl who spoke really quietly on the witness stand) even testified that Martin wanted to turn around and confront Zimmerman instead of proceeding home.

      As I recall, the girl stated that she advised Martin to run home, but she couldn't say what Martin wanted, as she's not a mind reader anyway. At most, she'd be able to state what he said, and even then, it'd be subject to her own recall, not necessarily a direct record.

      However, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about returning to his vehicle. Martin was shot in an alleyway, making it doubtful that Zimmerman was back in his truck and this timeline doesn't indicate much time to return anyway.

      But Zimmerman certainly got out of his vehicle. If he hadn't, then nope, no confrontation would have been likely to happen. Zimmerman bears the

    179. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, since we don't know how the fight started, we don't have the proof we'd need to convict Zimmerman. Simple.

      Complex. There was no need for the public to worry about proving anything, Zimmerman has to admit he killed Trayvon Martin and then claim self-defense, an affirmative act, so he's really the one with a question of proof. Makes sense to force him to demonstrate his probity.

      The Sanford police were far too quick to believe his story, so instead of supporting him, they became the biggest hindrance to justice.

    180. Re: He didn't "build" anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct. Neither guilt nor innocence can be proven, and as the US criminal justice system includes a presumption of innocence, no conviction is possible.

      Not in this case, no. You see, George Zimmerman almost indisputably killed Trayvon Martin. Even the Sanford police would have had no problem proving that, especially since Zimmerman admitted it. It would take some extreme legal theatrics to come up with a story to the contrary.

      That meant George Zimmerman had to make an affirmative defense, to claim self-defense. Which is not necessarily presumed. Except apparently in places like Florida, where they got upset over a couple of people being investigated, let alone charged for it.

      This may not be a good thing. It certainly causes a lot of folks to be skeptical, and may have encouraged others, including the ex-cop in a movie theater.

      But people hate ambiguity, so they latch on to one of the to good stories that can be told. Either the story of the racist who, believing all black men to be criminals, pulled a gun in his paranoia and shot a youth who was just out to buy some snacks. Or the story of the thug who, when confronted by a concerned member of neighbourhood watch, immediately attacked and savagely beat him until he was able to exercise his second amendment right to defend himself. Both of those are good stories for people to tell each other and believe in, and they have more power than an admission that the true events are unknowable.

      Oh, there's more stories than that. Many more. For example, the story of the police who bent over backwards coming up with excuses and reasons not to investigate the case thoroughly. Or they believe that the circumstances here are so questionable that allowing it to pass only encourages worse action. Or they believe that Zimmerman is the victim here, who should be lauded for his service. Or that the evil outside political agenda forced the cops to prosecute the man. Because there is the story that persons who engage in self-defense are unfairly prosecuted, that was quite the narrative in Florida for a while. I believe it started when a man shot a teenage neighbor who was in the house for some reason, and it was just terrible that there was a trial.

      Or...well, there's a lot going on. What can be known is that George Zimmerman killed another human being, and didn't answer for it under oath, in front of a jury of his peers. Some of us don't think that is a good thing. Some of us wanted to hear that he understood his actions, their consequences, and took responsibility. That's why the chief of the Sanford police lost his job, even though he was bitter and portrayed himself as the victim, ultimately he lost the people's confidence. By his own actions and choices. And from what I've seen, he was never able to understand his own role in it. He never took responsibility for the most important part of his job. Being trusted to deliver justice.

      Now maybe some of that can be blamed on the Florida legislature, which bent over backwards to accommodate what they perceived as a problem, even convincing the police to behave contrary to the real wishes of the public (especially in this instance) but that's a little abstract for most people to understand. I can, however, hope that in the future, things change in that benighted state.

  2. sue everyone by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    everywhere

    1. Re:sue everyone by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

      And some people say that the Muslim population refuses to assimilate and adopt American ways of life. What could be more truly American than self-enrichment via litigation?

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  3. he'll get there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're a smart kid Ahmed. You'll figure it.

    1. Re: he'll get there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smart at tricking everyone into thinking he built something. He and his family are racial-bating con artists.

    2. Re: he'll get there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't trick everyone. Only those who rush to defend the muslim against everyone else even when, as is usually the case, the muslim is lying.

  4. (TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (c) What's with all the (TM) (R)?? (U) (K)

    1. Re:(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (tm) Slash is all lawyer-ed up!!! (C) (R)

      (c) Slashdot. All rights are reserved (TM) (R) and Kosher for passover (U)

    2. Re:(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a shitty job of copy-paste without proofreading.

    3. Re:(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least it's a better job at editing than Clockboys job at inventing.

  5. The excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    He could have invented something new by now. But he hasn't. Because he's not an inventor.

  6. Probably not by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Informative

    By now he could have invented something new

    Probably not.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Probably not by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Only if by invent you mean take something out of one case and put it into another one.

    2. Re:Probably not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      By now he could have invented something new

      Probably not.

      That is correct. Both Apple and Samsung has been awarded patents on "inventing something new" and are currently suing anyone with a semi-original thought.

    3. Re:Probably not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Probably not.

      Certainly not. The only reason this boy enjoyed any fame at all is because he simultaneously satisfied several fetishes of the American Left. He was a minority child from a Muslim family who appeared to be interested in a technical or scientific subject. An electronic clock is not the sort of thing that will get you the blue ribbon at your state science fair, but that didn't matter to the politicos. Here was a politically correct family to use as a prop and they took full advantage, although arguably the family tried to take advantage too. Like so many things on the Left it's the appearance, not the merit or lack thereof that matters.

    4. Re:Probably not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll all be in for a shock when they realize that thinking whatsoever violates at least 7 Google patents.

    5. Re:Probably not by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How about stop the initial overreaction in the first place and stop defending the initial overreaction?

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    6. Re:Probably not by erapert · · Score: 1

      +5 Laconically insightful.

    7. Re:Probably not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if by invent you mean take something out of one case and put it into another one.

      That might make it GNU, though.

    8. Re:Probably not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about if his homemade clock had some C4 in it and the school blew up? Is it up to an English teacher to make that call, you purposely disingenuous prick?

    9. Re:Probably not by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      An English teacher did make that call, and obviously decided it wasn't dangerous. If it's clear to an English teacher that something is not a bomb, why investigate as if it were?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  7. i took a dump on a lizard's head before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and he sculpted it into a top hat and gave me a quick nod before disappearing into the dust.

  8. So taking the case off of a clock is being an... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    inventor now? Sad to see the Republicans lower the bar. No thinking person thought this moron was legitimate.

  9. Re: So taking the case off of a clock is being an. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Republicans were stupid enough to believe he did something.

  10. Self-SWATed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clear case of self-SWATing, set up in an already ready made 'you ain't from around here, is you boy?' environment. No different than walking into school with a bagie of oregano or baby powder and being surprised when that gets a kid in trouble.

    Amazing that he scammed so many with the 'he built' including /. Wapo I forgive not understanding. But not /. editors who didn't even write TFA title with quotes like "built." So much for news for *nerds.* Does that mean my kid can take the old motherboard out of my 10 year old pc and claim he "built" a computer?

    1. Re: Self-SWATed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well when I was a kid my parents got to bring home a bunch of not working computers from work. Some old P133 & 166 MHz PCs. I took them apart a put together 2 working computers for us. I said I out them together, everyone else said I built them. Really it's a meaningless distinction when talking about PCs. It's not like they were hand built in the first place.

    2. Re: Self-SWATed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well reading you two respond to one another (first the initial comment, and then the response) was just about like looking away from a pot of boiling water to see a slowly born retard absent mindedly drool molasses onto some drying paint that fell on a patch of growing grass, where it was dropped from a brush held by a tree sloth that was escaping from the scene where it stole the paintbrush from the crumbling hand of a statue of a puppet of a cactus, after it was left there by a formerly comatose painter about to have a stroke.

  11. Should be put on a no fly list... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Including the entire family for the stunt they pulled. Any electronics hobbyist knows that pile of shit he claims to have built was a gutted clock.

    1. Re:Should be put on a no fly list... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What was the stunt? Taking a non-bomb to school and waiting for the over-reaction from ignorant police? Seems the fix should be applied to the ignorant cops, not the child that taunted them. If the cops were competent, this would never have made the news. It would have been handled in a manner that didn't make a national event out of a clock.

    2. Re:Should be put on a no fly list... by troll+-1 · · Score: 1

      It seems like the device he took to school basically looked like a bomb timer.

    3. Re:Should be put on a no fly list... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      When you are looking for a bomb timer, everything looks like one. Even if deliberately designed to look like a bomb timer, when the police got there and determined that it wasn't, they should have left and told the school it was an administrative matter, not a criminal one. Then this whole thing would never have happened.

      The police seem to only ever escalate a situation to an absurd level, and don't strive to diffuse the situation. That's the problem. Not the child that is implied here, was manipulated by his father into taking a "bomb" to school.

    4. Re:Should be put on a no fly list... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the response of the police was way out of line for a bomb situation, and if my kid went to that school, I would sue them out of existence for endangering the entire school.

      Basically, the moved it around, stored it inside the facility, proceeded to perform zero evacuations. All for a suspected bomb.

      So, the problem with the school's "its a bomb" defense is the part where they failed to take any precautions. Hell, around here, all it takes is a random facebook post to close the schools down.

    5. Re:Should be put on a no fly list... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I take it you're in favor of firing all the faculty and administration officials involved, then, for keeping children in the same building (heck, the same classroom) as a probable bomb.

      Either it looked like a bomb, and the school officials acted extremely foolishly, or it didn't, and the school officials acted extremely badly. Pick one.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    6. Re:Should be put on a no fly list... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Taking a non-bomb to school and waiting for the over-reaction from ignorant police?

      No, he made a really crappy bomb hoax, and got punished for it. No one believed it was a bomb. They believed Ahmed wanted them to believe it was a bomb.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  12. /. to blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would have cured cancer if not for useless stories like this one. The guy below would have invented a flying car, but thanks to Mohamed's marketing bullshit he didn't.

  13. Why was this posted on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is this garbage article on Slashdot. This is something I would expect from CNN.

    1. Re:Why was this posted on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This all about the right to tinker.

      Turn in y--nevermind, you never had a geek card, obviously.

  14. Liberal? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 0

    Yes, he took apart an alarm clock, made it look like a Hollywood bomb, and claimed he "invented" it. He is a liar, a swindler, and a piece of shit human. He tried to play the media with his pity party. Then he left the country. Good riddance! But someone left the door open and the vermin got back in again.

    I'll bet you're a liberal.

    Am I right?

    1. Re: Liberal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Only the mentally inept pigeonhole people in such a way.

    2. Re:Liberal? by cpotoso · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And I bet you are a moron.

    3. Re: Liberal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to pigeon-hole the mentally inept!

      +1 for the hypocrisy.

    4. Re:Liberal? by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      It's spelled "Mormon".

  15. Re:So taking the case off of a clock is being an.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah ... that republican president that invited him to the Whitehouse and use taxpayer money to pay for the trip.

    How evil of them.

  16. Re: So taking the case off of a clock is being an by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The kid probably is a genius compaired to most repulatards.

  17. Lots of flack for being called an "inventor"... by mark-t · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ... but if you build something that didn't have any instructions, such as a Lego MOC, I would argue that this still loosely meets the necessary criteria for being called an invention.

    While repackaging a digital clock may not appear to take much in the way of technical skill to the minds of most of the highly technologically literate folks here at slashdot, truthfully even that is still something that most people would not necessarily think of ever trying to build, or at least not without following some instructions. However small the creative spark might seem here, I'd say that the term invention is still apt.

    1. Re:Lots of flack for being called an "inventor"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Any moron could remove the case screws, remove the circuit board assembly, and throw it in a suitcase still working. There is no skill needed except knowing the "righty tighty, lefty loosey" rule for the screwdriver. There was nothing to solder. It's not an invention in any way, shape, or form. I was building simple circuits with individual components in Jr High, Clockboy is a joke on everyone he fooled or fell for it.

    2. Re:Lots of flack for being called an "inventor"... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While repackaging a digital clock may not appear to take much in the way of technical skill to the minds of most of the highly technologically literate folks here at slashdot, truthfully even that is still something that most people would not necessarily think of ever trying to build, or at least not without following some instructions.

      Yep, most people would not think to repackage a clock because it ALREADY CAME IN A PERFECTLY GOOD CASE. There is no invention here, unless you want to claim that choosing to paint your room a different color, or changing the screen door on your home is invention.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    3. Re:Lots of flack for being called an "inventor"... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      It's not about skill, it's about the creative drive to do it in the first place, and without following any given directions to achieve the desired ends.

    4. Re:Lots of flack for being called an "inventor"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a far more creative drive when I took a shit this morning. A real work of art that was, and amazingly less full of shit than the stuff you are typing.

    5. Re:Lots of flack for being called an "inventor"... by Alypius · · Score: 1

      I actually feel sorry for little Clockmed, who was likely acting at the behest of his father. I mean, my friends and I were little terrorists too, back in the late 80's, but we didn't have legal coaching before blowing up gopher holes with misused rocket engines. Ahem.

    6. Re:Lots of flack for being called an "inventor"... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I would compare it more to taking a LEGO model of car with a working transmission that came as a set, taking the car apart and transplanting the transmission into a LEGO frame that you built yourself that shows off the transmission more visibly than the car does. While there's no creativity on the part of building the transmission, it's still a MOC. I dare say there's no small number of AFOL's that would disagree that MOC's are not inventions.

    7. Re:Lots of flack for being called an "inventor"... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Remember that fashion many years ago for electronics with transparent or near-transparent casing? Some people like the workings to be visible.

      It was a bit of a sloppy job - no proper mounting for one of the circuit boards - but he was only 14 at the time, so I wouldn't expect him to have a lot of experience.

    8. Re:Lots of flack for being called an "inventor"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. We haven't seen the original case, so we don't know whether it was still any good.
      2. He might have thought it was cool to repackage the clock to show the inner parts.
      3. He might have scrounged good parts from non-working clocks.

    9. Re:Lots of flack for being called an "inventor"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Green is not a creative Color.

    10. Re:Lots of flack for being called an "inventor"... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Everyone shits. Not everyone builds stuff. Although he simply took a working digital clock and put its electronics in another housing to give it a more homebrew look, he did not do so by virtue of following any premade instructions. He figured out his own path to the desired ends, and was apparently spurred only by the desire to build something, even if that thing was not built from scratch. This is *exactly* the same thing that Lego builders experience when they are building something that they have envisioned in their own heads, even though it may be built upon other things that they have already seen, or possibly ripped out of otherwise complete models, and since MOC Lego creations can be called inventions, this clock could also be. That the end result is not technically anything better than the clock that he started out with does not change that.

    11. Re:Lots of flack for being called an "inventor"... by dywolf · · Score: 1

      that's because most people don't care to learn how it works.

      but most people aren't nerds, who often learn best by reverse engineering things.

      by taking them apart and putting them back together again.
      by fiddling with a connection here or there and seeing what happens.

      seriously, this is f'ing /., and instead of a bunch of nerds understanding what the process is or was, we get a constant stream of racist crap trying to tear down the kid. y'all can f right off.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    12. Re:Lots of flack for being called an "inventor"... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Is that worthy of "invention" though? I taking something apart, then putting it into a different (larger) case "invention"? I guess when rounded corners count as unique for a patent, then putting a new case on a clock can be considered an invention...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  18. Re: So taking the case off of a clock is being an by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Republicans are so stupid.

    I hate Republicans.

    Republicans are so stupid.

  19. He did not invent anything. by Primate1 · · Score: 1

    I can not believe you are all still perpetuating this ridiculous story. He didn't invent anything. He took apart a digital clock from Radio Shack and stuck it into a box. At best he took a normal alarm clock and turned it into a count down timer. You can give him credit for wanting to learn how digital timing circuits work, or how to hack a R/S clock for "other purposes", but you can not say he invented anything. Get real here, did I invent a Computer because I took some hardware and Linux and made a desktop system? Please stop trying to spin this story you are embarrassing yourselves. (I guess it's a slow news day)

  20. Invented? by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Honestly, This is how bad it has become in the USA? This is considered invented?

    That means the kids that actually learn Arduino programming and make sumo bots are Fucking Alien Technomancer Magicians!

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Invented? by newcastlejon · · Score: 4, Funny

      That means the kids that actually learn Arduino programming and make sumo bots are Fucking Alien Technomancer Magicians!

      You say that as if it were a bad thing.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    2. Re:Invented? by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      It's all about the narrative. If they admit he didn't do shit worth talking about then they'd have to admit that half of the narrative was a lie.

    3. Re:Invented? by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 3, Funny

      That means the kids that actually learn Arduino programming and make sumo bots are Fucking Alien Technomancer Magicians!

      You say that as if it were a bad thing.

      His statement is also flawed, he said "Fucking Alien Technomancer Magicians". It stands to reason that any Alien Technomancer Magician who came to visit earth, being essentially an alien nerd, would naturally become a member of the biggest gathering of nerds on the planet earth, i.e.Slashdot and if this Alien Technomancer Magician didn't pass the rigorous admission process all members Slashdot must undergo he would really be a fraud, not a real nerd and certainly not a 'Techno Mancer'. Since it is a well know fact that no Slashdot member, like all nerds throughout the universe, has any kind of a sex life that involves partner these Fucking Alien Technomancer Magicians Lumpy speaks of cannot possibly exist. Now some of you might be tempted to ask: "But what if the species the Alien Technomancer Magician belongs to is asexual?". Asexual species don't really 'fuck' themselves to reproduce since that would involve a partner and an exchange of DNA but they do snog and exchange DNA so even if you define that as 'fucking', this hypothetical Fucking Alien Technomancer Magician would still need a partner which means he could never attain the title Technomancer Magician because in order to attain that title you must be a nerd and as was previously mentioned, it is a well known fact that nowhere in the universe do nerds have sex with partners. Thus it is quite clear that the titles 'fucker" and 'Technomancer Magician" are mutually exclusive.

  21. Very mature thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congratulations on your levelheaded approach to this situation, kid. You're showing a lot more maturity than a lot of people.

  22. Not a liberal by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    For background, answer these two questions with yes or no:

    Q1: Can you think of an example of a poisonous snake?

    Q2: Can you think of an example of a venomous snake?

    Reading these two lines, many people have sudden insight that the words have different meanings. They 'kinda knew, but hadn't realized it yet. They may have read "poisonous" and "venomous" many times and not made the connection, simply because the words are so close in meaning. We almost never bother to look up the definitions, preferring to get the meanings from context.

    In the same way, "invent" and "build" have closely related meanings, and it's entirely reasonable for a 14 year-old kid to say he "invented" something when he just takes some parts and puts them together. It's not an "original" invention, but the kid came up with an idea and built it.

    It's perfectly reasonable for him to say he "invented" it.

    It's also perfectly reasonable for the teacher to tell him to put it away, and perfectly reasonable for him to disobey at age 14, in class because as we all know school classes are BORING.

    I'm really not getting all the hatred aimed at the kid here. People are measuring him with the ruler of adulthood, requiring his idea to be original and useful to be termed "invented", to be conversant with what's right and reasonable as an adult, and when he doesn't measure up he's completely villified.

    I seriously don't get the rationale here.

    But then, I'm not a liberal.

    And I bet you are a moron.

    You'd lose that bet.

    Do you even know what a moron is?

    1. Re:Not a liberal by Ramze · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A 14 year old knows the difference between building and inventing. Ask any 14 year old who invented the telephone, the car, or the cotton gin. They may not know the correct answers, but they know the meaning. Then, ask them who currently manufactures cars and telephones. Very different answers.

      Your argument would work for a 5 year old, but not a 14 year old. Many 14 year olds are freshmen in high school and should have learned the difference between building and inventing back in elementary school.

      He didn't even make the clock -- he removed it from its housing and placed it into another housing. He made a box for a clock... one he stated he specifically chose to disguise what it was.

      No sane person would believe his story that he invented a clock and wanted to show it off to his teacher at school -- no, he pulled a clock out of its housing, hid it inside another housing on purpose to disguise it, and then showed it to kids knowing they'd think it could be a bomb. 14 year olds aren't innocent 'lil ignorant angels that don't know what words mean. They have sex, do drugs, lie their asses off to their parents and elders, sneak out of their houses at night, and yes -- make fake bombs for attention. Not ALL of them, obviously, but yeah... he's 2 years shy of driving and holding down a part-time job in most states, not a baby to be coddled and forgiven for doing something he damned well knew was stupid and made up lies to cover it up.

    2. Re:Not a liberal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's obvious he did it for a publicity stunt. He wasn't inventing something new for a publicity stunt - he was building something for his publicity stunt.

    3. Re:Not a liberal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for your comment.

    4. Re: Not a liberal by skywire · · Score: 1

      Given that he didn't even build a clock, the discussion of the relation of "build" and "invent" is a waste of words.

      --
      Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    5. Re:Not a liberal by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Moron

      venomous
      venms/
      adjective
      adjective: venomous

              (of animals, especially snakes, or their parts) secreting venom; capable of injecting venom by means of a bite or sting.
              synonyms: poisonous, toxic; More

    6. Re:Not a liberal by argumentsockpuppet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wouldn't have put it that way, but you have a valid point. This is a kid who didn't do anything actually dangerous and was taken from a school in handcuffs. It was made worse because it's apparent it wouldn't haven't have happened if his skin had been light enough.

      There seem to be a lot of comments talking about the will or intent of the kid, but honestly it shouldn't matter. We put our children in a government mandated situation where we have to trust the institution with rights otherwise reserved to parent. We expect, and have every right to expect, the institution to handle discipline with consistency and good judgement. It's absolutely justified that we should react with outrage when they fail to do it in such a spectacular fashion. Don't forget this kid was pressured by authorities to sign something admitting to something he didn't do without parental or legal defense.

      I don't care what the kid did, kids do stupid stuff sometimes. I don't care what his parents did because having stupid parents shouldn't be an excuse to abuse kids. What I do care about is how the authorities put in charge of our children behave and in this case it was objectively terrible.

      That's going to happen. Kids are going to do stupid stuff. Parents are going to do stupid stuff. Authorities are going to react badly. You can't and shouldn't expect to be able to prevent every kid from ever doing something stupid. You can only do so much to prevent parents from being stupid. What we can and must do is prevent authorities from doing stupid stuff, particularly those who are given the authority of force.

    7. Re:Not a liberal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask any 14 year old who invented the telephone, the car, or the cotton gin. They may not know the correct answers, but they know the meaning. Then, ask them who currently manufactures cars and telephones. Very different answers.

      So... okay, who did invent the car? Yea, you picked a bad example there. There is no one name, since many people were working on the issues involved. And rolling down the street is not like flying an airplane, where we can point to specific moments where everything changed.

      If you had to give an answer, you might say Benz... who's name is still part of a major company that makes cars that everyone knows.

    8. Re:Not a liberal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read your dictionary before you write something stupid and nonsensical again.

    9. Re:Not a liberal by tommeke100 · · Score: 1

      That's only partially true. At 14 you try to experiment with things not knowing the full impact of your actions. I took apart many electronic devices when I was that age and I didn't know what I was doing. Youtube is full of clips of kids trying to sound like hackers and where they just learned about ping or traceroute and are explaining it as if that would magically hack a website.

    10. Re:Not a liberal by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      A 14 year old knows the difference between building and inventing.

      Ah-HA! I found the clone who raised in an acceleration vat. You were obviously never 14.

      Even into their mid-20s, you can't expect people to have good vocabulary; even people with degrees! Even nerds will have shocking gaps.

      Even me. In elementary school my nickname was "dictionary" because I was always quoting the thing. I was certainly the only kid in my class who, over their whole childhood, frequently read the dictionary. Certainly the only person who would take the time and care to attempt to correct the poor vocabulary of my peers. It never dissuaded me, I always just assumed they eventually figure it out and prefer to use the words correctly so people could understand them.

      And you're such a bright guy, you don't believe it is even possible for them to continue misusing words! You should hear the idiotic things adults in their 30s with letters by their names say.

    11. Re: Not a liberal by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      The funny part about the people trying to get hyper-technical about the vocabulary is how many mistakes they make, mistakes that according to their argument must be willful.

      So I say that when you mistakenly forget that the case is part of the clock, and a part of it that has to be built to exist, you didn't just make a mistake. You intentionally misused the word to manufacture outrage. Shame on you!

    12. Re:Not a liberal by sjames · · Score: 1

      And as an adult, you should know that you reversed the problem in the first paragraph by supplying the correct usage within the question. You should further realize that most adults who frequently use the wrong word will also get it right when you do that for them.

      Ask someone who confuses venomous and poisonous if that rattlesnake is venomous and SURPRISE, they'll say yes. Ask them if the roach tablets are poisonous and SURPRISE! two for two.

      It's funny you condemn the 14 year old for every possible mental slip and failure to behave as an adult but forgive the cops and school officials (actual adults) for assuming the worst based on a clearly screwed up Hollywood image of what a bomb looks like, complete with the rules like "All bombs have a digital readout to tell the hero exactly how long he has to defuse the bomb", "The digital readout never lies", and you have to guess the correct wire to cut so the timer will stop but if you cut the wrong wire, the timer will fast forward to zero before the bomb can actually explode.

  23. Came here expecting racism and nerd elitism agains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was not disappointed

  24. Blowing it out of proportion. by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    So you mean the Internet has reacted in such a way that has blown his ordeal out of proportion and is now affecting his life far beyond what it should have because a bunch of assholes are over reacting ...

    I'm pretty sure thats exactly what started this whole mess ...

    Drop the damn subject and let the kid be, its over. It was a shitty mess and stupid on all those assholes at the school/police involved ... but within 6 months of being at a new school, without the Internet, his life would have been normal, even if that school was just on the other side of town. I'm not saying that it makes any of what happened to him OK ... but it would have been better for his life as a whole if thats what would have happened. 100% the publicity has done nothing actually useful for him other than turn him into a political puppet for the gain of someone else.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:Blowing it out of proportion. by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that he got a TON of free stuff from Microsoft. Even if you hate Microsoft he could easily sell that for thousands. I think he came out of this in pretty damn good shape personally.

    2. Re:Blowing it out of proportion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's bitztream, the autism-hating Slashdot troll!

  25. Life without Internet by no-body · · Score: 1

    wasn't it simpler in some aspects?

    Can't get the genie back in the bottle, have to find some solemn place in the mountains - or something like that.
    Will it work?

  26. Hell of a soldering job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I first saw the circuit board, I was very impressed. The soldering job was quite good for an adult. It would be amazing for a mere 14 year old to pull off a soldering job of that caliber....

    The circuit board coming from a commercial clock is much more realistic. A person smart enough to come up with a circuit for a board that big would be more intelligent than to call it merely an 'invention'.

    1. Re:Hell of a soldering job by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      When I first saw the circuit board, I was very impressed. The soldering job was quite good for an adult. It would be amazing for a mere 14 year old to pull off a soldering job of that caliber....

      The circuit board coming from a commercial clock is much more realistic. A person smart enough to come up with a circuit for a board that big would be more intelligent than to call it merely an 'invention'.

      Or Steve Jobs.

  27. So what? by skam240 · · Score: 0

    So what if he did or did not invent anything. So what if what he made was not inventive at all. So what if his parents pushed him to create the confrontation.

    The fact is the kid brought a clock to school and was arrested for it. I've seen pictures of the "device". I literally have no background in tinkering with electronics and I can tell it isn't a bomb.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    1. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what if he did or did not invent anything. So what if what he made was not inventive at all. So what if his parents pushed him to create the confrontation.

      Yeah, facts are pesky things. Let's just ignore them and focus on this other thing...

    2. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but *HOW* can you tell it isn't a bomb

      you can't say, because you don't know, because you don't even understand what the fuck you're saying. you're just rambling incoherently to maintain one small point of a widespread political manifesto in a distributed fashion. you're such a minute instrument in the political machine you're working for that you don't even have any comprehension of that political machine as a whole, how it manipulates your mind and your life, or what is purposes or plans are for you in particular.

      how your opinion somehow -- without any logical premises and without any verbal qualifications at all -- magically trumps the observations and the criticisms of everyone else around who is *NOT* part of that same political machine, is a mystery left for *you* to explain to the rest of us. meanwhile, the rest of us aren't by any means under any circumstances required to believe in your horse-shit. just keep that in mind.

    3. Re:So what? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      the only thing distinguishing it from a bomb is 10 seconds, and igniter, and a charge. wire the speaker to an igniter and place the charge inside the bomb casing that he had already built, now he has a time bomb

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    4. Re:So what? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      What you point out in saying what you are is that it's missing all the parts that make it a bomb and not a clock which is exactly my point.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    5. Re:So what? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In which case the teachers and administration at the school should be fired for keeping children in the same building as a possible bomb.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  28. Atomic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Online Fame Distracts 9th-Grader Who Built That Clock Mistaken For A Bomb

    For a second there, I misread "A Bomb" as "A-Bomb".

  29. My invention is my own and it is as follows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was just the other day, I took Velveta and white bread and mayonaise and a plastic baggie. And what did I get for all that? Nothing! No glory, no trips to anywhere.

    Of course, I started with a cheese sandwich and disassembled it and then re-assembled it into an entirely different cheese sandwich. But the point is...

    I probably won't even get credit for it.

    1. Re:My invention is my own and it is as follows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at that! See, I told you, score of zero. Might as well have invented a peanut butter sandwich. One that explodes. That would show 'em.

    2. Re:My invention is my own and it is as follows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I invented this post, too. Not that anyone cares.

      <blink>12:00</blink>

  30. Another PC PR scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The kid invented nothing, but was useful to the Obama administration as a prop to make the point that Americans are islamophobes and/or racists, and that muslims and muslim immigration are good. THAT is why the kid was invited to NASA and the White House having done nothing more than a huge number of other kids could have easily done and may have indeed actually done in total obscurity. This kid's sister had previously taken the role of "victim" and his father apparently had ties to muslim Brotherhood groups and a would-be Muslim African leader guilty of numerous human rights violations against non-Muslims.

    This is not that different from the Khan family scam.

    Captain Khan apparently served his nation with honor and died in service, but we have no idea how many views he shared with his parents. For all we know, the late Captain Khan was indeed a moderate Muslim who loved this country and its Constitution, his dad however appears to be very different. The elder Khan took to the stage at the DNC convention as an apparently mourning father of a Muslim hero and delved into partisan politics at the highest level blasting Trump, waving a pocket Constitution as though he believed in it. This was of great benefit to team Clinton, but there are problems: Mr Khan does not himself believe in the Constitution; he has written extensively about Sharia law, which he holds is superior to all man-made laws (that includes the Constitution). Mr Khan has been employed as a lawyer working for Mrs Clinton's lawyers, and has more-recently been earning his living helping Muslims immigrate into the US (something Mr Trump's proposed temporary halt would severely impact). Mr Khan and the Clinton campaign team then assert that any questioning of Mr and Mrs Khan is some very vile form of racism/islamophobia, as though this pair are uniquely unquestionable in all of American politics and culture. We are told that the Khans are free to go on every news channel attacking people, and nobody is allowed to challenge them or even defend against them as though they are innocent victims who did not ask to be in the arena.

  31. Idiots. by Uberbah · · Score: 0

    He took a click out of its casing and took it to school at the suggestion of his father, hoping to start a racial incident. They succeeded.

    If there was the slightest hint of a possibility of a chance that the kid did this on purpose, the school district and the police department would have been the first ones to go public with that information, so they wouldn't look as pathetically stupid as a right winger on Slashdot pushing a baseless conspiracy theory.

    1. Re:Idiots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The school district legally can't go public with the information about the case because the kid is a minor. What information we have is from the family, and is heavily biased in their favor. If the family truly believed they were in the right, they would authorize the school to release all of the facts. That they refuse to do so tells you all you need to know.

  32. plotted the arrest by frovingslosh · · Score: 0

    saying his family was obsessed with fame and plotted the arrest.

    How dare you suggest that the President of the United States could be so ignorant and gullible and stupid and condescending to the law enforcement people who objected to something made to look like a bomb and built into a suitcase that he would actually invite a Muslim who did this into the White House?

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:plotted the arrest by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      It wasn't made to look like a bomb. At most, it was made to look like an idiot's conception of a bomb: A circuit board with scary glowing red clock display. Anyone who actually gave it three seconds of thought would realise that it's missing any form of explosive. Even the school officials knew it wasn't a bomb, because if they had thought it was a bomb they would have immediately confiscated the device, physically kept him away from it, evacuated the building and called in the bomb disposal experts. This is not what they did: A teacher confiscated the device, he was sent before the principle, and local law enforcement were summoned to question him. They then arrested him for instigating a bomb scare. At no point in the process did any individual actually believe the device to be a bomb. Everyone involved was just concerned that someone else might think it could be a bomb.

  33. correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Online Fame Distracts 9th-Grader Who Built Fake Bomb That Was Mistaken For A Clock

  34. Well sure he could have by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    If "invented" means what he did with his original thing which was "stuffed some over the counter parts in a box". I "invented" lots of shit like that as a kid. Turns out tearing apart electronics is not only fun, but pretty easy. ...

    However it is also not inventing and nothing this kid has done is worthy of news or praise.

    1. Re:Well sure he could have by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      He was only 14 at the time. He has the interest, he just hadn't had time to refine the skills. If this whole incident hadn't gotten out of hand he'd probably be playing with arduinos by now and building little gadgets around the house like most hobbyists.

  35. He's learning... by freeze128 · · Score: 2

    Over the last year Ahmed's read everything that appeared online about him, but never responds because he doesn't want to give in to anger.

    Welcome to the internet. It's full of stuff that is intended to make you angry. Most kids don't learn this until they're much older.

    1. Re:He's learning... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Embrace the anger. The anger lets you survive.

  36. /. needs 'mod article down' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Something like I can spend all my points to mod down a BS article like this one. If, I dunno, 3 others also go all in to mod down, the article is removed.

    Tho moding down one like this would take away all the double fun arguing BOTH the 'not an invention' and the 'did it to get self-SWATed' sided.

  37. ss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/08/06/2033248/online-fame-distracts-9th-grader-who-built-that-clock-mistaken-for-a-bomb#comments

  38. More sickening Jewish BOLSHEVIK propaganda... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's what really happened:

    http://www.allenbwest.com/michele/boo-hoo-homesick-clock-boy-makes-shocking-confession

    And there are numerous other websites that reveal the truth about this evil, shitty little muslim. What's the Jew to do? Their 'cattle' have the ability to publish information (i.e. the TRUTH) faster than the Jews can.

    1. Re: More sickening Jewish BOLSHEVIK propaganda... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I'm sure the Jews are super duper eager to defend the son of a Muslim activist.

  39. He was an evil little jihadist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why didn't you bother spending five minutes finding out what actually happened?

    http://universalfreepress.com/2015/9-facts-that-prove-clock-boy-ahmed-was-an-elaborate-hoax-created-by-obama-administration/

    1. Re:He was an evil little jihadist by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      That link doesn't work, and also come on just reading the title makes me vomit in my mouth a little.

  40. no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Enough BS about a kid with wires, and the crazy press and educational system!
    Just. Stop.

  41. Leave the damned kid alone, go after the father by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ahmed is a genuine nerd, just as I was at his age. When I assembled and installed alarm systems from salvaged alarm parts I stated clearly and honestly that I had "built" them. To an electronics beginner even taking something apart and re-presenting it in a novel way gives great satisfaction. There is nothing fake-ass about any of it. It saddens me to read all these arbitrarily constructed harsh judgements here, which NONE of you would ever apply to your OWN children. At that age you have to compare the desire to handle and understand electronics to the act of doing nothing at all, watching television, or tunelessly strumming a guitar imagining you're a few songs away from screaming fame.

    The totality of the response by the school was a surprise to the boy... who may have been aware that his project might stir some suspicion but the boy also honestly believed he could 'diffuse' such concerns with the power of his own words, and the simple fact that the truth was on his side. It was a small thing, and (maybe) fun to give a little push back to any alarm. The fact that his science teacher had seen and approved of the project underscores this.

    Ahmed's father was another story. There was certainly a gleam in his eye as he participated in the project, knowing of the unique social forces and ugly escalating institutional response that was possible. Ahmed needs to come to the firm conclusion that his own father is an asshole. Please do not judge the kid for his father being an asshole.

    If his father has not apologized to him at least privately, his father is a flaming asshole.
    And some of the responses in this thread indicate the presence of flaming assholes as well.

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
    1. Re:Leave the damned kid alone, go after the father by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This post is clearly well thought out and right in the middle ground between oppositely polarized and politicized viewpoints. No soup for you!

    2. Re:Leave the damned kid alone, go after the father by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      It saddens me to read all these arbitrarily constructed harsh judgements here, which NONE of you would ever apply to your OWN children.

      Quite. I get the impression from some people that unless he had a full set of ISO9001/2008 process, complete with engineering change notices, quality managed soucing of all circuit board mounts and an up to date revision history signed in duplicate, they'd piss on him for not being a "proper engineer".

      at 14.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:Leave the damned kid alone, go after the father by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they just want to divert their own attention from the uncomfortable facts the story reveal.

  42. He and his family took the money and ran... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and then took more money from Islamic governments.

    There was nothing stopping him from inventing while reaping benefits elsewhere.

  43. The bottom line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone that believes Clockboy invented something is an idiot. The ones that know better are the only hope for humanity.

  44. Re:I'm glad most posters here weren't fooled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes because as we all know, the defining feature of an explosive is.. the presence of wires? WTF, morons? I guess we're all fucked if ACTUAL bomb-makers start using PCBs (aka printed wiring boards).

  45. They never responded as if it were a bomb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The boy and his family have constantly implied, without outright stating, that the authorities mistook the device for a bomb, and it's extremely dishonest.

    He was always in trouble only for having brought a device designed to look like a bomb, with the intent of provoking a panic. He was dealt with in a very reasonable manner. There was no overreaction. It's entirely appropriate to involve the police, to impress upon the teen the seriousness of such actions, especially after he refused to own up to his misbehavior, and kept responding to challenges like, "You made this to look like a bomb, didn't you?" with non-responses like, "It's a clock!" Yes, anyone could see it's a clock. No, that doesn't address that it was modified to look like a stereotypical movie bomb.

    This family had him provoke a reasonable reaction, and had a whole media campaign prepared to distort what happened and make him out to be a victim.

    1. Re:They never responded as if it were a bomb. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So, if the school only called the cops to make it seem like an important matter, why did the police arrest him? If it was so obviously a hoax designed to gain attention, why did the authorities indulge him?

    2. Re: They never responded as if it were a bomb. by KenHansen · · Score: 1

      why did the police arrest him?

      He wasn't arrested' he was taken in for questioning, since he refused to answer questions at school. There isn't one action that Ahmed did that morning that was intended to resolve the issue, at every opportunity he choose to act in a manner that made his situation worse.

      Would it surprise you to learn that Ahmed was in a program at MacArthur High School intended to help at-risk students get a chance at going to college? He wasn't gifted, he was a borderline student that needed help to get ready for college.

    3. Re: They never responded as if it were a bomb. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      He wasn't arrested'

      He was taken away in handcuffs, fingerprinted, and put in a cell. He was never charged, but he was arrested.

      he refused to answer questions at school.

      He asked for his parents to be present, and didn't sign the confession to a crime he was given to sign. That's being uncooperative. Even though the school and police were violating his rights.

      Would it surprise you to learn that Ahmed was in a program at MacArthur High School

      I know two ex-principals of that school and am much more familiar with it than you are. The background of this has nothing to do with how poorly the school and police handled it.

  46. FTFY by KenHansen · · Score: 1

    a clock that only took him a few minutes to put together from parts in his family's garage

    "a clock that only took him a few minutes to put together from parts inside a Radio Shack Clock " Fixed That For You.

  47. Riiiigggghhhhttttt by KenHansen · · Score: 2

    Ahmed Mohamed, the 14-year-old boy whose home-made clock got him arrested after school officials and the local police mistook it for a bomb last summer.

    Right - so convinced were the teachers and school administrators and police that:

    The teacher picked up the bomb and walked with it to the office,

    The administrators stood around the bomb and never evacuated the building,

    The police never sent the bomb squad to the school,

    just like happens everytime a suspected bomb is found in a school building.

    Ahmed was arrested because he refused to answer any questions about either his 'invention' or his intentions until the police took him in to custody.

    BTW, it's kind of interesting to note we're what, a year out and STILL the Dept. of Justice is still 'investigating' this case... What's the hold-up? They are only investigating an event that transpired over the course of 4 or 6 hours - how long can it take?

    1. Re:Riiiigggghhhhttttt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahmed was arrested because he refused to answer any questions about either his 'invention' or his intentions until the police took him in to custody.

      BTW, it's kind of interesting to note we're what, a year out and STILL the Dept. of Justice is still 'investigating' this case... What's the hold-up? They are only investigating an event that transpired over the course of 4 or 6 hours - how long can it take?

      Knowing the DOJ under Obama, perhaps 4 to 6 years to find a way to blame it all on white American separatists that believe Islamists are "the root of all evil in the world" ... a "party line" that would make Obama happy, right?