Quote:
Originally Posted by orangemoore
When the police interviewed him they kept asking what it was and he always had the same response: "It is a clock". Why did the police keep asking? If someone gives you one answer constantly to the same question you ask over and over again, isn't it a pointless question?
Also by the definition of a bomb that the school/police went by literally includes all electronic devices. So phones, calculators, clocks, watches, ipods, ipads, computers, etc.
|
Forgot to respond to these 2 statements in my last reply.
First of all, that is a standard police practice that they use as a way to find inconsistencies in someone's story. They ask the same questions over and over again to see if you ever change your answer, and if you do change you answer (which happens a lot, sometimes even with people telling the truth who just slip up), they use that against you. It's not considered evidence, but it's still an inconsistency that can be used against you if the case goes to court.
Second of all, I was talking about devices with open wires, "motherboard" and timer inside a case. To an untrained eye, it looks like a barebones (without explosive components) case bomb. In the context of what happened, it seems like there was racial profiling involved (on the school's end. Makes no sense that they didn't take any of the necessary actions during a bomb threat, but still claim that they thought it was a bomb) but everyone was jumping to this conclusion before we knew any of this, and even know we shouldn't assume everyone involved was racially profiling him. It's likely that a couple of people were, but extremely unlikely that a majority of them were. From what we know about the story, the police took standard protocol. One of the officers, according to some media sources, made dumb comments, but that doesn't mean the rest agree with him. (I believe they say he said "That's who I was expecting", which looks like it's a racially charged comment, but it could have easily been taken out of context. I'm suspicious of that officer, but I'm not going to judge him until I know all of what he said.)
In closing, I would hesitate to make conclusive statements on the situation itself (I was more-so talking about things surrounding the actual situation, like the rewards and the way people/mainstream media has reacted) until all the evidence is gathered and apparent. Until that time, we can only participate in conjecture. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but hopefully a sufficient amount of concrete evidence is provided soon to make things more clear. I'm not judging the boy, just pointing out the possibility that he was acting like a typical mischievous teenager (and if it turns out that's the case, then I would judge him. But there's no evidence to support this. He certainly doesn't look like a mischievous boy, but looks can be deceiving). The only thing I'm judging is the people who are rewarding him and labeling him as a hero.