Teen builds clock, gets arrested.

(09-16-2015 01:17 PM)Chef Owl Wrote:  Teen builds clock, gets arrested.

I suspect that similar hyper-reactions would be about equally likely almost anywhere in the country. Inflexible, over-sensitive and stupid bureaucrats are not a regional phenomenon.

But yes, people who want to believe that this incident is characteristically Texan will no doubt believe so.

I was transporting a tin of cookies and a thermostat from my aunts house to my cousins in Boston. Needless to say a metal box with what looks like a digital timer will get you stopped.

It happens everywhere. I'm used to being "randomly" selected by the TSA nearly every flight (and thats a lot of times). And yes, I am brown.

It's amusing at this point.

(09-16-2015 01:17 PM)Chef Owl Wrote:  Teen builds clock, gets arrested.

Your selection of a thread title leaves a lot to be desired.

(09-16-2015 02:19 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  I suspect that similar hyper-reactions would be about equally likely almost anywhere in the country. Inflexible, over-sensitive and stupid bureaucrats are not a regional phenomenon.

It seems that when you're a very large area (lots of small towns) with a whole lot of people, the probability that those people get selected to a position to demonstrate their over-sensitivity increases.

While certainly there are many bastions of lunacy, California isn't that bad either.

(09-16-2015 05:06 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(09-16-2015 01:17 PM)Chef Owl Wrote:  Teen builds clock, gets arrested.

Your selection of a thread title leaves a lot to be desired.

Good thing I'm not in the newspaper business then, huh?

Where was the explosive material? In all of the pictures that have been shown of the kid's clock, I don't see anything that a reasonable person would think is the explosive material. Without that, there is no bomb folks, just a clock that could act as a trigger -- to the bomb that goes off in paranoid people's heads.

(09-18-2015 09:58 AM)ColOwl Wrote:  Where was the explosive material? In all of the pictures that have been shown of the kid's clock, I don't see anything that a reasonable person would think is the explosive material. Without that, there is no bomb folks, just a clock that could act as a trigger -- to the bomb that goes off in paranoid people's heads.

"Paranoid" may be a more accurate characterization of the average educational bureaucrat than "reasonable"; it certainly seems to be a bigger part of the job description.

(09-18-2015 04:01 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 09:58 AM)ColOwl Wrote:  Where was the explosive material? In all of the pictures that have been shown of the kid's clock, I don't see anything that a reasonable person would think is the explosive material. Without that, there is no bomb folks, just a clock that could act as a trigger -- to the bomb that goes off in paranoid people's heads.

"Paranoid" may be a more accurate characterization of the average educational bureaucrat than "reasonable"; it certainly seems to be a bigger part of the job description.

Reasonable people are concerned with keeping their jobs, and so won't take chances relying on their own judgment or common sense. That is what a zero tolerance policy is meant to do - cover their rears by taking all decision making from them. The cops continued this covering of rears by making the arrest.

The cops arresting the kid wasn't the worst part. The school then proceeded to suspend him for 3 days - thats the most ludicrous part of the story.

Probably related to some sort of zero=tolerance policy. I read today that a kid wearing an American Flag shirt was suspended for the same reason.

It's why zero-tolerance policies suck, but they cover bureaucrats butts

There is no way the school handled this properly. If it's a bomb you get either the children or the bomb out of the building immediately. If it's not a bomb, you don't call the police. If you don't know whether it is a bomb or not, you treat it as a bomb. There is no fact situation in which you call the police without evacuating the building.

If I were the officer arriving on the scene, my first action would be to arrest the principal for child endangerment.

(09-20-2015 04:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  There is no way the school handled this properly. If it's a bomb you get either the children or the bomb out of the building immediately. If it's not a bomb, you don't call the police. If you don't know whether it is a bomb or not, you treat it as a bomb. There is no fact situation in which you call the police without evacuating the building.

If I were the officer arriving on the scene, my first action would be to arrest the principal for child endangerment.

You say no way, but I recall 10 or so years ago, a child at my kids middle school being reported to the police for bringing a butter knife to school. He was using it as a screwdriver on his skateboard as I recall, but the school had a zero tolerance on knives.

It's the same issue with the American Flag shirt. I suspect that this was a policy put in place in response to someone wearing a national flag 'in protest' of something, and if you're going to disallow 'national' flags, that includes OUR nation (to some people)

It's amazing how stupid some situations are, and they seem to happen every day

(09-20-2015 04:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  There is no way the school handled this properly. If it's a bomb you get either the children or the bomb out of the building immediately. If it's not a bomb, you don't call the police. If you don't know whether it is a bomb or not, you treat it as a bomb. There is no fact situation in which you call the police without evacuating the building.

Exactly.

I don't get upset about it anymore. Just not worth it. Plus usually the front-line guys are trying their best to follow vague bureaucratic guidelines. I just allot extra time every week in case I get pulled aside.

(09-20-2015 04:38 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You say no way, but I recall 10 or so years ago, a child at my kids middle school being reported to the police for bringing a butter knife to school. He was using it as a screwdriver on his skateboard as I recall, but the school had a zero tolerance on knives.

I think Owl69 was referring to the fact that if it was suspected to be a bomb, you call the police and evacuate the school. Not just call the police and hang out with the supposed bomb.

While I agree that the butter knife is a massive overreaction, you wouldn't evacuate a school for a knife, no matter whether it was a butter knife or a bowie knife.

(09-20-2015 04:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Probably related to some sort of zero=tolerance policy. I read today that a kid wearing an American Flag shirt was suspended for the same reason.

It's why zero-tolerance policies suck, but they cover bureaucrats butts

"Same reason"? I don't see any parallel.

The American Flag shirt kid wasn't suspended over a zero-tolerance policy, he was suspended over a(n alleged) dress code violation.

According to a Fox news article ( http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/20/tex...g-t-shirt/ ), the school has a dress code that requires kids to wear solid-color shirts, but has "exceptions for school or college logo shirts or ones supporting the U.S. military". After the kid did a day of in-school suspension, the principal said determined that the administrator who had suspended the kid had misinterpreted the policy, and the principal apologized to the kid's mom.

And back to the clock kid story, I haven't seen any indication of a zero-tolerance policy at play there, either. Three days' suspension would not be the outcome if zero-tolerance were applied to a bomb threat. I don't know what that Irving school or the police were thinking, but they acted at their own discretion.

(09-21-2015 01:19 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(09-20-2015 04:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Probably related to some sort of zero=tolerance policy. I read today that a kid wearing an American Flag shirt was suspended for the same reason.

It's why zero-tolerance policies suck, but they cover bureaucrats butts

"Same reason"? I don't see any parallel.

The American Flag shirt kid wasn't suspended over a zero-tolerance policy, he was suspended over a(n alleged) dress code violation.

According to a Fox news article ( http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/20/tex...g-t-shirt/ ), the school has a dress code that requires kids to wear solid-color shirts, but has "exceptions for school or college logo shirts or ones supporting the U.S. military". After the kid did a day of in-school suspension, the principal said determined that the administrator who had suspended the kid had misinterpreted the policy, and the principal apologized to the kid's mom.

And back to the clock kid story, I haven't seen any indication of a zero-tolerance policy at play there, either. Three days' suspension would not be the outcome if zero-tolerance were applied to a bomb threat. I don't know what that Irving school or the police were thinking, but they acted at their own discretion.

a) If you suspend a kid for wearing an American Flag shirt when 'ones supporting the US military' are okay, then I see that as an application of Zero-Tolerance for dress-code violations. The fact that it was rescinded doesn't mean it wasn't initially applied.

b) I don't think anyone ever said it was an actual bomb threat. Had he left it at an airport, I suspect the airport would have been cleared, though. Over-reaction? Absolutely. I suspect it was more of a 'disturbing the class' zero-tolerance since he was originally sent to the principal after the clock's alarm went off during the class.

Zero tolerance policies mean that you react and THEN perhaps judge. Just because a zero-tolerance policy was enacted doesn't mean it was used appropriately.... which I THINK is your point.

Serve on a PTO at a middle school in a capacity where you might be involved in such things... and you'll find that schools OFTEN do this, often under the guise of better to inconvenience one child than even remotely potentially injure many more. Principals often don't want discretion. It's far easier for them to say 'my hands are tied... I followed the procedures'.

Back in the day Sheriff Andy Taylor woulda straightened the whole lot of them out, and then taken the kid fishing with Opie.

(09-21-2015 12:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 01:19 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(09-20-2015 04:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Probably related to some sort of zero=tolerance policy. I read today that a kid wearing an American Flag shirt was suspended for the same reason.

It's why zero-tolerance policies suck, but they cover bureaucrats butts

"Same reason"? I don't see any parallel.

The American Flag shirt kid wasn't suspended over a zero-tolerance policy, he was suspended over a(n alleged) dress code violation.

According to a Fox news article ( http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/20/tex...g-t-shirt/ ), the school has a dress code that requires kids to wear solid-color shirts, but has "exceptions for school or college logo shirts or ones supporting the U.S. military". After the kid did a day of in-school suspension, the principal said determined that the administrator who had suspended the kid had misinterpreted the policy, and the principal apologized to the kid's mom.

And back to the clock kid story, I haven't seen any indication of a zero-tolerance policy at play there, either. Three days' suspension would not be the outcome if zero-tolerance were applied to a bomb threat. I don't know what that Irving school or the police were thinking, but they acted at their own discretion.

a) If you suspend a kid for wearing an American Flag shirt when 'ones supporting the US military' are okay, then I see that as an application of Zero-Tolerance for dress-code violations. The fact that it was rescinded doesn't mean it wasn't initially applied.

b) I don't think anyone ever said it was an actual bomb threat. Had he left it at an airport, I suspect the airport would have been cleared, though. Over-reaction? Absolutely. I suspect it was more of a 'disturbing the class' zero-tolerance since he was originally sent to the principal after the clock's alarm went off during the class.

Zero tolerance policies mean that you react and THEN perhaps judge. Just because a zero-tolerance policy was enacted doesn't mean it was used appropriately.... which I THINK is your point.

Serve on a PTO at a middle school in a capacity where you might be involved in such things... and you'll find that schools OFTEN do this, often under the guise of better to inconvenience one child than even remotely potentially injure many more. Principals often don't want discretion. It's far easier for them to say 'my hands are tied... I followed the procedures'.

Zero Tolerance Policy most certainly does not mean you react then you judge. It means that there is zero tolerance, meaning there is no opportunity for the application of judgment.

What about the t-shirt kid example suggests that the school has not a standard dress code, but rather a "zero tolerance dress code"? The administrator thought the kid was breaking the rules. The principal got back on campus the next day and decided the administrator was wrong.

On the clock kid, you're suggesting that the school has a "classroom disturbance zero tolerance policy" - that any student disturbing a class for any reason gets three days suspension, with no discretion on the part of teachers or administrators?

edit: And what do you mean by "I don't think anyone ever said it was an actual bomb threat"? A bomb threat requires just a threat, not an actual bomb. The police arrested him, taking him to juvie in cuffs for a "hoax bomb" - i.e., a bomb threat.

I think you're arguing just to argue.

I never said 'for any reason' in the disturbance. He set an alarm to go off during the class.... either that or his clock isn't worthy of all of the hoopla over his academic prowess.

A hoax bomb, virtually by definition is not a bomb. It is something that clearly isn't a bomb, but is a clock, intentionally 'dressed up to look like one' to scare people. I have no idea if that was the case here since I haven't seen it, but in this day and age, it doesn't take a bunch of circuit boards and wires (the only description I've seen) for a smart 14 year old to make a clock. Given that he now says 'he's being treated like he was called as a bomb maker and terrorist', it's certainly possible that he did it intentionally in response to those taunts. That wouldn't make him a bad kid... and certainly makes those who called him names bad... but it also would explain why people acted the way they did, and why he was accused of making a 'hoax bomb'. Yes, I'd say a school would likely have a zero tolerance policy with regard to 'hoax bombs', but given that he was only sent to the principal's office after the alarm on the clock went off, I'd say that was not an unreasonable reaction, even if they didn't.

Zero tolerance means that there is no discretion in the reaction. If you do 'x', 'y' happens. Period. It's old and I suspect has been amended, but the story of the 7 year old who chewed his pop tart into a gun and was suspended because guns, even toy guns weren't allowed is a good example. If it is later determined that you didn't actually DO 'x', i.e. the American Flag shirt really WAS in support of the troops, then the reaction can be amended/stopped. I call that react and THEN judge. You're free to disagree... though I don't know why.... but as for the zero tolerance on the dress code, I've never seen a kid suspended for a single violation of the dress code, especially one that at least to me, seems at least debatable as to whether or not it meets the description. I've seen kids given detention and/or forced to go home/change and/or to wear a 'school shirt' (I was in charge of the uniform/school shirts for 1400 kids for 3 years) but not suspended... and there was no mention of the kid being a repeat offender and this simply being the final straw... though maybe he was. That's my evidence.

Given what we were originally told about the 'clock' and now being told he was suspended for a 'hoax' and him telling us that he had previously been teased about being a bomb-maker and terrorist before, plus the fact that he obviously isn't dumb... so what is a 14 year old who wants to go to MIT in just 4 years doing making a clumsy clock??? I suspect that it WAS a simple clock, 'dressed up' to look like a bomb to dumber kids or as a joke, and the fact that it was set to go off during class was an attempt to scare the people who had been mean to him or to be 'funny'.