Of course this happened in Irving, Texas

[TerpEagle]

We're all just gonna act like this kid being Muslim has nothing to do with anything, huh ? Ok.

Unrelated impulsive actions and fear related to Islam, I'm sure.

http://irvingblog.dallasnews.com/201...rriculum.html/

---
The upshot of the investigation:

- Christianity got twice as much attention in the curriculum as any other religion. Islam was a distant second.

- The Red Crescent and Boston Tea Party reference mentioned in the email were nowhere in CSCOPE’s curriculum, although they may have been in the past.

- If there was any Islamic bias in CSCOPE it was “bias against radical Islam.
---

[rdog5]

We're all just gonna act like this kid being Muslim has nothing to do with anything, huh ? Ok.

Yes we are until facts point us to that conclusion because we have open minds not ones likes yours which thinks he knows everybody's motive because he views it through his own opinions.

[Eagle In Ohio]

Whatever you say

Yes we are until facts point us to that conclusion because we have open minds not ones likes yours which thinks he knows everybody's motive because he views it through his own opinions.

I just don't remember any suicide bombers actually showing their handiwork to their victims, and then plugging a bomb into an outlet like a fuckin toaster. Be honest with yourself. If that kid's name was Billy Taylor, and he had sandy blond hair, and was walking around in an Abercrombie and Fitch, that teacher wouldn't have thought twice. People have been conditioned to be wary of names like Ahmed, Abdul, Salaam, Hussein and others, because those names have been automatically linked to terrorism. Funny how before 9/11, the deadliest terrorist attack ever on American soil was committed by a White man named McVeigh, yet we don't look at White men in their late twenties, early thirties the way we do Muslims of any age.

[TerpEagle]

So you are the judge? Guess giving people the benefit of the doubt or innocent until proven guilty are foreign concepts except if it applies to someone you are close to. Other than a news story you have no information what really happened here but you can say it was based on bigotry, ignorance and fear. Maybe its based on fear of violence in schools which is all too common and rather than being a victim they choose to be safe. I guess you can go on thinking you know what someone is thinking after all it makes you correct.

Wait a second - you're arguing FOR giving people the benefit of the doubt and innocence until proven guilty for the cops but not for the teenage kid?

I see.

[TerpEagle]

Everybody here is good at judging other people based on their self-supported ideas of race rather than factually knowing what actually went on. Good job everybody else is influenced by race but you. As a matter of fact Muslim is not a race while your at it so guess its not so much racism as it is religious persecution. Jokers like you race baiters love to grasp at straws and find narratives that fit your preconceived notions because you think it makes you look smart. You are the problem because your minds are not open enough to accept that we are all more complex then your simple judgments.

You seem to be grasping at straws to make a connection here that I never made.

I actually didn't mention race at all in this case. I agree that being Muslim is not related to race and this case is more likely related to religious persecution/prejudice/stereotypes than anything else, especially since the school district has a history of being worried about the influence of Islam.

FWIW though, Ahmed is African-American.

[rdog5]

I just don't remember any suicide bombers actually showing their handiwork to their victims, and then plugging a bomb into an outlet like a fuckin toaster. Be honest with yourself. If that kid's name was Billy Taylor, and he had sandy blond hair, and was walking around in an Abercrombie and Fitch, that teacher wouldn't have thought twice. People have been conditioned to be wary of names like Ahmed, Abdul, Salaam, Hussein and others, because those names have been automatically linked to terrorism. Funny how before 9/11, the deadliest terrorist attack ever on American soil was committed by a White man named McVeigh, yet we don't look at White men in their late twenties, early thirties the way we do Muslims of any age.

Maybe your conditioned to think everybody has a motive. Maybe you think everything has to have racial or discriminatory motives so you make the story fit the narrative. Ask yourself, were you giving Vick the benefit of the doubt he changed after he did his time? Were you saying he deserved a 2nd chance? Maybe you were not but if you were willing to give him that credit, why automatically assume people you have absolutely no idea about other than a newspaper article are guilty of your sinister beliefs?

[rdog5]

Wait a second - you're arguing FOR giving people the benefit of the doubt and innocence until proven guilty for the cops but not for the teenage kid?

I see.

You lost me here since I never made an argument against innocent until proven guilty for the kid.

[slag]

Don't sweat this ... either he doesn't understand the difference between the standard applied to an investigation versus a trial ... or worse, he does, and was hoping you didn't.

[TerpEagle]

Maybe your conditioned to think everybody has a motive. Maybe you think everything has to have racial or discriminatory motives so you make the story fit the narrative. Ask yourself, were you giving Vick the benefit of the doubt he changed after he did his time? Were you saying he deserved a 2nd chance? Maybe you were not but if you were willing to give him that credit, why automatically assume people you have absolutely no idea about other than a newspaper article are guilty of your sinister beliefs?

Were the police conditioned to think that this kid had a motive? He repeatedly said it was a clock but they still didn't acknowledge it.

Why should the police and teachers be given the benefit of the doubt when the kid was not given it? Why should they get to automatically assume that he is guilty of their sinister beliefs?

The fact that you don't see your hypocrisy is astounding. You give the benefit of the doubt to the people that took away a teenager's civil rights but you don't question that they didn't give the teenager the benefit of the doubt or support that they didn't.

[TerpEagle]

Don't sweat this ... either he doesn't understand the difference between the standard applied to an investigation versus a trial ... or worse, he does, and was hoping you didn't.

rdog is saying that we should give the cops and teachers the benefit of the doubt and not say they're guilty.

Ok, fine. But they didn't give the kid the benefit of the doubt and there is enough smoke around Irving and that school district to suggest it may be because of his religion.

[rdog5]

rdog is saying that we should give the cops and teachers the benefit of the doubt and not say they're guilty.

Ok, fine. But they didn't give the kid the benefit of the doubt and there is enough smoke around Irving and that school district to suggest it may be because of his religion.

Refer to slag's comments. Your mixing formulating opinion with probable cause and due process. If the police did not have probable cause to make an arrest and did so anyway they are violating civil rights and I would suspect in a case of this popularity they would have to answer in a court of law.

Do yourself a favor. Instead of remaining ignorant, familiarize yourself with the law. Maybe sit down with an officer or lawyer and ask questions and you may find out what you think is fact is nothing more than supposition on your part. Right now to anyone familiar with the legal system beyond the first year of college you are displaying your lack of understanding on the subject.

[TerpEagle]

Refer to slag's comments. Your mixing formulating opinion with probable cause and due process. If the police did not have probable cause to make an arrest and did so anyway they are violating civil rights and I would suspect in a case of this popularity they would have to answer in a court of law.

Do yourself a favor. Instead of remaining ignorant, familiarize yourself with the law. Maybe sit down with an officer or lawyer and ask questions and you may find out what you think is fact is nothing more than supposition on your part. Right now to anyone familiar with the legal system beyond the first year of college you are displaying your lack of understanding on the subject.

There are two issues here that are getting conflated (by me to some extent so I'll clarify): The actions of the school and the actions of a police.

The school, in my opinion, acted very poorly and the school district has a history of concern of Islam. They had a study performed to make sure they weren't too pro-Islam in 2012.

And even though the principal sent a letter to the parents of the school stating that the police "responded to a suspicious-looking item on campus" and had determined that "the item ... did not pose a threat to your child's safety." - they still suspended him and threatened him with expulsion.



Regarding the police, while I would expect them to take a call from the school regarding a possibly bomb/device seriously, it appears that they violated his civil rights by denying him access to or the ability to speak to his parents.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...s-parents.html

---
Mohamed, a freshman at MacArthur High School, insists he repeatedly asked officers to call his parents while being interrogated. Mohamed was questioned at the school, then taken in handcuffs to a juvenile detention center, where he was fingerprinted and interrogated without his parents present, according to police and Mohamed.

Texas Family Code is clear this was not supposed to happen.

“A child may not be left unattended in a juvenile processing office and is entitled to be accompanied by the child’s parent, guardian, or other custodian or by the child’s attorney,” Section 52.025 (PDF) states.

Mohamed did not see his parents until he was released from a juvenile detention center, according to police and his family.

Furthermore, a “person taking a child into custody shall promptly give notice of the person’s action and a statement of the reason for taking the child into custody, to the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian.”
----

[rdog5]

There are two issues here that are getting conflated (by me to some extent so I'll clarify): The actions of the school and the actions of a police.

The school, in my opinion, acted very poorly and the school district has a history of concern of Islam. They had a study performed to make sure they weren't too pro-Islam in 2012.

And even though the principal sent a letter to the parents of the school stating that the police "responded to a suspicious-looking item on campus" and had determined that "the item ... did not pose a threat to your child's safety." - they still suspended him and threatened him with expulsion.



Regarding the police, while I would expect them to take a call from the school regarding a possibly bomb/device seriously, it appears that they violated his civil rights by denying him access to or the ability to speak to his parents.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...s-parents.html

---
Mohamed, a freshman at MacArthur High School, insists he repeatedly asked officers to call his parents while being interrogated. Mohamed was questioned at the school, then taken in handcuffs to a juvenile detention center, where he was fingerprinted and interrogated without his parents present, according to police and Mohamed.

Texas Family Code is clear this was not supposed to happen.

“A child may not be left unattended in a juvenile processing office and is entitled to be accompanied by the child’s parent, guardian, or other custodian or by the child’s attorney,” Section 52.025 (PDF) states.

Mohamed did not see his parents until he was released from a juvenile detention center, according to police and his family.

Furthermore, a “person taking a child into custody shall promptly give notice of the person’s action and a statement of the reason for taking the child into custody, to the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian.”
----

So now some time has passed and more facts and fiction is coming out. I will use your article source which is proudly a liberal publication to shed more light on the subject:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...d-s-clock.html

The article you provided gives quotes from the family which cannot be disputed because the family refuses to sign the releases so the other side of the story can be told.

Now I find it very important to point out that I am not disputing that this may be race related but I am disputing the people on here such as yourself that portray it as race related without facts to back it up. Possibly your cynicism makes you think that people have motives but are we not as bad as those that we are unfairly judging?

I guess for me its simple. I do not react to the initial news story because I try to apply a common sense sniff test to it. Hard to believe but large majority of people are not racists or anti-islam. So when a group of people get together on an incident like this involving teachers and police it is that much harder to maintain a conspiracy. Give it time, let more facts come out before you pass judgment on their intentions. Unfortunately we see this so often where the salacious story gets promoted and facts are slow to follow. Think Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown. Initial media reports would have you believe these two were shot in cold blood for no reason. AS more details emerge obviously things change as does public opinion of the events.

Now just to be abundantly clear I am not the polar opposite of your viewpoint that this was racist behavior on the part of the teachers but what I am arguing is that the people involved are owed the benefit of the doubt before you and the country judges them as wrong. More facts may emerge of their evil intent but as of right now based on what we know to call them racist is more of a reflection on the individual judging that the parties involved.

[Eagle In Ohio]

Well Trayvon actually WAS shot in cold blood

So now some time has passed and more facts and fiction is coming out. I will use your article source which is proudly a liberal publication to shed more light on the subject:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...d-s-clock.html

The article you provided gives quotes from the family which cannot be disputed because the family refuses to sign the releases so the other side of the story can be told.

Now I find it very important to point out that I am not disputing that this may be race related but I am disputing the people on here such as yourself that portray it as race related without facts to back it up. Possibly your cynicism makes you think that people have motives but are we not as bad as those that we are unfairly judging?

I guess for me its simple. I do not react to the initial news story because I try to apply a common sense sniff test to it. Hard to believe but large majority of people are not racists or anti-islam. So when a group of people get together on an incident like this involving teachers and police it is that much harder to maintain a conspiracy. Give it time, let more facts come out before you pass judgment on their intentions. Unfortunately we see this so often where the salacious story gets promoted and facts are slow to follow. Think Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown. Initial media reports would have you believe these two were shot in cold blood for no reason. AS more details emerge obviously things change as does public opinion of the events.

Now just to be abundantly clear I am not the polar opposite of your viewpoint that this was racist behavior on the part of the teachers but what I am arguing is that the people involved are owed the benefit of the doubt before you and the country judges them as wrong. More facts may emerge of their evil intent but as of right now based on what we know to call them racist is more of a reflection on the individual judging that the parties involved.

nm

[SCREAMIN EAGLE]

nm

Only after he slammed Zimmerman's head into the pavement