It's the clock kid all over again.

[garbon]

Yeah. Now we are super frightened of our own shadows.

[Admiral Yi]

I think there are two separate crimes that people keep mingling.  One is bombing a school.  It was very easy to find out this kid was not going to bomb a school.  The other is making a bomb threat. 

The reason you're not supposed to make bomb threats, even in jest, is because if taken seriously they cause massive disruptions.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Gotta side with the Salt and the Jew.  There seems to be multiple fuck ups from the police here.  They know better then to interrogate a 12 year old with out parents on hand.  Even Texans know that.  When I was in high school we had bomb threats once a week for couple months.  Hell, kids in my middle school set off actual explosives in the bathroom.  They got off with a "boys will be boys".

WHile I definitely agree you don't detain a 12 year old for 3 days without parental notification, I disagree you can chalk up bomb threats to "boys will be boys".  Not these days.  Things have changed since you were in high school Raz.

See, this stuff is what I want to know about.  Where are you guys seeing anyone saying this?   If it's true that they interrogated the kid and detained him without bothering to tell anyone, I have a big problem with that, and presumably so would any lawyer they hire and any journalist they talk to.  The only thing anyone has specifically said about it is someone at the school district tried to contact the parents and couldn't and they found out about it after school, the kid was questioned at some point by the cops, and he ended up sitting around in juvie for a weekend waiting for a judge (why isn't there a judge available on Friday afternoon?).  The cops haven't really said shit about shit, as they tend to do, so are we sure that they didn't wait until the parents showed up?  Are we sure they didn't try to get a hold of the parents? 

These types of things don't seem to be mentioned by the cops or anyone in the other stories about kids in that area getting arrested for threatening schools.  No one seems to really have anything to say about those kids and events at all, so we're assuming the cops (etc) seem to have done what they were supposed to do in those cases, yes?  Why do we assume the opposite here?

[grumbler]

So, maybe the person who said it has even more credibility than I thought, since they are trustworthy enough that the school called the cops!  Alright! 

As you now say, "maybe."  At least you are willing to moderate your position when presented with logical alternatives.

Wait, so who should we not believe?  The cops said he admitted to talking about having a bomb.  The brother said he was "joking about bomb threats" and mentioned opening his backpack saying he had a bomb.  Or are you getting into some bitchmode douchebag semantics argument about him specifically saying "blowing up a school" vs "I have a bomb" or whatever stupid bullshit I should expect from you?  Do we believe the family or the cops?  You choose.

I think the eagerness to "blieve" anything is what is getting in your way.  The police said that he had confessed to something.  Exactly what isn't clear.  And, given that any 12-year-old is going to confess to anything the police want him to, once they have him in custody, this self-serving "confession" claim by the police is worth precisely nothing.

I'll leave the bitchmode douchbaggery to you.  You have so much more experience.

But then again I'm finding it really really hard to care about the opinions of someone dumb enough to blindly believe self-serving statements from officials, to paraphrase your statement.

Ah yes, it really is bitchmode douchebag time for grumbler!  Cops or family.  Your choice.  Which side are we going with here? 

How about this:  You go ahead and go fuck yourself, you ridiculous waste of space.   By the way, did you ever figure out why an F-14 can't land on a destroyer?

  The bitchmode douchbaggery is strong with you, my friend!  I am: not disappointed.

[grumbler]

When there is an actual bomb threat, then calling the cops is automatic.  When a student reports to a teacher that another student said he had a bomb, it's not so automatic.  Lots of other considerations come into play, like the credibility and character of the two students involved.

So, maybe the person who said it has even more credibility than I thought, since they are trustworthy enough that the school called the cops!  Alright! 

You are making an awful lot of unwarranted assumptions here; for instance, that the kid communicated a threat to "blow up the school," either in jest or not (we have no evidence that he did any such thing).   

Wait, so who should we not believe?  The cops said he admitted to talking about having a bomb.  The brother said he was "joking about bomb threats" and mentioned opening his backpack saying he had a bomb.  Or are you getting into some bitchmode douchebag semantics argument about him specifically saying "blowing up a school" vs "I have a bomb" or whatever stupid bullshit I should expect from you?  Do we believe the family or the cops?  You choose.

But then again I'm finding it really really hard to care about the opinions of someone dumb enough to blindly believe self-serving statements from officials, to paraphrase your statement.

Ah yes, it really is bitchmode douchebag time for grumbler!  Cops or family.  Your choice.  Which side are we going with here? 

How about this:  You go ahead and go fuck yourself, you ridiculous waste of space.   By the way, did you ever figure out why an F-14 can't land on a destroyer? 

E:  Hey a related story: http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2015/12/8th-grader-arrested-in-connection-with-social-media-threat-made-against-dallas-middle-school.html/  Dallas cops, and 3rd Degree Felony for that one.  Looks like Arlington had another one of these in November.  Two kids, threats against a high school.  Felony charges there too.

MBM is quite reliable in the escalation sweepstakes.  I remember he was practically spitting blood when I pointed out the the assignment of TV rights to conferences didn't make it "impossible" for teams to leave that conference (just a breach of contract).  When you actually feed back some of his more jerkish lines to him, he loses his shit completely.  'Tis a wonderful thing to see.

[grumbler]

WHile I definitely agree you don't detain a 12 year old for 3 days without parental notification, I disagree you can chalk up bomb threats to "boys will be boys".  Not these days.  Things have changed since you were in high school Raz.

Agree, but, then again, we have to look at what was actually said, which isn't known.  A threat isn't a threat unless it is credible and would be seen by a reasonable person as an actual threat.

[MadBurgerMaker]

As you now say, "maybe."  At least you are willing to moderate your position when presented with logical alternatives.

Are you taking that quote seriously?

I think the eagerness to "blieve" anything is what is getting in your way.  The police said that he had confessed to something.  Exactly what isn't clear.  And, given that any 12-year-old is going to confess to anything the police want him to, once they have him in custody, this self-serving "confession" claim by the police is worth precisely nothing.

Blieve?  Wat? 

Anyway, the police said he "confessed to telling a fellow student that he had a bomb in the backpack."  Are you confused about that?  We also still have no one saying they interrogated him or held him without anyone knowing about it (if someone could come up with a link or quote that would be great).  On the other side, we have the family saying he was only joking about the bomb thing so they should drop the charges, etc. 

The takeaway from this is no one is denying he said something about having a bomb (try not to freak out that we don't have notarized documentation or time stamped and professionally verified video of the incident).  Well, you seem to be...well you are apparently choosing not to believe anyone involved for some reason, because that gets in the way somehow.  Whether he was joking or not and whether everyone overreacted and the cops did some shitty cop things is the question.

I'll leave the bitchmode douchbaggery to you.  You have so much more experience.  The bitchmode douchbaggery is strong with you, my friend!  I am: not disappointed.

I put your strange copying/repeating gimmick stuff together into one quote for you here. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Joan, where are you getting the claim from the parents about not being contacted by the police from?  All I can see is them saying they asked the principle and he told them he didn't know where the kid was.

The parents claim that no one contacted them.  "School officials" were quoted as having attempted to contact them, without success.  The police, although quoted extensively in the article, are not quoted as saying they made an attempt to contact them.

[The Minsky Moment]

I think there are two separate crimes that people keep mingling.  One is bombing a school.  It was very easy to find out this kid was not going to bomb a school.  The other is making a bomb threat. 

The reason you're not supposed to make bomb threats, even in jest, is because if taken seriously they cause massive disruptions.

Correct.  But 3 day pretrial detention of a 12 y.o. is not warranted for suspicion of the latter.  Kid is not a flight risk.

[MadBurgerMaker]

MBM is quite reliable in the escalation sweepstakes.  I remember he was practically spitting blood when I pointed out the the assignment of TV rights to conferences didn't make it "impossible" for teams to leave that conference (just a breach of contract).  When you actually feed back some of his more jerkish lines to him, he loses his shit completely.  'Tis a wonderful thing to see.

So.....you know that it's possible to go back and see the actual posts and conversation and what it was about, and not just the bullshit grumbler interpretation, right?  For example:

http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,7699.msg474574.html#msg474574

E:  Haha looking over that again, that shit is pretty funny.  You really had no idea at all what you were talking about, and you made it so clear with this post:

Dunno why you are so butthurt about the Big 12's problems.  Yeah, they just signed a TV deal, but they had a TV deal when they lost 1/3 of their membership.  You can feel free to argue that the Big 12 looks as stable for the future as the ACC, but don't expect everyone to buy it.

That's pretty great.  I especially like how you were acting like a total smug know it all prick in your first response before this one, despite the fact that you were quoting a portion of a post that said nothing except there is a GOR and it isn't unstable, then starting your retard threadshitting when you get called a douche for it.  You also did your weirdo repeating thing there with Otto too.  Promise me in a couple of years you will remind me about your F-14 sized drones landing on destroyers plan too, okay?

[MadBurgerMaker]

The parents claim that no one contacted them.  "School officials" were quoted as having attempted to contact them, without success.  The police, although quoted extensively in the article, are not quoted as saying they made an attempt to contact them.

The cops, which would include the Dallas ISD cops, don't seem to say this in any of the articles about similar events. 

[The Minsky Moment]

The cops, which would include the Dallas ISD cops, don't seem to say this in any of the articles about similar events.

I don't know about the other events, but here you have a national news story where the parents are publicly complaining they weren't contacted.  The PD gave extensive statements to the press, so it looks odd from them not to mention that parents are mistaken about that too.  Unless of course it is true.  The DMN article makes a specific point of saying school officials claim they tried to contact.  So either the press has it in the PD, or the PD is getting an F in basic press relations, or - most likely - they screwed up.

[dps]

Cops or family.  Your choice.  Which side are we going with here? 

Why do we have to choose?  I can easily imagine that both may be lying.  I can even more easily imagine that both are being inaccurately quoted in the first place.

[MadBurgerMaker]

I don't know about the other events, but here you have a national news story where the parents are publicly complaining they weren't contacted.  The PD gave extensive statements to the press, so it looks odd from them not to mention that parents are mistaken about that too.  Unless of course it is true.  The DMN article makes a specific point of saying school officials claim they tried to contact.  So either the press has it in the PD, or the PD is getting an F in basic press relations, or - most likely - they screwed up.

While I agree that it looks bad, the thing is, again, no one is saying anything about it.  Why?  The cops locking up a kid, not telling his parents, interrogating him and coercing him into saying something untrue seems like it would be pretty significant.  Instead we're talking about how there aren't any quotes about them saying they tried to call in this DMN article (which lines up with other articles) and all that.  I have no doubt that the police are capable of...shenanigans...but that hasn't really been mentioned in this case, at least not yet. 

I mean, right here with this: 

"I thought it was a joke, so I started laughing and he started laughing," Armaan recalled. "The next thing you know, I'm reading with my friend and police come in, grab me and take me outside."

Police realized the bomb threat was a hoax, but they took him into custody because he confessed to making up the threat, they say.

But the Singhs insist the investigation has been unfair, that Armaan shouldn't have spent the weekend detained in Fort Worth with teenagers accused of crimes such as drug possession and theft.

"We're those kind of people who, if it was his fault, would let him stay in there so he could learn his lesson," said his brother Aksh, 17.

It really seems like right there would be a pretty good spot to at least mention that they interrogated him without anyone present, right?  Maybe also mention that they were doing so while they still hadn't told the parents where he was?  The only thing that has been said is the ISD tried to call (And that's it, actually, because apparently they can't say anything more because of laws protecting student records for some reason).  I assume the parents aren't lying about not being contacted, so the ISD wasn't able to get a hold of them.  The cops might not have been able to get a hold of them either.  I mean, the school where the kid goes every day can't get a hold of them, why is it out of the realm of possibility that the Arlington PD can't either.  Regardless, they did find out that afternoon when they called 911, not after he had been there for a couple days or whatever. 

Well, I suppose the headline would be a pretty good spot for that stuff, but in the story itself it would be pretty easy to work it in there and keep things flowing. 

Why do we have to choose?  I can easily imagine that both may be lying.  I can even more easily imagine that both are being inaccurately quoted in the first place.

Possibly, but they're both saying he was talking about having a bomb. 

[grumbler]

I don't know about the other events, but here you have a national news story where the parents are publicly complaining they weren't contacted.  The PD gave extensive statements to the press, so it looks odd from them not to mention that parents are mistaken about that too.  Unless of course it is true.  The DMN article makes a specific point of saying school officials claim they tried to contact.  So either the press has it in the PD, or the PD is getting an F in basic press relations, or - most likely - they screwed up.

Question for you, MM: given that the principal is acting in loco parentis (and, no, Seedy, that doesn't translate as "the people, they called parentis, go to the location"), aren't they liable for not acting in the child's best interests by at least sending a rep with the kid to the lockup? I can't imagine a school principal sending a kid to the hospital, for instance, and not sending someone along.  One of the reasons why school authorities have so much authority over students is precisely because the principal is ilp.  That has obligations, as well as powers.

I can't speak to police arrest situations, but I have twice ridden in ambulances because I had to as the school's rep ilp.  Isn't that a general rule inherent in the ilp status?