This is topic Wisconsin Democrats take the next step in forum General Comments at The Ornery American Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/16289.html

Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
Inspired by the Obama administration and its use of the IRS, Wisconsin democrats have figured out the next steps:
quote:
As Wisconsin Reporter first revealed, the investigation, launched in early 2012 by the Democrat-led Milwaukee County District Attorney’s office, aims to prove conservatives illegally coordinated activities in the historic recalls of Gov. Scott Walker and Republican state senators, multiple sources say.

One source with knowledge of the investigation has told Wisconsin Reporter the ultimate goal is to bring down Walker, the bane of Wisconsin liberals.

Contrast that with:
quote:
What is striking is that no liberal organizations appear to be targeted in the John Doe, particularly interesting in light of the tens of millions of dollars pumped into Wisconsin’s unprecedented spate of recalls in 2011 and 2012 by union and left-leaning groups.
So we've got a Democrat led DA looking at illegal coordination but ignoring Democrat activities that ran into the millions of dollars. Not a single liberal organization is being targeted by this investigation, it breaks down directly along political lines.

This is not the first time they went after Walker like this:
quote:
It appears the latest John Doe, billed as John Doe II or the “son of John Doe,” is at least in part connected to a previous secret investigation led by the Milwaukee County DA’s office. That John Doe probe spanned nearly three years, beginning in May 2010.

John Doe I was a meandering, court-administered dragnet that ended in the convictions of six people who were former aides or associates of Walker when he was Milwaukee County executive. The investigation closed without any charges of wrongdoing against Walker, and critics say prosecutors got little for the untold taxpayer money spent on pursuing the probe.

“It was all something other than what (prosecutors) were originally looking for, and it wasn’t very much for three years of looking,” a legal source connected to the current John Doe told Wisconsin Reporter.

They drug out everything and anything they could, threw it at the wall to see what stuck and essentially got nothing. Must be time to do it again!

quote:
The campaign was peppered with leaked information about the John Doe. Much of the information was wrong, including reports that Walker was due to be indicted for one reason or another at any moment. Liberal issue ads focused on the John Doe as if the secret investigation alone were an indictment of the governor.
Leaks from the investigation, issue ads focused on the investigation, no worries about illegally coordinated activities there! Can't be right? Not worth a single investigation.

It gets better:
quote:
“What’s even worse about this is the secrecy imposed by state law,” von Spakovsky told Wisconsin Reporter. “Political speech is one of the most fundamental things protected by the First Amendment. No kind of investigation like this should be secret. Any organization that receives a subpoena like this ought to be able to make it public and go to court.”

But speaking out could land a witness or a target in jail.

Wisconsin’s John Doe law comes with secrecy oaths, and violators risk contempt of court charges.

That's right kids, speak out and you go to the hoosegow. Let's make it better ... a out of control DA:
quote:
Multiple sources have told Wisconsin Reporter that Bruce Landgraf, a top prosecutor in the office of John Chisholm, Milwaukee County’s Democrat district attorney, has shown
himself ready to bully and even flout the law in pursuit of political targets.

In John Doe I, the prosecution and the presiding judge put two men in jail for refusing to be strong-armed into testifying.

“Except for the fact that he’s willing to break the law, (Landgraf is) something of an Inspector Javert,” said a source, referring to the ruthless policeman in Les Miserables.

What's a little law here and there? There's more important things going on! One of my favorite excuses for this, popularized on this forum recently, "what else are they supposed to do?" Seriously, you can hunt it up here.

How bad is it? This bad:
quote:
Landgraf is being sued by Rice Lake Harley-Davidson dealer Christopher Brekken, who alleges false imprisonment and abuse of process following a run-in with Landgraf in the fall of 2010, during the first John Doe.

The judge in that investigation issued a subpoena on the prosecution’s request and later ordered Brekken arrested and jailed because he would not turn over the credit card information of a man eventually convicted in the probe.

Ironically, submitting to the DA’s demand for credit card information from his motorcycle dealership would have exposed Brekken to prosecution under a separate Wisconsin law that prohibits retailers from revealing confidential credit card information.

The DA wanted this guy to break the law and when he refused, they put him in jail. Had he complied with the DA request and broken the law, I'm guessing he would have faced legal action there too. Nice.
quote:
Then there was the case of Andrew P. Jensen, the commercial real estate broker locked up for refusing to cooperate with the first Doe. Jensen was quietly exonerated several months later.

Landgraf, because of the secrecy order, has declined to comment on the John Doe investigations. So have the other prosecutors and the judges involved.

Landgraf did comment on the Rice Lake retailer and his lawsuit, telling Wisconsin Reporter Brekken got what was coming to him and that the investigation ultimately got its man.

“What difference does it make?” Landgraf shrugged. “We ultimately got the information and the details we needed.”

Yes, what difference does it make? Seriously, anybody buy that? Altogether now, "what else are they supposed to do?" Apparently, they are supposed to conduct secret investigation, jail innocent people and intimidate people ... well, only conservative people.

There's a word for using the apparatus of the state against your political enemies and it starts with an 'F'. Welcome to the new world order citizens.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Anyone who thinks that Wisconsin Democrats are in a position to use the "apparatus of the state" against Scott Walker, please line up behind G3. Your dunce caps have been ordered and will be delivered shortly. [Smile]

And, of course, if you believe that the first investigation "found nothing," or are unaware that Walker's people have repeatedly, across several elections, been found guilty of wrongdoing here, and that the Wisconsin GOP in general is so well-known for this that they've taken to arguing against the statute itself instead of pretending that they don't routinely break it, then you should probably do some reading from someone who isn't quite as partisan as our favorite little G.

People complain about the "Chicago Machine," but that ain't got a patch on the Wisconsin GOP for sheer chutzpah.

[ December 13, 2013, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
In other words, you can't refute the points made so you have to make it about me. Logical fallacies, you gots them.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
*sigh* No, I can refute them. But you didn't bother to do any research on this one, and can post lies and misinformation faster than I can point people to the relevant articles. In this particular article, someone has a hard-on for Bruce Landgraf, a single prosecutor in the Milwaukee DA's office, and is using Landgraf's behavior to argue that there's some statewide, purely partisan witchhunt against Walker -- instead of legitimate, well-founded questions about the way Walker has funded and organized (and continues to fund and organize) his campaigns (and award positions to donors, flunkies, and relatives; his nepotism is becoming legendary.) Note that even "top" prosecutors working for the Milwaukee DA are not exactly high-ranking state officials, or ranking party apparatchiks. Note, too, that there are plenty of DA offices controlled by Republicans that have, on their own, completely failed to come up with grounds for investigation against Wisconsin Democrats; it's not like there aren't a bunch of cities and counties in Wisconsin that are running their own Republican-led "witch hunts." It's just that the Democrats in Wisconsin are a little more ethical, and thus the "hunts" don't manage to actually dredge up much. (IIRC, Republicans spent $1.2m investigating recall fraud, and were able to produce two non-criminal cases -- neither of which were operated by organized labor or Wisconsin Democratic leaders.)

But anyway, feel free to flap around trying to build up some FUD around Walker. Dude's going to run for president someday, and God knows he'll need your help.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Also: Wisconsinites have been investigating Walker (and GOP campaign wrongdoing in general) for long, long before the IRS started investigating Tea Party groups. [Smile] I know you didn't actually intend for your statement to be, y'know, factual, but you probably didn't mean for it to be ridiculous.
 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
So you can refute them but you won't. You'd rather just continue to focus it all on me. I understand. I think everyone does.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
G3, it's not all about you. [Smile] It's about your partisan sources and their biases.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
I certainly hope they do, and moreover understand why.

Note, by the way, that I haven't focused anything on you. I have just pointed out that you're wrong. Your particulars are wrong. Your speculations are ridiculous. And your facts -- where they are actual facts -- are removed from context and do not imply what you would have them imply. These are criticisms of you, yes, because you do this all the time. But they are more specifically substantive criticisms of the actual story you've cut and pasted here. If you'd like evidence that, for example, Democrats were investigating Walker before the IRS started investigating the Tea Party, you can look it up. I have faith in your ability to find things on the Internet.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Also: please, please, please stop using the phrase "logical fallacy" when you still don't know what it means. It really doesn't make you look clever.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
The thinking goes more like: If A and B, then C. The wrinkle is that C implies A and if A, why not B? Ergo, C! Hence logical, fallacy.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Also: please, please, please stop using the phrase "logical fallacy" when you still don't know what it means. It really doesn't make you look clever.

Or at least mix it up with a QED every now and then.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
Agreed. QEDs are real classy. [Smile]
 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Also: please, please, please stop using the phrase "logical fallacy" when you still don't know what it means. It really doesn't make you look clever.

I'm not trying to look clever. I am merely exposing the logical fallacy so many here engage in so routinely. I know it frustrates you and I'm sorry about that but if you want me to stop pointing it out then you must stop doing it ... assuming you can. It may be so ingrained you no longer have the ability to think in any other manner. I hope you can, for once, prove me wrong here but I won't hold my breath.

You may want to start by noticing that you address me directly in every one of your posts. What you're doing is a subdivision of the ad hominem logical fallacy known as shooting the messenger.

Quod erat faciendum (look it up)
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
Except he's not attacking your arguments by attacking you, which could be fallacious; he's attacking you by attacking your arguments, which is rude and uncharitable.

i.e. His argument isn't "G3 meets the requirements for a dunce cap, therefore G3 is wrong;" it's "believing the same thing as G3 is evidence of meeting the requirements for a dunce cap." Note the difference. Both cases involve G3 in a pointy hat, but the path is different.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
*facepalm* No, I'm not shooting the messenger. If you'll read carefully over what I wrote, you'll notice that at no point did I suggest that your incorrect statements and foolish conclusions were incorrect or foolish because you said them.

"You continue to say stupid things" -- or even "you are stupid because you constantly say stupid things" -- is not the same argument as "the things you say are stupid because you're stupid." The latter is an ad hominem of sorts; the two former examples are not.

[ December 13, 2013, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
Hey, if that's all you got, go with it. If you can't talk to the points made, it's all cool. My advice, stop talking about it if you can't do anything other than what you've been doing. That ain't working for you.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
G3, I think that was all Tom was asking - talk to the points instead of saying "logical fallacy" so reflexively because, as demonstrated, you don't have a firm grasp on the concept (or are intentionally abusing it).
 
Posted by Mynnion (Member # 5287) on :
 
Tom-With G(s) history I wonder if this tread was not posted specifically for you [Eek!]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Every G3 thread is intended to provoke.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
I don't think it was aimed directly at me. Walker and Ryan are both desperately trying to salvage their reputations in advance of presidential runs, and so they're throwing a lot of narratives into the conservative blogosphere in hopes that one of them will stick and rehabilitate them a bit. They're both playing the "we're willing to work with people across the aisle" card at the moment, too, which is more than a little hilarious to voters who've known them for a while.
 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
Tom-With G(s) history I wonder if this tread was not posted specifically for you [Eek!]

If it happens in Wisconsin it must be intended to provoke Tom? Riiiiight.

Wisconsin democrats are conducting secret investigations, intimidating people to try to break laws, putting them in jail when they refuse, and it targets only conservatives. I am not surprised at the support this receives here more am I surprised at the tactic used to avoid talking about it. History is full of people who refused to acknowledge what was happening, it's no different here.
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
History is also full of people who who make up paranoid fantasies
 
Posted by Mynnion (Member # 5287) on :
 
G3-
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
Tom-With G(s) history I wonder if this tread was not posted specifically for you [Eek!]
If it happens in Wisconsin it must be intended to provoke Tom? Riiiiight.

You know you enjoy in provocative posts. Considering that Walker and his ilk in Madison have been guilty of much worse and you hadn't called them on it I figured you were just hoping to get a rise out of Tom.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
Wisconsin democrats are conducting secret investigations, intimidating people to try to break laws, putting them in jail when they refuse, and it targets only conservatives.
I just want to point out that every single clause in this sentence is at best a distortion of the truth.

1) "Wisconsin democrats" in this case is one guy in Milwaukee.
2) There are no "secret" investigations being carried out.
3) No one was being intimidated to break a law; rather, they claim they were being intimidated into complying with a request that, had they complied, might have led to accusations that they had broken another law. Note that the request was in fact a subpoena, and the law against revealing credit card information does not generally apply to scenarios in which that information has been subpoenaed.
4) The people who have been arrested in this latest investigation were arrested for, variously, contempt of court, refusal to comply with a subpoena, and refusal to appear before the court.
5) Not every current investigation (or every investigation over the last six years) into misuse of public resources during political campaigns is in fact targeted against conservatives. The only ones to actually find any wrongdoing, however, have all been. Either this is because Republicans are actually committing wrongdoing and Democrats are not, or Democrats -- despite being a tiny minority in state government -- are much better at it.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Thankfully, upon learning of these heinous crimes, our Legislators sprang to action. Representative Jim Steineke, (R-Kaukauna) writes, “now that we fully understand the abhorrent ways that Wisconsin’s John Doe statues have been blatantly abused by a few politically motivated prosecutors, there’s no time to waste in doing our job to correct this wrong. Unlike some might lead you to believe, our job as legislators isn’t to make it easier for prosecutors to investigate people in secret, it’s to protect the rights of its citizens against these few abusive prosecutors.”

Assembly Bill 68, drafted by Representative Dave Craig, serves to correct the ability for blood thirsty prosecutors to wield the John Doe law as a sword to cut down their enemies and strengthens citizens’ constitutional protections while increasing transparency. This should be encouraged by every politician, regardless of party affiliation, if it were a non-partisian issue, that is.

Even Steineke was left stunned after the votes were tallied: “As much as I hate to admit it, every member of the Democrat party in the WI Assembly voted against these reforms that would protect their constituencies from unwarranted searches and abuse from their government.”

Every single democrat supported the raids. If you haven't seen what happened there, you should take a look at it.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Let's count. How many times does Tom quote specific facts and sources in his argument?

How many times does he employ the emperor's new clothes fallacy? If-you-don't-believe-me-you-are-a-since, etc?

It takes some effort to make G3 sound like the reasonable one. Is he right? I have no idea. But I certainly know nothing more about the topic than before reading Tom's rebuthole.


quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Anyone who thinks that Wisconsin Democrats are in a position to use the "apparatus of the state" against Scott Walker, please line up behind G3. Your dunce caps have been ordered and will be delivered shortly. [Smile]

And, of course, if you believe that the first investigation "found nothing," or are unaware that Walker's people have repeatedly, across several elections, been found guilty of wrongdoing here, and that the Wisconsin GOP in general is so well-known for this that they've taken to arguing against the statute itself instead of pretending that they don't routinely break it, then you should probably do some reading from someone who isn't quite as partisan as our favorite little G.

People complain about the "Chicago Machine," but that ain't got a patch on the Wisconsin GOP for sheer chutzpah.


 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Wow. You resurrected this thread just to be an ******* proud of his ignorance? Dude, if you're going to not know anything about something two years old, either keep quiet or learn something.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
...Tom's rebuthole.

[LOL] Google Cindy Archer. It will shock you the extent to which the Democrats in Wisoconsi will go and you'll have a hard time believing this actually happens in America - it sounds more like the worst of a totalitarian state. Secret investigations, pre dawn home invasions, threats about talking, terrorizing children. It's some awful stuff and it was 100% political retribution.

[ October 25, 2015, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: Rafi ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
I know Cindy Archer personally. She's a lying asshat, and absolutely none of what she describes actually happened to her. As you'd know if you'd bothered to do any research beyond, say, the Blaze. The "pre-dawn invasion" you're talking about was a computer confiscation; ask anyone who's ever been doxxed how those go.

She's welcome to whine about the fact that she got caught doing illegal crap, but I'm personally of the opinion that having the friggin' state Supreme Court reinterpret law just so you personally don't go to jail is probably ample compensation for her very limited trouble.

[ October 25, 2015, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
You know Archer .... Right. Are you personal friends with all the others targeted by these raids? Are they all lying, it's a conspiracy? I'm looking at multiple newspapers, media outlets and press releases. You're relying on personal attacks and, let's call it embellishment. They ransacked people's homes in predawn raids, threatened them if they talked, terrorized children. How anyone is okay with that is shocking and explains a lot about the way guys like Stalin and Pol Pot got away with what they did.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
I never said Archer was my friend. In fact, I called her a lying asshat.

quote:
I'm looking at multiple newspapers, media outlets and press releases. You're relying on personal attacks and, let's call it embellishment.
Nope. I am telling you to actually check sources. Look at the details on the "terrorized children" claim, just for an example.

I have no time or patience to waste with your typical disingenuous, dishonest bullcrap when it actually matters, G#. I know you're not interested in honest dialogue here, and I don't have the energy to tell the Peanut Gallery everything they might possibly need to know to understand how full of crap you and your "sources" are. So I'm happy just telling the Peanut Gallery that you're full of crap and letting them Google their own info, where they'll quickly realize that your information is coming from notorious sources of s**t.

Let me just point out that it is bulls**t like this that was used to "justify" and ram through a three-pronged attack on honest government here in Wisconsin that was passed after midnight, without debate, on purely partisan lines. In fact, it's not even bull LIKE this; it is PRECISELY THIS BULL that was used.

So, yeah, I'm angry at these pieces of crap. But neither do I believe for a moment that the truth matters, or that any of the ******** out there ranting about this give a s**t about the truth.

[ October 25, 2015, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
I never said she was your friend either but you said you know her. Do you know her or not? How about the other victims involved, you know them? And when you say "know", what's does that mean? You read their name on a website or what?

Reducing 15 year old girls to tears and threatening them if they talk, that happened. I call that terrorizing children.

Court affidavits are also part of my sources. Those "full of crap" too? Look, you can call people names, go on mouth foaming rants and behave the ass all you want but the facts are out there and easily available.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:

Reducing 15 year old girls to tears and threatening them if they talk, that happened. I call that terrorizing children.

But arresting 14 year-old boys is just caution.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
Do you know her or not?
Yes, I know her. I also know one other person who was targeted by the investigation.

quote:
Reducing 15 year old girls to tears and threatening them if they talk, that happened. I call that terrorizing children.
*laugh* You may want to look into the details a bit more. If we're going to call it "terrorism" when we raid someone's house and their child cries as a consequence, I really need to introduce you to reality. (While we're at it, consider what "threatening" constitutes, here, given the legal requirements of the search.) It's also worth noting that almost all of the "unreasonable" things Archer complained happened to her during the raid were retracted -- by her -- once they were contradicted by recordings.

Regarding "affadavits:" the Wisconsin Supreme Court is not to be trusted in this matter, by the way. Literally a third of the court should have recused itself from this case.

[ October 26, 2015, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:

Reducing 15 year old girls to tears and threatening them if they talk, that happened. I call that terrorizing children.

But arresting 14 year-old boys is just caution.
The 14 year old boy had a suspicious device in his possession. The girl was sleeping in her bed and not suspected of anything. Do you truly think there is an equivalence there? [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
The Supreme Court cannot be trusted to be honest. You're just a hair away from spouting about jet contrails and lizard men ruling humanity, you know that right?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
You realize that I'm talking about a court that recently saw its newest member choke another member, but was so incredibly partisan that it couldn't decide how to punish him? The Wisconsin Supremes are a total embarrassment, to the point that I'm not surprised that out-of-staters find it hard to believe how bad they are.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I used to be able to distinguish TomD's posts from G3 without looking at the name on the left ... Is the merger of their styles an effect of subversion-containment?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Oh dear. Is Tom tossing around homophobic epithet again? I thought we cured him of that. Tom, I don't know what context you met Archer in that he would know she practices cranial fishing, but that's hardly relevant to her political performance. Please stop reducing female leaders to crass sexual terms ...That's so 20th Century.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
What homophobic epithet? Do you, the king of vulgar sexual comments on this thread, consider "asshat" to be a sexual term?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
The 14 year old boy had a suspicious device in his possession.
No he didn't. He had a clock in his possession, and no one in the entire proceeding was, at any point actually suspected it of being anything but a clock. That it was was remotely possible that someone might have thought it suspicious was just a post-fact justification for the harassment, not an reflection on the actual reaction of anyone who saw it.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
The 14 year old boy had a suspicious device in his possession.
No he didn't. He had a clock in his possession, and no one in the entire proceeding was, at any point actually suspected it of being anything but a clock. That it was was remotely possible that someone might have thought it suspicious was just a post-fact justification for the harassment, not an reflection on the actual reaction of anyone who saw it.
Are you aware of how non sequitor this point is? The actual fact of a thing being a bomb or not is not the only criterion in whether it's suspicious, and whether or not it's legal to carry around and bring such a thing into a school. A gun facsimile that is obviously not capable of firing real bullets is nevertheless completely forbidden from school grounds, and it would be very peculiar to try to argue that this standard shouldn't apply to other kinds of destructive devices.

As D.W. mentioned, to what extent people think it appears 'bombish' is apparently quite subjective, and thankfully not at all colored by previous political convictions [Razz] To assert that it simply wasn't suspicious amounts to telling people that their perception of reality is wrong and yours is right.

Your continued framing of the case as one of "harassment" only shows how much preconceived bias you bring to your interpretation. Even granting fully that the teacher reacted incorrectly and that the police likewise did, this still would not make a case that their foolishness amounted to "harassment" (by which we know you mean race-based harassment). You dismiss the possibility that they just screwed up royally, or even that they thought they were doing the right thing but that they're just idiots. It's even possible they thought there was a certain protocol to be followed in this type of case and that they were wrong about what the correct response was.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Nobody thought it was a bomb. For the nth time, if anyone had thought it was a bomb, they would have evacuated the building. If anyone had even suspected that it was a bomb and reacted the way they did, they are even more egregiously stupid than we think and should not be in charge of children.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
All of that is true kmbboots. It's also not really relevant to most of this discussion.

What is at question, for the nth time, is if the device was suspicious or appeared as if it may have been created to intentionally mimic the appearance of a bomb (or Hollywood cartoonization of an explosive device) to cause a disruption in the school.

They are very different standards and should call for different reactions by those involved.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
Except that bringing in what is obviously (or quickly determined to be) a toy gun does not warrant being lead out in handcuffs and interrogated by the police. The same should apply to something mistaken for a bomb and quickly determined (even before the police arrived) not to be.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
"Oooh! That looks like a bomb except it is so clearly doesn't look like a bomb that I am certain that it isn't."

How does that even make sense?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
The actual fact of a thing being a bomb or not is not the only criterion in whether it's suspicious, and whether or not it's legal to carry around and bring such a thing into a school. A gun facsimile that is obviously not capable of firing real bullets is nevertheless completely forbidden from school grounds, and it would be very peculiar to try to argue that this standard shouldn't apply to other kinds of destructive devices.
Except that the policy for a gun is "a gun or something that resembles it" while the policy for a bomb is not "something that might resemble a bomb, but "something that arouses suspicion that it might be a bomb" if everyone who sees it is clear on what it is, then it doesn't qualify. It only qualifies if it actualyl causes someone to think it might possibly be a bomb- if it actualyl arouses suspicion.

That's what it means to be suspicious. Not that some people might be able to compare it on superficial resemblance, but that it actually creates the suspicion that it might be a dangerous object. At no point did the clock create and suspicion; it' impossible to honestly define it as suspicious, except as a post-fact rationalization.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
Sorry, Pyr, but you're wrong. The purpose of banning weapon facsimiles from school isn't just to prevent the actual threat of weapon use. It's to eliminate the situation where a person has to look at a device and make an assessment (even an easy assessment) on the spot about whether it's the real thing or not. Teachers shouldn't have to be making threat assessments in a school, which is why anything at all resembling a gun is banned. If you don't see how this should apply to other dangerous things like bombs then I can't explain it to you.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
Sorry, Pyr, but you're wrong. The purpose of banning weapon facsimiles from school isn't just to prevent the actual threat of weapon use. It's to eliminate the situation where a person has to look at a device and make an assessment (even an easy assessment) on the spot about whether it's the real thing or not. Teachers shouldn't have to be making threat assessments in a school, which is why anything at all resembling a gun is banned. If you don't see how this should apply to other dangerous things like bombs then I can't explain it to you.

Indeed, but that wasn't required in this case. No teacher had to sort anything out here- at no point was there an ambiguous situation that caused anyone to wonder if it might be a bomb- in fact active effort to avoid any ambiguity was taken, action was only taken well after the fact on a very spurious assertion that there had been some ambiguity; the teacher falsely claimed suspicion well after they had clearly demonstrated that they did not suspect it might be a bomb.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
There has to be a minimum bar for actually reasonably suspecting something here, otherwise, backpacks, clothes, phones, and just about anything can arbitrary be called a suspicious device, since any of them could conceivably be used to conceal a bomb. "Looks like a gun" is a reasonable basis for suspicion. "Looks like a clock" is not.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
"Oooh! That looks like a bomb except it is so clearly doesn't look like a bomb that I am certain that it isn't."

How does that even make sense?

To me, it just does. I consider it part of "common sense". I get that to several people here (and likely all over the world) it doesn't and they consider my "common sense" as idiocy. So be it.

The closest comparison I can make is someone with a marker or something in their coat pocket implying through body language they have a gun and are threatening you by aiming it at you. The trope, ingrained through pop culture media, is that there is a gun in their pocket.

Someone makes them produce the contents of their pocket. See? Just a marker, no gun here. Also, I never said it was a gun either. Why are you over reacting? Then due to our reaction to even the hint of violence today, particularly as it relates to guns or bombs, the police are called because of an alleged (and contested) gun "threat" or "scare" or "hoax".

Pick your word that implies the level of culpability you are comfortable with attributing to this "joke" or "prank" or "publicity stunt" or "cultural stereotype commentary performance art". [Razz]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Except that there is no evidence at all that he wanted people to think it was a bomb.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Which is why I included the words "alleged (and contested)" in my comparison.

I personally think that matters a lot. As I've said before I have no clue if schools or the local police have policies on this type of situation. They could be "going by the book" even though they KNOW it's not an explosive device. No tolerance policies are odd things and I dislike them a lot.

Not one, but two teachers felt this device was inappropriate. One enough to comment, another enough to confiscate it. Then the office enough to contact the police, and the police enough to not tell the school staff they are idiots but instead cuff the kid.

IMO that was very specifically due to the easy comparison between a bomb-looking device and this clock. What Ahmed "wanted people to think" really doesn't matter at all. People thought it was a device that looked similar enough to a bomb to cause a disruption of their school and thought (correctly or not) that this was a matter for law enforcement.

I've probably said all that before in one of the 3 topics this has spread to. Sorry about that.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Except that there is no evidence at all that he wanted people to think it was a bomb.

The only available evidence appears to be his history of pranking, as well as the look of the device. There is disagreement about how the device looked, but nevertheless plenty of people think it looked bombish. That is exhibit A. Exhibit B is Ahmed's own claims, which state what you say. The difficulty is that the evidence of both sides also satisfies both scenarios. If Ahmed was innocent then his comments make sense and his clock, which was just that, speaks for itself. If he was not, then likewise he would obviously deny any wrongdoing. There's no way to parse the situation using his statements, therefore, and the matter must revert to one that is divorced from his intentions. What did the thing look like, and what is the proper response to a thing that looks like this? That's the bottom line. The fact that we are divided about exactly what the device looked like seems to be enough grounds to say that it shouldn't have been in a school; nothing that many people will mistake for looking like a bomb should be anywhere near a school.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
The bottom line is that, if the thing looked like a bomb, the proper response would have been to evacuate the building and call the bomb squad. So, if it did look like a bomb, the school's response was not proper.

Are we saying that anything with wires sticking out of it should be banned from schools?
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
The bottom line is that, if the thing looked like a bomb, the proper response would have been to evacuate the building and call the bomb squad. So, if it did look like a bomb, the school's response was not proper.

Are we saying that anything with wires sticking out of it should be banned from schools?

Should anything with a trigger and barrel be banned from schools? I can tell pretty easily when a gun toy isn't a real gun. I guess those should be allowed in schools too.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Scenario A: Find item that looks like a bomb.
Response A: Evacuate building and call police.

Scenario B: Child found with an object that is not dangerous but you believe was intended to cause a disruption and possibly even to scare people into a panic.
Responce B: Confiscate object and follow disciplinary procedures.

Then we have what happened. They followed B yet called the police to sort it out. The police, by their actions seem to indicate this was the correct (or at least presubscribed) response.

I'd say this was a case of gray area interpretation by the school staff and the police on a bomb scare/threat/hoax policy.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
The bottom line is that, if the thing looked like a bomb, the proper response would have been to evacuate the building and call the bomb squad. So, if it did look like a bomb, the school's response was not proper.

Are we saying that anything with wires sticking out of it should be banned from schools?

Should anything with a trigger and barrel be banned from schools? I can tell pretty easily when a gun toy isn't a real gun. I guess those should be allowed in schools too.
What has a trigger and a barrel that isn't supposed to look like a gun? Given that police have a hard time telling when a toy gun is a toy, you should be working for them.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
You are making his point for him km.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
I'm really not. Lots of things can look like a bomb that aren't meant to look like a bomb. Very few things look like a gun that aren't meant to look like a gun.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Do you see a middle ground at all? Is it, call the bomb squad or let it slide? Are there no in between situations?

To me this was an in between situation and the police involvement was IMO a mistake. (Unless any allegation of a bomb hoax/scare necessitates police involvement as school policy.)

I wanted to include a picture of the pop-tart gun, but that's only noteworthy because of how stupid the case was. [Razz]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Sure. There is a middle ground that doesn't include the kid getting arrested. Beyond that, I think there would have to be some evidence that the kid actually made a bomb threat. Had he called in a bomb threat or told people he had a bomb then, yes, some disciplinary action - including criminal charges - would be appropriate. But he didn't do that. Basically, all he did was be in possession of a bunch of electronic parts and clock face in a box. Half of our IT storage looks at least that much like a bomb.

[ November 02, 2015, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
My issue with even the school's reaction is that Ahmed hadn't done anything wrong, except having something that beeped in class. Even if he intended the clock to be mistaken for a bomb, he'd taken no action to that end. A person ought not to be punished for an action he may be intending to take in the future.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
I guess the catch is a bomb threat or hoax is a felony. Having a clock that may or may not look like a bomb and zero witnesses who claim you ever suggested it was a bomb there doesn't seem to be much of a case.

What I don't know is what is the threshold for determining if someone should be arrested? How convincing your prop is has little to do with your guilt or innocence for perpetrating a hoax. It has A LOT to do with it if you never made any overt action or statement to suggest you were perpetrating a hoax.

I don't think a bomb hoax/threat is a situation where the school has a choice whether or not to press charges.

I don't believe this situation would ever be enough to convict a student. What I'm unsure of is if an arrest is unwarranted or not.

[ November 02, 2015, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
My issue with even the school's reaction is that Ahmed hadn't done anything wrong, except having something that beeped in class. Even if he intended the clock to be mistaken for a bomb, he'd taken no action to that end. A person ought not to be punished for an action he may be intending to take in the future.

People are unfortunately punished all the time for the paranoia and misjudgment of others. Some times our laws and policies all but insure it.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
I would say that it is something like a false fire alarm. If someone had called in a threat and the school had been evacuated, there should be some charges. But this kid didn't do that.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Or if his lunch contained a juice box that looked kinda like a gasoline can and a pack of gum that looked a little like a zippo.

They KNOW it's just his lunch and there is no danger... but they call the cops anyway because of an implied arson threat or hoax?

[ November 02, 2015, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
The shadow of my finger could look like a gun, too. This is way too hypothetical for me. The kid brought a reassembled clock to school, declared it to be that, the school never really thought it was anything else but decided to cover their asses (but exposed them instead) and made the kid into a wannabe bomber until they realized they couldn't push that narrative any further.

All that bothers me a lot, but what bothers me even more is that concerned objections to his mistreatment became and lingers as another right wing talking point about how liberals take an extreme position of wanting to emasculate US defenses and law enforcement.

The middle ground is to be highly skeptical of the treatment Ahmed received. The right wing response is extreme. I'll be interested to see what new mock outrage replaces this event in the Bernoulli phobosphere.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
quote:
the school never really thought it was anything else
Accept at least the teacher who confiscated it, and the person who called the police DID think it was something else. They thought it was a prop for a prank or hoax or threat. They KNEW it wasn't an actual bomb, but they did not believe it was just a clock. If your statement was true the nation would have never heard about Ahmed.

"the school never really thought it was a bomb", is accurate. Your statement is not.

Why this whole issue gets me worked up is I honestly don't know if the whole response was out of line. Yes, it was ridiculous to arrest this kid but at what point will assuming the innocence of someone because of their age allow a tragedy? Probably never, but it is possible. So how do you balance harassment, inconvenience and negative media exposure of a kid against the security of a school?

I don't have the answer. Heck, I don't even know why we are discussing this in THIS thread. Seems we wandered a bit...

[ November 02, 2015, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:

Why this whole issue gets me worked up is I honestly don't know if the whole response was out of line. Yes, it was ridiculous to arrest this kid but at what point will assuming the innocence of someone because of their age allow a tragedy? Probably never, but it is possible. So how do you balance harassment, inconvenience and negative media exposure of a kid against the security of a school?

At the point where they don't evacuate and call the bomb squad when it is a bomb. Confiscating the clock, and calling the police in this case would have done nothing to prevent a tragedy had the clock been a bomb.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Umm, yes. I agree with your statement though do not see it as a valid response to, or having any relation to, my statement you quoted.

After inspecting the device everyone who encountered it was content that it would not and could not cause harm.

One more time. That determination has nothing to do with the decision to call the police. That decision comes down to motive speculation by the staff, the plausibility that someone could believe the device looked like a bomb, and school policy to deal with a bomb hoax.

You do not need to wait for a bomb threat before you take measures to prevent one from occurring. Questions of intent and motive are for the court room if it comes to that. I expect one of our more legal educated members could tell us the standard required to make an arrest for perpetrating a bomb hoax. That determination is what tells us if the police (or even the school) acted inappropriately.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
But he didn't make a bomb threat. He might (and there is no evidence for this) have been planning a bomb hoax in the future. We don't actually arrest people for things that they haven't done.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
Like kmbboots, I don't see simply having the device in his possession as something warranting major discipline. To suspend him or call the police should have required deliberate disruptive action on his part. I don't see anyone saying that he had been, if for no other reason than the clock was taken before he could do much with it.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
I agree with both of you. Stupider things have happened in the name of "zero tolerance" policies.

We are also getting all of this info second or third hand. Something made the teachers raise an alarm and eventually involve the police.

Let's say the clock was left out after class. A different student finds it later or it beeps again. Is there reason to believe that this child could believe it was a bomb based on it's visual characteristics alone? Couldn't that cause a panic? It wouldn't be the clock's creator who made the threat. He just "forgot it" there.

If so, does possession alone of that clock, because of it's visual characteristics, warrant disciplinary action or even police involvement? (As that type of "prank" if perpetrated is a felony.)

I'm asking. I don't think this is a "thought police" issue where since he didn't do anything overtly illegal no harm no foul.

[ November 02, 2015, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
Slighty better than even odds that it was racism, though zero tolerance stupidity would be sufficient. I don't expect that anything more than that could have triggered the call to police.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
I don't get the racism angle. OK, you believe that he's a Muslim who wants to blow up the school. Accept that no bomb evacuation was instituted.

So you believe a Muslim kid is more inclined to preform a bomb scare with a prop?

I get that we like to think of bigots as ignorant hicks, but really? That's a pretty incredible amount of dumb.

Lets go the other way, you believe this kid is very adult and politically aware; and you believe he is playing off his own negative stereotype to poke fun at the community? And you want to knock him down a peg by playing into his trap and calling the cops? Really?

I mean, given the opportunity, the public will let you down more often than not but this seems unbelievable to me.

You see any of that (or something else) as more plausible than just "following school policy"? (no matter how foolish we feel zero tolerance policies are)
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Or he is a Muslim kid and you just don't like them so you are more suspicious and less inclined to assume good intentions.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
That makes sense.
Are you suggesting they broke policy / the law or that they just used the least favorable interpretation of it because they are racist?

That part was lost on me until just now.

Another case of what is probably common sense to some but others are oblivious to... Feeling a bit slow for not connecting that assumption to the discussion.

[ November 02, 2015, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
I don't know. Could be they just don't like that kid. Could be they are just enough suspicious of Muslims that they wanted to bump it to a higher pay-grade. Could be that the policy is stupid. Could be that the grownups just didn't think it through.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
But he didn't make a bomb threat. He might (and there is no evidence for this) have been planning a bomb hoax in the future. We don't actually arrest people for things that they haven't done.

If everyone can come to some understanding about why the school teachers and administration acted as they did in this case, perhaps you can also offer an explanation for the story Rafi G gave us as to why his sister was suspended for three days for saying she wanted to blow up her school. Too harsh, perhaps?
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
But he didn't make a bomb threat. He might (and there is no evidence for this) have been planning a bomb hoax in the future. We don't actually arrest people for things that they haven't done.

If everyone can come to some understanding about why the school teachers and administration acted as they did in this case, perhaps you can also offer an explanation for the story Rafi G gave us as to why his sister was suspended for three days for saying she wanted to blow up her school. Too harsh, perhaps?
Since you quoted kmbboots I assume you're referencing her statement that people aren't arrested for things they haven't done (which incidentally hasn't been true since Patriot Act was passed; an entirely relevant point of fact when considering potential bomb-related issues).

However it should be noted that speech counts as "doing something" and certain kinds of speech are illegal. I don't know if three days' suspension is too much for a bomb threat, but some punishment was surely in order if she really said that.
 


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1