Ahmed Mohamed bomb scare

What do you think of the Muslim lad who carried a funny looking briefcase that people thought was a bomb.
The right-wing are saying things like this: http://ift.tt/1MumNOQ

Quote:

Whatever Ahmed’s intentions were in bringing his project to school, the result was to create an environment that required the teachers to act. He showed the device to his science teacher who told him to put it away since it looked like a bomb. Later when he had the device in a briefcase and plugged in the alarm on it went off and a second teacher noted that it looked like a bomb. Once that logical determination was made, the school officials had to act. It was not their job, nor did they have the expertise, to determine the actual purpose of the device. They were required to involve law enforcement to make those judgments and when the police arrived they have policies to follow when faced with a possible homemade explosive device. Here is a side-by-side comparison of Ahmed’s clock and an Iranian-made IED trigger used to kill US troops in Iraq. Even more so, above is a picture of an IED training device sold to US law enforcement agencies to help them identify and learn how to deal with homemade bombs. They would have been deficient in performing their public safety duties if they had not done a full examination and investigation of the device, it’s presence at school and the person who built it and brought it there.

Except as a commentator on another report points out:
http://ift.tt/1iOyFyw

Quote:

According to Irving ISD's letter home to parents after this incident (Dallas News linked it in this article above), the school claims there was a "suspicious-looking item" that was not considered an "imminent threat." This justifies why there was no lockdown. The questions remains, then: if the "suspicious-looking item" was discerned to NOT be a threat, why were the principal and police present interacting with the student as if it WAS? People have justified this response by saying, "It was just due diligence; after all, they didn't know that the item wasn't a bomb; it COULD have been." No; that is incorrect. At this point, the school had already decided this object was not a bomb, would not be treated as if it were a bomb, and posed no threat. So "due diligence" cannot be the reason that the student was asked repeatedly "Why did you try to make a bomb?" Which leaves us asking, what WAS the reason that the principal and police were interacting with the student as if he was trying to make a bomb when they had already decided he wasn't? Why was he categorized as a threat when they had already ascertained that the object he made was not threatening?

Quite the wrinkle, so was this a misunderstanding or a problem stunt?

via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1MumNOS