Appearing on Chris Hayes’ MSNBC show, Irving police chief Larry Boyd admitted his cops knew 14-year-old Ahmed Mohamed didn’t bring a bomb to school, or claim he had a bomb, and explained the kid’s arrest this way:
Hayes: “Once it’s determined that this is just a clock or just a piece of electronics, why then the arrest and all of that?”
Boyd: “What their investigation centered around is the law violation of bringing a device into a facility like that that is intended to create a level of alarm. In other words, a hoax bomb — something that is not really a bomb, but is designed and presented in a way that it creates people to be afraid.”
Hayes: “Right, but he never called it a bomb, right? He just kept calling it a clock. I mean, it never came out of his lips, he never did something or started showing it around saying, ‘Look at this bomb I have.’ He said, ‘Look at my clock.’”
Boyd: “There definitely was some confusion and some level of information that didn’t come out immediately.”
Notice he didn’t say the cops were confused. Remember, these are the same cops who issued a statement last week saying the kid was uncooperative when questioned because he kept referring to his clock as a “clock.” If you ever plan a road trip to the Dallas-Fort Worth area, I suggest driving around Irving, so you don’t get a ticket for running a green light there.
When you dig into this case, what you find is that Ahmed brought his clock to school to show it to his engineering teacher, who was impressed, but then an English teacher who knows squat about electronics freaked out. So the kid was arrested for making frightening a stupid teacher with his invention. (I suggest we not put that person on the Iran nuclear inspection team.)
There’s a simple reason why charges were dropped: The law applies a “reasonable person” standard to these things. In other words, you’re not guilty of frightening people if a reasonable person would not be frightened by your actions. But instead of applying the standard the law uses, these cops — if you’re willing to take Chief Boyd’s explanation at face value — acted on the subjective reaction of one individual. Under that procedure, you could be arrested for licking an ice cream cone, if you encounter some stranger who has an irrational fear of ice cream. Which is why the law doesn’t hold us responsible for other people’s subjective behavior; under a standard like that, social chaos would ensue. Additionally, most crimes involve an element of intent, and the absence of intent to cause fear in this case also flew over the heads of these idiot cops.
I would say Chief Boyd has a major problem on his hands: He has to supervise a gang of incompetents. What are the qualifications to be a cop in Texas? Completing sixth grade? Not exactly a sharp bunch there.
Photos: Smart kid meets dumb cops
