Discussion: Family Of Muslim Teen Hires Lawyers To Get His Clock Back From Police

[darrtown]

It’s still suspicious. No doubt. It had digital numbers on it, and it looks stupid in general

Give it up will ya? You are OBSESSING. And it is making me concerned for you. Digital numbers don’t make a clock suspicious any more than hands on a clock face would. Looking stupid isn’t cause for suspicion either. Nor is the lack of C4 explosive.

You say the clock and its numbers are suspicious yet at the same time you say the kid should not have been arrested. That is a logical conundrum. If the device is suspicious the arresting the kid would be logical. If on the other hand it isn’t worth an arrest how can it be suspicious? If the police have apologized why will they not return the gizmo? This just does not make any sense. I get this same feeling listening to Sarah Palin’s word salad comments.

[darrtown]

The police have apologized for the arrest. And Ahmed’s family is free to hit the talk show circuit, but they should stop going after the police.

I expect the end of this would be when the police hand back his clock. Which they should do. Now. And that is why the family is going after the police. The kid wants it back. There’s no reason for the police to hang onto that gizmo. … other than trying to avoid embarrassment when the public sees it.
Suspicion is in the eye of the beholder. Most don’t see any in this anymore. A few(very few) do.

[mrcomments]

The family has discussed suing for false arrest. The device would then become evidence. They might just need to sign a waiver to get it back. And if they want to sue for false arrest, just do it. That would be amusing.

[vic1130]

Surely you are not suggesting that the police are justified in their refusal to return the clock, which they seized as evidence in a fruitless “criminal” investigation, because it could be used against them in a civil lawsuit.

[mrcomments]

No, I am not suggesting that. I am stating that. Why wouldn’t they?

[mrcomments]

I’d say they will need to sign an agreement stating they will not sue for false arrest so the case can be close out. If not, it’s potential evidence. They have said they will sue. They have every right to. So when they make that decision, that’s when it either becomes evidence in the case, or goes back to the owner. Sounds logical.

[vic1130]

I’m not aware of any legal justification for a law enforcement agency holding evidence hostage in exchange for a pledge not to use that evidence in a court of law.

[mrcomments]

I would not call that holding it “hostage”. If they are threatening to sue, that is potential evidence, and in fact the key piece of evidence. I don’t see why the evidence can’t potentially be held for as long as the period that they have to sue (there is usually an “expiration” on that), then be released.

[vic1130]

What is the legal justification for the police to control the key piece of evidence in a civil lawsuit? The police have admitted there is no justification for holding the evidence for a criminal prosecution.

[mrcomments]

Mohammed was deemed to be “non-responsive” and “passive aggressive” during questioning. Since he is a juvenile, those records can’t be released unless his parents allow it. Authorities say the family has refused to allow them to be made public for some reason. That may or may not be true, but why don’t they demand the records be released along with the clock?

The police have admitted there is no justification for holding the evidence for a criminal prosecution.

They also said the device was suspicious, and defended police reaction to the device. So I’m not so sure they have a legal obligation to release it. You need to show me that. They have deemed the device serves no purpose other than to alarm people. They did not press charges against Mohammed because they said it was a “naive accident” by him. But the device serves no purpose but to alarm people. Had he made a replica gun, and had it in his backpack by accident, he would not be charged, but the police could keep the gun.

It’s up to his parents now. Demand that the records be released. I’d bet they won’t do it. Only one side of this story is being reported, the side that sells.

[specksie]

Mohammed was deemed to be “non-responsive” and “passive aggressive” during questioning. [/quote]

Even as a brown Muslim, he has the right to remain silent, yes? Especially if his parents or counsel were not there during questioning. That could be considered non-responsive, and also well within his rights. Also, when the police said that his device looked like a TV or movie bomb, and asked if he intended to scare anyone with it, if Ahmed said something along the lines of, “Ummm… it’s just a clock. That’s all it ever was. Just a clock. So why am I here again?” would that be considered passive aggressive? Maybe. But it turns out it was also the truth.

Since he is a juvenile, those records can’t be released unless his parents allow it. Authorities say the family has refused to allow them to be made public for some reason. That may or may not be true, but why don’t they demand the records be released along with the clock?

It doesn’t matter why they haven’t given permission to release the records. The police can’t release them unless the parents consent. It’s their choice. The clock, however, belongs to Ahmed. It is not a bomb, it is not a hoax bomb, it is no longer a threat. It is simply a clock. Unless people are still alarmed now that everyone knows that it is just a clock, it should be returned to him.

They also said the device was suspicious, and defended police reaction to the device.

True, and true. It WAS suspicious. Past tense. Currently not suspicious, just a clock. Unless you can share with us what the continuing suspicions of the police might be. What is it that the police still suspect about that clock?

So I’m not so sure they have a legal obligation to release it. You need to show me that. They have deemed the device serves no purpose other than to alarm people. They did not press charges against Mohammed because they said it was a “naive accident” by him. But the device serves no purpose but to alarm people. Had he made a replica gun, and had it in his backpack by accident, he would not be charged, but the police could keep the gun.

As the device has been determined not to be dangerous in any way, and it is, in fact, a clock and nothing more, it has ceased to be a suspicious device. I can think of at least one purpose the device serves other than to alarm people. It can inform people what time it is. Unless by “alarm people” you meant “wake them up.”

As the device is no longer suspicious, and there is no reason for the police to keep the device for a future criminal trial, they need to release the device into the custody of its owner. Just like when they determined that it was a “naive accident” and Ahmed did not pose a threat to anyone and there were no criminal charges to be filed, they needed to release him. They had no legal reason to hold him any longer. Same with the clock. If the police decide that they would like to press criminal charges against Ahmed, then they have every right to keep the device as evidence. Only it does not appear that that is what they are planning. Unless you have different information, of course.

[quote]It’s up to his parents now. Demand that the records be released. I’d bet they won’t do it. Only one side of this story is being reported, the side that sells.

Your tinfoil hat is a little crooked. Maybe we should demand to see his long form birth certificate as well. After all, he is a brown Muslim.

[mrcomments]

Your tinfoil hat is a little crooked. Maybe we should demand to see his long form birth certificate as well. After all, he is a brown Muslim.

Childish reply.

Yes, the media reports what sells. Perhaps you forgot how they sold us the Iraq War, etc. They had no desire to hear the story that did not sell. They never do.

[specksie]

If the hat fits…

[vic1130]

I am aware of people who were actually charged with weapons offenses, were acquitted, and then had their weapons returned. Yet you say the police can keep a replica from a person not charged. How do you know this? Where is the legal basis for this?

[mrcomments]

If the weapons were legal, they get them back, yes. If they weapon had been altered (like a sawed off shotgun), they don’t. Relevance to topic at hand?

Yet you say the police can keep a replica from a person not charged.

I did not say he made a “replica”. I said he made a “certainly suspicious” (quote from police) device.

Let the family sue, let’s see what happens. We obviously disagree and could go on forever.

The reason the kid wants it is for the talk shows, etc., they want him to show it. So, to get it back, let his family sue for it. DOJ obviously is watching all this, if the family has a case, the police will have to give it back. If not, they won’t. No more complex than that. So I’ll pass on the endless debate, let’s see what happens.

[specksie]

Had he made a replica gun, and had it in his backpack by accident, he would not be charged, but the police could keep the gun.

Yet you say the police can keep a replica from a person not charged.

I did not say he made a “replica”. I said he made a “certainly suspicious” (quote from police) device.

Is there some sort of physical and/or neurological explanation for how mind-numbingly obtuse you are?

[mrcomments]

The gun was speculative, had “a kid” (not this kid) made a gun that looked exactly like a real gun (that would be a replica), yes, the police could keep it, because it’s suspicious. Totally different scenario, the point was “suspicious”. Let’s just say that would be confiscated if he went through airport security, no doubt.

And the thing that kid made (which in no way was an “invention”) was suspicious. It also would be confiscated if he went through airport security.

I think you have comprehension issues.

[specksie]

Let me try to use small words and maybe you’ll understand.

Your position is that if a person had a fake gun, the police could take the fake gun because it was suspicious, not charge the owner of the fake gun, and still keep the gun because it was suspicious. You made this analogy in order to justify the Irving Police Department’s decision to keep Ahmed’s clock, because it was suspicious.

Vic1130 said that he knows of people who were actually criminally charged with weapons offenses by the police. These people were found not guilty of the offenses, and the police were required to return the real weapons to their owners. The police had the right to hold the weapons for evidence until the criminal trial was over. When it was determined that the owners of the weapons were innocent of the charges, they got their property back.

Concerning the topic at hand, (which has nothing to do with airport security, by the way) Ahmed was determined to be innocent before he was even criminally charged. If he was charged and found innocent, seems like he would have gotten his clock back, just as Vic’s gun owners got their weapons back. So if the police do not intend to criminally charge Ahmed, which means they do not need to hold his clock for evidence, why is it that they get to keep the clock? What is their legal reasoning for keeping it?

By your logic, if the people Vic mentioned were arrested on weapons offenses, and then it was determined that they were innocent before they were actually charged, the police could keep the weapons indefinitely.

We are both wondering what legal basis are you basing this position on? Is there legal precedent, a specific law, or something you can point to or quote to back up your position, or are you just pulling this out of your ass?

[vic1130]

Im sorry I engaged you. I assumed you knew what you were talking about and could therefore provide the legal justification for the cops refusal to return the clock. My bad.

[mrcomments]

The homemade device was deemed suspicious. It has been classified as such. Therefore the police are keeping it, and they have that right if they want to.

However, just to show you how full of shit this family is, the police told them Sept 18 (a week and a half ago) they could pick up the clock.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/northwest-dallas-county/headlines/20150923-irving-clockmakers-family-hires-lawyer-to-investigate-hoax-bomb-charge.ece
Irving police announced Wednesday that they had notified Ahmed’s family Friday that the clock could be picked up any weekday at police headquarters. Ahmed’s father, Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed, has told The Dallas Morning News that he planned to retrieve the item but wasn’t sure when.

Ahmed Mohamed, clock-making teen, transferring to another school, family says...

Irving police had held onto the clock as evidence, but on Thursday, they told CNN that it’s ready for Ahmed to pick it up.

Yes, the family is full of shit. Just like when Mark Cuban was talking to the kid, he said his sister was in the background coaching his answers.

The clock has been ready to pick up from police for 10 days. But now they say they need lawyers to get it from police? Jive assholes.