Summations Only

Not thinking critically may have been an issue, yes.

Apparently so. The police apparently decided, after an inquiry that took longer than ringo thinks it should have, that there was no bomb threat. Again, the fact that the clock did not contain an explosive does not end the inquiry.The kid was not charged because the police concluded that the kid did not make a bomb threat. Taking the kid into custody, but not charging him after making an investigation is not of itself a bad thing. All that's required to make an arrest is a legally sufficient level of suspicion. Charges should be brought only if the conclusion is that the defendant is probably guilty. Two different standards.If you have a point, your questions don't seem to get to that point.I'm reserving judgment until I hear the full story. What i have heard so far does not preclude the possibility that the police acted correctly. I don't see any reason to rush to express my indignation.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Just what does the law say about this? Exactly?My understanding, and I have never defended a juvenile, is that the law allows the child to refuse to answer questions until a parent or lawyer is present. Parents can refuse to allow the child to answer questions. But just asking to call your parents does not mean that police cannot continue to ask questions and police definitely do not have to ask parents for permission to question a child.Did the kid get his phone call in a reasonable time? Was there any improper questioning? I don't know. Do you? I might be more concerned about those points if the kid were being charged with something.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I made the same condescending assumption. I also included the school administration in this assumption. On the other hand, there was at least one teacher at the school that knew better; the first teacher the clock was shown to. My first question is why this teacher did not speak up.I also wonder if anybody at the school even opened the case?

Lol! Actually, there was a pair of images that looked exactly like the student clock. Because they were pictures of the student clock.The vast majority of the pictures feature some prominent explosives. The ones that did not have explosives were not bombs either.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Your indignation accomplishes nothing. For that matter posting to EvC accomplishes nothing. What is required is demanding answers from the authorities about what happened and following up with an independent investigation.

Perhaps. Did he post that indignation on the internet and wait for results? Did his simply being angry accomplish anything?If you believe that something was wrong, the way to proceed is to follow up on your belief. That may or may not involve getting in the face of the chief of police and expressing anger. In fact, it might well not involve anything other than persistence and persuasion.You are indignant. Where are your results.There is not a choice between being indignant and doing nothing. That's just a BS attempt to generate a dilemma where none exists. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

There is very little news on this incident, but what little does exist uses words like 'witness' to describe the shooter. Does not seem like charging the dude with homicide is a priority.

Normally the murder charge in such situation is for the perps of the felony even if a policeman's bullet kills someone. So I'm not sure that the rule is applicable.One thing I noticed when trying to dig for news is that car jackers getting shot and shooting people is not all that rare in Houston. A couple of weeks ago a victim killed a car jacker in the act, and there are quite a few incidents of car jacking victims getting shot during the past year.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

duplicate.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Which I note does not answer the question. Being motivated does not require you to reach conclusions before investigating. First, of all, your statement is false. Indignation, particularly before you know the facts, is unnecessary. Secondly, the difference between what you said and a dilemma so small as to be negligible. Thirdly, I note that your own indignation does not seem to motivate you in any helpful way whatsoever.Edited by Admin, : Fix first quote.

That's not surprising to me. You and I don't seem to understand each other very well.I think I've been pretty clear about where my differences with ringo lie. I'll take your post as advice that I've drawn things too far.

In order for this to work, the government has to collect everyone's medical information just in case they might want to buy a gun. Is this really a good idea or even a reasonable idea? Absent the 2nd amendment concerns, would it not be more fair if only the people who actually wanted a gun were required to provide access to their medical history?

Just thought this statement was worth highlighting.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This reminds me of a funny situation in my state. North Carolina State University insists that they have a basketball rivalry with the University of North Carolina. However that perceived animosity turns out to be a relationship that UNC does not deign to notice or acknowledge. UNC's rivalry is with Duke.