Post removed

[jberryhill]

90. This fails to understand the statute in question, at best

TEX PE. CODE ANN. § 46.08 : Texas Statutes - Section 46.08: HOAX BOMBS

(a) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly manufactures, sells, purchases, transports, or possesses a hoax bomb with intent to use the hoax bomb to:

(1) make another believe that the hoax bomb is an explosive or incendiary device; or

(2) cause alarm or reaction of any type by an official of a public safety agency or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies.

(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

------

I have highlighted the specific words of particular interest - even if we take much of what you say as given.

This requires me to go on something of a digression about "intent". In law, we have a wide spectrum of "intent". Criminal law requires "specific intent".

Now, on that spectrum there are a wide variety of things from premeditation, to recklessness, to gross negligence and down to simple negligence and beyond.

Let's take much of what you say as given, along the lines of:

1. He should have known that someone might have seen it that way.

That is below another notch of intent:

2. He knew that it was possible that someone might see it that way, or

3. He knew there was a reasonable possibility of someone seeing it that way

None of those rises to the level of "an intent to make someone see it that way."

And, you also have to figure in just what it is that makes it "possible" or "reasonably possible" for it to be perceived as a bomb. Yes, one might know that carrying an unusual thing might cause someone to think it is a bomb.

For example, I once had a neighbor who I had heard (through the wall of my condo) trying to hang some pictures. I ran into her the next day and she said, in broken English and with my poor Spanish, that she was having a hard time hanging pictures "because I don't know where the wood is". I figured, "Oh, she needs a stud finder". I didn't have mine handy right then, but I did find it later that evening. When I left early for work in the morning, I just left it on the sill of her car door, so she'd pick it up later that morning.

What I did not realize is that she was not acquainted with drywall walls at all, and didn't even know there was a tool for that. Apparently, she was completely flummoxed by seeing some strange device on her car having a suspended magnet inside of it and reading "Super Sensitive" on the clear plastic case.

She called the police and reported a bomb trigger on her car.

I had no idea any of this happened. When I got home from work, she came outside and asked "You leave tool on my car?" And I was like, "Yeah, you said you were having a hard time hanging pictures."

She damn near fainted, and said "Ohhhhhhhhhhhh!"

Apparently, the police came, along with the bomb squad, picked it off her car and explained to her what it was. And she remained puzzled all day as to how it showed up on her car.

Now, that kind of thing can happen. Did I foresee a reasonable likelihood of it happening? Nope. Who would've thought, right?

But, and this is the thing here, what factors into any calculation of "he should have known" is the additional circumstance of "he should have known, ESPECIALLY because he is a Muslim". It is one of the unspoken factors that goes into WHY he should have known.

Furthermore, as I explained to you previously, the custodial arrest and booking was not warranted on the grounds of reasonable suspicion of his intent, which can be investigated without having him in custody, as they did not have probable cause.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1210027

You also miss - completely - what in my mind is the most important thing going on here.

Let's accept all you say as given. Let's say that was his intent.

I would like you, or anyone else of your ilk, to explain to me the circumstances of his custodial interrogation in the school. He is a minor. Not only is EVERY person entitled to an attorney when requested, but there are additional safeguards in relation to minors. There is NO EXCUSE - NONE - NONE AT ALL, from the moment he requested to speak with his parents, for that request to have been denied, and for interrogation to continue.


DUE PROCESS was denied here. And that is true even if you believe he intended to make others think he had a bomb. DUE PROCESS applies to every suspect - not just the innocent ones - it applies to all suspects. It is what makes this country what it is. And if you can't see that here, then I simply cannot understand why those who seem to have the most concern about this being a nation of laws, also seem to be the ones who are willing to let the most important ones go by the wayside because... we fear something.

And we know damned well why due process was denied here, don't we.