Right because somone who does not possess electronics knowledge can tell the difference between a PCB for a cheap electronic clock and one that is some kind of detonator.
The school officials, and the police, all asserted that they had exactly that ability, as none of them actually invoked a single procedure that they had in place for dealing with a suspected bomb.
Schools get evacuated on the basis of a single anonymous phone call which says there's a bomb in a locker. It happens on a regular basis. Yet when they had the device IN HAND, they very obviously made the determination that it was in no way, shape or form dangerous. They did not evacuate the school. They did not call in bomb disposal. The teacher kept it in a desk drawer for a fair length of time. The police transported the 'device' in the same vehicle that they used to perpshame Ahmed.
They didn't just believe it wasn't a bomb, they made a specific determination, at every level and at every point in the debacle, that it wasn't a bomb, and SPECIFICALLY CHOSE to not invoke the procedures that all start with 'If there is ANY possibility that there is a bomb, do this....'
Being arrested requires that charges be filed.
Incorrect. You're 'detained' of the officer stops you for any reason. You're 'under arrest' if you don't feel free to leave, if the police transport you anywhere, or uses force to prevent you from leaving. The officer requires 'reasonable suspicion' to detain you, and requires 'probable cause' to arrest you, but it DOES NOT need to lead to charges. The officer can reasonably believe you were commiting a crime, then turn out to be wrong, or have new evidence come to light without it having been false arrest.
Your twenty minutes is plucked out of the air and meaningless.
Actually, it's a rule of thumb applied by the SCOTUS. Google it a bit and you'll find all sorts of case law, opinions, and the like.
TLDR: You can be 'detained' on suspicion. If you're not free to go, if the officer moves you, or if the officer starts calling in backup, drug sniffing dogs, and the like, you're under arrest. If he develops 'probable cause' to believe you've committed a crime, he can arrest you.
Ahmed was not detained. He was arrested. At no point would he have felt that he was free to go. Also, 'twenty minutes' seems to be the rule of thumb for how long somebody can be 'detained' before it turns into a de-facto arrest.
Ahmed was hauled off in cuffs, for zero reason. The American legal system specifically puts a dollar value on damages, as well as having the idea of putative awards. Ahmed deserves both.
> Of course they are doing better because of it...
This isn't science though. A dad who was never there, but the child was none the wiser (aka double blind) would not be expected, scientifically, to have any differences in outcome.
Is he really this stupid? Nothing in those first two months gives the kid the advantage. For a good chunk of that time the child will be functionally unable to see much of anything. Bonding with the mother and establishing healthy sleeping and feeding habits will be more important than having him around.
The point of these studies are that the ability to take time off CORRELATES to better outcomes, not that they are CAUSED by taking this time off. Being the type of dad who can take time off, who is financially stable, who is involved, who is willing, etc are all related to having better outcomes at all the little points in time that add up to influence the outcomes of a child.
Zuckerberg is probably missing the pages of virtually every long-term study every performed which show, pretty decisively, that parental income is the single best indicator to positive educational and life outcomes.
I'm not talking about the University's rights to accept or deny students based on more-or-less arbitrary criteria.
I'm saying that if the University considers a person to be suspect of committing a crime, they probably have a legal duty to report that to law enforcement, not simply send the student somewhere else where they can continue. Especially in cases such as sexual assault, which have a major impact on victims.
If my daughter were raped on campus, and I found out that the accused had been expelled from another University for having multiple accusations piled up, but was never reported to the police, I'd be after them like something that goes after something else really fast and hard.
You can think of it, very basically, as Reuters insisting on a 4x6 physical print, rather than wanting the negative.
In this analogy, it's easier to work with the print than the negative, but if you want to scan it back to digital, blow it up, whatever, you're losing quality. With the negative, you have more work to do, but you have a higher-quality starting point, and you can do all sorts of work with it and get far better results than by working from the 4x6 print.
Ok, so either a) the university is simply going on accusations, which means anybody can have anybody expelled, or b) they need to let the legal system do it's job, and not act like a kangaroo court.
If a student has six accusations against him, the university should pass that along to law enforcement, let them do a proper investigation, and either charge or not charge the student, and let the legal system find him guilty or not guilty. They can't have it both ways, though; if he's suspect enough to expel, he's suspect enough to be properly investigated. If he's not suspect enough to be properly investigated, he's not suspect enough to be expelled.
I will support this "zero knowledge" key escrow when I have three assurances:
1. Death penalty for any government employee who misuses data. You look up data about a girlfriend, or an enemy, or a political opponent? No problem, enjoy your Federal death penalty.
2. Death penalty for the cabinet level director for any agency who abuses or has a single employee who abuses data. Oh, sorry, low-level contractor abused data? Enjoy your needle.
3. Excess funding to 0 for any agency that abuses data - no health insurance, no travel, no coffee in the lounge, no flat screen TVs, no car repairs, no vending machine fixes, nothing. No comforts at all, for 1 year.
I'd go one step further; if the university has what it considers to be a good-faith basis to believe that somebody has committed criminal sexual assault, and they don't pass that information on to law enforcement, doesn't that make them something like accessories after the fact? Culpable if the subject strikes again? Open to civil suit by a future victim?
soldiers should dispense with personal weapons altogether, because they can't penetrate the armour of some of their targets anyway.
Except that polygraphs are utterly ineffective in any event, other than as a prop to induce facilitate the Milgram effect.
Going the speed of light is bad for your age.