Of course not, just pointing out that the device was sketchy at best. I'm confused. I would say you're being sarcastic but nothing in your comment nor the link you provided says it was a project for school. Ahmed felt suddenly conscious of his brown skin and his name — one of the most common in the Muslim religion. Is he the only brown-skinned child in his school? Because this statement could be considered racist if that's the case....or it still could be because the kid is actually a known trouble-maker and has had similar issues before. Just because the kid claims he hadn't seen the officer before does not mean it's true. He also claimed he invented the clock. Even if the officer had not seen the kid before he may have heard about the child if he was causing trouble from other officers. You're right. Your one friend's anecdotal experiences makes you demonstrably more knowledgeable about a case that we've both read the same information about and you still make statements about that you can't verify.Do you really live in fear of unsecured 9V batteries?
"Wait, is that true?" No, I lied. I made it up. I stated something as fact so that maybe you'd accept it at face value and not notice that my entire point is based on falsehood.
He said an officer he’d never seen before leaned back in his chair and remarked: “Yup. That’s who I thought it was.”
But you know what? If I were "suspicious" about something, I might read about it a little more instead of questioning the veracity of people who demonstrably know more than you.
His points seem more than reasonable. You seem like an authoritarian apologist who doesn't give a shit that your previous "points" were rebutted and will continuously find reasons that five cops need to put an innocent young boy in handcuffs. Why would he want to keep engaging with you? You might not be a cop/authority ass kiss, you also might be a troll.
i just don't get how anyone can believe that. A serious response like that usually has serious reasons behind it, and that is what is actually reasonable to assume. Without clear evidence of racism (like slurs), it's not logical to blame the reaction on racism with the details we know. What was rebutted? That the device was sketchy? That he was told not to show it to others and he ignored that? All I've maintained is that the whole situation seems very strange and that there's no way to know whether the reaction was justified given the details that have come out.His points seem more than reasonable.
You seem like an authoritarian apologist who doesn't give a shit that your previous "points" were rebutted