On the “clock-bomb”, hoaxes, and thoughtcrime

You’ve heard the story by now.  Boy brings “invention” to school, people think that, because he’s Muslim, he’s brought a bomb, he’s questioned by the police, and though released, his supporters decry the injustice of it all, with a twitter campaign charging racism, that ultimately produces an invitation to the White House.

There’s an alternate story emerging now, at the “Techvoice” blog at the “Artvoice” site (as linked to by Inquisitr, retweeted by someone on twitter):  the “invention” was a disassembled digital clock from the 80s, with the parts placed into a pencil box bought off amazon.  This makes it at least possible, if not likely, that what he was up to was not showing off an “invention” to his teacher so much as playing a prank.  After all, he plugged it in and set an alarm to go off in English class (not in the linked article but described elsewhere).

(It’s also possible that he intentionally wanted to cause this fuss, and the whole thing was a set-up, as a way of “proving” that Muslims are discriminated against; reports are that his father is an activist in his own right.  This could also just be coincidence, though in any case it would certainly account for the family’s quick actions afterwards, and an attorney in the image here.  But this isn’t relevant; I’m more concerned by the fact that, in that scenario, the school officials took the bait.)

But here’s the catch:  no one ever thought this was a bomb.  He was not in trouble for having built a bomb.  He was in trouble for having built a device that could be perceived of as a bomb.

Here’s the specific text, from the site techdirt.com:

Sec. 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.

Now, of course, you can cause a lot of trouble with a “hoax bomb.”   If a person maliciously leaves a stuffed duffel bag, or, say, a pressure cooker, unattended in a public place, or make other efforts to create an object that, based on Hollywood imagery, looks like a bomb, and causes the bomb squad to come out and use its time and effort to “defuse” a non-existing bomb, that could be reasonably made a criminal act.  It’s not dissimilar from a situation of someone pointing a fake weapon at someone — you can cause a lot of trouble even it it’s not real.

But look at this wording:

“With intent to make another believe that the hoax bomb is [real]; or cause alarm or reaction of any type.”   The linked article latches on to the second half of the definition, causing a “reaction” and says that this means that, strictly speaking, any device which causes a reaction by the police (even a telephone which causes them to answer a call) fits this definition, but let’s be sensible.  It refers to a scenario in which the police are obliged to respond as if to a real bomb.

But:

According to the Dallas Morning News, the police rationale was this:

“It could reasonably be mistaken as a device if left in a bathroom or under a car. The concern was, what was this thing built for? Do we take him into custody?”

In other words, the boy hadn’t actually done anything wrong.  But they interpreted the law to encompass, apparently, future actions.  The law refers to “intent” — but does not seem to require that the perpetrator have acted in some fashion to convey this belief to others, in words, in behavior, in deliberately setting down a bag and walking away.

How, if at all, has the law been interpreted?  Don’t know, but in this case, the officials seemed to focus on the possibility of the boy’s intent.

What if the boy tried to frighten people, later on, after school, or maybe left it in the cafeteria at lunch?  Sure, we know it’s just a disassembled clock in a pencil case, but someone else might not?

In the case of the gun-shaped pop-tart, and similar instances, the issue was the blind application of zero-tolerance disciplinary policies.  In this case, it looks more like thoughtcrime, suspecting that, if he wasn’t stopped, he would go ahead and, in the future, use the object as a hoax bomb, that is, by trying to deceive others.