[Scotty]

Indeed.  It is kind of hard to discuss when you keep morphing every aspect of this discussion into the same line of reasoning, though.

Why? Because it's never happened before?

Because they already determined the damn thing wasn't a ******* bomb when they escalated the damn situation.  Battuta said nothing in his last post about taking no action.

[Blue Lion]

Indeed.  It is kind of hard to discuss when you keep morphing every aspect of this discussion into the same line of reasoning, though.

Why? Because it's never happened before?

Because they already determined the damn thing wasn't a ******* bomb when they escalated the damn situation.  Battuta said nothing in his last post about taking no action.

Who determined it wasn't a bomb? The VP? The people who called in the police.... apparently for laughs? Why did the police even bother x-raying it if they knew it wasn't a bomb?

Is it that impossible that the VP just couldn't tell and decided to call in the people who could?

And for people complaining I'm all over the place, everyone else certainly is. My scenario (actually most school's scenarios) is to go up the ladder until someone says "I know what it is, it's not a bomb". There is no other line of reasoning. That is my preferred method.  You keep going until you find someone who knows what they're talking about. That's it.

That's how it is now. People here (and in the comments sections of news articles and other forums) are up in arms about this. These people are hysterical, the system has to change.

But no one here (or elsewhere really) has said what to do, or how. What part of the school policy gets removed, or added in, or changed? You will never be able to remove calls in to the police about bomb like objects, ever. The only thing you can do is lower the number of calls, and then they will mostly be false alarms because the only people who can make that call are school officials, there is no one else there to help.

[General Battuta]

Lower the level of paranoia to the point where the electronic object held by a child at an engineering school (and the child, recall, vouches it is not a bomb, but a functioning motion detector) is assumed to not be a bomb unless proven otherwise.

Your argument boils down to 'everything must have worked correctly, because surely they wouldn't have done anything incorrectly.'

[Scotty]

Who determined it wasn't a bomb?

The cops.  BEFORE they decided to close the school and search the kids house, and after they just talked to him about it.

[General Battuta]

Yes. That.

[Blue Lion]

Lower the level of paranoia to the point where the electronic object held by a child at an engineering school (and the child, recall, vouches it is not a bomb, but a functioning motion detector) is assumed to not be a bomb unless proven otherwise.

Your argument boils down to 'everything must have worked correctly, because surely they wouldn't have done anything incorrectly.'

I'm going to ignore the fact you said were done (I don't really mind, welcome back), on to the point at hand.

This is not a dig at you, so don't take it as such (that goes for everyone here really )

Saying toning down paranoia is great, but how? It's not a dial. You can't just tell them to be less paranoid. Change the procedure somehow. Do something to mitigate  the fact that the people who have to make these don't know what they're looking at.

And for the child part, kids lie. You can take the kid's word most of the time if there is backup evidence. But, as I'm pretty sure was the case in this example, if you don't believe him or aren't sure, you go get someone.

Kids lie all the time. Most of the time it's penny ante stuff. Who ate the cookies, did you do your homework. Other times it's more serious. Are you smoking, are you sexually active. And very very..... very rarely it's crazy stuff. Is that a bomb.

Kids lie about the little stuff and big stuff.

[General Battuta]

Again, I've stated my position, I'm not interested in discussing it.

I am happy to continue elaborating my position, but I think it's internally consistent.

[Blue Lion]

Who determined it wasn't a bomb?

The cops.  BEFORE they decided to close the school and search the kids house, and after they just talked to him about it.

You just said they knew it was a bomb before they escalated it? Wouldn't calling the cops qualify as an escalation? Aren't these the guys who brought in the x-ray machines and robots?

[Scotty]

Don't be an idiot.  You know exactly what I meant.  Escalation can happen by levels.

The point is, the cops were called.  They talked to the kid.  They determined the device was not a bomb.

Then they closed the school and searched his house.

[Blue Lion]

Again, I've stated my position, I'm not interested in discussing it.

I am happy to continue elaborating my position, but I think it's internally consistent.

Oh I know. Your position requires no elaboration because you just have vague ideas about what you think is wrong. You don't have a tangible plan or anything. It's just a position.

You want to elaborate? Tell me a plan. You can't send a message to school boards and tell them to scrap their old plans and go with this one "talk to the kid"

[General Battuta]

I've explained what I think should have happened in the situation. Scotty has also done a good job of pointing out where the system failed.

Your argument is that the system must have succeeded because the system could not fail. "This happened," you say, "and it could only have happened because it was supposed to happen!"

[Blue Lion]

I've explained what I think should have happened in the situation. Scotty has also done a good job of pointing out where the system failed.

Your argument is that the system must have succeeded because the system could not fail. "This happened," you say, "and it could only have happened because it was supposed to happen!"

I've never used the word success. This is not a win/lose situation. It goes teacher -> administration -> cops. You don't "win" (or lose) if you get to the end.

The only time I would consider anything a success is when the object is identified. Either as a bomb or not.

[BloodEagle]

I've explained what I think should have happened in the situation. Scotty has also done a good job of pointing out where the system failed.

Your argument is that the system must have succeeded because the system could not fail. "This happened," you say, "and it could only have happened because it was supposed to happen!"

I've never used the word success. This is not a win/lose situation. It goes teacher -> administration -> cops. You don't "win" (or lose) if you get to the end.

The only time I would consider anything a success is when the object is identified. Either as a bomb or not.

*facepalm*

[Blue Lion]

Don't be an idiot.  You know exactly what I meant.  Escalation can happen by levels.

The point is, the cops were called.  They talked to the kid.  They determined the device was not a bomb.

Then they closed the school and searched his house.

Who made these decisions to close the school and search the house? Why do you think they made those decisions?

[Blue Lion]

*facepalm*

Identifying an object is a failure then? That is the only thing this entire process is designed to do. That's the only reason this process exists: to identify objects that are believed to be potentially harmful.

[General Battuta]

Don't be an idiot.  You know exactly what I meant.  Escalation can happen by levels.

The point is, the cops were called.  They talked to the kid.  They determined the device was not a bomb.

Then they closed the school and searched his house.

Who made these decisions to close the school and search the house? Why do you think they made those decisions?

Because they are paranoid and overreacting.

Again, you're making the argument that 'they did it, therefore they must have had good reasons! And they only did it because they had good reasons!'

Circular.

[Blue Lion]

Because they are paranoid and overreacting.

Again, you're making the argument that 'they did it, therefore they must have had good reasons! And they only did it because they had good reasons!'

Circular.

Of course the teachers overreact. They're not bomb techs. They're not qualified to make that decision so they get someone higher.

As for the circular logic part, I am trying to figure out why a school official would call a device in for any other reason.

I mean help me out here. They see the kid, go "oh my god". Bring him in, kid says "it's a motion detector". VP says "you know, you're right. Now that you've told me, we can see it isn't harmful and is just a project you made....... ........     ........   Now let me go call the cops and tell them I think it's a bomb."

[General Battuta]

We're talking about police officers and an arson team here, not teachers.

And yes, that latter scenario is apparently exactly what happened.

The system is severely ****ed up.

[Blue Lion]

We're talking about police officers and an arson team here, not teachers.

I've spent this entire thread talking about teachers. I've just spent 12 pages arguing whether or not it was in my best interests (as a school staff member) to tell the administration, and if they don't know, call the cops.

I have quotes and quotes of people questioning me on how crazy I am for thinking an object is a bomb, or the odds on a school attack, or about talking to the children. I've spent the entire thread talking about school response.

All of the sudden we're not talking about teachers, we're talking about police. And I think I have a good idea about why the sudden change.

And yes, that latter scenario is apparently exactly what happened.

The system is severely ****ed up.

You see, I would think that would qualify as something like filing a false police report. When you tell the police something you know to be false, it tends to negatively affect your work and your freedom.

I kind of think it's funny that "a school official is unsure of the safety of an object and calls in the police who check it out" is FAR less likely than "a conspiracy of school and police officials who pretend a device they know is harmless to be harmful and go through all the motions and waste time and money for a reason not entirely clear"

What do the school and police get out of knowingly "investigating" something they know isn't true? You're telling me these people knew it was a false alarm and instead of doing what they're supposed to do, which is stop, decided to keep going.

You can't tell me they're paranoid and overreacting and THEN tell me they know it's false.

If they're paranoid, calling in the police and the police scouring everything makes sense: they're paranoid and they think it's true.

If they know it's false, but do it anyway, the action makes no sense because there is no reward at the end. What do they get out of it.

[Colonol Dekker]

They'd not be doing their jobs if they just enquired/searched/whatever and left without due process of "post-sales care" so to say...

This topic irks me........