SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 10 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
From the Independent:
The family of Ahmed Mohamed, the Texan schoolboy who was arrested after taking a homemade clock to school, has demanded $15m in compensation and written apologies from the local mayor and police chief.
In letters sent on Monday, the lawyers said if the City of Irving and Irving School District did not agree to the apologies and compensation, they would file a civil action.
"Ahmed never threatened anyone, never caused harm to anyone, and never intended to. The only one who was hurt that day was Ahmed, and the damages he suffered were not because of oversight or incompetence," said the letter to the city authorities.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Ahmed The Clock Kid Suing School and Police For $15,000,000.00
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 127 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Smile! You're on Candid Camera.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday November 25 2015, @05:57AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 25 2015, @09:52AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 25 2015, @12:23PM
You aren't just aware, you are accusing.
Exactly the behavior you call being bigotted against perceived bigots.
The trap you set for me seems to have caught your leg instead.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 25 2015, @01:00PM
You aren't just aware, you are accusing.
Exactly the behavior you call being bigotted against perceived bigots.
The trap you set for me seems to have caught your leg instead.
Accusation != bigotry. I merely noted the naked hypocrisy of someone saying "Bigotry should carry a hefty price" while demonstrating ignorance of the case at hand (such as the real problem wasn't bigotry, but rather the illegal behavior), the monetary amount of the claimed damages ($15 million is a lot of money, I think a penalty should be proportionate to the harm not to the wealth of the perpetrator), bigotry, or that in a reciprocating world, they too would be paying that "hefty price". This noise about "traps" and "accusing" is more of the same demonstration of ignorance. Here, you can't even be bothered to read the thread.
Bigotry is normal and very enduring human thinking. You aren't going to get rid of it by fining it or by making it illegal. All you will do by such clueless attempts at punishment is cause additional suffering. The best you can do is make certain observable behavior illegal. My view here is that behavior should be on its own obviously and inherently illegal rather than illegal because of bigoted intent or viewpoint.
So unconstitutional violations of someone's rights (such as happened in this case) qualify as behavior that we should be making illegal whether it comes from bigotry or not. But making an action conditionally illegal or more illegal based on bigoted intent or viewpoint is discriminating against those with the penalized viewpoints. This is particularly perverse and hypocritical when so much bigotry is socially and legally acceptable (eg, bigotry against bigotry, acceptable bigotry from the right ethnic groups (bigotry by Blacks), or acceptable bigotry against the right ethnic groups (eg, institutional bigotry against Asians or males in the US).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 25 2015, @06:34PM
> while demonstrating ignorance of the case at hand (such as the real problem wasn't bigotry, but rather the illegal behavior)
Uh, that's your interpretation colored by your bigotry.
> the monetary amount of the claimed damages ($15 million is a lot of money, I think a penalty should be proportionate to the harm not to the wealth of the perpetrator)
That's a simplistic standard since the point of cases like this is to be punitive in order to discourage the behavior in the future.
> This noise about "traps" and "accusing" is more of the same demonstration of ignorance.
Lol. My noise, or your noise? Because all of your arguments can easily be turned around on you. You just see it because you think your right and I'm wrong.
> Constitutional, blah, blah, blah.
The punishment is against the state. The state doesn't have constitutional rights.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 25 2015, @08:32PM
while demonstrating ignorance of the case at hand (such as the real problem wasn't bigotry, but rather the illegal behavior)
Uh, that's your interpretation colored by your bigotry.
Illegal activity did happen and that is the basis of the lawsuit. Bigotry probably happened and that might be an aggravating factor considered by the jury, but that isn't the basis of the lawsuit.
the monetary amount of the claimed damages ($15 million is a lot of money, I think a penalty should be proportionate to the harm not to the wealth of the perpetrator)
That's a simplistic standard since the point of cases like this is to be punitive in order to discourage the behavior in the future.
Should the school pay out the same amount, if the police officer had shot and killed the kid without cause rather than merely unlawfully detained and harassed (plus a three day suspension) the kid? Because I wonder if you get what "proportionate to the harm" means?
This noise about "traps" and "accusing" is more of the same demonstration of ignorance.
Lol. My noise, or your noise? Because all of your arguments can easily be turned around on you. You just see it because you think your right and I'm wrong.
My argument is greatly strengthened by the fact that there were no rhetorical "traps" involved and the "accusing" was based on the actual post I was responding to. As to "turning" my argument around, why don't you actually try that for once and see what happens?
Constitutional, blah, blah, blah.
The punishment is against the state. The state doesn't have constitutional rights.
Nor did I imply that in the least. Here's what I wrote:
So unconstitutional violations of someone's rights
"Someone" clearly is not the state. I think reading comprehension failure is going to be a thing here.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 25 2015, @08:42PM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 25 2015, @01:47PM
You are bigoted against bigots that hate bigots. So where does the cycle end?
Since there seems to be a lot of confusion over what should have been an obvious quip, my belief is that any sort of thought or speech should not be punished by a legal system, not even bigotry. In this case, we have clearly illegal activity, violations of the child's rights. We don't have to nor should care whether there was bigotry or not. Punish the illegal activity and behavior not the imaginary thoughtcrime.
But what can you say of someone who wants to punish peoples' thoughts and beliefs just because they are "bigotry". "Bigot" is an appropriate label.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday November 25 2015, @03:50PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 25 2015, @05:45PM
So someone who comes to the defense of one being gay bashed is a bigot, right?
No, I think the Moon is made of green cheese.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday November 25 2015, @06:47PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 25 2015, @07:47PM
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday November 25 2015, @08:07PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 25 2015, @08:54PM
Let's start with my post:
Since there seems to be a lot of confusion over what should have been an obvious quip, my belief is that any sort of thought or speech should not be punished by a legal system, not even bigotry. In this case, we have clearly illegal activity, violations of the child's rights. We don't have to nor should care whether there was bigotry or not. Punish the illegal activity and behavior not the imaginary thoughtcrime.
But what can you say of someone who wants to punish peoples' thoughts and beliefs just because they are "bigotry". "Bigot" is an appropriate label.
And now contrast that with your "question".
So someone who comes to the defense of one being gay bashed is a bigot, right?
Note that I first was speaking of punishment by a legal system. So right there, "comes to the defense" sounds nothing like "let's fine this school $15 million because bigotry". Nor did I assert that defending someone makes them a bigot. Defending someone by saying that the other guys were bigots and they should be fined $15 million because of that, well that is bigotry.
So we see that your question had nothing to do with what I actually said. That is the very definition of "non sequitur".
But there's more. Not only was it a non sequitur, it was also a leading question since in the asking of the question, you falsely insinuate something (here, negative) about me, namely, that I casually label people as bigots because they defend other people.
That's two strikes against your "legit question".
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday November 25 2015, @09:37PM
Nor did I assert that defending someone makes them a bigot.
No, this is what you asserted, which happened to also be directly what I was replying to:
But what can you say of someone who wants to punish peoples' thoughts and beliefs just because they are "bigotry". "Bigot" is an appropriate label.
This is a very general statement and I seriously doubt, especially after reading other posts of yours, that you were being specific to this incident. I brought up a scenario where the first half of your post becomes rather hazy in contrast to the second half. When violence is in reaction to violence the legality of it gets hazy, meaning your labeling 'bigot' is either absurdly absolute or scarily under-thought. There's an entire discussion with practical examples throughout right there... but, no "non-seuqitor", bla bla bla. If you don't want to discuss it I can make my tone less aggressive, that's fine I don't want to "Be a bigot!!" to you, but crying 'non-sequitor' is not going to earn you a cheap victory.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 25 2015, @09:51PM
One of the interesting developments of this discussion, generally speaking I mean, is his how reliant one side is on trying to win arguments with labels. "Bigot", "non-sequitor", "intolerant", "hypocrite", etc. It's hilarious in its irony. Anway, moving on....
Labels which have meanings. Why would I use words with different meanings that wouldn't convey what I wanted to say?
But what can you say of someone who wants to punish peoples' thoughts and beliefs just because they are "bigotry". "Bigot" is an appropriate label.
This is a very general statement and I seriously doubt, especially after reading other posts of yours, that you were being specific to this incident.
Granted, but I was speaking in the context of the previous paragraph where punishment was clearly described as employing tools of a legal system (even to putting in bold my primary point). Further, if someone is slighted in your perception, would you think of a defense, even a spirited or insulting one, as foremost a punishment? Especially one equivalent in devastating harm to making them pay a significant fine?
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday November 25 2015, @10:15PM
Why would I use words with different meanings that wouldn't convey what I wanted to say?
My criticism was the use of them to win an argument.
Granted, but I was speaking in the context of the previous paragraph where punishment was clearly described as employing tools of a legal system...
Alrighty. My apologies. Perhaps I read what I wanted to read.
Further, if someone is slighted in your perception, would you think of a defense, even a spirited or insulting one, as foremost a punishment? Especially one equivalent in devastating harm to making them pay a significant fine?
I'm not sure I understand. Are you asking if deterring someone being aggressive is a punishment? If so, I'd say yes, many people see it that way. The common argument is that they should just let them act, lest they become a bigot themselves.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday November 26 2015, @01:51AM
Methinks you've wasted your time on this, Khallow.
I often disagree with your point of view, and in this case I think (as I mentioned) Irving, TX needs to understand that violating the rights of citizens has serious consequences -- so the $15 million figure seems appropriately outrageous and punitive. At the end of the day, the case will be settled for much less, I'm sure.
That said, aside from your quibble with the dollar amount, your assessment is perfectly logical and makes a good deal of sense. Sadly, others seem to have reading comprehension issues.
In addition to that failing, Tork appears to lack a sense of humar and is rhetorically challenged. As such, he doesn't seem to grasp your point. Perhaps he was dropped on his head repeatedly as a child?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr