Boston Bomb Scare

[Clodfobble]

Expensive to the kids still at the school, since they are the only ones who will actually suffer from any loss of funds.

[glatt]

I didn't go to the link, but there was a short article in the paper this morning. It's not a lawsuit. Not yet. It's a threatening shakedown letter from the attorney.

And it's bullshit. The cop and the principal behaved poorly, but not $15M worth of poorly. If it became a lawsuit and I was on the jury, I'd rule in favor of the child and give him $5K from the city for the false arrest, which sounds like a lot, even to me, but is one 3 thousandth of what his attorney is asking for. I'd give him nothing from the school district. I think he deserved a detention for the class disruption, and he got a suspension instead, but that's a principal's prerogative.

I'm liking this kid and his family less and less, but that doesn't mean the cop and the principal behaved well.

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

I think he deserved a detention for the class disruption, and he got a suspension instead, but that's a principal's prerogative.

What class disruption. An alarm on my watch goes off. A cell phone rings. That also requires detention for class disruption?

The whole thing exists because multiple adults were emotional multiple times. Every fact was ignored because adult were emotional. Then penalties increased because adult were even more emotional. So emotional as to refuse to admit how foolish and wrong they had been.

I have no problem penalizing the school system for hiring adults who repeatedly acted emotional like children. $15 million is excessive. But I would not be surprised if he got one year of free college tuition. These adults were so emotional (illogical) as to even make international news. Their school board should be reviewing other decisions by these employees for a pattern of emotionally justified decisions. If not, a lawsuit is clearly justified if the school board is also complicit - also acting emotionally.

They screwed up. Take responsibility for being so emotional. Instead they want to deny everything including their painfully obvious and repeated mistakes. If not, that is why lawsuits are necessary.

Clodfobble recommends taking the high road. Both are options. But little tolerance exists for adult who act like children. An adult would have openly admitted their mistake and apologized. Those adults who are still children could not even do that.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Expensive to the kids still at the school, since they are the only ones who will actually suffer from any loss of funds.

Some teachers and staff will be laid off if the school district has a $5M shortfall. Librarians, art teachers, music teachers, aides. Those types of jobs.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Expensive to the kids still at the school, since they are the only ones who will actually suffer from any loss of funds.

And eventually the taxpayers who voted in one of the most islamophobic mayors in the country.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

And eventually the taxpayers who voted in one of the most islamophobic mayors in the country.

Who will not, in any way, associate their punishment with their own actions. They will in fact associate it with the aforementioned Islamic people, and vote in an even more reactionary mayor.

For someone who understands very well how overly punitive actions backfire in both the prison system and with foreign affairs, you have always been surprisingly idealistic and blind to the way schools work (an opinion based on more than just this conversation, for what it's worth.)

[Happy Monkey]

If there were a better way to deter this behavior, that would be great.

I'm happy to be considered idealistic, but financial punishment like this seems to be just about the least idealistic approach possible. I'd even consider my opinion of the school board and the town to be fairly cynical, in that fear of financial penalties is more likely to work than moral or ethical arguments.

[Clodfobble]

The "better way" is to get rid of zero-tolerance policies in schools, to train teachers to use common sense instead of forcing them to take teenage hoaxes seriously.

For the family's part, the "better way" is to stay in town and prove you are a valued part of the community, instead of uprooting and moving to a country that enforces Sharia Law and doesn't educate girls. Also, to acknowledge that your embarrassment and inconvenience, while both embarrassing and inconvenient, are not worth $15 million dollars.


Shortly post-9/11, the comedian Dave Attell got removed from an airplane because someone thought he looked too Arabic (he's Jewish.) You know what he did? Nothing. He was embarrassed, inconvenienced, and he didn't try to get $15 million dollars out of it.

Recently a white police officer (in Detroit, I believe,) was faced with an increasingly hostile situation with a group of teens on a street corner. Rather than escalate, she engaged in a dancing contest with one of the teens and defused the situation.

There are a million other examples. All hot-button situations are better when they are defused, not escalated. Prove that you are better than the Other Guy's opinion of you, and he will start to believe it. Retaliate, and you've made it worse.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

The "better way" is to get rid of zero-tolerance policies in schools, to train teachers to use common sense instead of forcing them to take teenage hoaxes seriously.

There was no hoax.

Zero-tolerance policies are in place because school districts think it protects them from liability, because "their hands were tied". Until it's more expensive to maintain a zero-tolerance policy, the policy will remain.

[Happy Monkey]

That sounds much more idealistic, not less.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

That sounds much more idealistic, not less.

Perhaps "simplistic" would have been a better choice of words. Solutions do not come in neat monetary packages, no matter their size.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

There was no hoax.

On that, we still disagree. I think at best the kid was an unknowing pawn in his father's game.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Until it's more expensive to maintain a zero-tolerance policy, the policy will remain.

No, because even $15 million, even sought by every kid who faces even the slightest discrimination, will still never outstrip the financial liability of a cafeteria full of blown-up kids. In Newtown, Connecticut, various Sandy Hook Elementary victims and their families have sued the city, the gun manufacturer, the shooter's dead mother's insurance company, and, of course, the school. One lawyer of a kid who didn't even die sued the school for unspecified millions because someone in the office turned on the intercom as the gunman entered the building (presumably to warn the classrooms of what was coming,) and the child heard "violence" and other "disturbing sounds" over the speaker, which traumatized her.

[Lamplighter]

Being a non-lawyer, my interpretation of shot-gun law suites is...

The judge and/or jury can hear a case with multiple defendents,
and, on their own, assign fractional responsibility.

So, not-withstanding how deep the pockets, the city, state, school,
LE Officer, gun-manufacturer, gun-seller, parents-of-shooter,
insurance companies, ... one or all can be proportionally responsible.

(Of course, the LLD's are never at risk and always get first bite.)

[xoxoxoBruce]

What the fuck is a LLD?

[Lamplighter]

LLB and LLD - Bachelor's and Doctor's of Law

IOW, your friendly attorney down the street.