Yay Texas! :rolleyes:
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/18/its_the_clock_kid_all_over_again_a_12_year_old_sikh_boy_is_the_latest_victim_of_racist_terrorism_paranoia/
QuoteBut, like Armaan, Veerender has a goofy sense of humor and loves to play video games,
So the kid said some dumb shit. When cops ask you if you have a bomb, it's not a good idea to say dumb shit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 20, 2015, 05:22:37 PM
QuoteBut, like Armaan, Veerender has a goofy sense of humor and loves to play video games,
So the kid said some dumb shit. When cops ask you if you have a bomb, it's not a good idea to say dumb shit.
There is no evidence the cops ever asked him if he had a bomb. There is no evidence anyone
ever thought he had a bomb.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 20, 2015, 05:22:37 PM
QuoteBut, like Armaan, Veerender has a goofy sense of humor and loves to play video games,
So the kid said some dumb shit. When cops ask you if you have a bomb, it's not a good idea to say dumb shit.
Where is there any evidence anyone said any dumb shit aside from the bully? :wacko:
The impression I get from the (longer) article linked in the piece Tim linked (http://www.cantonrep.com/article/ZZ/20151218/SHAREABLE/151219931/1994/NEWS?rssfeed=true) seems to imply that one kid said the power backpack looked like a bomb, they both laughed about it, and then that kid went to the teachers saying the guy has a bomb.
Quote"The police came in and they grabbed me and they just took me outside in the hallway, made me wait, and then our class was getting out, then they took me to the police officer's office," he told the Morning News. "Then they talked to me and asked me questions. Then they took me to the department of the police, then the juvenile center.
"I was really scared, really nervous," he added.
Doesn't sound like he was joking about it to the police.
It appears he was also questioned by police without parents present (and if no parents than probably also without lawyers)? Is that standard procedure in cases of suspected terrorism?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 20, 2015, 05:34:19 PM
Where is there any evidence anyone said any dumb shit aside from the bully? :wacko:
In the passage I quoted. People often post comments after quotations to indicate a connection between the two. :wacko:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 20, 2015, 05:40:14 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 20, 2015, 05:34:19 PM
Where is there any evidence anyone said any dumb shit aside from the bully? :wacko:
In the passage I quoted. People often post comments after quotations to indicate a connection between the two. :wacko:
I took that to mean general character traits, and it doesn't follow that he was joking to the cops. You can have a goofy sense of humor and still be respectful when an armed cop asks you questions.
Quote from: Syt on December 20, 2015, 05:41:44 PM
I took that to mean general character traits, and it doesn't follow that he was joking to the cops. You can have a goofy sense of humor and still be respectful when an armed cop asks you questions.
You can definitely have a goofy sense of humor and be unjustly accused by a bigoted police force for no reason whatsoever, but then why would an obviously polemical blogpost bother to mention it?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 20, 2015, 05:44:23 PM
Quote from: Syt on December 20, 2015, 05:41:44 PM
I took that to mean general character traits, and it doesn't follow that he was joking to the cops. You can have a goofy sense of humor and still be respectful when an armed cop asks you questions.
You can definitely have a goofy sense of humor and be unjustly accused by a bigoted police force for no reason whatsoever, but then why would an obviously polemical blogpost bother to mention it?
To show that they're geeky nerds who are not a threat to anyone?
Bullying? Attacking religious minorities? Marty should be happy. Clearly anyone who would dare defend this 12 year kid is an out of control Social Justice Warrior.
Quote from: Syt on December 20, 2015, 05:49:25 PM
To show that they're geeky nerds who are not a threat to anyone?
Then you don't start the sentence I quoted with a "but."
The but signifies the writer is introducing the counter-argument in order to dismiss it.
Assuming that what's in the story in the link is accurate (always problematic when dealing with the media), the principal probably did the right thing in calling the police. Even if you think it's highly unlikely that he has a bomb, you don't want to confront him yourself: "Do you have a bomb in your backpack?" "Yep" BOOM!. Not exactly a good outcome.
OTOH, once the police got there, if it they couldn't very quickly determine that there was no bomb, they're completely incompetent, and probably couldn't have handled the situation if there had been a bomb anyway.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 20, 2015, 05:40:14 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 20, 2015, 05:34:19 PM
Where is there any evidence anyone said any dumb shit aside from the bully? :wacko:
In the passage I quoted. People often post comments after quotations to indicate a connection between the two. :wacko:
Wow. You really, truly believe that "Veerender has a goofy sense of humor and loves to play video games" means that "the kid said some dumb shit?" I don't think anybody who is at all smart would conclude that there is "a connection between the two" statements. "Said" clearly implies something verbal, whereas "has" clearly does nothing of the sort.
But, I suppose if you really want to draw a conclusion in the absence facts and be arrogant about it, you have to invent "connections" like these.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 20, 2015, 06:55:16 PM
Quote from: Syt on December 20, 2015, 05:49:25 PM
To show that they're geeky nerds who are not a threat to anyone?
Then you don't start the sentence I quoted with a "but."
The but signifies the writer is introducing the counter-argument in order to dismiss it.
Yes, the argument that is being countered is "he is a Canadian."
Quote from: dps on December 20, 2015, 07:41:22 PM
Assuming that what's in the story in the link is accurate (always problematic when dealing with the media), the principal probably did the right thing in calling the police. Even if you think it's highly unlikely that he has a bomb, you don't want to confront him yourself: "Do you have a bomb in your backpack?" "Yep" BOOM!. Not exactly a good outcome.
OTOH, once the police got there, if it they couldn't very quickly determine that there was no bomb, they're completely incompetent, and probably couldn't have handled the situation if there had been a bomb anyway.
But the principal
should have investigated before he called the police. The kid isn't wearing his backpack in class, so it is easy to separate him and the backpack without him being any the wiser. If he remains in doubt (and after telling the false accuser that he will be prosecuted if he is lying, so as to give him a chance to back out f this before he makes it a criminal offense),
then he could call the cops.
Principals get paid a fuckton of money to be the responsible adult in the building. It doesn't sound like Texas has a lot of those.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 20, 2015, 05:14:39 PM
Yay Texas! :rolleyes:
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/18/its_the_clock_kid_all_over_again_a_12_year_old_sikh_boy_is_the_latest_victim_of_racist_terrorism_paranoia/
Cut and paste.
It is not that hard.
Do you need a walk through?
Quote from: Ender on December 20, 2015, 09:33:23 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 20, 2015, 05:14:39 PM
Yay Texas! :rolleyes:
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/18/its_the_clock_kid_all_over_again_a_12_year_old_sikh_boy_is_the_latest_victim_of_racist_terrorism_paranoia/
Cut and paste.
It is not that hard.
Do you need a walk through?
:yawn:
Quote from: Ender on December 20, 2015, 09:33:23 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 20, 2015, 05:14:39 PM
Yay Texas! :rolleyes:
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/18/its_the_clock_kid_all_over_again_a_12_year_old_sikh_boy_is_the_latest_victim_of_racist_terrorism_paranoia/
Cut and paste.
It is not that hard.
Do you need a walk through?
Given the number of articles I've done that for over the years, do you even have to ask?
It's just a lot harder to do on a phone.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 20, 2015, 10:16:30 PM
Quote from: Ender on December 20, 2015, 09:33:23 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 20, 2015, 05:14:39 PM
Yay Texas! :rolleyes:
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/18/its_the_clock_kid_all_over_again_a_12_year_old_sikh_boy_is_the_latest_victim_of_racist_terrorism_paranoia/
Cut and paste.
It is not that hard.
Do you need a walk through?
Given the number of articles I've done that for over the years, do you even have to ask?
It's just a lot harder to do on a phone.
I'm sorta curious why you went with the derivative Salon article rather than the WaPo article they themselves used as the source. Didn't anyone teach you, even in college, that derivative sources are almost always inferior to the original, unless the original is technical or in another language?
When people are questioned by police all their character traits manifest themselves.
Quote from: grumbler on December 20, 2015, 10:51:01 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 20, 2015, 10:16:30 PM
Quote from: Ender on December 20, 2015, 09:33:23 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 20, 2015, 05:14:39 PM
Yay Texas! :rolleyes:
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/18/its_the_clock_kid_all_over_again_a_12_year_old_sikh_boy_is_the_latest_victim_of_racist_terrorism_paranoia/
Cut and paste.
It is not that hard.
Do you need a walk through?
Given the number of articles I've done that for over the years, do you even have to ask?
It's just a lot harder to do on a phone.
I'm sorta curious why you went with the derivative Salon article rather than the WaPo article they themselves used as the source. Didn't anyone teach you, even in college, that derivative sources are almost always inferior to the original, unless the original is technical or in another language?
I went with the Salon article, because that's the article that was posted on another forum I was reading. Since I was on my way to school on the bus, I didn't have time to look up another article.
Also, the
Quoteper a report in the Washington Post
link doesn't actually link to WaPo article, but to some local newspaper.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 20, 2015, 05:54:45 PM
Bullying? Attacking religious minorities? Marty should be happy. Clearly anyone who would dare defend this 12 year kid is an out of control Social Justice Warrior.
Gotta love being attacked by a nutbar before I even post in the thread. That's like preemptive stalking. :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on December 20, 2015, 08:44:58 PM
Principals get paid a fuckton of money to be the responsible adult in the building. It doesn't sound like Texas has a lot of those.
There is too much liability in being a responsible adult these days. :sleep:
How on earth did this get to court?
I see, the direct terrorism threat, at least as reported by the "bully" is made clearer in this Torygraph article:
QuoteA 12-year-old Sikh boy spent three days in a juvenile detention centre after a 'bully' allegedly told teachers he had a bomb hidden in his school bag.
Armaan Singh Sarai of Arlington, Texas, was locked up on Friday, according to a Facebook post by his cousin Ginee Haer, which at time of writing has been shared 7,000 times.
"On Friday, December 11th, 2015," the post says, "my cousin attended school, like any other normal 12 year old child. A bully in class thought it would be funny to accuse him of having a bomb, and so the principal, without any questioning, interrogation, or notification to his parents, called the police. Worried & frightened at home, his family was concerned as to why he had not reached home right after school. They started calling every police department in the area, only to find out he was sent to a Juvenile facility. They kept him held behind bars for three consecutive days, before finally releasing him on Monday, December 15th."
However, Arlington police gave a different account. Spokesman Lt. Christopher Cook confirmed to the Dallas Morning News that officers had attended Nichols Junior High School on Friday afternoon after a student told a teacher he'd heard Armaan saying he was "planning to blow up the school," apparently saying his backpack contained a bomb and he was going to place it in a school toilet.
After his classroom was evacuated and his backpack searched, the boy admitted he had mentioned a bomb and insisted that he was joking, but was nevertheless taken to the county's juvenile detention center.
"People have got to learn they cannot make these types of threats which cause alarm, which cause evacuations," Cook said. "Just because you say it's a joke, it doesn't get you out of trouble."
Aksh Singh, Armaan's brother, posted a screen capture on Facebook of a letter addressed to school principal Julie Harcrow in which he writes:
"My little brother Armaan ... was taken from school to Kimbo Juvenile center because he AND other students were joking about bomb threats. I know we live in a time when such an accusation is serious, but this is outrageous and I demand a justified reason for why a 12 year old INDIAN boy was taken into police custody and sent to jail."
The letter also says Armaan's sister had visited the school to find out where her brother was, and that the principal had said she 'had no idea.' Aksh questions why a teacher would have called the police on Armaan instead of sending him to the principal's office, adding: "I want to let you know I will be taking this seriously because of the grief this has caused my whole family."
A spokesperson for the Arlington school district said "we did try to contact the parents Friday afternoon, and they were aware" Armaan had been taken to a juvenile detention center, adding: "We would love to fully respond to the parents' allegations," but is unable to due to privacy legislation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/12057019/Child-sent-to-juvenile-detention-centre-after-bully-told-teacher-he-had-a-bomb.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/12057019/Child-sent-to-juvenile-detention-centre-after-bully-told-teacher-he-had-a-bomb.html)
Ah, the old exploding toilet gag.
Quote from: Syt on December 20, 2015, 05:37:43 PM
It appears he was also questioned by police without parents present (and if no parents than probably also without lawyers)? Is that standard procedure in cases of suspected terrorism?
It's standard if the authorities are complete screw-ups, so yes it probably is standard in this jurisdiction.
Quote from: Brazen on December 21, 2015, 08:50:34 AM
I see, the direct terrorism threat, at least as reported by the "bully" is made clearer in this Torygraph article:
QuoteA 12-year-old Sikh boy spent three days in a juvenile detention centre after a 'bully' allegedly told teachers he had a bomb hidden in his school bag.
Armaan Singh Sarai of Arlington, Texas, was locked up on Friday, according to a Facebook post by his cousin Ginee Haer, which at time of writing has been shared 7,000 times.
"On Friday, December 11th, 2015," the post says, "my cousin attended school, like any other normal 12 year old child. A bully in class thought it would be funny to accuse him of having a bomb, and so the principal, without any questioning, interrogation, or notification to his parents, called the police. Worried & frightened at home, his family was concerned as to why he had not reached home right after school. They started calling every police department in the area, only to find out he was sent to a Juvenile facility. They kept him held behind bars for three consecutive days, before finally releasing him on Monday, December 15th."
However, Arlington police gave a different account. Spokesman Lt. Christopher Cook confirmed to the Dallas Morning News that officers had attended Nichols Junior High School on Friday afternoon after a student told a teacher he'd heard Armaan saying he was "planning to blow up the school," apparently saying his backpack contained a bomb and he was going to place it in a school toilet.
After his classroom was evacuated and his backpack searched, the boy admitted he had mentioned a bomb and insisted that he was joking, but was nevertheless taken to the county's juvenile detention center.
"People have got to learn they cannot make these types of threats which cause alarm, which cause evacuations," Cook said. "Just because you say it's a joke, it doesn't get you out of trouble."
Aksh Singh, Armaan's brother, posted a screen capture on Facebook of a letter addressed to school principal Julie Harcrow in which he writes:
"My little brother Armaan ... was taken from school to Kimbo Juvenile center because he AND other students were joking about bomb threats. I know we live in a time when such an accusation is serious, but this is outrageous and I demand a justified reason for why a 12 year old INDIAN boy was taken into police custody and sent to jail."
The letter also says Armaan's sister had visited the school to find out where her brother was, and that the principal had said she 'had no idea.' Aksh questions why a teacher would have called the police on Armaan instead of sending him to the principal's office, adding: "I want to let you know I will be taking this seriously because of the grief this has caused my whole family."
A spokesperson for the Arlington school district said "we did try to contact the parents Friday afternoon, and they were aware" Armaan had been taken to a juvenile detention center, adding: "We would love to fully respond to the parents' allegations," but is unable to due to privacy legislation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/12057019/Child-sent-to-juvenile-detention-centre-after-bully-told-teacher-he-had-a-bomb.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/12057019/Child-sent-to-juvenile-detention-centre-after-bully-told-teacher-he-had-a-bomb.html)
Ok, it is an over-reaction but not as insane as originally presented.
Quote from: Martinus on December 21, 2015, 02:03:04 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 20, 2015, 05:54:45 PM
Bullying? Attacking religious minorities? Marty should be happy. Clearly anyone who would dare defend this 12 year kid is an out of control Social Justice Warrior.
Gotta love being attacked by a nutbar before I even post in the thread. That's like preemptive stalking. :lol:
No, you see stalking is when you send PMs demanding people kill themselves. I don't do things like that.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 21, 2015, 10:34:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 21, 2015, 02:03:04 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 20, 2015, 05:54:45 PM
Bullying? Attacking religious minorities? Marty should be happy. Clearly anyone who would dare defend this 12 year kid is an out of control Social Justice Warrior.
Gotta love being attacked by a nutbar before I even post in the thread. That's like preemptive stalking. :lol:
No, you see stalking is when you send PMs demanding people kill themselves. I don't do things like that.
:lol:
Well played
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 21, 2015, 10:37:24 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 21, 2015, 10:34:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 21, 2015, 02:03:04 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 20, 2015, 05:54:45 PM
Bullying? Attacking religious minorities? Marty should be happy. Clearly anyone who would dare defend this 12 year kid is an out of control Social Justice Warrior.
Gotta love being attacked by a nutbar before I even post in the thread. That's like preemptive stalking. :lol:
No, you see stalking is when you send PMs demanding people kill themselves. I don't do things like that.
:lol:
Well played
Really? :rolleyes:
Let all the kids of America know: If there's an Asian kid in your class that you don't like, just tell the teacher he has a bomb.
That wouldn't work in America seeing as how we use Asian only to describe East Asians.
Quote from: Tyr on December 21, 2015, 01:29:35 PM
Let all the kids of America know: If there's an Asian kid in your class that you don't like, just tell the teacher he has a bomb.
I'm not going to tell any kids this because they might end up in juvie for making terrorist threats.
If there's a kid you don't like, you need to trick him into saying he has a bomb.
Or just knock out his car windows with a bat. That's good too.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 21, 2015, 02:18:03 PM
Or just knock out his car windows with a bat. That's good too.
Most kids don't own cars.
So, Raz has been proven a fool again? :D
Quote from: garbon on December 21, 2015, 01:57:38 PM
That wouldn't work in America seeing as how we use Asian only to describe East Asians.
Boom.
Quote from: garbon on December 21, 2015, 01:57:38 PM
That wouldn't work in America seeing as how we use Asian only to describe East Asians.
Really?
The phrase "south asian" is a very useful one when you don't specifically know if a person is from Pakistan, India, Nepal, Balgladesh or Sre Lanka.
BUt yeah - nobody thinks of the middle east when they hear the phrase "asian".
A minor beef I have with "South Asian" (which I agree is a useful aggregator) is that Indonesia and those other guys reach further south.
At least i think they do.
But yeah, average American hears "Asian" and they think of East Asians.
Indonesians are fairly brown too though, aren't they?
For being the world's 4th most populous nation, and the world's largest Muslim nation, Indonesia does tend to get forgotten, it is true.
Happens when you don't have an active poster.
Quote from: Barrister on December 21, 2015, 03:00:08 PM
BUt yeah - nobody thinks of the middle east when they hear the phrase "asian".
Nor of India really.
Quote from: Martinus on December 21, 2015, 04:43:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 21, 2015, 03:00:08 PM
BUt yeah - nobody thinks of the middle east when they hear the phrase "asian".
Nor of India really.
Maybe it's simply a factor of how many "South Asians" live in Alberta (including my neighbors on both sides, multiple poiticians, Calgary's mayor, 4-5 of my colleagues at the Crown's office) but I definitely think India when I think of Asia.
Do they ever tell you "Canada is most lovely country, but we are being very cold all the time?"
My experience has also been that, if one uses the term "Asian," people assume that you mean East Asian.
There are a lot of South Asians living around here, as well, but I almost never hear the term (though I use it in teaching). I think the word "Indian" is used in its stead, and those of South Asian extraction, of course, use their own national terms.
Indonesia is Southeast Asia. You do hear that term a lot.
The trouble with "Indian" is not only that lots of so-called Indians don't actually come from India, but we still have a fairly decent-sized aboriginal population as well.
Mrs B's and I's favourite Indian restaurant is simply called New Asian Village.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 21, 2015, 03:10:19 PM
A minor beef I have with "South Asian" (which I agree is a useful aggregator) is that Indonesia and those other guys reach further south.
At least i think they do.
But yeah, average American hears "Asian" and they think of East Asians.
That is South East Asian :smarty:
I haven't heard the term East Asian before.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 21, 2015, 04:52:45 PM
Do they ever tell you "Canada is most lovely country, but we are being very cold all the time?"
No. But then again I live in Vancouver. I assume a lot of people say that in the North East US though.
Quote from: Martinus on December 21, 2015, 02:46:56 PM
So, Raz has been proven a fool again? :D
Oh, I hath been cut to the quick! When Yi said school I thought of k-12, how foolish of me. Will no one rid me of this turbulent Pole? Pray that the lord God bring a blight on his potatoes so that he may be robbed of sustenance, and starchy companionship.
Quote from: grumbler on December 21, 2015, 04:59:12 PM
My experience has also been that, if one uses the term "Asian," people assume that you mean East Asian.
There are a lot of South Asians living around here, as well, but I almost never hear the term (though I use it in teaching). I think the word "Indian" is used in its stead, and those of South Asian extraction, of course, use their own national terms.
Indonesia is Southeast Asia. You do hear that term a lot.
It's a difference between Britons and Americans. Britons think of the people they used to own. Americans think of the people they nuked.
Quote from: Barrister on December 21, 2015, 05:06:01 PM
The trouble with "Indian" is not only that lots of so-called Indians don't actually come from India, but we still have a fairly decent-sized aboriginal population as well.
Mrs B's and I's favourite Indian restaurant is simply called New Asian Village.
Yeah, that's the problem with Indian (except around here; Virginia has no recognized Amerind tribes). And, around here, any restaurant with "Asian" in its title is guaranteed to be bad. Unlike there, the ones with those titles around here try to make all the popular Asian cuisines, and, as you can imagine, no staff can do justice to them all.
I can't recall seeing any restaurants with "Asian" in the name. "Chinese", "Thai", "Indian" etc are all pretty common though. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 21, 2015, 06:36:19 PM
I can't recall seeing any restaurants with "Asian" in the name. "Chinese", "Thai", "Indian" etc are all pretty common though. :hmm:
Come to central Virginia.
Or don't.
Quote from: grumbler on December 21, 2015, 04:59:12 PM
My experience has also been that, if one uses the term "Asian," people assume that you mean East Asian.
There are a lot of South Asians living around here, as well, but I almost never hear the term (though I use it in teaching). I think the word "Indian" is used in its stead, and those of South Asian extraction, of course, use their own national terms.
Indonesia is Southeast Asia. You do hear that term a lot.
Easier just to say Apu for people from India and Injun for our savages. Helps with the confusion. Dothead works to.
Quote from: grumbler on December 21, 2015, 06:30:40 PM
Virginia has no recognized Amerind tribes
Might want to double check that.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 21, 2015, 05:59:14 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 21, 2015, 02:46:56 PM
So, Raz has been proven a fool again? :D
Oh, I hath been cut to the quick! When Yi said school I thought of k-12, how foolish of me. Will no one rid me of this turbulent Pole? Pray that the lord God bring a blight on his potatoes so that he may be robbed of sustenance, and starchy companionship.
I laughed.
Quote from: dps on December 21, 2015, 09:52:56 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 21, 2015, 06:30:40 PM
Virginia has no recognized Amerind tribes
Might want to double check that.
Interesting. Virginia has had a recognized tribe for almost 80 days, and I didn't know. Good catch!
Bully takes advantage of police incompetence to fuck with people? Sounds like that SWATing deal from the other thread.
All I've seen so far on the bully accusation is the cousin's assertion.
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2015, 11:04:47 PM
Bully takes advantage of police incompetence to fuck with people? Sounds like that SWATing deal from the other thread.
The article Brazen posted says that the kid admitted, when questioned by the police, that he had joked about the bomb to the "bully".
Other than the assertion of the cousin that the accuser is a "bully" (which is not corroborated in any way by any element of the story, but I guess is bad enough to deem him entirely unreliable - "bully" these days being worse than "would be suicide bomber" apparently), there is nothing to support the story of the cousin. On the other hand, even if the "bully" may have deliberately misunderstood the joke to rat on the kid (again, no reason to believe he did, other than the aforementioned assertion), and the police may have overreacted by locking the kid up for 3 days in a juvie, he should know better not to make jokes about having a bomb in his backpack, no matter his skin colour.
Quote from: Martinus on December 22, 2015, 01:43:32 AM
the police may have overreacted by locking the kid up for 3 days in a juvie,
You think, maybe? Just a little bit?
Contrary to what some may think, terror suspicions are not a get-out-of-the-Constitution free card for law enforcement.
Bomb threats are pretty illegal, so I'm not sure why they would need to burn the constitution or whatever if he told someone he was going to blow the place up and they want to toss him in juvie for a couple of days. It's not like they sent him to gitmo and pulled his toenails out.
Hoax bombs are also illegal, so for example when some dumbass brings his disassembled/reassembled pencil case clock to school, gets told it looks like a bomb and to put it away, then plugs it in and sets the alarm to go off in class, he gets to talk with the cops too. You don't actually have to have a bomb or blow something up to get into some relatively deep shit.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 22, 2015, 11:21:40 AM
Bomb threats are pretty illegal, so I'm not sure why they would need to burn the constitution or whatever if he told someone he was going to blow the place up and they want to toss him in juvie for a couple of days. It's not like they sent him to gitmo and pulled his toenails out.
Exactly who said what and when is disputed. What is not disputed is that it was immediately apparent upon apprehension that there was no bomb. At that point, denying right to counsel, not contacting parents, and detaining him overnight is a bit like Gitmo, though probably with less professionally managed facilities.
If they want to charge him with reckless endangerment, fine: but then do it the normal way - gather evidence, file an information etc. You don't hold a minor incommunicado for 72 hours on such a charge.
QuoteAt that point, denying right to counsel, not contacting parents, and detaining him overnight is a bit like Gitmo, though probably with less professionally managed facilities.
Did they actually do all that though?
The parents found out when they contacted the school, ergo law enforcement did not inform them. He was detained for three days, therefore a least 2 overnights.
Meanwhile, Martinus, usually quick to denounce improper treatment of minors in the US criminal justice system (and often for good reason) is curiously blasé on this one.
Did they? We didn't hear about the cops kidnapping a 12 year old from a school until some Facebook posts from a cousin (and the brother, who deleted some of them) several days later? The principal of the school had no idea where the local police department might have taken a student from his/her school, and gave them so little information that they had to call 911 instead of the actual police department? The Arlington PD just grabbing a kid and tossing him in a cell and not telling anyone anything about it (and also stonewalling the principal and everyone else in the front office not seeing or knowing anything about it I guess) is possible, sure, but it's really more likely that they weren't able to get a hold of the parents, who weren't listening to the principal when they finally called because they were freaking out, and then just called 911. Don't you think?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 22, 2015, 12:12:22 PM
Meanwhile, Martinus, usually quick to denounce improper treatment of minors in the US criminal justice system (and often for good reason) is curiously blasé on this one.
I disagree. If the reports of the kid joking about having a bomb are true, then this is a slap on the wrist - a bit too heavy-handed, perhaps, but nothing to get your panties in a bunch over.
Even if the reports are not true and the kid did nothing wrong, then this is injustice, but of a magnitude so low it is almost inconsequential. If you want to denounce improper treatment of minors by criminal justice systems, then take a look at Saudi Arabia, where a teenager is being sentence to crucifixion over holding an anti-government sign at a protest. And do something about it - sign a petition, go to a protest, stop working for Saudi clients.
Quote from: Martinus on December 22, 2015, 12:22:22 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 22, 2015, 12:12:22 PM
Meanwhile, Martinus, usually quick to denounce improper treatment of minors in the US criminal justice system (and often for good reason) is curiously blasé on this one.
I disagree. If the reports of the kid joking about having a bomb are true, then this is a slap on the wrist - a bit too heavy-handed, perhaps, but nothing to get your panties in a bunch over.
Even if the reports are not true and the kid did nothing wrong, then this is injustice, but of a magnitude so low it is almost inconsequential. If you want to denounce improper treatment of minors by criminal justice systems, then take a look at Saudi Arabia, where a teenager is being sentence to crucifixion over holding an anti-government sign at a protest. And do something about it - sign a petition, go to a protest, stop working for Saudi clients.
Really? Detaining a 12 year old kid with no charges, and
without notifying the parents, is "almost inconsequential"?
He is being charged with some sort of "terrorist threat" thing, apparently.
Quote from: Barrister on December 22, 2015, 12:50:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 22, 2015, 12:22:22 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 22, 2015, 12:12:22 PM
Meanwhile, Martinus, usually quick to denounce improper treatment of minors in the US criminal justice system (and often for good reason) is curiously blasé on this one.
I disagree. If the reports of the kid joking about having a bomb are true, then this is a slap on the wrist - a bit too heavy-handed, perhaps, but nothing to get your panties in a bunch over.
Even if the reports are not true and the kid did nothing wrong, then this is injustice, but of a magnitude so low it is almost inconsequential. If you want to denounce improper treatment of minors by criminal justice systems, then take a look at Saudi Arabia, where a teenager is being sentence to crucifixion over holding an anti-government sign at a protest. And do something about it - sign a petition, go to a protest, stop working for Saudi clients.
Really? Detaining a 12 year old kid with no charges, and without notifying the parents, is "almost inconsequential"?
and why keep him three days. This shouldn't have been taken so far by the police.
Quote from: Martinus on December 22, 2015, 01:43:32 AM
The article Brazen posted says that the kid admitted, when questioned by the police, that he had joked about the bomb to the "bully".
Other than the assertion of the cousin that the accuser is a "bully" (which is not corroborated in any way by any element of the story, but I guess is bad enough to deem him entirely unreliable - "bully" these days being worse than "would be suicide bomber" apparently), there is nothing to support the story of the cousin. On the other hand, even if the "bully" may have deliberately misunderstood the joke to rat on the kid (again, no reason to believe he did, other than the aforementioned assertion), and the police may have overreacted by locking the kid up for 3 days in a juvie, he should know better not to make jokes about having a bomb in his backpack, no matter his skin colour.
You are remarkably willing to accept the statements of the police at face value, for someone who pretends to be this skeptic/rebel type.
We have no idea what the kid "confessed" nor the circumstances under which he confessed. We do know that 12-year-olds will "confess" 100% of the time when taken into police custody, unless the police follow the law and have a child's advocate present during all questioning. There's no evidence that that happened in this case (and it absolutely didn't happen in the case of the clock kid). This "confession" is worth nothing and so is all analysis based on it. Especially yours.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 22, 2015, 12:13:51 PM
Did they? We didn't hear about the cops kidnapping a 12 year old from a school until some Facebook posts from a cousin (and the brother, who deleted some of them) several days later? The principal of the school had no idea where the local police department might have taken a student from his/her school, and gave them so little information that they had to call 911 instead of the actual police department? The Arlington PD just grabbing a kid and tossing him in a cell and not telling anyone anything about it (and also stonewalling the principal and everyone else in the front office not seeing or knowing anything about it I guess) is possible, sure, but it's really more likely that they weren't able to get a hold of the parents, who weren't listening to the principal when they finally called because they were freaking out, and then just called 911. Don't you think?
Well let's go by what the Arlington PD said to the press: http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2015/12/arlington-isd-says-12-year-old-sikh-student-arrested-for-making-threat-family-disputes-account.html/
Two interesting facts here:
1. The school claims to have tried to contact the parents. But not the PD. It is the arresting officer's responsibility.
2. The police admit to conducting a custodial interrogation without the parents present or even knowing; no attorney is mentioned and presumably not present.
That plus a 3 day "preventative" detention of a 12 year old after it became clear there was no danger.
Yes bomb threats are no joke but back when I was at middle school if they jailed anyone for making jokes about M-80s in the bathroom, half the school would have been in the clink. We are talking about a 12 year old. This should never have gotten escalated past the principal. Hard to lecture a kid about bad judgment when it is being displayed so spectacularly by adults all around.
Well, they seem to be pretty much automatic when it comes to bomb threats: The school calls the cops. Setting off fireworks in the shitter would most likely get the cops called on you too. Anyway, I don't see a whole lot from the cops about anything in your article. Are we just going with what the family says? Looks like he was in juvie because he was waiting over the weekend to see a judge or JP or whoever handles this shit, and he got an ankle monitor and is under house arrest after seeing that judge? Hm.
As it stands right now, I personally don't think he should have necessarily gone to juvie, although it was more of a waiting for processing on a weekend thing vs just being thrown in a cell because fuck you, but then again I'm finding it really really hard to care about someone dumb enough to talk about blowing up a school spending some time in the can and probably ending up in alternative school after his suspension is over. He can still be a mechanical engineer if that happens. Now, if some of the stuff I've seen is true, about him saying he's going to blow it up at this time on this day etcetcetc, that's.....pretty different, and maybe has something to do with house arrest and ankle monitors.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 22, 2015, 01:45:30 PM
Well, they seem to be pretty much automatic when it comes to bomb threats: The school calls the cops. Setting off fireworks in the shitter would most likely get the cops called on you too. Anyway, I don't see a whole lot from the cops about anything in your article. Are we just going with what the family says? He did get an ankle monitor though when he was released, so, what, was he waiting in juvie over the weekend to see a judge or JP or whoever takes care of this shit?
The police are quoted, they admit to the interrogation, they do not claim to have contacted the parents which they are legally required to do, but there is a reference to the school officials calling them. Now it's possible the police did try to contact the parents and didn't mention it to the press or that the press botched the story but so far based on what is reported there is the parents claiming not to have getting the call and the PD not refuting it. As for the questioning, it is in theory permissible to do do limited questioning under exigent circumstances for public safety. But Arlington PD is now using this the fruits of this questioning as a "confession" when it seems pretty obvious that it flunks the constitutional voluntariness standards. And to use it to justify a three day pre-hearing detention that seems to have had no legit purpose other than to "scare straight" some 12 year old.
It's possible that Arlington PD is even more incompetent at PR than they appear to be at policing or that the local papers all have it in for Arlington PD and we are getting a anti-PD slant. But based on what was reported so far, even if I assume both the kid and his parents are pants on fire liars (which I have no reason to think) it still looks bad for the PD
So we haven't heard anything about the cops being a bunch of unconstitutional shitbags from the family lawyer? Again, this all went down on the 11th/that weekend, and everything seems to just be quotes from the family themselves. Where is the lawyer going "They interrogated a kid in a room by himself before his parents even knew he was there"? Because that would make some great headline material, and really seems like that would be something a lawyer would immediately point out to....someone. Like even a judge, maybe?
E: Do they even have a lawyer? The article doesn't seem to mention one. They really should get one if not. :huh: But seriously, if this went down, why aren't these journalists (or bloggers or whatever), or anyone aside from random internet people, pointing this out?
Joan, where are you getting the claim from the parents about not being contacted by the police from? All I can see is them saying they asked the principle and he told them he didn't know where the kid was.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 22, 2015, 01:45:30 PM
Well, they seem to be pretty much automatic when it comes to bomb threats: The school calls the cops. Setting off fireworks in the shitter would most likely get the cops called on you too. Anyway, I don't see a whole lot from the cops about anything in your article. Are we just going with what the family says? He did get an ankle monitor though when he was released, so, what, was he waiting in juvie over the weekend to see a judge or JP or whoever takes care of this shit?
As it stands right now, I personally don't think he should have necessarily gone to juvie, but then again I'm finding it really really hard to care about someone dumb enough to talk about blowing up a school spending some time in the can and probably ending up in alternative school after his suspension is over. Now, if some of the stuff I've seen is true, about him saying he's going to blow it up at this time on this day etcetcetc, that's.....pretty different.
When there is an actual bomb threat, then calling the cops is automatic. When a student reports to a teacher that another student said he had a bomb, it's not so automatic. Lots of other considerations come into play, like the credibility and character of the two students involved.
You are making an awful lot of unwarranted assumptions here; for instance, that the kid communicated a threat to "blow up the school," either in jest or not (we have no evidence that he did any such thing).
But then again I'm finding it really really hard to care about the opinions of someone dumb enough to blindly believe self-serving statements from officials, to paraphrase your statement.
Quote from: grumbler on December 22, 2015, 03:27:38 PM
When there is an actual bomb threat, then calling the cops is automatic. When a student reports to a teacher that another student said he had a bomb, it's not so automatic. Lots of other considerations come into play, like the credibility and character of the two students involved.
So, maybe the person who said it has even more credibility than I thought, since they are trustworthy enough that the school called the cops! Alright! :cool:
QuoteYou are making an awful lot of unwarranted assumptions here; for instance, that the kid communicated a threat to "blow up the school," either in jest or not (we have no evidence that he did any such thing).
Wait, so who should we not believe? The cops said he admitted to talking about having a bomb. The brother said he was "joking about bomb threats" and mentioned opening his backpack saying he had a bomb. Or are you getting into some bitchmode douchebag semantics argument about him specifically saying "blowing up a school" vs "I have a bomb" or whatever stupid bullshit I should expect from you? Do we believe the family or the cops? You choose.
QuoteBut then again I'm finding it really really hard to care about the opinions of someone dumb enough to blindly believe self-serving statements from officials, to paraphrase your statement.
Ah yes, it really is bitchmode douchebag time for grumbler! Cops or family. Your choice. Which side are we going with here?
How about this: You go ahead and go fuck yourself, you ridiculous waste of space. By the way, did you ever figure out why an F-14 can't land on a destroyer?
E: Hey a related story: http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2015/12/8th-grader-arrested-in-connection-with-social-media-threat-made-against-dallas-middle-school.html/ Dallas cops, and 3rd Degree Felony for that one. Looks like Arlington had another one of these in November. Two kids, threats against a high school. Felony charges there too.
Why did you take out sperglord? That was the best part. :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 22, 2015, 04:47:20 PM
Why did you take out sperglord? That was the best part. :lol:
I didn't want to see a dumbass spergy post discussing why he couldn't possibly be the "lord of spergs" from the dude.
Eh, what's a sperglord?
I suspect a reference to Asperger's, the official amateur medical diagnosis of the forum.
Gotta side with the Salt and the Jew. There seems to be multiple fuck ups from the police here. They know better then to interrogate a 12 year old with out parents on hand. Even Texans know that. When I was in high school we had bomb threats once a week for couple months. Hell, kids in my middle school set off actual explosives in the bathroom. They got off with a "boys will be boys".
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 22, 2015, 04:26:35 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 22, 2015, 03:27:38 PM
When there is an actual bomb threat, then calling the cops is automatic. When a student reports to a teacher that another student said he had a bomb, it's not so automatic. Lots of other considerations come into play, like the credibility and character of the two students involved.
So, maybe the person who said it has even more credibility than I thought, since they are trustworthy enough that the school called the cops! Alright! :cool:
QuoteYou are making an awful lot of unwarranted assumptions here; for instance, that the kid communicated a threat to "blow up the school," either in jest or not (we have no evidence that he did any such thing).
Wait, so who should we not believe? The cops said he admitted to talking about having a bomb. The brother said he was "joking about bomb threats" and mentioned opening his backpack saying he had a bomb. Or are you getting into some bitchmode douchebag semantics argument about him specifically saying "blowing up a school" vs "I have a bomb" or whatever stupid bullshit I should expect from you? Do we believe the family or the cops? You choose.
QuoteBut then again I'm finding it really really hard to care about the opinions of someone dumb enough to blindly believe self-serving statements from officials, to paraphrase your statement.
Ah yes, it really is bitchmode douchebag time for grumbler! Cops or family. Your choice. Which side are we going with here?
How about this: You go ahead and go fuck yourself, you ridiculous waste of space. By the way, did you ever figure out why an F-14 can't land on a destroyer?
E: Hey a related story: http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2015/12/8th-grader-arrested-in-connection-with-social-media-threat-made-against-dallas-middle-school.html/ Dallas cops, and 3rd Degree Felony for that one. Looks like Arlington had another one of these in November. Two kids, threats against a high school. Felony charges there too.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quickmeme.com%2Fimg%2F5b%2F5b7e0fdd39178dc8d4148618607fc96fb8908a1ea62c04119630f50f349c4ce1.jpg&hash=a97b19dd68aaca31bf2285a9d9ab05dffadfb175)
Quote from: Razgovory on December 22, 2015, 05:02:15 PM
Gotta side with the Salt and the Jew. There seems to be multiple fuck ups from the police here. They know better then to interrogate a 12 year old with out parents on hand. Even Texans know that. When I was in high school we had bomb threats once a week for couple months. Hell, kids in my middle school set off actual explosives in the bathroom. They got off with a "boys will be boys".
WHile I definitely agree you don't detain a 12 year old for 3 days without parental notification, I disagree you can chalk up bomb threats to "boys will be boys". Not these days. Things have changed since you were in high school Raz.
Yeah. Now we are super frightened of our own shadows.
I think there are two separate crimes that people keep mingling. One is bombing a school. It was very easy to find out this kid was not going to bomb a school. The other is making a bomb threat.
The reason you're not supposed to make bomb threats, even in jest, is because if taken seriously they cause massive disruptions.
Quote from: Barrister on December 22, 2015, 05:03:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 22, 2015, 05:02:15 PM
Gotta side with the Salt and the Jew. There seems to be multiple fuck ups from the police here. They know better then to interrogate a 12 year old with out parents on hand. Even Texans know that. When I was in high school we had bomb threats once a week for couple months. Hell, kids in my middle school set off actual explosives in the bathroom. They got off with a "boys will be boys".
WHile I definitely agree you don't detain a 12 year old for 3 days without parental notification, I disagree you can chalk up bomb threats to "boys will be boys". Not these days. Things have changed since you were in high school Raz.
See, this stuff is what I want to know about. Where are you guys seeing anyone saying this? If it's true that they interrogated the kid and detained him without bothering to tell anyone, I have a big problem with that, and presumably so would any lawyer they hire and any journalist they talk to. The only thing anyone has specifically said about it is someone at the school district tried to contact the parents and couldn't and they found out about it after school, the kid was questioned at some point by the cops, and he ended up sitting around in juvie for a weekend waiting for a judge (why isn't there a judge available on Friday afternoon?). The cops haven't really said shit about shit, as they tend to do, so are we sure that they didn't wait until the parents showed up? Are we sure they didn't try to get a hold of the parents?
These types of things don't seem to be mentioned by the cops or anyone in the other stories about kids in that area getting arrested for threatening schools. No one seems to really have anything to say about those kids and events at all, so we're assuming the cops (etc) seem to have done what they were supposed to do in those cases, yes? Why do we assume the opposite here?
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 22, 2015, 04:26:35 PM
So, maybe the person who said it has even more credibility than I thought, since they are trustworthy enough that the school called the cops! Alright! :cool:
As you now say, "maybe." At least you are willing to moderate your position when presented with logical alternatives.
QuoteWait, so who should we not believe? The cops said he admitted to talking about having a bomb. The brother said he was "joking about bomb threats" and mentioned opening his backpack saying he had a bomb. Or are you getting into some bitchmode douchebag semantics argument about him specifically saying "blowing up a school" vs "I have a bomb" or whatever stupid bullshit I should expect from you? Do we believe the family or the cops? You choose.
I think the eagerness to "blieve" anything is what is getting in your way. The police said that he had confessed to something. Exactly what isn't clear. And, given that any 12-year-old is going to confess to anything the police want him to, once they have him in custody, this self-serving "confession" claim by the police is worth precisely nothing.
I'll leave the bitchmode douchbaggery to you. You have so much more experience.
Quote
QuoteBut then again I'm finding it really really hard to care about the opinions of someone dumb enough to blindly believe self-serving statements from officials, to paraphrase your statement.
Ah yes, it really is bitchmode douchebag time for grumbler! Cops or family. Your choice. Which side are we going with here?
How about this: You go ahead and go fuck yourself, you ridiculous waste of space. By the way, did you ever figure out why an F-14 can't land on a destroyer?
:lmfao: The bitchmode douchbaggery is strong with you, my friend! I am: not disappointed.
Quote from: Barrister on December 22, 2015, 05:02:30 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 22, 2015, 04:26:35 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 22, 2015, 03:27:38 PM
When there is an actual bomb threat, then calling the cops is automatic. When a student reports to a teacher that another student said he had a bomb, it's not so automatic. Lots of other considerations come into play, like the credibility and character of the two students involved.
So, maybe the person who said it has even more credibility than I thought, since they are trustworthy enough that the school called the cops! Alright! :cool:
QuoteYou are making an awful lot of unwarranted assumptions here; for instance, that the kid communicated a threat to "blow up the school," either in jest or not (we have no evidence that he did any such thing).
Wait, so who should we not believe? The cops said he admitted to talking about having a bomb. The brother said he was "joking about bomb threats" and mentioned opening his backpack saying he had a bomb. Or are you getting into some bitchmode douchebag semantics argument about him specifically saying "blowing up a school" vs "I have a bomb" or whatever stupid bullshit I should expect from you? Do we believe the family or the cops? You choose.
QuoteBut then again I'm finding it really really hard to care about the opinions of someone dumb enough to blindly believe self-serving statements from officials, to paraphrase your statement.
Ah yes, it really is bitchmode douchebag time for grumbler! Cops or family. Your choice. Which side are we going with here?
How about this: You go ahead and go fuck yourself, you ridiculous waste of space. By the way, did you ever figure out why an F-14 can't land on a destroyer?
E: Hey a related story: http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2015/12/8th-grader-arrested-in-connection-with-social-media-threat-made-against-dallas-middle-school.html/ Dallas cops, and 3rd Degree Felony for that one. Looks like Arlington had another one of these in November. Two kids, threats against a high school. Felony charges there too.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quickmeme.com%2Fimg%2F5b%2F5b7e0fdd39178dc8d4148618607fc96fb8908a1ea62c04119630f50f349c4ce1.jpg&hash=a97b19dd68aaca31bf2285a9d9ab05dffadfb175)
MBM is quite reliable in the escalation sweepstakes. I remember he was practically spitting blood when I pointed out the the assignment of TV rights to conferences didn't make it "impossible" for teams to leave that conference (just a breach of contract). When you actually feed back some of his more jerkish lines to him, he loses his shit completely. 'Tis a wonderful thing to see.
Quote from: Barrister on December 22, 2015, 05:03:34 PM
WHile I definitely agree you don't detain a 12 year old for 3 days without parental notification, I disagree you can chalk up bomb threats to "boys will be boys". Not these days. Things have changed since you were in high school Raz.
Agree, but, then again, we have to look at what was actually said, which isn't known. A threat isn't a threat unless it is credible and would be seen by a reasonable person as an actual threat.
Quote from: grumbler on December 22, 2015, 05:24:21 PM
As you now say, "maybe." At least you are willing to moderate your position when presented with logical alternatives.
Are you taking that quote seriously?
QuoteI think the eagerness to "blieve" anything is what is getting in your way. The police said that he had confessed to something. Exactly what isn't clear. And, given that any 12-year-old is going to confess to anything the police want him to, once they have him in custody, this self-serving "confession" claim by the police is worth precisely nothing.
Blieve? Wat?
Anyway, the police said he "confessed to telling a fellow student that he had a bomb in the backpack." Are you confused about that? We also still have no one saying they interrogated him or held him without anyone knowing about it (if someone could come up with a link or quote that would be great). On the other side, we have the family saying he was only joking about the bomb thing so they should drop the charges, etc.
The takeaway from this is no one is denying he said something about having a bomb (try not to freak out that we don't have notarized documentation or time stamped and professionally verified video of the incident). Well, you seem to be...well you are apparently choosing not to believe anyone involved for some reason, because that gets in the way somehow. Whether he was joking or not and whether everyone overreacted and the cops did some shitty cop things is the question.
QuoteI'll leave the bitchmode douchbaggery to you. You have so much more experience.:lmfao: The bitchmode douchbaggery is strong with you, my friend! I am: not disappointed.
I put your strange copying/repeating gimmick stuff together into one quote for you here.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 22, 2015, 02:19:18 PM
Joan, where are you getting the claim from the parents about not being contacted by the police from? All I can see is them saying they asked the principle and he told them he didn't know where the kid was.
The parents claim that no one contacted them. "School officials" were quoted as having attempted to contact them, without success. The police, although quoted extensively in the article, are not quoted as saying they made an attempt to contact them.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 22, 2015, 05:06:50 PM
I think there are two separate crimes that people keep mingling. One is bombing a school. It was very easy to find out this kid was not going to bomb a school. The other is making a bomb threat.
The reason you're not supposed to make bomb threats, even in jest, is because if taken seriously they cause massive disruptions.
Correct. But 3 day pretrial detention of a 12 y.o. is not warranted for suspicion of the latter. Kid is not a flight risk.
Quote from: grumbler on December 22, 2015, 05:28:06 PM
MBM is quite reliable in the escalation sweepstakes. I remember he was practically spitting blood when I pointed out the the assignment of TV rights to conferences didn't make it "impossible" for teams to leave that conference (just a breach of contract). When you actually feed back some of his more jerkish lines to him, he loses his shit completely. 'Tis a wonderful thing to see.
So.....you know that it's possible to go back and see the actual posts and conversation and what it was about, and not just the bullshit grumbler interpretation, right? For example:
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,7699.msg474574.html#msg474574
E: Haha looking over that again, that shit is pretty funny. You really had no idea at all what you were talking about, and you made it so clear with this post:
QuoteDunno why you are so butthurt about the Big 12's problems. Yeah, they just signed a TV deal, but they had a TV deal when they lost 1/3 of their membership. You can feel free to argue that the Big 12 looks as stable for the future as the ACC, but don't expect everyone to buy it.
That's pretty great. I especially like how you were acting like a total smug know it all prick in your first response before this one, despite the fact that you were quoting a portion of a post that said nothing except there is a GOR and it isn't unstable, then starting your retard threadshitting when you get called a douche for it. You also did your weirdo repeating thing there with Otto too. Promise me in a couple of years you will remind me about your F-14 sized drones landing on destroyers plan too, okay?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 22, 2015, 05:59:25 PM
The parents claim that no one contacted them. "School officials" were quoted as having attempted to contact them, without success. The police, although quoted extensively in the article, are not quoted as saying they made an attempt to contact them.
The cops, which would include the Dallas ISD cops, don't seem to say this in any of the articles about similar events.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 22, 2015, 06:04:52 PM
The cops, which would include the Dallas ISD cops, don't seem to say this in any of the articles about similar events.
I don't know about the other events, but here you have a national news story where the parents are publicly complaining they weren't contacted. The PD gave extensive statements to the press, so it looks odd from them not to mention that parents are mistaken about that too. Unless of course it is true. The DMN article makes a specific point of saying school officials claim they tried to contact. So either the press has it in the PD, or the PD is getting an F in basic press relations, or - most likely - they screwed up.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 22, 2015, 04:26:35 PM
Cops or family. Your choice. Which side are we going with here?
Why do we have to choose? I can easily imagine that both may be lying. I can even more easily imagine that both are being inaccurately quoted in the first place.
Quote from: The Minsky MomentI don't know about the other events, but here you have a national news story where the parents are publicly complaining they weren't contacted. The PD gave extensive statements to the press, so it looks odd from them not to mention that parents are mistaken about that too. Unless of course it is true. The DMN article makes a specific point of saying school officials claim they tried to contact. So either the press has it in the PD, or the PD is getting an F in basic press relations, or - most likely - they screwed up.
While I agree that it looks bad, the thing is, again, no one is saying anything about it. Why? The cops locking up a kid, not telling his parents, interrogating him and coercing him into saying something untrue seems like it would be pretty significant. Instead we're talking about how there aren't any quotes about them saying they tried to call in this DMN article (which lines up with other articles) and all that. I have no doubt that the police are capable of...shenanigans...but that hasn't really been mentioned in this case, at least not yet.
I mean, right here with this:
Quote"I thought it was a joke, so I started laughing and he started laughing," Armaan recalled. "The next thing you know, I'm reading with my friend and police come in, grab me and take me outside."
Police realized the bomb threat was a hoax, but they took him into custody because he confessed to making up the threat, they say.
But the Singhs insist the investigation has been unfair, that Armaan shouldn't have spent the weekend detained in Fort Worth with teenagers accused of crimes such as drug possession and theft.
"We're those kind of people who, if it was his fault, would let him stay in there so he could learn his lesson," said his brother Aksh, 17.
It really seems like right there would be a pretty good spot to at least mention that they interrogated him without anyone present, right? Maybe also mention that they were doing so while they still hadn't told the parents where he was? The only thing that has been said is the ISD tried to call (And that's it, actually, because apparently they can't say anything more because of laws protecting student records for some reason). I assume the parents aren't lying about not being contacted, so the ISD wasn't able to get a hold of them. The cops might not have been able to get a hold of them either. I mean, the school where the kid goes every day can't get a hold of them, why is it out of the realm of possibility that the Arlington PD can't either. Regardless, they did find out that afternoon when they called 911, not after he had been there for a couple days or whatever.
Well, I suppose the headline would be a pretty good spot for that stuff, but in the story itself it would be pretty easy to work it in there and keep things flowing. ;)
Quote from: dps on December 22, 2015, 06:18:55 PM
Why do we have to choose? I can easily imagine that both may be lying. I can even more easily imagine that both are being inaccurately quoted in the first place.
Possibly, but they're both saying he was talking about having a bomb.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 22, 2015, 06:11:10 PM
I don't know about the other events, but here you have a national news story where the parents are publicly complaining they weren't contacted. The PD gave extensive statements to the press, so it looks odd from them not to mention that parents are mistaken about that too. Unless of course it is true. The DMN article makes a specific point of saying school officials claim they tried to contact. So either the press has it in the PD, or the PD is getting an F in basic press relations, or - most likely - they screwed up.
Question for you, MM: given that the principal is acting
in loco parentis (and, no, Seedy, that doesn't translate as "the people, they called parentis, go to the location"), aren't they liable for not acting in the child's best interests by at least sending a rep with the kid to the lockup? I can't imagine a school principal sending a kid to the hospital, for instance, and not sending someone along. One of the reasons why school authorities have so much authority over students is precisely because the principal is ilp. That has obligations, as well as powers.
I can't speak to police arrest situations, but I have twice ridden in ambulances because I had to as the school's rep ilp. Isn't that a general rule inherent in the ilp status?
Quote from: grumbler on December 22, 2015, 11:33:09 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 22, 2015, 06:11:10 PM
I don't know about the other events, but here you have a national news story where the parents are publicly complaining they weren't contacted. The PD gave extensive statements to the press, so it looks odd from them not to mention that parents are mistaken about that too. Unless of course it is true. The DMN article makes a specific point of saying school officials claim they tried to contact. So either the press has it in the PD, or the PD is getting an F in basic press relations, or - most likely - they screwed up.
Question for you, MM: given that the principal is acting in loco parentis (and, no, Seedy, that doesn't translate as "the people, they called parentis, go to the location"), aren't they liable for not acting in the child's best interests by at least sending a rep with the kid to the lockup? I can't imagine a school principal sending a kid to the hospital, for instance, and not sending someone along. One of the reasons why school authorities have so much authority over students is precisely because the principal is ilp. That has obligations, as well as powers.
I can't speak to police arrest situations, but I have twice ridden in ambulances because I had to as the school's rep ilp. Isn't that a general rule inherent in the ilp status?
Perhaps that may be more of a thing for private schools vs. public schools (I thought I recall you worked for a private school?)...and the public see themselves and the police as "one big happy civic authority family", and don't see the need for it...even if it is a rather good idea.
Quote from: grumbler on December 22, 2015, 11:33:09 PM
the principal is acting in loco parentis (and, no, Seedy, that doesn't translate as "the people, they called parentis, go to the location")
Most teachers and school administrators that I've know wouldn't know what
in loco parentis means, and a lot of them would guess it means "parents are crazy". Which is how a lot of educational professionals view parents anyway, often with good reason.
Damn, we still arguing that the cops chucked this up.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 22, 2015, 11:40:05 PM
Perhaps that may be more of a thing for private schools vs. public schools (I thought I recall you worked for a private school?)...and the public see themselves and the police as "one big happy civic authority family", and don't see the need for it...even if it is a rather good idea.
It was a thing when I taught in public schools as well.
Quote from: dps on December 23, 2015, 12:04:47 AM
Most teachers and school administrators that I've know wouldn't know what in loco parentis means, and a lot of them would guess it means "parents are crazy". Which is how a lot of educational professionals view parents anyway, often with good reason.
I can't speak for the teachers and school administrators that you've known, but they must be real morons not to understand what
in loco parentis means. That's like military or naval personnel not knowing what "UCMJ" means.
Quote from: grumbler on December 22, 2015, 11:33:09 PM
Question for you, MM: given that the principal is acting in loco parentis (and, no, Seedy, that doesn't translate as "the people, they called parentis, go to the location"), aren't they liable for not acting in the child's best interests by at least sending a rep with the kid to the lockup?
Probably not. The doctrine has developed in a way to justify school control, without really enhancing school responsibility. So ILP has been invoked to permit intrusive searches or seizures, or drug testing, etc. But if a kid is harmed it doesn't tend to be applied to raise the standard of care beyond usual negligence principles. Of course this all varies state to state.
Quote from: Barrister on December 22, 2015, 05:03:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 22, 2015, 05:02:15 PM
Gotta side with the Salt and the Jew. There seems to be multiple fuck ups from the police here. They know better then to interrogate a 12 year old with out parents on hand. Even Texans know that. When I was in high school we had bomb threats once a week for couple months. Hell, kids in my middle school set off actual explosives in the bathroom. They got off with a "boys will be boys".
WHile I definitely agree you don't detain a 12 year old for 3 days without parental notification, I disagree you can chalk up bomb threats to "boys will be boys". Not these days. Things have changed since you were in high school Raz.
A good friend of mine in high school went to KU on a scholarship.
Super bright guy.
While there, him and a friend were apparently annoyed at the KU police parking ticket guy. So they thought it would be a good idea to build themselves a pipe bomb and blow up the little cart thing, you know, to make a point.
This did not end well.
Quote from: Berkut on December 23, 2015, 10:15:56 AM
Quote from: Barrister on December 22, 2015, 05:03:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 22, 2015, 05:02:15 PM
Gotta side with the Salt and the Jew. There seems to be multiple fuck ups from the police here. They know better then to interrogate a 12 year old with out parents on hand. Even Texans know that. When I was in high school we had bomb threats once a week for couple months. Hell, kids in my middle school set off actual explosives in the bathroom. They got off with a "boys will be boys".
WHile I definitely agree you don't detain a 12 year old for 3 days without parental notification, I disagree you can chalk up bomb threats to "boys will be boys". Not these days. Things have changed since you were in high school Raz.
A good friend of mine in high school went to KU on a scholarship.
Super bright guy.
While there, him and a friend were apparently annoyed at the KU police parking ticket guy. So they thought it would be a good idea to build themselves a pipe bomb and blow up the little cart thing, you know, to make a point.
This did not end well.
:huh: :lol: :huh:
Quote from: grumbler on December 23, 2015, 12:53:45 AM
Quote from: dps on December 23, 2015, 12:04:47 AM
Most teachers and school administrators that I've know wouldn't know what in loco parentis means, and a lot of them would guess it means "parents are crazy". Which is how a lot of educational professionals view parents anyway, often with good reason.
I can't speak for the teachers and school administrators that you've known, but they must be real morons not to understand what in loco parentis means. That's like military or naval personnel not knowing what "UCMJ" means.
They understood the doctrine (though see Minsky's post on how it often works in practice), but many of them wouldn't get the Latin--a lot of them were young enough that even at the time they were students, Latin was no longer required of all students.
Quote from: dps on December 23, 2015, 05:26:55 PM
They understood the doctrine (though see Minsky's post on how it often works in practice), but many of them wouldn't get the Latin--a lot of them were young enough that even at the time they were students, Latin was no longer required of all students.
It is a term of art in the legal and educational business. It's like knowing what "et cetera" means without even realizing that it is Latin.
Quote from: grumbler on December 23, 2015, 06:09:15 PM
Quote from: dps on December 23, 2015, 05:26:55 PM
They understood the doctrine (though see Minsky's post on how it often works in practice), but many of them wouldn't get the Latin--a lot of them were young enough that even at the time they were students, Latin was no longer required of all students.
It is a term of art in the legal and educational business. It's like knowing what "et cetera" means without even realizing that it is Latin.
Whatever will be, will be...?
Quote from: The Brain on December 24, 2015, 03:20:50 AM
Quote from: grumbler on December 23, 2015, 06:09:15 PM
Quote from: dps on December 23, 2015, 05:26:55 PM
They understood the doctrine (though see Minsky's post on how it often works in practice), but many of them wouldn't get the Latin--a lot of them were young enough that even at the time they were students, Latin was no longer required of all students.
It is a term of art in the legal and educational business. It's like knowing what "et cetera" means without even realizing that it is Latin.
Whatever will be, will be...?
That's "que pasa".
Quote from: Martinus on December 24, 2015, 05:00:07 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 24, 2015, 03:20:50 AM
Quote from: grumbler on December 23, 2015, 06:09:15 PM
Quote from: dps on December 23, 2015, 05:26:55 PM
They understood the doctrine (though see Minsky's post on how it often works in practice), but many of them wouldn't get the Latin--a lot of them were young enough that even at the time they were students, Latin was no longer required of all students.
It is a term of art in the legal and educational business. It's like knowing what "et cetera" means without even realizing that it is Latin.
Whatever will be, will be...?
That's "que pasa".
Que sera, sera. Whatever will be, will be.
Que pasa is similar meaning, but present tense.
Que pasa is a question.
:bleeding:
If you were trying to make a joke, you failed.