Clock kid sues for $15 million

[North Calaveras]

Cause everything he did screamed attention, and sueing for 15 fucking million dollars isn't helping his case at all.

How, exactly, does keeping a clock in your backpack all day until an alarm in it goes off, reaching into the backpack to turn off the alarm without taking it out, and only doing so when specifically instructed to by a teacher equal "screamed attention" to you?

well, you think it would look weird if I( a white male) showed up to school with a black trench coat and a guitar case that oddly looked like a gun case?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

How, exactly, does keeping a clock in your backpack all day until an alarm in it goes off, reaching into the backpack to turn off the alarm without taking it out, and only doing so when specifically instructed to by a teacher equal "screamed attention" to you?

well, you think it would look weird if I( a white male) showed up to school with a black trench coat and a guitar case that oddly looked like a gun case?

False equivalence.

First, your scenario posits your having this case on full display. His clock was in his backpack, and was only shown voluntarily to one engineering teacher who obviously was someone who would recognize it as a clock. He only showed it to a second teacher when the alarm went off, he turned it off, and the teacher insisted upon seeing what had caused the noise.

Second. if you opened it to show a guitar (as he opened the pencil case to show the inner workings of a clock), then I wouldn't think that you'd be suspended, much less arrested.

[North Calaveras]

well, you think it would look weird if I( a white male) showed up to school with a black trench coat and a guitar case that oddly looked like a gun case?

False equivalence.

First, your scenario posits your having this case on full display. His clock was in his backpack, and was only shown voluntarily to one engineering teacher who obviously was someone who would recognize it as a clock. He only showed it to a second teacher when the alarm went off, he turned it off, and the teacher insisted upon seeing what had caused the noise.

Second. if you opened it to show a guitar (as he opened the pencil case to show the inner workings of a clock), then I wouldn't think that you'd be suspended, much less arrested.

The thing looked like a suitcase bomb plain and simple, sure it was a bit smaller and sure it wasn't exactly like a bomb but damn if it wasn't very similar and especially to the untrained eye it would raise alarms. Then after everything that has happened and now a 15 million dollar law suit...fuck this kid.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

False equivalence.

First, your scenario posits your having this case on full display. His clock was in his backpack, and was only shown voluntarily to one engineering teacher who obviously was someone who would recognize it as a clock. He only showed it to a second teacher when the alarm went off, he turned it off, and the teacher insisted upon seeing what had caused the noise.

Second. if you opened it to show a guitar (as he opened the pencil case to show the inner workings of a clock), then I wouldn't think that you'd be suspended, much less arrested.

The thing looked like a suitcase bomb plane and simple, sure it was a bit smaller and sure it wasn't exactly like a bomb but damn if it wasn't very similar and especially to the untrained eye it would raise alarms. Then after everything that has happened and now a 15 million dollar law suit...fuck this kid.

A bit smaller? It was a pencil case, and as he had only shown it voluntarily to one teacher (Who knew what it was, and didn't do anything about it), to none of his friends, and never represented it as being anything other than what it was, it couldn't even realistically be called a hoax bomb.

[North Calaveras]

The thing looked like a suitcase bomb plane and simple, sure it was a bit smaller and sure it wasn't exactly like a bomb but damn if it wasn't very similar and especially to the untrained eye it would raise alarms. Then after everything that has happened and now a 15 million dollar law suit...fuck this kid.

A bit smaller? It was a pencil case, and as he had only shown it voluntarily to one teacher (Who knew what it was, and didn't do anything about it), to none of his friends, and never represented it as being anything other than what it was, it couldn't even realistically be called a hoax bomb.

Yeah sure it looked like a clock and here is my candle http://kndu.images.worldnow.com/images/3692150_G.jpg

I got to give him some credit though, he played the gullible liberals like a fiddle.

[The Two Jerseys]

Which is exactly why he was arrested.

When the police found out that he brought it in to show to his teacher and never actually tried to pass it off as a bomb, he was released.

Your post contradicts itself.

How does it contradict itself? He was arrested because the police thought that he brought the clock in for the purpose of creating a bomb scare. When they found out that he brought it in to show the teacher and never actually tried to make anyone think that it was a bomb, he was released.

[Allanea]

Your post contradicts itself.

How does it contradict itself? He was arrested because the police thought that he brought the clock in for the purpose of creating a bomb scare. When they found out that he brought it in to show the teacher and never actually tried to make anyone think that it was a bomb, he was released.

At which point did this necessitate an arrest?

There was utterly no law enforcement need to take him in handcuffs even if one assumed momentarily and totally for the purpose of this article that he created a bomb scare.

Law enforcement have made the wrong call, and then they got pilloried in the media and sued for a huge sum of money.

That's what happens when you fuck up. You pay the price.

Were Ahmed Mohammed to break the law, you would be the first demanding he pay the price for it, because, you would argue, decisions have consequences.

Well, the decisions of authority figures have consequences too.

Sometimes the consequence is you get sued for shittons of money.

[North Calaveras]

Yes because the appropriate response would be to reward him with wealth most of us won't conceive in our lifetime and then some.

[Rusozak]

Yes because the appropriate response would be to reward him with wealth most of us won't conceive in our lifetime and then some.

Because, you know, you need millions of dollars to compensate for being known as "clock kid" for the rest of time.

[North Calaveras]

Yes because the appropriate response would be to reward him with wealth most of us won't conceive in our lifetime and then some.

Because, you know, you need millions of dollars to compensate for being known as "clock kid" for the rest of time.

I will gladly take that burden.

[Dakini]

False equivalence.

First, your scenario posits your having this case on full display. His clock was in his backpack, and was only shown voluntarily to one engineering teacher who obviously was someone who would recognize it as a clock. He only showed it to a second teacher when the alarm went off, he turned it off, and the teacher insisted upon seeing what had caused the noise.

Second. if you opened it to show a guitar (as he opened the pencil case to show the inner workings of a clock), then I wouldn't think that you'd be suspended, much less arrested.

The thing looked like a suitcase bomb plain and simple, sure it was a bit smaller and sure it wasn't exactly like a bomb but damn if it wasn't very similar and especially to the untrained eye it would raise alarms. Then after everything that has happened and now a 15 million dollar law suit...fuck this kid.

It looked exactly like a suitcase bomb except for the part where it was in a pencil case, not a suitcase and the other part where it was obviously a clock.

Plus the part where nobody at the school treated it like they thought it was a fucking bomb.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

A bit smaller? It was a pencil case, and as he had only shown it voluntarily to one teacher (Who knew what it was, and didn't do anything about it), to none of his friends, and never represented it as being anything other than what it was, it couldn't even realistically be called a hoax bomb.

Yeah sure it looked like a clock and here is my candle http://kndu.images.worldnow.com/images/3692150_G.jpg

I got to give him some credit though, he played the gullible liberals like a fiddle.

No, seriously.

On the outside, it looked like a pencil case that had been turned into a clock.

On the inside, it looked like the inside of a digital clock.

[Dakini]

Your post contradicts itself.

How does it contradict itself?

You said "Which is exactly why he was arrested" in response to this quote:

If he had willingly made a fake bomb to knowingly try to scare students then he would have been arrested. That is why the police were called Yumyum.

Then you went on to say "When the police found out that he brought it in to show to his teacher and never actually tried to pass it off as a bomb, he was released." This is contradictory. He did not make a fake bomb to scare students. So why was he arrested?

He was arrested because the police thought that he brought the clock in for the purpose of creating a bomb scare. When they found out that he brought it in to show the teacher and never actually tried to make anyone think that it was a bomb, he was released.

So what you're saying is that rather than talk to the kid and learn that he was not trying to trick anyone into thinking that he had a bomb, the teacher took him to the principal's office, the principal called the police and the police arrested a kid and took him to the police station? Thus, he was arrested justly instead of, like, you know, his teacher just asking what it was and calming the fuck down?

[Allanea]

Yes because the appropriate response would be to reward him with wealth most of us won't conceive in our lifetime and then some.

Yeah.

You know how when someone gets hit with a minimum ten-year sentence for some bullshit crime, and people go, "well, don't do the crime if you can't do the time"?

Don't do the crime if you can't pay the fine.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Yes because the appropriate response would be to reward him with wealth most of us won't conceive in our lifetime and then some.

That's how certain civil rights gains happen: Not because the people who wronged you have been shamed or argued into a less bigoted stance, but because they're scared of losing even more money if they don't shape up.

[Gauthier]

For fuck's sake...



Do any of those look like "suitcases"?

[Infected Mushroom]

Yes because the appropriate response would be to reward him with wealth most of us won't conceive in our lifetime and then some.

Because, you know, you need millions of dollars to compensate for being known as "clock kid" for the rest of time.

Its honestly disproportionate. And here's how I would test it.

In civil lawsuits the awards are supposed to be COMPENSATION for a wrong that has been done against you as a person. Therefore, no one is supposed to profit from a lawsuit in the sense that the purpose of the lawsuit should be to return you to your original position (had the tort against you NOT happened). The purpose is to turn the clock back... not to make you better off.

So if 15 million dollars really is the right compensation, then a reasonable person should say ''I don't want to go through what that kid went through. The fact that he gets 15 million dollars just barely makes up for the HORRENDOUS wrong that has been done to him.''

But if you're going in your head... ''PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE let me bring a clock to school and have all of this stuff happen to me so that I can get 15 million dollars...'' then clearly we are now in the realm of profit-making and not reasonable compensation.

For example, even in cases where a person is awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars as an award in compensation for what may seem on paper a trivial harm, much of is is justified by such things as therapy costs, medical treatment, and the nature of the injury. In theory if the law of torts is operating properly, the clock is turned back and the person is back at the place he would have been but for the injury.

Now the doctrine of punitive damages complicates things slightly but the overarching justification for torts is still supposed to be (in theory) rooted in the overriding doctrine of compensation. Courts do have some room to issue sometimes arbitrary punitive damages but the overriding policy concern should still be compensation.

Now my suspicion is that most of us on this forum would rather wish this happened to us (if it means we get to walk away with 15 million US dollars)

If I'm going ''PLEASE LET THIS HAPPEN TO ME so that I can get 15 million dollars, its a Win for me that I got injured...''

they are doing it wrong

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Because, you know, you need millions of dollars to compensate for being known as "clock kid" for the rest of time.

Its honestly disproportionate. And here's how I would test it.

In civil lawsuits the awards are supposed to be COMPENSATION for a wrong that has been done against you as a person. Therefore, no one is supposed to profit from a lawsuit in the sense that the purpose of the lawsuit should be to return you to your original position (had the tort against you NOT happened). The purpose is to turn the clock back... not to make you better off.

So if 15 million dollars really is the right compensation, then a reasonable person should say ''I don't want to go through what that kid went through. The fact that he gets 15 million dollars just barely makes up for the HORRENDOUS wrong that has been done to him.''

But if you're going in your head... ''PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE let me bring a clock to school and have all of this stuff happen to me so that I can get 15 million dollars...'' then clearly we are now in the realm of profit-making and not reasonable compensation.

For example, even in cases where a person is awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars as an award in compensation for what may seem on paper a trivial harm, much of is is justified by such things as therapy costs, medical treatment, and the nature of the injury. In theory if the law of torts is operating properly, the clock is turned back and the person is back at the place he would have been but for the injury.

Now the doctrine of punitive damages complicates things slightly but the overarching justification for torts is still supposed to be (in theory) rooted in the overriding doctrine of compensation. Courts do have some room to issue sometimes arbitrary punitive damages but the overriding policy concern should still be compensation.

Now my suspicion is that most of us on this forum would rather wish this happened to us (if it means we get to walk away with 15 million US dollars)

If I'm going ''PLEASE LET THIS HAPPEN TO ME so that I can get 15 million dollars, its a Win for me that I got injured...''

they are doing it wrong

I'll agree that the amount is arguable. However, it does need to be a stiff enough penalty to keep people from doing that in the future.

[Allanea]

I'll agree that the amount is arguable. However, it does need to be a stiff enough penalty to keep people from doing that in the future.

There's no point about complaining bout the amount because it's obviously not the amount the kid is going to get.

If indeed it spawns a bizarre following of kids bringing pencil-case clocks to school, future school administrators can use the brilliant solution of not being morons.

[Dakini]

For fuck's sake...

(Image)

Do any of those look like "suitcases"?

Hey, don't discriminate against the doll-people now. Those are totally suitcases if you're 30 cm tall.

:P

[The Alexanderians]

15 MILLION?!
...
*brings ticking briefcase to school*

[Yumyumsuppertime]

For fuck's sake...

(Image)

Do any of those look like "suitcases"?

Hey, don't discriminate against the doll-people now. Those are totally suitcases if you're 30 cm tall.

:P

At least we'll know who to send after the doll terrorists.

[Dakini]

15 MILLION?!
...
*brings ticking briefpencilcase to school*

ftfy

[Infected Mushroom]

Its honestly disproportionate. And here's how I would test it.

In civil lawsuits the awards are supposed to be COMPENSATION for a wrong that has been done against you as a person. Therefore, no one is supposed to profit from a lawsuit in the sense that the purpose of the lawsuit should be to return you to your original position (had the tort against you NOT happened). The purpose is to turn the clock back... not to make you better off.

So if 15 million dollars really is the right compensation, then a reasonable person should say ''I don't want to go through what that kid went through. The fact that he gets 15 million dollars just barely makes up for the HORRENDOUS wrong that has been done to him.''

But if you're going in your head... ''PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE let me bring a clock to school and have all of this stuff happen to me so that I can get 15 million dollars...'' then clearly we are now in the realm of profit-making and not reasonable compensation.

For example, even in cases where a person is awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars as an award in compensation for what may seem on paper a trivial harm, much of is is justified by such things as therapy costs, medical treatment, and the nature of the injury. In theory if the law of torts is operating properly, the clock is turned back and the person is back at the place he would have been but for the injury.

Now the doctrine of punitive damages complicates things slightly but the overarching justification for torts is still supposed to be (in theory) rooted in the overriding doctrine of compensation. Courts do have some room to issue sometimes arbitrary punitive damages but the overriding policy concern should still be compensation.

Now my suspicion is that most of us on this forum would rather wish this happened to us (if it means we get to walk away with 15 million US dollars)

If I'm going ''PLEASE LET THIS HAPPEN TO ME so that I can get 15 million dollars, its a Win for me that I got injured...''

they are doing it wrong

I'll agree that the amount is arguable. However, it does need to be a stiff enough penalty to keep people from doing that in the future.

the purpose of torts and civil liability should be compensation, if you want to use a massively high amount to deter people from doing things, then that ought to be proven to the beyond a reasonable doubt standard under criminal law (unless there is a directly compensatory objective)

otherwise at some point the civil liability regime becomes a shortcut for the government to impose financial penalties on people by conveniently relying on third-party suers that far exceed the financial penalties that are levelled in many actual felonies; and then these crimes can just be proved on a balance of probabilities as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt

if the government believes there is wrong-doing that deserves for there to be a penalty in the millions of dollars (and most of that ISN'T actually linked to a strictly compensatory objective), then the proper platform for doing this both for the sake of the rights of the penalised party as well as for consistency of policy should be the criminal law and not civil law... since such fines far exceed the average amount levied in criminal charges

[Gauthier]

I'll agree that the amount is arguable. However, it does need to be a stiff enough penalty to keep people from doing that in the future.

the purpose of torts and civil liability should be compensation, if you want to use a massively high amount to deter people from doing things, then that ought to be proven to the beyond a reasonable doubt standard under criminal law (unless there is a directly compensatory objective)

otherwise at some point the civil liability regime becomes a shortcut for the government to impose financial penalties on people by conveniently relying on third-party suers that far exceed the financial penalties that are levelled in many actual felonies; and then these crimes can just be proved on a balance of probabilities as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt

if the government believes there is wrong-doing that deserves for there to be a penalty in the millions of dollars (and most of that ISN'T actually linked to a strictly compensatory objective), then the proper platform for doing this both for the sake of the rights of the penalised party as well as for consistency of policy should be the criminal law and not civil law... since such fines far exceed the average amount levied in criminal charges

>Complains about government overreach and revenue grabbing
>Signature has quote from a Lannister