www.ditl.org

Mikey wrote:And likewise, the response to an "Ahmed" bringing in that hypothetical toy gun would be far stronger than to a "John" bringing the same toy gun. I will never be dissuaded from the opinion that if that clock was brought into school by a young white male by the name of Chistopher Smith, the strongest response that might have occurred would have been a stern talking-to.

So you didn't read the second article where they quoted multiple incidents when equally silly things had happened to white kids which did equally innocent things. Like the kid who "made a gun" out of a pop tart and was arrested, charged and suspended from school?

Mikey wrote:And likewise, the response to an "Ahmed" bringing in that hypothetical toy gun would be far stronger than to a "John" bringing the same toy gun. I will never be dissuaded from the opinion that if that clock was brought into school by a young white male by the name of Chistopher Smith, the strongest response that might have occurred would have been a stern talking-to.

Actually race only got involved while he was in custody. It was the lawyer and the parents that said he got detained because he had a Muslim name.

And no, Christopher Smith would have been questioned as well. Now the difference here is that when he was being questioned he wouldn't demand a lawyer and be passive.

That is the difference here.

In reality, you are giving the kid the benefit of the doubt and the people in charge being racially insensitive.

IanKennedy wrote:So you didn't read the second article where they quoted multiple incidents when equally silly things had happened to white kids which did equally innocent things. Like the kid who "made a gun" out of a pop tart and was arrested, charged and suspended from school?

Oh, do you mean the situation which had nothing to do with the one about which we're speaking?

McAvoy wrote:It was the lawyer and the parents that said he got detained because he had a Muslim name.

I just said it, too.

McAvoy wrote:And no, Christopher Smith would have been questioned as well.

I can't force myself to feel the same certainty about that as you do.

McAvoy wrote:Now the difference here is that when he was being questioned he wouldn't demand a lawyer and be passive.

How can you possibly claimn to know that, or even think you could guess at it?

McAvoy wrote:In reality, you are giving the kid the benefit of the doubt and the people in charge being racially insensitive.

Absolutely true, because I'm an American. I seem to recall certain phrases like "... and justice for all," and "innocent until proven guilty..." Giving a kid who didn't build a bomb nor perpetrate a bomb threat the benefit of the doubt when he was arrested for doing the things which he didn't do seems to be the right way to think of the matter, as well as the American way to do so.

Mikey wrote:Oh, do you mean the situation which had nothing to do with the one about which we're speaking?

No, but, it has everything to do with demonstrating that white kids get arrested for doing dumb things too. Which you are still saying to me and others would never happen. You can't have it both ways. The pop-tart gun shows that it very well can and does happen to white kids. In equally, if not more ridiculous, situations. There were at least four more incidents quoted in that same article. I can't see how you can even have a shred of doubt left that it would have happened to a white kid, given it already has happened on multiple instances.

The fault lies with the concept of a zero tolerance policy, once you have one you've pretty much fixed your self into doing utterly ridiculous things. The concept make this sort of incident inevitable.

How many kids out there assuming they innocent would want to the moment someone higher up than a teacher, would refuse to answer questions? Regardless of race or religion?

Assuming the kid in question is as innocent as some believe?

The point is there is a lot of question marks leading up to this. But because he is 14 he is automatically innocent it seems. Also because he is Muslim it is an automatic overreaction.

Mikey wrote: I will never be dissuaded from the opinion that if that clock was brought into school by a young white male by the name of Chistopher Smith, the strongest response that might have occurred would have been a stern talking-to.

I guess if you've truly dug in your heels there's no discussing it to you. However with the zero tolerance policies I think Chris would have to be a pretty fast talker after the beeping to avoid disciplinary action, and would probably be stuck with a suspension. I will entirely agree that this is all ridiculous. However it's the policy that's ridiculous.

The room for racism would more be in the arrest. However it wasn't like he was actually convicted. I don't think he was even charged with something. While I don't have a crystal ball to say that Chris would have been arrested if he acted the same Ahmed, I'm sure that if Chris was a jerk to some Texan cops during questioning he could find himself in cuffs pretty quick.

So maybe racism, yeah, but not necessarily.

Either way, I'm pretty sure that if Chris were arrested just the same, he wouldn't have gotten a trip to the white house out of the deal. Still, I'm hoping that this helps our schools return to a measure of sanity on these issues before one of my girls gets in trouble for playing with a twig inappropriately.

IanKennedy wrote:Which you are still saying to me and others would never happen.

Yeah, except for how I never said that. Thanks for making up stuff which I allegedly said in order to keep the convo going, though, saves me a bit of time.

Mikey wrote:Yeah, except for how I never said that. Thanks for making up stuff which I allegedly said in order to keep the convo going, though, saves me a bit of time.

Mikey wrote:And likewise, the response to an "Ahmed" bringing in that hypothetical toy gun would be far stronger than to a "John" bringing the same toy gun. I will never be dissuaded from the opinion that if that clock was brought into school by a young white male by the name of Chistopher Smith, the strongest response that might have occurred would have been a stern talking-to.

Sounds pretty much like it to me. If you can't make your self clear that's not my fault.

A clear anecdotal description of "probable" and a comppletely un-stated and fallaciously alleged statement of "impossible" don't seem hard to distinguish to me.

You say "hair-splitting," I say "not adding unintended context to my statement."