****ing Texas

[grumbler]

IMO.
The school slightly overreacted. Not a surprise considering circumstances. I've seen worse reactions for less.
THE POLICE really overreacted. Was it due to incompetence or bigotry is yet to be determined. (probably a bit of both)

BUT, I think getting a big pay day on a lawsuit is going to be difficult.
I think it will be hard to prove substantial damages. So the kid was cuffed and printed and held for a few hours. The kid has become a national celebrity, with many offers.
An official apology from the department and the cops involved should be accepted as the kid and his parents laugh all the way to the bank.
A long trial would damage the kids image and make his parents look like greedy profiteers. (or using it to push a political point) Neither of which would be good for the kid in the long term.
The kid is going to get a good payoff without having to drag it to court and looking greedy.

In an affirmative tort case, you don't have to prove damages. The illegal arrest is, by itself, an affirmative tort, and has been conceded by the police. Thus, the kid can't lose in court. A long trial won't hurt the kid at all, since he has the most common Muslim name in the world; who's going to remember it ten minutes after the trial ends?

I agree that the city will settle rather than risk letting this case go to a jury. A jury would murder the city's bank account.

The school district will be the more interesting case. If they decide to accept responsibility for the principal's malfeasance, then they set themselves up for a huge settlement themselves. If they fire the principal, then they are much less liable but he is then exposed to a personal lawsuit. Malfeasance is also an affirmative tort; the principal and school district would, in court, have to show that the law and their regulations allowed the principal to behave this way. That, of course, cannot be done. Again, no damages need be proven.

[rah]

I agree that the city will settle rather than risk letting this case go to a jury. A jury would murder the city's bank account.

IF the kid has cashed in "BIG" before the jury awards, they may think he is not in need of a LARGE additional reward. You never know. We are talking about a jury of his peers.

I personally wouldn't go for a large payout (based on what I know now and what the kids is already getting) But I'm an educated person meaning the odds of my being eliminated from the pool would be high.

The only time I've actually made it to a jury was after all the no-question exclusions were used up.

[grumbler]

The definition of probably cause has been stretched for decades.
Without a specific declaration from a bomb squad or other expert, we're in gray territory. Common sense excluded

The police and school district have conceded that they didn't believe that there was a bomb or a bomb hoax. In fact, they conceded that they did not have, and never had, any evidence at all that Ahmed did any wrong. That's a concession that there was no probable cause, because probable cause must be based on evidence. No stretching of probable cause necessary, and no gray territory encountered, IMO.

[rah]

Didn't believe and certain of can be stretched. I won't trust any version said until it's being sworn to in court.

A school official saying I didn't believe but wanted to err on the side of safety can be made into an argument.

But look, I'm not saying that anything will be different then you predict, but I've been around for a long time and seen lots of strange ****.

[grumbler]

IF the kid has cashed in "BIG" before the jury awards, they may think he is not in need of a LARGE additional reward. You never know. We are talking about a jury of his peers.

I personally wouldn't go for a large payout (based on what I know now and what the kids is already getting) But I'm an educated person meaning the odds of my being eliminated from the pool would be high.

The only time I've actually made it to a jury was after all the no-question exclusions were used up.

We aren't talking a settlement in the millions, or anything like that. That was never in the cards for a case like this. A penalty in the high tens of thousands seems pretty standard for common false imprisonment.

[N35t0r]

Where do I sign up?

[rah]

We aren't talking a settlement in the millions, or anything like that. That was never in the cards for a case like this. A penalty in the high tens of thousands seems pretty standard for common false imprisonment.

Hmm that didn't jive with your earlier post. And it's not like the kid spent a week in jail.

I agree that the city will settle rather than risk letting this case go to a jury. A jury would murder the city's bank account.

If tens of thousands is what you originally meant, fine.

[Kidlicious]

Who wants to bet avatars that there will be no law suit for false arrest?

[rah]

They might get a small settlement but I doubt this will ever go to court.

[grumbler]

Hmm that didn't jive with your earlier post. And it's not like the kid spent a week in jail.



If tens of thousands is what you originally meant, fine.

Oh, I'd bet a jury (or a judge if the city decided not to go with a jury) would give more along the lines of a hundred thousand. Cops illegally using their power to scare the **** out of kids? A defense attorney would go to town. That's a lot of money to pay for a cop blunder, though I'll admit that I didn't understand that it's a city of about a quarter-million, so their budget is a lot bigger than I thought when I said that.

[Kidlicious]

There's no lawsuit. Nothing. Lawsuits are real. All you have is stories.

[Aeson]

If people find that others observing their ignorance is "uncivil," then they shouldn't post in ignorance. Hell, there are people here who thought cops can arrest children without probable cause and so the cops in this case were "just doing their job!" That's pretty massive ignorance right there, I have called people on it, and they haven't been moaning like you and Elok.

You're the one moaning about it. We're just pointing out that you're a hypocrite about being uncivil.

[Elok]

Well, we can't have total strangers thinking incorrect things now, can we?

[giblets]

You ignorant swine are so uncivil

[Kidlicious]

You ignorant swine are so uncivil

SU you hypocrite!








I mean that too.