Ahmed Mohamed demands $15m compensation on clock arrest

[strivingobserver98]

:sl:

This is maybe going too far?

The family of Ahmed Mohamed, the Texan schoolboy who was arrested after taking a homemade clock to school, has demanded $15m in compensation and written apologies from the local mayor and police chief.

In letters sent on Monday, the lawyers said if the City of Irving and Irving School District did not agree to the apologies and compensation, they would file a civil action.

The letters demanded $10m to be paid to the family by the City of Irving, and $5m from the school district.

The letters said if officials failed to comply with the requests, the law firm would file a suit. There was no immediate response from the police department or the city.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...-a6745706.html

[Physicist]

Agreed. This is too much.
They already attracted huge attention and support. Ahmed received a lot of gifts.
Local mayor and police chief, as others who was involved into this, already lost their faces, everybody are laughing at them.
I would left everything as it is.

But family, being drived by greedy lawers or by themselves, decided to go further.
Now, they are adopting shamefull US practice of suing everybody around.

[sister herb]

Hmm... Maybe the apology would be enough.

Plus maybe the court should order that his teacher has to write 100 times to the blackboard:

"I did wrong when I suspected Ahmed Mohamed".

;D

[M.I.A.]

The moral thing to do in theory is to take the higher ground and forgive what has happened.

..on the flip side..

He's been box office and maybe should be paid accordingly.

Also if he won, maybe those that would discredit him on the playground would think twice.

Lamborghini Tuesday?

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Physicist]

Nope, i think they need to stop right where they are.
There is no sense to demand even for apologies, those guys already ashamed very much and it would be better for themselves to apology. If they don't, it's their problems.

I didn't find Islamic analogy, but this situation reminds me "The golden fish" tale.
This story is about old poor fisherman couple. The man caught golden fish and for being released golden fish started to execute their wishes. They became very reach.
But their growing vanity made them to want too much and golden fish took everything away.

[ardianto]

There is difference between asking responsibility and revenge. If someone intentionally ruin your property , you could sue him to pay the repairing cost. But if you sue him to pay more than your material loss, it's revenge.

If Ahmed family are good Muslims, they should not sue the city and the school to pay compensation like this, but should be able to forgive.

Okay, I have $100 and I will give it to Ahmed family. I hope other Muslims can do the same thing too in accordance to their abilities. Let we collect money and give it to Ahmed family with a message, they don't need to ask compensation from the city and the school. If they want money, let Muslims give them.

[M.I.A.]

Companions of the fish?

...although I actually don't know the context of that one.


There is a similar analogy here about the goose that lays the golden egg.

He could build a mosque and still have change left over.

[Physicist]

All the media activity around Ahmed is not just because of him.
His case just got into the resonance. He imposonates all unfairly threated muslims in US.
Obama, Microsoft, all the media apologizing toward all muslims, not just one kid somehow very different from others.
But Ahmed's family take everything into their own account.

What ardianto is proposing is a very beautifull gesture.
They will get a choice, either to show good muslim behaviour and stop, either to expect money from other muslims worldwide, even from poorer countries and thus detach their case from impersonalization.

[M.I.A.]

Once I was working away from home, two weeks before Christmas.

During the day a nurse who works next door came in and told me she had hit my car in the car park.

She gave me her insurance details but i told her i would repair it privately to save her insurance in the future..

And it was Christmas.


The repair man only charged me 80 pound and I billed her for it.

...I realised some time later that he had damaged an inside panel.

It's still not fixed to this day.. Temporary work.

[TMGuide]

I actually think it's his right, is it greedy? Maybe. I think because they left to Qatar this might be yet another backlash on them however if they made these demands at the beginning no one would be questioning them. Though 15 million is a little bit much I do think that it is their right to sue them. The mayor and the school still stand by their decision by the way they still belief they did the right thing and have yet to apologies for everything they have caused this family.

[Pygoscelis]

People need to keep in mind that they won't likely get anywhere near that amount. I used to work in personal injury law. We made claims of 1m for just about every case, even ones we knew were borderline threshhold (you have to win over $30,000 to win anything in Ontario - insurance company deducts that much from whatever is awarded). We make the larger claim because you can not raise the number in settlement or at court, but you can lower it. If the client could somehow prove they would have gotten a little more than what was claimed for they could sue the lawyer. So the lawyers always claim the maximum payable under the insurance policy (which is typically 1m but maybe there 15m makes sense for the same reason)

[Search]

People need to keep in mind that they won't likely get anywhere near that amount. I used to work in personal injury law. We made claims of 1m for just about every case, even ones we knew were borderline threshhold (you have to win over $30,000 to win anything in Ontario - insurance company deducts that much from whatever is awarded). We make the larger claim because you can not raise the number in settlement or at court, but you can lower it. If the client could somehow prove they would have gotten a little more than what was claimed for they could sue the lawyer. So the lawyers always claim the maximum payable under the insurance policy (which is typically 1m but maybe there 15m makes sense for the same reason)

:bism:

Yes, that's right, and I also think the case will be settled out of court.

[Search]

:bism:

:sl:

Sorry, I don't want to comment on the story itself as I have mixed feelings about what is happening here.

:wa:

[syed_z]

The respect that Allah (swt) gave him was greater than $15 Million and much more than that and even more than that.

He has our Prophet Muhammad's name (SallAllahu Alaihi Wassallam), so he should've reflected the same forgiving nature and given up the idea of such a claim. Allah (swt) would've increased and blessed their honor.

No money can buy what him and his family were given by Allah (swt).

(AL Quran 3:26) .....You honor whom You will and You humble whom You will. In Your hand is [all] good. Indeed, You are able to do all things.

Wallahu Alim who influenced them to make this lawsuit decision.... :(

[ardianto]

Ahmed was treated unfairly by few people. But then he got sympathies and supports from many people. That was the justice that shown by Allah. But now?, Ahmed start to lost sympathy although I believe, the idea to demand compensation was not coming from Ahmed himself.

What ardianto is proposing is a very beautifull gesture.
They will get a choice, either to show good muslim behaviour and stop, either to expect money from other muslims worldwide, even from poorer countries and thus detach their case from impersonalization.

The "clock arrest" case was a direct impact of Islamophobia. And now decision to demand the compensation can affect Islamophobia to becoming worse. So Muslims should do something to remind Ahmed's family to stop it. If they indeed want money, let global Muslims give compensation.

I have prepared $100 and will not draw it back. But currently I don't know how to contact Ahmed's family and tell the message to them. Hopefully someone can help.

If someone here know Ahmed in the real world or social media, please connect me with him.

[Physicist]

I suggests that this message should be very public.
May be start a croudfunding campaign on the sites like indiegogo.com
I'm not familiar with this system, need to have ability to withdraw money back to donators if acceptor rejects it. I hope they will refrain from accepting money)

[Search]

:bism:

Richard Dawkins Compares 'Clock Boy' Ahmed Mohamed to ISIS Child Executioner

[sister herb]

^o)

The family of Ahmed Mohamed better sue Richard Dawkins, not the city of Irving.

[Search]

:bism:

Searing Letter Exposes Why Student Arrested for Homemade Clock Is Seeking $15M

[Pygoscelis]

:bism:

Richard Dawkins Compares 'Clock Boy' Ahmed Mohamed to ISIS Child Executioner

To be fair, no he didn't. What he did was call the boy somebody who pulled a hoax and purposefully dismantled a clock and put the components in a form that would look like a bomb to get a reaction (which he did get) and then gain from the aftermath (which he did - including an invitation to the white house and now this law suit). I'm not saying I agree with Dawkins, but that is his charge, so judge him on that.

Somebody then said to him something about the kid being just a child, and Dawkins reacted to the "he's just a child" line by making he point that children can do some pretty awful things and being a child is no excuse, and pointing to a horrific example of somebody else who did something far worse (Dawkins acknowledges) who is also just a child. The point was to counter the "just a child" line, not to actually compare this kid to the ISIS child executioner.

[syed_z]

Somebody then said to him something about the kid being just a child, and Dawkins reacted to the "he's just a child" line by making he point that children can do some pretty awful things and being a child is no excuse, and pointing to a horrific example of somebody else who did something far worse (Dawkins acknowledges) who is also just a child. The point was to counter the "just a child" line, not to actually compare this kid to the ISIS child executioner.

Thanks. He actually made it very clear by sharing the child executioner picture. But nevertheless, we pray May Allah (swt) guide him and open his heart to receive guidance...Ameen

[Search]

:bism:

Hi Pygoscelis!

Awesome to see you posting!

Meh - that's the title of the article, and I just copied it onto the post.

Confession Time: I'm disappointed, I think, in Richard Dawkins.

@ First paragraph.

While I'm responding to you, please know the post is not aimed at you, as I'm just sharing my POV on the entire Richard Dawkins' handling of this news story:

At the time of the original story breaking out, I was surprised that Richard Dawkins kept tweeting, as per the reporting of an article, about how the boy called the "clock" an "invention" when it was patently not an invention. Let me share with you a personal story: When I was in 7th grade, also 14-years old, my science teacher assigned us students the task of participating in a program in which children shared their inventions, and the invention would be graded for a classroom grade. Now, I'm not a science buff or a teach-lover, and so I dreaded this project. You know what my invention was? I took a broom and the light construction workers wear on their hard hats and actually just attached the light to the broom by a band type thing. Yes, if you're rolling your eyes or inclined to laugh or think "what the," (sighs) let me admit to you it was the stupidest "invention" I could dream up. Did I think I'd "invented" something? Yes. Did I like what I'd "invented?" No.

So, I definitely think it was small-minded of Richard Dawkins for harping on that "invention" bit. Kids are not as attuned to the subtleties and do some whatever and might actually think they've been really creative or invented, not withstanding that they actually have not.

Secondly, Richard Dawkins maintaining the position that this was a "hoax" is also just as odd to me. For me, for example, to believe that this 14-year old kid planned this as a hoax, I'd have to believe a) the teacher would see the item as suspicious and would call in higher educational authorities to deal with the situation, b) he knew the teachers, principal, and resource officer would all have not left the matter at simply questioning him about a suspicious-looking item, c) he assumed he would be publicly arrested, d) he had knowledge the public arrest would result in his celebrity. And honestly, I think those things added altogether are a little far-fetched as I could easily imagine this going the other way, that is, maybe the teacher, knowing him as a geeky kid (with those nerdy glasses and tiny build) might not have feel inclined to report him to higher educational authorities. Also, because of the deplorable tendency on parents of our time to almost always side with their child, higher-ups in education simply usually suspend the child instead of having resource officers make arrests (as most do not want to deal with the aftermath that comprises of the headache of parents giving them an earful about what how they were unfair to their "angel.") Also, the person who first broke the story and warned the parents about what would happen was a Hindu I.T. tech guy who had no relation to the family and admitted he did so because he had a visceral reaction to the picture of the child due to feeling like he was looking at a similar version of himself at that age. So, could this entire matter have been a hoax? Possibly, just as I think a meteorite can hit the earth in the next 20.5 seconds. Probable? No. So, what gives?

Also, why is he targeting Ahmed - is it because in the story he's a Muslim child ? Would he have targeted Ahmed if he was, oh, I don't know, an American Jewish child? What about an American Christian child? Would he have then scrutinized and deliberated over how this was a "hoax" just as "religiously" (pun intended!)?

@ Second paragraph.

Let's face it: Religionists (at least most) would like to see Richard Dawkins fall flat on his face! I mean the kind is a celebrity he has in the religious world is not at all in a good way, as I'm sure you know. Therefore, while I believe you (since I have on reason to disbelieve you) about Richard Dawkins using that tweet to silence the "he's a child" comment, the tweet was really in absolutely poor taste because he should have known or expected that people would believe he was or misinterpret that tweet to him comparing the child to the ISIS child executioner. I mean, (come on!) he's an "old hand" at religionists using whatever they can against him and also I should note controversy is not new him. For example, I remember once seeing a YouTube video on how he subconsciously either believed in God or that he too felt he needed God because he said something to the effect of "oh my God! oh my God!" on a radio show (lol, can anyone say desperate?! (btw, referring here to religionists)). So, for a guy who has reasoned that God doesn't exist, I'm sure he can reason out why there would be hullabaloo about that picture of the ISIS child executioner because there is an extant comparison (even if an unintended one in consequence between Ahmed "the child" and ISIS executioner "the child"). Also, I have an easier time logically reaching the conclusion that a 74-year old should know the consequences of his action versus drawing the conclusion that a 14-year old should have known consequences of his action (as scientifically brain studies of modern humans have showed that adolescents do not have the fully matured ability to exercise good judgment that an adult does, incidentally used as reasoning in the U.S. Supreme Court case Roper v. Simmons case to overturn the death penalty for adolescents).

Btw, I would still feel this way if in this scenario Richard Dawkins was the Muslim and Ahmed the atheist.

I should note here I don't have anything against Dawkins personally. And I hope I'm wrong, but there's a "but." But I am inclined to think he's probably migrating to the camp of people that spew Islamophobic rhetoric. Also, Dawkins constantly commenting negatively about Ahmed on his Twitter account, hmm, well, me personally, I would liken to social media bullying, which a lot of people do on the Internet, and I find that phenomena disturbing no matter who is targeting whom.

Finally, I have ambiguous feelings about the court case, not about Ahmed's situation (though I must confess that I was far more sympathetic to Ahmed's case when I hadn't seen the picture of his "clock" released by the authorities).

To be fair, no he didn't. What he did was call the boy somebody who pulled a hoax and purposefully dismantled a clock and put the components in a form that would look like a bomb to get a reaction (which he did get) and then gain from the aftermath (which he did - including an invitation to the white house and now this law suit). I'm not saying I agree with Dawkins, but that is his charge, so judge him on that.

Somebody then said to him something about the kid being just a child, and Dawkins reacted to the "he's just a child" line by making he point that children can do some pretty awful things and being a child is no excuse, and pointing to a horrific example of somebody else who did something far worse (Dawkins acknowledges) who is also just a child. The point was to counter the "just a child" line, not to actually compare this kid to the ISIS child executioner.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you فرحان;
You have to ask where the compensation would come from, and it will just be all the taxpayers who fund the police and schools. The loosers would be his fellow citizens, the country is trillions in debt, this kind of compensation claim is just wrong and greedy.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people,

Eric

[Pygoscelis]

Secondly, Richard Dawkins maintaining the position that this was a "hoax" is also just as odd to me. For me, for example, to believe that this 14-year old kid planned this as a hoax, I'd have to believe a) the teacher would see the item as suspicious and would call in higher educational authorities to deal with the situation, b) he knew the teachers, principal, and resource officer would all have not left the matter at simply questioning him about a suspicious-looking item, c) he assumed he would be publicly arrested, d) he had knowledge the public arrest would result in his celebrity. And honestly, I think those things added altogether are a little far-fetched as I could easily imagine this going the other way, that is, maybe the teacher, knowing him as a geeky kid (with those nerdy glasses and tiny build) might not have feel inclined to report him to higher educational authorities. Also, because of the deplorable tendency on parents of our time to almost always side with their child, higher-ups in education simply usually suspend the child instead of having resource officers make arrests (as most do not want to deal with the aftermath that comprises of the headache of parents giving them an earful about what how they were unfair to their "angel.") Also, the person who first broke the story and warned the parents about what would happen was a Hindu I.T. tech guy who had no relation to the family and admitted he did so because he had a visceral reaction to the picture of the child due to feeling like he was looking at a similar version of himself at that age. So, could this entire matter have been a hoax? Possibly, just as I think a meteorite can hit the earth in the next 20.5 seconds. Probable? No. So, what gives?

Also, why is he targeting Ahmed - is it because in the story he's a Muslim child ? Would he have targeted Ahmed if he was, oh, I don't know, an American Jewish child? What about an American Christian child? Would he have then scrutinized and deliberated over how this was a "hoax" just as "religiously" (pun intended!)?

I think that is what Dawkins is going at. Dawkins seems to think that the kid's father put him up to it, and alleges that the father is somewhat of an activist. I don't know if that is true or not. I think the idea isn't that anybody knew in advance all of what you typed above, but that they suspected at least some of that would happen, and that they planned to use that however they could, maybe for publicity, or maybe for monetary gain (such as we see here). I think the idea is that he made the "clock" to look a little like a bomb to see if he could bait out a reaction, similar to the "Burn a Quran" preacher from a couple of years ago or the "Draw Mohammed" contests - clearly meant to offend and agitate and alarm a group of people, hoping for a reaction and some press they can exploit. I'm not sure I agree with Dawkins, as I don't have all the details. This kid may simply have been one that re-cased a clock to see how a clock works, etc. But I think that is where Dawkins is going with this.

And yes, I am sure Dawkins was doing a bit of this baiting himself. He gets publicity from agitating the religious. I am surprised nobody has called him on that in this case. He's doing exactly what he's accusing the kid of doing. The comparison to the child executioner was accurate in the sense of the point he was making, but obvious to ruffle some feathers, and I find it hard to believe he wasn't doing it on purpose. He is rather famous for that after all. He did call his famous book "The God Delusion" no doubt because it would sell more copies and get more attention than "People who have mistaken beliefs in Gods". Dawkins often says that a lot of religious people seek to be offended, get offended merely because you don't share their view and tell them so, etc. And my experience as an atheist is that this is very true. But Dawkins has made profit off of this... so I would not be surprised if he pushed the buttons on purpose. Given what comes at us from the religious side I can't really judge him for it, but I don't think it very constructive.

[Snow]

Crazy all around.
His arrest was silly and his argument is silly.
What happened to apologizing sincerely?

No true harm was done.

[Search]

:bism:

Hi Pygoscelis!

I agree and yes, much like you, I don't feel like I have all the facts. Also, to begin with, there are confusing details emerging in news; for example, one news story I'd read said that Ahmed had permission beforehand to bring something about which he was excited, and another news story said that he had not informed anyone. Which is it? I don't know. That said, given what both and I and Dawkins at least know from the reporting, his stance has always seemed odd to me and not worthy of a man of his years.

You're right; he's probably baiting.

Yes, I can understand about "what comes at us from the religious side" as I know there's baiting of atheists and agnostic people by religionists; and the reverse is also true; it's fair to say that there's some guilt to go around all sides.

Lol, I used to be an atheist/agnostic; so, I'm probably generally better able to understand both sides of the equation, I think. Generally, I think religious people have good intentions (with of course some exceptions), as I'm sure you've experienced the good and bad too. Also, the truth is that I think religious people generally have genuine trouble understanding why anyone wouldn't believe as they believe: It's as if they just can't wrap their minds around that, which is from where the trouble and misunderstanding stems.

I think that is what Dawkins is going at. Dawkins seems to think that the kid's father put him up to it, and alleges that the father is somewhat of an activist. I don't know if that is true or not. I think the idea isn't that anybody knew in advance all of what you typed above, but that they suspected at least some of that would happen, and that they planned to use that however they could, maybe for publicity, or maybe for monetary gain (such as we see here). I think the idea is that he made the "clock" to look a little like a bomb to see if he could bait out a reaction, similar to the "Burn a Quran" preacher from a couple of years ago or the "Draw Mohammed" contests - clearly meant to offend and agitate Muslims, hoping for a violent reaction they can exploit, or at least some sort of press they could exploit. I'm not sure I agree with Dawkins, as I don't have all the details. This kid may simply have been one that re-cased a clock to see how a clock works, etc. But I think that is where Dawkins is going with this.

And yes, I am sure Dawkins was doing a bit of this baiting himself. He gets publicity from agitating the religious. I am surprised nobody has called him on that in this case. He's doing exactly what he's accusing the kid of doing. The comparison to the child executioner was accurate in the sense of the point he was making, but obvious to ruffle some feathers, and I find it hard to believe he wasn't doing it on purpose. He is rather famous for that after all. He did call his famous book "The God Delusion" no doubt because it would sell more copies and get more attention than "People who have mistaken beliefs in Gods". Dawkins often says that a lot of religious people seek to be offended, get offended merely because you don't share their view and tell them so, etc. And my experience as an atheist is that this is very true. But Dawkins has made profit off of this... so I would not be surprised if he pushed the buttons on purpose. Given what comes at us from the religious side I can't really judge him for it, but I don't think it very constructive.

[Pygoscelis]

Also, the truth is that I think religious people generally have genuine trouble understanding why anyone wouldn't believe as they believe: It's as if they just can't wrap their minds around that, which is from where the trouble and misunderstanding stems.

That applies to atheists as well. I used to have a very hard time believing that anybody could actually believe in the supernatural or Gods. I thought that most of them were all going along with it for the culture and were closet atheists. I still think a lot of people are. You get a lot of social acceptance and a nice sense of community by pretending to believe, especially in places where it is expected of you, and especially among family. I myself pretended to believe as a child, for fear of the reaction of people around me if I admitted I didn't. But I do now realize that not everybody is like that and there do exist true believers. I am sure many believers think the reverse of atheists, and indeed often get told that secretly we all believe and are rebelling against God, etc. Be assured, that many of us really and truly don't believe.

Where I find it a little more puzzling is with people of competing religions, say Christians and Muslims, or Hindus and Muslims, etc. You each believe the other has it wrong. But do many religious people suspect the other secretly knows you are right and they are wrong and for some reason they are worshiping the false God on purpose? I have never been a theist so I can't deduce that.

[Search]

:bism:

Hi.

I had a different experience in that when I was atheist/agnostic, I didn't really care if there was a god. And while I honestly sometimes envied people who did have certainty in belief, I did not myself believe; and I couldn't make myself believe. So, I just was atheist/agnostic, not the Richard Dawkins type, mind you, as I didn't really care if others believed just so long as they didn't try to thrust their beliefs. So, in that same way, I think your experience is probably just as unique to you as mine was to me. Do I think there may be closet agnostics/atheists? Sure. That said, my guess it's probably not as high as I am getting the impression you seem to think. Though I could be wrong as there's no real way to tell.

Lol, hmm, I don't think people of other religions are secret believers, in say, Islam; otherwise, I'd like to think they'd become Muslim. Sure, sometimes, people might hide their conversion to, say, Islam, but I do not think that is to which you are making a reference. So, the answer to your question is basically no; I don't think theists of different faiths suspect the other of secretly knowing the truth and ignoring the truth.

That applies to atheists as well. I used to have a very hard time believing that anybody could actually believe in the supernatural or Gods. I thought that most of them were all going along with it for the culture and were closet atheists. I still think a lot of people are. You get a lot of social acceptance and a nice sense of community by pretending to believe, especially in places where it is expected of you, and especially among family. I myself pretended to believe as a child, for fear of the reaction of people around me if I admitted I didn't. But I do now realize that not everybody is like that and there do exist true believers. I am sure many believers think the reverse of atheists, and indeed often get told that secretly we all believe and are rebelling against God, etc. Be assured, that many of us really and truly don't believe.

Where I find it a little more puzzling is with people of competing religions, say Christians and Muslims, or Hindus and Muslims, etc. You each believe the other has it wrong. But do many religious people suspect the other secretly knows you are right and they are wrong and for some reason they are worshiping the false God on purpose? I have never been a theist so I can't deduce that.