TOTALLY GEEKED!

Then the mother knew where her son was and she knew what was happening. She just wasn't permitted to interfere with the investigation.

A minor or not, it has been held that children as young as 7 are legally held accountable for crimes they commit.

I'm asking those here who have special needs children....if your child was in this situation, would they have the state of mind to ask whether they could return someone's texts or calls? And yet not have the state of mind to deny they were going to bomb a school or were a member of ISIS? I ask not to be snarky, but because I'm curious.

FNW wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

FNW wrote:

---

The only school conduct I see a problem with was making him sign the statement. Calling him in to the office, they were under a duty to. Searching his locker? Of course they were right to do so, if they received information he was going to bomb the school. I do not feel there is reasonable expectation of privacy in public lockers.

As for the other "facts", i.e., allegations made by the plaintiffs, they claim they were not called. But they knew about it, so they were obviously called at some point. "When" is in dispute, and I believe they should have been called was soon as they received information that the student said he would blow up the school. The suspension is also in dispute. Mom says it was for a week, papers say a month. The suspension was most likely done to give police time to investigate and ensure the school was safe. Was a week reasonable? I don't have enough facts to render an opinion.

I do not see any discrimination based on his disability. Perhaps "failure to accommodate", because he was treated as someone without a disability? But when alleging discrimination, better to throw it all against the wall to see what sticks.

As for being discriminated against because of his race, etc., perhaps. But the ones who really discriminated against the student based on his race, religion, etc., were the students who bullied him. The school was told the student admitted he was a member of ISIS and intended to bomb the school. The school acted on the information they received. If he had been a blue eyed anglo they would have done the same thing. Because as LL pointed out, more school violence occurs with white males. But had he been a blue eyed anglo, the STUDENTS would not have bullied him into admitting he was a member of ISIS. I'm not sure how the bullies' discriminatory intent can be transferred to the school. Vicarious liability would be quite a stretch I think.

As for his damages, it's possible, but I would need to know more about the parents loyalty to Islam and Sharia Law before I could make an assumption. And I don't think they are suffering $25M worth of distress even if they renounced their faith.

Settling doesn't mean guilt. It means it's faster than dragging this out and cheaper than the legal fees. It's a business decision.

---

No.  They would not have.    

 

And the rest of your comments show you haven't paid attention to the facts posted in the article, or by me, or anywhere else.   Some of your statements flat out are not said anywhere - as an example - he never told the other students he was a member of ISIS and no where anywhere does it said he did.

---

 Actually, the article said the parents claimed he was forced to admit he was a member of ISIS (See below).  And I based all of my comments on the original article, as posted by you.   No, I'm not basing it on any "facts" given by you, only on the "facts" stated in the article.  

Whether he would have been searched, etc., had he been a blue eyed anglo remains with the trier of fact.  Not with you, or with me.  Or with anyone else who has not been presented with ALL of the evidence.

 

     From the original article:

"The family of Nashwan Uppal, a Pakistani special-needs student from Islip Terrace, filed the suit Monday in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Central Islip, claiming school officials forced him to confess, under extreme duress, to a terrorist act and crimes he did not commit, and “that he was a member of ISIS, a vile and infamous terrorist organization.” School officials also ignored repeated and severe incidents of bullying against Nashwan from older students, the court papers stated."

---

 The principal demanded he admit it.  Not that he did.  

From the complaint:

Stanton then demanded that before Nashwan was permitted to collect and pack up his thing he had to write a confession and ordered Nashwan to write that he was a part of ISIS, that he knew how to make bombs, that he had bombs in his house and that he was going to blow up the the school.

Inasmuch as none of these horrible statements were true, nor did Nashwan say any of these horrible statements, Nashwan did not write them.  However, since Stanton forced, coerced and ordered him to make a written confession under extreme duress, Nashwan wrote that he said he was a terrorist and that he said he was going to blow up the school fence.  

Stanton, now even more enraged that Nashwan did not heed his demand to write that he was a part of ISIS, that he knew how to make bombs, that he had bombs in his house and that he was going to blow up the school, forcibly tore up Nashwan's written statement and ordered him to write another confession in conformance with his express directives.  

Nashwan, once again being forced to make a written confession under extreme duress, wrote that he said he was a terrorist and that he said he was going to blow up the school fence. 

A visibly angry Stanton grabbed the second written confession from Nashwan and stormed out of the room. 

FNW wrote:

---

Then the mother knew where her son was and she knew what was happening. She just wasn't permitted to interfere with the investigation.

A minor or not, it has been held that children as young as 7 are legally held accountable for crimes they commit.

I'm asking those here who have special needs children....if your child was in this situation, would they have the state of mind to ask whether they could return someone's texts or calls? And yet not have the state of mind to deny they were going to bomb a school or were a member of ISIS? I ask not to be snarky, but because I'm curious.

---

 Jesse would be more concerned with talking to me than anything else.

 

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

And even if the school is on lock down, that means no one leaves. Buses stay put. Anyone in the school is there to stay.

And generally, police and first responders are there.

So, we're they?

There are way too many questions.

---

 Where does it say the school was on lockdown?  

 

And I don't think it was.  This wasn't exactly an emergency situation - what he was forced to say was said the day before. 

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Ok.

Would you sit out side the school for two hours texting and calling?

No. You would go in and want to know where your kid is.

I'm not blaming anyone for anything.

There are questions that need to be answered.

---

 You wouldn't if the doors were locked...

---

 But did she try? 

We're there police and first responders there?

Generally, there is an entrance that gets you to a secretary or desk jocky that can start answering questions.

When the school is locked down, a notice goes out via auto call/text.

And then about the advocate.

Where was the advocate?

---

 He probably didn't have one. 

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

And even if the school is on lock down, that means no one leaves. Buses stay put. Anyone in the school is there to stay.

And generally, police and first responders are there.

So, we're they?

There are way too many questions.

---

 Where does it say the school was on lockdown?  

 

And I don't think it was.  This wasn't exactly an emergency situation - what he was forced to say was said the day before. 

---

 It doesnt. That's a question.

If the principal felt the threat was real, of even with zero policy, lock down is automatic. 

So why wasn't there a lockdown?

If you will take a second, you will see there are holes in both sides of this story.

Questions with no answers, yet.

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Ok.

Would you sit out side the school for two hours texting and calling?

No. You would go in and want to know where your kid is.

I'm not blaming anyone for anything.

There are questions that need to be answered.

---

 You wouldn't if the doors were locked...

---

 But did she try? 

We're there police and first responders there?

Generally, there is an entrance that gets you to a secretary or desk jocky that can start answering questions.

When the school is locked down, a notice goes out via auto call/text.

And then about the advocate.

Where was the advocate?

---

 Lily, not every kid has a personal advocate tied to their side all day.  If there is one, s/he probably wasn't called, either. 

---

 If the child has the needs listed in the post you made, then yes, they would. 

The ratio might be 1:2 or 1:3, but anytime there are communication issues, they have an advocate.

 

---

 Yeah, well, where was the advocate when he was bullied for 15 minutes in the lunchroom?  Hell, where was a teacher or monitor?  

And you simply assume your experience applies everywhere.  How do you know if NY has advocates, or the ratio? 

From the original post: The suit said that cafeteria workers failed to notice the bullying and, after being repeatedly harassed, Nashwan said he was a terrorist and “was going to blow up the school fence.”

So he admitted it (yes, under duress), the day before he was "forced" to sign the statement. The cafeteria workers did not notice the bullying, so the only thing the principal had to go on was most likely word of mouth from the other students. And if it "got out" that someone at my boys' school threatened to blow up the school, even the fence, the school damned well better take it seriously and investigate. Even if it were one of my boys who made that statement.

Thanks for the clarification, Lily, that Jesse would be most concerned about speaking with you.

Ohfour wrote:

---

FNW wrote:

---

Even the "not so disabled" special needs children at my boys' school (ones that are able to be in regular classes and not special needs classes) have a "special teacher" that accompanies the child and even stays in the classroom all day with them.

I'm curious about the lockdown, too.

---

Not necessarily "lockdown" but locked for the day.  Most schools lock their doors after school is over. 

---

 But he was removed from gym class, so presumably, school was not over.

FNW wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

FNW wrote:

---

Even the "not so disabled" special needs children at my boys' school (ones that are able to be in regular classes and not special needs classes) have a "special teacher" that accompanies the child and even stays in the classroom all day with them.

I'm curious about the lockdown, too.

---

Not necessarily "lockdown" but locked for the day.  Most schools lock their doors after school is over. 

---

 But he was removed from gym class, so presumably, school was not over.

---

 His last period of the day.  Mom was waiting for him to come out when school ended and he didn't.  She waited longer, calling and texting but the kid wasn't allowed to answer his mother's calls.  That in itself speaks of impropriety.   

 

 

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Ok.

Would you sit out side the school for two hours texting and calling?

No. You would go in and want to know where your kid is.

I'm not blaming anyone for anything.

There are questions that need to be answered.

---

 You wouldn't if the doors were locked...

---

 But did she try? 

We're there police and first responders there?

Generally, there is an entrance that gets you to a secretary or desk jocky that can start answering questions.

When the school is locked down, a notice goes out via auto call/text.

And then about the advocate.

Where was the advocate?

---

 Lily, not every kid has a personal advocate tied to their side all day.  If there is one, s/he probably wasn't called, either. 

---

 If the child has the needs listed in the post you made, then yes, they would. 

The ratio might be 1:2 or 1:3, but anytime there are communication issues, they have an advocate.

 

---

 Yeah, well, where was the advocate when he was bullied for 15 minutes in the lunchroom?  Hell, where was a teacher or monitor?  

And you simply assume your experience applies everywhere.  How do you know if NY has advocates, or the ratio? 

---

 I dont. And again, it's questions.

Notice, I haven't said anything against anyone, just asking questions.

And exactly! Where was the advocate when the kid was being bullied?

How did the bullying of the kid come to light?

If this kid has communication issues, how could he relate this problem to anyone? 

Someone else had to hear it at some point.

It seems the failure started a long time ago in this case.

Something isn't adding up.

On both sides.

Questions are not bad.

 

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Ok.

Would you sit out side the school for two hours texting and calling?

No. You would go in and want to know where your kid is.

I'm not blaming anyone for anything.

There are questions that need to be answered.

---

 You wouldn't if the doors were locked...

---

 But did she try? 

We're there police and first responders there?

Generally, there is an entrance that gets you to a secretary or desk jocky that can start answering questions.

When the school is locked down, a notice goes out via auto call/text.

And then about the advocate.

Where was the advocate?

---

 He probably didn't have one. 

---

 And why? 

The list of disability this kid has mandates an advocate. 

Now, I'm only going on what I have known in my school district concerning my child.

He had an advocate from 6th-10th grade and he is on the high end of autism.

But because he didn't communicate well, it was mandatory.

 

---

 So your son's advocate was with him all day, every day?  He was her only charge?  

 

FNW wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

You know what? You are a lawyer. I found the complaint easily - so can you. It answers pretty much all your questions, FNW.

---

 I could find the allegations, but not the facts by reading the complaint.  You know that as well.  Facts are presented in court, by both sides.

---

 True.   But it gives answers to all your questions.  It does not leave them unanswered.  

But, I realize that you simply want to nitpick in order to support the school in discriminating against a child just because he's Muslim.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

FNW wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

You know what? You are a lawyer. I found the complaint easily - so can you. It answers pretty much all your questions, FNW.

---

 I could find the allegations, but not the facts by reading the complaint.  You know that as well.  Facts are presented in court, by both sides.

---

 True.   But it gives answers to all your questions.  It does not leave them unanswered.  

But, I realize that you simply want to nitpick in order to support the school in discriminating against a child just because he's Muslim.

---

 No, I want to support a school who investigated allegations of a potential school bombing.

FNW wrote:

---

It doesn't add up to me either, Lily.

He was special needs and had trouble communicating, but he enjoyed playing with others? What exactly was his disability?

And mom was picking him up from school and when he didn't come out, she stood out there texting and calling? Why didn't she try to get buzzed in? Staff was still there, they would have let her in. It makes no sense. I would like to hear both sides. But we won't, because the school will not be permitted to give its side because of privacy issues.

---

 Actually, they will be required to - in about 30 days.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Ok.

Would you sit out side the school for two hours texting and calling?

No. You would go in and want to know where your kid is.

I'm not blaming anyone for anything.

There are questions that need to be answered.

---

 You wouldn't if the doors were locked...

---

 But did she try? 

We're there police and first responders there?

Generally, there is an entrance that gets you to a secretary or desk jocky that can start answering questions.

When the school is locked down, a notice goes out via auto call/text.

And then about the advocate.

Where was the advocate?

---

 He probably didn't have one. 

---

 And why? 

The list of disability this kid has mandates an advocate. 

Now, I'm only going on what I have known in my school district concerning my child.

He had an advocate from 6th-10th grade and he is on the high end of autism.

But because he didn't communicate well, it was mandatory.

 

---

 So your son's advocate was with him all day, every day?  He was her only charge?  

 

---

 From 6th-8th grade, yes on both counts.

In 9th and 10th the ratio was 1:3 and yes, they were required to be close enough to respond with just a motion.

 

FNW wrote:

---

My guess is it will be the typical answer...general denials of all counts.

---

 Under the federal rules - they have to be able to deny everything in good faith in order to not have to address the issues in the answer.  Otherwise, they have to give concise explanations for each defense.  

 

(b) Defenses; Admissions and Denials.

(1) In General. In responding to a pleading, a party must:

(A) state in short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted against it; and

(B) admit or deny the allegations asserted against it by an opposing party.

(2) Denials—Responding to the Substance. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the allegation.

(3) General and Specific Denials. A party that intends in good faith to deny all the allegations of a pleading—including the jurisdictional grounds—may do so by a general denial. A party that does not intend to deny all the allegations must either specifically deny designated allegations or generally deny all except those specifically admitted.

(4) Denying Part of an Allegation. A party that intends in good faith to deny only part of an allegation must admit the part that is true and deny the rest.

(5) Lacking Knowledge or Information. A party that lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of an allegation must so state, and the statement has the effect of a denial.

(6) Effect of Failing to Deny. An allegation—other than one relating to the amount of damages—is admitted if a responsive pleading is required and the allegation is not denied. If a responsive pleading is not required, an allegation is considered denied or avoided.

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

FNW wrote:

---

Then the mother knew where her son was and she knew what was happening. She just wasn't permitted to interfere with the investigation.

A minor or not, it has been held that children as young as 7 are legally held accountable for crimes they commit.

I'm asking those here who have special needs children....if your child was in this situation, would they have the state of mind to ask whether they could return someone's texts or calls? And yet not have the state of mind to deny they were going to bomb a school or were a member of ISIS? I ask not to be snarky, but because I'm curious.

---

 Jesse would be more concerned with talking to me than anything else.

 

---

 If Bunny were in this kind of situation he would probably agree to whatever they were telling him. He is always described as sweet and loving. He trusts everyone and talks to everyone. He would go off with a stranger in a heartbeat if they asked him to. 

It is terrifying for us as parents. 

I am sure Bunny would do whatever the administrators told him to do. When he is old enough for a phone, he will be trained to answer it if we call him. 

FNW wrote:

---

And your point?

---

 Even giving the school the benefit of the doubt - they are not going to be able to deny all the allegations in the 44 page complaint.  The cops are witnesses to part of it - including an interrogation without a parent present. 

I began telling my kids, around 5th grade, if they are ever in a situation where they feel they need me, talking to a teacher or principal or anyone, to just say they want me there and not answer any question.

I don't think parents truly grasp what goes on in schools now.

I've seen kids taken into custody before parents were notified, "for their own safety".

When Jesse was in kindergarten, he would cry every day about 11am. Uncontrollably and to the point of vomiting. 

He was put in a "safety room" every day and I was called.

I asked to see this "safety room". 

It was a 3 x3 closet completely covered in carpet with a built in seat. The door had a small window and a lock.

I had no idea and went off on the principal and teacher.

I was then told if the crying continued,  they would call the police because he was a danger to himself and others, and I would be notified after he was settled in.

He was 5 and crying.

I know schools over reach, over react and flat out do every thing possible to remove parents from the equation. 

All that to say, I do think there are holes in the schools story in the OP.

I question the events leading up to this event.

I think more than just this one situation needs to be investigated.

It seems the whole special needs program needs to be investigated at this school.

 

 

FNW wrote:

---

You mean this actually happens to anglo children, too?

That's horrible, Lily. It does not sound as though the school was equipped to handle special needs children. Glad you set the school straight.

I agree there are holes in this story. I'm not going to judge a school's conduct based on the face of a court pleading, signed under penalty of perjury or not.

---

 At the time, he had not been diagnosed. 

So technically, it happened to a normal white kid.

No the first Act is to call the Police and ensure the safety of the other students.
- Lady Gaga Snerd

____________________________________

I agree. Immediately followed by calling the child's parents.

Then separate the child from others, and await the parent's arrival.

Then question the child with parental supervision. Unless the parents request that their lawyer (or a lawyer for them) be present.

Protecting the rights of children isn't difficult.

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

Principals are allowed to talk to kids. It's not the same thing as talking to Police.

---

 Talk to them?  Yes.  Interrogate them and demand a written confession about something?  No.