Hacker News Reader

Comment by jonlucc | Hacker News Reader

I think this is how you get schools to care and avoid doing the same in the future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages

> Punitive damages or exemplary damages are damages intended to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will receive all or some portion of the punitive damage award.

Is there anything seriously wrong in how school reacted? Quoting New York Times,

> He said he took it to school on Monday to show an engineering teacher, who said it was nice but then told him he should not show the invention to other teachers. Later, Ahmed’s clock beeped during an English class, and after he revealed the device to the teacher, school officials notified the police, and Ahmed was interrogated by officers.

> Ahmed wasn’t accused of making a bomb – he was accused of making a look-alike, a hoax. And be honest with yourself, a big red digital display with a bunch of loose wires in a brief-case looking box is awful like a Hollywood-style representation of a bomb. [1]

[1]: http://blogs.artvoice.com/techvoice/2015/09/17/reverse-engin...

I think this is how you create poor educational outcomes for the students in an entire district.

Losing 15 million dollars is not a loss most school districts will be able to withstand - that would likely mean the closing of schools, consolidation, larger class sizes, teacher pay decreases, etc.

But yeah, costing a community of people 15 million dollars sure will teach the four or five people actually involved a valuable lesson.

Should schools really not take security seriously though? Do we really want people second guessing themselves when it comes to safety? That precedent is asking for trouble.

How does safety enter into it? Everyone knew it wasn't a bomb. Some people thought it was pretending to be a bomb, other people contend that it wasn't pretending to be a bomb. How are you worried about people second guessing themselves, in that context?

Schools have procedures for when there's a suspected bomb. They don't look like what was done, here. There was never a suspected bomb - only a suspected hoax.

Everyone knew it wasn't a bomb? Really? AFAIK he was asked what it was and he was uncooperative although we won't ever know since his family refused the public release of the police records.

Anyways, if we're going with hearsay then we should mention the boy's sister was suspended for making a bomb threat so I'd doubt the average teacher would just brush this off as "definitely not a bomb".

Now, seems like in your mind it would've been better for the school to send a SWAT team after him. I'm sure that wouldn't be seen as a negative thing by anyone.

Better? No. More consistent with "we thought it was a bomb"? Yes. At which point, the discussion of what should be done when you think there's a bomb becomes germane. So far as I understand it, no one involved is claiming that they thought it was a bomb.

Far more conspicuous than relative lack of force (which, depending on particulars, might possibly have been a fine reaction to an actual bomb) is the apparent lack of any move to evacuate other students.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com