That girl will be mentally guilt-traumatized for a long time now.
The Beheading of Samuel Paty in France by Islamic Terrorist: All Because a 13 yo Teenage Truant Lied
Oh! This was a dance like a monkey request. My bad, I didn’t understand what you were asking for. No thanks!
It does, but AFAICT that’s what franceinfo is reporting:
I.e., “Absent from school on the day of the class, the adolescent had wanted to hide from her father the real reason for her removal for chronic absenteeism”.
So as best as I can make out, her father was independently informed of the fact of her suspension (the French word is “expulsion”, but IIRC that doesn’t necessarily mean permanent separation as it does in English), but she was able to deceive him about the reason for it.
I dunno, it’s not like there’s no Islamophobia in French culture, and it’s not like there aren’t also a subset of French Muslims who have exaggerated and paranoid views about French Islamophobia. I can imagine a climate of mistrust in which it would be possible for a non-stupid parent to believe that such a story might be true.
However, if there’s one basic lesson for the non-murderous non-terrorist to take away from this horrific crime, I’d say it would be this: don’t just take your 13-year-old kid’s word for it when they explain why they’ve been having problems at school. Get the other side of the story before you rush onto social media denouncing the school for having treated your poor child so disgracefully. Sometimes kids lie.
Um, no. You were politely requested to provide a citation for your assertion. You’re either unwilling or unable to do so. That’s on you. No monkey dance involved.
Yea, strange. I could perhaps see someone as young as 16 years old being granted some privacy protections but at 13 year old’s father should have been informed of the reason immediately. I can’t understand how he could have know of the suspension but not the reason for it.
“Oh, ya, ha, your kid, normally at school in seventh grade, is going to be at home for the next week for some reason. See ya.”
Not seeing it. Speech alone is not enough. There has to be a realistic possibility that the speaker will commit violent acts, and that those violent acts will put someone else’s life or safety at risk. Can you clarify what you mean?
The speech can be the sole reason for believing the speaker can/will commit said violent acts.
Yes, but that by itself does not justify lethal force.
Hopefully he is convicted.