Subscription pricing
.
PT Questions
keerutsingh856
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
keerutsingh856
Thursday, Jun 13 2019
@ said:
If intent is an element that's required, it'll probably be pretty tough to prove there was intent given the circumstances of this incident.
Lol. I find this whole thread hilarious because no one here seems to understand how assault works or how to apply it to Bamboo's situation. Bamboo is not claiming that they suffered bodily harm or injury. They are claiming that they suffered unwanted touching (maybe). Such a claim necessarily requires intent. The proctor had to intentionally be touching them for the purpose of causing harm. Good luck proving that an LSAC proctor was out to touch you in an unwanted way. That would be difficult to prove even if the complaint was made right away. All that matters is what can be proven. And that is not just for a legal case. It is also for LSAC. What do you expect LSAC to do with a complaint like this? Unless Bamboo has witnesses or evidence of some kind, there is no case. Given that this was a test where there were no electronics allowed, what evidence would there be? Certainly not any video. It is also unlikely that Bamboo knew anyone there. Even if they have evidence, i.e., witnesses, the fact that they did not report it right away ruins their case. It destroys all credibility. Their claim about not reporting because of their race would not be sufficient to establish wrongdoing by the proctor.
By the way, there is this thing called a statute of limitations. Most jurisdictions have a statute of limitations around one year for civil assaults. Meaning, you cannot bring a case after that point. If that has not already passed, it will likely pass within days. A legal case with what we already know here would be a joke. Even an LSAC complaint would not go anywhere. LSAC requires complaints to be filed within six calendar days of the test. While everyone here seems to be obsessed with the finding the "facts," they seem not to be concerned about the other side of this story. The proctor would have their own facts. I bet that their version would be a lot different then Bamboo's version. We will never know what really happened to Bamboo. All we have is Bamboo's statement of what happened. Without evidence, those aren't even really "facts." They are nothing more than words. In the context of an assault allegation, words are not good enough. Bamboo's post is titled: "I think...I was assaulted...." Even @ seemed to miss the point regarding the facts and making the case for intent.
I think it is just funny that there are a bunch of people here who don't know what they are talking about and they are liking the posts of other people who don't know what they are talking about either. A good example is @ who claims that "[a]n assault tort was committed" based on Bamboo's post. There is nothing in Bamboo's post to support that any "physical harm" occurred. That post is worse than me claiming that there was no assault. It is the plaintiff's job to prove their case whether in court or to LSAC. Bamboo is bringing the issue. The proctor's job here would be nothing more than to deny the allegations. Based on what we know, that would be pretty easy. Case closed. And yes, this is a "civil issue." Bamboo did not call the cops, did they? If it were criminal, it would require charges by a prosecutor and the state...
Similar to the thread I referenced above regarding my situation with LSAC, people came after me without a full understanding of the situation. I wouldn't exactly call that being "supportive" of your fellow 7sager. However, it does not matter. I was right in that situation, and I am likely right here. Ganging up on me does not make Bamboo's case stronger. My posts in this thread may not have been stated as nicely as some would have liked, but courts will not kiss you on the head when they dismiss your case either. And a dismissal here would be almost inevitable both by LSAC and a court. Anyone who thinks this amounts to an assault tort based on what we know is likely on their way to a B in 1L Torts (at best). If you don't believe me now, come find me in a few years.
keerutsingh856
Tuesday, Jun 11 2019
@
I appreciate your comments and I agree with that it is important to support people when you can. As it relates to your first part about torts, that was my point. Trying to prove intent without injury one year later would be next to impossible. I agree that there may be more facts. But Bamboo's statement of facts would not be enough in a civil case. My opinion is that this does not amount to assault. You are free to pursue Bamboo and ask them for more information or evidence. However, this would likely end with LSAC doing nothing. If it was a court case, it would likely end with the court granting a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. I essentially said what you said in a different way. My comments were not meant to offend.
I agree with your second part so it's probably best to leave it there.
keerutsingh856
Tuesday, Jun 11 2019
@ said:
7Sage is about supporting members of the community, and your comments to OP go against that standard.
Lol. I don't think my comments go against that standard at all. Check out the following thread:
https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/17729/lsac-is-ridiculously-strict .
I don't remember hearing that then. What I said to the OP here is nothing compared to what people said in that post. Not one person said anything supportive then. I think it is totally hypocritical to hold different people to different standards in different posts.
And by the way, LSAC was wrong in that situation and they acknowledged it. They ended up removing the institution without the letter. Everyone who commented was incorrect. But everyone still went after the OP in that situation anyway. I wouldn't exactly call that encouraging.
I stand by my posts here. This wasn't an assault.
keerutsingh856
Tuesday, Jun 11 2019
@ said:
Also people aren't assuming the assault took place...they're just offering advice as to whether/how OP should make OP's case to LSAC. LSAC wouldn't "assume" whether the assault happened or not either, it would make a determination...
If there is no assault, there is no case. OP presents the story as if there was an assault. Feel free to PM this person and ask if they have evidence. If not, LSAC will not make any "determination." They will toss the complaint in the bin. OP has violated LSAC rules twice. First, by going over the time limit during the test. Second, by not reporting the incident sooner. As I said previously, LSAC proctors may be legally allowed to touch you if you are clearly violating rules, e.g., refusing to leave when asked. Even if OP were touched, that would not necessarily be improper given that they violated the rules. There may have been some reason for the proctor's actions. Also, assault requires some combination of injury and intent. You can't just accuse anyone who touches you of assault.
The rest of your post is an inaccurate representation of my statements, so I will not respond. You seem more interested in coming after me instead of giving advice. My comments were not meant to offend anyone's delicate sensibilities. However, I stand by what I said.
keerutsingh856
Tuesday, Jun 11 2019
@ said:
To be more productive in the future, I think identifying any missing information in the post and asking OP questions about that missing information before rendering a conclusion would be a good approach.
If there is more to the story, it is OP's job to tell us. It is not our job to assume that additional information exists. Nor is it our job to ask if other information exists. I'm not going to assume that an assault took place and I doubt that LSAC would either. The rest of you are not being helpful by making that assumption. OP asks whether they should tell LSAC. My first post made clear that there was no apparent wrongdoing based on the statements. That would kind of defeat the purpose of telling LSAC, wouldn't it? Sorry that you didn't get the point of my post. I hope that clears it up.
keerutsingh856
Monday, Jun 10 2019
@ said:
A bit of a harsh take with such a small reference point of knowledge no?
How is it harsh? I'm going off of what the person said. What they described is not an assault. It is not even clear if they were touched or if the pencil was touched. Like I said, perhaps the proctor inadvertently touched them to smack the pencil. The fact that they are describing it as an assault makes the story seem exaggerated and inaccurate.
I agree that proctors should probably not be smacking the pencil out of people's hands. However, you are under LSAC's authority during the test. If they ask you to leave due to a violation and you refuse, they could probably physically remove you from the room. Also, LSAC requires any test center violation to be reported within 6 calendar days of the test. If the incident was that serious, it should have been reported right away. And by the way, I'm sure the proctor has a side to this story as well. If I was LSAC and I got this complaint, I would either (1) do nothing or (2) talk to the proctor and consider bringing misconduct and irregularity proceedings against the complainant if they exaggerated the incident.
keerutsingh856
Sunday, Jun 09 2019
You should not have been working after time was called. The fact that you were targeted as opposed to others is irrelevant. That is like saying others were speeding when you get pulled over. It’s still up to the cop as to whether to give you a ticket.
As it relates to the alleged “assault,” smacking the pencil out of your hand does not count. Is it rude? Maybe. But your post does not suggest that they touched you. It also does not suggest that they touched you in a way that caused injury (whether intentional or not). Inadvertent contact could be permissible given the fact that you were violating test center rules. That is especially true if the intent was to smack the pencil. Unless you have evidence of the purported assault, i.e., video of the incident, you don’t have a case. That is unlikely considering that they do not allow electronics in the testing room. Also, the fact that you did not report it right away works against you. You could just be exaggerating the incident to create a complaint (which is what it sounds like to me). Of course, I was not there.
Bottom line, your post does not show that the LSAC did anything wrong here.
It's not inconceivable, but it's unlikely considering Notre Dame's acceptance rate. Notre Dame is right around a top 20 school.
A lot depends on the admissions board and the strength of the other applicants in the class. Not all schools value the GPA and LSAT equally. Some value the LSAT more because it's an indicator of how likely you are to pass the bar. You should focus on those other factors but keep in mind that they aren't given as much weight. You should probably apply to some safety schools or consider taking the LSAT again.
I hope things work out for you.