this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024

182 points (97.9% liked)

News

23049 readers

3391 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

Blackbeard@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

182

Florida sheriff questioned for posting identities of teens who made school shooting threats (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

39 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A Florida sheriff’s novel approach to countering school shooting threats by exposing online the identities of children who make them is drawing ire from juvenile justice advocates as well as others who say the tactic is counterproductive and morally wrong.

Michael Chitwood, sheriff of Volusia county, raised eyebrows recently by posting to his Facebook page the name and mugshot of an 11-year-old boy accused of calling in a threat to a local middle school. He followed up with a video clip of the minor’s “perp walk” into jail in shackles.

Chitwood, who has said he is “fed up” with the disruption to schools caused by the hoaxes, has promised to publicly identify any student who makes such a threat. On Wednesday, another video appeared onlineshowing two youths, aged 16 and 17, in handcuffs being led into separate cells, with the sheriff calling them “knuckleheads”.

top 39 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 32 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

You're not going to publicly humiliate any potential school shooters into not doing so. You might, forever, get innocent kids harassed and harmed.

Kids say things. They're in the school 180 days a year and their companions are 25 11-year-olds who are likely to report them for it, legit or not.

Trying to target these kids with stochastic terrorism and bullying isn't the solution. Though I know cops love to bully.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

I just had this nightmare a couple days ago. I was in a convenience store joking around and somehow it slipped out “this is a robbery” and everyone panicked. Sometimes it’s even just your mouth outrunning your brain, even in dreamland

[–] Soup@lemmy.cafe 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Threatening to shoot up a school isn’t just “kids saying things.” Dismissing this as such is woefully irresponsible.

[–] TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago

I don't think the previous comment was saying to not do anything at all about a threat like that. Just that publicly humiliating them isn't the way to go about it.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You will stop most the fake threats though, which seems to be the intent.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You'll hide them, maybe. The threats aren't the big problem here.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

That is true, but they are a problem, and one far more frequent and increasing. I'm not saying I agree with the method here, but it's specifically targeting "knuckleheads," which I take to mean (largely) young males that think it's funny or gets them out of tests or whatever at the cost of often scaring a large amount of other young people, school employees, and parents.

[–] SilentStorms@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I’m thankful that Canada has laws protecting minors from this sort of thing. Something needs to be done about that problem, but this is not it.

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We have laws like that in America too. That guy's just a dick.

[–] hate2bme@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Sheriff is above the law

[–] banshee@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm going to vote for bad idea on this one too. Teenagers make emotional decisions, and I only see this encouraging kids to make bad decisions to receive attention.

Interesting article: https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051

In fact, recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part. This is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. Teens process information with the amygdala. This is the emotional part.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part.

Hmm, must've forgotten to include some republicans in the study

[–] skeptomatic@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Imma go with bad idea on this one. While one could think this will work for the individual kid, if any of those kids gets any accolade from some peers or possibly even receive money from a lawsuit, they become some version of "hero status" and the antics could become admired by others and more kids might want to do it.
One thing to always remember is, kids are idiots.
And a second thing to remember is, adults are idiots.
Just like school/mall/concert shooters or even worse, Kardashians, they should never be allowed time in public media.

[–] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

Yep this is a level of vindictive punishment-obsession taken too far. Children are treated differently by the law for good reason. Their brains, wisdom, and maturity are not at the level of adulthood, and their understanding of risk and consequences is not the same.

[–] burgersc12@mander.xyz 6 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah as much as I think we should be aware of the dangers that these kinds of threats pose, putting this kid up online is like a "dangerous: stay away" sign, and that'll only further alienate an already troubled kid.

[–] JackFrostNCola@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

The USA continually surprises me with more creative ways to approach the problem with anything but "remove access to guns".

[–] Stern@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

“He doesn’t need to parade this kid, this 11-year-old child, in front of a camera to achieve his purpose. Just do traditional things – arresting, charging – that don’t add this layer of shaming, embarrassing, humiliating and traumatizing.”

And whats your solution? This isn't like... throwing a rock through a window or graffiti tagging a wall. Consequences need to be swift, decisive, and ensure no one gets any ideas to copycat them.

[–] CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee 18 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What about the kids who are wrongfully accused, since all that's required here is someone reporting that you made a threat? Seems like a new avenue for bullies to exploit.

[–] Stern@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They can enjoy possibly multiple large piles of money off lawsuits. Unlikely in the case noted in the article though-

In the video, which had more than 270,000 views on Facebook as of Monday afternoon, the camera pans across a conference table covered in airsoft guns, pistols, fake ammunition, knives and swords that law enforcement officers claim the boy was “showing off” to other students.

[–] CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

As if filing and winning a lawsuit is that easy or obtainable, not to mention this is after the damage is done and some innocent kid is completely ostracized from the community.

The kid was showing this stuff off so that means they were going to shoot a school up? This could easily describe some weeb who was trying to look cool and then had kids call him a school shooter. In my K-12 days 20+ years ago, the weird kids were constantly joked about as being potential school shooters. It only takes one person misinterpreting/hearing these jokes to ruin someone's life.

[–] Stern@lemmy.world -5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

As if lawyers won't line up for the payday? C'mon now.

Also, in the current day and age, kids aren't randomly showing off their weapon collections that include knives and swords, because, obviously, the whole school shooter thing exists.

Lastly, what solution do you think is viable? I don't think a situation like this

[Chitwood's] department dealt with 54 threats in a 12-hour period following the killings of two students and two teachers at Apalachee high school.

Is tenable. Do you?

[–] CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Maybe lawyers would line up to bring a suit but you're still looking at a multi year case and potentially having to move to a new city and switch schools in the meantime. What does parading children in front of cameras solve when these kids are still considered innocent in the eyes of the law? Do you think someone legitimately planning an attack is going to be swayed by the possibility of being on TV or having their picture posted online and not the prison/death sentence that comes with an actual attack?

A viable solution is to pass laws that make it so guns aren't so plentiful and easy to obtain along with making it easier and cheaper to obtain mental healthcare, but that'll never happen. Everything else will just be a poorly thought-out bandaid that doesn't solve the root of the issue.

[–] Stern@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

A viable solution ... that’ll never happen.

So not viable. Okay.

[–] CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So because the proper solution is unlikely to happen, that makes any other ham-fisted approach a good idea? That's not really how things work.

[–] Stern@lemmy.world -2 points 1 week ago

If a nonviable and a viable solution are presented, yes that is how things work. You yourself admitted the solution you presented wouldn't work. May as well have suggested portable force fields. At least that sounds cool.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Maybe keeping the kids privacy will:

deprive a potential shooter of their publicity
let an innocent accused resume their lives
allow someone in a crisis more opportunity to get treatment/recover without making it worse

What does this humiliation do?

let the sheriff enact spiteful revenge against someone not convicted
ruin the life of an accused innocent
force someone in a crisis into a more desperate state
help a perpetrator achieve notoriety

[–] Stern@lemmy.world -3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

deprive a potential shooter of their publicity

Remove a potential shooter from the field you mean?

let an innocent accused resume their lives

Or let potential shooters know they aren't being ignored until they start blasting.

allow someone in a crisis more opportunity to get treatment/recover without making it worse

Jail can also provide treatment, without the possibility of them snapping and murdering people. Seems reasonable to me.

let the sheriff enact spiteful revenge against someone not convicted

Identifying threats to society is "spiteful revenge" Do you think we should have referred to him as O.B.L. instead of Osama Bin Laden because he wasn't convicted yet to keep his anonymity? That it was "spiteful revenge" to let folks know who he was? Cmon now.

ruin the life of an accused innocent

or stop a copycat killer.

force someone in a crisis into a more desperate state

who will be locked up and thus unable to act on those urges.

help a perpetrator achieve notoriety

Least sensible of the lot. They'll be notorious for making threats and going to jail. Much preferrable to murder and jail.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is a kid who’s been accused. There’s been no trial, no evidence, no conviction. He’s not been proven guilty of anything.

It’s a kid. Everywhere else kids have privacy by default. Publicizing the name of this kid is not justice nor any part of justice.

Even if he did it, we have no idea whether it was serious - calling a kid such a criminal before he’s convicted dies nothing prevent any crime

[–] Stern@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Even if he did it, we have no idea whether it was serious

So we shouldn't take threats of shootings or bomb threats seriously now?

Wow. Just... wow.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You’re losing the plot here. The question is whether it’s ok to publicly post the identities of kids accused of a specific crime

[–] Stern@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Its a point you brought up and it warrants addressing.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It’s the title of this thread

[–] Stern@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The title of this thread isn't

Even if he did it, we have no idea whether it was serious

Thats a point you made, and are now refusing to address. Twice now.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Does the article state that he was convicted of a serious threat and prove any sort of planning toward implementation?

being accused is different from being found guilty
being found guilty of a threat is different from being found guilty of a threat and attempting to carry it out
being found guilty and facing legal consequences is different from being publicly named for doing so
he’s an effing kid

[–] Stern@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Does the article state that he was convicted of a serious threat and prove any sort of planning toward implementation?

It states he was arrested under allegations of it and multiple weapons were found. Pretty damn good indicator. To remind you: If the Appalachee guy (whos actions prompted the numerous threats the cop was following up on) had gotten arrested in a similar way multiple people would still be alive right now.

being accused is different from being found guilty

Your point?

being found guilty of a threat is different from being found guilty of a threat and attempting to carry it out

So you agree we should get them for threats or threats with follow through. Glad to hear you've conceded the argument.

being found guilty and facing legal consequences is different from being publicly named for doing so

Ok, and?

he’s an effing kid

So were the Columbine guys. Apparently being underage doesn't stop someone from shooting up a school. I can pull up more underage shooters, I'm sure you can too. The, "Oh its a kid" thing doesn't hold water.

[–] Marafon@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 weeks ago

I can see both sides of this argument and honestly I lean toward allowing this shaming to continue. At least this sheriff is trying something other than tots and pears.

[–] RBWells@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm shocked it was not Grady Judd (the sheriff). He is a piece of work.

[–] hate2bme@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

The correct word is shit