this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024

183 points (98.4% liked)

News

23376 readers

2107 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

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

[email protected]

183

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

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

43 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”.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months 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

[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months 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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months 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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Its a point you brought up and it warrants addressing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It’s the title of this thread

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months 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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months 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.