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”.

  • Stern@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  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
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 month 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.