• octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’m willing to put a pretty big dollop of blame on the cops. An autistic kid says something without awareness of some of the context which is shown to have NO nefarious intent behind it, and nothing to show for it but a stuffed animal - and yet they slap the cuffs on anyhow.

    But we’ll find out they were at the next school shooters house 5 times and concluded that he wasn’t a threat without any more investigation than talking to him.

    • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s hard to say here. Just like it’s standard procedure to report the “potential threat”, it’s also probably SOP to secure the individual.

      Fault here lies in policy and lawmakers, IMO. This whole situation shouldn’t have to exist.

      • futatorius@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        Anyone who complies with an unjust law is collaborating with the evil swine who passed it.

        • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 days ago

          And there’s a phrase that flows right from this, and is commonly applied to cops. 🤔

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      Oh for sure. The cops could “arrest” the kid by doing something like saying, “I’m really sorry I have to do this, Ty, but you’re under arrest.” And then say, “I have investigated and found there was no cause for arrest” immediately afterward. Maybe they couldn’t make it that quick and easy, maybe they have to get some sort of permission or do paperwork or something, but I can’t believe they have to handcuff the poor kid and take him to juvie by law.