Experts criticize Michael Chitwood’s ‘shaming’ tactic of uploading videos and mugshot of teens to deter gun crime

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”.

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    21·
    2 months 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
      1·
      2 months 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
        11·
        2 months 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
              2·
              2 months 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
                1·
                2 months 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
                  1·
                  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.