Poll of the Day > 10yo bullied girl bullied by police for getting bullied by a parent

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2021/10/19/aclu-10-year-old-girl-was-arrested-hawaii-public-school-drawing-picture-that-upset-parent/

Pretty gross, dude

---

Ok your title is fucked up. It sounds like the girl was bullied by her own parent. But yea shit like this is why people are angry at police.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Ok your title is fucked up. It sounds like the girl was bullied by her own parent.

It's a terrible and confusing title for any number of reasons. No parents were even involved in the bullying, the only parent involvement was calling the cops because the girl drew something that I'm assuming had to be threatening if the police got involved. (It's partly telling that the rep coached their words in "not explicitly threatening," which suggests an implicit threat.)

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

Ok your title is f***ed up.

Unclarity is unclear; I knew it and I still did it wrong

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

Ok your title is fucked up. It sounds like the girl was bullied by her own parent. But yea shit like this is why people are angry at police.

If it was her parent then it would say something like her mom or her dad.
---

"Identifies as N.B." and then continue to use girl anyway in the rest of the text?

---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

"Identifies as N.B." and then continue to use girl anyway in the rest of the text?

Those are the initials used to anonymously identify her for media purposes, not an indication that she's non-binary.

Zeus posted...

(It's partly telling that the rep coached their words in "not explicitly threatening," which suggests an implicit threat.

That just suggests it wasn't explicitly threatening. If an implicit threat were the basis of the arrest (which is a really flimsy basis for arresting anyone, let alone a 10-year-old), they would have simply said that the drawing was felt to be threatening. If there were anything to say that would make this seem more justifiable, it would be very easy to simply say that. That they haven't suggests that there isn't, leading the the conclusion that it's more reasonable to assume that either police racism or some manner of nepotism (I'm guessing the parents that called the police have friends in the department) is at play.

---

Police are bullies by profession.

---

adjl posted...

If an implicit threat were the basis of the arrest (which is a really flimsy basis for arresting anyone, let alone a 10-year-old)

That's the inevitable result of Zero Tolerance laws, though. We've gotten so litigious as a society that plenty of schools passed regulations and rules that effectively absolve them of all responsibility so they can't be sued, regardless of whether or not the response is justified or if kids are being actively harmed by the results.

I mean, kids have been suspended for making "finger guns". Draw a picture that's interpreted as being "violent" or "disturbed" and you'll be lucky if the least they do is force you into some sort of therapy.

Threats - explicit or implied - could easily result in a disproportionate response regardless of whether or not police were involved. Especially if people are less concerned about whether or not the kid is getting their rights or their psyche trampled on if it means avoiding a lawsuit (or another Columbine).



adjl posted...

leading the the conclusion that it's more reasonable to assume that either police racism or some manner of nepotism

Actually, the conclusion I'm drawing from it is that the article doesn't even remotely provide all of the necessary details, so any assumptions people are making about the case based on it are almost certainly wrong. Or the product of their own preexisting biases and prejudices.

But hey, the Internet lynch mob now has more fuel for their glorious crusade, so time to start sharpening the pitchforks and torches. After all, that hollow outrage isn't going to post itself!
---

10-year-old Black girl

Hmm

---