Florida Sheriff Shames 2 More Kids After School Threats: Is This Wise?

Volusia County Sheriff Mike Chitwood is standing firm on his commitment to arrest and publicly publicize those who threaten school shootings. Following a recent incident that gained widespread attention, he has now released photographs and videos of two additional teenagers apprehended for making similar threats.

The teenagers, aged 16 and 17, were taken into custody after they posted alarming messages on Snapchat on Wednesday. The sheriff has opted not to disclose the minors’ names. According to Chitwood, the 17-year-old included a photo with the message, “Imma shoot up the school,” alongside an image of her school laptop. The 16-year-old responded with “Same,” which prompted law enforcement action.

Chitwood expressed frustration over the situation, highlighting the strain these threats place on resources: “We are wasting time and resources on this,” he stated in a Facebook update. He added, “It’s not fair to the 99% of kids who are doing the right thing.”

In light of a tragic mass shooting that claimed four lives at Apalachee High School in Georgia earlier this month, law enforcement agencies across the nation have been inundated with similar threats. Experts note that such threats often spike following mass shootings, and while many are ultimately found to be hoaxes, they still result in significant disruption for school communities.

Although students have faced legal repercussions for making threats in various locations, Chitwood’s high-profile approach has stirred debate. Some community members have rallied in support of the sheriff, arguing that even young offenders should face serious consequences. Others have suggested that the parents of these children should also be held accountable.

However, many experts are concerned that this unusual approach may lead to unforeseen negative consequences. Deborah Weisbrot, a child psychiatrist and professor, has raised questions about whether public humiliation, such as a “perp walk,” will genuinely deter threats in the future. “I can understand the frustration and the need for law enforcement to have some kind of response,” she said. “But I would question whether that’s going to achieve the goal of preventing further threats.”

Law enforcement in Volusia County has been tirelessly investigating numerous threats directed at local schools, most of which have been deemed non-credible. Nonetheless, Chitwood noted that these investigations come at a high financial cost. He mentioned plans to further publicize the identities of children arrested for making threats as a form of intimidation, stating, “Starting Monday, your little cherub, we’re gonna start publishing his face and doing perp walks with him when we take him into custody, and then we’re going to show pictures of you, the parents.”

In Florida, juvenile records are generally confidential but can become public in the case of felony charges, as seen with the minors apprehended in this investigation. The earlier incident involving an 11-year-old boy spotlighted by Chitwood proved controversial after he was accused of threatening to shoot up a local middle school, which he claimed was a joke.

Amidst these developments, several states have experienced similar disruptions due to threats, resulting in lockdowns and canceled classes. For instance, a Missouri school district recently declared a day off in response to threats, indicating the profound impact such incidents can have on school morale and safety.

According to Weisbrot’s research, many students who make threats often struggle with underlying psychiatric issues, but none of the analyzed cases culminated in actual school shootings. She emphasized that most of these threats are transient and often stem from momentary emotions rather than genuine intentions to harm. “The good news is the vast majority of kids who make threats, they’re transient threats,” she noted.

While the utility of public humiliation in deterring threats remains to be seen, Weisbrot fears that it could inadvertently foster a craving for notoriety among some youths. The detrimental emotional impact on the accused minors also poses a risk, potentially leading to further isolation or trauma.

Daniel Mears, a criminology professor, echoed concerns regarding the erosion of confidentiality in juvenile justice. He emphasized the importance of allowing children a chance to reform without the weight of a public scandal. Chitwood justified his stance by citing an alarming rise in threats within Florida, which reportedly increased fivefold compared to last year.

In response to critics, Chitwood explained his rationale, stating, “Something has to be done. Where are the parents?” His strategy, while controversial, seeks to address immediate safety concerns in schools, as he positions himself at the forefront of this escalating issue.

This is not the first instance of a Florida sheriff adopting a similar tactic. Previous actions have seen minors publicly paraded for alleged threats, raising ethical questions about the balance between public safety and juvenile privacy. Experts have argued that a more comprehensive strategy involving family engagement, mental health support, and constructive community dialogue may be more effective in addressing the root causes of such threats.

As the debate continues to unfold, the outcomes of Chitwood’s approach and its potential impact on the juvenile justice system remain uncertain.

Source: USA TODAY