The armed and masked off-duty Phoenix, Arizona, cop said he wanted to get kids at a high school ICE protest arrested.

A police official in Arizona has been placed on administrative leave after showing up armed to a student-led protest and provoking an altercation that led to the arrest of a teenage girl. The officer told fellow police who arrived on the scene that he attended the students’ immigration rights protest with the intent of acting as an agent provocateur, according to a news report.

Dusten Mullen, a sergeant with the Phoenix Police Department, has been suspended with pay pending an internal review of his conduct at a protest at Hamilton High School in Chandler, Arizona, on January 30, according to Phoenix Police Chief Matthew Giordano.

“As law enforcement professionals, we are held to higher standards of conduct — both in and out of uniform,” Giordano said. “When we fall short, we must be accountable, and we will not tolerate actions which undermine the trust the community has placed in the Department.”

Fox 10 Phoenix, the outlet to first identify Mullen, reported that Mullen told Chandler Police Department officers on the scene that he was there in the hopes of getting a rise out of the kids that would then allow the local cops to cuff them.

      • CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works
        35·
        1 day ago

        $340,000 and he claims to be working 80 hours every week (12 hours a day 7 day a week) yet still has time to go try and fight children on his ‘time off.’

        • kreskin@lemmy.world
          24·
          18 hours ago

          80 hours every week

          Its probably 26 hours a week paid at triple time for whatever crooked shenanigans police union BS reason. I bet this hero actually works more like 3 days a week for his 340k/year.

        • Virtvirt588@lemmy.world
          229·
          1 day ago

          children

          Well, they are teenagers or simply highschool students, not children - atleast not this time. Let’s focus on the situation at hand without throwing discriminatory remarks portraying infantilization.

          • Edited to add clarity to the relation of the inherent discriminatory nature which this argument is addressing.
          • Zombie@feddit.uk
            121·
            1 day ago

            A child (pl. children) is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty,[1][2] or between the developmental period of infancy and puberty.[3] The term may also refer to an unborn human being.[4][5] In English-speaking countries, the legal definition of child generally refers to a minor, in this case as a person younger than the local age of majority (there are exceptions such as, for example, the consumption and purchase of alcoholic beverages even after said age of majority[6]), regardless of their physical, mental and sexual development as biological adults.[1][7][8]

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child

            In law, a minor is someone under a certain age, usually the age of majority, which demarcates an underage individual from legal adulthood. The age of majority depends upon jurisdiction and application, but it is commonly between 18 and 21.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_(law)

            They were children. There is no need to adultify minors here.

            • Virtvirt588@lemmy.world
              214·
              24 hours ago

              This conclusion doesn’t follow the basic definition:

              between the stages of birth and puberty

              These where individuals past the pubertal age which is commonly stated as 13.

              English-speaking countries, the legal definition of child generally refers to a minor,

              Only necessarily this paragraph relates to the scope. But as stated, minor is the word which should technically be used.

              In law, a minor is someone under a certain age, usually the age of majority, which demarcates an underage individual from legal adulthood. The age of majority depends upon jurisdiction and application, but it is commonly between 18 and 21.

              Isn’t that essentially introducing straw men? The root point of this all was the word child not minor - as this is the correct term as you literally stated here.

              They were children. There is no need to adultify minors here.

              Your proof doesn’t necessarily state that these where children, rather that they where minors. Also that last sentence is completely out of loop, where did I state that they where adults? If you’re going to throw made up accusations then do it somewhere else.

            • Virtvirt588@lemmy.world
              215·
              1 day ago

              In what way does this ad hominem have any relation to the inherent ageism and defiance to the definition which I have pointed out?

                • Virtvirt588@lemmy.world
                  210·
                  24 hours ago

                  Oh I already did. It seems there is a lot of confusion around the definitions of child and minor. Zombie’s evidence highlighted that fact and it is necessary to point that out - such as I did within the following statement.

                  Along with the evidence, however, Zombie did include some strawmen which where completely unrelated to the root argument. But alas the evidence they supplied says its own words.

                  • MagicShel@lemmy.zipEnglish
                    42·
                    21 hours ago

                    By making such a distinction without a difference, you are unnecessarily painting yourself in a bad light. But if that’s an important hill for you to fight over, you do you man.