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
    36·
    3 days 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·
      2 days 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·
      3 days 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.
        • Virtvirt588@lemmy.world
          215·
          3 days 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·
              2 days 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
                52·
                2 days 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.

                • Virtvirt588@lemmy.world
                  24·
                  2 days ago

                  How is this a distinction without a difference?

                  Firstly, example1 states that:

                  A minor is a person under the age of majority, typically 18 in many jurisdictions, focused on legal capacity, while a child generally refers to a person in the early stages of life, emphasizing dependency and development.

                  This goes with the evidence that zombie supplied - supporting the fact that child and minor refer to two different things. So I don’t necessarily understand where this distinction without a difference is here?

                  Secondly, there is no need for moving the goalposts as the definitions themselves are clear about differing aspects of those two words.

                  • MagicShel@lemmy.zipEnglish
                    52·
                    2 days ago

                    There is no goalpost. It was a child who was attending a protest at their school. That is perfectly clear. Then you come roaring in about “well actually” when there was no need to clarify — it accomplishes nothing and clears up no confusion. This is an internet comment, not a dissertation. People use casual vernacular here.

                    But do you know the sort of people that are super defensive about such distinctions? The crowd that likes to say “technically I’m a hebephile, not a pedophile.” That’s the connotation you are invoking.

                    You’re putting yourself under a microscope here, not fixing the way people talk to your liking. I won’t respond again because your obsession with standing on this hill isn’t my concern — I’m simply trying to trigger some introspection. And if you refuse to see you’re the problem in this conversation, then whatever your issue is, it’s beyond my ability to help.

                    Good day.

      • Zombie@feddit.uk
        121·
        3 days 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·
          2 days 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.