- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
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.
Chill Matt Gaetz, chill
In what way does this ad hominem have any relation to the inherent ageism and defiance to the definition which I have pointed out?
You can reply to Zombie’s comment. Looking forward to your rebuttal.
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.
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.
How is this a distinction without a difference?
Firstly, example1 states that:
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.
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.