| ▲ | sofixa 5 days ago |
| > Of course you can blame the school. They were too lazy to look at context and determine if the threat was real and credible Do you think whoever is doing this at the school is a qualified professional, e.g. a child/teen psychiatrist that knows the kid in question well enough, to be able to determine if the threat was real and credible? |
|
| ▲ | tremon 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Being unqualified to make a decision and then still making that decision only makes you more culpable, not less. |
|
| ▲ | 1718627440 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Educating children is literally the schools profession. If you are looking for a state employed child psychiatrist it will be in the school. |
|
| ▲ | giantg2 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| You don't have to be an expert to read the context. In normal terroristic threat cases the people involved are not psychologists. The police aren't using any child psychologists either. The problem here is the brainless reliance on what a system spits outs. The world would have ended by now if we relied on automated systems without using common sense (see multiple ICBM radar false positives during the cold war). |
| |
| ▲ | jacquesm 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Kids saying shit is now equivalent to 'normal terrorist[ic] threat cases'? Or did I miss something. If you can't evaluate the data, don't collect the data. | | |
| ▲ | sofixa 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You missed the amounts of kids that committed massacres, which has made US schools understandably paranoid. | | |
| ▲ | potato3732842 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | We're a quarter way through the century and you can about count the number that did a good enough job to make national news on one hand. It isn't something that a first pass filter ought to be looking for. | |
| ▲ | jacquesm 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | What is the false positive rate of this system? If you want to solve this problem solve it at the root, not by overreacting to teenagers. |
| |
| ▲ | giantg2 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | "Kids saying shit is now equivalent to 'normal terrorist[ic] threat cases'?" It's terroristic threats. That's the law most of the school shooting threats would get charged under. The real problem is that most states have automatic reporting laws, which means you have to report anything that sounds like a threat even if it isn't. This is the main difference between regular cases and school cases - you end up with a lot of junk being reported and potentially causing more harm than it was intended to prevent. | | |
| ▲ | jacquesm 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | A 13 year old girl is not able to make a credible generalized terrorist threat against a large swath of the population, and besides, the first thing you should do when a kid starts making dumb statements like that is check in with them and their parents, not to call the police. Automatic reporting laws that lead to 13 year old girls being strip-searched are not something anybody should want. There is an easy way to stop 99.9% of all school shootings, and it isn't 'automatic reporting laws'. | | | |
| ▲ | 1718627440 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Children don't do "threads", that's why they are literally not of age. At most they say stupid shit that would be a threat if an adult had said that. The schools job is literally to teach children to not (want to) say that. |
|
|
|
