You're right that the reaction is explainable by pervasive CYA and the risk of not reacting and being wrong.
However, you're missing that pervasive and institutional racism is a big part of that risk.
Imagine a kid brings an actual bomb to school, the authorities don't react, and he detonates it. Then what?
The kid's race is going to play a huge role in how that decision is analyzed afterwards. If the kid was white then the discussion is likely to be of the form, "We need better mental health treatment to catch this stuff early!" If the kid was the wrong shade of brown then it's going to be, "He was obviously a terrorist and the administration should be thrown in a hole for not taking appropriate measures."
I'm not ignoring institutional racism, merely not assuming it, which is consistent with the American justice system tenet of never presuming guilt, even when you really want to and everyone around says you should.
You're making a lot of wild assertions that really are tangential and not intellectually consistent with my original point that there are no facts specific to this case to support the author's narrative, merely the assumptions and presumptions you espouse.
I love it when "guilty until proven innocent" gets brought up in internet conversations, as if it were somehow the right way to have a conversation.
This isn't a court of law. Skepticism is, of course, always warranted, but equating it with high principles of justice is ridiculous. We're not putting someone in prison here.
And institutional racism against certain categories of brown people is far beyond a mere assumption at this point. Just ask one of the many, many such people who get "randomly" selected for additional security screening every time they take a plane, for one random example.
You say that we shouldn't assume racism here because the incident is adequately explained by CYA. I say that CYA is not an adequate explanation without also looking at race, because CYA would not have happened like this if the kid had been white and named John Smith.
You're misunderstanding, mischaracterizing, and conflating your own arguments.
It's a rhetorical appeal to authority, so implicitly, in addition to anyone who shares my respect for and identifies with the values of the American legal heritage, I agree with it. Therefore, even though it has no direct application, as you unnecessarily point out, it is a rhetorical convenience for delineating our very different views of right and wrong.
You misunderstand / mischaracterize me in that despite the existence of institutional racism, I think it is morally wrong and intellectually dishonest to presume or even assert that the specific police are racist, without personally specific supporting evidence.
And institutional racism against certain categories of brown people is far beyond a mere assumption at this point.
Ha, ah yes, the old, "I'm not going to justify my stance, because anyone who disagrees with me is self-evidently delusional." It must be nice to use leverage your inclusion in the ideologically "privileged" majority as an excuse to ignore the merits of my argument. Some would refer to this as a microagression.
I'm not interested in engaging the rest of your arguments. It's not related to my original point, there's too much material to cover, and we clearly have wildly divergent views of right, wrong and what constitutes appropriate treatment of the individual police officers in this situation.
I will say, to avoid being mischaracterized, that we are in agreement that the student was mistreated. We merely draw different conclusions as to why. Mine upon the specific facts; yours upon generic presumptions, assumptions, assertions and other views that are not specific to this situation. As a personal admission, I don't see any avenue for myself for effective communication with someone that communicates as you have chosen here.
Oh yes, the good old "my argument is based entirely on facts, while yours is based entirely on nonsense, so they are not comparable."
Except I don't see a single fact in your original comment.
Sorry, but we're both in the same boat here. We're both making political comments while bringing in our own biases based on a lot of assumptions about how things went down. The difference is, I admit it.
"my argument is based [...] on facts, [...] yours ... on nonsense, [they're] not comparable."
I said your stance was based on presumptions, mine on facts, which are by definition incomparable since one is the basis for a conclusion, the other is a search of evidence to fit a pre-concieved conclusion and is typically based on prior context or experience.
Except I don't see a single fact in your original comment.
Then you missed it. The TechCrunch author's controversializing use of race is not supported by any specific facts and is merely a presumption based on circumstantial evidence.
Now, we're in agreement that you believe presumptions are sufficient to reach different conclusions, and I do not.
while bringing in our own biases based on a lot of assumptions
You're confused and not following along. Not only do I make no assumptions on this issue; that assumptions should never be made is my whole point.
The difference is, I admit it.
Your position is that we both make assumptions. My position is that assumptions should not be made and that your stance is justly objectionable. Do you see that admitting the above would not only be a self-contradiction, but, in fact, it would be a reversal?
However, you're missing that pervasive and institutional racism is a big part of that risk.
Imagine a kid brings an actual bomb to school, the authorities don't react, and he detonates it. Then what?
The kid's race is going to play a huge role in how that decision is analyzed afterwards. If the kid was white then the discussion is likely to be of the form, "We need better mental health treatment to catch this stuff early!" If the kid was the wrong shade of brown then it's going to be, "He was obviously a terrorist and the administration should be thrown in a hole for not taking appropriate measures."