I agree, the police shouldn't have gotten involved.

I think where we differ is that you seem to think that once the police were called, it's a sensible thing for the police to then to say 'oh we're police, we have to respond to every request with action, let's choose a tool, ah here it is, let's use the scariest one we can get away with and then not go through with it, perhaps partially because of public pressure, that should solve it while not screwing over the kid for life'.

Whereas I'd say, it's a sensible thing for the police to say 'Alright so, the kid changed the wallpaper on a computer? Sir, this is not a police matter, I trust the school and parents are equipped to deal with this kid, goodbye'. Or something to that effect.

I think that is a fair view to have actually. Its a good assessment of the situation.

We still have our differences in opinion, but I think I can trust your statement as factually correct at least.

In general, the police have the power to arrest people. Doing so with the notion that the person is an immediate danger to others or a participant in a crime is not intimidation. So this is a tool that they have that is not based on a threat or based on intimidation.

There is nothing merciful about exercising their power in a situation where it should not be exercised.

> There is nothing merciful about exercising their power in a situation where it should not be exercised.

I think they are doing a fine job exercising their power with restraint

Once again, they were planning to drop the charges to something smaller through the pre-trial process.

Yes, I remember that you are perfectly fine with them planning on intimidating the kid. The intimidation is what I objected to in my first comment in this thread. Anyway, it's fine if we disagree.