The beating last month of a 15-year-old girl in the transit tunnel at Westlake Center as security personnel watched without intervening is prompting a review of King County Metro’s policies for its unarmed guards.
The incident — which was partially captured on surveillance video — happened about 7:15 p.m. Jan. 28 and involved a large group of teens and young adults, according to the King County Sheriff’s Office. Another 15-year-old girl is allegedly the one who can be seen on the video assaulting the victim, kicking her head several times while she is on the pavement.
Two security guards stand over the victim while she’s being pummeled and do not intervene. At one point in the video, one guard is seen raising his arm toward the assailant, who ignores him.
Source, more details, comments:
seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011027703_webbeating09m.html
A girl gets attacked by a thug girl. Before that the victim had tried to hide behind 3 security guards, to no avail. The guards had orders not to interfere. Even when the girl was on the floor, repeatedly getting her head stomped by the attacking girl. Another guy from her gang robbed the girl’s bag with her iphone and other belongings.
Warning: graphic content. Gratuitous REAL violence.
Topic 1: human rights of criminals
If the guards interfered and hurt a thug, they would stand accused of hurting the perpetrator. The guard could face dismissal, ruinously expensive lawsuits, jail. It is safer for the guards not to interfere. And this is what the official security company policy is.
The academic armchair political correctness human rights & feminist crowd has perverted our justice system. Redneck country cowboys still have healthy human reactions, but they risk getting jailed.
Topic 2: Child Porn witch hunt: depicting life threatening violence against children: legal. Depiction of nudity or healthy sexuality: a heinous felony.
Showing an underage girl getting life-threatening stomps on the face, while on the floor, that is normal news cast on prime time TV. Now mere possession of a movie of the same girl posing nude, or, God beware, masturbating, or making love with her boy friend, that would be a heinous crime. Production or televising such “child porn” would yield 3-25 years in prison. Criminal violence against children may be shown.
Compare:
- Nude adolescent photos: a Crime. Videos of lynching, killing, beating adolescents are legal Prime Time TV.
- Years of Jail for “clicking on child porn link”. But lynching videos are legal.
At least the video in this instance (the girl being stomped) was justified in some way as being a news story.
There are dozens of websites that show videos like this (and much worse) of children being beaten – solely for entertainment purposes.
And yet feminist sexual trade union lobby groups (child protection societies) have nothing to say about them.
Your blog is great, keep up the good work!
khmerrougeadvocacy.blogspot.com
I know there’s a lot wrong with the child pornography legal structure in Western societies. Some of it undoubtedly does actually protect children from harm, but I believe most of it is there to serve the interests of the parents, which is to preserve the status quo of sexuality in adolescents. The first obvious thing is the age of majority, which needs to be lowered or the law amended in some way. As it stands, the law groups the 17-year old and the 1-year old in the same class of people, i.e. children but obviously a 17-year old is much more likely to make more informed decisions about sex than any 1-year old will. It makes further no sense to remain nonchalant toward the currency of adolescent sex yet continue to prosecute graphical depictions of it as child sexual abuse. Next, is our attitude toward adolescent-adult sexual relations. You’ll have referenced Bruce Rind in one of your articles. Let me cite him from another paper he wrote titled, “Social Response to Age-Gap Sex Involving Minors. . .”, where it was found that most college students who had experienced underage sex before with an adult did not find the experience traumatizing or abusive. He also has this to say about common misinformed beliefs about adolescent-adult sexual relations in the paper “An empirical examination of sexual relations between adolescents and adults. . .”: “Either the proposal is misinformed in the ways just discussed, or it is disingenuous in alleging to protect sexually mature persons when in fact it is intending to control them.” Of course, that’s not saying all adolescent-adult sexual activity should go free, only the consensual ones. Then proponents for the ban on child porn will argue that children can’t consent to sexual activity. 2 problems with this. Children referring to child porn is anybody under 18 years old. The age of majority is an arbitrary standard of maturity that does not fit well with the individual’s actual ability to consent. Certainly pre-pubescent children can use a much higher level of scrutiny in the law but not pubescent adolescents. Second is that adolescents already consent to sexual activity with each other and this has been really ignored by the law.