This is what confuses me about rules for hiding identities for minors. It's one thing to be accused or be a victim of something, but if punishment has taken place, you would think there is an interest for public safety to at least identify the perpetrator.
I imagine its still done in the interest of "they are still kids, they can turn their life around" and to let them not have it hanging over them later. I don't agree with it, but the idea is consistent with a lot of other laws around minors.
But we also all know if he was a wrong think offender, they'd name him from every rooftop. So its all moot and fuck them.
Exactly, and you can even look at a lot of the "tried as adult" cases to find out they really only care about protecting minors when its narratively beneficial.
Well, most of the "they dindu nuffin, wuz goin' ta church" is bullshit, and they'll be career criminals/thugs until they get put in the ground the hard way
I think they don't want people to realize how depraved the teens are. For one thing, if you don't get a name, you won't know if they've done it before. Multiple events could come from the same anon. And of course the whole Coulter's law. Blacks are going to be hugely represented, and if people knew what the criminals looked like they'd be even more suspicious of young black men than they actually are.
The real tl;dr is that they're more concerned with protecting criminals than victims.
Read: he'll be doing the same shit and probably escalate at another school very soon.
Read: don't mention the identity of the perp so girls in other schools won't know what's about to hit them.
This is what confuses me about rules for hiding identities for minors. It's one thing to be accused or be a victim of something, but if punishment has taken place, you would think there is an interest for public safety to at least identify the perpetrator.
I imagine its still done in the interest of "they are still kids, they can turn their life around" and to let them not have it hanging over them later. I don't agree with it, but the idea is consistent with a lot of other laws around minors.
But we also all know if he was a wrong think offender, they'd name him from every rooftop. So its all moot and fuck them.
The entirety of mainstream media couldn’t wait to put Sandmann, a minor who wasn’t even accused of a crime, on their front pages.
And then a lefty judge dismissed a bunch of his slam dunk defamation lawsuits.
Exactly, and you can even look at a lot of the "tried as adult" cases to find out they really only care about protecting minors when its narratively beneficial.
Well, most of the "they dindu nuffin, wuz goin' ta church" is bullshit, and they'll be career criminals/thugs until they get put in the ground the hard way
I think they don't want people to realize how depraved the teens are. For one thing, if you don't get a name, you won't know if they've done it before. Multiple events could come from the same anon. And of course the whole Coulter's law. Blacks are going to be hugely represented, and if people knew what the criminals looked like they'd be even more suspicious of young black men than they actually are.
The real tl;dr is that they're more concerned with protecting criminals than victims.