I’d love to find out why the police didn’t help in the FIRST place. Here they were hand-delivered evidence on videotape of a woman beating children, and they didn’t seem inclined to do anything. I wish the article had gone into more detail as to why this apparent inaction occurred.
Batman is a dork !
Superman, now that’s different …
Batman’s a dork, but superman is cool? Go read Dark Knight Returns.
Oh, and as for the babysitter - it couldn’t have happened to a nicer child abuser.
I watched the beginning of the high-bandwidth version of that video about ten times, and I’m not convinced that she actually hit the kids. It’s hard to tell exactly what’s happening. [ul][li]Clip one: She approaches the crib and reaches in towards the baby’s feet. Her body blocks the view of the infant.[]Clip two: She gets the two-year old to sit up abruptly, and does something with the blanket he’s on. Not as gentle as you would expect, but no blows.[]Clip three: She reaches into the crib and starts to set the kid on the floor.[/ul] 
[/li]Yeah, the commentator says the tape reveals that she’s beating them… Couldn’t they show video that supports that statement? A slap? A spanking? Something? The video they showed of her getting beaten was pretty unambiguous.
It seems to me that maybe the father took the tape to the police, and they didn’t see any beatings either? It has been demonstrated before that if someone makes a suggestion beforehand about what you are about to see, it influences your perception about what you are shown. Just sayin’.
Of course, if the mob actually saw some other video that showed her beating the kids, they didn’t kick her hard enough. But based on the video that I saw alone, I don’t think she deserved a beating.
Larry, I’m sure they didn’t show the entirety of the video on the news broadcast. However, in Clip Two, note that she’s forcing the child to sit up by grabbing his (her?) hair.
I don’t know why they chose not to show the footage that shows her actually hitting the children.
Don’t you love the newscaster’s smile of perky approval at the end of the clip? I swear they teach faces like that in broadcasting school.
My two cents, seriously, is that as much as the woman might have “deserved” this treatment, lending moral support to vigilante justice like this leads to incidents like the recent murders on Chicago’s South Side.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/01/van.crash.beatings.ap/index.html
(and yes it has recently been released that the driver was impaired, but I still don’t think they deserved to die)
I sorry but I was too distracted by this headline from the link:
mmmmm…Beer.
Here in the states, the other week a mob (in Albuquerque, as I recall) beat to death a man they allegedly caught breaking into a car. Two days ago, a mob in Chicago beat to death two men in a van which, for reasons unknown, ran into a crowd on a crowded corner. So, are people just getting tired of having a civilization?
A crowd beat to death 2 men and this is good? I am sure that many a racist bigot felt as justified in gathering together and lynching those they hated as this mob did in killing these two. I’d rather not be at the mercy of any mob. To call any mob action justice is to make a mockery of the concept.
Due processes is to be cherished, rule of law is to be cherished. I am not so disillusioned with these concepts as to throw them out and welcome mob rule.
If someone is discovered committing a crime then all that should be done is that person prevented from doing so and held until authorities can come and get them. If there are hurting someone, all anyone, including a crowd should do is take steps to stop the harm. No matter how richly punishment is dieserverd that is to be mete out after due process, not by a crowd.
Due process and the rule of law protects not only the rights of the accused and the victim, but also helps preserve the conscience, reputation, and stability of the society that suscribes to the concepts.
Sure, the mob may have picked on someone who was truly guilty this time, but what about the next time?
Thanks a lot, Ferrous. Now I’m gonna be singing that all day. 
If the video has clear evidence that she beat the kids (and, as Larry stated, I don’t really see it in the clip we’re shown – but, assuming that it does) then it makes me very happy that she was attacked by the crowd, and I wouldn’t be upset at all if she was hurt more severly than she was.
On a side note, whats up with crazy man kung fu in that video?
“You are no match for my flying Crane technique, Waaaaa!”
Also, anyone care to comment on Mob justice as it relates to Richard Ramirez?
Of course it’s not always good. But it isn’t always bad, either.
I noticed something else on that page…
http://www.local6.com/orlpn/news/stories/news-159095720020802-070817.html --Thief Caught With Stolen Jewelry In Rectum
I don’t even wanna KNOW how mob justice would handle that one :X
One of the main point of a trial as opposed to mob justice is precisely to know whether or not the accused is guilty. For instance, the woman on the video could be her twin sister (or even someone who looks like her). I don’t think the vigilantes have checked her ID. Or the father’s hobby could be to alter pictures and videotapes. Anyway, as you said, the evidences presented aren’t very compelling. If we were able to say with 100% certainty whether someone is guilty or not by checking the first casually checking the first piece of evidence presented by the prosecutor, the justice system would cost way less…I doubt a angry mob usually check carefully the evidences before attacking the person. So, IMO your point (assuming she does) is moot.
I guess you would be much less happy if a angry mob had severly beaten the crap out of your own daughter for a crime they assumed she committed.
If my daughter was the one WHO DID COMMIT THE CRIMES, and I saw convincing videotape evidence of it, I’d be first in line in the crowd to beat the crap out of her.
WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
::Wipes tear from eye::
And without knowing more about the videotape, positive ID, and any extenuating circumstances, how would you conclude the she did commit the crimes?
It’s not like we have trials because it’s cheap theater and otherwise all those lawyers and judges would have nothing to do. The only way we PROVE that someone committed a crime is to hold a trial. One piece of videotape and the taper’s word that it is authentic does not a criminal make.
One of the reports I read claims the dad was told no one could be spared to pursue the case “because it’s the weekend”.