7.12.2012

Today’s Investigative Special Report July 11, 2012 “Dealing With Today’s Law Enforcement Specialized Investigations” “Is Booty-Pop Child Abuse or Not?”



Image representing YouTube as depicted in Crun...
Image via CrunchBase
By Lawrence W. Daly, MSc

In America the right to have ‘Freedom of Speech’ crossed the line in South Florida, where a six-year old boy found himself dancing and rapping around multiple bikini-clad women. Albert Roundtree, Jr. wearing only a pair of swimming trunks, allegedly rapping to “Booty Pop” at a pool side where a video made for You-Tube was produced, has drawn attention from millions of viewers on You-Tube.

The majority of those who actively view videos on You-Tube appear to be upset about the sexual rendition in which Albert was allowed to display his rapping and dancing talents. Further, the adult females were shaking their buttocks at Albert while he rapped and as he pointed a phallic toy at the females and while dancing all around. During one part of the video he is laying across the laps of these women who are sitting on the ledge of the swimming pool as he rapped “Booty Pop.” The question is was the act alone sexual touching or what was the purpose of having him talking about what he sexually would do to the bikini-clad women?

One of the controversial issues will be at what age does an individual have the right to express themselves in whatever manner they wish to under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.  In Albert’s video there appears to have been some physical touching, sexual innuendos, and so forth.

The ALCU will argue that Albert had the right to express his speech and actions in any situation his parents decided they believed was lawful. The criminal justice system will have to decide if the actions of the parents and those involved in the production of the video was a violation of any criminal law(s).

Some have already decided that the actions of the parents, participants, and producers were criminal. The alleged crime(s) ranging from child endangerment to communicating with a child for immoral purposes.  Whatever decision the criminal justice system agrees upon, this case is going to break new criminal, civil, and domestic rules, procedures, and laws.
If there are no laws on the books which address the Albert video situation, then maybe the legislatures may want to reconsider what lawful steps need to be taken to stop a video similar to Albert’s video from happening in the future.

Tyler Council who produced the Albert video stated that the video was, “…supposed to be a joke, but I’d say (only) about 30% of the people watching it find it funny.” The questioning of Council needs to surround who created, financed, wrote, directed, and produced the Albert video. Council states in a later interview that Albert’s parents paid for the video. Criminal justice authorities will need to delve into the parent’s financial capabilities.

There is a need to identify why YouTube didn’t pull the Albert video off its website immediately?

The conspirator side may prove that Council and YouTube had a proprietary agreement, where the costs of the Albert video was paid for.  This is speculation but needs to be further investigated by those in the criminal justice system.

Council may have made financial arrangements with Albert’s parents as Albert is allegedly a professional artist. The amount of money Council, Albert’s parents, Albert, and others have already made and will make in reference to the Albert video should be considered by those in the criminal justice system as a legal aspect of the unlawful behavior, if it is proven to be unlawful.

The argument by those who are upset about the Albert video that the action of Council and others is child abuse may find others who don’t believe it is in fact abuse, maybe produced in bad taste, maybe is funny, but not child abuse. Just because there is a majority of individuals who believe that Council et al. actions was child abuse these viewers will be looking to those in the criminal justice system for answers.

According to Joseph Lambert of Gossip Extra, Albert’s parents paid for the Albert video. The title of the video should raise concern amongst those in the criminal justice system. Their concern should be what Lee Bailey’s Eurweb.com interview of Council provided. Council allegedly stated the following, “Albert’s parents paid us to do a video, “Council said. “We went to the pool of a development in Lauderhill and asked a few girls to act in it. There were supposed to be 30 people at a mock pool party but it started raining, so only a few people showed up.”

Missing from this story are the child advocate groups, minority organization, women groups, and others who should be upset that Albert an African American was taken advantage of by those involved in the promotion of a six-year old child. Why aren’t these advocate groups not speaking out. Where is President Obama when it has been his policy to comment on the alleged abuse of African American children? According to Council, Albert’s parents paid for the video in the hopes that their son would become a famous rapper.

The reason for the Albert video doesn’t make sense for many reasons. What happened to the child labor laws which prevent children from working for a specific amount of money? The child acting laws state that as long as there is no touching the child can participate in the production.  In this case what wasn’t on the video should concern those in the criminal justice system. Videos such as the Albert video are edited and Council should be required to turn over all of the videotaping for viewing by those in the criminal justice system.

If Albert was paid by anyone for his video than will other parents allow their child to be in the next production. How many Albert parents are there in today’s society? According to Council, he is already in the process of making Albert’s next video called, “Girls, Girls, Girls”.

So many questions, with a lack of answers, confusion, and a future concern for the next child abuse victim, if that is what the criminal justice system terms it.  The criminal justice system needs to get behind investigating this incident. If the State of Florida fails to aggressively pursue this matter they are indirectly telling all the parents in America, “Go ahead and make a sexually motivated video where your child is singing about sexual body parts of women and waving a phallic object around.”  

The excitement around the Albert video raises many questions about just how far the First Amendment of the United States Constitution attaches to an individual and if the Amendment allows a crime to be committed. Therefore, which has more authority, the Amendment or the crime?

If this case is seen by those in the criminal justice system as an amateur joke and is allowed to slip through the cracks, then the criminal justice system may allow a potential criminal situation to send the wrong message to society.

Is it all about the protection of children and holding those accountable who may abuse them, or about the rights of parents and others turning a tragedy into a profit? I guess over the next couple weeks we will ascertain who in the criminal justice system states, “The child sexual abuse stops here!”

     Description: Larry-Daly_01


Lawrence W. Daly
206-650-0229
ld@steppingstones.ws
Puyallup, WA

Enhanced by Zemanta

This is

0 comments:

Post a Comment

All comments and feedback appreciated!

Criminology & Justice Headline Animator

Psychology

Law Books

Corrections

Sociology

Crime

Serial Killers

Criminology

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...