So sad is the fact that the victim was denied the means to defend himself.  Where are the Bernhardt Goetz's of the world?

The same fate awaits all of Homo Albus here in Obamerica as well.

Revenge is mine...so sayeth the Lord, our God.

However, in an instance such as this, revenge is mine also. It doesn't matter what precipitated the mugging of this young man, the fact is, hoodlums, or hooligans, or whatever they are to be called, struck a blow for the new PC reality.

In my neck of the woods, kick my friend's or my relative's butt, and you are damned sure to get the equivalent in spades. Moreso, when hideous, and depraved acts arise out of absolutely no justifiable circumstances.

To hell with the psycho-babble, and the recalcitrant victim as well. Sure, he demonstrated a nauseating forgiveness, but he also demonstrates an equally revolting naivte.

What it boils down to is, right is right, and wrong is assuredly wrong, and no two of each may equal one of the other.

Let's be honest, if the psychiatrist who examined the young man can get it wrong, I suppose it's possible that we could be wrong as well, but I don't think so. However, if the young man's psychiatrist IS in error, it surely begs the question, how could that happen to what one assumes must be a highly qualified psychiatrist? Perhaps another equally highly qualified psychiatrist could help us all find the answer to that question. No, I don't think so either.

PS Does anybody  know for sure that the young man in question is NOT Jewish?

Feel free to sign the "guestbook".

Given the effects of the PTSD that the victim has suffered, it is useless to consider his perception of the event in the socio-political context - at least for the present - be his comments lucid or indicative of serious neurological trauma.

I agree that the event has political significance due to the background of the victim and perpetrators, and the response of the French state and society-at-large. Nor is Tiberge incorrect in decrying the "indoctrination" that is by no means unique to the French state.

However, I will relentlessly oppose any socio-political extrapolation from the victim's comments, given the presence of PTSD (to an as yet undetermined degree). I will also ask that psychological defense/survival responses to trauma - be they proffered by God or derived via evolution - be kept in their proper context. Acceptance or lack thereof in this situation is wholly unrelated to the refusal of ideologues to submit to logic and reason. On the contrary, it is indicative of neurological flux, as the young man struggles to fit the event into a unified perspective. It is as wrenching for a carefree optimist to transform into a pessimistic survivalist as it is for the reverse to occur. The studies conducted on postwar concentration camp survivors indicate how out-of-place the latter mindset is in a safe and prosperous environment.

Tiberge: "The question is: was he told what to say"

It must be a written interview. It sounds ridiculously like a statement prepared by some official spokesperson. I hope it doesn't reflect his real views at all. Maybe he just wants to be left alone by the media, or maybe he is afraid of damaging his career if he displeases the managers of his school.
Anyway, it won't change the important thing: he unwittingly gave a good illustration of the danger of being white in Europe, and we saw how Youtube immediately took down every copy of the video.

Had the victim been Jewish, and wearing a skull-cap, there would have been a completely different reaction from Youtube, the "anti-racist" organizations, the media, the politicians, the Church authorities...
The fact that the footage was leaked by a policeman would not have been a big issue. In fact, it would not have been necessary for him to do so. His higher-ups, the administration and the bus company would have told the media at once, and would have released parts of the video, instead of trying to hush the whole thing and later lodging a complaint against the policeman.

Had the victim been Jewish, the media would not have complained that footage of the aggression was used to promote a racist, far-right, anti-immigration agenda. No one would have warned that such a video could encourage Jewish racism or mistrust towards third-world immigrants. Instead, the media would have produced the video as evidence that European society needs more propaganda against antisemitism, even though the assailants were not European. The sanctions against the assailants would have been increased on account of racial hate laws that rarely apply when the victim is white. The media would have made a big deal about the verbal abuse recorded in the video (the victim was twice called "français de merde" = dirty Frenchman).

Reading the Kapitein's latest posting, one can see that for some people "perception is reality" (his words elsewhere), i.e. there are people who can not distinguish between (often differing) perceptions and reality itself.  Not even in abstract principle, let alone in reality.

The young man in question apparently is incapable of judging the unacceptable.  That is the "indoctrination" at work and that Tiberge referred to. The Kapitein, with his psycho-babble, thinks that the young man is  not willing to "accept" the unacceptable. Ideally, one should never (mentally) "accept" the unacceptable, but one should always retain the ability to judge the unacceptable and recognise reality.  That is the ideal, and should be the goal.  Indoctrination, that dehumanises, can undermine it in many people, including in this young man and in the Kapitein.  

Prediction: I will now join Tiberge and Atlanticist to be placed on the list of the "ignorants", by a naive-leftist ideologue who prefers abstract theoretical supposition over empirical observation.

You are both ignorant of the psychological impact of such an attack i.e. PTSD. Crucially, so is the psychiatrist who examined him.

Having known several people who have suffered traumatic injury at the hands of others, and with some education in psychology, I can say with certainty that the young man was only attempting to minimize or neutralize the incident so as not to admit to himself the severity of the attack. To do so would permit the possibility that he could be assaulted by a group of strangers in a seemingly safe environment with the potential of long-term serious injury or even death.

His answers have little to do with any sort of socio-political indoctrination or Stockholm Syndrome. Even if he were previously of an anti-immigrant disposition, it would be difficult emotionally to even form a judgement on his attackers. Doing so again allows for accepting the unacceptable.

If this event has wide-ranging socio-political connotations it is for others to concern themselves with; the young man needs access to counselling, medicine and time.

This sounds more like Kappert syndrome to me. Look, we all know where this is probably heading, don't we?

i  The prosecution of the policeman and HIS face plastered all over the internet...

ii Massive financial compensation package paid to the  attackers due to the trauma they experienced at the hands of that 'rogue' cop.

iii Paris transport workers hit the streets in a show of solidarity with their traumatised fellow citizens, the attackers and the attacked.

iv Our 'hero', the 19-year-old student, has his name put forward for a special Nobel Peace Prize

v Our 'hero' writes a book, becomes a celebrity on French and international tv, Michael Moore makes a film of his life with said 19-year-old student starring as himself in the leading role (Or, perhaps Brad Pitt, Sean Penn...) etc, etc, etc.,