江油抗议Jiangyou Protest
背景与概要：江油市是四川省北部一座县级市，由绵阳市代管，离省会成都一百多公里。2025年8月4日，这里发生了当年夏天中国最受关注的一次街头聚集：成百上千的市民先后来到市政府门前，为一名被同龄人殴打的14岁女孩讨说法，要求严惩打人者，并质问当地警方为什么处理得这样轻、这样慢。抗议从白天持续到深夜，午夜过后以特警冲入人群、警棍和辣椒水清场告终。这条档案记录的，就是这场抗议的起因、经过和后续：它从一桩未成年人欺凌案开始，因为一份被认为避重就轻的警情通报而点燃，又因为现场处置和随后的删帖、辟谣与抓人而继续发酵。本站的写法是，警方通报写了什么就按通报记，视频拍到了什么就按视频记，网上传了什么但查不到出处的，集中放到文末标明未核，不混进事实部分。Background and overview: Jiangyou is a county-level city in northern Sichuan, administered by Mianyang, a little over a hundred kilometres from the provincial capital, Chengdu. On August 4, 2025, it saw the most closely watched street gathering in China that summer: residents came in succession to the front of the city government building to demand an accounting for a 14-year-old girl beaten by other teenagers, to call for the attackers to be severely punished, and to ask why the local police had handled the case so lightly and so slowly. The protest ran from daytime into the night, and ended after midnight with special police charging into the crowd and clearing the streets with batons and pepper spray. This entry records how that protest began, unfolded and ended. It started with a case of bullying by minors, was ignited by a police statement widely seen as evasive, and kept growing because of what happened at the scene and the deletions, refutations and arrests that followed. The method here is simple: what the police statement says is recorded as the police statement, what the videos show is recorded as video evidence, and what circulated online without a traceable source is gathered at the end of this entry and marked unverified, never mixed into the factual account.
案件本身：先把案子本身说清楚。按江油市公安局2025年8月4日通报的口径：2025年7月22日，一名15岁女生因与受害女孩（女，14岁）发生矛盾，邀约另外两名女生（一名13岁、一名14岁），将受害人带至江油市一栋废弃楼房内，进行辱骂、威胁和殴打，造成受害人头皮、双膝等多处挫伤，同行人员在旁围观并拍摄视频。本站按未成年人保护原则，不写受害人及打人者的姓名、学校和住址，通报中的化名也只保留年龄和人数。流传视频和多家媒体的梳理比通报写得更细：画面中受害人被逼靠墙站立、被掌掴和踢踹、被扯头发、被迫下跪，打人者还一度逼她脱去衣物。这些画面细节来自视频本身和媒体转述，不在警方通报的文字里，读者应当分清两种来源的性质不同：一个是官方定性文件，一个是现场影像记录。The case itself: Start with the case itself. In the wording of the Jiangyou Municipal Public Security Bureau's statement of August 4, 2025: on July 22, 2025, a 15-year-old girl, because she had had a conflict with the victim, a girl of 14, enlisted two other girls, aged 13 and 14, and took the victim into an abandoned building in Jiangyou, where she was verbally abused, threatened and beaten, suffering contusions to her scalp, both knees and other places, while companions stood by, watched and filmed. This site, to protect minors, does not publish the names, schools or addresses of the victim or the attackers, and retains only ages and numbers from the anonymised police account. The circulated video and media reconstructions are more detailed than the statement: they show the victim forced to stand against a wall, slapped and kicked, dragged by the hair, forced to kneel, and at one point ordered to remove clothing. Those details come from the footage itself and from media retelling; they are not in the text of the police statement. Readers should keep the two kinds of source distinct: one is an official document assigning a legal character to the case, the other is a visual record of the scene.
视频里的那句话：真正刺痛公众的，除了画面，还有打人者说的话。视频中，受害人哭着说父亲会报警，一名打人者回道：你觉得我们怕你吗，又不是没进去过。另一人接着说，都进去十多次了，莫得20分钟就出来了。这两句话后来成为整起事件传播最广的引文，被做成话题标签，也被写进抗议现场的口号里。它们之所以激起这么大的反应，是因为在很多人听来，这不是小孩子不懂事的吹牛，而是对执法尺度的当众嘲弄：如果进去十多次都能很快出来，那么被打的人还能指望什么。需要说明的是，这段对话出自流传视频，未经警方逐字确认；江油警方后经本地媒体转述称，所谓进去十多次是打人者怕受害人报警、故意夸大吓唬对方，并称其中15岁的一人此前曾因纠纷在派出所接受过调解。这两种说法并列记录，孰是孰非，本站没有能力替任何一方下结论。The words in the video: What stung the public, besides the images, was what the attackers said. In the video the victim, crying, says her father will call the police. One attacker answers: do you think we are scared of you? It is not as if we have never been inside before. Another adds: we have been in more than ten times, and we are out in under twenty minutes. Those two sentences became the most widely quoted lines of the whole affair; they were turned into hashtags and written into the slogans shouted at the protest. They provoked such a reaction because, to many listeners, they did not sound like ignorant boasting by children, but like a public mockery of the scale of law enforcement: if you can go in more than ten times and walk out quickly each time, what is a beaten child supposed to rely on? Two qualifications belong in the record. The exchange comes from the circulated video and was never confirmed word for word by the police; and Jiangyou police, as relayed later by local media, said the ten-times claim was a deliberate exaggeration meant to frighten the victim out of reporting them, adding that the 15-year-old had once been through mediation at a police station over a dispute. The two accounts are recorded side by side; this site is in no position to rule for either side.
时间线之争：案发到通报之间隔了十三天，这十三天是另一个争议点。受害人父母在7月22日当晚就已报警，这一点多家媒体和警方后续回应都不否认。分歧在于中间发生了什么：中国数字时代等海外存档的说法是，直到8月2日涉案人员才被传唤到案；而绵阳本地官媒《涪江观察》8月6日引述警方称，7月23日清晨两名打人者已到派出所接受调查，警方同日把案件立为寻衅滋事治安案件，7月24日至8月3日一直在做调查取证、传唤通知和委托验伤。两种时间线在关键节点上对不上，本站照实并列，不替读者抹平。另外，自称受害人表姐的网民和受害人亲属在受访时都说，这不是第一次：受害人此前多次被同一批人欺凌、孤立，手机被拿走后卖掉，家人曾多次找学校维权。亲属对江西广播电视台的栏目证实长期欺凌存在，要求公平处理、打人者家属出面道歉；这些属于家属一方的陈述，警方通报里没有确认长期欺凌和卖手机的情节，只有警方后来对记者证实，手机被抢走、已交回派出所勘验。A disputed timeline: Thirteen days separate the attack from the public statement, and those thirteen days are a second point of dispute. That the victim's parents reported the case to police on the evening of July 22 itself is denied by no one, in either media reporting or the police's later responses. What happened in between is where accounts diverge. Overseas archives such as China Digital Times say the people involved were not brought in for questioning until August 2. Fujiang Observer, a Mianyang official-media outlet, on August 6 quoted police as saying that two of the attackers came to a police station for investigation early on July 23, that police filed the matter that same day as a public-order case of picking quarrels, and that from July 24 to August 3 officers were gathering evidence, issuing summonses and commissioning a medical injury assessment. The two timelines do not meet at the key points, and this site records them in parallel rather than smoothing them over for the reader. Separately, a person identifying herself online as the victim's cousin, and relatives speaking in interviews, both said this was not the first time: the girl had repeatedly been bullied and isolated by the same group, her phone had been taken and sold, and the family had repeatedly gone to the school to seek redress. Relatives confirmed the long-term bullying to a Jiangxi broadcasting programme and demanded fair handling and an apology from the attackers' families. Those are statements from the family's side. The police statement does not confirm either the long-term bullying or the selling of the phone; police later confirmed to reporters only that the phone had been taken and had been handed back to the police station for examination.
视频引爆与通报：欺凌视频从2025年8月2日起在社交平台流传，8月3日至4日迅速冲上舆论中心。视频里的画面、那两句进去过的话、受害人家庭的处境，一起把一桩地方治安案件推成了全国话题。8月4日上午，江油市公安局发布警情通报。通报的文字不长，核心口径有三层：一是起因被表述为双方发生矛盾；二是伤情被表述为头皮、双膝等多处挫伤，经鉴定为轻微伤；三是处理方向先只笼统说两名打人者已被治安处罚，并称已对受害人及家属进行及时慰问和心理疏导。通报结尾呼吁，为避免给受害人及其家属造成二次伤害，请勿传播相关视频信息。这份通报没有平息舆论，反而成了抗议的直接导火索：很多人把轻微伤三个字和视频里长时间的殴打画面放在一起看，认为文字把事情说小了；把发生矛盾和单方面的围殴放在一起看，认为措辞在稀释责任。The video erupts, and the statement: Video of the bullying began circulating on social platforms from August 2, 2025, and by August 3 and 4 it had moved to the centre of national attention. The images, the two lines about having been inside before, and the circumstances of the victim's family together turned a local public-order case into a nationwide topic. On the morning of August 4, the Jiangyou Municipal Public Security Bureau issued its police statement. The text is short, and its core wording has three layers. First, the cause is described as the two sides having had a conflict. Second, the injuries are described as contusions to the scalp, both knees and other places, assessed as minor injuries. Third, on handling, it says only in general terms that two of the attackers had received public-order punishments, and that officers had promptly comforted the victim and her family and provided psychological counselling. It closes by urging people, to avoid causing the victim and her family secondary harm, not to spread the video. The statement did not calm opinion; it became the immediate trigger of the protest. Many people set the words minor injuries against the prolonged beating visible in the video and concluded that the text had made the matter smaller than it was; they set had a conflict against a one-sided group beating and concluded that the phrasing diluted responsibility.
处置细节：通报没有写明的具体罚则，是当天稍后由警方对媒体披露的。据《齐鲁晚报》8月4日报道，警方称：一名15岁的打人者被处行政拘留十三日、罚款一千元，一名14岁的被处行政拘留十日、罚款八百元，两人还将按程序送往专门学校接受矫治教育；一名13岁的和其余围观人员被批评教育，责令其监护人严加管教。警方还对《澎湃新闻》解释定性问题：手机被夺一事可以按抢劫的性质理解，打人者已满14岁本来具有相应刑事责任能力，但本案被定性为寻衅滋事、且涉案人均不满16岁，因此不按刑事案件、只按治安案件处理，并称已是在相应幅度内从重处罚。这里要分清层次：送专门学校矫治教育是通报和警方回应里明确写了的处置；行政拘留和罚款的具体天数、金额来自警方对媒体的口头披露，不在8月4日通报正文里。本站把两者分别注明出处，就是为了让读者知道哪一句能在通报原文里找到，哪一句是记者问出来的。The penalties in detail: The specific penalties the statement left out were disclosed by police to media later that day. According to Qilu Evening News on August 4, police said the 15-year-old attacker was given thirteen days of administrative detention and a fine of 1,000 yuan, and the 14-year-old ten days and a fine of 800 yuan, and that both would also be sent, through the prescribed procedure, to a specialized school for correctional education; the 13-year-old and the other onlookers were subjected to criticism and education, and their guardians were ordered to discipline them strictly. Police also explained the legal characterisation to The Paper: the taking of the phone could be understood in the nature of robbery, and attackers over 14 did in principle carry corresponding criminal responsibility, but the case had been characterised as picking quarrels, and all those involved were under 16, so it was handled not as a criminal case but only as a public-order case, and, police said, at the heavier end of the available range. The layers matter. Transfer to a specialized school for correctional education is a measure stated expressly in the statement and the police responses; the exact days of detention and amounts of the fines come from oral disclosure by police to reporters and are not in the text of the August 4 statement itself. This site attributes the two separately so that readers know which sentence can be found in the original statement and which was obtained by a journalist asking.
愤怒的焦点：公众的愤怒并不只冲着三个打人的孩子。第一层是对伤情口径的不信任：画面里的人被打成那样，通报里只有挫伤和轻微伤，普通人很难把两者对上号。第二层是对未成年人保护法成免罪牌的长期不满：这些年多起低龄恶性案件之后，年龄即护身符已经成了网络上现成的说法，江油视频里那句莫得20分钟就出来，等于由打人者亲口把这句话说了出来。第三层是对地方处理节奏的不满：当晚报警、十三天后才有通报，而且通报是在视频传遍全国之后才出现的，《极目新闻》的评论把这种做法概括为不闹大不处理、不上网就冷处理。第四层是对受害人家庭处境的同情：一个说不出话的母亲和一个在外打工的父亲，对面是被怀疑有背景的打人者家庭，这种强弱对照一旦形成，案件本身就不再只是一桩校园外的殴打，而成了普通人能不能讨到公道的测试题。Where the anger focused: Public anger was not aimed only at the three girls who did the beating. The first layer was distrust of the injury wording: a person beaten like that on camera, and a statement containing only contusions and minor injuries, are hard for an ordinary reader to reconcile. The second was long-standing resentment at the idea of the Law on the Protection of Minors functioning as a get-out-of-jail card. After a series of serious cases involving very young offenders in recent years, age as a protective charm had already become a ready-made phrase online; the line in the Jiangyou video about being out in under twenty minutes amounted to the attackers saying it themselves, out loud. The third layer was dissatisfaction with the local pace: a report filed the same evening, a public statement thirteen days later, and that statement only after the video had spread across the country. A Jimu News commentary summed up the pattern as: nothing is done until it blows up, and what never gets online gets cold treatment. The fourth layer was sympathy for the victim's family circumstances: a mother who cannot speak and a father working away from home, set against attackers' families suspected of having connections. Once that contrast between weak and strong had formed, the case was no longer only an off-campus beating; it had become a test of whether ordinary people can obtain justice at all.
谣言与辟谣：强弱对照很快催生了背景猜测。网上先后流传打人者父母是江油市公安局副局长、是律师、是一级警督、是市委副书记兼政委等多种说法，版本互相矛盾，又都没有拿出证据。8月5日，绵阳市公安局通过绵阳网警发布辟谣通报，逐项给出核查结果：三名违法人员的六名父母中，二人无业、二人在省外务工、一人为本地售货员、一人为本地外卖员，所传父母职业身份信息为谣言；同时通报称，两名编造、传播相关谣言的网民已被公安机关依法行政处罚，其行为严重扰乱社会秩序、造成恶劣社会影响，警方并呼吁不造谣、不传谣。同日还有一段配文称霸凌者父母被抓的视频在网上传播，绵阳市公安局对《澎湃新闻》回应说不属实，画面中被带走的是现场阻塞交通、不听民警劝阻的人员。至于网传双方已花钱私了的说法，本站在公开报道和官方通报中均未找到出处，也未找到官方对这一说法的回应，文末按未核处理，不写进事实。辟谣通报平息了哪一部分猜测、又在多大程度上被公众接受，是两回事；本站只负责把谁说了什么记清楚。Rumours and the official refutation: The contrast between weak and strong quickly produced speculation about connections. Online claims variously made the attackers' parents a deputy director of the Jiangyou Public Security Bureau, a lawyer, a first-class police supervisor, or a deputy secretary of the municipal Party committee and political commissar. The versions contradicted one another and none produced evidence. On August 5, the Mianyang Municipal Public Security Bureau, through its Mianyang Internet Police account, issued a refutation giving its verification results item by item: among the six parents of the three offenders, two were unemployed, two were working outside the province, one was a local shop salesperson and one was a local delivery worker, and the circulated information about the parents' occupational identities was a rumour. The same notice said two internet users who had fabricated and spread related rumours had been given administrative punishments by public security organs in accordance with the law, that their conduct had seriously disrupted social order and caused a bad social impact, and it urged people not to make or spread rumours. The same day, a video captioned as showing the bullies' parents being arrested circulated online; the Mianyang bureau told The Paper this was untrue, and that the people taken away in the footage were individuals at the scene who had blocked traffic and refused to heed police persuasion. As for the circulating claim that the two sides had settled the matter for money, this site found no source for it in public reporting or in official statements, and no official response addressing it; it is treated at the end of this entry as unverified and is not written into the facts. Which part of the speculation the refutation settled, and how far the public accepted it, are separate questions; this site's responsibility is only to record clearly who said what.
受害人家庭：受害人一家的情况，能核实的并不多，本站只写双源或家属公开受访确认的部分。受害人母亲是聋哑人，这一点由受害人亲属对媒体证实，中国数字时代、美国战略与国际研究中心等后续分析也都采用了这一说法；有报道称受害人母亲因为说不出话，在维权时格外无助，抗议现场有市民喊出她说不了话、我们帮她说。父亲的职业，多家报道写作在外务工人员，中国数字时代的表述是父亲为外出务工人员，这与绵阳警方辟谣通报里打人者父母中也有人在省外务工是两回事，读者不要混淆：前者说的是受害人家庭，后者说的是打人者家庭。除此之外，关于父亲是否残疾、是否识字、家庭收入几何等更细的说法，只在个别自媒体和海外评论中出现，没有第二个可靠来源，本站不采信、不转载具体内容，只在文末列为未核。受害人本人的伤情恢复、心理状态和返校情况，公开渠道同样没有持续报道，本站不猜测、不打听，这既是核实原则，也是对一个14岁孩子的保护。The victim's family: what can be verified: Very little about the victim's family can be verified, and this site writes only what is supported by two sources or confirmed by relatives in public interviews. That the victim's mother is deaf is confirmed by relatives to media, and later analyses by China Digital Times, the Center for Strategic and International Studies and others all use the same fact. Reporting describes a mother who, because she cannot speak, was especially helpless when seeking redress, and at the protest residents were heard shouting that she could not speak and that they would speak for her. The father's occupation is described in multiple reports as a migrant worker working away from home; China Digital Times phrases it the same way. Readers should not confuse this with the Mianyang police refutation, in which some of the attackers' parents were also said to be working outside the province: the first statement concerns the victim's family, the second the attackers' families. Beyond that, finer claims — whether the father has a disability, whether he can read and write, what the family earns — appear only in individual self-media accounts and overseas commentary, with no second reliable source. This site does not credit them or reproduce their specifics, and lists them at the end as unverified. The victim's own recovery, psychological state and return to school have likewise had no continuing coverage in public channels. This site does not guess and does not go asking: that is both a verification principle and protection owed to a 14-year-old child.
市政府门前的一天：8月4日的抗议先从市政府大楼开始。通报发布后，受害人父母来到江油市人民政府，向一名手持扩音器的官员下跪磕头，请求为女儿做主；围观市民越聚越多。据多家媒体的现场视频和事后梳理，受害人母亲在现场情绪崩溃、几度昏倒，周围市民替这一家人喊话，要求官员正面回答问题，不要念稿子。当天中午，市政府安排了一场公开对话，数百名市民进入市政府的会议场所，向官员表达不满，问题集中在为什么定性这么轻、为什么拖了十三天、通报里的话为什么和实际情况对不上。美国战略与国际研究中心的分析提到，现场一度有人齐声喊下台一类的口号，还有人冲向主席台方向，场面紧张。官员在会上具体承诺了什么，会后没有公开的会议记录可以核对；能核对的是结果：走出会议场所的人群并没有散去，到了下午，市政府门前和周边主要路口的人反而越来越多。A day at the city government building: The protest of August 4 began at the city government building. After the statement was issued, the victim's parents came to the Jiangyou Municipal People's Government and knelt and kowtowed before an official holding a megaphone, begging him to uphold justice for their daughter, while onlookers gathered in growing numbers. According to scene video and later reconstructions by multiple outlets, the mother broke down at the scene and fainted more than once, and residents around her shouted on the family's behalf, demanding that officials answer questions directly instead of reading from a script. At midday the city government arranged a public dialogue, and several hundred residents entered a meeting space in the government building to voice their dissatisfaction to officials. Their questions concentrated on why the legal characterisation was so light, why it had taken thirteen days, and why the words in the statement did not match what had actually happened. An analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies notes that at one point people in the room chanted for officials to step down, and some rushed toward the platform, in a tense scene. What exactly officials promised at that meeting cannot be checked: no public record of it was released afterward. What can be checked is the outcome. The crowd that walked out of the meeting space did not disperse; by the afternoon, there were more people, not fewer, in front of the city government and at the main intersections around it.
入夜的聚集：人数是这场抗议最难写准的一项，不同来源的估计从头到尾没有对齐过。本站按来源分别记录：法新社、英国广播公司等报道的口径是上千人；美国战略与国际研究中心和彭博社等用的是数千人；当天下午较早阶段，多家报道说的是数百人聚集在市政府内和门前。确切总数没有任何官方数字，本站不取中间值、不合并，文末标为未核。能确认的是入夜后规模明显扩大：市政府前道路被封锁，多批身着黑色制服的特警到场设置路障，人群隔着路障与警察对峙。现场视频里，人们齐唱国歌，高喊严惩凶手、还孩子真相、依法办案、未成年不是打人的挡箭牌、为人民服务等口号；《纽约时报》核实过的视频中还出现了还我民主的喊声。唱国歌和喊为人民服务这两个细节值得单独记下：它们说明人群使用的，是官方自己的语言和仪式，诉求的起点是要求这个体制按它自己写下的规则办案，而不是一开始就站在体制对面。The gathering after dark: The size of the crowd is the hardest figure in this protest to write accurately, and estimates from different sources never aligned. This site records them separately, by source. Agence France-Presse, the BBC and similar reporting used a figure of more than a thousand. The Center for Strategic and International Studies, Bloomberg and others used thousands. In the earlier part of that afternoon, multiple reports spoke of several hundred people inside and in front of the city government. There is no official total, and this site takes no midpoint and merges nothing; the total is marked unverified at the end of this entry. What can be confirmed is that the gathering grew markedly after dark. The road in front of the city government was blocked, contingents of special police in black uniforms arrived and set up barricades, and the crowd faced the police across them. In scene video, people sing the national anthem together and chant: severely punish the attackers, give the child back the truth, handle the case according to law, being a minor is not a shield for beating people, and serve the people. In video verified by The New York Times, the cry give us back democracy is also heard. Singing the anthem and chanting serve the people deserve to be recorded on their own: they show a crowd using the authorities' own language and rituals, whose starting demand was that the system handle a case by the rules it has written for itself, rather than a crowd that had placed itself opposite the system from the outset.
午夜清场：对峙持续到深夜。按多家媒体一致的时间点，8月4日23时30分左右，警方开始强制清场，行动持续到8月5日凌晨3时左右。中国数字时代存档的视频和美国战略与国际研究中心的复盘都记录了同一组画面：特警冲入人群，用警棍击打抗议者，使用辣椒水，多人被按倒、拖走，有人被抬上红色卡车带离现场，围观者称这类卡车平时用于运送牲畜。法新社核查过的视频显示，至少两名抗议者被一群警察拉开，一名黑衣女子被抓住四肢拖走；《卫报》引述目击者说至少八人被捕，这是目前公开报道里最具体的一个被捕数字，但只是目击者口径，不是总数。关于催泪弹和电击棒，个别报道和网传视频中出现过，本站没有找到与警棍、辣椒水同等级别的独立核实，文末标为未核。8月5日白天，江油街头仍有大批警察巡逻和拦查，共同社拍到了警察当街盘查行人的画面；中国数字时代还记录到，凌晨时分街头出现带手机信号干扰设备的军用车辆，这一细节来自网民视频，本站按单一来源记录并注明出处。The midnight clearance: The standoff lasted deep into the night. On a timing on which multiple outlets agree, at about 11:30 p.m. on August 4 police began a forcible clearance that continued until about 3 a.m. on August 5. Video archived by China Digital Times and the reconstruction by the Center for Strategic and International Studies record the same set of images: special police charging into the crowd, striking protesters with batons, using pepper spray, people pinned to the ground and dragged away, and some carried onto red trucks and taken from the scene — trucks that onlookers said are ordinarily used to transport livestock. Video verified by Agence France-Presse shows at least two protesters being pulled apart by groups of officers, and a woman in black being dragged away by her limbs. The Guardian, citing a witness, reported at least eight people arrested; that is the most specific arrest figure in public reporting, but it is a witness figure, not a total. Tear gas and electric prods appear in individual reports and circulated clips, but this site found no independent verification of the same standard as for batons and pepper spray, and marks them unverified at the end of this entry. During the day on August 5, large numbers of police were still patrolling and stopping people on Jiangyou's streets; Kyodo photographed officers questioning passers-by in the street. China Digital Times also recorded that in the early hours military vehicles equipped with mobile-phone signal jammers appeared on the streets; that detail comes from internet users' video and is recorded here as a single-source item, with its origin stated.
官方后续：抗议平息之后，官方的后续动作主要沿着两条线走。一条是辟谣和处罚造谣者，即8月5日绵阳公安的通报，已如前述。另一条是把欺凌案本身往回找补：8月6日，绵阳本地官媒《涪江观察》报道，施暴者及其家长已经向受害人赔礼道歉，受害人亲属在采访中呼吁网民停止转发欺凌视频，以免对孩子造成更多伤害；同一轮报道中，警方对处理节奏的解释是，7月22日当晚已经受理，因为涉案人员多、要做伤情鉴定，直到8月4日才作出处置，并引述本地律师称处罚已在最重幅度内。江油市教育和体育局对《极目新闻》表示，事后会更加重视校园欺凌防范，并把这项工作列为各学校开学工作的重点。8月6日，江油基本恢复平静，市政府门前的道路解封，但仍有警车在街面巡逻。值得注意的是缺席的部分：对于8月4日夜至8月5日凌晨到底带走了多少抗议者、如何处置、有没有人受伤，官方始终没有发布过一份对应的通报；这场抗议在官方文本里的存在感，远小于它在现场视频里的规模。Official follow-up: Once the protest had subsided, official follow-up ran mainly along two lines. One was refutation and punishment of rumour-makers, namely the Mianyang public security notice of August 5 described above. The other was an attempt to repair the handling of the bullying case itself. On August 6, Fujiang Observer, the Mianyang official-media outlet, reported that the attackers and their parents had apologised to the victim, and that relatives, in interview, appealed to internet users to stop forwarding the bullying video so as not to cause the child further harm. In the same round of reporting, the police explanation of the pace was that the case had been accepted on the evening of July 22, but because many people were involved and an injury assessment was required, no disposition was made until August 4; a local lawyer was quoted as saying the punishments were already at the heaviest end of the range. The Jiangyou education and sports bureau told Jimu News that it would afterwards pay greater attention to preventing school bullying and would make that work a priority for every school at the start of term. By August 6, Jiangyou had largely returned to calm, the road in front of the city government had reopened, though police cars still patrolled the streets. What deserves note is the absent part. On how many protesters were taken away between the night of August 4 and the early hours of August 5, how they were dealt with, and whether anyone was injured, the authorities never issued any corresponding statement at all. In official text, this protest's presence is far smaller than its scale in the scene video.
审查记录：与清场同步进行的，是线上的清理。中国数字时代中文编辑部专门做了一期敏感词记录，称这次的审查强度异乎寻常：与欺凌案和抗议有关的视频、照片、话题标签、文章和评论被成批删除或限制。记录在案的处置方式分得很细：江油欺凌、江油警察打人、江油校园欺凌等话题被直接封禁；14岁女孩被打两名施暴者被送矫治学校等话题一度登上微博热搜又很快消失；被打未成年人的母亲是聋哑人等话题被限制搜索，只显示少数认证账号的内容；还有一批官方口径的话题阅读量很高、评论却异常稀少，被判断为评论受限。8月5日，江油话题曾冲到微博热搜第二位，又在当天上午短时间内跌出榜单，此事经多家台湾媒体记录。删不干净的地方，网民就改用谐音：江油被写作酱油继续讨论。中国传媒研究计划8月15日的调查还发现，审查延伸到了国产人工智能聊天机器人，深度求索、文心一言、智谱、Kimi等多家产品对江油抗议都不输出信息。8月7日新华社等官媒直播成都世界运动会开幕式时，大量网民涌入留言区和弹幕为江油发声，直播随后限制评论甚至一度中断，这两个细节由中央广播电台等媒体记录。The censorship record: Running in parallel with the clearance was an online clean-up. The Chinese editors of China Digital Times compiled a dedicated Sensitive Words record, describing the intensity of censorship this time as unusual: videos, photographs, hashtags, articles and comments relating to the bullying case and the protests were deleted or restricted in batches. The measures on record are finely differentiated. Hashtags such as Jiangyou bullying, Jiangyou police beat people and Jiangyou campus bullying were banned outright. Hashtags such as two bullies who beat a 14-year-old girl sent to correctional school reached Weibo's trending list and then quickly vanished. Hashtags such as the beaten minor's mother is deaf were search-restricted, displaying only a handful of results from verified accounts. Another set of officially framed hashtags showed very high read counts but abnormally few comments, judged by the editors to have had comments restricted. On August 5, the Jiangyou topic rose to second place on Weibo's trending chart and then dropped off the list within a short time that morning, a movement recorded by several Taiwan media outlets. Where deletion was incomplete, internet users switched to homophones, writing Jiangyou as the characters for soy sauce to keep discussing it. A China Media Project investigation of August 15 further found that censorship had extended to domestic artificial-intelligence chatbots: products from DeepSeek, Baidu's Ernie Bot, Zhipu and Kimi, among others, produced no information about the Jiangyou protests. On August 7, when Xinhua and other official media livestreamed the opening ceremony of the World Games in Chengdu, large numbers of internet users flooded the comment areas and bullet screens to speak up for Jiangyou; the streams then restricted comments and were at one point interrupted, details recorded by Radio Taiwan International and other outlets.
视频真伪的查核：抗议的视频多，真假也混杂，这一点必须单独写明。2025年8月15日，台湾事实查核中心发布核查结论：江油确有示威冲突，但网传视频中有五段是挪用中国其他地方跨年活动的画面冒充江油现场，另有两段出现共产党下台等口号的视频带有后期配音。台湾公共电视台在报道时也明确表示，那段喊习近平下台、共产党下台的视频未能获得核实。这意味着，现场确有还我民主等经《纽约时报》核实的口号，但流传最广的那几段政治口号视频，恰恰是最不可靠的部分。本站处理这类材料的原则在这里具体化：一段视频在社交平台上被转发十万次，不等于它被核实过一次；凡是没有经过通讯社核查、没有原始拍摄信息、又恰好最能煽动情绪的画面，默认先存疑。江油抗议不需要靠配音的口号来证明它发生过，警棍、辣椒水和上千人聚集，有的是经过核实的记录。Fact-checking the videos: The protest produced a great deal of video, and the genuine and the false are mixed together; that point has to be stated on its own. On August 15, 2025, the Taiwan FactCheck Center published its findings: Jiangyou had indeed seen protest clashes, but five circulated clips had appropriated footage of New Year events elsewhere in China and passed it off as the Jiangyou scene, and two further clips featuring slogans such as down with the Communist Party carried audio dubbed in afterwards. Taiwan's Public Television Service, in its reporting, likewise stated expressly that the video shouting for Xi Jinping and the Communist Party to step down had not been verified. The implication cuts both ways. Cries such as give us back democracy were genuinely heard at the scene, in video verified by The New York Times; but the most widely shared clips of political slogans are precisely the least reliable part of the record. This site's rule for such material becomes concrete here: a clip forwarded a hundred thousand times on social platforms has not thereby been verified once. Any footage that has not passed a wire service's checking, carries no original filming information, and happens to be the most emotionally inflammatory of all is treated as doubtful by default. The Jiangyou protest does not need dubbed slogans to prove that it happened; batons, pepper spray and a gathering of more than a thousand people are documented in records that have been verified.
国际反应：国际媒体的报道从8月5日就开始了。法新社、英国广播公司、《卫报》在最初两三天里给出了现场的基本轮廓：上千人聚集、警察使用辣椒水和警棍、有人被拖走，英国广播公司还被江油警方告知限制外国媒体提问，《卫报》采访的市政府附近店员说自己不能谈，因为警察已经口头警告过。美国全国广播公司核实了一段现场视频，画面里有人隔着路障喊：你家孩子要是被更高官阶人家的孩子欺负了，你怎么办。《纽约时报》8月7日致电市政府附近商户，接电话的人称对抗议一无所知随即挂断。彭博社8月12日的长篇报道把江油放进更大的背景里写：中国因房产和劳资纠纷而起的抗议并不少见，但江油人愤怒的指向是社会不平等，这使它格外引人注目。美国战略与国际研究中心8月14日的分析则指出时间点的敏感：抗议发生在成都世界运动会开幕前几天，地方官员若放任事态扩散，政治代价极高，这解释了清场的速度和力度。自由之家的异言网数据被多家分析引用：自2022年9月以来，中国至少128起与校园安全有关的抗议被记录在案，江油是其中规模较大、又恰好有影像突破审查流出的一起。法国国际广播电台8月6日报道了施暴者道歉的消息，并持续跟进了审查与舆论的走向。International response: International reporting began on August 5. Agence France-Presse, the BBC and The Guardian set out the basic outline of the scene in the first two or three days: more than a thousand people gathered, police used pepper spray and batons, people were dragged away. The BBC was told by Jiangyou police that questions from foreign media were restricted, and a shop worker near the city government told The Guardian she could not talk because police had already given them a verbal warning. NBC News verified a scene video in which someone shouts across the barricades: what if your own child were bullied by the child of someone of higher rank — what would you do then? The New York Times, telephoning shops near the city government on August 7, reached a woman who said she knew nothing about any protest and hung up. Bloomberg's long report of August 12 placed Jiangyou in a wider frame: protests arising from property and labour disputes are not uncommon in China, but the anger in Jiangyou pointed at social inequality, which made it especially notable. The Center for Strategic and International Studies, in its August 14 analysis, pointed to the sensitivity of the timing: the protest came a few days before the opening of the World Games in Chengdu, and local officials who let the situation spread would have paid a high political price, which helps explain the speed and force of the clearance. Data from Freedom House's China Dissent Monitor, cited in multiple analyses, records at least 128 protests related to campus safety across China since September 2022; Jiangyou was among the larger of them, and one whose images happened to break through censorship. Radio France Internationale reported the attackers' apology on August 6 and continued to follow the censorship and the direction of opinion.
制度背景：把江油放回制度里看，绕不开三个背景。第一是刑事责任年龄的分层：现行刑法规定，满16岁对全部罪行负责，14至16岁只对故意杀人、故意伤害致重伤或死亡、强奸、抢劫等八类严重罪行负责，12至14岁只在故意杀人、故意伤害致人死亡或以特别残忍手段致人重伤造成严重残疾、情节恶劣且经最高人民检察院核准追诉时才负责。江油案里打人者最大的15岁，行为又被定性为寻衅滋事治安案件，自然落进了治安处罚而不是刑事追诉的通道。第二是专门矫治教育制度：2020年修订、2021年施行的《预防未成年人犯罪法》规定，对有严重不良行为的未成年人，经专门教育指导委员会评估同意，可以送入专门学校接受专门教育；对实施了刑法规定行为却因年龄不够不予刑事处罚的，可以进行专门矫治教育，由专门学校分设的专门场所实行闭环管理，公安和司法行政部门负责矫治、教育部门负责教育。江油两名打人者被送专门学校，用的正是这套制度；但这套制度的执行细节，比如送哪所学校、期限多久、如何评估转回普通学校，江油案从未公开过。第三是正在变化的拘留规则：2025年6月27日全国人大常委会通过新修订的《治安管理处罚法》，2026年施行，其中打破了未成年人违法不拘留的惯例，对初次违法但情节严重、影响恶劣的14至18岁人员等情形可以执行拘留，并写入了学生欺凌的处置条款。江油案发生时，新法尚未施行，警方手里能用的，正是公众最不满的那套旧尺度。2024年河北邯郸三名初中生杀害同学案的判决中，两名被告分别获无期徒刑和12年有期徒刑、另一名不予刑事处罚，同样激起过年龄与刑罚的争论；江油不是孤例，而是这条争论线上最新的一站。The institutional background: Set back inside the system, Jiangyou turns on three pieces of background. The first is the tiering of the age of criminal responsibility. Under the current Criminal Law, a person of 16 or over is responsible for all offences; those aged 14 to 16 are responsible only for eight categories of serious offence, including intentional homicide, intentional injury causing grave harm or death, rape and robbery; and those aged 12 to 14 are responsible only for intentional homicide or intentional injury causing death, or grave injury by especially cruel means resulting in severe disability, where the circumstances are egregious and the Supreme People's Procuratorate has approved prosecution. The oldest Jiangyou attacker was 15, and the conduct was characterised as a public-order case of picking quarrels, so the case fell naturally into the channel of public-order punishment rather than criminal prosecution. The second background is the system of specialized correctional education. The Law on the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency, revised in 2020 and in force from 2021, provides that a minor with serious delinquent behaviour may, with the assessment and agreement of a specialized-education steering committee, be sent to a specialized school for specialized education; and that a minor who has committed an act defined in the Criminal Law but is exempt from criminal punishment for reasons of age may be given specialized correctional education, in a dedicated facility set apart within a specialized school under closed-loop management, with public security and judicial administration organs responsible for correction and education departments responsible for schooling. The transfer of the two Jiangyou attackers to a specialized school used exactly this system; but its operational details in this case — which school, for how long, and how a return to an ordinary school would be assessed — were never made public. The third background is a detention rule in the process of changing. On June 27, 2025, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress adopted a revised Law on Penalties for Administration of Public Security, effective in 2026, which breaks the convention that minors who break public-order rules are not detained: first-time offenders aged 14 to 18 whose conduct is serious and has a malign impact, among other specified cases, may now be detained, and provisions on handling student bullying were written in. When the Jiangyou case occurred, the new law was not yet in force, and what police had in hand was precisely the old scale that the public most resented. In the 2024 Handan case in Hebei, in which three middle-school students killed a classmate, two defendants received life imprisonment and a twelve-year sentence respectively and a third received no criminal punishment — a judgment that provoked the same argument about age and punishment. Jiangyou is not an isolated case; it is the latest stop on that line of argument.
最新状态：截至2026年10月本站最后一次核查，江油案的公开后续停留在2025年8月6日前后，此后没有新的权威信息进入公开渠道。逐项说：两名打人者是否已经实际送入专门学校、在校多久、何时转回普通学校，没有公开记录；官方通报里说的按程序开展送矫治教育相关工作，是程序启动的表述，不是执行结果的通报。受害人的伤情恢复、心理康复和就学情况，没有公开记录，家属在2025年8月6日呼吁停止转发视频之后，也没有再接受过公开采访。8月4日夜被带走的抗议者有多少人、分别受了什么处置、有没有人被追究更重的责任，没有公开记录；官方对现场人员的处置口径，只剩下绵阳警方8月5日通报中关于阻塞交通、不听劝阻的笼统说法和对两名造谣网民的行政处罚。地方层面有没有官员因此被问责、学校有没有公布整改结果，同样没有公开记录。本站把这一段写成一串没有公开记录，不是偷懒，而是这起事件真实的结尾方式：一场上千人走上街头的抗议，在官方信息里以道歉和辟谣收尾，此后所有具体的人的下落和去向，都退出了公众能查证的范围。档案在这里能做的，是把这个空白标出来，而不是用猜测把它填满。Latest verifiable status: As of this site's last check in October 2026, the public sequel to the Jiangyou case stops at around August 6, 2025; no new authoritative information has entered public channels since. Item by item: whether the two attackers were in fact transferred to a specialized school, how long they stayed, and when they might return to an ordinary school — no public record. The official phrasing, that work on transferring them through the prescribed procedure was being carried out, is a statement that a process had been started, not a report of its result. The victim's recovery from her injuries, her psychological rehabilitation and her schooling — no public record; after the family's August 6, 2025 appeal to stop forwarding the video, the family gave no further public interviews. How many protesters were taken away on the night of August 4, what happened to each of them, and whether anyone faced heavier liability — no public record; the official account of how people at the scene were handled is reduced to the general wording in the Mianyang police notice of August 5 about blocking traffic and refusing persuasion, and to the administrative punishments given to two rumour-makers. Whether any local official was held accountable, and whether the schools involved published any rectification results — likewise no public record. Writing this section as a string of no public records is not laziness; it is the way this affair actually ended. A protest that brought more than a thousand people onto the streets closes, in official information, with an apology and a refutation, after which the whereabouts and fates of every specific person withdraw from the range the public can verify. What an archive can do here is mark the blank, not fill it with guesses.
档案来源：本条目依据的材料按可信程度排列如下。一，官方文本：江油市公安局2025年8月4日警情通报原文，收入维基文库，通报口径以此为准；江油警方同日对《齐鲁晚报》《澎湃新闻》的回应，绵阳市公安局（绵阳网警）2025年8月5日辟谣通报，绵阳本地官媒《涪江观察》2025年8月6日报道，江油市教育和体育局对《极目新闻》的回应。二，审查存档：中国数字时代中文编辑部的江油敏感词审查记录及其存档视频汇编，记录了话题封禁、搜索限制和评论限制的具体名单。三，通讯社与国际媒体的核实报道：法新社核查的视频、英国广播公司2025年8月5日报道、《卫报》2025年8月8日报道、美国全国广播公司核实的视频、《纽约时报》2025年8月7日报道、彭博社2025年8月12日报道，法国国际广播电台的跟进报道。四，分析与背景材料：美国战略与国际研究中心2025年8月14日分析、自由之家异言网数据、中国传媒研究计划2025年8月15日关于人工智能聊天机器人沉默的调查、台湾事实查核中心2025年8月15日视频核查。五，法律文本：《刑法》第十七条、2020年修订的《预防未成年人犯罪法》、2025年修订的《治安管理处罚法》。说明一点：本站多次检索，未找到路透社关于江油抗议的独立署名报道，故本条目不引用路透社，避免把其他通讯社的报道错记到它名下。Sources for this entry: The materials behind this entry, arranged by reliability, are as follows. First, official texts: the original Jiangyou Municipal Public Security Bureau police statement of August 4, 2025, preserved in Wikisource, which governs the statement's wording here; Jiangyou police responses the same day to Qilu Evening News and The Paper; the Mianyang Municipal Public Security Bureau (Mianyang Internet Police) refutation notice of August 5, 2025; Fujiang Observer, the Mianyang official-media outlet, on August 6, 2025; and the Jiangyou education and sports bureau's response to Jimu News. Second, censorship archives: the Jiangyou Sensitive Words record compiled by the Chinese editors of China Digital Times, together with its archived video compilations, which document the specific lists of banned hashtags, search restrictions and comment restrictions. Third, verified reporting by wire services and international media: video verified by Agence France-Presse; BBC reporting of August 5, 2025; The Guardian, August 8, 2025; video verified by NBC News; The New York Times, August 7, 2025; Bloomberg, August 12, 2025; and follow-up reporting by Radio France Internationale. Fourth, analysis and background: the Center for Strategic and International Studies, August 14, 2025; Freedom House China Dissent Monitor data; the China Media Project investigation of August 15, 2025 into the silence of artificial-intelligence chatbots; and the Taiwan FactCheck Center's video verification of August 15, 2025. Fifth, legal texts: Article 17 of the Criminal Law, the Law on the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency as revised in 2020, and the Law on Penalties for Administration of Public Security as revised in 2025. One point of method: after repeated searching, this site found no independent bylined Reuters report on the Jiangyou protests, and therefore does not cite Reuters in this entry, to avoid crediting one wire service with another's reporting.
核实说明：以下流传说法本站集中标为未核，不作为事实使用。一，抗议总人数，各来源从上千到数千不等，无官方数字，未核。二，抗议者被捕总人数，只有《卫报》目击者至少八人的口径，总数未核；受伤人数同样未核。三，催泪弹、电击棒的使用，见于个别报道和网传视频，未获独立核实，未核。四，欺凌持续约四小时的说法，多家媒体采用，但警方通报未确认时长，未核。五，打人者父母是官员、律师等背景说法，已被绵阳警方8月5日通报明确辟谣，本站按谣言记录，不按事实记录；双方花钱私了说法无出处、无官方回应，未核。六，受害人父亲残疾、不识字等细节，只见于个别自媒体和评论，未核；父亲为外出务工人员、母亲为聋哑人则有家属受访和多家报道支撑，按已注明出处的方式记录。七，现场出现共产党下台、习近平下台口号的那几段流传视频，经台湾事实查核中心核查带有后期配音，台湾公共电视台亦称未能核实，未核；还我民主口号则有《纽约时报》核实的视频为据，两者不可混为一谈。八，江油市委书记被免职、中央派专案组进驻、事件惊动高层等说法，只见于海外自媒体和评论节目，无任何可靠来源，未核，本站正文不予采用。九，打人者在处罚期间在外打台球的说法，出自当地居民转述，无影像和官方回应佐证，未核。凡本条目未列入正文的流行说法，都是因为过不了这一关，而不是因为本站没有看见。Verification notes: The following circulating claims are gathered here and marked unverified; none is used as fact. One, the total size of the protest: sources range from more than a thousand to several thousand, with no official figure — unverified. Two, the total number of protesters arrested: the only concrete figure is The Guardian's witness account of at least eight; the total is unverified, as is the number of injured. Three, the use of tear gas and electric prods: these appear in individual reports and circulated clips and have not been independently verified — unverified. Four, the claim that the bullying lasted about four hours: used by multiple outlets, but the police statement confirms no duration — unverified. Five, claims that the attackers' parents were officials, a lawyer or similar: expressly refuted by the Mianyang police notice of August 5 and recorded here as rumour, not fact; the claim that the sides settled for money has no source and no official response — unverified. Six, details such as the victim's father having a disability or being unable to read and write: found only in individual self-media and commentary — unverified; that the father is a migrant worker and the mother is deaf, by contrast, is supported by family interviews and multiple reports, and is recorded with its sources stated. Seven, the clips in which down with the Communist Party and down with Xi Jinping are shouted at the scene: found by the Taiwan FactCheck Center to carry dubbed audio, and described by Taiwan's Public Television Service as unverified — unverified; the cry of give us back democracy, by contrast, rests on video verified by The New York Times, and the two must not be conflated. Eight, claims that Jiangyou's Party secretary was dismissed, that the centre sent a special team into the city, or that the affair enraged the top leadership: found only in overseas self-media and commentary programmes, with no reliable source — unverified, and not used in the main text. Nine, the claim that the attackers were seen playing pool while supposedly under punishment: a relayed account from local residents, with no footage and no official response to support it — unverified. Any popular claim about this affair that does not appear in the main text of this entry is absent because it could not pass this test, not because this site never saw it.