|
On January 11 2012 01:35 InFdude wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 01:09 Hider wrote:On January 11 2012 01:00 phaib wrote:On January 11 2012 00:48 sad.wish wrote:
still murder is murder, u can protect yourself without killing someone..... Yes it might have been possible, but you miss the point. Obviously, he overdid it by stabbing the guy. However, the boy was in an extreme situation. He was severely afraid because of the on going bullying and simply wasn't able to make rational decisions anymore. That does not make him a coldblooded murderer who should go to prison. It is also unclear whether the boy intended to kill the bully. Obviously, he took the risk that it happens. He might have just randomly used the knife at a part of the bullies body where it kills him. I do think it makes a huge difference. In the end this would have never happened, if the school would use stricter methods on denying bullying in the first place. When you act in self defense the only thing that matters is trying to minizme the risk of you getting hurt. Some times its possible to minimze the risk without killing the other person, some times you have to kill him. You cant think like this: Well if i just stab him very weakly, he will probably run away and i am safe. But what if the bully doesn't act like this. WHat if there is a 1% possiblity that he will smack you with his other arm and then beat you to death, then you fuccking gotta overstab him, or do whatever it takes to minizime the risk of you dying. The risk of uncertainty should never benefit the bully. In a risk/reward situation the bullies life should have almost zero weights, as he is the one who is gulty, and the bullied the innocent. Why the hell would you risk your own life to save the bully? + Show Spoiler +I don't see how making sure he kills the bully is minimizing the risk for the bullied one.There were other kids around right?If I saw 1 of my friends getting stabbed to death I'd probably smash that other kids head with the nearest hard object I can find.He's lucky and the judges decision is still stupid in my eyes even everything I've red here.Tomorrow some other bullied kid is gonna find this story and try to take things into his own hands and things might not work out so well for him. If you play with the bull eventually you'll get the horns.
Exactly. Only in this case - the bull had a knife.
|
On January 11 2012 01:17 phaib wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 01:09 Hider wrote:On January 11 2012 01:00 phaib wrote:On January 11 2012 00:48 sad.wish wrote:
still murder is murder, u can protect yourself without killing someone..... Yes it might have been possible, but you miss the point. Obviously, he overdid it by stabbing the guy. However, the boy was in an extreme situation. He was severely afraid because of the on going bullying and simply wasn't able to make rational decisions anymore. That does not make him a coldblooded murderer who should go to prison. It is also unclear whether the boy intended to kill the bully. Obviously, he took the risk that it happens. He might have just randomly used the knife at a part of the bullies body where it kills him. I do think it makes a huge difference. In the end this would have never happened, if the school would use stricter methods on denying bullying in the first place. When you act in self defense the only thing that matters is trying to minizme the risk of you getting hurt. Some times its possible to minimze the risk without killing the other person, some times you have to kill him. You cant think like this: Well if i just stab him very weakly, he will probably run away and i am safe. But what if the bully doesn't act like this. WHat if there is a 1% possiblity that he will smack you with his other arm and then beat you to death, then you fuccking gotta overstab him, or do whatever it takes to minizime the risk of you dying. The risk of uncertainty should never benefit the bully. In a risk/reward situation the bullies life should have almost zero weights, as he is the one who is gulty, and the bullied the innocent. Why the hell would you risk your own life to save the bully? I think you should try to minimize the damage you do by self defending. But of course you are right in the fact this is not always possible. In particular, in extreme situations it would be completely wrong to punish someone for overdoing it. I really think the court's decision was right. So I guess we almost agree 
Trying to "minimize damage" in the course of self-defense is a good way to escalate a situation, and potentially put yourself at greater harm. If you were to physically harm me after I repeatedly told you to back away, I would act with my best interests in mind. Any injuries you end up with are your own fault.
That said, I agree the court made the right decision.
|
On January 11 2012 01:35 InFdude wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 01:09 Hider wrote:On January 11 2012 01:00 phaib wrote:On January 11 2012 00:48 sad.wish wrote:
still murder is murder, u can protect yourself without killing someone..... Yes it might have been possible, but you miss the point. Obviously, he overdid it by stabbing the guy. However, the boy was in an extreme situation. He was severely afraid because of the on going bullying and simply wasn't able to make rational decisions anymore. That does not make him a coldblooded murderer who should go to prison. It is also unclear whether the boy intended to kill the bully. Obviously, he took the risk that it happens. He might have just randomly used the knife at a part of the bullies body where it kills him. I do think it makes a huge difference. In the end this would have never happened, if the school would use stricter methods on denying bullying in the first place. When you act in self defense the only thing that matters is trying to minizme the risk of you getting hurt. Some times its possible to minimze the risk without killing the other person, some times you have to kill him. You cant think like this: Well if i just stab him very weakly, he will probably run away and i am safe. But what if the bully doesn't act like this. WHat if there is a 1% possiblity that he will smack you with his other arm and then beat you to death, then you fuccking gotta overstab him, or do whatever it takes to minizime the risk of you dying. The risk of uncertainty should never benefit the bully. In a risk/reward situation the bullies life should have almost zero weights, as he is the one who is gulty, and the bullied the innocent. Why the hell would you risk your own life to save the bully? I don't see how making sure he kills the bully is minimizing the risk for the bullied one.There were other kids around right?If I saw 1 of my friends getting stabbed to death I'd probably smash that other kids head with the nearest hard object I can find.He's lucky and the judges decision is still stupid in my eyes even everything I've red here.Tomorrow some other bullied kid is gonna find this story and try to take things into his own hands and things might not work out so well for him.If you play with the bull eventually you'll get the horns. And before someone says hurrr hurr so you'd kill too.There is a difference between seeing someone getting stabbed to death and someone getting a few punches from a 14 year old kid.
This isn't the point. Maybe he chose the wrong option objectively, but this isn't relevant. If the kid felt like at the time the best way to defend him self was to kill the bully, he should do that, and he is right in doing that. THe bullied guy Has no rights in this scenario.
Maybe it was afterall actually the correct decision, as the other bullied guys would be scared of getting hurt them self and run away. We dont know, but as I said this discussion is irrelevant in the proces of evaluating if he should value the potentital death of the bully in his decision making.
|
On January 11 2012 01:30 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 01:26 shizna wrote:On January 11 2012 00:56 Jojo131 wrote:On January 11 2012 00:54 shizna wrote:On January 11 2012 00:48 Hider wrote:
Cant believe ppl are discussing this. Some people are just so dumb. ITS FUCKING self defense. Self defense is self defense. Dont go defend the bully. Somebody died because he threatened another boy. Its only good he had a knife with him in school becasue this allowed him to defend him self.
IF somebody broke into your house and threatened to kill you would you A) Rather have a gun, B) Not have a gun.
Question 2: A) would you shoot him? B) Would you not shoot him and let him beat you up and possibly kill you?.
Serisouly some ppl have just been manipulated too much through school and their parents (and i kinda blame the evil governments for this), to make them think that acting in self defense is not justified. okay so what happens if the bully see's the knife, then pulls out a firearm and shoots the kid dead. he gets off scot-free because it was self defense? perfectly justified i suppose? "I'm going to beat you up" "Oh yeah, I've got a knife" "I expected that, so brought this gun with me" Do you see how stupid you sound right now? wrong. the bully has a reason to fear for his life in that situation. therefore he's more instinctively inclined to use his weapon to kill the kid. imo the kid had no reason to fear for his life. is a bully really going to seriously injure / kill his target infront of a crowd of kids?maybe the kid was dense as hell, which would explain why he used lethal force. in any case, that kid should be punished for murder. If you are being physically assaulted you have every right to fear for your life, especially when outnumbered. And the decision to seriously injure someone is irrelevant. The ease at which you can be seriously injured in a run of a the mill fight is very high and you should defend yourself and risk injuring/killing to minimize the risk to yourself.
poppycock...
the risk of serious injury is only high if one or both parties WANT to inflict serious injury.
in my experience, the bullies abused other kids in school a lot... physically and verbally. but no kid was really hurt badly... maybe some scrapes and bruises. fights happened on a daily basis in my old school... it was the norm.
yet one kid who was bullied, took a hockey stick to the back of a bully's head, splitting his head open and almost killing him. imo this act was just as 'cowardly' as the bullying itself and a pure act of mindless revenge.
did the kid stop to think about the bully's family, or even his own family if he'd been found guilty of murder and locked away for years? no.
it's a tough situation, but you can't give mentally unstable people a clause to justifiably murder anyone who threatens them.
|
On January 11 2012 01:40 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 01:17 phaib wrote:On January 11 2012 01:09 Hider wrote:On January 11 2012 01:00 phaib wrote:On January 11 2012 00:48 sad.wish wrote:
still murder is murder, u can protect yourself without killing someone..... Yes it might have been possible, but you miss the point. Obviously, he overdid it by stabbing the guy. However, the boy was in an extreme situation. He was severely afraid because of the on going bullying and simply wasn't able to make rational decisions anymore. That does not make him a coldblooded murderer who should go to prison. It is also unclear whether the boy intended to kill the bully. Obviously, he took the risk that it happens. He might have just randomly used the knife at a part of the bullies body where it kills him. I do think it makes a huge difference. In the end this would have never happened, if the school would use stricter methods on denying bullying in the first place. When you act in self defense the only thing that matters is trying to minizme the risk of you getting hurt. Some times its possible to minimze the risk without killing the other person, some times you have to kill him. You cant think like this: Well if i just stab him very weakly, he will probably run away and i am safe. But what if the bully doesn't act like this. WHat if there is a 1% possiblity that he will smack you with his other arm and then beat you to death, then you fuccking gotta overstab him, or do whatever it takes to minizime the risk of you dying. The risk of uncertainty should never benefit the bully. In a risk/reward situation the bullies life should have almost zero weights, as he is the one who is gulty, and the bullied the innocent. Why the hell would you risk your own life to save the bully? I think you should try to minimize the damage you do by self defending. But of course you are right in the fact this is not always possible. In particular, in extreme situations it would be completely wrong to punish someone for overdoing it. I really think the court's decision was right. So I guess we almost agree Trying to "minimize damage" in the course of self-defense is a good way to escalate a situation, and potentially put yourself at greater harm. If you were to physically harm me after I repeatedly told you to back away, I would act with my best interests in mind. Any injuries you end up with are your own fault. That said, I agree the court made the right decision.
Read above, maybe it wasn't the best decision, maybe it was (according to the logic, if you hit hard enouh the first time, noone will dare to hit back, if you only hit him weak, he will hit back, and if you dont hit he will keep hitting you).
|
I really love all these people who think its a better option to get bullied every single day. What kinda dream world do you live in?? Think we can all solve the worlds problems by talking about it with our feelings?? Bully's should fear that there actions have serious repercussions. I read someone say "Great now another kid getting bullied might try and stab his bully". Yah or maybe another bully will think "shit maybe I should stop?" It goes both ways. Violence rules all on this savage planet your either the hunter or the hunted.
|
Florida law states that if you are going to use deadly force to defend yourself, it can only be if you (or someone whose behalf you are acting on) are in active fear of losing their life or sustaining permanent bodily harm. If this is the case, you must act to "stop the threat."
This means if you have a gun, you must try to shoot to kill. The same applies to any other weapon. You cannot pull it out and threaten someone with it to try to get them to stop or just try to wound them.
It sounds harsh, but if you really think about the "active fear of losing their life or sustaining permanent bodily harm", a situation like that would require one to try to "stop the threat." If it doesn't, then the situation does not require the use of deadly force in the first place.
Just thought I would point out legality issues regarding this case, as a number of comments seem to revolve around it.
|
On January 11 2012 01:43 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 01:40 Gnosis wrote:On January 11 2012 01:17 phaib wrote:On January 11 2012 01:09 Hider wrote:On January 11 2012 01:00 phaib wrote:On January 11 2012 00:48 sad.wish wrote:
still murder is murder, u can protect yourself without killing someone..... Yes it might have been possible, but you miss the point. Obviously, he overdid it by stabbing the guy. However, the boy was in an extreme situation. He was severely afraid because of the on going bullying and simply wasn't able to make rational decisions anymore. That does not make him a coldblooded murderer who should go to prison. It is also unclear whether the boy intended to kill the bully. Obviously, he took the risk that it happens. He might have just randomly used the knife at a part of the bullies body where it kills him. I do think it makes a huge difference. In the end this would have never happened, if the school would use stricter methods on denying bullying in the first place. When you act in self defense the only thing that matters is trying to minizme the risk of you getting hurt. Some times its possible to minimze the risk without killing the other person, some times you have to kill him. You cant think like this: Well if i just stab him very weakly, he will probably run away and i am safe. But what if the bully doesn't act like this. WHat if there is a 1% possiblity that he will smack you with his other arm and then beat you to death, then you fuccking gotta overstab him, or do whatever it takes to minizime the risk of you dying. The risk of uncertainty should never benefit the bully. In a risk/reward situation the bullies life should have almost zero weights, as he is the one who is gulty, and the bullied the innocent. Why the hell would you risk your own life to save the bully? I think you should try to minimize the damage you do by self defending. But of course you are right in the fact this is not always possible. In particular, in extreme situations it would be completely wrong to punish someone for overdoing it. I really think the court's decision was right. So I guess we almost agree Trying to "minimize damage" in the course of self-defense is a good way to escalate a situation, and potentially put yourself at greater harm. If you were to physically harm me after I repeatedly told you to back away, I would act with my best interests in mind. Any injuries you end up with are your own fault. That said, I agree the court made the right decision. Read above, maybe it wasn't the best decision, maybe it was (according to the logic, if you hit hard enouh the first time, noone will dare to hit back, if you only hit him weak, he will hit back, and if you dont hit he will keep hitting you).
It's pointless speculation at this point, what was or was not the best decision.
|
On January 11 2012 01:44 Dizmaul wrote:
I really love all these people who think its a better option to get bullied every single day. What kinda dream world do you live in?? Think we can all solve the worlds problems by talking about it with our feelings?? Bully's should fear that there actions have serious repercussions. I read someone say "Great now another kid getting bullied might try and stab his bully". Yah or maybe another bully will think "shit maybe I should stop?" It goes both ways. Violence rules all on this savage planet your either the hunter or the hunted.
unless the bully didn't get the memo.
then he gives the kid a wedgie, and receives a perfectly legal screwdriver to the eye socket.
|
On January 11 2012 01:43 shizna wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 01:30 Myles wrote:On January 11 2012 01:26 shizna wrote:On January 11 2012 00:56 Jojo131 wrote:On January 11 2012 00:54 shizna wrote:On January 11 2012 00:48 Hider wrote:
Cant believe ppl are discussing this. Some people are just so dumb. ITS FUCKING self defense. Self defense is self defense. Dont go defend the bully. Somebody died because he threatened another boy. Its only good he had a knife with him in school becasue this allowed him to defend him self.
IF somebody broke into your house and threatened to kill you would you A) Rather have a gun, B) Not have a gun.
Question 2: A) would you shoot him? B) Would you not shoot him and let him beat you up and possibly kill you?.
Serisouly some ppl have just been manipulated too much through school and their parents (and i kinda blame the evil governments for this), to make them think that acting in self defense is not justified. okay so what happens if the bully see's the knife, then pulls out a firearm and shoots the kid dead. he gets off scot-free because it was self defense? perfectly justified i suppose? "I'm going to beat you up" "Oh yeah, I've got a knife" "I expected that, so brought this gun with me" Do you see how stupid you sound right now? wrong. the bully has a reason to fear for his life in that situation. therefore he's more instinctively inclined to use his weapon to kill the kid. imo the kid had no reason to fear for his life. is a bully really going to seriously injure / kill his target infront of a crowd of kids?maybe the kid was dense as hell, which would explain why he used lethal force. in any case, that kid should be punished for murder. If you are being physically assaulted you have every right to fear for your life, especially when outnumbered. And the decision to seriously injure someone is irrelevant. The ease at which you can be seriously injured in a run of a the mill fight is very high and you should defend yourself and risk injuring/killing to minimize the risk to yourself. poppycock... the risk of serious injury is only high if one or both parties WANT to inflict serious injury. in my experience, the bullies abused other kids in school a lot... physically and verbally. but no kid was really hurt badly... maybe some scrapes and bruises. fights happened on a daily basis in my old school... it was the norm. yet one kid who was bullied, took a hockey stick to the back of a bully's head, splitting his head open and almost killing him. imo this act was just as 'cowardly' as the bullying itself and a pure act of mindless revenge. did the kid stop to think about the bully's family, or even his own family if he'd been found guilty of murder and locked away for years? no. it's a tough situation, but you can't give mentally unstable people a clause to justifiably murder anyone who threatens them.
Man the UK sounds like a awesome place to go to school. Here in the US you would probably be afraid to go to a inner city school hah. You guys have metal detectors at your doors and full security teams? I know people who have been stabed, hit with pipes, bats, and i grew up in the suburbs of NYC. Fights at our school did not end like the ones at yours.
|
InF does bystander effect mean anything to you? How about people in shock?
You cannot get into everybody's mind. In some scenarios you can seize up and don't know what to really do.
I myself have been held at gun point a few times. Real and a pellet gun. One kid apparently snapped, yet I thought he was totally joking when he held the soft pellet gun up to my eye and tried to push me against a locker. I was like what the hell is this kid doing? I thought it was a complete joke yet many others were worried about not only my safety but their safety as well. I was totally oblivious to the idea of getting shot in the eye by a pellet gun. As he did put it up to within a inch of my eye. The kid was from Israel, so I have every reason to believe now that the pellet gun was pretty good as I'm aware of how well made Israeli pellet guns can be. He had a pretty warped look on his face at the time too.
Other kids reported him and the cops stepped in. I honestly had no idea I was in danger as I thought the kid was little threat to me. I like to think I carry myself well and I subdued the threat with no effort even though I was totally oblivious to the present danger I was in.
|
Saavedra's team also had anti-bullying experts testify
First off what is an anti-bullying expert? I wish i knew the full details of the story because There was far more then just bullying if someone brings a Knife to school.
|
On January 11 2012 01:44 Dizmaul wrote:
I really love all these people who think its a better option to get bullied every single day. What kinda dream world do you live in?? Think we can all solve the worlds problems by talking about it with our feelings?? Bully's should fear that there actions have serious repercussions. I read someone say "Great now another kid getting bullied might try and stab his bully". Yah or maybe another bully will think "shit maybe I should stop?" It goes both ways. Violence rules all on this savage planet your either the hunter or the hunted.
I think this is the result of the development of the welfare state. People get raised believing actions never has consequences, and that the government always will solve your problem, and that individuals has no rights. People are just getting serisouly manipulated so its no that big of wonder that some people has these extreme opiniions that self-defense isn't justified.
|
If battered women have a ready defense for killing their lousy husbands who beat them, maybe "Bully Victim Syndrome" should also be recognized
|
On January 11 2012 00:57 InFdude wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 00:49 MethodSC wrote:On January 11 2012 00:36 InFdude wrote:On January 11 2012 00:35 Myles wrote:On January 11 2012 00:33 InFdude wrote:On January 11 2012 00:29 Myles wrote:On January 11 2012 00:25 InFdude wrote:On January 11 2012 00:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 10 2012 23:39 FunnyPicture wrote:
I think murder is murder, he clearly planned on it considering he brought a deadly weapon to school. Did you read the article? He only used it once he was threatened repeatedly by a mob of kids, attacked, beaten severely, and needed to use it in self-defense. He almost certainly would have been killed if he hadn't used it. It saved his life. No it didn't.It saved him a beating.The kid is 100% a murderer in my eyes.Think about it for just 1 second, he prefered to just try to stab his way out of the fight instead of telling his parents or the teacher or someone.1 school fight is nothing.Kids fight all the time.He CHOSE to go the way of the knife instead of humiliating (in his eyes ) himself by asking for help some grown up.In my eyes anyone who would prefer to try to stab his way out of a beating instead of doing something else should go to jail.That's exactly where he belongs, where people stab each other. You're wrong, plain and simple. Going to authorities for bullies usually results in nothing positive. The best you can do is try to avoid it, and inevitably when you can't, defend yourself. You also don't seem to understand the difference between a 1 on 1 school fight and 8 on 1 beating. And you obviously can't understand someone DIED.He got bullied bu hu big deal.Killing for being bullied is now ok what next? May be one day when you are making too much noise I'll come and massacre your entire family and then say I need my sleep or it might have negative effects on my health. You're a moron if you think being a nuisance and physically assaulting someone are even remotely similar. You just cyber bullied me by insulting me.That could affect my mental health.Can I come and murder you now? Stop trolling before you get a warning. Not trolling just pointing out a slippery sloap.It starts with people justifying stabbing a bully and it ends with everybody stabbing everybody.If this kid can get away with such a crime then everyone who will ever be in any sort of fight like a bar fight or random brawl can just whip out a knife and start killing people. And don't know about the law in the US.But here even if someone is invading your house you can't act in self deffence with anything different than what you are being invaded with.If the robber has a gun you can shoot him.If he is unarmed you can't even stab him in self defence.
God damn it, mate, go read the PDF that's in the OP. The kid didn't "just stab" his bully for no reason before posting again.
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 11 2012 01:43 shizna wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 01:30 Myles wrote:On January 11 2012 01:26 shizna wrote:On January 11 2012 00:56 Jojo131 wrote:On January 11 2012 00:54 shizna wrote:On January 11 2012 00:48 Hider wrote:
Cant believe ppl are discussing this. Some people are just so dumb. ITS FUCKING self defense. Self defense is self defense. Dont go defend the bully. Somebody died because he threatened another boy. Its only good he had a knife with him in school becasue this allowed him to defend him self.
IF somebody broke into your house and threatened to kill you would you A) Rather have a gun, B) Not have a gun.
Question 2: A) would you shoot him? B) Would you not shoot him and let him beat you up and possibly kill you?.
Serisouly some ppl have just been manipulated too much through school and their parents (and i kinda blame the evil governments for this), to make them think that acting in self defense is not justified. okay so what happens if the bully see's the knife, then pulls out a firearm and shoots the kid dead. he gets off scot-free because it was self defense? perfectly justified i suppose? "I'm going to beat you up" "Oh yeah, I've got a knife" "I expected that, so brought this gun with me" Do you see how stupid you sound right now? wrong. the bully has a reason to fear for his life in that situation. therefore he's more instinctively inclined to use his weapon to kill the kid. imo the kid had no reason to fear for his life. is a bully really going to seriously injure / kill his target infront of a crowd of kids?maybe the kid was dense as hell, which would explain why he used lethal force. in any case, that kid should be punished for murder. If you are being physically assaulted you have every right to fear for your life, especially when outnumbered. And the decision to seriously injure someone is irrelevant. The ease at which you can be seriously injured in a run of a the mill fight is very high and you should defend yourself and risk injuring/killing to minimize the risk to yourself. poppycock... the risk of serious injury is only high if one or both parties WANT to inflict serious injury. in my experience, the bullies abused other kids in school a lot... physically and verbally. but no kid was really hurt badly... maybe some scrapes and bruises. fights happened on a daily basis in my old school... it was the norm. yet one kid who was bullied, took a hockey stick to the back of a bully's head, splitting his head open and almost killing him. imo this act was just as 'cowardly' as the bullying itself and a pure act of mindless revenge. did the kid stop to think about the bully's family, or even his own family if he'd been found guilty of murder and locked away for years? no. it's a tough situation, but you can't give mentally unstable people a clause to justifiably murder anyone who threatens them.
Hardly poppycock. I've seen dozens of people get seriously injured during sparring practice when neither side was trying to inflict injury - falling down is the easiest way. I also went to a school where bullying was common, as well as racial tensions. I've seen a kid's face left bloody and mangled after trying to avoid a confrontation with a bully. I've seen kids nearly killed after being in a fight with one kid and then his friends jumping in. Most school fights don't end like that, but the risk is there and I would always put my own happiness and safety over that of my attackers. To argue that you should consider the rights of a person who is actively infringing on your own is absurd imo.
|
On January 11 2012 01:47 shizna wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 01:44 Dizmaul wrote:
I really love all these people who think its a better option to get bullied every single day. What kinda dream world do you live in?? Think we can all solve the worlds problems by talking about it with our feelings?? Bully's should fear that there actions have serious repercussions. I read someone say "Great now another kid getting bullied might try and stab his bully". Yah or maybe another bully will think "shit maybe I should stop?" It goes both ways. Violence rules all on this savage planet your either the hunter or the hunted. unless the bully didn't get the memo. then he gives the kid a wedgie, and receives a perfectly legal screwdriver to the eye socket.
Haha wedgies and shit might fly over there in the UK, but here if you lay your hands on someone be prepared. Its takes a lot less then a wedgie. I saw a kid get his face smashed in by a pool ball cause he was talking shit.
|
|
|
On January 11 2012 01:48 logikly wrote:First off what is an anti-bullying expert? I wish i knew the full details of the story because There was far more then just bullying if someone brings a Knife to school.
Probably someone with a doctorate in the related social sciences that go along with bullying and related laws, as well as directly dealing with actual cases before. Psychology, sociology, even criminology, etc.
That's what I gathered from a Google search, anyway.
|
On January 11 2012 01:43 shizna wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 01:30 Myles wrote:On January 11 2012 01:26 shizna wrote:On January 11 2012 00:56 Jojo131 wrote:On January 11 2012 00:54 shizna wrote:On January 11 2012 00:48 Hider wrote:
Cant believe ppl are discussing this. Some people are just so dumb. ITS FUCKING self defense. Self defense is self defense. Dont go defend the bully. Somebody died because he threatened another boy. Its only good he had a knife with him in school becasue this allowed him to defend him self.
IF somebody broke into your house and threatened to kill you would you A) Rather have a gun, B) Not have a gun.
Question 2: A) would you shoot him? B) Would you not shoot him and let him beat you up and possibly kill you?.
Serisouly some ppl have just been manipulated too much through school and their parents (and i kinda blame the evil governments for this), to make them think that acting in self defense is not justified. okay so what happens if the bully see's the knife, then pulls out a firearm and shoots the kid dead. he gets off scot-free because it was self defense? perfectly justified i suppose? "I'm going to beat you up" "Oh yeah, I've got a knife" "I expected that, so brought this gun with me" Do you see how stupid you sound right now? wrong. the bully has a reason to fear for his life in that situation. therefore he's more instinctively inclined to use his weapon to kill the kid. imo the kid had no reason to fear for his life. is a bully really going to seriously injure / kill his target infront of a crowd of kids?maybe the kid was dense as hell, which would explain why he used lethal force. in any case, that kid should be punished for murder. If you are being physically assaulted you have every right to fear for your life, especially when outnumbered. And the decision to seriously injure someone is irrelevant. The ease at which you can be seriously injured in a run of a the mill fight is very high and you should defend yourself and risk injuring/killing to minimize the risk to yourself. poppycock... the risk of serious injury is only high if one or both parties WANT to inflict serious injury. He told the bully he didn't want to fight, and the bully attacked him anyway. If you are being beaten on like that, you aren't thinking "well, at least I won't be SERIOUSLY injured", you're thinking "How am I going to get him to stop hitting me?"in my experience, the bullies abused other kids in school a lot... physically and verbally. but no kid was really hurt badly... maybe some scrapes and bruises. fights happened on a daily basis in my old school... it was the norm. If that's true, your school was fucked up. School is for learning, not a place you go to to get the shit kicked out of you. People fighting every day doesn't happen in the real world, so it should never be acceptable in a learning environment.
yet one kid who was bullied, took a hockey stick to the back of a bully's head, splitting his head open and almost killing him. imo this act was just as 'cowardly' as the bullying itself and a pure act of mindless revenge. What are the circumstances of this attack? Was it a sneak attack in the locker room? Was it after the kid confronted his bully? Context is important.did the kid stop to think about the bully's family, or even his own family if he'd been found guilty of murder and locked away for years? no. People who are bullied for long amounts of time don't think about whether they will be locked up or punished for retaliating against their bully. They are only concerned with putting an end to their suffering caused by another person.it's a tough situation, but you can't give mentally unstable people a clause to justifiably murder anyone who threatens them. Where in the article does it say the kid is mentally unstable? Nowhere. Stop making things like this up. Either way he isn't being given free reign to kill anyone that threatens him, he is being given the right to defend himself from attack using anything he has at his disposal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
