On January 10 2012 19:10 Marcus420 wrote: Almost similar to Varg Vikerens. He was in a death metal band where his bandmate threatened him with torture and possibly going to kill him. Varg killed him first but the law wasnt on his side.
If the child was in self defence; the fucker probably deserved it.
Not to attempt and invalidate your point or anything, but Varg was in a black metal band and is in fact considered one of the most influential contributors to the norwegian black metal movement of the 90s. Just thought I'd put that out there so that nobody gets confused. Sorry for the off-topic, other than that I agree with you, like I've posted before.
Kid didn't stab bully because bully threatened him with a beating. Kid stabbed bully WHILE BEING PHYSICALLY BEATEN. You don't think the verdict would be a bit different if Varg committed the murder while actually being tortured to death?
On January 10 2012 19:54 Silidons wrote: Makes me sick so many people here think it is okay to kill another human over the fear of being beaten up. Remember that one bully in Australia? When the kid who was getting bullied just stood up for himself and dropped the bully? Yeah I bet the bully won't do shit anymore.
So many people in this thread are pathetic if you think that it is okay to kill someone over stupid shit like this. Worse comes to worse the kid could say "Look I have a fucking knife" and I bet you the other guy would have backed off. This isn't a life and death situation and almost every man is going to have to fight sometime or another in his lifetime, what ever happened to becoming a stronger person?
Could he have just shown the guy he was real by just slicing his leg or arm? Why did he actually have to fucking kill him? He's a fucking pathetic human.
"Over the fear of getting beaten up?" It was while he was actually getting beaten up and in fear of his life. The bully continued to hit him after he pulled out the knife and started stabbing away to defend himself. What else do you expect him to do?
On January 10 2012 20:29 isleyofthenorth wrote: I feel ashamed after reading some more in this thread replies like "He had it coming" "Doesent matter he's dead, he was a worthless person" "He was acting in self defense and tried to avoid conflict before his manslaughter, therefor he's 100% innocent"
I facepalm at humanity even here at TL, where sanity and intelligence is pretty highly concentrated
Knee jerk reactions and sticking to absolute sweeping statements like "Killing is always wrong" as truth, isn't intelligence.
always false??? killing in fear of getting beaten is always false
Killing in fear of getting beaten =/= killing while getting beaten and in fear of getting beaten to death.
On January 10 2012 21:35 crankkky wrote: hmm this is one of those cases they there is the grey area on him murdering the bully or self defense well seeing that the bully initiated the fight i dare say that that the kid had a right to self defense BUT im pretty sure it your suppose to defending yourself you should have done it equal force (example being person A has a gun person B also has a gun hence justified) but in our case it was a lethal wepon and unarmed so im a liitle eddgy on calling it self defense
~ take note the thing i said about equal; force being used in self defense was told by my english teacher so i may or may not be entirely accurate
Take note that this is an entirely inaccurate portrayal of self defense. It has nothing to do with equal force, it's about the danger you are in of death or grievous bodily harm and when you chose to stop fighting back. It's only not justified (regardless of weapons) if you choose to continue to attack and harm your assailant after it is clear that he/she can not harm you or the people around you in any way. For example, if I chase you and attack you with a knife and you pull out a gun and shoot me in the leg so I stop and run away, you have no right to keep shooting or chase me down to continue shooting. However if you hit me in the leg and I insist on continuing to try and attack you, you have every right to continue shooting me until I stop. The bully continued fighting after the knife was pulled and after getting stabbed. There are no accounts of the victim incapacitating the bully and then getting on top of him with a knife and stabbing him to make sure he was dead.
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.
That's a retarded comparison. He didn't go up to a bully after one too many fights and shiv the guy. He was getting his ass beat when he pulled out the knife to fight back. Obviously he didn't stop to think about the consequences because one big immediate consequence of not doing anything was staring him in the face: He could actually be beaten to death.
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.
Anti-bullying experts goals are to bring awareness and take preemptive measures to stop bullying. They have several backgrounds. They can be psychotherapists, motivational speakers, researchers, etc. yet their goal and mandate is the same.
Let's just say they are well-versed when it comes to bullying and this is their practice.
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?
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.
I believe you are forgetting the circumstances under which the killing happened. The kid who was bullied, after trying to get away and after being surrounded by the bullys friends and after he had taken the first shot, then and only then did counter-act. The hokey stick incedent you describe is premeditated.
At this moment one does not think rationally. You are doing things on instinct. Do you think it was a mentally unstable psychotic mass murderer-to-happen who killed the bully?? NO, it was a scared kid whom the state/school/parents (of both parties) did not manage to protect.
On a second note, I am sure that in your school fights happened all the day and that bullying was the norm. In mine as well. Noone killed anybody because of that, a bloody nose or some bruises at most. But what does this mean? Does it mean that it is an acceptable behavior to let someone bully another kid? Or does it mean that when for the period of one year a kid is bullied and at some point he is ganked up by his bullies and after they express their intentions of beating him, then the kid should just accept what was to happen?
It is society's fault. The school and the police should have protected the victim and not let that happen. But talking strictly about the incident, there was a clear agressor (or a handful of them) and a clear victim, who did the killing in self defence and with his blood boiling with fear and adrenaline. This was no name calling, they had the intention (and they had started with the procedure) of beating him and he responded to that.
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.
What was that word you used before... Ah yes Poppycock!
This is just plain tragic, but no matter who you fault for this, it certainly supports the notion that we need to be doing everything we can to eliminate bullying. I can't imagine this would have happened without the bullying :/
No one should accept bullying as a reality, we're a better people than that. We are always seeking to improve our society and the general human experience, so I don't see why some people act like bullying isn't something we should seek to eliminate. Its not like it has some kinda fucking sentimental or cultural value or something. Be a little bit more forward thinking.
On January 11 2012 02:08 Mohdoo wrote: This is just plain tragic, but no matter who you fault for this, it certainly supports the notion that we need to be doing everything we can to eliminate bullying. I can't imagine this would have happened without the bullying :/
No one should accept bullying as a reality, we're a better people than that. We are always seeking to improve our society and the general human experience, so I don't see why some people act like bullying isn't something we should seek to eliminate. Its not like it has some kinda fucking sentimental or cultural value or something. Be a little bit more forward thinking.
On January 11 2012 02:08 Mohdoo wrote: This is just plain tragic, but no matter who you fault for this, it certainly supports the notion that we need to be doing everything we can to eliminate bullying. I can't imagine this would have happened without the bullying :/
Eliminating bullying is pretty unrealistic. Bullying has existed since strong people discovered they could manhandle the weak. There would have do be some way of changing out our human brains for ones which are incapable of identifying prey. If we truly are social critters, there will always be those among us who gain social approval by being dicks to those who lack it. My question is, does that mean you deserve to die?
If you look at the picture of the kid he doesn't look like a confident or big kid. He was probably carrying a knife because he realized that if a group of kids beat him up they would have been on trial for the same reason he is except they wouldn't get off.
There is 1 red line crossed here. U should never kill anyone, direct or indirect, fast or slow.
The 1st case, direct and fast, should be obvious.
The 2nd case, indirect and slow, is tricky and vague.
Physical Bulling can likely leave scares in the Kids Personalty for a Lifetime, one bullied kid i knew suicided in his later Life, even though he has "made it". In rare cases Bullies even beat their victims to death, mostly unintended.
A Teenager constantly threatend the others health and life even without any considerate reason to do so, he crossed the line, no one stopped him (a failure of Americas involved Schools, involved Parents and Morals).
He got killed because the guy he physically abused, feared for his life.
Id say, No Big Loss for Humanity, but an Advice for the Society he lived in.
(Thats only my Version out of the Sources ive read, phrone to errors, take it with a grain of salt)
Once he pulled the knife, it was probably almost a life-or-death thing right there. If he hadn't killed the bully, he'd have been beaten to death on the spot. Or if he only injured the bully, he'd be beat to death later.
Finally a court decision that sounds right in the news, those seem to be rare nowadays.
On January 11 2012 02:08 Mohdoo wrote: This is just plain tragic, but no matter who you fault for this, it certainly supports the notion that we need to be doing everything we can to eliminate bullying. I can't imagine this would have happened without the bullying :/
Eliminating bullying is pretty unrealistic. Bullying has existed since strong people discovered they could manhandle the weak. There would have do be some way of changing out our human brains for ones which are incapable of identifying prey. If we truly are social critters, there will always be those among us who gain social approval by being dicks to those who lack it. My question is, does that mean you deserve to die?
No, you do not "deserve" to die. But the person who's life and lifelong well being is under threat DESERVES the right to defend themselves.
EPT
