|
1. Figure out why he's constantly picking on you. Try and confront him and perhaps befriend him/give him a peace offering.
2. Complain to the school administration, counselor. Ask own parents for advice.
3. Go to the bully's house and rat him out to his parents.
4. If the bully inflicted visible bruises on him, he can use that as hard evidence to get a doctor's corporal abuse report and take him to court.
5. Take a stand, but not by using lethal weapons. Fight back, lightly, make him realize you're not a wimp and his personal punching bag.
6. Even changing schools, perhaps opting for a better neighborhood, could have been a much better last resort choice than what he did.
lol what if:
1) he rejects peace offering and laugh at you
2) school ignores you
3) bully's parents call you a pussy and laugh at you endlessly
4) going to court is expensive, especially if you are just doing it for some brusies
5) he's got a gang and out numbers you
6) you meet a new gang who also beats you like the old one
|
On January 11 2012 02:47 King.Crimson wrote:
Seems like a lot of nerds in this thread were bully victims in the past and are now vicariously enjoying the demise of this particular one. It's actually kinda funny to witness all the pent up collective frustration that's released here.
Nevertheless, still can't fathom the fact that the kid escapes scott free after stabbing someone TWELVE TIMES. And yet over half the people posting here are wholeheartedly agreeing with his actions, claiming he had no choice. One dumbass even claimed that if he hadn't resorted to stabbing him to death, the beating he would have occurred from the bully would most likely result in his own death. Really bro? One year straight of getting his ass handed to him and he wasn't even put in the hospital, and yet this particular fight he would most likely end up dead? Fucking ridiculous what i'm reading around here.
Here's a list of alternatives he could have chosen from, that would be infinitely better than carrying around a knife with the intention of killing your (mild) aggressor.
1. Figure out why he's constantly picking on you. Try and confront him and perhaps befriend him/give him a peace offering.
2. Complain to the school administration, counselor. Ask own parents for advice.
3. Go to the bully's house and rat him out to his parents.
4. If the bully inflicted visible bruises on him, he can use that as hard evidence to get a doctor's corporal abuse report and take him to court.
5. Take a stand, but not by using lethal weapons. Fight back, lightly, make him realize you're not a wimp and his personal punching bag.
6. Even changing schools, perhaps opting for a better neighborhood, could have been a much better last resort choice than what he did.
Now here are some possible outcomes he will have to deal with in the future based on his actions.
1. Bully's parents appeal the court decision, win, and he gets legally punished. I agree with this one personally. At the very least, he should get some psychiatric help. There's no way his brain is not at least a bit dysfunctional after repeatedly stabbing someone and killing, especially at such a tender age.
2. Bully's friends (who are also most likely violent persons) might decide to revenge his death. Could result in an eye for an eye situation.
3. None of the above happen. But he will have to live the remainder of his life with the stigma and trauma that he killed someone. And however he will try to justify it, i can guarantee it won't sit easy with his conscience.
Bottom line, if you look at the it objectively, it's a clear lose-lose situation for all parties involved.
Your trying to make an analysis of how the bullied guy maximises his utility. But this isn't the point of this discussion. The discussion if whether the bullied guy is justified in his action of self defense in that specific situation.
There probably was a lot of other stuff he could have done, maybe it would have worked, maybe not. We dont know that, and there is no point in discussing it. But in that specific sitation, he doesn't have the option of running away, changing schools. And now you advice him to "fight back". Assuming they are both equal strong (most likely bully guy is stronger), why should he get into a 50-50 fight when he can win the fight with a 100% possibilty using a knife. When getting int a 50-50 fight you have no idea what is going to happen. He could get serisouly injured, and perhaps die at worst case scenario. Yeh most likely nothing bad would happen, but why the hell take the risk? He isn't the one violating other people. The bully is.
Its weird, becasue you probably would prioritize your life over anybody else, even your family members life, and definitely a bullies life. Why the hell should a bullies life be prioritized on equal food with your own life?
|
On January 11 2012 02:47 King.Crimson wrote:
Seems like a lot of nerds in this thread were bully victims in the past and are now vicariously enjoying the demise of this particular one. It's actually kinda funny to witness all the pent up collective frustration that's released here.
Nevertheless, still can't fathom the fact that the kid escapes scott free after stabbing someone TWELVE TIMES. And yet over half the people posting here are wholeheartedly agreeing with his actions, claiming he had no choice. One dumbass even claimed that if he hadn't resorted to stabbing him to death, the beating he would have occurred from the bully would most likely result in his own death. Really bro? One year straight of getting his ass handed to him and he wasn't even put in the hospital, and yet this particular fight he would most likely end up dead? Fucking ridiculous what i'm reading around here.
Here's a list of alternatives he could have chosen from, that would be infinitely better than carrying around a knife with the intention of killing your (mild) aggressor.
1. Figure out why he's constantly picking on you. Try and confront him and perhaps befriend him/give him a peace offering.
2. Complain to the school administration, counselor. Ask own parents for advice.
3. Go to the bully's house and rat him out to his parents.
4. If the bully inflicted visible bruises on him, he can use that as hard evidence to get a doctor's corporal abuse report and take him to court.
5. Take a stand, but not by using lethal weapons. Fight back, lightly, make him realize you're not a wimp and his personal punching bag.
6. Even changing schools, perhaps opting for a better neighborhood, could have been a much better last resort choice than what he did.
Now here are some possible outcomes he will have to deal with in the future based on his actions.
1. Bully's parents appeal the court decision, win, and he gets legally punished. I agree with this one personally. At the very least, he should get some psychiatric help. There's no way his brain is not at least a bit dysfunctional after repeatedly stabbing someone and killing, especially at such a tender age.
2. Bully's friends (who are also most likely violent persons) might decide to revenge his death. Could result in an eye for an eye situation.
3. None of the above happen. But he will have to live the remainder of his life with the stigma and trauma that he killed someone. And however he will try to justify it, i can guarantee it won't sit easy with his conscience.
Bottom line, if you look at the it objectively, it's a clear lose-lose situation for all parties involved.
Yo, KingCrimson... let me ask you, as not a nerd but as a guy that has been beaten badly, in cold blood by a gang of kids that did not like the fact that I looked at their general direction, when I was 17 years old, while walking on a busy street at midday. And as a guy who when even younger than that had to endure an amount of bullying. Who are you to dismiss this thread as the whinings of a bunch of abused nerds?? But your post should at least be warned.
Answering to the post itself, I have to say that you are pretty much correct. This is the right path and in the case of my younger brother, I took steps 1, 5, 6. It worked and it was the end of it.
But when alone and helpless a 14 year old scared kid cannot react intelligently. Being harassed does not mean he gets beaten so bad he must go to the hospital every day. But one day and when he believes he will, he reacts in an unpredictable fashion where (again stating that: the killing happened when surrounded by a gang of people that had stated that would harm him, that he was being beat on by someone and after enduring a year of harassment) going on rampage and killing someone is not out of the question. Sad but true.
|
On January 11 2012 02:57 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 02:47 King.Crimson wrote:
Seems like a lot of nerds in this thread were bully victims in the past and are now vicariously enjoying the demise of this particular one. It's actually kinda funny to witness all the pent up collective frustration that's released here.
Nevertheless, still can't fathom the fact that the kid escapes scott free after stabbing someone TWELVE TIMES. And yet over half the people posting here are wholeheartedly agreeing with his actions, claiming he had no choice. One dumbass even claimed that if he hadn't resorted to stabbing him to death, the beating he would have occurred from the bully would most likely result in his own death. Really bro? One year straight of getting his ass handed to him and he wasn't even put in the hospital, and yet this particular fight he would most likely end up dead? Fucking ridiculous what i'm reading around here.
Here's a list of alternatives he could have chosen from, that would be infinitely better than carrying around a knife with the intention of killing your (mild) aggressor.
1. Figure out why he's constantly picking on you. Try and confront him and perhaps befriend him/give him a peace offering.
2. Complain to the school administration, counselor. Ask own parents for advice.
3. Go to the bully's house and rat him out to his parents.
4. If the bully inflicted visible bruises on him, he can use that as hard evidence to get a doctor's corporal abuse report and take him to court.
5. Take a stand, but not by using lethal weapons. Fight back, lightly, make him realize you're not a wimp and his personal punching bag.
6. Even changing schools, perhaps opting for a better neighborhood, could have been a much better last resort choice than what he did.
Now here are some possible outcomes he will have to deal with in the future based on his actions.
1. Bully's parents appeal the court decision, win, and he gets legally punished. I agree with this one personally. At the very least, he should get some psychiatric help. There's no way his brain is not at least a bit dysfunctional after repeatedly stabbing someone and killing, especially at such a tender age.
2. Bully's friends (who are also most likely violent persons) might decide to revenge his death. Could result in an eye for an eye situation.
3. None of the above happen. But he will have to live the remainder of his life with the stigma and trauma that he killed someone. And however he will try to justify it, i can guarantee it won't sit easy with his conscience.
Bottom line, if you look at the it objectively, it's a clear lose-lose situation for all parties involved. Your trying to make an analysis of how the bullied guy maximises his utility. But this isn't the point of this discussion. The discussion if whether the bullied guy is justified in his action of self defense in that specific situation. There probably was a lot of other stuff he could have done, maybe it would have worked, maybe not. We dont know that, and there is no point in discussing it. But in that specific sitation, he doesn't have the option of running away, changing schools. And now you advice him to "fight back". Assuming they are both equal strong (most likely bully guy is stronger), why should he get into a 50-50 fight when he can win the fight with a 100% possibilty using a knife. When getting int a 50-50 fight you have no idea what is going to happen. He could get serisouly injured, and perhaps die at worst case scenario. Yeh most likely nothing bad would happen, but why the hell take the risk? He isn't the one violating other people. The bully is. Its weird, becasue you probably would prioritize your life over anybody else, even your family members life, and definitely a bullies life. Why the hell should a bullies life be prioritized on equal food with your own life?
Actually you misunderstood my post. I can understand the victim's course of action. He reached the threshold of maximum mental pain and fear he could take, and lashed out. Fine. But that means he caved in to his most primal and brutal instincts, and took another fellow man's life. And he should be punished in some way for that. And as someone already pointed out, him carrying a knife on him can be easily considered motif or premeditation for killing.
The point i was actually trying to make is the community bloodlust that takes place in this thread, with the majority of people agreeing and fully endorsing the kid's decision to stab his bully, for the reasons which i mentioned in the previous post and also because they are probably manipulated by the tendential nature of the article,.
|
This needs to be added to the original post!!!!!
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102.
This is the law in Florida. The only thing you should debate is should the law be changed or not. Otherwise the judge made the right choice based on the LAW.
|
Bravo to the court for seeing it for what it is; self defense. Very sad that a kid had to die though. If anyone is to blame it is the school system and the parents.
|
question:
should the school system be liable in some way for not discovering and preventing this?
|
On January 11 2012 03:03 King.Crimson wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 02:57 Hider wrote:On January 11 2012 02:47 King.Crimson wrote:
Seems like a lot of nerds in this thread were bully victims in the past and are now vicariously enjoying the demise of this particular one. It's actually kinda funny to witness all the pent up collective frustration that's released here.
Nevertheless, still can't fathom the fact that the kid escapes scott free after stabbing someone TWELVE TIMES. And yet over half the people posting here are wholeheartedly agreeing with his actions, claiming he had no choice. One dumbass even claimed that if he hadn't resorted to stabbing him to death, the beating he would have occurred from the bully would most likely result in his own death. Really bro? One year straight of getting his ass handed to him and he wasn't even put in the hospital, and yet this particular fight he would most likely end up dead? Fucking ridiculous what i'm reading around here.
Here's a list of alternatives he could have chosen from, that would be infinitely better than carrying around a knife with the intention of killing your (mild) aggressor.
1. Figure out why he's constantly picking on you. Try and confront him and perhaps befriend him/give him a peace offering.
2. Complain to the school administration, counselor. Ask own parents for advice.
3. Go to the bully's house and rat him out to his parents.
4. If the bully inflicted visible bruises on him, he can use that as hard evidence to get a doctor's corporal abuse report and take him to court.
5. Take a stand, but not by using lethal weapons. Fight back, lightly, make him realize you're not a wimp and his personal punching bag.
6. Even changing schools, perhaps opting for a better neighborhood, could have been a much better last resort choice than what he did.
Now here are some possible outcomes he will have to deal with in the future based on his actions.
1. Bully's parents appeal the court decision, win, and he gets legally punished. I agree with this one personally. At the very least, he should get some psychiatric help. There's no way his brain is not at least a bit dysfunctional after repeatedly stabbing someone and killing, especially at such a tender age.
2. Bully's friends (who are also most likely violent persons) might decide to revenge his death. Could result in an eye for an eye situation.
3. None of the above happen. But he will have to live the remainder of his life with the stigma and trauma that he killed someone. And however he will try to justify it, i can guarantee it won't sit easy with his conscience.
Bottom line, if you look at the it objectively, it's a clear lose-lose situation for all parties involved. Your trying to make an analysis of how the bullied guy maximises his utility. But this isn't the point of this discussion. The discussion if whether the bullied guy is justified in his action of self defense in that specific situation. There probably was a lot of other stuff he could have done, maybe it would have worked, maybe not. We dont know that, and there is no point in discussing it. But in that specific sitation, he doesn't have the option of running away, changing schools. And now you advice him to "fight back". Assuming they are both equal strong (most likely bully guy is stronger), why should he get into a 50-50 fight when he can win the fight with a 100% possibilty using a knife. When getting int a 50-50 fight you have no idea what is going to happen. He could get serisouly injured, and perhaps die at worst case scenario. Yeh most likely nothing bad would happen, but why the hell take the risk? He isn't the one violating other people. The bully is. Its weird, becasue you probably would prioritize your life over anybody else, even your family members life, and definitely a bullies life. Why the hell should a bullies life be prioritized on equal food with your own life? Actually you misunderstood my post. I can understand the victim's course of action. He reached the threshold of maximum mental pain and fear he could take, and lashed out. Fine. But that means he caved in to his most primal and brutal instincts, and took another fellow man's life. And he should be punished in some way for that. And as someone already pointed out, him carrying a knife on him can be easily considered motif or premeditation for killing. The point i was actually trying to make is the community bloodlust that takes place in this thread, with the majority of people agreeing and fully endorsing the kid's decision to stab his bully, for the reasons which i mentioned in the previous post and also because they are probably manipulated by the tendential nature of the article,.
Then why is it relevant to discuss what he could have done (like changing school). That wasn't an option in this scenario. The options were probably:
1) Do nothing and get beat up.
2) Fight back with hands and probably get beat up.
3) Minizime your own chance of getting serisous injured/die, which includes stabbing the bullying guy.
As it seems you kinda favor option 1 and 2. But how do you know that these options do not include a small risk of getting serisouly injured? Options 3 (from an objectively point of view) probably includes a risk as well. IF his friends decided to revenge the bullying guy. But that isn't really a relevant discussion, as we are analyzing this from the bullied guys point of view.
The bullied guy very well could believe that his best decision at the moment was to defend him self with a knife. And this is when self defense is justified.
If the bullied guy previisouly had been getting bullied but at the present time wasn't in any kind of danger but for some reason decided to kill the bully guy then it would be revenge and self defense was not justified.
While we dont know the nature of the specific event, that only means we dont know the exact probablities of him getting serisouly injured. But the exact probabilities aren't relevant. If the probabili is 0.5% of 10% is not important. What is relevant is whether the bullied guy feel there is a possiblity of getting serisouly injured/killled, and hence he is allowed to defend him self.
|
let's flip the question and ask things this way:
1) When IS IT ok to kill someone in self-defence??
2) can self-defence ever be something that is commendable (instead of just acceptable)? if so when?
|
On January 11 2012 03:15 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 03:03 King.Crimson wrote:On January 11 2012 02:57 Hider wrote:On January 11 2012 02:47 King.Crimson wrote:
Seems like a lot of nerds in this thread were bully victims in the past and are now vicariously enjoying the demise of this particular one. It's actually kinda funny to witness all the pent up collective frustration that's released here.
Nevertheless, still can't fathom the fact that the kid escapes scott free after stabbing someone TWELVE TIMES. And yet over half the people posting here are wholeheartedly agreeing with his actions, claiming he had no choice. One dumbass even claimed that if he hadn't resorted to stabbing him to death, the beating he would have occurred from the bully would most likely result in his own death. Really bro? One year straight of getting his ass handed to him and he wasn't even put in the hospital, and yet this particular fight he would most likely end up dead? Fucking ridiculous what i'm reading around here.
Here's a list of alternatives he could have chosen from, that would be infinitely better than carrying around a knife with the intention of killing your (mild) aggressor.
1. Figure out why he's constantly picking on you. Try and confront him and perhaps befriend him/give him a peace offering.
2. Complain to the school administration, counselor. Ask own parents for advice.
3. Go to the bully's house and rat him out to his parents.
4. If the bully inflicted visible bruises on him, he can use that as hard evidence to get a doctor's corporal abuse report and take him to court.
5. Take a stand, but not by using lethal weapons. Fight back, lightly, make him realize you're not a wimp and his personal punching bag.
6. Even changing schools, perhaps opting for a better neighborhood, could have been a much better last resort choice than what he did.
Now here are some possible outcomes he will have to deal with in the future based on his actions.
1. Bully's parents appeal the court decision, win, and he gets legally punished. I agree with this one personally. At the very least, he should get some psychiatric help. There's no way his brain is not at least a bit dysfunctional after repeatedly stabbing someone and killing, especially at such a tender age.
2. Bully's friends (who are also most likely violent persons) might decide to revenge his death. Could result in an eye for an eye situation.
3. None of the above happen. But he will have to live the remainder of his life with the stigma and trauma that he killed someone. And however he will try to justify it, i can guarantee it won't sit easy with his conscience.
Bottom line, if you look at the it objectively, it's a clear lose-lose situation for all parties involved. Your trying to make an analysis of how the bullied guy maximises his utility. But this isn't the point of this discussion. The discussion if whether the bullied guy is justified in his action of self defense in that specific situation. There probably was a lot of other stuff he could have done, maybe it would have worked, maybe not. We dont know that, and there is no point in discussing it. But in that specific sitation, he doesn't have the option of running away, changing schools. And now you advice him to "fight back". Assuming they are both equal strong (most likely bully guy is stronger), why should he get into a 50-50 fight when he can win the fight with a 100% possibilty using a knife. When getting int a 50-50 fight you have no idea what is going to happen. He could get serisouly injured, and perhaps die at worst case scenario. Yeh most likely nothing bad would happen, but why the hell take the risk? He isn't the one violating other people. The bully is. Its weird, becasue you probably would prioritize your life over anybody else, even your family members life, and definitely a bullies life. Why the hell should a bullies life be prioritized on equal food with your own life? Actually you misunderstood my post. I can understand the victim's course of action. He reached the threshold of maximum mental pain and fear he could take, and lashed out. Fine. But that means he caved in to his most primal and brutal instincts, and took another fellow man's life. And he should be punished in some way for that. And as someone already pointed out, him carrying a knife on him can be easily considered motif or premeditation for killing. The point i was actually trying to make is the community bloodlust that takes place in this thread, with the majority of people agreeing and fully endorsing the kid's decision to stab his bully, for the reasons which i mentioned in the previous post and also because they are probably manipulated by the tendential nature of the article,. Then why is it relevant to discuss what he could have done (like changing school). That wasn't an option in this scenario. The options were probably: 1) Do nothing and get beat up. 2) Fight back with hands and probably get beat up. 3) Minizime your own chance of getting serisous injured/die, which includes stabbing the bullying guy. As it seems you kinda favor option 1 and 2. But how do you know that these options do not include a small risk of getting serisouly injured? Options 3 (from an objectively point of view) probably includes a risk as well. IF his friends decided to revenge the bullying guy. But that isn't really a relevant discussion, as we are analyzing this from the bullied guys point of view. The bullied guy very well could believe that his best decision at the moment was to defend him self with a knife. And this is when self defense is justified. If the bullied guy previisouly had been getting bullied but at the present time wasn't in any kind of danger but for some reason decided to kill the bully guy then it would be revenge and self defense was not justified. While we dont know the nature of the specific event, that only means we dont know the exact probablities of him getting serisouly injured. But the exact probabilities aren't relevant. If the probabili is 0.5% of 10% is not important. What is relevant is whether the bullied guy feel there is a possiblity of getting serisouly injured/killled, and hence he is allowed to defend him self.
By your logic, every time a fight occurs, the physically weaker dude should always resort to pulling out a weapon and attempt to kill the other guy, so as to "minimize his own chance of getting injured"
I rest my case.
|
I feel I should add some information as someone who has lived in Florida their entire life. Specifically to those suggest that he should have changed schools. I do believe in all Florida that you are required to goto a certain public school based on where you live. There are a few exceptions for academic achievement or sheer failure, but for most people this is the case. Given then that the only ways to change schools would be to move or goto a private school. It is very likely that the family could not afford to do either of these such that it wasn't an actual option.
I also feel it's worth mentioning that Florida doesn't have a very good public school system. Apparently we're about average nationally, but I can tell you that it's likely distorted by the private schools raising the average.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
|
On January 11 2012 03:23 Kalingingsong wrote:
let's flip the question and ask things this way:
1) When IS IT ok to kill someone in self-defence??
2) can self-defence ever be something that is commendable (instead of just acceptable)? if so when?
1) I guess the law does a decent job of describing when.
2) When (from an objective) point of view he maxisimes his utility through self defense. Most of the time he will maxisime his utility through minimizing him getting serisouly injured/killed. I guess some people however rather not kill if there only is a very small probability of getting killed them selves, and prefers to take the beating. But this depends on personal preferences.
|
On January 11 2012 03:23 Kalingingsong wrote:
let's flip the question and ask things this way:
1) When IS IT ok to kill someone in self-defence??
2) can self-defence ever be something that is commendable (instead of just acceptable)? if so when?
Well i can tell you how it's like in my country. You cannot use a dangerous weapon, such as a knife or gun, on someone, until that someone has proven his intentions to harm you with an equally dangerous weapon. Thus, if some guy threatens me but is barehanded, if i take out a knife and stab him, i'm gonna get trialed and will very likely end up in jail.
|
King Crimson what the hell are you debating this is pretty cut and dry
"(He) had more than enough reason to believe he was in danger of death or great bodily harm," she wrote in her decision.
That was what the judge decided. The law states that there is nothing illegal about it. Do you not understand that if you feel like your life is in danger or great bodily harm may come to you, use of deadly force is perfectly legal.
I'd take the judge's decision over your opinion of what the kid was feeling.
The only thing you can disagree with is the law.
|
On January 11 2012 03:29 King.Crimson wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 03:23 Kalingingsong wrote:
let's flip the question and ask things this way:
1) When IS IT ok to kill someone in self-defence??
2) can self-defence ever be something that is commendable (instead of just acceptable)? if so when? Well i can tell you how it's like in my country. You cannot use a dangerous weapon, such as a knife or gun, on someone, until that someone has proven his intentions to harm you with an equally dangerous weapon. Thus, if some guy threatens me but is barehanded, if i take out a knife and stab him, i'm gonna get trialed and will very likely end up in jail.
How does that make any sense?
If you attack me with a knife, I can say, "Hold on a second before killing me- let me go get my own knife so we can make this an even fight"?
The whole point of attacking- or defending- with a weapon is to make it one-sided in your favor. That's why weapons are controversial to begin with.
By your country's law, every defender is pretty much fucked (unless everyone carries around a whole spectrum of weapons "just in case" they get attacked first by a similar weapon).
EDIT: What if a guy much bigger and stronger than you physically attacks you with his bare hands? Are you just screwed?
|
On January 11 2012 03:25 King.Crimson wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 03:15 Hider wrote:On January 11 2012 03:03 King.Crimson wrote:On January 11 2012 02:57 Hider wrote:On January 11 2012 02:47 King.Crimson wrote:
Seems like a lot of nerds in this thread were bully victims in the past and are now vicariously enjoying the demise of this particular one. It's actually kinda funny to witness all the pent up collective frustration that's released here.
Nevertheless, still can't fathom the fact that the kid escapes scott free after stabbing someone TWELVE TIMES. And yet over half the people posting here are wholeheartedly agreeing with his actions, claiming he had no choice. One dumbass even claimed that if he hadn't resorted to stabbing him to death, the beating he would have occurred from the bully would most likely result in his own death. Really bro? One year straight of getting his ass handed to him and he wasn't even put in the hospital, and yet this particular fight he would most likely end up dead? Fucking ridiculous what i'm reading around here.
Here's a list of alternatives he could have chosen from, that would be infinitely better than carrying around a knife with the intention of killing your (mild) aggressor.
1. Figure out why he's constantly picking on you. Try and confront him and perhaps befriend him/give him a peace offering.
2. Complain to the school administration, counselor. Ask own parents for advice.
3. Go to the bully's house and rat him out to his parents.
4. If the bully inflicted visible bruises on him, he can use that as hard evidence to get a doctor's corporal abuse report and take him to court.
5. Take a stand, but not by using lethal weapons. Fight back, lightly, make him realize you're not a wimp and his personal punching bag.
6. Even changing schools, perhaps opting for a better neighborhood, could have been a much better last resort choice than what he did.
Now here are some possible outcomes he will have to deal with in the future based on his actions.
1. Bully's parents appeal the court decision, win, and he gets legally punished. I agree with this one personally. At the very least, he should get some psychiatric help. There's no way his brain is not at least a bit dysfunctional after repeatedly stabbing someone and killing, especially at such a tender age.
2. Bully's friends (who are also most likely violent persons) might decide to revenge his death. Could result in an eye for an eye situation.
3. None of the above happen. But he will have to live the remainder of his life with the stigma and trauma that he killed someone. And however he will try to justify it, i can guarantee it won't sit easy with his conscience.
Bottom line, if you look at the it objectively, it's a clear lose-lose situation for all parties involved. Your trying to make an analysis of how the bullied guy maximises his utility. But this isn't the point of this discussion. The discussion if whether the bullied guy is justified in his action of self defense in that specific situation. There probably was a lot of other stuff he could have done, maybe it would have worked, maybe not. We dont know that, and there is no point in discussing it. But in that specific sitation, he doesn't have the option of running away, changing schools. And now you advice him to "fight back". Assuming they are both equal strong (most likely bully guy is stronger), why should he get into a 50-50 fight when he can win the fight with a 100% possibilty using a knife. When getting int a 50-50 fight you have no idea what is going to happen. He could get serisouly injured, and perhaps die at worst case scenario. Yeh most likely nothing bad would happen, but why the hell take the risk? He isn't the one violating other people. The bully is. Its weird, becasue you probably would prioritize your life over anybody else, even your family members life, and definitely a bullies life. Why the hell should a bullies life be prioritized on equal food with your own life? Actually you misunderstood my post. I can understand the victim's course of action. He reached the threshold of maximum mental pain and fear he could take, and lashed out. Fine. But that means he caved in to his most primal and brutal instincts, and took another fellow man's life. And he should be punished in some way for that. And as someone already pointed out, him carrying a knife on him can be easily considered motif or premeditation for killing. The point i was actually trying to make is the community bloodlust that takes place in this thread, with the majority of people agreeing and fully endorsing the kid's decision to stab his bully, for the reasons which i mentioned in the previous post and also because they are probably manipulated by the tendential nature of the article,. Then why is it relevant to discuss what he could have done (like changing school). That wasn't an option in this scenario. The options were probably: 1) Do nothing and get beat up. 2) Fight back with hands and probably get beat up. 3) Minizime your own chance of getting serisous injured/die, which includes stabbing the bullying guy. As it seems you kinda favor option 1 and 2. But how do you know that these options do not include a small risk of getting serisouly injured? Options 3 (from an objectively point of view) probably includes a risk as well. IF his friends decided to revenge the bullying guy. But that isn't really a relevant discussion, as we are analyzing this from the bullied guys point of view. The bullied guy very well could believe that his best decision at the moment was to defend him self with a knife. And this is when self defense is justified. If the bullied guy previisouly had been getting bullied but at the present time wasn't in any kind of danger but for some reason decided to kill the bully guy then it would be revenge and self defense was not justified. While we dont know the nature of the specific event, that only means we dont know the exact probablities of him getting serisouly injured. But the exact probabilities aren't relevant. If the probabili is 0.5% of 10% is not important. What is relevant is whether the bullied guy feel there is a possiblity of getting serisouly injured/killled, and hence he is allowed to defend him self. By your logic, every time a fight occurs, the physically weaker dude should always resort to pulling out a weapon and attempt to kill the other guy, so as to "minimize his own chance of getting injured" I rest my case.
You misunderstood what i wrote, which is weird as I said there never was any point of discussion what the "best" option would be. I am only trying to discuss if he is justified in doing what he did. Do you serisouly think one is not justified in the minimizing proces? If you feel you might get killed by an evil man with a possiblity of 1 %.
Would you A) Fight back with your hands and fear getting killed. B) Kill him with a gun. C) Dont do anything and fear getting killed.
|
Well i can tell you how it's like in my country. You cannot use a dangerous weapon, such as a knife or gun, on someone, until that someone has proven his intentions to harm you with an equally dangerous weapon. Thus, if some guy threatens me but is barehanded, if i take out a knife and stab him, i'm gonna get trialed and will very likely end up in jail.
Interesting, i'm curious about the following: does your country's law say anything about what happens if the person is a lot stronger than you and can do a lot more with his bare-hands than your bare-hands? example: some young guy who knows wrestling attacks an old woman etc
|
The true question is did he left click or right click to get the kill lolol ok im sry bad person here.
|
On January 11 2012 03:29 King.Crimson wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 03:23 Kalingingsong wrote:
let's flip the question and ask things this way:
1) When IS IT ok to kill someone in self-defence??
2) can self-defence ever be something that is commendable (instead of just acceptable)? if so when? Well i can tell you how it's like in my country. You cannot use a dangerous weapon, such as a knife or gun, on someone, until that someone has proven his intentions to harm you with an equally dangerous weapon. Thus, if some guy threatens me but is barehanded, if i take out a knife and stab him, i'm gonna get trialed and will very likely end up in jail.
Your government is very evil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
