EPTIf you make the decision to harm somebody else, you have waived all rights you have in regards to your own safety. Take that risk, fine, but if your victim ends up as the victor, too bad for you. You acted like a piece of shit and lost.
Bully Victim stabbed Bully to Death - Page 41
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Aevum
Canada27 Posts
If you make the decision to harm somebody else, you have waived all rights you have in regards to your own safety. Take that risk, fine, but if your victim ends up as the victor, too bad for you. You acted like a piece of shit and lost. | ||
|
LegendaryZ
United States1583 Posts
On January 11 2012 04:52 StarStruck wrote: Not everyone sees the same solutions as you. I think that's quite evident in this thread. If you allow yourself to be a complete pushover people will continue to take advantage of you in various situations and it can only get worse. Making the decision to not carry a knife to school in response to people being assholes isn't being a "pushover" nor is running from an unfavorable situation. This is the precise mindset that leads people to believe that violence is the only practical solution when it actually isn't in the vast majority of instances.[/quote] Hopefully it will stop, but more often than not no. Bullies need a fix. No good transpires from bullying. I'll agree that nothing good transpires from bullying, but it does stop more often than not. People grow up and grow out of it. It's not a situation that's likely to continue escalating to a deadly scenario either. It's not always avoidable because like I said many times over. Well, if you are genuinely fearing for your life, you always have the option to refuse to go to school or request a transfer until the situation is resolved. If you honestly fear that you might die, why are you choosing to go ahead and put yourself in that situation? Really the only time it's unavoidable is a random assault. This wasn't such a case. You cannot control people's actions or know what the fuck is going on in their head. This is the most important part. Of course not. This is exactly why you don't want to escalate the situation. How do you know that pulling out a knife isn't going to set something off in someone else's head where they suddenly fear for their own life and end up killing you instead? You're only adding to the potential chaos. The kid was socially awkward and was taken advantage of. Not everyone will ride out a storm or see clear skies from a big tunnel (tunnel vision). He repeatedly said he didn't want to fight. Bully made a big mistake and pushed the action. It's true, not everyone sees hope, but that's all the more reason why we need to remind people that it exists. Pretty piss poor judgements on both their parts. An unreadable scenario. Pretty much.... _____________________ On January 11 2012 04:54 Dizmaul wrote: lesson of the day. Run from your problems and they eventually go away. Good job not understanding a word I wrote. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On January 11 2012 05:01 Tien wrote:Even if the bully did not have the conscious decision to deadly or severely harm the victim, he very well might have. This is the main issue. As humans, we cannot read the minds of people assaulting us. You cannot know ahead of time whether a hostile group wants to steal your money, beat you up, rape you, or kill you. Therefore, unless we have the extreme upper-hand in the engagement, it is often impossible to wait and see what the intent of the attackers are. Unfortunately, the fragile nature of the human body means that if you do not immediately defend with force, your ability to do so will degrade until you lose your option to do so. Revealing your capabilities as a threat display can often lead to the opponents escalating as well, and cost you one of your few remaining advantages. Consequently, it is often correct from both a moral/ethical and a self-defense point of view to use all means necessary to end the confrontation. | ||
|
Tien
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On January 11 2012 04:59 sunprince wrote: Even cops, who are heavily trained to do this sort of thing, sometimes overreact and defensively kill people unnecessarily. And yet, people like you who have (a) never been in that situation or (b) didn't have the capability to defend yourself, sit here on your moral high horses and talk shit about a teenager who did the best they could. This is true. There was a case about 2 years ago in my city when 2 cops opened fire against a crowd of 15+ rowdy teenagers in a park at night because those teenagers started aggressively walking towards the cops as well as yell profanities.. The cops ended up killing 2 of them but that caused an entire riot in the neighborhood where it happened. You can imagine I sided with the cops because who knows what goes through your mind when 15 large teenagers start aggressively jogging to you while yelling profanities at you. Especially at night too. | ||
|
Rucho
United States124 Posts
Also the kid who died was 16 years old! You can't condemn a teen like that, saying he deserved it. I was bullied in middle school. Several of the people who bullied me are normal members of society now, and they regret that they bullied. Different people have different reactions to dealing with stress. Unfortunately some children and teens act out by being aggressive against others. That doesn't mean they deserve to die though, as many here are saying. Also hopefully the guy who died wasn't part of a gang or had friends who will want to take revenge. Jorge will have to live in fear for quite some time. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On January 11 2012 05:05 LegendaryZ wrote:Making the decision to not carry a knife to school in response to people being assholes isn't being a "pushover" nor is running from an unfavorable situation. This is the precise mindset that leads people to believe that violence is the only practical solution when it actually isn't in the vast majority of instances. When a group of people surround you, refuse to walk away when you tell them you don't want to fight, and prevent you from escaping, there is no practical solution besides the use of violence. Contrary to political correctness, violence is actually a great solution to certain problems. For example, cops frequently solve the problem of someone shooting at them by shooting back. It's not preferred when other options are available, but you're in complete denial of the fact that there were no other options for the kid besides (a) defend himself violently or (b) fail to do so and leave his life/health/dignity in the hands of violent bullies. Maybe in your little make-believe world, it's better to let violent attackers decide whether you live or die, or you have the means to somehow know for certain that they won't go too far. In ours, neither are the case. | ||
|
LegendaryZ
United States1583 Posts
On January 11 2012 04:59 sunprince wrote: Of course, that's easy to say when you're not in that situation yourself. Put yourself in that actual situation (along with the capability to do something about it) and see how you react. Ask any competent expert on interpersonal violence and self-defense (you know, like the ones called as expert witnesses during the trial) and they can tell you how easy it is for situations like that to escalate and how hard it is to gauge the true level of danger. Even cops, who are heavily trained to do this sort of thing, sometimes overreact and defensively kill people unnecessarily. And yet, people like you who have (a) never been in that situation or (b) didn't have the capability to defend yourself, sit here on your moral high horses and talk shit about a teenager who did the best they could. If you actually read anything that I wrote, you'd know that: A) I have been in that situation. B) I have had the capability to defend myself C) I chose a different path. D) I'm happier for it. E) I'm not talking shit about anyone. Just pointing out that this isn't something to celebrate. Seriously, you don't think there were times where I thought about stabbing someone or slitting throats? You've got to be kidding me. But there's a difference between thinking about it and actually doing it. Do you believe this kid is going to be better off after having killed a person? Does that not come with its own psychological issues in your simplistic world? Grow up. | ||
|
Tien
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On January 11 2012 05:07 sunprince wrote: This is the main issue. As humans, we cannot read the minds of people assaulting us. You cannot know ahead of time whether a hostile group wants to steal your money, beat you up, rape you, or kill you. Therefore, unless we have the extreme upper-hand in the engagement, it is often impossible to wait and see what the intent of the attackers are. Unfortunately, the fragile nature of the human body means that if you do not immediately defend with force, your ability to do so will degrade until you lose your option to do so. Revealing your capabilities as a threat display can often lead to the opponents escalating as well, and cost you one of your few remaining advantages. Consequently, it is often correct from both a moral/ethical and a self-defense point of view to use all means necessary to end the confrontation. Exactly. You can't stand there before a fight and say "Well since statistically 95%+ of fights do not end up lethal, maybe this time I'll just get bruised". Or "bullies normally don't kill people, I should expect to walk out of this with nothing more than a bloody nose". That just doesn't happen in real life. You don't have that luxury of deciding the outcome of the fight. Even small verbal confrontations escalate into full lethal fights. | ||
|
Tien
Russian Federation4447 Posts
The point is you don't know what went through this kids mind when he was surrounded by 3 guys while trying to run away and getting punched in the back of the head. He wasn't thinking "statisically bullies don't kill people in fights". He was trying to defend himself. Maybe he did think "I'll cut this guy till he's fucking dead to teach him a lesson". But we don't know. We'll never know. What we do know is that adrenaline takes over your body in a street fight and often times leads to actions or results that were never intended. | ||
|
Dizmaul
United States831 Posts
On January 11 2012 05:16 Tien wrote: Exactly. You can't stand there before a fight and say "Well since statistically 95%+ of fights do not end up lethal, maybe this time I'll just get bruised". Or "bullies normally don't kill people, I should expect to walk out of this with nothing more than a bloody nose". That just doesn't happen in real life. You don't have that luxury of deciding the outcome of the fight. Even small verbal confrontations escalate into full lethal fights. I agree with you 100%, and I think this helps understand | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On January 11 2012 05:15 LegendaryZ wrote:If you actually read anything that I wrote, you'd know that: A) I have been in that situation. Except you weren't. You explicitly stated that "you knew they wouldn't kill you". That makes a world of difference. Either that level of bullying was much less severe, or you're just blind to how quickly bullying situations can escalate to the point where someone is permanently maimed or killed. If you read anything I said, you'd know that my emphasis, coming from an interpersonal violence dynamics point of view, was on the imperfect information inherent to violent confrontations, and how it is usually impossible to determine the intent of people assaulting you. | ||
|
_-NoMaN-_
Canada250 Posts
| ||
|
Hdizz
Canada93 Posts
| ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On January 11 2012 05:16 Tien wrote:You can't stand there before a fight and say "Well since statistically 95%+ of fights do not end up lethal, maybe this time I'll just get bruised". Or "bullies normally don't kill people, I should expect to walk out of this with nothing more than a bloody nose". I wonder what people would say if a man grabbed a woman on the street and started hitting and groping her, and she stabbed him. Would she be expected to consider that most such situations don't escalate to rape or murder, or did she defend herself properly since she couldn't have known where that might lead? Would LegendaryZ still tell her to "take a different path" since she'll be happier for it than if she killed him? | ||
|
h0oTiS
United States101 Posts
| ||
|
LegendaryZ
United States1583 Posts
On January 11 2012 05:14 sunprince wrote: When a group of people surround you, refuse to walk away when you tell them you don't want to fight, and prevent you from escaping, there is no practical solution besides the use of violence. Maybe, but what are you doing bringing a knife to a fist fight? Contrary to political correctness, violence is actually a great solution to certain problems. For example, cops frequently solve the problem of someone shooting at them by shooting back. Yes, because shootings have this high likelihood of resulting in death. A couple of punches do not and there's a reason there's outrage when a cop shoots an unarmed person. It's not preferred when other options are available, but you're in complete denial of the fact that there were no other options for the kid besides (a) defend himself violently or (b) fail to do so and leave his life/health/dignity in the hands of violent bullies. He had every option in the world leading up to the point where he was surrounded and he chose to walk right into it despite every opportunity to avoid the conflict altogether. Most rational people don't walk into a violent scenario that they know is coming beforehand... especially if they're genuinely afraid. He had the choice of staying home that day or packing a knife with him. He chose the latter. Yeah... Lack of options. Maybe in your little make-believe world, it's better to let violent attackers decide whether you live or die, or you have the means to somehow know for certain that they won't go too far. In ours, neither are the case. I like how you purposely use the words "violent attackers" rather than "bullies" here because it's easier to lump them in the same category and some random guy who comes out of the darkness to mug you. All of the information indicates that this has been an ongoing problem he's been dealing with so it's not just some random "violent attackers". They're people he knows and he likely has a reasonable amount of information to form a prediction about what they're going to do. I absolutely love how everyone is jumping on the "he felt his life was being threatened" bandwagon. Anyone who's actually been bullied knows that getting killed is the absolute last thing you fear. This is just what the courts need to hear so that he doesn't get in too much trouble. Barring a gross misinterpretation of the actual danger present (which is still not an excuse), he was probably just scared of physical pain. Whether you want to argue that this fear is enough to LEGALLY warrant his actions, I don't care, but I feel that just because you legally CAN do something doesn't necessarily mean that you SHOULD. If could have a genuine fear that my life is potentially in danger if a police officer points his gun at me. I don't know what's going through his head or whether he's a good cop or a bad cop. Should I then pull out my own gun and start shooting in self defense? Of course not because that would be an incredibly stupid move given the increased likelihood of the encounter ending in a bad way. Even when backed into a corner, violence is not the end all be all solution nor is it your only option. You need to learn to make the smart decision. Sometimes the smart decision is violence when the potential danger of escalating the situation it outweighed by the benefits. This isn't such a scenario. | ||
|
Paperplane
Netherlands1823 Posts
On January 11 2012 05:32 LegendaryZ wrote: Maybe, but what are you doing bringing a knife to a fist fight? Yes, because shootings have this high likelihood of resulting in death. A couple of punches do not and there's a reason there's outrage when a cop shoots an unarmed person. He had every option in the world leading up to the point where he was surrounded and he chose to walk right into it despite every opportunity to avoid the conflict altogether. Most rational people don't walk into a violent scenario that they know is coming beforehand... especially if they're genuinely afraid. He had the choice of staying home that day or packing a knife with him. He chose the latter. Yeah... Lack of options. I like how you purposely use the words "violent attackers" rather than "bullies" here because it's easier to lump them in the same category and some random guy who comes out of the darkness to mug you. All of the information indicates that this has been an ongoing problem he's been dealing with so it's not just some random "violent attackers". They're people he knows and he likely has a reasonable amount of information to form a prediction about what they're going to do. I absolutely love how everyone is jumping on the "he felt his life was being threatened" bandwagon. Anyone who's actually been bullied knows that getting killed is the absolute last thing you fear. This is just what the courts need to hear so that he doesn't get in too much trouble. Barring a gross misinterpretation of the actual danger present (which is still not an excuse), he was probably just scared of physical pain. Whether you want to argue that this fear is enough to LEGALLY warrant his actions, I don't care, but I feel that just because you legally CAN do something doesn't necessarily mean that you SHOULD. Different people, different situations. How can you know for sure he wasn't afraid of getting killed? | ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
On January 11 2012 05:32 LegendaryZ wrote: Maybe, but what are you doing bringing a knife to a fist fight? Yes, because shootings have this high likelihood of resulting in death. A couple of punches do not and there's a reason there's outrage when a cop shoots an unarmed person. He had every option in the world leading up to the point where he was surrounded and he chose to walk right into it despite every opportunity to avoid the conflict altogether. Most rational people don't walk into a violent scenario that they know is coming beforehand... especially if they're genuinely afraid. He had the choice of staying home that day or packing a knife with him. He chose the latter. Yeah... Lack of options. I like how you purposely use the words "violent attackers" rather than "bullies" here because it's easier to lump them in the same category and some random guy who comes out of the darkness to mug you. All of the information indicates that this has been an ongoing problem he's been dealing with so it's not just some random "violent attackers". They're people he knows and he likely has a reasonable amount of information to form a prediction about what they're going to do. I absolutely love how everyone is jumping on the "he felt his life was being threatened" bandwagon. Anyone who's actually been bullied knows that getting killed is the absolute last thing you fear. This is just what the courts need to hear so that he doesn't get in too much trouble. Barring a gross misinterpretation of the actual danger present (which is still not an excuse), he was probably just scared of physical pain. Whether you want to argue that this fear is enough to LEGALLY warrant his actions, I don't care, but I feel that just because you legally CAN do something doesn't necessarily mean that you SHOULD. Oh please, you make it sound like all bullying case is exactly the same. That you basically said that bully victims never fear for their lifes is ridiculous, regardless what was the case here... | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On January 11 2012 05:32 LegendaryZ wrote:Maybe, but what are you doing bringing a knife to a fist fight? How do you know it would stay a fist fight? For all you know they're hiding weapons that they simply haven't deployed yet. Further, you obviously don't understand anything about violence if you think that multiple people can't kill you just as easily with their bare hands if they chose to as you could kill one of them with a knife. The human body is extremely, extremely fragile, and there are a multitude of ways you can die from a gang beating. The kid was under the impression that they would gang up on him and seriously hurt him, so he started carrying a knife. Sounds reasonable to me. On January 11 2012 05:32 LegendaryZ wrote:Yes, because shootings have this high likelihood of resulting in death. A couple of punches do not and there's a reason there's outrage when a cop shoots an unarmed person. Hindsight is 20/20. When you're in that situation, you don't know if they'll stop at a couple punches. You don't know if they'll proceed to pull out knives and stab you. You don't know if they'll beat you into the ground and then proceed to rape you, before kicking you in the stomach until your liver ruptures. You can't know, and if you wait long enough, your options will evaporate because you'll be in too much pain/disorientation to defend yourself any longer. If you actually knew anything about fighting, you'd know that all it takes is one good/lucky punch to knock you out, and then they could do anything to you, whether that's inserting fireworks into your anus or dumping you in a pool face down. On January 11 2012 05:32 LegendaryZ wrote:He had every option in the world leading up to the point where he was surrounded and he chose to walk right into it despite every opportunity to avoid the conflict altogether. Most rational people don't walk into a violent scenario that they know is coming beforehand... especially if they're genuinely afraid. He had the choice of staying home that day or packing a knife with him. He chose the latter. Yeah... Lack of options. Given prevalent and recurring episodes of bullying, skipping school one day doesn't mean that they wouldn't come after him the next. What is he supposed to do, stop going to school altogether? On January 11 2012 05:32 LegendaryZ wrote:I absolutely love how everyone is jumping on the "he felt his life was being threatened" bandwagon. Anyone who's actually been bullied knows that getting killed is the absolute last thing you fear. This is just what the courts need to hear so that he doesn't get in too much trouble. Barring a gross misinterpretation of the actual danger present (which is still not an excuse), he was probably just scared of physical pain. Whether you want to argue that this fear is enough to LEGALLY warrant his actions, I don't care, but I feel that just because you legally CAN do something doesn't necessarily mean that you SHOULD. I call bullshit. Bullying experts strongly disagree with you. Just because YOU weren't threated to that extent when you were bullied, doesn't mean that's the case for everyone. Read any research on bullying to discover why you are incredibly wrong. | ||
|
LegendaryZ
United States1583 Posts
On January 11 2012 05:36 Paperplane wrote: Different people, different situations. How can you know for sure he wasn't afraid of getting killed? How many people knowingly walk into an avoidable situation when they're genuinely afraid they might die? These bullies didn't jump him out of the blue. They were threatening him all day. This isn't a case of some random guy you don't know coming up to you and pointing a gun at you. It's that idiot in the class that says, "I'm going to kick your ass after school today." What part of this situation adds up in your mind? | ||
| ||
