|
On January 11 2012 05:53 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 05:32 LegendaryZ wrote: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. I don't understand what you're talking about. He tried to genuinely avoid the conflict. He didn't "bring a knife into a fist fight." A fist fight implies first of all that both sides even intended to fight, this kid did not. This was never a "fist fight." Second, he did not have every option in the world. That's a load of crap if I've ever heard one. Ratting someone out, especially as popular as this kid supposedly was, could cause enough mental damage/trauma to ruin this kid for life. I'm not saying that murdering someone didn't cause even more trauma (but I honestly think it didn't), but he wanted to avoid the ratting out path, and potentially avoid this altogether. Recall, this bullying has been going on for over a year. Third, I can only laugh that you say "he walked right into it." He told the guy he didn't want to fight multiple times, showed that he had a knife and wanted to avoid said fight, and even got off the bus multiple stops early in an attempt to avoid the fight. Then, even as the bully got off the bus to follow him, Jorge still ignored him, until he received a blow to the back of his head, aka a sucker punch. Fourth, you're completely screwing things with the police officer analogy, which is just awful. The police officer is rarely the instigator. And even if he pointed his gun at you, he has still not hit you yet. However, if a random person, say his name is Dylan, pulls a gun out on you, then yes you DO have the right to defend yourself. Also, in this situation, the victim was already in a situation of duress. It's not like he was threatened to be assaulted, like in your analogy. He has already been hit in the back of the head.Fifth, if you've ever been beaten up, you'd know things completely change when adrenaline is pumping. I've beaten other people up, and gotten my ass kicked to the point (my friend and I being jumped by 10 other guys) where my entire face was bruised up and I couldn't sleep on one side of my head at night. You don't go into any fight, especially vs someone three years older than you and familiar with jujitsu, thinking "oh I'll just get out of this with a few bruises." You think, "this guy is going to try to beat the living shit out of me when his adrenaline is pumping and most likely won't stop until someone else breaks up the fight. Until then, he'll keep whaling on me." In my honest opinion, better Dylan ends up dead than Jorge ends up with a black eye, broken arm, the need to relocate schools and the feeling that he's hopeless while Dylan potentially ends up with a suspension or a very limited amount of juvie time. Also, I think you highly underestimate the amount of people that carry around knives for the sole purpose of self defense. Depending where you live, it's quite high. In fact, in some high schools, I'd gather over 50% of the males had some sort of pocketknife on them or in their locker.
Well said.
|
It's unfortunate that someone died, but under these circumstances I feel that justice has been served. For those kids to actually follow him home AND start throwing punches, I would not have hesitated to do what Saavedra did. Not to mention this has been going on for years. The bully deserved all he got imo.
|
Sorry, instead of edit I accidently quoted my own post, disregard it
|
Stabbing someone twelve times because you got hit in the head.... jesus christ.
Also, many of you American posters are saying it is common for students to carry knives... as young as 14 (or younger?). Is this just in run down inner cities or nation wide?
|
On January 11 2012 06:03 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 05:32 LegendaryZ wrote:
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. If you have good reason to believe the cop is 'a bad cop' (ie they will shoot you while knowing that you haven't broken the law in any way.) and they pull a gun on you. Then you SHOULD shoot that cop (assuming you can shoot at them before they shoot you and you can't incapacitate them some other way.)
Regardless, his argument holds no water.
He's telling the rape victim it's her fault; he's simply arguing to argue.
How can you argue that the VICTIM of an assault should be limited in their response?
Are you saying that someone committing an assault should have a reasonable expectation of safety? "Well, the worst he can legally do if I punch him in the back of his head is try to fight me back. Good thing I have him surrounded with my friends, and I'm bigger and stronger than him."
|
On January 11 2012 06:08 kobrakai wrote:
Stabbing someone twelve times because you got hit in the head.... jesus christ.
Also, many of you American posters are saying it is common for students to carry knives... as young as 14 (or younger?). Is this just in run down inner cities or nation wide?
Nation wide
|
Thank God this happened in Florida instead of some other quack state. It's unfortunate that a young person died, but the bully victim doesn't deserve to spend time in prison for this.
|
On January 10 2012 15:26 LegendaryZ wrote:Because it's "cool" to be different.
I guess you took this to heart?
|
On January 11 2012 06:08 kobrakai wrote:
Stabbing someone twelve times because you got hit in the head.... jesus christ.
Also, many of you American posters are saying it is common for students to carry knives... as young as 14 (or younger?). Is this just in run down inner cities or nation wide?
Just in the slums/ghettos.
I don't know of almost anyone that carries knives around where I live, but go into the poorer neighborhoods and the amount spikes. My friend from Toronto also said that nearly every school in his neighborhood has the same issues, and he started carrying a knife as well for self defense in case one was pulled on him. Which was amusing to me, since he was a huge nerd and slightly chubby. But it's all anecdotal evidence.
|
On January 11 2012 05:05 LegendaryZ wrote:Show nested quote +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.
That got twisted quickly. I meant everyone won't make the same decisions and will act differently in each scenario. Not the black and white bullshit. You are your own director on any given text. You paint what you see in your head. Everyone's interpretation of that text will be different.
Show nested quote +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.
I was talking about your scenario specifically. Not his. Like I said, every scenario is different. The variables don't stay the same. When someone uses violence against you. Not everyone will stand for it. Everyone has a breaking point. Enough is enough. When someone becomes physically violent odds are they aren't using good judgement or reason. It's primal instinct.
Show nested 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.
No it doesn't. Speak for yourself not anyone else. It can escalate. I have seen it escalate. Not everyone grows out of it and like I said earlier as well. Bullying happens everywhere. I just gave you an entire list pages ago about different types of bullying. Grown-ups still bully others as well! It can escalate in deadly scenarios as we've seen time and time again. It happens way to often.
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.
Kids don't always see that way. See my lab rat maze example because this is getting redundant as hell. Read all my posts it seems like you are late to the dance.
Show nested quote +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.
Exactly, that's why you shouldn't pester people because you have no idea what the fuck they are capable of doing. Think of terms of the bully as well. You instigate it and the guy tells you he doesn't want to fight? Well, too fucking bad. This is why people don't fuck around with me. You do it; you're going to regret it. I leave my mark.
Show nested quote +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.
See my blurb about depression and mentally ill people.
Indeed.
If you play with fire. More often than not you will get burned.
|
So I guess we should all be walking around with knives and guns then because we don't know what's going to happen or when, right?
Dripping with sarcasm, but correct. As the cliche goes, an armed society is a polite society.
Put differently, you are responsible for defending yourself and your loved ones from those who mean you harm in whatever manner you can, and leaving yourself helpless in the face of an armed aggressor is moronic. Not understandable, not a result of a peaceful/utopic personality, but utterly and completely without intellectual or social merit.
|
On January 11 2012 05:57 LegendaryZ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 05:51 Aevum wrote:On January 11 2012 05:42 LegendaryZ wrote: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? You are still placing your trust in the bully's hands that he will stop pummelling you before you die. You are also risking that the strikes he inflicts upon you are not accidentally lethal/permanently damaging. You are also taking abuse for no reason. Why does the bully's health get to be thought about/cared about? He forfeited any rights he had when he decided to attack for no reason. There is absolutely no reason that you should have to gamble with your life when somebody is attacking you. Not walking into the situation to begin with guarantees that you won't get pummeled in the first place and therefore makes the bully irrelevant. Drawing a knife in the middle of a fight, however, is gambling because: A) You've placed yourself in the situation to begin with. B) You're assuming that the other guy doesn't have a knife or a gun. C) You're assuming that if he does, he'll either be unable to use it or your weapon will win. D) You're assuming that you pulling out a weapon won't cause a panic reaction from him that could potentially end up with you hurt even more. Yeah, that seems like way more of a gamble and a lot more assumptions to ride on than saying "I'm not going to go to school until either this guy is gone or I'm transferred."
Sometimes you have to take a gamble in life. Running away from your troubles will just leave you scarred; better stand up to them.
The bully on the other hand could've done everything to prevent this incident (like not bullying). If you bully someone for a year, then threaten him for a day to beat him up you should be ready to die when you actually try to beat him up.
|
On January 11 2012 06:11 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 06:08 kobrakai wrote:
Stabbing someone twelve times because you got hit in the head.... jesus christ.
Also, many of you American posters are saying it is common for students to carry knives... as young as 14 (or younger?). Is this just in run down inner cities or nation wide? Just in the slums/ghettos. I don't know of almost anyone that carries knives around where I live, but go into the poorer neighborhoods and the amount spikes. My friend from Toronto also said that nearly every school in his neighborhood has the same issues, and he started carrying a knife as well for self defense in case one was pulled on him. Which was amusing to me, since he was a huge nerd and slightly chubby. But it's all anecdotal evidence.
There are slums and ghettos nation wide. You don't need to live in a run down inner city. Also in the country carrying a knife isn't out of the ordinary either.
|
On January 11 2012 05:53 LegendaryZ wrote:
So I guess we should all be walking around with knives and guns then because we don't know what's going to happen or when, right? That way when something happens and we make the assumption that we might get hurt, we can shoot the other person and be justified in doing so. Yeah, completely reasonable. What a wonderful world that would be...
We should walk around with weapons when others have expressed an intent to hurt us with sufficiently overwhelming force that a weapon is required, because this dramatically increases the likelihood that weapons might be needed. The vast majority of people would not require weapons under this model.
On January 11 2012 05:53 LegendaryZ wrote:You're GROSSLY catastrophizing the actual risks and you know it. Emphasizing worst case scenarios rather than practical ones really doesn't serve to help your point along. Yes, all of these things are possible. Now how often am I worried about a highschool kid sticking firecrackers in my anus?
I'm obviously making a hyperbolic point. In reality, the most likely lethal outcomes are that you are beaten/raped to death, which doesn't take much given the fragility of the human (and especially teenage human) body.
On January 11 2012 05:53 LegendaryZ wrote:I tend to be more of a proponent of accurate risk assessment because that generally leads to less stupidity in the long run. There are always unpredictable one-off scenarios, but what your reliance on these outlandish scenarios to make your point is disturbing.
Once someone starts hitting you in the back of the head (a potentially lethal attack already, if you understand violence and body mechanics), your risk of significant harm is great already, and I wouldn't weigh the rights of a violent attacker too heavily.
On January 11 2012 05:53 LegendaryZ wrote:Yes, if you actually have a real fear that someone from school may kill you the sensible thing would be to stop going to school (thereby entirely avoiding any scenario where you might be killed) until the situation is resolved. It would also encourage authorities to take the situation a lot more seriously, increasing the chances of a peaceful resolution.
It is improbably that either the authorities or parents would take the situation more seriously, or they already would have long before that point. It is also similarly unlikely that you will be permitted to stop going to school entirely. We in fact have laws to compel attendance, and the vast majority of parents will not be sympathetic (research on adult bullying shows that most adults are poorly equipped to handle bullying themselves, let alone assist their kids in doing so).
On January 11 2012 05:53 LegendaryZ wrote:Got any particular sources you'd like me to read? I'll be happy to read it.
Check out either of the following:
Marr, Neil; Field, Tim. Bullycide: Death at Playtime
M, Ronald; Shiromoto, Frank N. - The Encyclopedia of Trauma and Traumatic Stress Disorders
Key here is that many bullying victims fear violence to the point of permanent damage, rape, or murder. Though they happen far more rarely, the fear is definitely there, and arguably part of the purpose of bullying.
|
On January 11 2012 05:54 Aevum wrote:
Can you reply to my argument LegendaryZ? Why is it the responsibility of the innocent to risk their lives when attacked without provocation or reason?
When you attack somebody, you forfeit your right to safety. You are compromising somebody else's, after all, are you not? Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
It's funny you say this. My martial arts teacher used to teach us to assume that anyone who ever attacks someone has automatically forfeited his right to life with that decision. I used to believe this for a while too since it seems to make sense. Then at some point, you realize how stupid that standard actually is and how terrible the world would be if people actually thought like that.
Yes, you have a right to defend yourself from imminent threat. There is, however, the issue of proportional force and also the necessity to always keep in mind the consequences of your actions. Adrenaline and heat-of-the-moment emotions are of course an explanation, but they are not a justification for poor decision making. This is why I believe the victim's PERCEPTION of the threat is a terrible standard to go by because it's wildly inconsistent and varies from person to person. It's a very slippery slope you start going down when you start to justify ending lives simply because a mentally and emotionally compromised person believes himself to be in more danger than he may be in actuality.
So someone comes up to me and punches me in the face. I don't know the guy, but he tells me that he's going to beat the shit out of me. Should I shoot him? Should I run? Should I just use my fists? You people make it all seem so frikking black and white as if violence should always beget violence. No, it shouldn't. There are numerous considerations to make in any given scenario and you can't live your life in a manner where you're always responding to a worst-possible-case scenario just because there's some unknown information.
For those of you asking if he should have just stopped going to school, stop and think about what you would do in that situation. Is it your honest opinion that this situation could not have been handled in a better manner? Is a person drawing attention to the situation by refusing to go to school a worse outcome than someone dying? I know this is TL.net, but get your heads out of your asses because it's honestly disgusting to me as a member of the human race that you believe that this is an acceptable means of conflict resolution on any level.
Even if you killed someone in self-defense, that's not something that should be celebrated. What the hell do you know about the other person? He could be a troubled soul in his own right who just found a bad outlet. He could have had some mental disability. You're all so quick to theorize about the victim's scenario, but you have absolutely no consideration for the aggressor's life situation. Contrary to popular opinion, not all bullies are bad people. They may have made bad choices in their life, but just like everyone else, they are just as deserving of a chance to grow up and mature as human beings.
This isn't some bullshit martial arts class we're in. This is real life and taking lives is serious business as is violence in general. Go ahead with your bullshit celebrations and PM me if you want to have an actual discussion rather than the stupidity that has been posted here, but I'm done with this thread because I feel like I'm going to be physically ill after reading some of these childish comments.
|
On January 11 2012 06:19 LegendaryZ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 05:54 Aevum wrote:
Can you reply to my argument LegendaryZ? Why is it the responsibility of the innocent to risk their lives when attacked without provocation or reason?
When you attack somebody, you forfeit your right to safety. You are compromising somebody else's, after all, are you not? Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. This isn't some bullshit martial arts class we're in. This is real life and taking lives is serious business as is violence in general. Go ahead with your bullshit celebrations and PM me if you want to have an actual discussion rather than the stupidity that has been posted here, but I'm done with this thread because I feel like I'm going to be physically ill after reading some of these childish comments.
Goodbye, you won't be missed.
|
On January 11 2012 06:19 LegendaryZ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 05:54 Aevum wrote:
Can you reply to my argument LegendaryZ? Why is it the responsibility of the innocent to risk their lives when attacked without provocation or reason?
When you attack somebody, you forfeit your right to safety. You are compromising somebody else's, after all, are you not? Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. This isn't some bullshit martial arts class we're in. This is real life and taking lives is serious business as is violence in general. Go ahead with your bullshit celebrations and PM me if you want to have an actual discussion rather than the stupidity that has been posted here, but I'm done with this thread because I feel like I'm going to be physically ill after reading some of these childish comments.
It's clear you have never taken a serious martial arts class... The only thing I've gotten out of your posts is your lack of empathy.
|
On January 11 2012 06:19 LegendaryZ wrote:Yes, you have a right to defend yourself from imminent threat. There is, however, the issue of proportional force and also the necessity to always keep in mind the consequences of your actions. Adrenaline and heat-of-the-moment emotions are of course an explanation, but they are not a justification for poor decision making. This is why I believe the victim's PERCEPTION of the threat is a terrible standard to go by because it's wildly inconsistent and varies from person to person. It's a very slippery slope you start going down when you start to justify ending lives simply because a mentally and emotionally compromised person believes himself to be in more danger than he may be in actuality.
That's why we ask a jury of our peers to determine whether a reasonable person would have feared death in that situation. Obviously both the jury's decision and the responses in this thread suggest that you are the one who is unreasonable for assuming the best of violent attackers.
On January 11 2012 06:19 LegendaryZ wrote:So someone comes up to me and punches me in the face. I don't know the guy, but he tells me that he's going to beat the shit out of me. Should I shoot him? Should I run? Should I just use my fists? You people make it all seem so frikking black and white as if violence should always beget violence. No, it shouldn't. There are numerous considerations to make in any given scenario and you can't live your life in a manner where you're always responding to a worst-possible-case scenario just because there's some unknown information.
Someone coming up to you and punching your face is not the same as repeated bullying incidents, being followed by a group of bullies, and being violently attacked in a potentially lethal manner after you attempted to disengage.
You're the one making things black-and-white. In your fantasy world, violence is always wrong, and you would rather blame the victim and prance around on your judgmental high horse than accept the possibility that the circumstances justified a violent response. We all disagree with you.
Incidentally, it's people like you who perpetuate bullying. By discouraging people from using violence, while bullies ignore that standard, you create bullying victims whenever someone listens to your bullshit. Bullies target people who are not willing to use violence to defend themselves. It's incredibly obvious why you were a bullying victim and you're lucky to not have suffered permanent harm from it, but shame on you for encouraging others to go through the same as you.
|
On January 11 2012 06:19 LegendaryZ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 05:54 Aevum wrote:
Can you reply to my argument LegendaryZ? Why is it the responsibility of the innocent to risk their lives when attacked without provocation or reason?
When you attack somebody, you forfeit your right to safety. You are compromising somebody else's, after all, are you not? Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. It's funny you say this. My martial arts teacher used to teach us to assume that anyone who ever attacks someone has automatically forfeited his right to life with that decision. I used to believe this for a while too since it seems to make sense. Then at some point, you realize how stupid that standard actually is and how terrible the world would be if people actually thought like that. Yes, you have a right to defend yourself from imminent threat. There is, however, the issue of proportional force and also the necessity to always keep in mind the consequences of your actions. Adrenaline and heat-of-the-moment emotions are of course an explanation, but they are not a justification for poor decision making. This is why I believe the victim's PERCEPTION of the threat is a terrible standard to go by because it's wildly inconsistent and varies from person to person. It's a very slippery slope you start going down when you start to justify ending lives simply because a mentally and emotionally compromised person believes himself to be in more danger than he may be in actuality. So someone comes up to me and punches me in the face. I don't know the guy, but he tells me that he's going to beat the shit out of me. Should I shoot him? Should I run? Should I just use my fists? You people make it all seem so frikking black and white as if violence should always beget violence. No, it shouldn't. There are numerous considerations to make in any given scenario and you can't live your life in a manner where you're always responding to a worst-possible-case scenario just because there's some unknown information. For those of you asking if he should have just stopped going to school, stop and think about what you would do in that situation. Is it your honest opinion that this situation could not have been handled in a better manner? Is a person drawing attention to the situation by refusing to go to school a worse outcome than someone dying? I know this is TL.net, but get your heads out of your asses because it's honestly disgusting to me as a member of the human race that you believe that this is an acceptable means of conflict resolution on any level. Even if you killed someone in self-defense, that's not something that should be celebrated. What the hell do you know about the other person? He could be a troubled soul in his own right who just found a bad outlet. He could have had some mental disability. You're all so quick to theorize about the victim's scenario, but you have absolutely no consideration for the aggressor's life situation. Contrary to popular opinion, not all bullies are bad people. They may have made bad choices in their life, but just like everyone else, they are just as deserving of a chance to grow up and mature as human beings. This isn't some bullshit martial arts class we're in. This is real life and taking lives is serious business as is violence in general. Go ahead with your bullshit celebrations and PM me if you want to have an actual discussion rather than the stupidity that has been posted here, but I'm done with this thread because I feel like I'm going to be physically ill after reading some of these childish comments.
Being under a state of duress should always be taken into account. That's what happened here. And people aren't necessarily celebrating the death of the bully. They're celebrating the decision the courts made not to punish the victim.
I completely agree with what your martial arts teacher said. If you're the one going to instigate force upon another person, you have potentially forfeited your right to life. You need to be ready for the repercussions. If you're going to beat the living shit out of someone, you better be prepared to face the consequences. You've said nothing more than you "realized how stupid the standard was," but never actually said why.
In other words, don't go and beat someone else up in the first place. It's funny how you can be so immature about it as well. You're crying out in defense of the instigator, and when no one else will give sympathy for him, you exit the thread yelling to everyone else that they are the ones being childish. Really now? Amusing you can act all arrogant and superior about your morals when nearly no one agrees with you. You're just another victim-blamer.
|
On January 11 2012 06:11 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 06:08 kobrakai wrote:
Stabbing someone twelve times because you got hit in the head.... jesus christ.
Also, many of you American posters are saying it is common for students to carry knives... as young as 14 (or younger?). Is this just in run down inner cities or nation wide? Just in the slums/ghettos. I don't know of almost anyone that carries knives around where I live, but go into the poorer neighborhoods and the amount spikes. My friend from Toronto also said that nearly every school in his neighborhood has the same issues, and he started carrying a knife as well for self defense in case one was pulled on him. Which was amusing to me, since he was a huge nerd and slightly chubby. But it's all anecdotal evidence.
Carrying a knife in Toronto for self defense can get you surrounded by police and shot repeatedly. Happened this past weekend actually.
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/1111682--siu-probes-shooting-of-man-at-weston-rd-plaza
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
