|
@Golbat If she kills the man, yes. self defense can lower the punishment but killing someone even accidently is something that must not be condoned. and im not saying he should go to jail, but maybe go to an institution on weekends for a little while so that diffrent methods of conflict resolution can be instilled in the kid. and he might need some help at school because you can bet he will be even further ostracized for killing someone, unfortunately all parties lost in this situation.
|
On January 11 2012 11:27 Golbat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 10:58 Kangbao wrote:On January 11 2012 10:40 Golbat wrote:On January 11 2012 10:33 Kangbao wrote:On January 11 2012 10:22 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:
This kid tried his best to walk away from the fight, repeatedly saying he did not want to fight, exiting the bus prior to his stop to try and get away and even trying to walk away but being forced into the fight by the bully's friends. He brought his knife with him in case this would happen for self defence, just because you bring a weapon with you does not mean you "intent to kill", that's ridiculous, especially considering he tried his best to avoid the fight.
Even during the fight, he did not try to fight, however, after taking a punch from the opposing kid that was both a martial arts student and much bigger than him, he took out his knife and started slicing in panic mode, undeterred the bully still fought him and in self defence he sliced around and stabbed the bully once, not stopping until the bully stopped fighting which was when he died.
Self Defense cases are reviewed a lot, if he took out a knife and the bully ran away but he chased him down and stabbed him, this would be a homicide case. He did everything he did purely out of self defense. I didn't say he intended to kill. I said he planned on using deadly force. There is a difference. The knife is deadly force. He may have planned on simply brandishing it and saying, "Get back". I agreed this case has elements of self-defense, but I don't believe there is enough to say his use of force was justified. "I didn't say he intended to kill. I said he planned on using deadly force." That is what you said. It is the biggest contradiction I have seen in this thread. That aside, Simply brandishing a knife is not deadly force. It is brandishing a knife. You may be confused. Nevertheless, as I explained before, I think the kid simply intended to show the knife and get the kid to back off, and the bully thought he was invincible and decided to fight anyways. As they say, if you play with fire, you're going to get burned, and if you fight a kid with a knife, you're gonna get stabbed, dumbass. On January 11 2012 10:39 brokor wrote:
imo, if he had found a brick/crowbar and killed the bully it would be self defence. carrying aorund a knife screams premeditated murder. not a lawyer by a longshot , but if my brother/kid ever killed a bully like that i would lock him up myself. How does carrying a knife for protection scream premeditated murder? Just because I carry a concealed firearm doesn't mean I go out every day intending to blast someone. I have it because the world is dangerous and I might need it. The kid knew he might need it to scare off his attacker, but I don't think he thought that his attacker would still try to fight him after he pulled the knife out. Nowhere did I say "the kid intended to kill the bully". If you interpret "using deadly force" as "intending to kill" you're simply ignorant of the law. Intending to kill and using deadly force are not the same thing under the law. Deadly force is an amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person. A knife is deadly force. He may not have planned on killing anyone. Even if he intended to brandish the knife and have them back off, there was always the possibility that the guy didn't back off, and he planned on then using it. The bully was an idiot for picking on the kid in the first place, and even more so when he decided to continue fighting. That doesn't justify him being killed. The part i'm really hung up on is you saying "A knife is deadly force". A knife is not deadly force. A knife is not a force. Having a knife is not deadly force. Brandishing a knife is not deadly force. He did use deadly force however, by using the knife, which he is allowed to do within the constraints of Florida's stand your ground law. But simply a knife is not deadly force. And if you use deadly force, you must have the intention to make someone or something dead (aka kill them).
I apologize, my language was not as clear as it should have been. I meant using the knife in the fight qualified as using deadly force. When I said he planned on using deadly force in my original post, I meant he considered the possibility of using the knife in the fight, thus using deadly force. I don't think anyone can say he took the knife to brandish, but planned on putting it away if the other guy continued to advance. Thus he planned or at least considered the possibility of using deadly force.
The language of the stand your ground law says that, "attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." From what I've found, and I may be wrong if what I've read is incorrect or incomplete, death or great bodily harm was unlikely. It was one guy against him, granted the other guy was bigger. I don't think that meets the criteria to invoke the stand your ground law.
I strongly doubt that the kid WANTED to kill the kid, or intended on doing so. However using the knife in the fight is still considered using deadly force. Again, "Deadly force is an amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person". There is nothing about intending to kill, just that it is likely to cause the injury or death.
On January 11 2012 11:14 fatfail wrote:
The kid should be punished for having brought a knife around. That is all.
I can't see a situation where the kid would be punished for having the knife.
Let's say he was caught with the knife, he would be handed over to the School Resource Officer (SRO). The SRO would then have had the kid explain why he had the knife. Then the kid tells the SRO that he is being bullied and is scared for his life or whatever, and planned on using the knife to scare thee bully away by brandishing the knife. The kid would then be told to bring the bully to the SRO's attention next time, and be sent on his way, and the bully would then be punished.
I'm sorry, but this is COMPLETELY wrong. Having a weapon on a school campus will land you with an automatic suspension, and in almost all cases an expulsion. The bully MIGHT be punished, but its very unlikely.
|
One stab was enough?
But twelve?
I guess is the result of a long time of acumulated hate and repression.
|
On January 11 2012 11:30 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
After reading through the posts of some of the Americans who live in the same world as this incident i have come to be convinced that perhaps the kid was justified especially if the death was accidental. That doesnt mean things shouldn't be improved so a situation like this is avoided in the future but the kid should not be charged for murder or manslaughter, but perhaps he should still get a minor charge as killing someone should never happen completely scot-free. Also the people saying he should be rewarded disgust me.
Thank you for enlightening me.
He has to live the rest of his life knowing that he took that away from another person. He is not getting off scot-free. Taking someones life is not an easy thing to do for the vast majority of people. As hard as that year of being bullied was, the real test of his willpower started the day he had to use that knife.
|
On January 11 2012 11:35 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 11:27 Golbat wrote:On January 11 2012 10:58 Kangbao wrote:On January 11 2012 10:40 Golbat wrote:On January 11 2012 10:33 Kangbao wrote:On January 11 2012 10:22 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:
This kid tried his best to walk away from the fight, repeatedly saying he did not want to fight, exiting the bus prior to his stop to try and get away and even trying to walk away but being forced into the fight by the bully's friends. He brought his knife with him in case this would happen for self defence, just because you bring a weapon with you does not mean you "intent to kill", that's ridiculous, especially considering he tried his best to avoid the fight.
Even during the fight, he did not try to fight, however, after taking a punch from the opposing kid that was both a martial arts student and much bigger than him, he took out his knife and started slicing in panic mode, undeterred the bully still fought him and in self defence he sliced around and stabbed the bully once, not stopping until the bully stopped fighting which was when he died.
Self Defense cases are reviewed a lot, if he took out a knife and the bully ran away but he chased him down and stabbed him, this would be a homicide case. He did everything he did purely out of self defense. I didn't say he intended to kill. I said he planned on using deadly force. There is a difference. The knife is deadly force. He may have planned on simply brandishing it and saying, "Get back". I agreed this case has elements of self-defense, but I don't believe there is enough to say his use of force was justified. "I didn't say he intended to kill. I said he planned on using deadly force." That is what you said. It is the biggest contradiction I have seen in this thread. That aside, Simply brandishing a knife is not deadly force. It is brandishing a knife. You may be confused. Nevertheless, as I explained before, I think the kid simply intended to show the knife and get the kid to back off, and the bully thought he was invincible and decided to fight anyways. As they say, if you play with fire, you're going to get burned, and if you fight a kid with a knife, you're gonna get stabbed, dumbass. On January 11 2012 10:39 brokor wrote:
imo, if he had found a brick/crowbar and killed the bully it would be self defence. carrying aorund a knife screams premeditated murder. not a lawyer by a longshot , but if my brother/kid ever killed a bully like that i would lock him up myself. How does carrying a knife for protection scream premeditated murder? Just because I carry a concealed firearm doesn't mean I go out every day intending to blast someone. I have it because the world is dangerous and I might need it. The kid knew he might need it to scare off his attacker, but I don't think he thought that his attacker would still try to fight him after he pulled the knife out. Nowhere did I say "the kid intended to kill the bully". If you interpret "using deadly force" as "intending to kill" you're simply ignorant of the law. Intending to kill and using deadly force are not the same thing under the law. Deadly force is an amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person. A knife is deadly force. He may not have planned on killing anyone. Even if he intended to brandish the knife and have them back off, there was always the possibility that the guy didn't back off, and he planned on then using it. The bully was an idiot for picking on the kid in the first place, and even more so when he decided to continue fighting. That doesn't justify him being killed. The part i'm really hung up on is you saying "A knife is deadly force". A knife is not deadly force. A knife is not a force. Having a knife is not deadly force. Brandishing a knife is not deadly force. He did use deadly force however, by using the knife, which he is allowed to do within the constraints of Florida's stand your ground law. But simply a knife is not deadly force. And if you use deadly force, you must have the intention to make someone or something dead (aka kill them). On January 11 2012 11:14 fatfail wrote:
The kid should be punished for having brought a knife around. That is all. I can't see a situation where the kid would be punished for having the knife. Let's say he was caught with the knife, he would be handed over to the School Resource Officer (SRO). The SRO would then have had the kid explain why he had the knife. Then the kid tells the SRO that he is being bullied and is scared for his life or whatever, and planned on using the knife to scare thee bully away by brandishing the knife. The kid would then be told to bring the bully to the SRO's attention next time, and be sent on his way, and the bully would then be punished. Well, there is Zero Tolerance. I'm pretty sure Collier County has it. They suspende both kids for getting in fight even if one curls up in a ball while the other kicks the crap out of them.
I mean, it wasn't a fight though. It was an attack. If it is truly zero tolerance like you say, where even if one kid just curls up, that's the stupidest fucking zero tolerance rule I've ever heard of. But the fight didn't happen of school property, so the school doesn't have the authority to punish the kid for what happened anyways, so your point is moot.
|
|
|
On January 11 2012 11:44 Golbat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 11:35 Myles wrote:On January 11 2012 11:27 Golbat wrote:On January 11 2012 10:58 Kangbao wrote:On January 11 2012 10:40 Golbat wrote:On January 11 2012 10:33 Kangbao wrote:On January 11 2012 10:22 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:
This kid tried his best to walk away from the fight, repeatedly saying he did not want to fight, exiting the bus prior to his stop to try and get away and even trying to walk away but being forced into the fight by the bully's friends. He brought his knife with him in case this would happen for self defence, just because you bring a weapon with you does not mean you "intent to kill", that's ridiculous, especially considering he tried his best to avoid the fight.
Even during the fight, he did not try to fight, however, after taking a punch from the opposing kid that was both a martial arts student and much bigger than him, he took out his knife and started slicing in panic mode, undeterred the bully still fought him and in self defence he sliced around and stabbed the bully once, not stopping until the bully stopped fighting which was when he died.
Self Defense cases are reviewed a lot, if he took out a knife and the bully ran away but he chased him down and stabbed him, this would be a homicide case. He did everything he did purely out of self defense. I didn't say he intended to kill. I said he planned on using deadly force. There is a difference. The knife is deadly force. He may have planned on simply brandishing it and saying, "Get back". I agreed this case has elements of self-defense, but I don't believe there is enough to say his use of force was justified. "I didn't say he intended to kill. I said he planned on using deadly force." That is what you said. It is the biggest contradiction I have seen in this thread. That aside, Simply brandishing a knife is not deadly force. It is brandishing a knife. You may be confused. Nevertheless, as I explained before, I think the kid simply intended to show the knife and get the kid to back off, and the bully thought he was invincible and decided to fight anyways. As they say, if you play with fire, you're going to get burned, and if you fight a kid with a knife, you're gonna get stabbed, dumbass. On January 11 2012 10:39 brokor wrote:
imo, if he had found a brick/crowbar and killed the bully it would be self defence. carrying aorund a knife screams premeditated murder. not a lawyer by a longshot , but if my brother/kid ever killed a bully like that i would lock him up myself. How does carrying a knife for protection scream premeditated murder? Just because I carry a concealed firearm doesn't mean I go out every day intending to blast someone. I have it because the world is dangerous and I might need it. The kid knew he might need it to scare off his attacker, but I don't think he thought that his attacker would still try to fight him after he pulled the knife out. Nowhere did I say "the kid intended to kill the bully". If you interpret "using deadly force" as "intending to kill" you're simply ignorant of the law. Intending to kill and using deadly force are not the same thing under the law. Deadly force is an amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person. A knife is deadly force. He may not have planned on killing anyone. Even if he intended to brandish the knife and have them back off, there was always the possibility that the guy didn't back off, and he planned on then using it. The bully was an idiot for picking on the kid in the first place, and even more so when he decided to continue fighting. That doesn't justify him being killed. The part i'm really hung up on is you saying "A knife is deadly force". A knife is not deadly force. A knife is not a force. Having a knife is not deadly force. Brandishing a knife is not deadly force. He did use deadly force however, by using the knife, which he is allowed to do within the constraints of Florida's stand your ground law. But simply a knife is not deadly force. And if you use deadly force, you must have the intention to make someone or something dead (aka kill them). On January 11 2012 11:14 fatfail wrote:
The kid should be punished for having brought a knife around. That is all. I can't see a situation where the kid would be punished for having the knife. Let's say he was caught with the knife, he would be handed over to the School Resource Officer (SRO). The SRO would then have had the kid explain why he had the knife. Then the kid tells the SRO that he is being bullied and is scared for his life or whatever, and planned on using the knife to scare thee bully away by brandishing the knife. The kid would then be told to bring the bully to the SRO's attention next time, and be sent on his way, and the bully would then be punished. Well, there is Zero Tolerance. I'm pretty sure Collier County has it. They suspende both kids for getting in fight even if one curls up in a ball while the other kicks the crap out of them. I mean, it wasn't a fight though. It was an attack. If it is truly zero tolerance like you say, where even if one kid just curls up, that's the stupidest fucking zero tolerance rule I've ever heard of. But the fight didn't happen of school property, so the school doesn't have the authority to punish the kid for what happened anyways, so your point is moot.
Actually, you are technically still on school property until you get to your home. While on the bus, you are on school propery, while you are walking home, you are still in school. The principal at the high school I went to explained this to my class very clearly. School's have a LOT of power.
|
On January 11 2012 11:27 Golbat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 10:58 Kangbao wrote:On January 11 2012 10:40 Golbat wrote:On January 11 2012 10:33 Kangbao wrote:On January 11 2012 10:22 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:
This kid tried his best to walk away from the fight, repeatedly saying he did not want to fight, exiting the bus prior to his stop to try and get away and even trying to walk away but being forced into the fight by the bully's friends. He brought his knife with him in case this would happen for self defence, just because you bring a weapon with you does not mean you "intent to kill", that's ridiculous, especially considering he tried his best to avoid the fight.
Even during the fight, he did not try to fight, however, after taking a punch from the opposing kid that was both a martial arts student and much bigger than him, he took out his knife and started slicing in panic mode, undeterred the bully still fought him and in self defence he sliced around and stabbed the bully once, not stopping until the bully stopped fighting which was when he died.
Self Defense cases are reviewed a lot, if he took out a knife and the bully ran away but he chased him down and stabbed him, this would be a homicide case. He did everything he did purely out of self defense. I didn't say he intended to kill. I said he planned on using deadly force. There is a difference. The knife is deadly force. He may have planned on simply brandishing it and saying, "Get back". I agreed this case has elements of self-defense, but I don't believe there is enough to say his use of force was justified. "I didn't say he intended to kill. I said he planned on using deadly force." That is what you said. It is the biggest contradiction I have seen in this thread. That aside, Simply brandishing a knife is not deadly force. It is brandishing a knife. You may be confused. Nevertheless, as I explained before, I think the kid simply intended to show the knife and get the kid to back off, and the bully thought he was invincible and decided to fight anyways. As they say, if you play with fire, you're going to get burned, and if you fight a kid with a knife, you're gonna get stabbed, dumbass. On January 11 2012 10:39 brokor wrote:
imo, if he had found a brick/crowbar and killed the bully it would be self defence. carrying aorund a knife screams premeditated murder. not a lawyer by a longshot , but if my brother/kid ever killed a bully like that i would lock him up myself. How does carrying a knife for protection scream premeditated murder? Just because I carry a concealed firearm doesn't mean I go out every day intending to blast someone. I have it because the world is dangerous and I might need it. The kid knew he might need it to scare off his attacker, but I don't think he thought that his attacker would still try to fight him after he pulled the knife out. Nowhere did I say "the kid intended to kill the bully". If you interpret "using deadly force" as "intending to kill" you're simply ignorant of the law. Intending to kill and using deadly force are not the same thing under the law. Deadly force is an amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person. A knife is deadly force. He may not have planned on killing anyone. Even if he intended to brandish the knife and have them back off, there was always the possibility that the guy didn't back off, and he planned on then using it. The bully was an idiot for picking on the kid in the first place, and even more so when he decided to continue fighting. That doesn't justify him being killed. The part i'm really hung up on is you saying "A knife is deadly force". A knife is not deadly force. A knife is not a force. Having a knife is not deadly force. Brandishing a knife is not deadly force. He did use deadly force however, by using the knife, which he is allowed to do within the constraints of Florida's stand your ground law. But simply a knife is not deadly force. And if you use deadly force, you must have the intention to make someone or something dead (aka kill them). Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 11:14 fatfail wrote:
The kid should be punished for having brought a knife around. That is all. I can't see a situation where the kid would be punished for having the knife. Let's say he was caught with the knife, he would be handed over to the School Resource Officer (SRO). The SRO would then have had the kid explain why he had the knife. Then the kid tells the SRO that he is being bullied and is scared for his life or whatever, and planned on using the knife to scare thee bully away by brandishing the knife. The kid would then be told to bring the bully to the SRO's attention next time, and be sent on his way, and the bully would then be punished.
Actually, I think brandishing a knife is not allowed, no matter how justified it is. So he definitely deserves a suspension or something.
|
Don't know if it was stated, but after revealing the knife, did the bully still pursue him? If so, then it is self defense.
|
On January 11 2012 11:42 Kangbao wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 11:27 Golbat wrote:On January 11 2012 10:58 Kangbao wrote:On January 11 2012 10:40 Golbat wrote:On January 11 2012 10:33 Kangbao wrote:On January 11 2012 10:22 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:
This kid tried his best to walk away from the fight, repeatedly saying he did not want to fight, exiting the bus prior to his stop to try and get away and even trying to walk away but being forced into the fight by the bully's friends. He brought his knife with him in case this would happen for self defence, just because you bring a weapon with you does not mean you "intent to kill", that's ridiculous, especially considering he tried his best to avoid the fight.
Even during the fight, he did not try to fight, however, after taking a punch from the opposing kid that was both a martial arts student and much bigger than him, he took out his knife and started slicing in panic mode, undeterred the bully still fought him and in self defence he sliced around and stabbed the bully once, not stopping until the bully stopped fighting which was when he died.
Self Defense cases are reviewed a lot, if he took out a knife and the bully ran away but he chased him down and stabbed him, this would be a homicide case. He did everything he did purely out of self defense. I didn't say he intended to kill. I said he planned on using deadly force. There is a difference. The knife is deadly force. He may have planned on simply brandishing it and saying, "Get back". I agreed this case has elements of self-defense, but I don't believe there is enough to say his use of force was justified. "I didn't say he intended to kill. I said he planned on using deadly force." That is what you said. It is the biggest contradiction I have seen in this thread. That aside, Simply brandishing a knife is not deadly force. It is brandishing a knife. You may be confused. Nevertheless, as I explained before, I think the kid simply intended to show the knife and get the kid to back off, and the bully thought he was invincible and decided to fight anyways. As they say, if you play with fire, you're going to get burned, and if you fight a kid with a knife, you're gonna get stabbed, dumbass. On January 11 2012 10:39 brokor wrote:
imo, if he had found a brick/crowbar and killed the bully it would be self defence. carrying aorund a knife screams premeditated murder. not a lawyer by a longshot , but if my brother/kid ever killed a bully like that i would lock him up myself. How does carrying a knife for protection scream premeditated murder? Just because I carry a concealed firearm doesn't mean I go out every day intending to blast someone. I have it because the world is dangerous and I might need it. The kid knew he might need it to scare off his attacker, but I don't think he thought that his attacker would still try to fight him after he pulled the knife out. Nowhere did I say "the kid intended to kill the bully". If you interpret "using deadly force" as "intending to kill" you're simply ignorant of the law. Intending to kill and using deadly force are not the same thing under the law. Deadly force is an amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person. A knife is deadly force. He may not have planned on killing anyone. Even if he intended to brandish the knife and have them back off, there was always the possibility that the guy didn't back off, and he planned on then using it. The bully was an idiot for picking on the kid in the first place, and even more so when he decided to continue fighting. That doesn't justify him being killed. The part i'm really hung up on is you saying "A knife is deadly force". A knife is not deadly force. A knife is not a force. Having a knife is not deadly force. Brandishing a knife is not deadly force. He did use deadly force however, by using the knife, which he is allowed to do within the constraints of Florida's stand your ground law. But simply a knife is not deadly force. And if you use deadly force, you must have the intention to make someone or something dead (aka kill them). I apologize, my language was not as clear as it should have been. I meant using the knife in the fight qualified as using deadly force. When I said he planned on using deadly force in my original post, I meant he considered the possibility of using the knife in the fight, thus using deadly force. I don't think anyone can say he took the knife to brandish, but planned on putting it away if the other guy continued to advance. Thus he planned or at least considered the possibility of using deadly force. The language of the stand your ground law says that, "attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." From what I've found, and I may be wrong if what I've read is incorrect or incomplete, death or great bodily harm was unlikely. It was one guy against him, granted the other guy was bigger. I don't think that meets the criteria to invoke the stand your ground law. I strongly doubt that the kid WANTED to kill the kid, or intended on doing so. However using the knife in the fight is still considered using deadly force. Again, "Deadly force is an amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person". There is nothing about intending to kill, just that it is likely to cause the injury or death. Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 11:14 fatfail wrote:
The kid should be punished for having brought a knife around. That is all.
I can't see a situation where the kid would be punished for having the knife.
Let's say he was caught with the knife, he would be handed over to the School Resource Officer (SRO). The SRO would then have had the kid explain why he had the knife. Then the kid tells the SRO that he is being bullied and is scared for his life or whatever, and planned on using the knife to scare thee bully away by brandishing the knife. The kid would then be told to bring the bully to the SRO's attention next time, and be sent on his way, and the bully would then be punished. I'm sorry, but this is COMPLETELY wrong. Having a weapon on a school campus will land you with an automatic suspension, and in almost all cases an expulsion. The bully MIGHT be punished, but its very unlikely.
Did you see all the evidence and hear all the testimony's during the trial like the judge did? "(He) had more than enough reason to believe he was in danger of death or great bodily harm," she wrote in her decision. Ok so you can disagree with the judge, but your have almost nothing to back up your claims except opinion.
|
On January 11 2012 11:44 Golbat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 11:35 Myles wrote:On January 11 2012 11:27 Golbat wrote:On January 11 2012 10:58 Kangbao wrote:On January 11 2012 10:40 Golbat wrote:On January 11 2012 10:33 Kangbao wrote:On January 11 2012 10:22 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:
This kid tried his best to walk away from the fight, repeatedly saying he did not want to fight, exiting the bus prior to his stop to try and get away and even trying to walk away but being forced into the fight by the bully's friends. He brought his knife with him in case this would happen for self defence, just because you bring a weapon with you does not mean you "intent to kill", that's ridiculous, especially considering he tried his best to avoid the fight.
Even during the fight, he did not try to fight, however, after taking a punch from the opposing kid that was both a martial arts student and much bigger than him, he took out his knife and started slicing in panic mode, undeterred the bully still fought him and in self defence he sliced around and stabbed the bully once, not stopping until the bully stopped fighting which was when he died.
Self Defense cases are reviewed a lot, if he took out a knife and the bully ran away but he chased him down and stabbed him, this would be a homicide case. He did everything he did purely out of self defense. I didn't say he intended to kill. I said he planned on using deadly force. There is a difference. The knife is deadly force. He may have planned on simply brandishing it and saying, "Get back". I agreed this case has elements of self-defense, but I don't believe there is enough to say his use of force was justified. "I didn't say he intended to kill. I said he planned on using deadly force." That is what you said. It is the biggest contradiction I have seen in this thread. That aside, Simply brandishing a knife is not deadly force. It is brandishing a knife. You may be confused. Nevertheless, as I explained before, I think the kid simply intended to show the knife and get the kid to back off, and the bully thought he was invincible and decided to fight anyways. As they say, if you play with fire, you're going to get burned, and if you fight a kid with a knife, you're gonna get stabbed, dumbass. On January 11 2012 10:39 brokor wrote:
imo, if he had found a brick/crowbar and killed the bully it would be self defence. carrying aorund a knife screams premeditated murder. not a lawyer by a longshot , but if my brother/kid ever killed a bully like that i would lock him up myself. How does carrying a knife for protection scream premeditated murder? Just because I carry a concealed firearm doesn't mean I go out every day intending to blast someone. I have it because the world is dangerous and I might need it. The kid knew he might need it to scare off his attacker, but I don't think he thought that his attacker would still try to fight him after he pulled the knife out. Nowhere did I say "the kid intended to kill the bully". If you interpret "using deadly force" as "intending to kill" you're simply ignorant of the law. Intending to kill and using deadly force are not the same thing under the law. Deadly force is an amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person. A knife is deadly force. He may not have planned on killing anyone. Even if he intended to brandish the knife and have them back off, there was always the possibility that the guy didn't back off, and he planned on then using it. The bully was an idiot for picking on the kid in the first place, and even more so when he decided to continue fighting. That doesn't justify him being killed. The part i'm really hung up on is you saying "A knife is deadly force". A knife is not deadly force. A knife is not a force. Having a knife is not deadly force. Brandishing a knife is not deadly force. He did use deadly force however, by using the knife, which he is allowed to do within the constraints of Florida's stand your ground law. But simply a knife is not deadly force. And if you use deadly force, you must have the intention to make someone or something dead (aka kill them). On January 11 2012 11:14 fatfail wrote:
The kid should be punished for having brought a knife around. That is all. I can't see a situation where the kid would be punished for having the knife. Let's say he was caught with the knife, he would be handed over to the School Resource Officer (SRO). The SRO would then have had the kid explain why he had the knife. Then the kid tells the SRO that he is being bullied and is scared for his life or whatever, and planned on using the knife to scare thee bully away by brandishing the knife. The kid would then be told to bring the bully to the SRO's attention next time, and be sent on his way, and the bully would then be punished. Well, there is Zero Tolerance. I'm pretty sure Collier County has it. They suspende both kids for getting in fight even if one curls up in a ball while the other kicks the crap out of them. I mean, it wasn't a fight though. It was an attack. If it is truly zero tolerance like you say, where even if one kid just curls up, that's the stupidest fucking zero tolerance rule I've ever heard of. But the fight didn't happen of school property, so the school doesn't have the authority to punish the kid for what happened anyways, so your point is moot.
Most counties in Florida will not suspend someone in a fight who curls up and covers their head, however any retaliation or attempt to strike back of any kind will land the kid with a suspension. In the hypothetical situation, he's caught on campus with a knife and punished. In the real case, the school has very little standing to punish him for the knife, but they might have tried to squeeze something out of it since he did have it all day and the fight occurred shortly after the leaving of the bus. I'm not saying it's right, but they might try.
Edit: used there instead of their.
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 11 2012 11:44 Golbat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 11:35 Myles wrote:On January 11 2012 11:27 Golbat wrote:On January 11 2012 10:58 Kangbao wrote:On January 11 2012 10:40 Golbat wrote:On January 11 2012 10:33 Kangbao wrote:On January 11 2012 10:22 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:
This kid tried his best to walk away from the fight, repeatedly saying he did not want to fight, exiting the bus prior to his stop to try and get away and even trying to walk away but being forced into the fight by the bully's friends. He brought his knife with him in case this would happen for self defence, just because you bring a weapon with you does not mean you "intent to kill", that's ridiculous, especially considering he tried his best to avoid the fight.
Even during the fight, he did not try to fight, however, after taking a punch from the opposing kid that was both a martial arts student and much bigger than him, he took out his knife and started slicing in panic mode, undeterred the bully still fought him and in self defence he sliced around and stabbed the bully once, not stopping until the bully stopped fighting which was when he died.
Self Defense cases are reviewed a lot, if he took out a knife and the bully ran away but he chased him down and stabbed him, this would be a homicide case. He did everything he did purely out of self defense. I didn't say he intended to kill. I said he planned on using deadly force. There is a difference. The knife is deadly force. He may have planned on simply brandishing it and saying, "Get back". I agreed this case has elements of self-defense, but I don't believe there is enough to say his use of force was justified. "I didn't say he intended to kill. I said he planned on using deadly force." That is what you said. It is the biggest contradiction I have seen in this thread. That aside, Simply brandishing a knife is not deadly force. It is brandishing a knife. You may be confused. Nevertheless, as I explained before, I think the kid simply intended to show the knife and get the kid to back off, and the bully thought he was invincible and decided to fight anyways. As they say, if you play with fire, you're going to get burned, and if you fight a kid with a knife, you're gonna get stabbed, dumbass. On January 11 2012 10:39 brokor wrote:
imo, if he had found a brick/crowbar and killed the bully it would be self defence. carrying aorund a knife screams premeditated murder. not a lawyer by a longshot , but if my brother/kid ever killed a bully like that i would lock him up myself. How does carrying a knife for protection scream premeditated murder? Just because I carry a concealed firearm doesn't mean I go out every day intending to blast someone. I have it because the world is dangerous and I might need it. The kid knew he might need it to scare off his attacker, but I don't think he thought that his attacker would still try to fight him after he pulled the knife out. Nowhere did I say "the kid intended to kill the bully". If you interpret "using deadly force" as "intending to kill" you're simply ignorant of the law. Intending to kill and using deadly force are not the same thing under the law. Deadly force is an amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person. A knife is deadly force. He may not have planned on killing anyone. Even if he intended to brandish the knife and have them back off, there was always the possibility that the guy didn't back off, and he planned on then using it. The bully was an idiot for picking on the kid in the first place, and even more so when he decided to continue fighting. That doesn't justify him being killed. The part i'm really hung up on is you saying "A knife is deadly force". A knife is not deadly force. A knife is not a force. Having a knife is not deadly force. Brandishing a knife is not deadly force. He did use deadly force however, by using the knife, which he is allowed to do within the constraints of Florida's stand your ground law. But simply a knife is not deadly force. And if you use deadly force, you must have the intention to make someone or something dead (aka kill them). On January 11 2012 11:14 fatfail wrote:
The kid should be punished for having brought a knife around. That is all. I can't see a situation where the kid would be punished for having the knife. Let's say he was caught with the knife, he would be handed over to the School Resource Officer (SRO). The SRO would then have had the kid explain why he had the knife. Then the kid tells the SRO that he is being bullied and is scared for his life or whatever, and planned on using the knife to scare thee bully away by brandishing the knife. The kid would then be told to bring the bully to the SRO's attention next time, and be sent on his way, and the bully would then be punished. Well, there is Zero Tolerance. I'm pretty sure Collier County has it. They suspende both kids for getting in fight even if one curls up in a ball while the other kicks the crap out of them. I mean, it wasn't a fight though. It was an attack. If it is truly zero tolerance like you say, where even if one kid just curls up, that's the stupidest fucking zero tolerance rule I've ever heard of. But the fight didn't happen of school property, so the school doesn't have the authority to punish the kid for what happened anyways, so your point is moot.
It is the stupidest fucking rule in existence. A girl in a neighboring county was suspended from school and not allowed to attend graduation because of a steak knife lodged between the seats of her car that just happened to be spotted. I'm not positive it'd happen in this case, but it wouldn't surprise me.
And schools have taken action against kids for things that have happened off school grounds, but it was over extreme things. I don't remember exactly, but after trying to search for it I found that FL changed the zero tolerance policy in 2010, so that's good news.
|
On January 11 2012 11:51 Dizmaul wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 11:42 Kangbao wrote:On January 11 2012 11:27 Golbat wrote:On January 11 2012 10:58 Kangbao wrote:On January 11 2012 10:40 Golbat wrote:On January 11 2012 10:33 Kangbao wrote:On January 11 2012 10:22 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:
This kid tried his best to walk away from the fight, repeatedly saying he did not want to fight, exiting the bus prior to his stop to try and get away and even trying to walk away but being forced into the fight by the bully's friends. He brought his knife with him in case this would happen for self defence, just because you bring a weapon with you does not mean you "intent to kill", that's ridiculous, especially considering he tried his best to avoid the fight.
Even during the fight, he did not try to fight, however, after taking a punch from the opposing kid that was both a martial arts student and much bigger than him, he took out his knife and started slicing in panic mode, undeterred the bully still fought him and in self defence he sliced around and stabbed the bully once, not stopping until the bully stopped fighting which was when he died.
Self Defense cases are reviewed a lot, if he took out a knife and the bully ran away but he chased him down and stabbed him, this would be a homicide case. He did everything he did purely out of self defense. I didn't say he intended to kill. I said he planned on using deadly force. There is a difference. The knife is deadly force. He may have planned on simply brandishing it and saying, "Get back". I agreed this case has elements of self-defense, but I don't believe there is enough to say his use of force was justified. "I didn't say he intended to kill. I said he planned on using deadly force." That is what you said. It is the biggest contradiction I have seen in this thread. That aside, Simply brandishing a knife is not deadly force. It is brandishing a knife. You may be confused. Nevertheless, as I explained before, I think the kid simply intended to show the knife and get the kid to back off, and the bully thought he was invincible and decided to fight anyways. As they say, if you play with fire, you're going to get burned, and if you fight a kid with a knife, you're gonna get stabbed, dumbass. On January 11 2012 10:39 brokor wrote:
imo, if he had found a brick/crowbar and killed the bully it would be self defence. carrying aorund a knife screams premeditated murder. not a lawyer by a longshot , but if my brother/kid ever killed a bully like that i would lock him up myself. How does carrying a knife for protection scream premeditated murder? Just because I carry a concealed firearm doesn't mean I go out every day intending to blast someone. I have it because the world is dangerous and I might need it. The kid knew he might need it to scare off his attacker, but I don't think he thought that his attacker would still try to fight him after he pulled the knife out. Nowhere did I say "the kid intended to kill the bully". If you interpret "using deadly force" as "intending to kill" you're simply ignorant of the law. Intending to kill and using deadly force are not the same thing under the law. Deadly force is an amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person. A knife is deadly force. He may not have planned on killing anyone. Even if he intended to brandish the knife and have them back off, there was always the possibility that the guy didn't back off, and he planned on then using it. The bully was an idiot for picking on the kid in the first place, and even more so when he decided to continue fighting. That doesn't justify him being killed. The part i'm really hung up on is you saying "A knife is deadly force". A knife is not deadly force. A knife is not a force. Having a knife is not deadly force. Brandishing a knife is not deadly force. He did use deadly force however, by using the knife, which he is allowed to do within the constraints of Florida's stand your ground law. But simply a knife is not deadly force. And if you use deadly force, you must have the intention to make someone or something dead (aka kill them). I apologize, my language was not as clear as it should have been. I meant using the knife in the fight qualified as using deadly force. When I said he planned on using deadly force in my original post, I meant he considered the possibility of using the knife in the fight, thus using deadly force. I don't think anyone can say he took the knife to brandish, but planned on putting it away if the other guy continued to advance. Thus he planned or at least considered the possibility of using deadly force. The language of the stand your ground law says that, "attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." From what I've found, and I may be wrong if what I've read is incorrect or incomplete, death or great bodily harm was unlikely. It was one guy against him, granted the other guy was bigger. I don't think that meets the criteria to invoke the stand your ground law. I strongly doubt that the kid WANTED to kill the kid, or intended on doing so. However using the knife in the fight is still considered using deadly force. Again, "Deadly force is an amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person". There is nothing about intending to kill, just that it is likely to cause the injury or death. On January 11 2012 11:14 fatfail wrote:
The kid should be punished for having brought a knife around. That is all.
I can't see a situation where the kid would be punished for having the knife.
Let's say he was caught with the knife, he would be handed over to the School Resource Officer (SRO). The SRO would then have had the kid explain why he had the knife. Then the kid tells the SRO that he is being bullied and is scared for his life or whatever, and planned on using the knife to scare thee bully away by brandishing the knife. The kid would then be told to bring the bully to the SRO's attention next time, and be sent on his way, and the bully would then be punished. I'm sorry, but this is COMPLETELY wrong. Having a weapon on a school campus will land you with an automatic suspension, and in almost all cases an expulsion. The bully MIGHT be punished, but its very unlikely. Did you see all the evidence and hear all the testimony's during the trial like the judge did? "(He) had more than enough reason to believe he was in danger of death or great bodily harm," she wrote in her decision. Ok so you can disagree with the judge, but your have almost nothing to back up your claims except opinion.
I've said multiple times that I don't have all the information and that may make me incorrect, but from what I have seen and read from a few articles, I don't see it being justified. Of course I don't have all the information the judge had, but neither does anyone else here. Much of our discussion involves speculation and opinion.
|
On January 11 2012 11:42 Kangbao wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 11:27 Golbat wrote:On January 11 2012 10:58 Kangbao wrote:On January 11 2012 10:40 Golbat wrote:On January 11 2012 10:33 Kangbao wrote:On January 11 2012 10:22 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:
This kid tried his best to walk away from the fight, repeatedly saying he did not want to fight, exiting the bus prior to his stop to try and get away and even trying to walk away but being forced into the fight by the bully's friends. He brought his knife with him in case this would happen for self defence, just because you bring a weapon with you does not mean you "intent to kill", that's ridiculous, especially considering he tried his best to avoid the fight.
Even during the fight, he did not try to fight, however, after taking a punch from the opposing kid that was both a martial arts student and much bigger than him, he took out his knife and started slicing in panic mode, undeterred the bully still fought him and in self defence he sliced around and stabbed the bully once, not stopping until the bully stopped fighting which was when he died.
Self Defense cases are reviewed a lot, if he took out a knife and the bully ran away but he chased him down and stabbed him, this would be a homicide case. He did everything he did purely out of self defense. I didn't say he intended to kill. I said he planned on using deadly force. There is a difference. The knife is deadly force. He may have planned on simply brandishing it and saying, "Get back". I agreed this case has elements of self-defense, but I don't believe there is enough to say his use of force was justified. "I didn't say he intended to kill. I said he planned on using deadly force." That is what you said. It is the biggest contradiction I have seen in this thread. That aside, Simply brandishing a knife is not deadly force. It is brandishing a knife. You may be confused. Nevertheless, as I explained before, I think the kid simply intended to show the knife and get the kid to back off, and the bully thought he was invincible and decided to fight anyways. As they say, if you play with fire, you're going to get burned, and if you fight a kid with a knife, you're gonna get stabbed, dumbass. On January 11 2012 10:39 brokor wrote:
imo, if he had found a brick/crowbar and killed the bully it would be self defence. carrying aorund a knife screams premeditated murder. not a lawyer by a longshot , but if my brother/kid ever killed a bully like that i would lock him up myself. How does carrying a knife for protection scream premeditated murder? Just because I carry a concealed firearm doesn't mean I go out every day intending to blast someone. I have it because the world is dangerous and I might need it. The kid knew he might need it to scare off his attacker, but I don't think he thought that his attacker would still try to fight him after he pulled the knife out. Nowhere did I say "the kid intended to kill the bully". If you interpret "using deadly force" as "intending to kill" you're simply ignorant of the law. Intending to kill and using deadly force are not the same thing under the law. Deadly force is an amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person. A knife is deadly force. He may not have planned on killing anyone. Even if he intended to brandish the knife and have them back off, there was always the possibility that the guy didn't back off, and he planned on then using it. The bully was an idiot for picking on the kid in the first place, and even more so when he decided to continue fighting. That doesn't justify him being killed. The part i'm really hung up on is you saying "A knife is deadly force". A knife is not deadly force. A knife is not a force. Having a knife is not deadly force. Brandishing a knife is not deadly force. He did use deadly force however, by using the knife, which he is allowed to do within the constraints of Florida's stand your ground law. But simply a knife is not deadly force. And if you use deadly force, you must have the intention to make someone or something dead (aka kill them). I apologize, my language was not as clear as it should have been. I meant using the knife in the fight qualified as using deadly force. When I said he planned on using deadly force in my original post, I meant he considered the possibility of using the knife in the fight, thus using deadly force. I don't think anyone can say he took the knife to brandish, but planned on putting it away if the other guy continued to advance. Thus he planned or at least considered the possibility of using deadly force. The language of the stand your ground law says that, "attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." From what I've found, and I may be wrong if what I've read is incorrect or incomplete, death or great bodily harm was unlikely. It was one guy against him, granted the other guy was bigger. I don't think that meets the criteria to invoke the stand your ground law. I strongly doubt that the kid WANTED to kill the kid, or intended on doing so. However using the knife in the fight is still considered using deadly force. Again, "Deadly force is an amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person". There is nothing about intending to kill, just that it is likely to cause the injury or death.
I think we're actually on the same side of this argument man. The kid was within his rights to use deadly force, and he did, and that was within the bounds of the law. I'm sorry I got hung up on your words like that, I shouldn't have.
On January 11 2012 11:41 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
@Golbat If she kills the man, yes. self defense can lower the punishment but killing someone even accidently is something that must not be condoned. and im not saying he should go to jail, but maybe go to an institution on weekends for a little while so that diffrent methods of conflict resolution can be instilled in the kid. and he might need some help at school because you can bet he will be even further ostracized for killing someone, unfortunately all parties lost in this situation.
You on the other hand, are COMPLETELY wrong. If you kill someone whilst defending yourself, then the killing of the aggressor is completely and totally justified. I don't see how you can just blindly say all killing should be punished because killing is bad. That's so closed minded it makes my brain hurt. The part about "different methods of conflict resolution" especially. If you're a woman and some guy drags you into an alley and is about to shove his dick in you, what the fuck are you supposed to do but try and incapacitate him? If there's a nearby brick, swing away girl. Is a woman being raped supposed to say something like "hey man, you need to calm down with the wiener and the putting it inside me thing"? That's utterly ridiculous.
|
On January 11 2012 11:53 Kangbao wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 11:51 Dizmaul wrote:On January 11 2012 11:42 Kangbao wrote:On January 11 2012 11:27 Golbat wrote:On January 11 2012 10:58 Kangbao wrote:On January 11 2012 10:40 Golbat wrote:On January 11 2012 10:33 Kangbao wrote:On January 11 2012 10:22 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:
This kid tried his best to walk away from the fight, repeatedly saying he did not want to fight, exiting the bus prior to his stop to try and get away and even trying to walk away but being forced into the fight by the bully's friends. He brought his knife with him in case this would happen for self defence, just because you bring a weapon with you does not mean you "intent to kill", that's ridiculous, especially considering he tried his best to avoid the fight.
Even during the fight, he did not try to fight, however, after taking a punch from the opposing kid that was both a martial arts student and much bigger than him, he took out his knife and started slicing in panic mode, undeterred the bully still fought him and in self defence he sliced around and stabbed the bully once, not stopping until the bully stopped fighting which was when he died.
Self Defense cases are reviewed a lot, if he took out a knife and the bully ran away but he chased him down and stabbed him, this would be a homicide case. He did everything he did purely out of self defense. I didn't say he intended to kill. I said he planned on using deadly force. There is a difference. The knife is deadly force. He may have planned on simply brandishing it and saying, "Get back". I agreed this case has elements of self-defense, but I don't believe there is enough to say his use of force was justified. "I didn't say he intended to kill. I said he planned on using deadly force." That is what you said. It is the biggest contradiction I have seen in this thread. That aside, Simply brandishing a knife is not deadly force. It is brandishing a knife. You may be confused. Nevertheless, as I explained before, I think the kid simply intended to show the knife and get the kid to back off, and the bully thought he was invincible and decided to fight anyways. As they say, if you play with fire, you're going to get burned, and if you fight a kid with a knife, you're gonna get stabbed, dumbass. On January 11 2012 10:39 brokor wrote:
imo, if he had found a brick/crowbar and killed the bully it would be self defence. carrying aorund a knife screams premeditated murder. not a lawyer by a longshot , but if my brother/kid ever killed a bully like that i would lock him up myself. How does carrying a knife for protection scream premeditated murder? Just because I carry a concealed firearm doesn't mean I go out every day intending to blast someone. I have it because the world is dangerous and I might need it. The kid knew he might need it to scare off his attacker, but I don't think he thought that his attacker would still try to fight him after he pulled the knife out. Nowhere did I say "the kid intended to kill the bully". If you interpret "using deadly force" as "intending to kill" you're simply ignorant of the law. Intending to kill and using deadly force are not the same thing under the law. Deadly force is an amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person. A knife is deadly force. He may not have planned on killing anyone. Even if he intended to brandish the knife and have them back off, there was always the possibility that the guy didn't back off, and he planned on then using it. The bully was an idiot for picking on the kid in the first place, and even more so when he decided to continue fighting. That doesn't justify him being killed. The part i'm really hung up on is you saying "A knife is deadly force". A knife is not deadly force. A knife is not a force. Having a knife is not deadly force. Brandishing a knife is not deadly force. He did use deadly force however, by using the knife, which he is allowed to do within the constraints of Florida's stand your ground law. But simply a knife is not deadly force. And if you use deadly force, you must have the intention to make someone or something dead (aka kill them). I apologize, my language was not as clear as it should have been. I meant using the knife in the fight qualified as using deadly force. When I said he planned on using deadly force in my original post, I meant he considered the possibility of using the knife in the fight, thus using deadly force. I don't think anyone can say he took the knife to brandish, but planned on putting it away if the other guy continued to advance. Thus he planned or at least considered the possibility of using deadly force. The language of the stand your ground law says that, "attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." From what I've found, and I may be wrong if what I've read is incorrect or incomplete, death or great bodily harm was unlikely. It was one guy against him, granted the other guy was bigger. I don't think that meets the criteria to invoke the stand your ground law. I strongly doubt that the kid WANTED to kill the kid, or intended on doing so. However using the knife in the fight is still considered using deadly force. Again, "Deadly force is an amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person". There is nothing about intending to kill, just that it is likely to cause the injury or death. On January 11 2012 11:14 fatfail wrote:
The kid should be punished for having brought a knife around. That is all.
I can't see a situation where the kid would be punished for having the knife.
Let's say he was caught with the knife, he would be handed over to the School Resource Officer (SRO). The SRO would then have had the kid explain why he had the knife. Then the kid tells the SRO that he is being bullied and is scared for his life or whatever, and planned on using the knife to scare thee bully away by brandishing the knife. The kid would then be told to bring the bully to the SRO's attention next time, and be sent on his way, and the bully would then be punished. I'm sorry, but this is COMPLETELY wrong. Having a weapon on a school campus will land you with an automatic suspension, and in almost all cases an expulsion. The bully MIGHT be punished, but its very unlikely. Did you see all the evidence and hear all the testimony's during the trial like the judge did? "(He) had more than enough reason to believe he was in danger of death or great bodily harm," she wrote in her decision. Ok so you can disagree with the judge, but your have almost nothing to back up your claims except opinion. I've said multiple times that I don't have all the information and that may make me incorrect, but from what I have seen and read from a few articles, I don't see it being justified. Of course I don't have all the information the judge had, but neither does anyone else here. Much of our discussion involves speculation and opinion.
Only for the people who don't believe the judge made the right decision. Since she did have all the information I would take her ruling above all else. After all the evidence was presented to her she did not say he had reason, she said he had MORE THEN ENOUGH REASON. I would assume this means she was not on tilt about the case, that it was pretty clear to her.
|
I'm pretty sure the judge has better judgment than all of us. His/her ruling seems ti go with the facts presented in the case. No one is going to look at this kid and say he's a cold-blooded killer or anything. This is a model case of self-defense.
|
On January 11 2012 11:57 Dizmaul wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 11:53 Kangbao wrote:On January 11 2012 11:51 Dizmaul wrote:On January 11 2012 11:42 Kangbao wrote:On January 11 2012 11:27 Golbat wrote:On January 11 2012 10:58 Kangbao wrote:On January 11 2012 10:40 Golbat wrote:On January 11 2012 10:33 Kangbao wrote:On January 11 2012 10:22 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:
This kid tried his best to walk away from the fight, repeatedly saying he did not want to fight, exiting the bus prior to his stop to try and get away and even trying to walk away but being forced into the fight by the bully's friends. He brought his knife with him in case this would happen for self defence, just because you bring a weapon with you does not mean you "intent to kill", that's ridiculous, especially considering he tried his best to avoid the fight.
Even during the fight, he did not try to fight, however, after taking a punch from the opposing kid that was both a martial arts student and much bigger than him, he took out his knife and started slicing in panic mode, undeterred the bully still fought him and in self defence he sliced around and stabbed the bully once, not stopping until the bully stopped fighting which was when he died.
Self Defense cases are reviewed a lot, if he took out a knife and the bully ran away but he chased him down and stabbed him, this would be a homicide case. He did everything he did purely out of self defense. I didn't say he intended to kill. I said he planned on using deadly force. There is a difference. The knife is deadly force. He may have planned on simply brandishing it and saying, "Get back". I agreed this case has elements of self-defense, but I don't believe there is enough to say his use of force was justified. "I didn't say he intended to kill. I said he planned on using deadly force." That is what you said. It is the biggest contradiction I have seen in this thread. That aside, Simply brandishing a knife is not deadly force. It is brandishing a knife. You may be confused. Nevertheless, as I explained before, I think the kid simply intended to show the knife and get the kid to back off, and the bully thought he was invincible and decided to fight anyways. As they say, if you play with fire, you're going to get burned, and if you fight a kid with a knife, you're gonna get stabbed, dumbass. On January 11 2012 10:39 brokor wrote:
imo, if he had found a brick/crowbar and killed the bully it would be self defence. carrying aorund a knife screams premeditated murder. not a lawyer by a longshot , but if my brother/kid ever killed a bully like that i would lock him up myself. How does carrying a knife for protection scream premeditated murder? Just because I carry a concealed firearm doesn't mean I go out every day intending to blast someone. I have it because the world is dangerous and I might need it. The kid knew he might need it to scare off his attacker, but I don't think he thought that his attacker would still try to fight him after he pulled the knife out. Nowhere did I say "the kid intended to kill the bully". If you interpret "using deadly force" as "intending to kill" you're simply ignorant of the law. Intending to kill and using deadly force are not the same thing under the law. Deadly force is an amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person. A knife is deadly force. He may not have planned on killing anyone. Even if he intended to brandish the knife and have them back off, there was always the possibility that the guy didn't back off, and he planned on then using it. The bully was an idiot for picking on the kid in the first place, and even more so when he decided to continue fighting. That doesn't justify him being killed. The part i'm really hung up on is you saying "A knife is deadly force". A knife is not deadly force. A knife is not a force. Having a knife is not deadly force. Brandishing a knife is not deadly force. He did use deadly force however, by using the knife, which he is allowed to do within the constraints of Florida's stand your ground law. But simply a knife is not deadly force. And if you use deadly force, you must have the intention to make someone or something dead (aka kill them). I apologize, my language was not as clear as it should have been. I meant using the knife in the fight qualified as using deadly force. When I said he planned on using deadly force in my original post, I meant he considered the possibility of using the knife in the fight, thus using deadly force. I don't think anyone can say he took the knife to brandish, but planned on putting it away if the other guy continued to advance. Thus he planned or at least considered the possibility of using deadly force. The language of the stand your ground law says that, "attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." From what I've found, and I may be wrong if what I've read is incorrect or incomplete, death or great bodily harm was unlikely. It was one guy against him, granted the other guy was bigger. I don't think that meets the criteria to invoke the stand your ground law. I strongly doubt that the kid WANTED to kill the kid, or intended on doing so. However using the knife in the fight is still considered using deadly force. Again, "Deadly force is an amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person". There is nothing about intending to kill, just that it is likely to cause the injury or death. On January 11 2012 11:14 fatfail wrote:
The kid should be punished for having brought a knife around. That is all.
I can't see a situation where the kid would be punished for having the knife.
Let's say he was caught with the knife, he would be handed over to the School Resource Officer (SRO). The SRO would then have had the kid explain why he had the knife. Then the kid tells the SRO that he is being bullied and is scared for his life or whatever, and planned on using the knife to scare thee bully away by brandishing the knife. The kid would then be told to bring the bully to the SRO's attention next time, and be sent on his way, and the bully would then be punished. I'm sorry, but this is COMPLETELY wrong. Having a weapon on a school campus will land you with an automatic suspension, and in almost all cases an expulsion. The bully MIGHT be punished, but its very unlikely. Did you see all the evidence and hear all the testimony's during the trial like the judge did? "(He) had more than enough reason to believe he was in danger of death or great bodily harm," she wrote in her decision. Ok so you can disagree with the judge, but your have almost nothing to back up your claims except opinion. I've said multiple times that I don't have all the information and that may make me incorrect, but from what I have seen and read from a few articles, I don't see it being justified. Of course I don't have all the information the judge had, but neither does anyone else here. Much of our discussion involves speculation and opinion. Only for the people who don't believe the judge made the right decision. Since she did have all the information I would take her ruling above all else. After all the evidence was presented to her she did not say he had reason, she said he had MORE THEN ENOUGH REASON. I would assume this means she was not on tilt about the case, that it was pretty clear to her.
Questioning rulings and laws is a good thing for a country. The implications of this are quite large. Lets face it, bullying is much, much more prevalent than we'd like it to be. This could be a dangerous precedent if people don't look at it and question whether or not the right decision was made. Not only is this large for bullying, but the decision that he had more than enough reason to use deadly force against an unarmed opponent could be used in the future. It is unfortunate that I don't have all the testimony about what happened, but discussing this based off of what we have isn't a bad thing.
Again, I will say that I don't have all the information that I would like to have and my opinion on the matter may or may not be changed should other facts surface.
I hope she didn't write "more then enough reason". I would hope our judges are better educated than that. 
|
Good Riddance, hope he can live with it.
|
I do beleive all killing is wrong, and although it can be justified it is never right. incapacitating the man by smacking over the head with a brick is fine, but if while he is down on the ground you hit him again for "good measure" that is wrong. I do Kung Fu and in order these are the ways to attempt to resolve conflict that are taught to us.
1) try to avoid actions that would get you into conflict.
2) try to resolve conflict verbally.
3) try to escape the aggressor.
4) if there are other people around ask for help
5) fight back using the minimum force neccessary.
of course in your scenario presuming she was just randomly grabbed point 1 has no effect. But you should not immediately try to kill someone to defend yourself. I apoligize for appearing close minded, i will try and correct that.
If a kid is carrying around a knife, why not a taser perfecly good for incapacitation, and less likely to accidently kill someone.
|
On January 11 2012 12:09 Kangbao wrote:Questioning rulings and laws is a good thing for a country. The implications of this are quite large. Lets face it, bullying is much, much more prevalent than we'd like it to be. This could be a dangerous precedent if people don't look at it and question whether or not the right decision was made. Not only is this large for bullying, but the decision that he had more than enough reason to use deadly force against an unarmed opponent could be used in the future. It is unfortunate that I don't have all the testimony about what happened, but discussing this based off of what we have isn't a bad thing. Again, I will say that I don't have all the information that I would like to have and my opinion on the matter may or may not be changed should other facts surface. I hope she didn't write "more then enough reason". I would hope our judges are better educated than that.
What precedent would he be setting?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
