|
'The ruling largely turned on the following facts, apparently:
1. The accused was made aware that a fight was being scheduled, and attempted to get off of the bus a few stops early.
2. The decedent followed the accused off of the bus.
3. The decedent punched the accused in the back of the head.
4. The accused initially fled, but was chased down by the decedent.
That being the case, it seems readily apparent that the accused made a concerted effort to extricate himself from a violent situation, but was unable to. After the decedent made it clear, through threats and force, of hostile intent, along with assault and battery, the accused was entitled to defend himself.
Really, the only measure that the accused could have been found guilty of would be if there was an issue with the degree of response (i.e. stabbing) in order to defend himself. However, Florida's laws permit a greater degree of defensive response than many other jurisdictions, so I imagine that is why the judge dismissed the charges.
Good ruling, in my opinion. '
|
I love how many people are claiming that this is purely a western thing and how this could only happen in America but would any of you actually think about how things might have been different if someone on that island in Norway had defended themselves? They would have been a hero then, and not just in Norway. I know the situations are pretty different but the same defense principal applies. You never know just how far a bully or crazy person will go.
I think alot of people on here have completely lost sight of the overall situation simply because someone died. The bullied had been living with this going on for over a year and now he has to live with the fact that he killed someone. It's a horrible situation for everyone involved so dont turn this into another "bash America and western civ" thread.
|
When I was at school and there was a fight, you would fight, there's this thing called sticking up for yourself, fights are common between young kids. But hey nobody ever stabbed/shot anyone. (Like in America.) I thought that was a part of growing up, get in a fight, give it your best. I highly doubt his 'life was threatened'..I must have missed the part where it said the bully was carrying a weapon..
|
On January 11 2012 23:05 KryptoStorm wrote:
When I was at school and there was a fight, you would fight, there's this thing called sticking up for yourself, fights are common between young kids. But hey nobody ever stabbed/shot anyone. (Like in America.) I thought that was a part of growing up, get in a fight, give it your best. I highly doubt his 'life was threatened'..I must have missed the part where it said the bully was carrying a weapon..
fuck off
User was warned for this post
|
Interesting, I just read this.
'In her decision, signed Dec. 30, 2011, the judge said Saavedra had “no duty to retreat” and was “legally entitled to meet force with force, even deadly force.”' - So in America if someone starts a fight with you. (Which probably happens multiple times per week in a school environment, you're allowed to kill them?
|
United States99 Posts
Good for him, damn bullies are rediculous. They deserve what they get if they pick on the weaker.
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 11 2012 23:11 KryptoStorm wrote:
Interesting, I just read this.
'In her decision, signed Dec. 30, 2011, the judge said Saavedra had “no duty to retreat” and was “legally entitled to meet force with force, even deadly force.”' - So in America if someone starts a fight with you. (Which probably happens multiple times per week in a school environment, you're allowed to kill them?
In Florida you are if you're defending yourself.
It doesn't mean you can chase them down and kill them if they attack you first, but if in the process of the fight the other person dies then you are not liable.
|
On January 11 2012 23:18 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 23:11 KryptoStorm wrote:
Interesting, I just read this.
'In her decision, signed Dec. 30, 2011, the judge said Saavedra had “no duty to retreat” and was “legally entitled to meet force with force, even deadly force.”' - So in America if someone starts a fight with you. (Which probably happens multiple times per week in a school environment, you're allowed to kill them? In Florida you are if you're defending yourself. It doesn't mean you can chase them down and kill them if they attack you first, but if in the process of the fight the other person dies then you are not liable.
You know it's no suprise with laws like this in America there are so many people carrying knives/guns. Hey someone says something to me, or makes threating gestures, i'll just kill them and it'll be fine!  (Yeah I just read of other cases of this law protecting murderers, some guy 'felt threatened' by another guys presence and shot him, got off scot-free!
|
On January 11 2012 23:22 KryptoStorm wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 23:18 Myles wrote:On January 11 2012 23:11 KryptoStorm wrote:
Interesting, I just read this.
'In her decision, signed Dec. 30, 2011, the judge said Saavedra had “no duty to retreat” and was “legally entitled to meet force with force, even deadly force.”' - So in America if someone starts a fight with you. (Which probably happens multiple times per week in a school environment, you're allowed to kill them? In Florida you are if you're defending yourself. It doesn't mean you can chase them down and kill them if they attack you first, but if in the process of the fight the other person dies then you are not liable. You know it's no suprise with laws like this in America there are so many people carrying knives/guns. Hey someone says something to me, or makes threating gestures, i'll just kill them and it'll be fine! (Yeah I just read of other cases of this law protecting murderers, some guy 'felt threatened' by another guys presence and shot him, got off scot-free!
You're ignoring the facts of the case here.
|
On January 11 2012 23:25 Proko wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 23:22 KryptoStorm wrote:On January 11 2012 23:18 Myles wrote:On January 11 2012 23:11 KryptoStorm wrote:
Interesting, I just read this.
'In her decision, signed Dec. 30, 2011, the judge said Saavedra had “no duty to retreat” and was “legally entitled to meet force with force, even deadly force.”' - So in America if someone starts a fight with you. (Which probably happens multiple times per week in a school environment, you're allowed to kill them? In Florida you are if you're defending yourself. It doesn't mean you can chase them down and kill them if they attack you first, but if in the process of the fight the other person dies then you are not liable. You know it's no suprise with laws like this in America there are so many people carrying knives/guns. Hey someone says something to me, or makes threating gestures, i'll just kill them and it'll be fine! (Yeah I just read of other cases of this law protecting murderers, some guy 'felt threatened' by another guys presence and shot him, got off scot-free! You're ignoring the facts of the case here.
Ignoring the facts of the case? The fact is a 14 year old kid STABBED another kid to DEATH, and is LET OFF with NO PUNISHMENT. Those right there are the facts.
|
On January 11 2012 23:11 KryptoStorm wrote:
Interesting, I just read this.
'In her decision, signed Dec. 30, 2011, the judge said Saavedra had “no duty to retreat” and was “legally entitled to meet force with force, even deadly force.”' - So in America if someone starts a fight with you. (Which probably happens multiple times per week in a school environment, you're allowed to kill them?
Self defense laws exists so people can properly protect themselves when they are in danger of death or great bodily harm, as was the kid's case. If he could have helped it, the kid wouldn't have killed the bully, but as in all fights, there is always a chance of shit happening.
It's sad that the bully had to die, but self defense laws are necessary in society.
|
|
|
|
|
On January 11 2012 23:29 aaronlolol wrote:
Karma LOL
Incredibly un-educated LOL.
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 11 2012 23:22 KryptoStorm wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 23:18 Myles wrote:On January 11 2012 23:11 KryptoStorm wrote:
Interesting, I just read this.
'In her decision, signed Dec. 30, 2011, the judge said Saavedra had “no duty to retreat” and was “legally entitled to meet force with force, even deadly force.”' - So in America if someone starts a fight with you. (Which probably happens multiple times per week in a school environment, you're allowed to kill them? In Florida you are if you're defending yourself. It doesn't mean you can chase them down and kill them if they attack you first, but if in the process of the fight the other person dies then you are not liable. You know it's no suprise with laws like this in America there are so many people carrying knives/guns. Hey someone says something to me, or makes threating gestures, i'll just kill them and it'll be fine! (Yeah I just read of other cases of this law protecting murderers, some guy 'felt threatened' by another guys presence and shot him, got off scot-free!
That's a bit of an exaggeration. You can't just claim to feel threatened and have free reign to kill someone. A judge looks at everything and has to decide if feeling threatened is legitimate. I read up on what you're talking about(or at least one story about a guy shooting two others who drunkenly boarded his boat, and after arguing with him, supposedly got threatening) and it's not as cut and dry as this case imo, but I'd need more info on what actually happened and why the judge sided with the killer.
It's also a state specific law.
|
|
|
On January 11 2012 23:31 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 23:22 KryptoStorm wrote:On January 11 2012 23:18 Myles wrote:On January 11 2012 23:11 KryptoStorm wrote:
Interesting, I just read this.
'In her decision, signed Dec. 30, 2011, the judge said Saavedra had “no duty to retreat” and was “legally entitled to meet force with force, even deadly force.”' - So in America if someone starts a fight with you. (Which probably happens multiple times per week in a school environment, you're allowed to kill them? In Florida you are if you're defending yourself. It doesn't mean you can chase them down and kill them if they attack you first, but if in the process of the fight the other person dies then you are not liable. You know it's no suprise with laws like this in America there are so many people carrying knives/guns. Hey someone says something to me, or makes threating gestures, i'll just kill them and it'll be fine! (Yeah I just read of other cases of this law protecting murderers, some guy 'felt threatened' by another guys presence and shot him, got off scot-free! That's a bit of an exaggeration. You can't just claim to feel threatened and have free reign to kill someone. A judge looks at everything and has to decide if feeling threatened is legitimate. I read up on what you're talking about(or at least one story about a guy shooting two others who drunkenly boarded his boat, and after arguing with him, supposedly got threatening) and it's not as cut and dry as this case imo, but I'd need more info on what actually happened and why the judge sided with the killer. It's also a state specific law.
Well you see that's entirely different, if someone enters another persons property it changes entirely.
|
On January 11 2012 23:32 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 23:27 KryptoStorm wrote:On January 11 2012 23:25 Proko wrote:On January 11 2012 23:22 KryptoStorm wrote:On January 11 2012 23:18 Myles wrote:On January 11 2012 23:11 KryptoStorm wrote:
Interesting, I just read this.
'In her decision, signed Dec. 30, 2011, the judge said Saavedra had “no duty to retreat” and was “legally entitled to meet force with force, even deadly force.”' - So in America if someone starts a fight with you. (Which probably happens multiple times per week in a school environment, you're allowed to kill them? In Florida you are if you're defending yourself. It doesn't mean you can chase them down and kill them if they attack you first, but if in the process of the fight the other person dies then you are not liable. You know it's no suprise with laws like this in America there are so many people carrying knives/guns. Hey someone says something to me, or makes threating gestures, i'll just kill them and it'll be fine! (Yeah I just read of other cases of this law protecting murderers, some guy 'felt threatened' by another guys presence and shot him, got off scot-free! You're ignoring the facts of the case here. Ignoring the facts of the case? The fact is a 14 year old kid STABBED another kid to DEATH, and is LET OFF with NO PUNISHMENT. Those right there are the facts. It's not just the Truth. If you add "nothing but the truth", that's not enough either. It's also about the WHOLE truth. Massive Dunning-Kruger up in here.
What the hell are you talking about? So you're saying the 'truth' isn't that a 14 year old stabbed another kid to death and has been let off with no punishment? Oh well I must have read it all wrong..
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 11 2012 23:33 KryptoStorm wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 23:31 Myles wrote:On January 11 2012 23:22 KryptoStorm wrote:On January 11 2012 23:18 Myles wrote:On January 11 2012 23:11 KryptoStorm wrote:
Interesting, I just read this.
'In her decision, signed Dec. 30, 2011, the judge said Saavedra had “no duty to retreat” and was “legally entitled to meet force with force, even deadly force.”' - So in America if someone starts a fight with you. (Which probably happens multiple times per week in a school environment, you're allowed to kill them? In Florida you are if you're defending yourself. It doesn't mean you can chase them down and kill them if they attack you first, but if in the process of the fight the other person dies then you are not liable. You know it's no suprise with laws like this in America there are so many people carrying knives/guns. Hey someone says something to me, or makes threating gestures, i'll just kill them and it'll be fine! (Yeah I just read of other cases of this law protecting murderers, some guy 'felt threatened' by another guys presence and shot him, got off scot-free! That's a bit of an exaggeration. You can't just claim to feel threatened and have free reign to kill someone. A judge looks at everything and has to decide if feeling threatened is legitimate. I read up on what you're talking about(or at least one story about a guy shooting two others who drunkenly boarded his boat, and after arguing with him, supposedly got threatening) and it's not as cut and dry as this case imo, but I'd need more info on what actually happened and why the judge sided with the killer. It's also a state specific law. Well you see that's entirely different, if someone enters another persons property it changes entirely.
So it's ok to defend your property with deadly force but not your person? That makes no sense. If you're under attack, which the kid was, you are able to defend yourself even with deadly force. Add in the fact that he tried numerous times to avoid the fight in the first place, and how you can claim he is somehow liable is beyond me.
|
Ok people, it's time to lay down some hard logic on dis bitch!
Assumption: You always want the best possible outcome for yourself in the position of the bullied kid in this situation.
What options do we have?
1. Tell on the bullies.
This will do NOTHING since both school and other institutions really don't give a fucking shit and just have "anti-bully"-progams to keep up appearances.
2. Wound the bullies or in any other way make them not fight you.
There is always a risk the bullies will return (a very high one) and you're really just delaying the inevitable.
3. Kill them.
Best option undoubtedly. Noone bullies you anymore, you dole out some justice in this world and you wont get caught.
Obviously killing them yields the best outcome by pure logic.
Also I have seen some quite stupid arguments in this thread:
- "Well he didnt have to stab him!"
What is he going to do? Get his ass kicked?
- "WITH THIS RULING ITS NOW OK TO KILL IN USA"
No it's not idiot, it was a clear case of self-defense.
- "He could have calculated minimum damage and not killed him!"
Well, if someone tries to kill you, you make sure that they go down and stay that way. You dont want any surprises. And even if he COULD calculate the minimum damage needed not to kill, imagine how angry the bully would be after healing up?..
TL;DR: Bullied did nothing wrong, scumbag bully had it coming, I don't care about your "omg a kid died so it's wrong", you have never been bullied so you dont know how it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
