|
On January 11 2012 08:05 Velr wrote:
Yeah, and i don't give a fuck about how the law is in Florida and i didn't for the last 20 pages.
I give a fuck about so many people here thinking somehow it is ok for that kid to kill it's bully with a knive and walking away whiteout any punishment.
Laws are subject to change. Laws also don't make morally "right or wrong".
Some people just deserve to die man...
|
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..
Weapons are not needed to threaten someone's life. When I attended a school in England, I saw that well enough. Self-defense is a valid defense there too (and can be extended to the defense of others).
|
On January 11 2012 23:38 Daimai wrote:
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.
So you/the judge is saying that if he didn't kill the bully he WOULD have been killed himself? How exactly? Seriously when you people where at school weren't there fights? Was anyone ever killed in a schoolyard brawl, no..maybe a bust nose at the most! It's part of growing up.
|
in florida if you get trick threatened by candid camera you're allowed to stab the joker 12 times in the chest. perfectly legal and morally civil.
the judge says "poor you, you must have felt so threatened and humiliated. you were 100% in the right to kill that person... you couldn't have known that it was a prank at the time".
|
Seriously, everyone defending the bully hasn't read the police report or hasn't even thoroughly read the news reports, please, if you're going to cry "it was unjustified", read up on the actual case before making yourself look like a total and complete idiot by making constant "assumptions" - what you think happened means jack shit, and how you feel about what you think happened means even less. If you're not going to do research or read up on the case, don't bother replying, please. You're seriously clogging this thread with trash replies.
The kid that tried his extreme best to avoid the fight was disoriented from repeated punches to the back of his head; his vision was blurred and he could not make out what was happening properly, he took out his knife because he thought he was being attacked by multiple people as he heard the bully and his friends constantly yelling, he blindly stabbed in front of him while the bully, who was completely concious, made no effort to get away, he was still beating up on the kid.
Anyone that has ever been in a fight knows that if you're loaded up with adrenaline you have little control over your actions, pair that with completely blurred vision and disorientation and multiple people yelling around him and blaming the kid for this is, at best, retarded.
Anyone that knows anything about fights and human violence as well, know that humans are very fragile and fights can escalate to extremely dangerous levels very quickly. Even professional people trained for combat make mistakes and judgements in the heat of the moment, much less a 14 year old kid.
A remotely innocent fight between two kids can get lethal within seconds if the bully decides he wants to bash the victims head against the pavement. And anyone suggesting it's better for you to just put yourself in the mercy of the aggressors than to defend yourself when you have the option to is just being plain ridiculous.
|
On January 11 2012 23:41 -_-Quails wrote:Show nested quote +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.. Weapons are not needed to threaten someone's life. When I attended a school in England, I saw that well enough. Self-defense is a valid defense there too (and can be extended to the defense of others).
You defend yourself with your firsts, you know not a lethal weapon. (Meaning a knife/gun)
|
On January 11 2012 23:42 shizna wrote:
in florida if you get trick threatened by candid camera you're allowed to stab the joker 12 times in the chest. perfectly legal and morally civil.
Basically yes, I guess in Florida you shouldn't scare someone...they might kill you remembering the fact that there is no punishment!
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 11 2012 23:42 KryptoStorm wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 23:38 Daimai wrote:
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.
So you/the judge is saying that if he didn't kill the bully he WOULD have been killed himself? How exactly? Seriously when you people where at school weren't there fights? Was anyone ever killed in a schoolyard brawl, no..maybe a bust nose at the most! It's part of growing up.
I've seen people disabled from school yard fights and another who needed to have facial reconstruction surgery.
|
On January 11 2012 23:44 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 23:42 KryptoStorm wrote:On January 11 2012 23:38 Daimai wrote:
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.
So you/the judge is saying that if he didn't kill the bully he WOULD have been killed himself? How exactly? Seriously when you people where at school weren't there fights? Was anyone ever killed in a schoolyard brawl, no..maybe a bust nose at the most! It's part of growing up. I've seen people disabled from school yard fights and another who needed to have facial reconstruction surgery.
Wow that's insane, at my school there was many a fight, nobody ever got hurt badly, in your school years you seen what, 3 people+ seriously hurt? Man i'm glad I never grew up over there.
|
On January 11 2012 23:45 KryptoStorm wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 23:44 Myles wrote:On January 11 2012 23:42 KryptoStorm wrote:On January 11 2012 23:38 Daimai wrote:
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.
So you/the judge is saying that if he didn't kill the bully he WOULD have been killed himself? How exactly? Seriously when you people where at school weren't there fights? Was anyone ever killed in a schoolyard brawl, no..maybe a bust nose at the most! It's part of growing up. I've seen people disabled from school yard fights and another who needed to have facial reconstruction surgery. Wow that's insane, at my school there was many a fight, nobody ever got hurt badly, in your school years you seen what, 3 people+ seriously hurt? Man i'm glad I never grew up over there.
Well man, tell me I'm fucked up and sick, but I'd kill hundreds of people with my own hands rather than becoming disabled or brain damaged by some fucking 80 IQ monkey just because he gets off on beating people.
Also I'm not saying he would have been killed himself, but I don't care. I'd rather kill the bully in self-defence than get hurt.
|
On January 11 2012 23:48 Daimai wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 23:45 KryptoStorm wrote:On January 11 2012 23:44 Myles wrote:On January 11 2012 23:42 KryptoStorm wrote:On January 11 2012 23:38 Daimai wrote:
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.
So you/the judge is saying that if he didn't kill the bully he WOULD have been killed himself? How exactly? Seriously when you people where at school weren't there fights? Was anyone ever killed in a schoolyard brawl, no..maybe a bust nose at the most! It's part of growing up. I've seen people disabled from school yard fights and another who needed to have facial reconstruction surgery. Wow that's insane, at my school there was many a fight, nobody ever got hurt badly, in your school years you seen what, 3 people+ seriously hurt? Man i'm glad I never grew up over there. Well man, tell me I'm fucked up and sick, but I'd kill hundreds of people with my own hands rather than becoming disabled or brain damaged by some fucking 80 IQ monkey just because he gets off on beating people.
I don't think that's fucked up or sick, but i'm not saying you shouldn't defend yourself, you have every right to, but not with a lethal fucking weapon, I think some people are mis-understanding me..
|
On January 11 2012 23:49 KryptoStorm wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 23:48 Daimai wrote:On January 11 2012 23:45 KryptoStorm wrote:On January 11 2012 23:44 Myles wrote:On January 11 2012 23:42 KryptoStorm wrote:On January 11 2012 23:38 Daimai wrote:
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.
So you/the judge is saying that if he didn't kill the bully he WOULD have been killed himself? How exactly? Seriously when you people where at school weren't there fights? Was anyone ever killed in a schoolyard brawl, no..maybe a bust nose at the most! It's part of growing up. I've seen people disabled from school yard fights and another who needed to have facial reconstruction surgery. Wow that's insane, at my school there was many a fight, nobody ever got hurt badly, in your school years you seen what, 3 people+ seriously hurt? Man i'm glad I never grew up over there. Well man, tell me I'm fucked up and sick, but I'd kill hundreds of people with my own hands rather than becoming disabled or brain damaged by some fucking 80 IQ monkey just because he gets off on beating people. I don't think that's fucked up or sick, but i'm not saying you shouldn't defend yourself, you have every right to, but not with a lethal fucking weapon, I think some people are mis-understanding me..
How exactly are you supposed to defend yourself from 3 people who are older, bigger, and probably stronger than you?
|
On January 11 2012 23:45 KryptoStorm wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 23:44 Myles wrote:On January 11 2012 23:42 KryptoStorm wrote:On January 11 2012 23:38 Daimai wrote:
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.
So you/the judge is saying that if he didn't kill the bully he WOULD have been killed himself? How exactly? Seriously when you people where at school weren't there fights? Was anyone ever killed in a schoolyard brawl, no..maybe a bust nose at the most! It's part of growing up. I've seen people disabled from school yard fights and another who needed to have facial reconstruction surgery. Wow that's insane, at my school there was many a fight, nobody ever got hurt badly, in your school years you seen what, 3 people+ seriously hurt? Man i'm glad I never grew up over there.
Why do people get hung up on the word bully? It was assault. Your personal anecdotes is worthless, there's far too many factors involved. Are you saying no people ever get seriously hurt by someone beating them up? That stupid and even if most cases people end up fine, it has absolutely no relevance to the individual case. Lets say 0.1 % of every beating ends up with serious damage, do you realise how many cases that would be in total? Without looking at the context at each individual case, which you and a lot of other seems not to bother to do, you have an extreemly weak argument.
|
On January 11 2012 21:08 Reggiegigas wrote:
Bringing a knife to school is of course completely unacceptable, no matter the reasoning. He should've brought the bullying to light with the proper authorities rather than take matters into his own hands.
The kid should get counseling and whatnot, definitely.
I'm shocked at how many in this thread think it's okay to kill people if it's in self defense. Killing is still completely unacceptable and wrong. Badong, even.
Only in the US, I suppose.
You're my hero for using badong.
I agree, it's ridiculous how many people here are defending the bringing of knives to school, even if in "self defense."
At no point do i feel like bringing weapons to school should be tolerated. Self Defense from someone who's breaking into your home is one thing, "self defense" from someone in a public place by stabbing them to death because they want to fight is something completely different.
I feel like ferver of everyone being like, "GOOD, EXAMPLE TO OTHERS" would change if they actually humanized the person who was murdered.
The bully was a douche. It's true. But he didn't deserve to die.
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 11 2012 23:45 KryptoStorm wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 23:44 Myles wrote:On January 11 2012 23:42 KryptoStorm wrote:On January 11 2012 23:38 Daimai wrote:
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.
So you/the judge is saying that if he didn't kill the bully he WOULD have been killed himself? How exactly? Seriously when you people where at school weren't there fights? Was anyone ever killed in a schoolyard brawl, no..maybe a bust nose at the most! It's part of growing up. I've seen people disabled from school yard fights and another who needed to have facial reconstruction surgery. Wow that's insane, at my school there was many a fight, nobody ever got hurt badly, in your school years you seen what, 3 people+ seriously hurt? Man i'm glad I never grew up over there.
I'm not sure if that's sarcasm I detect or not, but off the top of my head I know of 2 people who have been seriously injured in 'run-of-the-mill' fights. One fell to the ground after being hit, and it could have came from hitting his head on the ground or the kicking that came afterwards, but it totally fucked up his brain. The other just got punched in the face so many times after being pushed up against a wall that it broke his jaw, nose, and orbital bone.
Now, listing all the times I've seen 'minor' injuries such as broken bones, concussions, dislocations, ect at least 25 or so. And imo, the attacker being killed rather then the victim suffering even that is a fair trade.
|
On January 11 2012 23:42 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:Seriously, everyone defending the bully hasn't read the police report or hasn't even thoroughly read the news reports, please, if you're going to cry "it was unjustified", read up on the actual case before making yourself look like a total and complete idiot by making constant "assumptions" - what you think happened means jack shit, and how you feel about what you think happened means even less. If you're not going to do research or read up on the case, don't bother replying, please. You're seriously clogging this thread with trash replies.
on the contrary, i feel that you're the biased idiot.
imo tried murderers should face the death penalty. if you can take someone else's life, then you deserve nothing less.
but the whole "self defense means you have to stab the other guy 12 times in the chest" argument is rubbish. it translates to basically saying that all bullies should face the death penalty.... with the defense "well bullies shouldn't bully in the first place!".
sorry, but that's bullcrap. the bully is as much to blame as all parents and teachers involved with these kids... perhaps sentence them all to death as well?
imo that kid is stupid, chances are he's just ruined his life and the life of his family and the family of the decedent...
|
Everybody's like read the case. Well I did. Sounds like oh I dont know every freakin school fight ever. Its the 12 wounds that does it in for me. If they fought kid got scared stabbed him and he happened to bleed to death before paramedics got there. Okay self defense he gets a pass. 12 times though? Naw dude thats murder sorry. Its like if some body breaks into my house and I shoot them. They go down and bleed to death before police get there. Self defense. But if he breaks in I shoot him and as he lays there bleeding i walk over and put another in his head thats murder.
|
I feel like he should have warned the bullies before using his knife. It seemed like he just started stabbing out of anger and fear. As a bully, if I saw a knife i'd back away immediately, you'd have to be pretty stupid to think you could take on a knife without any major injuries.
|
On January 11 2012 23:43 KryptoStorm wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 23:41 -_-Quails wrote: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.. Weapons are not needed to threaten someone's life. When I attended a school in England, I saw that well enough. Self-defense is a valid defense there too (and can be extended to the defense of others). You defend yourself with your firsts, you know not a lethal weapon. (Meaning a knife/gun)
My hands are lethal weapons.
Even untrained fists and feet can easily kill if they have the advantage of size, intent or numbers. If you are not trained in self-defense, then using a weapon (be it a knife or a brick) may be your best chance at self-defense against a larger, meaner enemy you cannot run from.
|
On January 12 2012 00:00 Detwiler wrote:
Everybody's like read the case. Well I did. Sounds like oh I dont know every freakin school fight ever. Its the 12 wounds that does it in for me. If they fought kid got scared stabbed him and he happened to bleed to death before paramedics got there. Okay self defense he gets a pass. 12 times though? Naw dude thats murder sorry. Its like if some body breaks into my house and I shoot them. They go down and bleed to death before police get there. Self defense. But if he breaks in I shoot him and as he lays there bleeding i walk over and put another in his head thats murder.
Seriously, every school fight you've ever heard about consists of a group of older, bigger kids tailing another kid, punching him in the back of the head, surrounding him, and forcing him to fight? The fact you're not doing more to stop that, but are instead insistant on the persecution of the kid that defends himself is astounding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
