EPTThe ones arguing against say Savaandra wasn't in a "life or death" situation.
Bully Victim stabbed Bully to Death - Page 65
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Tien
Russian Federation4447 Posts
The ones arguing against say Savaandra wasn't in a "life or death" situation. | ||
|
HULKAMANIA
United States1219 Posts
On January 12 2012 02:17 Tien wrote: Same. You like to ignore facts that are relevant to the case to suit your bias. I read the his PDF defense. He was dazed and confused from the repeated punches to the back of his head and heard voices from the bigger kids getting louder and closer. Apparently to you this isn't a big deal? The victim had no reason to believe his life is threatened? I guess that's the rhetoric you're desperately trying to hold true in your own head. But that rhetoric is irrelevant. We don't know what went on inside the victim's head except the fact that he was legitimately scared and afraid and tried to protect himself. I'm not even sure what your point is, and I don't think you have any point considering you don't even disagree with the judge. You're just emotionally frustrated that someone got killed with a knife. In point of fact, none of us know what went on inside either teenager's head, at all. But that is irrelevant to what I was discussing with Dizmaul. I was simply corrected Dizmaul because he was laboring under the false assumption that Saavedra was surrounded. We had our little discussion where I directed him to a more exhaustive source, which indicates that Saavedra was not surrounded. But for some reason you took our exchanges as an invitation for you to once again claim that I live in a pink and rosy world and completely misunderstand what happened. Why? Who knows. It's one of the many uncertainties surrounding this tragic incident. | ||
|
Tien
Russian Federation4447 Posts
| ||
|
MadNeSs
Denmark1507 Posts
| ||
|
HULKAMANIA
United States1219 Posts
On January 12 2012 02:33 Tien wrote: You're correct. I misread. No biggie. It happens. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On January 12 2012 02:03 Trollk wrote: Mixed feelings, like most of the comments I have read. On the hand, you feel that the boy only defended himself against a bully that has been terrorizing him for the last year. You cannot disagree with this fact, given that a serious courtcase has been brought upon this and no charges were filled. On top of that, the law clearly stataes that one may take all means necesarry to defend himself. On the other hand, you do not want parents giving weaponry to their children every time if they fear he might be bullied. It is clear that a violent response is not the correct response towards bullying. I personally feel that a two multi-edged way is needed in a case of bullying: A) A serious talk with the bullying boy to found out wheter he suffers from problems himself (eg at home, loss of close relative,...). Say what you want but most bullies aren't born different from 'normal' people. B)Raise awareness in the class group and make sure that there is an anomous way to report serious issues of bullying. Other classmates often know what is going on but do not react for several reasons. Eg (fear, think the victim copes with it just fine) C) Someone who previously had experience with bullying should sit down with the victim and tell him that there is a life after school. Highschool isn't your entire life. This may seem 'unhelpful' or 'long-term approached'. However, desperate actions come from desperate situations. Also help him raise his selfconfidence. This is something a lot of victims lack and is one of the main reasons why they are being bullied on in the first place. This is not ment to make the victim 'responsible' or the 'creator' of his bullying but to make them more resilient towards new potential bullies. Nice to read such a well thought out post. I wish most of the posts were about how to fight bullying instead of whether the kid should be held responsible. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10180 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43762 Posts
On January 12 2012 02:30 Tien wrote: The basic argument is that this wasn't a "life or death" situation. The ones arguing against say Savaandra wasn't in a "life or death" situation. I agree that that's the issue. But that being said, the ones who examined the evidence most closely- and who are the actual experts in cases like these (the judge, the anti-bullying experts, the other professionals who were in the courtroom, etc.)- made it pretty clear that it was indeed a life or death situation. And I (from my perspective, which is equal to that of every other TL-noob who's merely read the articles) agree with the verdict, for the reasons I've presented earlier. ::shrugs:: | ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
On January 12 2012 02:30 Tien wrote: The basic argument is that this wasn't a "life or death" situation. The ones arguing against say Savaandra wasn't in a "life or death" situation. It's not really relevant if it actually was a life or death situation only wheter or not it was reasonable for Savaandra to think it was. This is something that a court have to decide looking at all the evidence and evidently the judge did come to that conclusion. People bringing up statistics about how few bullying cases lead to death is just using straw man. | ||
|
Golbat
United States499 Posts
| ||
|
ChinaRestaurant
Austria324 Posts
On January 12 2012 02:43 BlackJack wrote: I don't think his life was in danger at all. It's astronomically rare for bullies to beat a child to death. For me it comes down to whether an innocent child should be allowed to defend himself through any means at his disposal or whether an innocent child should have to get his ass beat because others don't want the person kicking his ass to get seriously hurt. The judge thought his fear for life was genuine, who are you to say otherwise. Also list of human rights The list of human rights clearly states a right to safety from violence (I see the list is not universally accepted, so I'll just leave this here as something to ponder on) | ||
|
Tien
Russian Federation4447 Posts
The only thing we can assume is that the adrenaline took over after he got punched, and adrenaline makes you do things you wouldn't normally do. You lose cognitive focus. The more in danger your mind "perceives" you to be, the more extreme that loss of cognitive focus is and the more basic instinct you become. Maybe Savaandra really wanted to cut the bully's guts open, which would be very close to murder. But its hard to prove this because Savaandra did try his hardest to avoid the fight. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10180 Posts
On January 12 2012 02:50 ChinaRestaurant wrote: The judge thought his fear for life was genuine, who are you to say otherwise. Also list of human rights The list of human rights clearly states a right to safety from violence (I see the list is not universally accepted, so I'll just leave this here as something to ponder on) I never said otherwise | ||
|
ChinaRestaurant
Austria324 Posts
Then I interpreted your post wrong, apologies :/ | ||
|
BadgerBadger8264
Netherlands409 Posts
I don't think his life was in danger at all. It's astronomically rare for bullies to beat a child to death. Statistics don't really matter in these cases. Simply saying "oh, statistically people usually don't get killed or permanently injured in a fight, so this fight must be the same" is generalizing and a false argument. Statistically it's pretty rare someone sneaking into your house will kill you, that doesn't mean you don't have every right to defend yourself when they do. It's all about how endangered he felt, not how endangered he statistically was. Nobody can read the attacker's mind in such a situation, for all we know he could've killed him if he hadn't stopped him. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
Go play some russian roulette. YOu only lose 1/6 times so its kinda rare you lose. I guess thats a fair deal for you. | ||
|
HoldenR
Netherlands256 Posts
you do not want parents giving weaponry to their children every time if they fear he might be bullied. It is clear that a violent response is not the correct response towards bullying. Why not? The only advice ever given to stop being bullied is to stand up for yourself, i.e. to fight. Losing is considered "not important"(not that that's true), but you have to fight. You have to respond with violence to stop being bullied to show you won't take it. This is considered as almost universally accepted. It's also well known and almost universally accepted that teachers, parents and authorities take almost no action on bullying or assume a blame the victim mentality nearly every time. Bullying is one of the biggest problems ever come across in schools and mental health development of children. And you know what? Maybe some fear of retribution might be exactly what bullies need to stop. The schools certainly won't dish it out, their parents won't dish it out, and the authorities just don't give a fucking shit until it's way past the point of bullying and clearly into the terrain of gross violent assault. Kid deserved a lesson. A bit harsh, but if the message resonates with bullies everywhere, that sounds like an "ends justifies the means" to me. If you want children to not defend themselves through violence, maybe its time to look into alternatives to defend themselves, because those do not exist, nor have they ever. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10180 Posts
| ||
|
Extenz
Italy822 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43762 Posts
On January 12 2012 04:27 BlackJack wrote: Since people seem to be misinterpreting my post, allow me to clarify: I am not saying the kid's life was in danger so he doesn't have a right to stab the other kid. I am saying that the kid's life wasn't in danger but he STILL had the right to stab the other kid, imo. I would say that the circumstances of his beating were either clearly life-threatening or so close to life-threatening (maybe unclear to the bullied boy, as it can't be easily assessed by a kid who's getting the shit kicked out of him and is surrounded by bullies who are intent on causing him great bodily harm and possible death), that he couldn't flee, couldn't defend himself using only his hands, and therefore was justified in using the knife. And it's not like the bullied kid is some sort of weapons expert, where he *should have been able to* stop his assailant with one swift knife blow, and the other knife slashes are overkill. He wants to stop his attacker, so he's going to do whatever it takes to defend himself, and send a clear message to the rest of the gang surrounding him that he's not about to take another beating again. During the attack, he probably didn't even know how effective his defense was. You're not going to stop defending yourself with a weapon until you're certain your advantage is actually preventing further attacks. | ||
| ||
