|
I seriously wonder about the mental states of people like Hulkmania. Why empathize so heavily with the bully, trying to come up with as many possible excuses for his actions while demonizing the victim and trying to set a number of alternatives that he should have taken before defending himself? Why are you unable to empathisize with the bullying victim here? Why can't you see that when someone attacks someone else and the latter hurts the former, something "right" has happened? That bad things happen in response to bad actions is the logical basis of our justice system. Crime and punishment, in this case served out within seconds of each other. But yet you continue to attack the victim. Do we talk about rape victims in the same way? Shoudl a woman being violently raped be careful in how she defends herself? Why is it different for the victim of a premeditated assault? Why are you constantly putting restrictions on the victim?
|
On January 12 2012 10:51 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 09:59 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:On January 12 2012 00:49 shizna wrote:On January 12 2012 00:34 Myles wrote:
I'm going to paraphrase a bit here, but this is part of the report that has been posted numerous times.
"Jorge got off the bus and was walking to his friends house when Dylan approached from behind and punched Jorge in the back of the head. Jorge kept walking to avoid the confrontation and Dylan started throwing more punches to the back of the head. At this time Jorge heard Dylan's friends shouting to 'Hit him again' and 'Hit him harder'. Their voices were getting louder and closer and Jorge was reportedly starting to feel light headed. Jorge felt his life was threatened and thought the other boys might jump in since there were so many people around. This is when he reached for his pocket knife, bent forward, and stabbed Dylan with his knife as the punches continued. Evem after that, he heard Dylan telling his friends 'Go get him'.
Keep in mind, this is after he already tried to get off the bus early to avoid the fight.
that sounds like a very unlikely and one-sided plee. although if that is a 100% accurate statement then i guess he didn't have much of a choice. however, i still think he should be punished for using deadly force. it's unfortunate, but in my opinion the world would be a more f**ked up and scary place if people were simply allowed to kill anyone who initiated an old fashioned fight with them. i have friends who are nice, but they get into a lot of 'nothing' fights when they're drunk. if you go to drink in a bar, this sort of thing is normal. it would scare the hell out of me if i found out that it was legal for some guy to turn around and stick a broken bottle into my friend's throat... that's a f***ed up world. If some drunk asshole tries to fight me in a bar, I will stick a broken bottle into his throat. There is no way in hell that I am risking injury for some POS who can't keep his hands to himself. And there is no way in hell that I am trusting that this drunk POS that is assaulting me is actually "just a nice guy!". Fuck that. If he's so nice, he wouldn't be assaulting people. Exactly. Once you randomly assault someone you know longer have the right to not get stabbed. I'm so tired of this regulation of what the victim has to do - "he should have done X, not done Y." How about the aggressor shouldn't have attacked someone? None of this would have happened if he didn't. Thank you legislators for stand your ground / castle laws. Tired of the regulation of victims while excuses are made for aggressors who are far worse.
You are not the judge, jury and executioner. You are not entitled to dispense summary justice. You are correct in saying that this wouldn't have occured without the aggressor's actions, but there are manys reasons why an independent judiciary is chosen to determine and dispense dispassionate, reasoned justice.
I also hope, for your sake, that you realise that stand your ground / castle laws do not exist in Australian jurisdicitons.
|
On January 12 2012 11:03 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 10:51 cz wrote:On January 12 2012 09:59 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:On January 12 2012 00:49 shizna wrote:On January 12 2012 00:34 Myles wrote:
I'm going to paraphrase a bit here, but this is part of the report that has been posted numerous times.
"Jorge got off the bus and was walking to his friends house when Dylan approached from behind and punched Jorge in the back of the head. Jorge kept walking to avoid the confrontation and Dylan started throwing more punches to the back of the head. At this time Jorge heard Dylan's friends shouting to 'Hit him again' and 'Hit him harder'. Their voices were getting louder and closer and Jorge was reportedly starting to feel light headed. Jorge felt his life was threatened and thought the other boys might jump in since there were so many people around. This is when he reached for his pocket knife, bent forward, and stabbed Dylan with his knife as the punches continued. Evem after that, he heard Dylan telling his friends 'Go get him'.
Keep in mind, this is after he already tried to get off the bus early to avoid the fight.
that sounds like a very unlikely and one-sided plee. although if that is a 100% accurate statement then i guess he didn't have much of a choice. however, i still think he should be punished for using deadly force. it's unfortunate, but in my opinion the world would be a more f**ked up and scary place if people were simply allowed to kill anyone who initiated an old fashioned fight with them. i have friends who are nice, but they get into a lot of 'nothing' fights when they're drunk. if you go to drink in a bar, this sort of thing is normal. it would scare the hell out of me if i found out that it was legal for some guy to turn around and stick a broken bottle into my friend's throat... that's a f***ed up world. If some drunk asshole tries to fight me in a bar, I will stick a broken bottle into his throat. There is no way in hell that I am risking injury for some POS who can't keep his hands to himself. And there is no way in hell that I am trusting that this drunk POS that is assaulting me is actually "just a nice guy!". Fuck that. If he's so nice, he wouldn't be assaulting people. Exactly. Once you randomly assault someone you know longer have the right to not get stabbed. I'm so tired of this regulation of what the victim has to do - "he should have done X, not done Y." How about the aggressor shouldn't have attacked someone? None of this would have happened if he didn't. Thank you legislators for stand your ground / castle laws. Tired of the regulation of victims while excuses are made for aggressors who are far worse. You are not the judge, jury and executioner. You are not entitled to dispense summary justice. You are correct in saying that this wouldn't have occured without the aggressor's actions, but there are manys reasons why an independent judiciary is chosen to determine and dispense dispassionate, reasoned justice. I also hope, for your sake, that you realise that stand your ground / castle laws do not exist in Australian jurisdicitons.
But I do have the right to an opinion, and in this case it's in line with many states laws. You are also not entitled to dispense summary justice, determing what the victim did as wrong or illegal or unncessary.
Luckily smarter people than you have made laws to establish victims rights, rather than the continual excuse-making that your type makes for aggressors while attacking victims rights to defend themselves to limited circumstances.
When the knife pierced the bullies body, natural justice was served: crime was met with instant punishment. When the judge established the victim as legally entitled to his defence, formal legal justice was served. Don't try and take that away from us by demonizing self-defence, especially when an independent judiciary has established it as valid and within the confines of the law.
|
On January 12 2012 11:00 cz wrote:
I seriously wonder about the mental states of people like Hulkmania. Why empathize so heavily with the bully, trying to come up with as many possible excuses for his actions while demonizing the victim and trying to set a number of alternatives that he should have taken before defending himself? Why are you unable to empathisize with the bullying victim here? Why can't you see that when someone attacks someone else and the latter hurts the former, something "right" has happened? That bad things happen in response to bad actions is the logical basis of our justice system. Crime and punishment, in this case served out within seconds of each other. But yet you continue to attack the victim. Do we talk about rape victims in the same way? Shoudl a woman being violently raped be careful in how she defends herself? Why is it different for the victim of a premeditated assault? Why are you constantly putting restrictions on the victim?
cz, if you're going to mention me by name, you could at least read my posts. I'll give you a couple highlights:
A lot of posters in this thread are dealing exclusively in absolutes, and it’s not helpful. I think that it’s perfectly reasonable to feel regret that Dylan Nuno was killed without feeling like Jorge Saavedra is a heartless murderer. To express dismay over the one student’s death is not to pass judgment on the second student’s self defense.
It’s my opinion, based on the different sources and accounts that I have read concerning this case, that Saavedra did his absolute best to avoid fighting Nuno, which is commendable. It is also my opinion that his choice to employ a deadly weapon was not a good choice but that it was nevertheless an understandable choice given his circumstances. I do not applaud how Saavedra ended the confrontation, but I would not consider him a premeditating murderer by any stretch. He did not want his encounter to Nuno to begin, much less to end how it did. Saavedra himself is not at all why I find this thread so infuriating.
Your m.o. in this thread is to misread other posters and then talk about rapists. Not impressive or helpful. If you want to discuss how I am demonizing Saavedra, you could at least produce some evidence that I have done so.
|
On January 12 2012 11:11 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 11:00 cz wrote:
I seriously wonder about the mental states of people like Hulkmania. Why empathize so heavily with the bully, trying to come up with as many possible excuses for his actions while demonizing the victim and trying to set a number of alternatives that he should have taken before defending himself? Why are you unable to empathisize with the bullying victim here? Why can't you see that when someone attacks someone else and the latter hurts the former, something "right" has happened? That bad things happen in response to bad actions is the logical basis of our justice system. Crime and punishment, in this case served out within seconds of each other. But yet you continue to attack the victim. Do we talk about rape victims in the same way? Shoudl a woman being violently raped be careful in how she defends herself? Why is it different for the victim of a premeditated assault? Why are you constantly putting restrictions on the victim? cz, if you're going to mention me by name, you could at least read my posts. I'll give you a couple highlights: Show nested quote +A lot of posters in this thread are dealing exclusively in absolutes, and it’s not helpful. I think that it’s perfectly reasonable to feel regret that Dylan Nuno was killed without feeling like Jorge Saavedra is a heartless murderer. To express dismay over the one student’s death is not to pass judgment on the second student’s self defense. Show nested quote +It’s my opinion, based on the different sources and accounts that I have read concerning this case, that Saavedra did his absolute best to avoid fighting Nuno, which is commendable. It is also my opinion that his choice to employ a deadly weapon was not a good choice but that it was nevertheless an understandable choice given his circumstances. I do not applaud how Saavedra ended the confrontation, but I would not consider him a premeditating murderer by any stretch. He did not want his encounter to Nuno to begin, much less to end how it did. Saavedra himself is not at all why I find this thread so infuriating. Your m.o. in this thread is to misread other posters and then talk about rapists. Not impressive or helpful. If you want to discuss how I am demonizing Saavedra, you could at least produce some evidence that I have done so.
Nobody can read all your posts in this thread. They constitute a Tale of Two Cities length narrative of absurdity and excuse-making at this point.
But, limited to your quoted excerpts, why do you think that the victims choice to use a knife was not a good one? What alternative would have suggested?
Also my m.o. is to hold you accountable to your ideological position, if that requires analogies to show the absurdity of it then so be it. You have never explained why you think my analogies unnacceptable.
|
On January 12 2012 08:47 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 07:26 Kangbao wrote:On January 12 2012 07:21 Moa wrote:On January 12 2012 07:16 Kangbao wrote:
I've done the whole logical argument thing in this thread, and my desire for that has been satisfied. (bro hugs to Gobalt)
However I feel the need to say one more thing, disregarding whether this was self-defense in a life threating situation or not. How can anyone believe that the 16 year old kid being killed was the correct outcome? The kid was a jerk. He was a bully and picked on someone that was smaller than he was. That doesn't deserve the punishment of death. I can understand people saying, based on the situation, his death was justified and be glad that the victim wasn't punished. Can anyone really say that the loss of a minor's life in a bullying situation was really the best outcome? Is anyone truely happy that a "bully" young kid had his life taken from him? No,I'm not too familiar with what actually happened but it seems like once someone pulls a knife and you are with a group of people you could get away without dying. Of course the guy could have gotten away. I'm trying to gauge how many of these comments are knee jerk reactions versus actual feelings. Many of the comments are along the lines of glee at the guy's death. Many of them are good ridience, the bully deserved death. I'm not asking was it the only outcome, just are people really happy with the kid's death. My sentiments exactly. A lot of posters in this thread are dealing exclusively in absolutes, and it’s not helpful. I think that it’s perfectly reasonable to feel regret that Dylan Nuno was killed without feeling like Jorge Saavedra is a heartless murderer. To express dismay over the one student’s death is not to pass judgment on the second student’s self defense. Several individuals in this thread, however, think that it is. They want to frame Dylan Nuno as some diabolical monster who deserved to die for his crimes. How someone can conclude that about a teenager whom they have never met is beyond me. (I think they are putting far too much stock in a news article. What adult netizen in the world today doesn’t approach the news critically, with a healthy dose of skepticism? But that’s tangential to my actual point.) The point that I think needs to be made (and made again and again as long as comments like “lol one less douche in the world!” continue) is that, at best, this was an terrible tragedy and an avoidable loss of young life. It was not a glorious triumph of good versus evil. It was a desperate act by a student who probably thought that he had no other options and it cost another student his life. It was horrific all around. It’s my opinion, based on the different sources and accounts that I have read concerning this case, that Saavedra did his absolute best to avoid fighting Nuno, which is commendable. It is also my opinion that his choice to employ a deadly weapon was not a good choice but that it was nevertheless an understandable choice given his circumstances. I do not applaud how Saavedra ended the confrontation, but I would not consider him a premeditating murderer by any stretch. He did not want his encounter to Nuno to begin, much less to end how it did. Saavedra himself is not at all why I find this thread so infuriating. My anger in this thread is reserved for three groups: 1) The school and home community that allowed this to happen, up to and including the bus driver, who I have a hard time believing was unaware of what was happening when half of the bus piled out at a random stop. 2) The judge who accepted the motion that Saavedra be immune to prosecution based on the god awful “Stand Your Ground” law. I think a trial by his peers would have communicated the seriousness of Saavedra’s actions, even if he was completely acquitted. I also think it would have brought more scrutiny to the case, raised the issues involved into public consciousness, and cleared up a lot of uncertainties about what happened on and leading up to that day—not to mention it seems like it would have provided far more closure to the family of Dylan Nuno. Instead, the case was dismissed because the NRA found a state that would vote for its pet law to greatly expand citizen’s rights to lawfully kill one another. 3) All you assholes in this thread who are glad the bully is dead. I am aware that bullying is a real problem. Brutally killing high-schooler bullies is not a real solution. I have no idea what would possess an adult to rejoice in the death of a child, even if—gasp, shock!—that child was acting like a genuine douchebag. No idea.
I can be sad that somebody died, but I'm happy that if somebody did it was the bully in this case. I also agree with your first statement, as I feel that bullying is pretty much a problem that is persecuted in name only with very little follow through.
I fully disagree with number 2 and number 3. First of all, this law removed the onus from the victim who is under duress from having to weigh exactly what force is appropriate when they honestly feel they are threatened to the point of bodily harm or death. This to me is a good thing, as it seems to be continuous with how the law treats duress.
And as for number 3, you say you read the case and everything about it, but you say "Brutally killing" as if that's what happened here. People are happy that as an ATTACK occured, not was threatened, or talked about, or had happened previously, but actually as it occured, the victim was able to defend himself from harm, and since the bully was the aggressor, they're happy that if something bad happened, it was to them.
|
On January 12 2012 10:11 Golbat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 09:57 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 12 2012 09:40 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
Why should he stand trial for killing someone if the killing was legal and justified?
Stand Your Ground is the only sane way of having it. We try people all the time for things that they're eventually acquitted of. It's part of the due process of law, which I think is far preferable to a vague statute like "Stand Your Ground" precluding a trial entirely. But there is no need for a trial. No need for it. He was violently attacked, defended himself, and in the process of doing so his attacker died. If both of these kids were ten years older this discussion would have ended by now.
As far as I can tell (according to the OP article, the motion to grant Saavedra immunity filed by his defense, and the article I quoted earlier from The Miami Law Review), the only reason why this incident did not go to trial is because of the "Stand Your Ground" law, which is a questionable statute in many ways and also one that does not exist in a majority of the states. So evidently this incident would have been tried in most of the states of the United States of America, regardless of the ages of the students. I happen to think that such a trial would bring an appropriate amount of attention and contemplation to an event in which a young man was stabbed to death, even though I don't happen to believe that Saavedra would be found guilty.
|
LOL. Of course you have an opinion. You will also find that I have already commented in this thread that I accept the legality of the judge's decision given the laws in his jurisdiction. Recognise however that such doctrines (castle rule, stand your ground) are the exception, not the rule, when it comes to most common-law jurisdictions.
I suggest you educate yourself regarding Australian law (can you match my law degree and 5 years post admission experience in criminal law?) before you go making snide remarks about my intelligence and what law makers have or have not done, and their intention when doing so.
Here's some light reading for you, pal:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1987/26.html
Then go research what South Aus, and New South Wales have done. Perhaps then we can have a reasonable discussion about this. Though I doubt it given the hostility you're displaying towards pretty much anyone with an opinion contrary to your own.
|
On January 12 2012 11:20 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 10:11 Golbat wrote:On January 12 2012 09:57 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 12 2012 09:40 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
Why should he stand trial for killing someone if the killing was legal and justified?
Stand Your Ground is the only sane way of having it. We try people all the time for things that they're eventually acquitted of. It's part of the due process of law, which I think is far preferable to a vague statute like "Stand Your Ground" precluding a trial entirely. But there is no need for a trial. No need for it. He was violently attacked, defended himself, and in the process of doing so his attacker died. If both of these kids were ten years older this discussion would have ended by now. As far as I can tell (according to the OP article, the motion to grant Saavedra immunity filed by his defense, and the article I quoted earlier from The Miami Law Review), the only reason why this incident did not go to trial is because of the "Stand Your Ground" law, which is a questionable statute in many ways and also one that does not exist in a majority of the states. So evidently this incident would have been tried in most of the states of the United States of America, regardless of the ages of the students. I happen to think that such a trial would bring an appropriate amount of attention and contemplation to an event in which a young man was stabbed to death, even though I don't happen to believe that Saavedra would be found guilty.
But he didn't stab someone in a different state, so your point is entirely moot. Putting a kid on trial to bring attention to bullying is also a stupid idea. Hey, this kid is already emotionally scarred, scared and confused. Lets put him through additional MONTHS of anguish so we can make a point, even though in the end there isn't a chance in hell he's going to be convicted.
That's some cold shit bro.
|
On January 12 2012 11:23 Brett wrote:LOL. Of course you have an opinion. You will also find that I have already commented in this thread that I accept the legality of the judge's decision given the laws in his jurisdiction. Recognise however that such doctrines (castle rule, stand your ground) are the exception, not the rule, when it comes to most common-law jurisdictions. I suggest you educate yourself regarding Australian law (can you match my law degree and 5 years post admission experience in criminal law?) before you go making snide remarks about my intelligence and what law makers have or have not done, and their intention when doing so. Here's some light reading for you, pal: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1987/26.htmlThen go research what South Aus, and New South Wales have done. Perhaps then we can have a reasonable discussion about this. Though I doubt it given the hostility you're displaying towards pretty much anyone with an opinion contrary to your own.
I'm not Australian and even if I were it would be irrelevant to this discussion, as is the commonality of stand your ground laws through common law nations. I'm not quite sure what your point is.
My comments on your views have nothing to do with your ability to mechanically interpret and apply and argue the law but rather the philosophical underpinnings and validities of such laws, which are essentially subjective anyway. Thus thank god you do not make the law and the legislators of this state do, otherwise we'd be prosecuting the victim.
|
On January 12 2012 11:12 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 11:11 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 12 2012 11:00 cz wrote:
I seriously wonder about the mental states of people like Hulkmania. Why empathize so heavily with the bully, trying to come up with as many possible excuses for his actions while demonizing the victim and trying to set a number of alternatives that he should have taken before defending himself? Why are you unable to empathisize with the bullying victim here? Why can't you see that when someone attacks someone else and the latter hurts the former, something "right" has happened? That bad things happen in response to bad actions is the logical basis of our justice system. Crime and punishment, in this case served out within seconds of each other. But yet you continue to attack the victim. Do we talk about rape victims in the same way? Shoudl a woman being violently raped be careful in how she defends herself? Why is it different for the victim of a premeditated assault? Why are you constantly putting restrictions on the victim? cz, if you're going to mention me by name, you could at least read my posts. I'll give you a couple highlights: A lot of posters in this thread are dealing exclusively in absolutes, and it’s not helpful. I think that it’s perfectly reasonable to feel regret that Dylan Nuno was killed without feeling like Jorge Saavedra is a heartless murderer. To express dismay over the one student’s death is not to pass judgment on the second student’s self defense. It’s my opinion, based on the different sources and accounts that I have read concerning this case, that Saavedra did his absolute best to avoid fighting Nuno, which is commendable. It is also my opinion that his choice to employ a deadly weapon was not a good choice but that it was nevertheless an understandable choice given his circumstances. I do not applaud how Saavedra ended the confrontation, but I would not consider him a premeditating murderer by any stretch. He did not want his encounter to Nuno to begin, much less to end how it did. Saavedra himself is not at all why I find this thread so infuriating. Your m.o. in this thread is to misread other posters and then talk about rapists. Not impressive or helpful. If you want to discuss how I am demonizing Saavedra, you could at least produce some evidence that I have done so. Nobody can read all your posts in this thread. They constitute a Tale of Two Cities length narrative of absurdity and excuse-making at this point. But, limited to your quoted excerpts, why do you think that the victims choice to use a knife was not a good one? What alternative would have suggested? Also my m.o. is to hold you accountable to your ideological position, if that requires analogies to show the absurdity of it then so be it. You have never explained why you think my analogies unnacceptable.
It seems that if I take the time to explain myself, you're going to say "too long didn't read" and continue to insist that I am "making excuses" for Dylan Nuno (another thing that I at no time whatsoever did). Do you want an opinion that can be expressed in a nice little digestible soundbyte? Honestly, if you're not willing to make the effort to read what I have already said, I'm not willing to make the effort to explain myself again to you.
|
On January 12 2012 11:20 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 10:11 Golbat wrote:On January 12 2012 09:57 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 12 2012 09:40 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
Why should he stand trial for killing someone if the killing was legal and justified?
Stand Your Ground is the only sane way of having it. We try people all the time for things that they're eventually acquitted of. It's part of the due process of law, which I think is far preferable to a vague statute like "Stand Your Ground" precluding a trial entirely. But there is no need for a trial. No need for it. He was violently attacked, defended himself, and in the process of doing so his attacker died. If both of these kids were ten years older this discussion would have ended by now. As far as I can tell (according to the OP article, the motion to grant Saavedra immunity filed by his defense, and the article I quoted earlier from The Miami Law Review), the only reason why this incident did not go to trial is because of the "Stand Your Ground" law, which is a questionable statute in many ways and also one that does not exist in a majority of the states. So evidently this incident would have been tried in most of the states of the United States of America, regardless of the ages of the students. I happen to think that such a trial would bring an appropriate amount of attention and contemplation to an event in which a young man was stabbed to death, even though I don't happen to believe that Saavedra would be found guilty.
So what you are saying is that there should be a trial so that the problem of bullying and its possible outcomes are more widely spread among the population? Surely theres better ways than further traumatize an already troubled person.
|
On January 12 2012 10:16 ChinaRestaurant wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 10:02 Brett wrote:On January 12 2012 09:04 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 12 2012 08:54 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On January 12 2012 08:51 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 12 2012 08:41 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On January 12 2012 08:31 Kangbao wrote:On January 12 2012 08:20 tdt wrote:On January 12 2012 07:26 Kangbao wrote:On January 12 2012 07:21 Moa wrote:
[quote]
No,I'm not too familiar with what actually happened but it seems like once someone pulls a knife and you are with a group of people you could get away without dying. Of course the guy could have gotten away. I'm trying to gauge how many of these comments are knee jerk reactions versus actual feelings. Many of the comments are along the lines of glee at the guy's death. Many of them are good ridience, the bully deserved death. I'm not asking was it the only outcome, just are people really happy with the kid's death. I don't know about "deserve" but it's a known risk when you lay hands on someone. You can kill them easy and should expect reciprocity. All it takes is kid to fall backwards and bust his head on the curb and one can die in a blink of an eye. Are you saying taking this risk shoulnt be met with extreme response/defense in kind? Your life may depend on you or him. Deserve has nothing to do with it but rather survival no? It is a risk you assume, but that's not what i'm talking about. I'm not asking whether or not the kid reacted in the right way. If you look back through pages, many people say things like, "if your a bully you deserve it imo." "One less piece of shit on this planet, good job." Things like that. People seem to be expressing joy at the death of this kid. I'm asking if anyone is actually happy that he is dead or if those comments were just knee jerks. I can appreciate that people who were bullied intensely find joy that someone like their own bullies finally got serious repercussions. Usually bullies get away clear for most things because its not taken seriously. Fact is bullying can cause serious emotional and if its taken to the physical level of course physical damage too. Say youre raped and your rapist gets away without punishment (either because you didnt work up the nerve to report it to the police or hes not convicted for lack of proof, or whatever else). Do you find it hard to understand that you would want a person like that to suffer for what theyve done? Sure, I can imagine a type of person who enjoyed the story of Nuno's death because he or she was bullied as a child. Their joy is still unacceptable. Rejoicing in violence toward a person because that person belongs to a category of human being that you despise is unacceptable, it's low, and it has no place in any conversation about justice, much less any justice system. This is not about justice or justice systems. Its about vengeance. Even if thats not RIGHT its hard for me to grasp how people can not understand that. I suppose that I just expected more out of people. I did not think that there would be many posters on this forum who would savor a minor's violent death because it vicariously satisfies a thirst for vengeance that they're still carrying around against their childhood tormentors. You and I have both been around this site long enough to know better than that.. Remember this thread? (and the multitude of others like it) http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=102027Many of the same issues, and knee-jerk responses, were present even then (before the influx of younger users from SC2). Thanks anyway for attempting to insert some intelligent reasoning into this thread. Just to clarify, I think this position is wrong as well. Its just that I'm honest enough with myself that I dont have to fake some kind of self control or sympathy. What happened altered my view on bullies. The fact that he had to die is unfortunate but in my view preferable to someone getting beat up for no reason. Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 10:14 gameguard wrote:On January 12 2012 09:04 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 12 2012 08:54 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On January 12 2012 08:51 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 12 2012 08:41 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On January 12 2012 08:31 Kangbao wrote:On January 12 2012 08:20 tdt wrote:On January 12 2012 07:26 Kangbao wrote:On January 12 2012 07:21 Moa wrote:
[quote]
No,I'm not too familiar with what actually happened but it seems like once someone pulls a knife and you are with a group of people you could get away without dying. Of course the guy could have gotten away. I'm trying to gauge how many of these comments are knee jerk reactions versus actual feelings. Many of the comments are along the lines of glee at the guy's death. Many of them are good ridience, the bully deserved death. I'm not asking was it the only outcome, just are people really happy with the kid's death. I don't know about "deserve" but it's a known risk when you lay hands on someone. You can kill them easy and should expect reciprocity. All it takes is kid to fall backwards and bust his head on the curb and one can die in a blink of an eye. Are you saying taking this risk shoulnt be met with extreme response/defense in kind? Your life may depend on you or him. Deserve has nothing to do with it but rather survival no? It is a risk you assume, but that's not what i'm talking about. I'm not asking whether or not the kid reacted in the right way. If you look back through pages, many people say things like, "if your a bully you deserve it imo." "One less piece of shit on this planet, good job." Things like that. People seem to be expressing joy at the death of this kid. I'm asking if anyone is actually happy that he is dead or if those comments were just knee jerks. I can appreciate that people who were bullied intensely find joy that someone like their own bullies finally got serious repercussions. Usually bullies get away clear for most things because its not taken seriously. Fact is bullying can cause serious emotional and if its taken to the physical level of course physical damage too. Say youre raped and your rapist gets away without punishment (either because you didnt work up the nerve to report it to the police or hes not convicted for lack of proof, or whatever else). Do you find it hard to understand that you would want a person like that to suffer for what theyve done? Sure, I can imagine a type of person who enjoyed the story of Nuno's death because he or she was bullied as a child. Their joy is still unacceptable. Rejoicing in violence toward a person because that person belongs to a category of human being that you despise is unacceptable, it's low, and it has no place in any conversation about justice, much less any justice system. This is not about justice or justice systems. Its about vengeance. Even if thats not RIGHT its hard for me to grasp how people can not understand that. I suppose that I just expected more out of people. I did not think that there would be many posters on this forum who would savor a minor's violent death because it vicariously satisfies a thirst for vengeance that they're still carrying around against their childhood tormentors. Youre really well versed and sensible for someone with the ID HULKMANIA lol. Ok so heres my take on it one more time. Fundamentally, people should be able to defend yourself. To what extent and in what circumstances is debatable and usually tackled in a case by case scenario. This wasn't some gang ridden high school in the bronx or something. Look at the pictures. Saavedra is not some scrawny kid. Nuno is not some hardcore gangster. There are a number of things he could have done. If it comes down to it, he could have fought him (preferably during school). Most people with this experience will tell you that after you fight back, bullies will stop messing with you. It doesn't matter if you win or lose. This is what happened in my eyes. Nuno was like "im gonna beat yo ass today." Then he told his friends to come watch for his rl-peen. Saavedra got off early, nuno followed, he started slapping/tapping his head (no i dont think he sucker punched him with full force). He turned around with the knife and lunged. Its really fucking stupid. I seriously doubt Saavedra EVER was in danger of great physical harm or death. Nuno probably just screwed with him on a constant basis and Saavedra just couldnt take it any more. The real problem is schools being too lenient on bullying all across the country. The psychological damage is almost always greater than any physical harm you might get. After a year of this, the kid finally snapped. I tried fighting back almost every time I was attacked by my bullies. It didnt help AT ALL. Only thing it did was enrage them further so that they would do even more fucked up stuff than they were planning. Also I dont see where you come up with where it says savaadra lunged at nuno. Afaik he stabbed at him while nuno was still punching him (gonna re-read the article to make sure I'm not blabbering nonsense).
well i havn't been able to find the eyewitness testimony on how it went down. Its quite hard to imagine that the fight going any other way though. He was backing up while stabbing nuno multiple times in the chest and abdomen?? And this guy just kept coming and punching like a terminator? Or would it make more sense that saavedra turned around, lunged forward, grabbed him and stabbed him many times (it only takes like 3 seconds to stab 12 times or whatever). Of course In that short time nuno would be struggling to get him off.
Anyways, I dont really disagree with the legality of the issue in this particular case. Using stand your ground is pretty stupid though. Having a law this broad to generalize every case like this could lead to many problems.
His testimony is his testimony. There is no way his gonna say that he wanted to end this once and for all if it came down to it, even if that was the case. And how can you dispute that he feared for his life? Combine that with the accounts of constant bullying, it makes sense to rule it as self defense. I just don't believe that were hearing the whole truth about the situation.
What I really am irritated about is the schools' nonchalant way of dealing with situations like this. Kids that are proven to be bullies should be suspended then expelled so shit like this doesnt have to happen.
|
On January 12 2012 11:25 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 11:12 cz wrote:On January 12 2012 11:11 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 12 2012 11:00 cz wrote:
I seriously wonder about the mental states of people like Hulkmania. Why empathize so heavily with the bully, trying to come up with as many possible excuses for his actions while demonizing the victim and trying to set a number of alternatives that he should have taken before defending himself? Why are you unable to empathisize with the bullying victim here? Why can't you see that when someone attacks someone else and the latter hurts the former, something "right" has happened? That bad things happen in response to bad actions is the logical basis of our justice system. Crime and punishment, in this case served out within seconds of each other. But yet you continue to attack the victim. Do we talk about rape victims in the same way? Shoudl a woman being violently raped be careful in how she defends herself? Why is it different for the victim of a premeditated assault? Why are you constantly putting restrictions on the victim? cz, if you're going to mention me by name, you could at least read my posts. I'll give you a couple highlights: A lot of posters in this thread are dealing exclusively in absolutes, and it’s not helpful. I think that it’s perfectly reasonable to feel regret that Dylan Nuno was killed without feeling like Jorge Saavedra is a heartless murderer. To express dismay over the one student’s death is not to pass judgment on the second student’s self defense. It’s my opinion, based on the different sources and accounts that I have read concerning this case, that Saavedra did his absolute best to avoid fighting Nuno, which is commendable. It is also my opinion that his choice to employ a deadly weapon was not a good choice but that it was nevertheless an understandable choice given his circumstances. I do not applaud how Saavedra ended the confrontation, but I would not consider him a premeditating murderer by any stretch. He did not want his encounter to Nuno to begin, much less to end how it did. Saavedra himself is not at all why I find this thread so infuriating. Your m.o. in this thread is to misread other posters and then talk about rapists. Not impressive or helpful. If you want to discuss how I am demonizing Saavedra, you could at least produce some evidence that I have done so. Nobody can read all your posts in this thread. They constitute a Tale of Two Cities length narrative of absurdity and excuse-making at this point. But, limited to your quoted excerpts, why do you think that the victims choice to use a knife was not a good one? What alternative would have suggested? Also my m.o. is to hold you accountable to your ideological position, if that requires analogies to show the absurdity of it then so be it. You have never explained why you think my analogies unnacceptable. It seems that if I take the time to explain myself, you're going to say "too long didn't read" and continue to insist that I am "making excuses" for Dylan Nuno (another thing that I at no time whatsoever did). Do you want an opinion that can be expressed in a nice little digestible soundbyte? Honestly, if you're not willing to make the effort to read what I have already said, I'm not willing to make the effort to explain myself again to you.
Ignore all I said as you always do, but at least answer the specific question I wrote within the post you are responding to. You said you thought using a deadly weapon was not a good decision. What, then, do you think the victim should have done?
Second question: You've stated that Stand Your Ground laws are ridiculous. If you were the law maker and could handle this case in any manner, how would you handle the punishment? Would you give the bullying victim jail time? Would you give him no penalty? If you had the power to do so, what would you choose?
|
On January 10 2012 19:54 Silidons wrote:
Makes me sick so many people here think it is okay to kill another human over the fear of being beaten up. Remember that one bully in Australia? When the kid who was getting bullied just stood up for himself and dropped the bully? Yeah I bet the bully won't do shit anymore.
So many people in this thread are pathetic if you think that it is okay to kill someone over stupid shit like this. Worse comes to worse the kid could say "Look I have a fucking knife" and I bet you the other guy would have backed off. This isn't a life and death situation and almost every man is going to have to fight sometime or another in his lifetime, what ever happened to becoming a stronger person?
Could he have just shown the guy he was real by just slicing his leg or arm? Why did he actually have to fucking kill him? He's a fucking pathetic human.
being bullied is much more damaging than just physically. It mentally destroys you and not only affects you at school but at home also. You clearly have no idea what it like to be bullied and if you think getting beat up is part of becoming stronger and manning up then in my opinion you are the pathetic one.
|
On January 12 2012 11:26 gameguard wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 10:16 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On January 12 2012 10:02 Brett wrote:On January 12 2012 09:04 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 12 2012 08:54 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On January 12 2012 08:51 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 12 2012 08:41 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On January 12 2012 08:31 Kangbao wrote:On January 12 2012 08:20 tdt wrote:On January 12 2012 07:26 Kangbao wrote:
[quote]
Of course the guy could have gotten away. I'm trying to gauge how many of these comments are knee jerk reactions versus actual feelings. Many of the comments are along the lines of glee at the guy's death. Many of them are good ridience, the bully deserved death.
I'm not asking was it the only outcome, just are people really happy with the kid's death. I don't know about "deserve" but it's a known risk when you lay hands on someone. You can kill them easy and should expect reciprocity. All it takes is kid to fall backwards and bust his head on the curb and one can die in a blink of an eye. Are you saying taking this risk shoulnt be met with extreme response/defense in kind? Your life may depend on you or him. Deserve has nothing to do with it but rather survival no? It is a risk you assume, but that's not what i'm talking about. I'm not asking whether or not the kid reacted in the right way. If you look back through pages, many people say things like, "if your a bully you deserve it imo." "One less piece of shit on this planet, good job." Things like that. People seem to be expressing joy at the death of this kid. I'm asking if anyone is actually happy that he is dead or if those comments were just knee jerks. I can appreciate that people who were bullied intensely find joy that someone like their own bullies finally got serious repercussions. Usually bullies get away clear for most things because its not taken seriously. Fact is bullying can cause serious emotional and if its taken to the physical level of course physical damage too. Say youre raped and your rapist gets away without punishment (either because you didnt work up the nerve to report it to the police or hes not convicted for lack of proof, or whatever else). Do you find it hard to understand that you would want a person like that to suffer for what theyve done? Sure, I can imagine a type of person who enjoyed the story of Nuno's death because he or she was bullied as a child. Their joy is still unacceptable. Rejoicing in violence toward a person because that person belongs to a category of human being that you despise is unacceptable, it's low, and it has no place in any conversation about justice, much less any justice system. This is not about justice or justice systems. Its about vengeance. Even if thats not RIGHT its hard for me to grasp how people can not understand that. I suppose that I just expected more out of people. I did not think that there would be many posters on this forum who would savor a minor's violent death because it vicariously satisfies a thirst for vengeance that they're still carrying around against their childhood tormentors. You and I have both been around this site long enough to know better than that.. Remember this thread? (and the multitude of others like it) http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=102027Many of the same issues, and knee-jerk responses, were present even then (before the influx of younger users from SC2). Thanks anyway for attempting to insert some intelligent reasoning into this thread. Just to clarify, I think this position is wrong as well. Its just that I'm honest enough with myself that I dont have to fake some kind of self control or sympathy. What happened altered my view on bullies. The fact that he had to die is unfortunate but in my view preferable to someone getting beat up for no reason. On January 12 2012 10:14 gameguard wrote:On January 12 2012 09:04 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 12 2012 08:54 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On January 12 2012 08:51 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 12 2012 08:41 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On January 12 2012 08:31 Kangbao wrote:On January 12 2012 08:20 tdt wrote:On January 12 2012 07:26 Kangbao wrote:
[quote]
Of course the guy could have gotten away. I'm trying to gauge how many of these comments are knee jerk reactions versus actual feelings. Many of the comments are along the lines of glee at the guy's death. Many of them are good ridience, the bully deserved death.
I'm not asking was it the only outcome, just are people really happy with the kid's death. I don't know about "deserve" but it's a known risk when you lay hands on someone. You can kill them easy and should expect reciprocity. All it takes is kid to fall backwards and bust his head on the curb and one can die in a blink of an eye. Are you saying taking this risk shoulnt be met with extreme response/defense in kind? Your life may depend on you or him. Deserve has nothing to do with it but rather survival no? It is a risk you assume, but that's not what i'm talking about. I'm not asking whether or not the kid reacted in the right way. If you look back through pages, many people say things like, "if your a bully you deserve it imo." "One less piece of shit on this planet, good job." Things like that. People seem to be expressing joy at the death of this kid. I'm asking if anyone is actually happy that he is dead or if those comments were just knee jerks. I can appreciate that people who were bullied intensely find joy that someone like their own bullies finally got serious repercussions. Usually bullies get away clear for most things because its not taken seriously. Fact is bullying can cause serious emotional and if its taken to the physical level of course physical damage too. Say youre raped and your rapist gets away without punishment (either because you didnt work up the nerve to report it to the police or hes not convicted for lack of proof, or whatever else). Do you find it hard to understand that you would want a person like that to suffer for what theyve done? Sure, I can imagine a type of person who enjoyed the story of Nuno's death because he or she was bullied as a child. Their joy is still unacceptable. Rejoicing in violence toward a person because that person belongs to a category of human being that you despise is unacceptable, it's low, and it has no place in any conversation about justice, much less any justice system. This is not about justice or justice systems. Its about vengeance. Even if thats not RIGHT its hard for me to grasp how people can not understand that. I suppose that I just expected more out of people. I did not think that there would be many posters on this forum who would savor a minor's violent death because it vicariously satisfies a thirst for vengeance that they're still carrying around against their childhood tormentors. Youre really well versed and sensible for someone with the ID HULKMANIA lol. Ok so heres my take on it one more time. Fundamentally, people should be able to defend yourself. To what extent and in what circumstances is debatable and usually tackled in a case by case scenario. This wasn't some gang ridden high school in the bronx or something. Look at the pictures. Saavedra is not some scrawny kid. Nuno is not some hardcore gangster. There are a number of things he could have done. If it comes down to it, he could have fought him (preferably during school). Most people with this experience will tell you that after you fight back, bullies will stop messing with you. It doesn't matter if you win or lose. This is what happened in my eyes. Nuno was like "im gonna beat yo ass today." Then he told his friends to come watch for his rl-peen. Saavedra got off early, nuno followed, he started slapping/tapping his head (no i dont think he sucker punched him with full force). He turned around with the knife and lunged. Its really fucking stupid. I seriously doubt Saavedra EVER was in danger of great physical harm or death. Nuno probably just screwed with him on a constant basis and Saavedra just couldnt take it any more. The real problem is schools being too lenient on bullying all across the country. The psychological damage is almost always greater than any physical harm you might get. After a year of this, the kid finally snapped. I tried fighting back almost every time I was attacked by my bullies. It didnt help AT ALL. Only thing it did was enrage them further so that they would do even more fucked up stuff than they were planning. Also I dont see where you come up with where it says savaadra lunged at nuno. Afaik he stabbed at him while nuno was still punching him (gonna re-read the article to make sure I'm not blabbering nonsense). well i havn't been able to find the eyewitness testimony on how it went down. Its quite hard to imagine that the fight going any other way though. He was backing up while stabbing nuno multiple times in the chest and abdomen?? And this guy just kept coming and punching like a terminator? Or would it make more sense that saavedra turned around, lunged forward, grabbed him and stabbed him many times (it only takes like 3 seconds to stab 12 times or whatever). Of course In that short time nuno would be struggling to get him off. Anyways, I dont really disagree with the legality of the issue in this particular case. Using stand your ground is pretty stupid though. Having a law this broad to generalize every case like this could lead to many problems. His testimony is his testimony. There is no way his gonna say that he wanted to end this once and for all if it came down to it, even if that was the case. And how can you dispute that he feared for his life? Combine that with the accounts of constant bullying, it makes sense to rule it as self defense. I just don't believe that were hearing the whole truth about the situation. What I really am irritated about is the schools' nonchalant way of dealing with situations like this. Kids that are proven to be bullies should be suspended then expelled so shit like this doesnt have to happen.
All I see in your posts is how you belittle Saavedra on and on. Basically you make him out to be someone with a weak personality. Can you imagine how many violent offenders tell the truth after they murdered or otherwise harmed someone? I dont know the exact percentage but there are those that do it. My advice to you, dont jump to random conclusions that you make up on yourself. A fucking JUDGE ruled in favor of Saavadra, I dont think youre more qualified than a judge to evaluate what really happened with all the information available.
Also correct me if I'm wrong but I have the feeling you never got seriously bullied (to the extent that in adults it would rather be called assault than bullying). I have been living in those conditions for FOUR YEARS and even if this might not be the universal truth I found that in this time I continually became more submissive to my tormentors. I wouldve often had the chance to kill my bully if I had a weapon with me, sometimes I even took a small kitchen knife to school with me in case something serious enough might happen so that I can defend myself. Luckily I never had to use it. What I did do though is taking tree branches and whipping it in his face, and like you so nicely formulated it he "kept coming like a terminator" even though he had some minor lacerations on his face. Take this however you want, but I cant stand how you jump to random conclusions.
|
On January 12 2012 11:26 gameguard wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 10:16 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On January 12 2012 10:02 Brett wrote:On January 12 2012 09:04 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 12 2012 08:54 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On January 12 2012 08:51 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 12 2012 08:41 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On January 12 2012 08:31 Kangbao wrote:On January 12 2012 08:20 tdt wrote:On January 12 2012 07:26 Kangbao wrote:
[quote]
Of course the guy could have gotten away. I'm trying to gauge how many of these comments are knee jerk reactions versus actual feelings. Many of the comments are along the lines of glee at the guy's death. Many of them are good ridience, the bully deserved death.
I'm not asking was it the only outcome, just are people really happy with the kid's death. I don't know about "deserve" but it's a known risk when you lay hands on someone. You can kill them easy and should expect reciprocity. All it takes is kid to fall backwards and bust his head on the curb and one can die in a blink of an eye. Are you saying taking this risk shoulnt be met with extreme response/defense in kind? Your life may depend on you or him. Deserve has nothing to do with it but rather survival no? It is a risk you assume, but that's not what i'm talking about. I'm not asking whether or not the kid reacted in the right way. If you look back through pages, many people say things like, "if your a bully you deserve it imo." "One less piece of shit on this planet, good job." Things like that. People seem to be expressing joy at the death of this kid. I'm asking if anyone is actually happy that he is dead or if those comments were just knee jerks. I can appreciate that people who were bullied intensely find joy that someone like their own bullies finally got serious repercussions. Usually bullies get away clear for most things because its not taken seriously. Fact is bullying can cause serious emotional and if its taken to the physical level of course physical damage too. Say youre raped and your rapist gets away without punishment (either because you didnt work up the nerve to report it to the police or hes not convicted for lack of proof, or whatever else). Do you find it hard to understand that you would want a person like that to suffer for what theyve done? Sure, I can imagine a type of person who enjoyed the story of Nuno's death because he or she was bullied as a child. Their joy is still unacceptable. Rejoicing in violence toward a person because that person belongs to a category of human being that you despise is unacceptable, it's low, and it has no place in any conversation about justice, much less any justice system. This is not about justice or justice systems. Its about vengeance. Even if thats not RIGHT its hard for me to grasp how people can not understand that. I suppose that I just expected more out of people. I did not think that there would be many posters on this forum who would savor a minor's violent death because it vicariously satisfies a thirst for vengeance that they're still carrying around against their childhood tormentors. You and I have both been around this site long enough to know better than that.. Remember this thread? (and the multitude of others like it) http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=102027Many of the same issues, and knee-jerk responses, were present even then (before the influx of younger users from SC2). Thanks anyway for attempting to insert some intelligent reasoning into this thread. Just to clarify, I think this position is wrong as well. Its just that I'm honest enough with myself that I dont have to fake some kind of self control or sympathy. What happened altered my view on bullies. The fact that he had to die is unfortunate but in my view preferable to someone getting beat up for no reason. On January 12 2012 10:14 gameguard wrote:On January 12 2012 09:04 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 12 2012 08:54 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On January 12 2012 08:51 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 12 2012 08:41 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On January 12 2012 08:31 Kangbao wrote:On January 12 2012 08:20 tdt wrote:On January 12 2012 07:26 Kangbao wrote:
[quote]
Of course the guy could have gotten away. I'm trying to gauge how many of these comments are knee jerk reactions versus actual feelings. Many of the comments are along the lines of glee at the guy's death. Many of them are good ridience, the bully deserved death.
I'm not asking was it the only outcome, just are people really happy with the kid's death. I don't know about "deserve" but it's a known risk when you lay hands on someone. You can kill them easy and should expect reciprocity. All it takes is kid to fall backwards and bust his head on the curb and one can die in a blink of an eye. Are you saying taking this risk shoulnt be met with extreme response/defense in kind? Your life may depend on you or him. Deserve has nothing to do with it but rather survival no? It is a risk you assume, but that's not what i'm talking about. I'm not asking whether or not the kid reacted in the right way. If you look back through pages, many people say things like, "if your a bully you deserve it imo." "One less piece of shit on this planet, good job." Things like that. People seem to be expressing joy at the death of this kid. I'm asking if anyone is actually happy that he is dead or if those comments were just knee jerks. I can appreciate that people who were bullied intensely find joy that someone like their own bullies finally got serious repercussions. Usually bullies get away clear for most things because its not taken seriously. Fact is bullying can cause serious emotional and if its taken to the physical level of course physical damage too. Say youre raped and your rapist gets away without punishment (either because you didnt work up the nerve to report it to the police or hes not convicted for lack of proof, or whatever else). Do you find it hard to understand that you would want a person like that to suffer for what theyve done? Sure, I can imagine a type of person who enjoyed the story of Nuno's death because he or she was bullied as a child. Their joy is still unacceptable. Rejoicing in violence toward a person because that person belongs to a category of human being that you despise is unacceptable, it's low, and it has no place in any conversation about justice, much less any justice system. This is not about justice or justice systems. Its about vengeance. Even if thats not RIGHT its hard for me to grasp how people can not understand that. I suppose that I just expected more out of people. I did not think that there would be many posters on this forum who would savor a minor's violent death because it vicariously satisfies a thirst for vengeance that they're still carrying around against their childhood tormentors. Youre really well versed and sensible for someone with the ID HULKMANIA lol. Ok so heres my take on it one more time. Fundamentally, people should be able to defend yourself. To what extent and in what circumstances is debatable and usually tackled in a case by case scenario. This wasn't some gang ridden high school in the bronx or something. Look at the pictures. Saavedra is not some scrawny kid. Nuno is not some hardcore gangster. There are a number of things he could have done. If it comes down to it, he could have fought him (preferably during school). Most people with this experience will tell you that after you fight back, bullies will stop messing with you. It doesn't matter if you win or lose. This is what happened in my eyes. Nuno was like "im gonna beat yo ass today." Then he told his friends to come watch for his rl-peen. Saavedra got off early, nuno followed, he started slapping/tapping his head (no i dont think he sucker punched him with full force). He turned around with the knife and lunged. Its really fucking stupid. I seriously doubt Saavedra EVER was in danger of great physical harm or death. Nuno probably just screwed with him on a constant basis and Saavedra just couldnt take it any more. The real problem is schools being too lenient on bullying all across the country. The psychological damage is almost always greater than any physical harm you might get. After a year of this, the kid finally snapped. I tried fighting back almost every time I was attacked by my bullies. It didnt help AT ALL. Only thing it did was enrage them further so that they would do even more fucked up stuff than they were planning. Also I dont see where you come up with where it says savaadra lunged at nuno. Afaik he stabbed at him while nuno was still punching him (gonna re-read the article to make sure I'm not blabbering nonsense). well i havn't been able to find the eyewitness testimony on how it went down. Its quite hard to imagine that the fight going any other way though. He was backing up while stabbing nuno multiple times in the chest and abdomen?? And this guy just kept coming and punching like a terminator? Or would it make more sense that saavedra turned around, lunged forward, grabbed him and stabbed him many times (it only takes like 3 seconds to stab 12 times or whatever). Of course In that short time nuno would be struggling to get him off.Anyways, I dont really disagree with the legality of the issue in this particular case. Using stand your ground is pretty stupid though. Having a law this broad to generalize every case like this could lead to many problems. His testimony is his testimony. There is no way his gonna say that he wanted to end this once and for all if it came down to it, even if that was the case. And how can you dispute that he feared for his life? Combine that with the accounts of constant bullying, it makes sense to rule it as self defense. I just don't believe that were hearing the whole truth about the situation. What I really am irritated about is the schools' nonchalant way of dealing with situations like this. Kids that are proven to be bullies should be suspended then expelled so shit like this doesnt have to happen.
Shut up. Shut up shut up shut up.
That's not how it went down. Why is it so hard for people to understand that adrenaline in a situation like this is powerful enough that the bully didn't notice his wounds until it was too late. Why do you insist on assuming he grabbed him and stabbed him multiple times. That ISN'T what happened. That would have been mentioned several times if it had, and it wouldn't have been possible given the circumstances of the fight. How is a scared kid going to pull an assassin move on someone two years older and much bigger than him? To even contemplate it's possibility means you've gone full retard. Stop making assumptions like that that have no basis in fact or place in this discussion.
|
On January 12 2012 11:25 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 11:23 Brett wrote:LOL. Of course you have an opinion. You will also find that I have already commented in this thread that I accept the legality of the judge's decision given the laws in his jurisdiction. Recognise however that such doctrines (castle rule, stand your ground) are the exception, not the rule, when it comes to most common-law jurisdictions. I suggest you educate yourself regarding Australian law (can you match my law degree and 5 years post admission experience in criminal law?) before you go making snide remarks about my intelligence and what law makers have or have not done, and their intention when doing so. Here's some light reading for you, pal: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1987/26.htmlThen go research what South Aus, and New South Wales have done. Perhaps then we can have a reasonable discussion about this. Though I doubt it given the hostility you're displaying towards pretty much anyone with an opinion contrary to your own. I'm not Australian and even if I were it would be irrelevant to this discussion, as is the commonality of stand your ground laws through common law nations. I'm not quite sure what your point is. My comments on your views have nothing to do with your ability to mechanically interpret and apply and argue the law but rather the philosophical underpinnings and validities of such laws, which are essentially subjective anyway. Thus thank god you do not make the law and the legislators of this state do, otherwise we'd be prosecuting the victim.
Which is it? You don't understand the point I made, or you want to argue it with me? It's rather obvious which I am doing.
The reference to Australia comes from a) your profile; and b) as you put it, "the philosophical underpinnings and validities of such laws", an understanding of which comes from, and a critique of which is impossible without, knowledge of how such laws develop (thus an understanding of the common law position from which American law has developed).
Your knee-jerk responses are typical of what HULK was getting at earlier.
|
On January 12 2012 11:25 Golbat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 11:20 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 12 2012 10:11 Golbat wrote:On January 12 2012 09:57 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 12 2012 09:40 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
Why should he stand trial for killing someone if the killing was legal and justified?
Stand Your Ground is the only sane way of having it. We try people all the time for things that they're eventually acquitted of. It's part of the due process of law, which I think is far preferable to a vague statute like "Stand Your Ground" precluding a trial entirely. But there is no need for a trial. No need for it. He was violently attacked, defended himself, and in the process of doing so his attacker died. If both of these kids were ten years older this discussion would have ended by now. As far as I can tell (according to the OP article, the motion to grant Saavedra immunity filed by his defense, and the article I quoted earlier from The Miami Law Review), the only reason why this incident did not go to trial is because of the "Stand Your Ground" law, which is a questionable statute in many ways and also one that does not exist in a majority of the states. So evidently this incident would have been tried in most of the states of the United States of America, regardless of the ages of the students. I happen to think that such a trial would bring an appropriate amount of attention and contemplation to an event in which a young man was stabbed to death, even though I don't happen to believe that Saavedra would be found guilty. But he didn't stab someone in a different state, so your point is entirely moot. Putting a kid on trial to bring attention to bullying is also a stupid idea. Hey, this kid is already emotionally scarred, scared and confused. Lets put him through additional MONTHS of anguish so we can make a point, even though in the end there isn't a chance in hell he's going to be convicted. That's some cold shit bro.
Moot? As in the issue has already been decided. Of course. I don't exactly expect that anyone's discussion on TL will effect the outcome of an already-decided case. But that's not really the purpose of these discussions, and the position that I am taking in this discussion is that a questionable law co-opted the normal course of judicial proceedings, which are features of our legal system that are there for a reason and should not be brushed aside because the NRA lobby scored a political victory in Florida.
Cold? You can call me whatever you like. Now I have been called overly sensitive and too callous in the same thread. Cool.
|
On January 12 2012 11:34 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 11:25 cz wrote:On January 12 2012 11:23 Brett wrote:LOL. Of course you have an opinion. You will also find that I have already commented in this thread that I accept the legality of the judge's decision given the laws in his jurisdiction. Recognise however that such doctrines (castle rule, stand your ground) are the exception, not the rule, when it comes to most common-law jurisdictions. I suggest you educate yourself regarding Australian law (can you match my law degree and 5 years post admission experience in criminal law?) before you go making snide remarks about my intelligence and what law makers have or have not done, and their intention when doing so. Here's some light reading for you, pal: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1987/26.htmlThen go research what South Aus, and New South Wales have done. Perhaps then we can have a reasonable discussion about this. Though I doubt it given the hostility you're displaying towards pretty much anyone with an opinion contrary to your own. I'm not Australian and even if I were it would be irrelevant to this discussion, as is the commonality of stand your ground laws through common law nations. I'm not quite sure what your point is. My comments on your views have nothing to do with your ability to mechanically interpret and apply and argue the law but rather the philosophical underpinnings and validities of such laws, which are essentially subjective anyway. Thus thank god you do not make the law and the legislators of this state do, otherwise we'd be prosecuting the victim. Which is it? You don't understand the point I made, or you want to argue it with me? It's rather obvious which I am doing. The reference to Australia comes from a) your profile; and b) as you put it, "the philosophical underpinnings and validities of such laws", an understanding of which comes from, and a critique of which is impossible without, knowledge of how such laws develop (thus an understanding of the common law position from which American law has developed). Your knee-jerk responses are typical of what HULK was getting at earlier.
I'm criticizing your views and don't understand what your point was in the reply you made to me. The whole Australia thing is entirely irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
