Note: a number of sources are saying that Beast Master Casey has been suspended for 4 days and that the rat boy was suspended for 21. Look around for more sources please.
On March 15 2011 14:06 Lochat wrote: Personally, while never bullied, I'm curious as to why those are defending the bully.
You claim that a kid may break his neck and leave him paralyzed for life, I have to ask you:
Do you think mental abuse inflicted towards a child for years upon years isn't going to damage him for the rest of his life? The slam breaking his neck is going to be as life-changing as many kids who endured emotional abuse to the point it destroyed them, as stuff like school shootings would attest to.
Not to mention the idea of trying to blame the victim for his reasonable self defense is absurd to begin with.
Violence doesn't justify violence, contrary to popular belief. It may be what he "deserved", but that doesn't make it right.
The victim isn't being blamed for starting a fight. He's being blamed for using violence. It's purely an objective viewpoint on violence itself that the school has to take a stance on. Did you not notice how Casey's sentence was 5 times shorter than the other kid's?
violence doesnt justify violence? how the hell not? we're all entitled to our own well being, and when someone violates that you have every right to do what you have to do change that, by ANY means necessary.
self defense is something that should never ever been argued over.
Self defense laws are very complex and rarely allow any means necessary very often frown upon excessive force to certain degrees.
On March 15 2011 14:06 Lochat wrote: Personally, while never bullied, I'm curious as to why those are defending the bully.
You claim that a kid may break his neck and leave him paralyzed for life, I have to ask you:
Do you think mental abuse inflicted towards a child for years upon years isn't going to damage him for the rest of his life? The slam breaking his neck is going to be as life-changing as many kids who endured emotional abuse to the point it destroyed them, as stuff like school shootings would attest to.
Not to mention the idea of trying to blame the victim for his reasonable self defense is absurd to begin with.
Violence doesn't justify violence, contrary to popular belief. It may be what he "deserved", but that doesn't make it right.
The victim isn't being blamed for starting a fight. He's being blamed for using violence. It's purely an objective viewpoint on violence itself that the school has to take a stance on. Did you not notice how Casey's sentence was 5 times shorter than the other kid's?
violence doesnt justify violence? how the hell not? we're all entitled to our own well being, and when someone violates that you have every right to do what you have to do change that, by ANY means necessary.
self defense is something that should never ever been argued over.
A better way to put it is In an ideal situation, violence is wrong, peaceful resolutions are the best. But sometimes you need violence to fight violence. Violence definitely justifies violence it's just sometimes not the ideal choice. Your own well being always come first then those of your loved ones, then friends everyone else can go take a number. Peaceful resolutions are nice but if you don't have violence to back up your "negotiations" then peaceful resolutions are worthless
On March 15 2011 14:06 Lochat wrote: Personally, while never bullied, I'm curious as to why those are defending the bully.
You claim that a kid may break his neck and leave him paralyzed for life, I have to ask you:
Do you think mental abuse inflicted towards a child for years upon years isn't going to damage him for the rest of his life? The slam breaking his neck is going to be as life-changing as many kids who endured emotional abuse to the point it destroyed them, as stuff like school shootings would attest to.
Not to mention the idea of trying to blame the victim for his reasonable self defense is absurd to begin with.
Violence doesn't justify violence, contrary to popular belief. It may be what he "deserved", but that doesn't make it right.
The victim isn't being blamed for starting a fight. He's being blamed for using violence. It's purely an objective viewpoint on violence itself that the school has to take a stance on. Did you not notice how Casey's sentence was 5 times shorter than the other kid's?
violence doesnt justify violence? how the hell not? we're all entitled to our own well being, and when someone violates that you have every right to do what you have to do change that, by ANY means necessary.
self defense is something that should never ever been argued over.
If somebody killed your best friend, should you kill their best friend? It's for vengeance, right? It's all right?
That's ridiculous. You're playing a game of "he started it!" at that point. Two wrongs don't make a right in this case.
I understand that sometimes, it's just impossible to enforce a peaceful resolution to everything. However, letting "some" violence slip by (unpunished), saying "some" violence is okay, creates a grey area that's a pain to deal with.
For example, raping is wrong, and we should reinforce that. Doesn't matter if they raped you first.
On March 15 2011 14:06 Lochat wrote: Personally, while never bullied, I'm curious as to why those are defending the bully.
You claim that a kid may break his neck and leave him paralyzed for life, I have to ask you:
Do you think mental abuse inflicted towards a child for years upon years isn't going to damage him for the rest of his life? The slam breaking his neck is going to be as life-changing as many kids who endured emotional abuse to the point it destroyed them, as stuff like school shootings would attest to.
Not to mention the idea of trying to blame the victim for his reasonable self defense is absurd to begin with.
Violence doesn't justify violence, contrary to popular belief. It may be what he "deserved", but that doesn't make it right.
The victim isn't being blamed for starting a fight. He's being blamed for using violence. It's purely an objective viewpoint on violence itself that the school has to take a stance on. Did you not notice how Casey's sentence was 5 times shorter than the other kid's?
violence doesnt justify violence? how the hell not? we're all entitled to our own well being, and when someone violates that you have every right to do what you have to do change that, by ANY means necessary.
self defense is something that should never ever been argued over.
If somebody killed your best friend, should you kill their best friend? It's for vengeance, right? It's all right?
That's ridiculous. You're playing a game of "he started it!" at that point. Two wrongs don't make a right in this case.
I understand that sometimes, it's just impossible to enforce a peaceful resolution to everything. However, letting "some" violence slip by (unpunished), saying "some" violence is okay, creates a grey area that's a pain to deal with.
For example, raping is wrong, and we should reinforce that. Doesn't matter if they raped you first.
What great strawman arguments you made! You're an idiot.
He's saying for self-defense, not retribution, vengeance or justice. He's talking about the right to being secure in your person. You've probably heard the expression, "Your rights end where my nose begins".
If someone assaults you, if you feel threatened and the only way to protect yourself is to disable the attacker, then violence is the answer.
A peaceful resolution should always trump a violent one, but saying that a violence isn't a justifiable response to violence is ignorance.
edit:
I'm glad Casey stood up for himself. He did use excessive force, but he knew when to back off. The kid wasn't going to do anything after that blow, and Casey knew it. Casey just stood his ground because he was being ganged up on, he was probably afraid to turn around since the scum bags would attack him from behind.
I highly doubt that these kids will antagonize Casey again; however, I do fear that the moron he demolished might retaliate with something more lethal to redeem his reputation.
edit 2:
Just a side note on the use of "excessive force", it was justified. You don't restrain someone who brought friends to a fight. I've learned that one the hard way. The body slam sent a clear message and disabled the attacker. In situations like this you aren't looking to "fight with honor", "restrain", or "run away", because you doing so only serves to risk the chance of being ganged up on or being attacked from behind.
I watched the vid and i must say that the body slam was the most natural reaction for 'casey' to pull on this hormone crazed adolescence, seeing that the little kids fists were above his head. although this one-sided fight reminds me of one of the opening scenes of the movie 'never back down'. Seeing how the little kid stumbled around after, it would seem that he fractured/broke his right ankle on the concrete ledge. Also for the people saying that the little kid could of easily broke his neck, i don't agree that would be possible, the kid landed almost parallel to the ground hands first.
If i was 'Casey' i would of curb stomped the bully's right ankle before i left...
AND, Thank GOD for girls, you see at the end of the vid that girl stepped in and presumably the second bully of the group was pacified...
Funny, the debate over whether violence/Casey's act is justified kind of made me think of the beginning scene in Ender's game where he pummels the bully. I don't think the punishment is necessarily unreasonable, I mean when two kids get in a fight, regardless of who started it both will get punished, just from the school's nature as a disciplinary institution.
On March 15 2011 14:55 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: Funny, the debate over whether violence/Casey's act is justified kind of made me think of the beginning scene in Ender's game where he pummels the bully. I don't think the punishment is necessarily unreasonable, I mean when two kids get in a fight, regardless of who started it both will get punished, just from the school's nature as a disciplinary institution.
If anything, the suspension was a good thing for Casey. It gives him time to cool down and to keep away from any excitement at school after the matter. It doesn't have to be considered a punitive measure; however, given that violence was used, a suspension was the correct course of action. It's just a good thing that the bully got a much longer suspension, it's a shame he wasn't outright expelled.
Given what has been discussed in this thread about the Australlian Education system, you can only hope that what Casey did brings about change to help protect kids from Bullying.
I was bullied in elementary and middle school for a while as well, only once got into a fight. The kid never really tried anything physical on me just mostly words and stuff, but the one time that he did I of course had to fight back. When getting attacked by a person you don't just stand there and take hits, that is just stupid. Pretty much I tackled him to the ground (not quite the body slam there but more of a football type tackle) and just went to the office to tell them what happened. Even though I thought i did everything right I still ended up getting suspended for 2 days.
On March 15 2011 02:52 Almin wrote: I disagree, Casey took it way too far, could've easily killed the kid.
Rather would've seen Casey beat the shit out of that smaller kid, which he easily could have, rather take it to that level.
With great size, comes great responsibility.
This post enrages me. If you are being physically assaulted, to me, you're in the right to incapacitate whoever is assaulting you. If they get hurt in the process, it's their own damn fault for starting a fight in the first place. If Casey had then started kicking the kid while he was on the ground, I would agree with you. But until you are no longer at threat of being further attacked, anything you do is justified as self defense.
I agree, when you're in a fight you're not in a postion to hold back, If your in a fight you're going to do what is going to hurt your enemy the most. That kind of naive thinking is gonna get someone killed one day. Remember no matter what you're more important than them
As the defender, you have the right to protect yourself. The person in aggression has already overstepped the line, they can't be trusted to stop at the appropriate time, initiating violence in the first place was inappropriate. If you are defending yourself, you have the ability to stop using violence at any time, however, you cannot trust the other person to stop using violence, you have no idea what their objective is. Are they going to poke you a little and then leave you alone? Are they looking to just punch some of your teeth out and then leave you to suffer? Will they go farther than that?
If someone attacks me or someone I care about, I'm not going to trust them to know when to stop. If I can run I will, otherwise I will do my best to debilitate my opponent and end their aggression. That is what the guy in the video did. To me, there's no argument that he could have "toned it down" if he didn't knock the other kid silly, who's to say that the kid wouldn't have grabbed the nearest weapon and come back at him. Because he did bodily harm and the agressor was unable to continue agressing, the situation defused.
It's not defense any more if you debilitate the opponent and then continue to injure them needlessly. I'm not saying there are no lines. But there is a point to which as long as someone keeps agressing, you are in the right to use any force available to you.
That he defended himself is perfectly justified, I think it was excessive what he did with the body slam he could have done other less dangerous things to disable the little prick. But since he got punched in the face and repeatedly bullied I don't blame him for seeing red and wouldn't punish him something more like madatory therapy. The little prick on the otherhand I would send to the meanest shittiest most brutal school in the country (unfortunately they exist) and scare that shit straight.
I think both kids punishments are very reasonable. The bully may have deserved it, but what comes with being a bigger kid is that you have the power to seriously hurt people. And that's something that kids don't understand until they actually do it - the power to destroy. He really could have broke the kids neck which would have been the worst situation for everyone involved. I don't blame him for what he did, it was completely justified, but the 4 day suspension was as well.
Twice actually, the author justifies Ender delivering crippling (fatal - but he didn't know it) blows both times as being the only way to guarantee survival in the "1 versus many" engagement. He reasons just beating up the first person may not be enough to intimidate the others.
The kid got what he deserved. I don't really see how one can argue that. Not only was he just verbally bullying Casey, he punched the kid in the face. Casey just diffused the situation by completely destroying the skinny kid and making him look like an idiot (and making himself an internet hero in the process), then he walked away. It wasn't like he continued to bash his face in after he already took care of business. Simple as that.
The punishments are in my opinion fair. As long as the skinny idiot has no prior offenses. If he has, I wouldn't even bother with suspension and just expel him. I'd like to see Casey get off scot-free from this, but I doubt the school would have it. They are probably just suspending him because it's the proper thing to do, then behind closed doors they are all watching this video and cheering Casey on.
The school and it's staff is to blame, and of course terrible parenting by the antagonizers part. No kid during high school or any kind of school deserves to being tormented like that. I didn't read through all the pages but it seems like most of you have no idea how much bullies impact the victims concentration and grades for as long as the rest of their lives(if the victim has not commited suicide by then).
Casey did the right thing by bringing down the thunder. Even if it won't cure the psychological damage allready done.
you know when you're sitting around minding your own business and there's this bug flying around in your face and you try to calmly wave it away then it comes back and almost goes in your mouth and you're just like what the FUCK and start swatting the air like a retard?
On March 15 2011 14:27 arbitrageur wrote: The fat kid took it too far. Not that I think he should be punished. I think it would've been more appropriate to slam him face first into the ground or slam his face into the wall, instead of risking going skull first which can easily cause death if the head grips the ground and doesn't (luckily for the kid) slip off to the side.
^^^^^^^^^^^ lmao
The fat kid. nice way of putting it. It's easy to watch the video and think "that was not appropriate, he should have held his hands and told him to stop or he would hurt him". Some of you must have only gone to magnet schools or something, that isn't how it works.
EPT
