|
On October 28 2011 13:16 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 13:11 Tektos wrote:On October 28 2011 13:07 Half wrote:On October 28 2011 13:05 Tektos wrote:On October 28 2011 13:02 Half wrote:On October 28 2011 13:00 Tektos wrote:On October 28 2011 12:57 Half wrote:On October 28 2011 12:55 Amaterasu1234 wrote:On October 28 2011 12:53 Half wrote:On October 28 2011 12:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
I think it's going to set an example that beating the shit out of people for no good reason is illegal and looked down upon by society.
As well it should be. But people get beat up in schools all the time, just for reasons other then being gay. What, arrest all of them too? ...why not? You're just pushing people you find incongruous with your neat little world into the margins, at no regard to the human cost. You're not different from the 30 something conservs who think all the kids doing hard time in prison for drug charges or DUIs deserve to be in there. Ok, So a 17 year old kid hates gays. Another 17 year old kid gets into fights. Maybe hes struggling with his own sexuality, maybe he has his own, completely unrelated insecurities, maybe hes the product of a decadent culture. NO I DONT WANT TO FACE THIS MAKE IT GO AWAY. Meanwhile, a virtual slave labour complex is being built up on the fruit of your petty fears. When will you realize that "getting into a fight" and premeditated assault are SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT? Yes, the primary difference is one occurs when a member of society ignores social contract for petty ends, the other occurs when a freaking kid whos going through puberty gets emotional. I would have thought the more logical difference was one is a person beating the shit out of another person while the other is two people willingly exhibit violence towards each other. One situation has two willing participants, the other has only one. I wasn't aware getting in a fight was a term used by our legal system, thank you for informing me on its syntactical specifications. Where did you attend law school? Your knowledge impresses me. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. No, "fight" and "beating the shit out of" aren't terms used in the legal system, but the legal system does recognize differences synonymous to the two in cases of assault. Yes and I wasn't referring to them. I am saying that if a kid gets beat up at school, no matter how one sided it was, unless that kid is suffering actual long term physical harm, police intervention is simply not the way to go. If you think it is, tell me why. None of your moralistic bullshit. Who is the beneficiary in this action. The kid? Damage is already done. Perpetrator? Certainly not on his way to becoming a productive member of society. People who are like the kid? No, because LGBT teens make up an extraordinarily small proportion of kids who get beat up in shitty American schools. The rest of the kids are left to fester. Ever hear of entire minorities boycotting inner city schools? This isn't an isolated problem, unless your willing to turn some 10-20 kids in every lower income school into undesirables, outcasts of our system before they even graduate. You think they're just going to go away? Wanna fucking kill them? I'll tell you who is the main beneficiary. You. That is the primary beneficiary. You get to push the ugly parts of our current society out of your neat, tidy little world. Wouldn't want actual societal change getting in the way of your luxuries would you.
First of all, the physical damage may have been done to the gay kid, but it might be nice for him to know that the bully isn't getting off with just a slap on the wrist, and maybe the knowledge that something is actually getting done about homophobic bullshit like this.
Second, you can't make the argument not to take action against this bully because there are too many bullies for it to make a difference. This is how civil rights progressed. Laws help, you know.
Third, "societal change"? That's you being hypocritical. Societal change would be not seeing homophobia. But that's not going to happen if we keep seeing bullies like this, and if we keep seeing people like you who dismiss things like this.
|
On October 28 2011 13:22 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 13:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2011 12:53 Half wrote:On October 28 2011 12:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2011 12:22 Half wrote:
This is kinda dumb, why not just a longer suspension?
Or do we want the police getting involved with everything. You think giving this kid a criminal record for life is going to help him change his outlook towards gays?
Completely ridiculous that the most reasonable option is second to last with only 2% of the votes. QUICKLY GUYS. POLARIZE EVERYTHING. I think it's going to set an example that beating the shit out of people for no good reason is illegal and looked down upon by society. As well it should be. But people get beat up in schools all the time, just for reasons other then being gay. What, arrest all of them too? ...Yes? I fail to see how your statement changes anything. You need to protect people who can't protect themselves, especially when they're being wrongfully hurt and attacked. That's the job of a police officer. Did you not see the video? Saying "Psh, lots of people do it!" doesn't make a crime any less heinous. So turn a substantial amount of already lower class citizens into undesirables before they even graduate. That will never come back to bite us at some future point in time, never.
Obviously throwing every violent bully in jail is not the optimal solution, but a suspension (even a longer one like you proposed) would not do anything at all. The bully would come back after his time the same as before, and the the victim would be in the same position; nothing would change.
Some sort of higher punishment is necessary.
|
On October 28 2011 13:11 Hnnngg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 13:04 NovaTheFeared wrote:On October 28 2011 12:45 Hnnngg wrote:On October 28 2011 12:35 NovaTheFeared wrote:On October 28 2011 12:17 Hnnngg wrote:On October 28 2011 12:07 NovaTheFeared wrote:On October 28 2011 12:00 Tektos wrote:On October 28 2011 11:57 NovaTheFeared wrote:On October 28 2011 11:48 Hnnngg wrote:On October 28 2011 11:42 NovaTheFeared wrote:
[quote]
If someone who is anti-gay can't help himself or be re-educated then we have to seriously reconsider not just hate crime laws but whether we should prosecute the perpetrators at all. After all he can't help himself, according to this logic. This bigotry is exactly the kind of thing that can be changed because it's an idea, or a belief system, not an immutable characteristic.
The kid isn't going to jail over this because he's underage. He *might* get some juvenile detention depending on the jurisdiction. The simplistic "lock 'em up and throw away the key!" types like you are why we have a ridiculously high incarceration rate. There's no such thing as "accidentally homophobic". Only the willfully ignorant can be willfully intolerant. And I mean intolerant as in, "this kind of shit shouldn't exist and I will take it upon myself to get rid of it." I hate fat people, but I tolerate them. How does his age factor into his religious beliefs? (athiest homophobe, make me laugh). There's no reason to accept this kind of person in society. Until that changes, the person should be kept out of society. You know where that place is? Prison. I honestly think you're trolling now. Since you now admit he can change and be reeducated, the obvious answer is not prison but counseling/probation. duh. He stated that he can change but he chooses not to. You can't reeducate someone who is not willing to be reeducated. Especially when his parents are teaching him the exact opposite. There's nothing in the story that indicates the attacker is unwilling, except his facebook quote which makes me believe the bigotry is fairly deeply ingrained. People also tend to make these big changes when faced with serious consequences in law. And, tbqh, fixing the bigotry is secondary to preventing further physical attacks since being a homophobe is not inherently dangerous. In other words, he needs some monitoring/examination to make sure he is unlikely to repeat his crime. Prison isn't necessary for that. Alright, let's assume no jail time is given and he's given probation. What does that do? Does that make it seem like going to prison is worse? How could he not be aware of the serious consequences of the law? Would probation somehow change him around, make him a non-violent homophobe? Or, we could look at the different kinds of prison. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison#United_StatesMost of the fear towards prisons making small-time criminals into big-time criminals doesn't happen in minimum security prison. Minimum security prison, as the almighty wikipedia states, "The lowest level of security to which an inmate can be assigned directly. This type of prison is typically a "prison farm", or other work-oriented facility, and most often houses petty or "white collar" criminals." White-collar and petty. Sounds like a sufficient place according to the crime. I don't think even a minimum security prison is fitting for the crime with the facts we have at hand. For starters, we assume (partly because the attacker's identity is withheld, partly because it's HS) that he is underage. Therefore he won't be imprisoned for this level of crime. Second, and this is the core distinction, prisons are not and should not be the first punitive measure considered when a violation of law has occurred. Only when non-prison options have been exhausted should we go there. That does not appear to be the case in this instance. So, if the attacker was a year older then we could consider prison? That last part about prisons not being the first punitive measure is... an opinion I guess. I'm thinking about weighing the pros and cons of involving prison and not involving prison. The are minimal cons to involving a minimum security prison sentence for Intolerant Violence. This is a violent crime and should be taken seriously. What if it happens again? Will that be enough for him to go to prison? If not, what the hell. If yes, why does it have to happen twice? I'm not seeing a reason to not involve prison in this specific case. Most likely he would not be sent to prison if it happened again, but would be sent to the closest equivalent of juvenile detention. If he was 18, a short jail sentence would surely be on the table. The reason why it has to "happen twice", as you say, that first time offenders get lenient sentences, is that quite frequently the justice system deals with isolated incidents and we hope that the first round of sanctions corrects the behavior. We have these escalating penalties as both a recognition that previous corrective action has failed to curb illegal behavior, and that each repeat offense increases the likelihood of another. To jump to prison when we have less drastic options is an utter waste of resources. That is the ultimate underpinning of light sentences for first offenses. It's a cost-benefit analysis. So... everyone gets to commit one violent crime before they're an adult? I guess I missed my opportunity to beat up the fags at my school. Hoping for an isolated incident and denying the chance for a repeat offense, especially considering the circumstances, appears to favor the latter.
He will likely still be charged and face a penalty, so it won't be free. It just won't be jail. This leniency also doesn't apply all violent crime. Even juveniles can be tried as adults and face serious jail sentences for other crimes. An assault and battery like this case appears to be a misdemeanor. With the facts as we have them, it's inconceivable that the perpetrator will spend a day in jail.
Let alone the 10 years one person suggested.
|
On October 28 2011 13:16 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 13:11 Tektos wrote:On October 28 2011 13:07 Half wrote:On October 28 2011 13:05 Tektos wrote:On October 28 2011 13:02 Half wrote:On October 28 2011 13:00 Tektos wrote:On October 28 2011 12:57 Half wrote:On October 28 2011 12:55 Amaterasu1234 wrote:On October 28 2011 12:53 Half wrote:On October 28 2011 12:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
I think it's going to set an example that beating the shit out of people for no good reason is illegal and looked down upon by society.
As well it should be. But people get beat up in schools all the time, just for reasons other then being gay. What, arrest all of them too? ...why not? You're just pushing people you find incongruous with your neat little world into the margins, at no regard to the human cost. You're not different from the 30 something conservs who think all the kids doing hard time in prison for drug charges or DUIs deserve to be in there. Ok, So a 17 year old kid hates gays. Another 17 year old kid gets into fights. Maybe hes struggling with his own sexuality, maybe he has his own, completely unrelated insecurities, maybe hes the product of a decadent culture. NO I DONT WANT TO FACE THIS MAKE IT GO AWAY. Meanwhile, a virtual slave labour complex is being built up on the fruit of your petty fears. When will you realize that "getting into a fight" and premeditated assault are SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT? Yes, the primary difference is one occurs when a member of society ignores social contract for petty ends, the other occurs when a freaking kid whos going through puberty gets emotional. I would have thought the more logical difference was one is a person beating the shit out of another person while the other is two people willingly exhibit violence towards each other. One situation has two willing participants, the other has only one. I wasn't aware getting in a fight was a term used by our legal system, thank you for informing me on its syntactical specifications. Where did you attend law school? Your knowledge impresses me. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. No, "fight" and "beating the shit out of" aren't terms used in the legal system, but the legal system does recognize differences synonymous to the two in cases of assault. Yes and I wasn't referring to them. I am saying that if a kid gets beat up at school, no matter how one sided it was, unless that kid is suffering actual long term physical harm, police intervention is simply not the way to go. If you think it is, tell me why. None of your moralistic bullshit. Who is the beneficiary in this action. The kid? Damage is already done. Perpetrator? Certainly not on his way to becoming a productive member of society? People who are like the kid? No, because LGBT teens make up an extraordinarily small proportion of kids who get beat up in shitty American schools. The rest of the kids are left to fester. Ever hear of entire minorities boycotting inner city schools? This isn't an isolated problem, unless your willing to turn some 10-20 kids in every lower income school into undesirables, outcasts of our system before they even graduate. You think they're just going to go away? Wanna fucking kill them? I'll tell you who is the main beneficiary. You. That is the primary beneficiary. You get to push the ugly parts of our current society out of your neat, tidy little world. Wouldn't want actual societal change getting in the way of your luxuries would you.
Damage is already done that is correct, but how do you propose we prevent further damage being done? That is what the justice system is for. The kid is the beneficiary because he doesn't have to fear going to school every day and sitting in the same classroom with a person who viciously and brutally assaulted him for his sexual preferences. It gives the child a sense of security. If you can't see how the child is a beneficiary in this then you are truly ignorant.
A minimum security juvenile detention centre is specifically designed for this type of crime, to rehabilitate the perpetrator so that they can become a productive member of society. Suspending him for 3 days then him just continuing to bully homosexuals afterwards is not going to benefit anyone nor will it result in him becoming a productive member of society.
You fail to understand that a juvenile detention centre doesn't just remove these problem kids from the system, it aims to rehabilitate them. If you have the opinion that juvenile detention centres don't work and the facts to back that up then that is a whole other issue, but that is currently what the justice system has to deal with situations like this.
What are you proposing be done as an alternative and what evidence do you have that it will bring on this societal change you're hyping?
|
Wow, that aggressive a-hole does seem to reaaaally like wang! ^^'
Joke aside, that stuff is just wrong! I don't condone the notion of making this totally arbitrary distinction between "crime" and "hatecrime" - cuz where do you draw the line? There are ppl born with or choose certain paths that are so heavily different from what other ppl are, that it's really stupid to make some kind of a distinction. I get it, racial crimes or crimes against other sexualities are surely a big problem, but what about let's say ppl with eyeglasses, is it also a hatecrime to beat them up? Or maybe Europeans in America or vice-versa or anything like that. You can basically make any attribute of a human being to the target of your hate and beat them up because of that.
I think it's just sad that ppl cannot accept different lifestyles, I mean: What the hell is their problem? I just cannot believe how you can beat sm1 up just for being different in some kind of way.
|
On October 28 2011 13:29 NovaTheFeared wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 13:11 Hnnngg wrote:On October 28 2011 13:04 NovaTheFeared wrote:On October 28 2011 12:45 Hnnngg wrote:On October 28 2011 12:35 NovaTheFeared wrote:On October 28 2011 12:17 Hnnngg wrote:On October 28 2011 12:07 NovaTheFeared wrote:On October 28 2011 12:00 Tektos wrote:On October 28 2011 11:57 NovaTheFeared wrote:On October 28 2011 11:48 Hnnngg wrote:
[quote]
There's no such thing as "accidentally homophobic". Only the willfully ignorant can be willfully intolerant. And I mean intolerant as in, "this kind of shit shouldn't exist and I will take it upon myself to get rid of it." I hate fat people, but I tolerate them.
How does his age factor into his religious beliefs? (athiest homophobe, make me laugh). There's no reason to accept this kind of person in society. Until that changes, the person should be kept out of society. You know where that place is? Prison.
I honestly think you're trolling now. Since you now admit he can change and be reeducated, the obvious answer is not prison but counseling/probation. duh. He stated that he can change but he chooses not to. You can't reeducate someone who is not willing to be reeducated. Especially when his parents are teaching him the exact opposite. There's nothing in the story that indicates the attacker is unwilling, except his facebook quote which makes me believe the bigotry is fairly deeply ingrained. People also tend to make these big changes when faced with serious consequences in law. And, tbqh, fixing the bigotry is secondary to preventing further physical attacks since being a homophobe is not inherently dangerous. In other words, he needs some monitoring/examination to make sure he is unlikely to repeat his crime. Prison isn't necessary for that. Alright, let's assume no jail time is given and he's given probation. What does that do? Does that make it seem like going to prison is worse? How could he not be aware of the serious consequences of the law? Would probation somehow change him around, make him a non-violent homophobe? Or, we could look at the different kinds of prison. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison#United_StatesMost of the fear towards prisons making small-time criminals into big-time criminals doesn't happen in minimum security prison. Minimum security prison, as the almighty wikipedia states, "The lowest level of security to which an inmate can be assigned directly. This type of prison is typically a "prison farm", or other work-oriented facility, and most often houses petty or "white collar" criminals." White-collar and petty. Sounds like a sufficient place according to the crime. I don't think even a minimum security prison is fitting for the crime with the facts we have at hand. For starters, we assume (partly because the attacker's identity is withheld, partly because it's HS) that he is underage. Therefore he won't be imprisoned for this level of crime. Second, and this is the core distinction, prisons are not and should not be the first punitive measure considered when a violation of law has occurred. Only when non-prison options have been exhausted should we go there. That does not appear to be the case in this instance. So, if the attacker was a year older then we could consider prison? That last part about prisons not being the first punitive measure is... an opinion I guess. I'm thinking about weighing the pros and cons of involving prison and not involving prison. The are minimal cons to involving a minimum security prison sentence for Intolerant Violence. This is a violent crime and should be taken seriously. What if it happens again? Will that be enough for him to go to prison? If not, what the hell. If yes, why does it have to happen twice? I'm not seeing a reason to not involve prison in this specific case. Most likely he would not be sent to prison if it happened again, but would be sent to the closest equivalent of juvenile detention. If he was 18, a short jail sentence would surely be on the table. The reason why it has to "happen twice", as you say, that first time offenders get lenient sentences, is that quite frequently the justice system deals with isolated incidents and we hope that the first round of sanctions corrects the behavior. We have these escalating penalties as both a recognition that previous corrective action has failed to curb illegal behavior, and that each repeat offense increases the likelihood of another. To jump to prison when we have less drastic options is an utter waste of resources. That is the ultimate underpinning of light sentences for first offenses. It's a cost-benefit analysis. So... everyone gets to commit one violent crime before they're an adult? I guess I missed my opportunity to beat up the fags at my school. Hoping for an isolated incident and denying the chance for a repeat offense, especially considering the circumstances, appears to favor the latter. He will likely still be charged and face a penalty, so it won't be free. It just won't be jail. This leniency also doesn't apply all violent crime. Even juveniles can be tried as adults and face serious jail sentences for other crimes. An assault and battery like this case appears to be a misdemeanor. With the facts as we have them, it's inconceivable that the perpetrator will spend a day in jail. Let alone the 10 years one person suggested.
From what I've seen, probation and suspension/expulsion. So basically he can't commit another crime while under probation (oh no, he's not allowed to commit a crime again!) and has to wait for some time to go to school or go to a different school.
You think raging homophobes won't take that trade? I'd take that trade just because someone stepped on my shoe.
|
On October 28 2011 13:22 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 13:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2011 12:53 Half wrote:On October 28 2011 12:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2011 12:22 Half wrote:
This is kinda dumb, why not just a longer suspension?
Or do we want the police getting involved with everything. You think giving this kid a criminal record for life is going to help him change his outlook towards gays?
Completely ridiculous that the most reasonable option is second to last with only 2% of the votes. QUICKLY GUYS. POLARIZE EVERYTHING. I think it's going to set an example that beating the shit out of people for no good reason is illegal and looked down upon by society. As well it should be. But people get beat up in schools all the time, just for reasons other then being gay. What, arrest all of them too? ...Yes? I fail to see how your statement changes anything. You need to protect people who can't protect themselves, especially when they're being wrongfully hurt and attacked. That's the job of a police officer. Did you not see the video? Saying "Psh, lots of people do it!" doesn't make a crime any less heinous. So turn a substantial amount of already lower class citizens into undesirables before they even graduate. That will never come back to bite us at some future point in time, never.
I honestly have no idea what you're even talking about. If they're acting this way, then they're making themselves undesirable to society.
This isn't some "Everyone's a little bit of a closet racist, so get over it" joke that we can learn to live with. These are bullies who are going out of their way to beat up on innocent people for no reason. Innocent people have been killed in these situations before. These are the future KKK leaders. For you to claim that their behavior should be excused is essentially saying that their behavior is justified.
|
Why on earth would you ever get the law involved over a school fight?
Instead of wasting energy and time blaming the bully/schools/system/etc and feeling sorry for the kid, why not do him a favor and teach him to stand up for himself. The fight was not that bad, at most he will have a bruised ego, but if he cant stand up for himself he is in for a hard life.
|
On October 28 2011 13:33 omisa wrote:
Why on earth would you ever get the law involved over a school fight?
Instead of wasting energy and time blaming the bully/schools/system/etc and feeling sorry for the kid, why not do him a favor and teach him to stand up for himself. The fight was not that bad, at most he will have a bruised ego, but if he cant stand up for himself he is in for a hard life.
I don't think you quite understand how school- let alone life- is supposed to work.
|
On October 28 2011 13:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 13:33 omisa wrote:
Why on earth would you ever get the law involved over a school fight?
Instead of wasting energy and time blaming the bully/schools/system/etc and feeling sorry for the kid, why not do him a favor and teach him to stand up for himself. The fight was not that bad, at most he will have a bruised ego, but if he cant stand up for himself he is in for a hard life. I don't think you quite understand how life is supposed to work.
Is that so? So do you let yourself get pushed around all day?
|
You read this off Huffington Post, that statement is equivalent to a right-wing opinionated person reading a story off Fox News. I am sorry but I really can not take something like that serious, there is a spin on the story in this scenario, if Fox presented this story, you would think the "bully" needed less punishment, everyone has a different viewpoint.
|
On October 28 2011 13:33 omisa wrote:
Why on earth would you ever get the law involved over a school fight?
Instead of wasting energy and time blaming the bully/schools/system/etc and feeling sorry for the kid, why not do him a favor and teach him to stand up for himself. The fight was not that bad, at most he will have a bruised ego, but if he cant stand up for himself he is in for a hard life.
Just out of curiosity, how would you go about teaching him to stand up for himself? It seems like a good thing to say, but harder to do in practice.
|
On October 28 2011 13:33 omisa wrote:
Why on earth would you ever get the law involved over a school fight?
Instead of wasting energy and time blaming the bully/schools/system/etc and feeling sorry for the kid, why not do him a favor and teach him to stand up for himself. The fight was not that bad, at most he will have a bruised ego, but if he cant stand up for himself he is in for a hard life.
Like has been said before in this thread which you obviously haven't read:
It wasn't a fight. Watch the video, it was a vicious and brutal assault.
Also, teaching the kid to "stand up for himself" (i.e. fighting back) - he shouldn't need to, the assault shouldn't happen in the first place. Additionally it is a little hard to stand up for yourself when there is someone else on top of you wailing on you. Punishing the bully is not "wasting energy".
|
On October 28 2011 07:42 trainRiderJ wrote:
I hate to break it to you but the police force doesn't have the manpower to be involved in every school fight...
Hate to break it to you, this is not a normal school fight... the kid waited for him and attacked, that shows a premeditation to do this act of violence... Most if not all "normal" school fights happen from an argument or one kid lips off to another. It is far from normal for some one to wait for a person to enter the room then to beat them. I would pursue criminal charges to the fullest extent of the law whether or not this was my kid this was a premeditated hate crime and the evidence is there to prove it.
3 day .suspension(should have been an expulsion) .. This kid should be in a juvenile detention center atm awaiting a court date for his crime... this is wrong on every count.. to any one that says otherwise you are completely ignorant he waited for the kid to come into class other students recorded it.. so they obviously knew what was going to happen before hand.
|
On October 28 2011 13:37 E.H Eager wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 13:33 omisa wrote:
Why on earth would you ever get the law involved over a school fight?
Instead of wasting energy and time blaming the bully/schools/system/etc and feeling sorry for the kid, why not do him a favor and teach him to stand up for himself. The fight was not that bad, at most he will have a bruised ego, but if he cant stand up for himself he is in for a hard life. Just out of curiosity, how would you go about teaching him to stand up for himself? It seems like a good thing to say, but harder to do in practice.
Its called growing up. Standing up for your self is not an easy thing to do, it wont stop you from getting your ass beat, but it probably wont happen again.
|
On October 28 2011 13:36 omisa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 13:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2011 13:33 omisa wrote:
Why on earth would you ever get the law involved over a school fight?
Instead of wasting energy and time blaming the bully/schools/system/etc and feeling sorry for the kid, why not do him a favor and teach him to stand up for himself. The fight was not that bad, at most he will have a bruised ego, but if he cant stand up for himself he is in for a hard life. I don't think you quite understand how life is supposed to work. Is that so? So do you let yourself get pushed around all day?
No, I totally judo chop anyone who gets in my way, I always take the law into my own hands, and I can breathe fire. And thank goodness I'm not gay or black or a woman or any other minority, or else people would make fun of me.
|
On October 28 2011 13:25 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 13:22 Half wrote:On October 28 2011 13:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2011 12:53 Half wrote:On October 28 2011 12:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2011 12:22 Half wrote:
This is kinda dumb, why not just a longer suspension?
Or do we want the police getting involved with everything. You think giving this kid a criminal record for life is going to help him change his outlook towards gays?
Completely ridiculous that the most reasonable option is second to last with only 2% of the votes. QUICKLY GUYS. POLARIZE EVERYTHING. I think it's going to set an example that beating the shit out of people for no good reason is illegal and looked down upon by society. As well it should be. But people get beat up in schools all the time, just for reasons other then being gay. What, arrest all of them too? ...Yes? I fail to see how your statement changes anything. You need to protect people who can't protect themselves, especially when they're being wrongfully hurt and attacked. That's the job of a police officer. Did you not see the video? Saying "Psh, lots of people do it!" doesn't make a crime any less heinous. So turn a substantial amount of already lower class citizens into undesirables before they even graduate. That will never come back to bite us at some future point in time, never. Or raise someone full of hate in their heart based on sexual orientations? That would work out well too. What about the kid that got bullied then? Three day suspension is 3 days out of the school year you won't see your bully, that's so effective eh?
The pole between two unfavorable choices is hardly an advocate for the pole you have your stuff camped out on, but rather, just another advocate for the fact that the intrinsic structure in which these events are occurring is broken and the focus must be on that.
First of all, the physical damage may have been done to the gay kid, but it might be nice for him to know that the bully isn't getting off with just a slap on the wrist, and maybe the knowledge that something is actually getting done about homophobic bullshit like this.
Second, you can't make the argument not to take action against this bully because there are too many bullies for it to make a difference. This is how civil rights progressed. Laws help, you know.
Third, "societal change"? That's you being hypocritical. Societal change would be not seeing homophobia. But that's not going to happen if we keep seeing bullies like this, and if we keep seeing people like you who dismiss things like this.
The Civil rights movement was founded on a moderate platform focused on societal change, not quarantining undesirables.
I'm dismissing it? Your the one who is dismissing it for your own selfish ends. You think "LETS LOCK UP THAT FUCKA" is a thought out response or your own ego dismissing this.
|
On October 28 2011 13:40 Tektos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 13:33 omisa wrote:
Why on earth would you ever get the law involved over a school fight?
Instead of wasting energy and time blaming the bully/schools/system/etc and feeling sorry for the kid, why not do him a favor and teach him to stand up for himself. The fight was not that bad, at most he will have a bruised ego, but if he cant stand up for himself he is in for a hard life. Like has been said before in this thread which you obviously haven't read: It wasn't a fight. Watch the video, it was a vicious and brutal assault. Also, teaching the kid to "stand up for himself" (i.e. fighting back) - he shouldn't need to, the assault shouldn't happen in the first place. Additionally it is a little hard to stand up for yourself when there is someone else on top of you wailing on you. Punishing the bully is not "wasting energy".
TBH it wasnt that brutal, But if you think that just because violence shouldnt happen, then it wont, well i dont really know what to say to you...
|
i hate that this kind of thing still exists... but i have to disagree with all who recommend counseling
i feel that counseling is great for someone who actually wants to change, but useless in almost all other cases - this kid most likely doesn't want to change - it seems like he wanted everyone to know how he felt about the issue
the best thing to do imo is to give him the most severe punishment - hopefully removing him from the school permanently.. make sure he understands that what he's doing is wrong, and against the law.. and hope that with time he gains a little wisdom
|
On October 28 2011 13:36 omisa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 13:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2011 13:33 omisa wrote:
Why on earth would you ever get the law involved over a school fight?
Instead of wasting energy and time blaming the bully/schools/system/etc and feeling sorry for the kid, why not do him a favor and teach him to stand up for himself. The fight was not that bad, at most he will have a bruised ego, but if he cant stand up for himself he is in for a hard life. I don't think you quite understand how life is supposed to work. Is that so? So do you let yourself get pushed around all day?
Or maybe..... just maybe.... you don't condone the act of physical brutality..........
Besides: if he would stand up for himself and even beat the other dude up, that would only put him in the focus even more and next time, there will just be 10 guys beating him up.
I've been in quite a lot of fights (never the one throwing the first punch nor did I provoce it in any way, I'm just a magnet for douchebags I guess) and in hindsight, walking away would've just been better, but what If you get ambushed like that poor kid?
So I guess your advise is pretty much the badest one you could give this kid and I say that as a psychology-major in his third year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
