EPTBully Victim stabbed Bully to Death - Page 35
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
IAttackYou
United States330 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
On January 11 2012 02:11 Paljas wrote: yes, fuck the dignity of life and human rights. just kill. + Show Spoiler + some people on this thread are just ...t.t Your the one who doesn't value human rights by indirectly justifying crimes. | ||
|
Shafanhow
United States47 Posts
On January 11 2012 02:16 dUTtrOACh wrote: Eliminating bullying is pretty unrealistic. Bullying has existed since strong people discovered they could manhandle the weak. There would have do be some way of changing out our human brains for ones which are incapable of identifying prey. If we truly are social critters, there will always be those among us who gain social approval by being dicks to those who lack it. My question is, does that mean you deserve to die? If I understand your statement the bully can be let of the hook because his brain is hardwired to treat those weaker than he is as prey and the developmentally challenged kit should be locked away for fighting back. It seems that by this reasoning "deserve" has no bearing here. We all are just a bunch of chimps. | ||
|
Notfragile
Greece713 Posts
On January 11 2012 02:11 Paljas wrote: yes, fuck the dignity of life and human rights. just kill. + Show Spoiler + some people on this thread are just ...t.t While I believe most people in this thread would while philosophically speaking condemn the act of killing someone, you have to remember that we as a community and on this specific thread are not talking about the dignity of life and about human rights. While bullying is a hideous act of cowardice, I do not think that someone implies that if the police had caught the bully at the spot, while beating the other kid, that he should be executed on spot. We are not saying that value of life > bullying a kid We are talking about a scared kid who killed someone after one year of him being picked on and beaten, in self-defense, while being ganked by a group of bullies who had stated that they would harm him and while being beaten and AFTER he tried to escape. This is the distinction between what we are saying and what you are saying. | ||
|
dUTtrOACh
Canada2339 Posts
On January 11 2012 02:20 AcuWill wrote: No, you do not "deserve" to die. But the person who's life and lifelong well being is under threat DESERVES the right to defend themselves. Defending yourself in a fight and stabbing someone multiple times while ignoring all other attackers seems fishy to me. What was so special about the one attacker that only he was stabbed to death? How life-threatening was the situation in question that it warranted such a response? How reliable is the eye-witness testimony in these types of cases? What kind of friends don't stomp the fuck out of someone who just stabbed their boy to death? Why did the boy carry a knife around? Too much shit doesn't make sense for me to dismiss this loss of life as a simple case of self-defence and since stabbing someone is such an intimate (up close & personal) act, I find great difficulty accepting the "facts" of the case as "fact" and not simply as deductions based on inconsistent testimony. What of the accomplices of the bully? If this was a case of self-defence involving more than just 2 people, does it not stand to reason that all other individuals involved in the aggression should have assault charges brought upon them, in light of the "facts" of this case which indicate a swarm beating (which I believe to be BS, since the bully could probably take the kid by himself, and also since the bully was the only one who was stabbed). | ||
|
ZvGRH
United States7 Posts
On January 10 2012 15:00 amazingxkcd wrote: \well, it was self-defense. The question is why did he carry a knife with him to school? Because for the 365 days prior to that he was getting bullied. | ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + On January 11 2012 02:30 Hider wrote: On January 11 2012 02:11 Paljas wrote: yes, fuck the dignity of life and human rights. just kill. + Show Spoiler + some people on this thread are just ...t.t Your the one who doesn't value human rights by indirectly justifying crimes. or you are the one by justifying killing people. just think about it, no need to respond. (and i did not justify bullying, because i think that killing peole is not the way to go). | ||
|
THE_DOMINATOR
United States309 Posts
On January 11 2012 02:30 Hider wrote: Your the one who doesn't value human rights by indirectly justifying crimes. Human rights... you don't have the right to defend yourself? He did what I would do and what I'm sure many of you would do if in a similar situation. Some asshole keeps kicking your shit around for a year then tells you tomorrow is "the day." Yea I would be scared shitless and yea I would carry a knife. In much rougher inner city schools kids in middle school get killed over gang activity all the time. When you're threatened, you can either die or fight back. | ||
|
Moxi
708 Posts
Very tragic story for both of the kids. | ||
|
dUTtrOACh
Canada2339 Posts
On January 11 2012 02:30 Shafanhow wrote: If I understand your statement the bully can be let of the hook because his brain is hardwired to treat those weaker than he is as prey and the developmentally challenged kit should be locked away for fighting back. It seems that by this reasoning "deserve" has no bearing here. We all are just a bunch of chimps. I don't remember saying that bullies deserve to not be punished. Not all behaviour which one could consider to be instinctive or a normal reaction to a situation is acceptable, but there's also no way to rewrite the script that says everybody is different and that we sometimes just can't get along with one another. Civilization has taught us that there is a moral high-ground we can all aim for, and that some of us chimps just can't see it or reach it. I'm saying they're both in the wrong. | ||
|
THE_DOMINATOR
United States309 Posts
On January 11 2012 02:41 Moxi wrote: Couldn't he just do something simpler? Like change school for example? Very tragic story for both of the kids. No... changing schools is pretty hard. How would you explain that to your parents as a teen? | ||
|
Kalingingsong
Canada633 Posts
he stabbed the guy 'cause he believed he was in "danger of death or great bodily harm". not because he believed he was gonna get insulted and bullied. inserting the word "bullied" into the situation really seems to confuse some people. it really should be taken out. | ||
|
THE_DOMINATOR
United States309 Posts
On January 11 2012 02:43 dUTtrOACh wrote: I don't remember saying that bullies deserve to not be punished. Not all behaviour which one could consider to be instinctive or a normal reaction to a situation is acceptable, but there's also no way to rewrite the script that says everybody is different and that we sometimes just can't get along with one another. Civilization has taught us that there is a moral high-ground we can all aim for, and that some of us chimps just can't see it or reach it. I'm saying they're both in the wrong. Your moral high ground is why there is so much violence in the world in the first place. | ||
|
Notfragile
Greece713 Posts
On January 11 2012 02:37 dUTtrOACh wrote: Defending yourself in a fight and stabbing someone multiple times while ignoring all other attackers seems fishy to me. What was so special about the one attacker that only he was stabbed to death? How life-threatening was the situation in question that it warranted such a response? How reliable is the eye-witness testimony in these types of cases? What kind of friends don't stomp the fuck out of someone who just stabbed their boy to death? Why did the boy carry a knife around? Too much shit doesn't make sense for me to dismiss this loss of life as a simple case of self-defence and since stabbing someone is such an intimate (up close & personal) act, I find great difficulty accepting the "facts" of the case as "fact" and not simply as deductions based on inconsistent testimony. What of the accomplices of the bully? If this was a case of self-defence involving more than just 2 people, does it not stand to reason that all other individuals involved in the aggression should have assault charges brought upon them, in light of the "facts" of this case which indicate a swarm beating (which I believe to be BS, since the bully could probably take the kid by himself, and also since the bully was the only one who was stabbed). A court has been held, where all the available data were presented. Obviously the bully's friends were brought to testify. Since the court declared it was self defence, then it was self defence. They had a much clearer view of the incident you and I have. We are not questioning if it was self defence, we are questioning the morality of no charges being pressed for homocide, since it was self defence (and I don't say that, an official court says that, after examining all the evidence). You just got off topic. | ||
|
King.Crimson
Romania478 Posts
Nevertheless, still can't fathom the fact that the kid escapes scott free after stabbing someone TWELVE TIMES. And yet over half the people posting here are wholeheartedly agreeing with his actions, claiming he had no choice. One dumbass even claimed that if he hadn't resorted to stabbing him to death, the beating he would have occurred from the bully would most likely result in his own death. Really bro? One year straight of getting his ass handed to him and he wasn't even put in the hospital, and yet this particular fight he would most likely end up dead? Fucking ridiculous what i'm reading around here. Here's a list of alternatives he could have chosen from, that would be infinitely better than carrying around a knife with the intention of killing your (mild) aggressor. 1. Figure out why he's constantly picking on you. Try and confront him and perhaps befriend him/give him a peace offering. 2. Complain to the school administration, counselor. Ask own parents for advice. 3. Go to the bully's house and rat him out to his parents. 4. If the bully inflicted visible bruises on him, he can use that as hard evidence to get a doctor's corporal abuse report and take him to court. 5. Take a stand, but not by using lethal weapons. Fight back, lightly, make him realize you're not a wimp and his personal punching bag. 6. Even changing schools, perhaps opting for a better neighborhood, could have been a much better last resort choice than what he did. Now here are some possible outcomes he will have to deal with in the future based on his actions. 1. Bully's parents appeal the court decision, win, and he gets legally punished. I agree with this one personally. At the very least, he should get some psychiatric help. There's no way his brain is not at least a bit dysfunctional after repeatedly stabbing someone and killing, especially at such a tender age. 2. Bully's friends (who are also most likely violent persons) might decide to revenge his death. Could result in an eye for an eye situation. 3. None of the above happen. But he will have to live the remainder of his life with the stigma and trauma that he killed someone. Two families potentially ruined and scarred for a long time. And however he will try to justify it, i can guarantee it won't sit easy with his conscience. Bottom line, if you look at the it objectively, it's a clear lose-lose situation for all parties involved. | ||
|
Sphen5117
United States413 Posts
On January 11 2012 00:40 Rednaxela_19 wrote: My knee-jerk reaction is to say the bullied had a right to defend himself... but then I thought about it, and someone died because he decided to bring a knife to school. Knives don't belong on students, and no-one should have died in this situation. If this was happening for an extended period of time, I believe that he could have found other alternatives than bringing a knife and stabbing someone to death. I do not find this to be justified or right. And I think that the judges got it wrong. Although I do not think the bully should have been doing these things, I find him and his family to be the real victims. The bullied could have brought a different weapon, such as brass knuckles, or started taking martial arts classes... there is a multitude of different answers, and death should not have been one of them. Edit: Can anyone tell me how many times he stabbed him? I read 12 earlier in this post but I am realllllly, really hoping that is not true. Then he is 100% a murderer in my eyes. Your first problem is expecting prefect mental clarity from a 14 year old under the promise of physical harm. Knives don't belong on students in a perfect world, one where people don't have to ever worry about defending themselves. This is the reason weapons have evolved, so that the bigger person doesn't get to always have his way with the little person. We don't know enough about this situation to call him a murderer. If this had been a problem for a year, I have a feeling the faculty already knew a bit about it and just chalked up to "boys being boys". You're right, death should not have been an answer here. I am not disupting that. But to what severity can you honestly expect to punish this person when you take into account all circumstances, including the ones you and I are unaware of. Edit: grammar. | ||
|
BigLighthouse
United Kingdom424 Posts
On January 11 2012 02:37 dUTtrOACh wrote: Defending yourself in a fight and stabbing someone multiple times while ignoring all other attackers seems fishy to me. What was so special about the one attacker that only he was stabbed to death? How life-threatening was the situation in question that it warranted such a response? How reliable is the eye-witness testimony in these types of cases? What kind of friends don't stomp the fuck out of someone who just stabbed their boy to death? Why did the boy carry a knife around? Too much shit doesn't make sense for me to dismiss this loss of life as a simple case of self-defence and since stabbing someone is such an intimate (up close & personal) act, I find great difficulty accepting the "facts" of the case as "fact" and not simply as deductions based on inconsistent testimony. What of the accomplices of the bully? If this was a case of self-defence involving more than just 2 people, does it not stand to reason that all other individuals involved in the aggression should have assault charges brought upon them, in light of the "facts" of this case which indicate a swarm beating (which I believe to be BS, since the bully could probably take the kid by himself, and also since the bully was the only one who was stabbed). I think you've got it slightly muddled when you talk about the multiple attackers. It says that even though multiple boys threatened, it was only the 1 bully and him who got pushed into the circle. Evidently it was only a 1v1, the others were onlookers and did not assault. As for not jumping in, well 1. We dont know how fast it all happened. 2. You dont know they didnt, just because they didnt "stomp the kid". Maybe just maybe, all the children were in shock, because they are kids, and they just saw someone die. Also the testimony you call inconsistant was literally described as consistant by the judge. | ||
|
dUTtrOACh
Canada2339 Posts
On January 11 2012 02:45 THE_DOMINATOR wrote: Your moral high ground is why there is so much violence in the world in the first place. The non-violent solution would have been far more violent. I should have considered that before posting. I recant. | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
On January 11 2012 02:47 King.Crimson wrote: Seems like a lot of nerds in this thread were bully victims in the past and are now vicariously enjoying the demise of this particular one. It's actually kinda funny to witness all the pent up collective frustration that's released here. Nevertheless, still can't fathom the fact that the kid escapes scott free after stabbing someone TWELVE TIMES. And yet over half the people posting here are wholeheartedly agreeing with his actions, claiming he had no choice. One dumbass even claimed that if he hadn't resorted to stabbing him to death, the beating he would have occurred from the bully would most likely result in his own death. Really bro? One year straight of getting his ass handed to him and he wasn't even put in the hospital, and yet this particular fight he would most likely end up dead? Fucking ridiculous what i'm reading around here. Here's a list of alternatives he could have chosen from, that would be infinitely better than carrying around a knife with the intention of killing your (mild) aggressor. 1. Figure out why he's constantly picking on you. Try and confront him and perhaps befriend him/give him a peace offering. 2. Complain to the school administration, counselor. Ask own parents for advice. 3. Go to the bully's house and rat him out to his parents. 4. If the bully inflicted visible bruises on him, he can use that as hard evidence to get a doctor's corporal abuse report and take him to court. 5. Take a stand, but not by using lethal weapons. Fight back, lightly, make him realize you're not a wimp and his personal punching bag. 6. Even changing schools, perhaps opting for a better neighborhood, could have been a much better last resort choice than what he did. Now here are some possible outcomes he will have to deal with in the future based on his actions. 1. Bully's parents appeal the court decision, win, and he gets legally punished. I agree with this one personally. At the very least, he should get some psychiatric help. There's no way his brain is not at least a bit dysfunctional after repeatedly stabbing someone and killing, especially at such a tender age. 2. Bully's friends (who are also most likely violent persons) might decide to revenge his death. Could result in an eye for an eye situation. 3. None of the above happen. But he will have to live the remainder of his life with the stigma and trauma that he killed someone. And however he will try to justify it, i can guarantee it won't sit easy with his conscience. Bottom line, if you look at the it objectively, it's a clear lose-lose situation for all both parties involved. Seems to me like you barely read the thread or else you would have seen all the rebuttals already, but nope. | ||
|
BamBam
745 Posts
On January 11 2012 02:38 Paljas wrote: or you are the one by justifying killing people. just think about it, no need to respond. (and i did not justify bullying, because i think that killing peole is not the way to go). You are such a hypocrit. Lets assume the kid didn't defend himself then, and instead of this kid killing the bully, he got beatn to death. What would you say then? What if you were that kid? Can you honestly tell me that you'd give a damn about human rights if you were being bullied for a year? | ||
| ||
