Kid gets suspended after standing up to bully

[Bell]

Throwing a frail kid onto his back on concrete is good for him then?

I don't know where you got that impression. Here is the original post I "fixed":

Punches to the face/head can potentially cripple people as well. I think the kid coped rather well given the situation.

It talks about punching, not throwing someone to the ground.

 

[Bell]

It was the pavement that almost killed him, not the punch.

And guns don't kill people.

Eta: But you're right, it was not the punch per se, but it did initiate it.

 

[Metullus]

Throwing a frail kid onto his back on concrete is good for him then?

It ended the fight.

I can hardly blame the victim for not fine-tuning his response to minimize the potential for harming the aggressor. He did what he needed to do to stop the attack...

 

[IDB87]

I don't know where you got that impression. Here is the original post I "fixed":



It talks about punching, not throwing someone to the ground.

Then I didn't understand the grammar of your statement. Apologies

 

[JWideman]

Wrestling move? Body slam?!? That was nothing of the sort. The smaller kid tried to jump on him, and the fat one threw him down.
We can draw several conclusions from this, and the resulting suspension:
1) Someone needs to teach the fat kid to fight. He got bullied because the little punk saw him as a punching bag.
2) The bully SHOULD have learned the lesson from that and would never pick on that kid again, EXCEPT:
3) The suspension tells everyone that the school 100% supports the bullying.

The worst part is, lesson three isn't wrong. The entire western school system not only supports bullying, but actively encourages it. You might even say it depends upon bullies, because kids that don't conform are harder to teach.
Don't believe me? Ask any school administrator who the bullies in his school are. Compare their answers to that of the students who get bullied.

 

[Bell]

Then I didn't understand the grammar of your statement. Apologies

That's ok

 

[tyr_13]

It wasn't a fair fight from the beginning, as you seem to be pointing out. The bully is obviously smaller than the victim, and it looked as if the big kid shrugged off his punches. What he was doing was taking out frustration on the kid by smashing him to the ground (nothing a slap around wouldn't have fixed) - he wasn't in physical danger or seemingly badly hurt.

You don't think he was in physical danger yet. The person being attacked and surrounded by friends of his attacker might have come to a different conclusion. Even if you can watch later and say it was the wrong course of action, I can't fault the kid for not knowing it at the time and siding on the safer course rather than get beat on until he suddenly can't defend himself.

For the record, even as an adult, if someone half my size comes up and a gang of his friends surround me, then one starts attacking me, I'm taking the attacker down as hard and fast as I can manage. If you can't run from potential group of attackers you have to take as many out of the fight as quickly as you can before they realize they can all attack you at once. I wouldn't go for the ground though because then the others get you from the back but by breaking wrist and dislocating knee. By taking the first one out hard and fast, the others are more likely to back off. Even if they think they can take you as a group, none of them want to be the next to take you on. Of course it can also escalate things making them go for weapons, so it depends on the nature of the fight.

EDIT: You seem to be putting a lot of stock into their different sizes, as if that makes the big guy more responsible for the situation. No it does not.

 

[Rasmus]

Can you really say massively?

I just did, didn't I?

The bully punched him hard enough to make his head slam back - I can't tell if it hits the wall or stops just before that.

Yes, that is a massive attack and the little creep simply deserved what he got for it.

Repeatedly, yes, but that's the only thing you have going for your argument, and it's paper-thin considering the disparity in WEIGHT between the two.

The little kid didn't have to punch a bigger kid in the face, did he? Was the big kid supposed to just take it because he was bigger?

You've seen people here saying the bully got what he deserved for attacking someone much bigger than him - well why does it matter if apparently the kid's weight has nothing to do with how he takes the punches?

It doesn't matter. He would have still deserved it if a much smaller kid had defended himself against the bullying, too. Only that would have been even less likely to happen.

Here you really have to wonder what the bully expected, though.

Self-defense can also get out of hand.

Yes, but it didn't. He picked him up and threw him down *and then let him go* The big kid didn't kick after him or punch him again and again. If the bully doesn't like being hurt then maybe he shouldn't be punching other people in the face, hm?

To be aware of his weight and to know how and when to use it when potentially fighting a kid much smaller than himself?

The big kid didn't pick a fight. It's not his fault that he was bigger. And I am not going to expect him to try soft shoves and gentle slaps to see if those are enough.

The big kid was being attacked buy a guy who obviously had friends around. I saw nobody helping him on the video. Why should he have to risk getting into a fight against several people when he could easily just stop the attack for good?

Why should the bully be entitled to a gentle, considerate treatment whiklst he was buisy hittingf his victim in the rface? And I don't care if it was only the first punch that hit his victims face, either. I am not expecting the victim to wait and find out just how bad things can get.

 

[IDB87]

And guns don't kill people.

Eta: But you're right, it was not the punch per se, but it did initiate it.

The guy could have been pushed and fallen down and cracked his head - doesn't mean pushing almost killed him.

 

[One Tenth]

The other day, in a thread about that idiot judge who partially blamed a rape victim because of the way she dressed, someone asked if there was any other crime in which the victim is routinely blamed.

Don't know why it didn't occur to me, but yeah, bullying. Go look in threads on bullying on these forums, and you'll see all kinds of victim blaming. They didn't stand up for themselves, or they didn't de-escalate the situation, or they just gave off a "victim vibe". And when they do stand up for themselves, well apparently that's bad too.

Look, the kid was getting physically assaulted, and not in a trivial manner. He doesn't know if the bully is going to start hitting him harder or something else. He doesn't know if the bully's friends are going to join in. He doesn't know if he can walk away safely. I doubt he could run away. He doesn't know if this is will end here or if it will continue tomorrow.

What he does know is that this person is willing to hurt him, this person's friends are willing to let it happen, and that simply accepting it passively is not enough to get it to stop.

How the hell is he supposed to know the perfect amount of force? Maybe if he punched the bully, the bully would get nastier. Or his friends would jump in. Or they'd get him tomorrow. Heck, they still might do that anyways even after the body slam.

The victim is under no obligation to hurt the bully the perfect amount to stop him. That's completely unfeasible in any fight, let alone one involving awkward adolescent boys.

 

[IDB87]

It ended the fight.

That was a fight?

I can hardly blame the victim for not fine-tuning his response to minimize the potential for harming the aggressor. He did what he needed to do to stop the attack...

No one said anything about fine tuning anything. Everyone here seems to be under the impression that what needed to be done was physical violence. The question is where the line drawn between excessive and appropriate? The bigger kid got socked in the side of the head and a few shots to the stomach and sides - does that warrant potentially spilling the bully's brains over the pavement or damaging his spine? You don't have to answer right now, but you do have to ask yourself.

 

[Sledge]

It doesn't take a black-belt to know that slamming someone down onto their back on concrete is potentially dangerous.

It takes someone with training to know exactly how to incapacitate while minimising the chance of long-term damage. It takes training to remain calm while being PUNCHED IN THE FACE.

Erm, what? The victim wasn't a pro-wrestler who could only defend himself by body slamming his attackers. He was HUGE compared to that other kid. There are any number of things he could have done to control the situation.

So what training did that kid have? 'Cos I gotta say, he didn't look to me like the type who's spent a lot of time hitting the gym and studying martial arts.

To be honest, so did the victim. I'm in no way implying that he should have dealt with being bullied, but I was raised to avoid physical confrontation at all costs.

You were raised wrong.

What it would be is manslaughter.

Bovine excrement. What it would be is hilarious.

 

[Sledge]

That was a fight?

No. It was an attack. The victim ended it. Chalk one up to the good guys and move on.

 

[Rasmus]

That was a fight?



No one said anything about fine tuning anything. Everyone here seems to be under the impression that what needed to be done was physical violence. The question is where the line drawn between excessive and appropriate? The bigger kid got socked in the side of the head and a few shots to the stomach and sides - does that warrant potentially spilling the bully's brains over the pavement or damaging his spine? You don't have to answer right now, but you do have to ask yourself.

I can answer your right now: Yes it does.

The bigger kid didn't try top spill his brains over the ground, after all. If he ad started kicking the bully after he lay on the ground you might have a lick of a point. But as things are, you don't.

 

[IDB87]

You don't think he was in physical danger yet.

I'm sure the pain-train was screaming in.

The person being attacked and surrounded by friends of his attacker

I don't recall any of the kids friends 'surrounding' the victim - they were off to the side, where the bully retreated.

Even if you can watch later and say it was the wrong course of action, I can't fault the kid for not knowing it at the time and siding on the safer course rather than get beat on until he suddenly can't defend himself.

But you, nor he (nor I), knows if the bullying will stop. Perhaps the kids are scared of the victim, and now they WILL group up to take him on. See where this silliness leads to? Chances are they'll leave him alone, but there are no guarantees.

For the record, even as an adult, if someone half my size comes up and a gang of his friends surround me, then one starts attacking me, I'm taking the attacker down as hard and fast as I can manage.

This is your own made up situation. The friends of the bully were not posturing around the victim - they were off to the side video-taping the confrontation. He was not 'surrounded'.

EDIT: You seem to be putting a lot of stock into their different sizes, as if that makes the big guy more responsible for the situation. No it does not.

I didn't say he was responsible for the entire situation, only for his actions.

 

[One Tenth]

It was the pavement that almost killed him, not the punch.

Are you suggesting punches are generally thrown in areas devoid of hard surfaces? The punch knocked him out. You may as well say it was the internal bleeding that almost killed him, and not the pavement. Or the lack of oxygen reaching his brain, and not the internal bleeding.

The punch was the proximate cause that nearly killed him.

 

[IDB87]

It takes someone with training to know exactly how to incapacitate while minimising the chance of long-term damage.

We are not talking about a learned student of marshal arts here. We're talking about whether a normal person understands that throwing someone violently onto their back on concrete is potentially dangerous or not.

It takes training to remain calm while being PUNCHED IN THE FACE.

And yet he remained calm after the first one and only reacted after the 5th. That shows some restraint to me.

So what training did that kid have? 'Cos I gotta say, he didn't look to me like the type who's spent a lot of time hitting the gym and studying martial arts.

Who said anything about training?

You were raised wrong.

I was raised that way, but I don't necessarily follow it to a T (shall we reference your upbringing now?)

 

[IDB87]

Are you suggesting punches are generally thrown in areas devoid of hard surfaces? The punch knocked him out. You may as well say it was the internal bleeding that almost killed him, and not the pavement. Or the lack of oxygen reaching his brain, and not the internal bleeding.

It appears you'd be the one doing that.

The punch was the proximate cause that nearly killed him.

It was the cracked skull that nearly killed him. The punch did not cause his skull to open. He could've been tripped, pushed or hugged to the ground and the result would still be the same.

 

[IDB87]

The bigger kid didn't try top spill his brains over the ground, after all.

He sought to hurt the bully. The outcome was not pre-determined.

If he ad started kicking the bully after he lay on the ground you might have a lick of a point. But as things are, you don't.

What does kicking have to do with anything? He very well could have cracked his head open - where would we be if that had happened?

 

[JWideman]

@IDB87:
Bullying is not a fight, let alone a fair fight. This wasn't two kids who decided to settle their differences, this was a bully trying to impress his friends by beating up the fat kid. The immediate result of the fat kid's actions is that the bully AND his friends learned the fat kid wasn't a punching bag.