Kid gets suspended after standing up to bully

[Nihilianth]

Take out? What does this mean? I suspect your assumption is wrong.

You're looking into it too much. I meant "take them out of the fight," by whatever means is necessary. If that means just simply showing off your skills without ever touching the person, if they back off and walk away threatened, that includes "taking them out."

 

[thaiboxerken]

You're looking into it too much. I meant "take them out of the fight," by whatever means is necessary. If that means just simply showing off your skills without ever touching the person, if they back off and walk away threatened, that includes "taking them out."

Sounds very vague to me.

 

[Nihilianth]

Sounds very vague to me.

That was purposely done. "Taking someone out in a fight in the most efficient manner" can mean anything you want it to mean. so long as you remain honest, and don't go for something so stupidly extreme, like pulling out an AK47 or something.

 

[Rasmus]

That was purposely done. "Taking someone out in a fight in the most efficient manner" can mean anything you want it to mean. so long as you remain honest, and don't go for something so stupidly extreme, like pulling out an AK47 or something.

Why shouldn't you pull out an AK47 if you just so happened to have one on you?

At what point did I agree to letting others assault me without doing anything about it that doesn't show on a pre-approved list of permissible counter-attacks?

 

[332nd]

That was purposely done. "Taking someone out in a fight in the most efficient manner" can mean anything you want it to mean. so long as you remain honest, and don't go for something so stupidly extreme, like pulling out an AK47 or something.

Why would pulling out am AK or something be stupid?

 

[Rasmus]

Why shouldn't you pull out an AK47 if you just so happened to have one on you?

At what point did I agree to letting others assault me without doing anything about it that doesn't show on a pre-approved list of permissible counter-attacks?

Let me dwell on this a little more:

If I am being attacked, the very last priority I have is being considerate towards the attacker. It *is* important, but very nearly everything else is more important.

Let's stick to the scene in the video: Kid walks up and repeatedly punches me. It doesn't matter if I am significantly older, taller or stronger - the punches are hard enough to pose a danger to my health here.

Must I endure it? Certainly not. Ridiculous school rules about unfair suspensions aside, I have every right to defend myself.

So where do I draw the line between the tickle-fight and the AK47? Simple: I'll go up from the tickle fight until i can reasonably sure that my chosen method will be safe for me and has a good chance of success.

If I am stuck between two option I actually have, I'll chose the higher/more violent one. So what if I have to chose between a fist fight (which I am not very good at and which at best could go either way) and the machine gun then the machine gun is a reasonable choice here.

If I have a choice between different firearms then maybe something a little more lightweight would be more appropriate...

 

[Quinn]

Just spotted this thread, but I had to laugh when I saw the video, because I did the exact same thing once as a kid. To my best friend, nonetheless. I was a big kid, he was a little kid. He lived in the house behind mine, and there was one summer when, for whatever reason, we just couldn't get along, and he kept hitting me. Not jokingly, but as hard as he could. I could just about hold him off with one hand, which I did for weeks, without ever retaliating. But one day I just got sick of it, and I did exactly what the kid in the video did: picked him up, threw him to the ground, and walked away. Remarkably, he stopped trying to hit me after that, and we got along much better (and are still friends today).

In the same situation, I'd do the same thing again, and I think the kid in the video acted completely appropriately.

 

[Dancing David]

Well, I think he deserved to be punished the way he did then. Student, teacher....it doesn't matter. There is no excuse for that kind of behavior. (Unless, of course, the kid has some sort of mental disability or something. But even then, there is no reason not to punish the child in some way.)




Then it's going about it the wrong way. A call home should be more than enough to get the parents' attention.

You would think so, but then you would think parents would do a lot of things differently.
Some are busy doing other things unrelated to work and refuse to pick up their sick children, some get trespass bars for violence and intimidation while at school, some get arrested for their behavior in the pick up drop off lines. Many issues, if parent were all rational and reasonable that would be great.

The main issue is that many parents do not feel that the rules at school should apply to their children.

Whatever punishment the school imposes on the child, must be effective towards that child.

yes but if the parent encourages the behavior, tells them to do the behavior and then has a good laugh with their child, then that is a problem. The child does not exist in isolation form their environment.

It doesn't do the child any good if a punishment directed towards him/her for the sole purpose of getting the parents' attention.

I did not say that, I said it does get the parent's attention, which can help a lot. If a parent who is very street and encourages their child to engage in street behavior has to leave work to get their child and pay for alternative care for their child, it makes them consider is they are teaching their child how to behave at school.

The school must have an effective means of doling out punishment to let the child know that certain actions are not ok. Not to let the parents know this.

Excuse me, do you really think that the children exist in isolation from their families while they are at school?

The school has to work with the children as they are, what do you think the school can do with children who batter other children, you have 400 students, one principal and one assistant principal. You have no extra staff to cope with the child's behavior. You may not strike, restrain or isolate the student.

Meanwhile you must attend meetings and to the other 400 students.

So your effective discipline that does not involve the parent is?

 

[Dancing David]

Let's not forget that, depending on a child's age and home situation, a suspension could mean that a parent loses a day (or more) of work and the money/job performance that goes along with that. It's a shame that zero tolerance policies can't take that into account.

And what are they supposed to do with the student, say the perpetrator?

One pincipal, one assistant principal, 400 students, office staff have other duties, all other staff have other duties.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

The victim, named Casey, did it perfectly. That little weed now knows two things: the first is that he can get demolished, the second is that his fists can't hurt like he thinks they can.

He's now a loser to be publicly embarrassed in front of thousands of people.

According to people who know the guy personally, Casey has been "tormented every day of his short high school life". I think he's now reclaimed all of that self worth that ferals like "Ritchard" have tried to take away. The guy has teems of teenagers supporting him, tens of thousands all over Facebook and YouTube.

Still there are people like whatever low-level media figure it was who told Channel Ten news that it should be "removed from the internet" because it "glorifies violence". I'm trying to decide which part of that is more stupid. Is it the first part for being so unfairly, hopelessly, pointlessly misguided? Or the second part for being so simplistic and one-eyed? Help me out here.

UFC glorifies violence, boxing glorifies violence, perhaps the AFL (Australian Football League) glorifies violence sometimes, Casey the school-kid and Ritchard the rat do not glorify violence. What sort of kid is going to be inspired to pick on someone off the back of that video? My favourite part though is that the huge reaction has been negative to bullies and encouraging to their victims.

I wonder what I'd do if I was there. Would I have pushed that kid away, or asked Casey what he was waiting for?

QFT. Nicely done. My perspective exactly. I shed bullies when I gave one a beating, problem that the adults wouldn't/couldn't solve, solved.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

I am quite happy to concede that you were not a bully in that instance. (If you never had any other fights, you weren't a bully otherwise either way.)

No. I am not a fighter - far from it. Perpetual coward me.

My problem with those comments that are not directly blaming the victim - however subtle - is that the decision to view the actions of the victim as just as regrettable or shocking as those of the attacker is that this makes both look equally bad.

Apsolutely not my intention and apologies if that's how it came across. I do not blame the victim in any way. All I was trying to point out was that a) It's not always possible to know all the context from a video on the net and b) I was perturbed by how some people were glorying in the potential crippling of the instigator (I've quoted some examples above) who, whilst he certainly may be a bit of a git (at the very least) I did not think we should be wishing that sort of harm on him (especially as we don't know the full context).

 

[Rasmus]

No. I am not a fighter - far from it. Perpetual coward me.



Apsolutely not my intention and apologies if that's how it came across. I do not blame the victim in any way. All I was trying to point out was that a) It's not always possible to know all the context from a video on the net and b) I was perturbed by how some people were glorying in the potential crippling of the instigator (I've quoted some examples above) who, whilst he certainly may be a bit of a git (at the very least) I did not think we should be wishing that sort of harm on him (especially as we don't know the full context).

That all seems fair enough, yes.

 

[sgtbaker]

I don't know - good for the kid to stand up to the bully (after getting punched in the face) is neat and all, but body-slamming him the way he did could cause the back and spine problems.

Dunno bro.

I can't disagree that the bully could have been seriously hurt but the bully didn't seem so worried about doing permanent damage to the victims teeth. This is just my humble opinion but if you are concerned about permanent damage to your body as a result of someone defending themselves, don't go around picking fights with people that could clearly break you in half.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

I can't disagree that the bully could have been seriously hurt but the bully didn't seem so worried about doing permanent damage to the victims teeth. This is just my humble opinion but if you are concerned about permanent damage to your body as a result of someone defending themselves, don't go around picking fights with people that could clearly break you in half.

Agreed but kids do stupid things (but still often grow up into decent human beings) and often don't envisage the potential consequences. NB For clarity, I am not excusing the behaviour!

 

[sgtbaker]

Agreed but kids do stupid things (but still often grow up into decent human beings) and often don't envisage the potential consequences. NB For clarity, I am not excusing the behaviour!

I honestly didn't think you were. Agreed, though, kids do stupid things like picking fights to look tough and other kids do stupid things like respond by body slamming the aggressor. From the video, it looks like the victim just found himself in the position to temporarily incapacitate his bully and took it. Adrenaline was probably maxed out so the potential results of his actions were probably not his first thought. He should be commended for restraining himself as long as he did, not punished for defending himself.

 

[Babbylonian]

And what are they supposed to do with the student, say the perpetrator?

One pincipal, one assistant principal, 400 students, office staff have other duties, all other staff have other duties.

I think my point was that there are kids being suspended for being attacked. The attackers and the attackers' parents have earned the inconvenience (by being violent and failing to teach children not to be violent) while the victims and their parents are punished because of a dumb policy.

 

[Nihilianth]

Why shouldn't you pull out an AK47 if you just so happened to have one on you?

At what point did I agree to letting others assault me without doing anything about it that doesn't show on a pre-approved list of permissible counter-attacks?

Why would pulling out am AK or something be stupid?

Let me dwell on this a little more:

If I am being attacked, the very last priority I have is being considerate towards the attacker. It *is* important, but very nearly everything else is more important.

Let's stick to the scene in the video: Kid walks up and repeatedly punches me. It doesn't matter if I am significantly older, taller or stronger - the punches are hard enough to pose a danger to my health here.

Must I endure it? Certainly not. Ridiculous school rules about unfair suspensions aside, I have every right to defend myself.

So where do I draw the line between the tickle-fight and the AK47? Simple: I'll go up from the tickle fight until i can reasonably sure that my chosen method will be safe for me and has a good chance of success.

If I am stuck between two option I actually have, I'll chose the higher/more violent one. So what if I have to chose between a fist fight (which I am not very good at and which at best could go either way) and the machine gun then the machine gun is a reasonable choice here.

If I have a choice between different firearms then maybe something a little more lightweight would be more appropriate...

Well, considering the AK is illegal in most states, or at least so restricted that only a certain number of people are allowed to own them. And considering that pretty much all firearms are illegal in Australia, and certainly firearms....weapons of all types, really....are illegal on all school properties, no matter what country or state we are talking about. (I think that Texas is trying to move to legalizing guns on college campuses. ) And considering that you are just getting punched around.....yeah, I think that pulling out a semi automatic assault rifle could easily constitute as being stupid, and extreme.

 

[Nihilianth]

Let me dwell on this a little more:

If I am being attacked, the very last priority I have is being considerate towards the attacker. It *is* important, but very nearly everything else is more important.

Let's stick to the scene in the video: Kid walks up and repeatedly punches me. It doesn't matter if I am significantly older, taller or stronger - the punches are hard enough to pose a danger to my health here.

Must I endure it? Certainly not. Ridiculous school rules about unfair suspensions aside, I have every right to defend myself.

So where do I draw the line between the tickle-fight and the AK47? Simple: I'll go up from the tickle fight until i can reasonably sure that my chosen method will be safe for me and has a good chance of success.

If I am stuck between two option I actually have, I'll chose the higher/more violent one. So what if I have to chose between a fist fight (which I am not very good at and which at best could go either way) and the machine gun then the machine gun is a reasonable choice here.

If I have a choice between different firearms then maybe something a little more lightweight would be more appropriate...

A gun puts other people at risk. They are illegal to have on school properties. And certainly assault rifles are so heavily regulated, that 90% of them are straight-up banned in the US (one of the most heavily-armed civilian populations in the West,) and the other 10%* that are not have only a limited amount of people who can own them.

Short of pulling out a weapon on school property, I would say it is entirely your right to defend yourself from attack, using whatever force is necessary to end such an attack as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

*Figures are purely speculative.

 

[Rasmus]

Well, considering the AK is illegal in most states, or at least so restricted that only a certain number of people are allowed to own them. And considering that pretty much all firearms are illegal in Australia, and certainly firearms....weapons of all types, really....are illegal on all school properties, no matter what country or state we are talking about. (I think that Texas is trying to move to legalizing guns on college campuses. ) And considering that you are just getting punched around.....yeah, I think that pulling out a semi automatic assault rifle could easily constitute as being stupid, and extreme.

I know it is most like forbidden or illegal for me to have such a weapon on me at any time. But if I do, for whatever reason, legal or not, then why should I rather allow someone to beat me up than use it?

"just getting punched around"?

How much "punching around" must I endure before it become legitimate that I try to put an end to it?

 

[Rasmus]

A gun puts other people at risk. They are illegal to have on school properties. And certainly assault rifles are so heavily regulated, that 90% of them are straight-up banned in the US (one of the most heavily-armed civilian populations in the West,) and the other 10%* that are not have only a limited amount of people who can own them.

Again, that wasn't the question.

Short of pulling out a weapon on school property, I would say it is entirely your right to defend yourself from attack, using whatever force is necessary to end such an attack as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

*Figures are purely speculative.

What if the gun is the only weapon at my disposal? Why should it matter where I am at the moment or even if it was legal for me to have the weapon?

If I do have the weapon - why should I give the attacker the chance to take it from me?

I know that having weapons will often escalate a situation and I have no problems with restrictions on their ownership and use. But that's just not the issue here.

Will my attacker be more dead if I shoot him as opposed to accidentally breaking his neck? Suppose I was capable of breaking his neck on purpose - it's the one trick I learned from watching too many kung fu movies - whatever. Now I am being attacked and need to defend myself. Can I kill my attacker or do I have to beat him beat me up?