Kid gets suspended after standing up to bully

[Rasmus]

I agree with most of this. Walking away is never the best option. With that said, I believe walking away is a better option than hurling somebody into a concrete floor.

Only if for some bizarre reason you believe that the bully has some right to be treated with respect and care. He does not. It is unfortunate that there is a risk he might break his neck or spine or just die - but that is not a reason for the victim to chose a less efficient method of self defense.

More than anything else, I'm so glad for Casey that the runt wasn't seriously injured or killed, because otherwise the media story would be "Big year 10 boy nearly kills younger student in brutal retaliation" and Casey would be the demon.

Possibly. But I for one wouldn't consider that response to be justified and hence not a good reason to think he made a mistake when he reacted as he did.

That little turd absolutely deserved it, and I'm glad he got what he deserved. I wouldn't be encouraging other children to take his lead though.

Whose lead now?

Casey simply did the right thing. He did defend himself and did not put the well being of the poor misunderstood bully above his own any more. This is not what we tend to be taught and it is counter intuitive, but that's what needs to be done.

Ultimately, I think the school is at fault, and the parents need to accept a small portion of the blame. Casey's father said that the school has known about his problems for 3 years now and have done nothing. Pathetic action by the school is the biggest problem here. But then again, what kind of parent keeps their child at a school where for 3 years they'll allow him to be bullied and not do a damn thing to stop it? Clearly the school doesn't have the best interests of their students in mind, and there's no way in hell I'd leave my kid in an environment like that.

I have to wonder about that, yes. The father said he wasn't aware of how bad it was, though, and children will not always tell their parents everything that is going on.

But parents might not always have an option to remove their child from a school. Here, you can't always freely chose a school but are assigned one depending on where you live - and not everyone can afford to just move for the sake of their children.

The responsibility lies with the school - especially if they punish childrne that chose to defend themselves.

 

[Wildy]

Walking away.

There is only so much walking away that you can do. Just like there are only so many times you can go to a teacher and have a "punishment" handed to the bully.

 

[Darat]

That is not a solution.

Yes it is, or at least it is in the same way as violence is a solution.

It *might* work for the day, but we can hardly expect a child to live their life in fear and under control of the bullies?

Sure, be hit in the face - walk away. Tomorrow, they will just shake the stuff out of your bag, and you walk away. The day after, you will shoved into a wall - and walk away.

Or you don't walk away and you hit back and "win" that day and then on the walk home the next day the bully and three of his friends jump you and beat you to a pulp...

Howe does anyone figure this looks like a solution? Do the pauses make it somehow okay? How much abuse should a child, or should anyone, be expected to take in a single day or all at once before we decide it is permissible to do something about it and not let the other side get away with it?

The problem with trying to come up with a simple "one size fits all" approach is that the problems arising from and causing bullying are way too complex for any simple solution to be at all meaningful.

We can see in regards to this specific instance of bullying that it is much more complex than a bully getting his "just deserts". If people want the bullying to stop then we have to address the many complex social interactions, the consequence of the children's actions, the schools actions and so on. There is no simple solution.

To your wider questions - We are now thankfully seeing the first steps towards better and more comprehensive "solutions". One of them is the change of attitude in countries like the UK and the USA; it is not too long ago that bullying amongst children was accepted as a fact of life, if not even tolerated by authority figures. Today the message is much clearer - bullying is wrong and a child does not just have to put up with it.

After taking part in another discussion about bullying I went reading about how bullying is tackled in schools today and it is light years away from my day. For a start schools take all bullying seriously, there are procedures in place, there are many solutions they can try, there are help lines for children to contact, there are even legal obligations on those in authority. The days of "hit the bully back they are cowards" being the only "solution" offered to kids has thankfully been relegated to where it always should have been - in fiction books!

 

[enjoytheview]

Only if for some bizarre reason you believe that the bully has some right to be treated with respect and care. He does not. It is unfortunate that there is a risk he might break his neck or spine or just die - but that is not a reason for the victim to chose a less efficient method of self defense.

I believe every human has the right to be treated with a certain level respect. Absolutely no exceptions. So yes, Ritchard has some right to be treated with respect in my opinion. I don't consider dropping him on his head to deny him his right to respect, so it's really irrelevant.

As for care, not at all. I'm not concerned so much about the bully suffering from a broken neck, but more that his victim will suffer for having given the kid a broken neck. Casey was lucky this time around, but if that brat has died, he'd be up for manslaughter. It wouldn't qualify under current Australian self-defence standards either, because self-defence relies upon using an equal amount of force as was applied to you. Not to mention the media would have jumped on Ritchard's side if he were dead. Nothing sells papers like poor innocent little 12 year olds dying at the hands of senior students in a sickening retaliation. (for the record, I don't believe he was innocent, nor that the retaliation was sickening, but that's exactly how the media would portray it)

Possibly. But I for one wouldn't consider that response to be justified and hence not a good reason to think he made a mistake when he reacted as he did.

You're obviously unfamiliar with the standard of people who watch "A current affair" and similar shows. You may not consider the response justified, but I'm telling you, there are plenty of parrots who blindly follow the opinions of shows like this. I happen to live with one of those parrots, and work with plenty of those parrots. The media is a powerful influence on public opinion, and the side they take is crucial.

Whose lead now?

Casey simply did the right thing. He did defend himself and did not put the well being of the poor misunderstood bully above his own any more. This is not what we tend to be taught and it is counter intuitive, but that's what needs to be done.

Well, that would be Casey's lead I'm referring to. I'm glad he doesn't consider himself in any way a lesser person than his aggressor. From his interviews, he seems to have gained some real confidence from this incident, and I'm proud of him for that. However, I would be distraught for him and his family if he were currently facing manslaughter charges. I'd be sorry for Ritchard's parents too, because nobody should have to lose a child over something so petty. Again, finger of blame from me points straight at the school.

But parents might not always have an option to remove their child from a school. Here, you can't always freely chose a school but are assigned one depending on where you live - and not everyone can afford to just move for the sake of their children.

Here, there is a reasonable amount of freedom to choose your school. If you opt for the public school system, it is preferred that you send your child to the nearest school. However, parents aren't disqualified from sending their child to another nearby school if they prefer that option. Very few schools here will only accept students in their respective districts. High schools aren't particularly far apart either. A quick look on google maps shows 4 public high schools within ~2km (i.e. easy walking distance) of one campus of the school these boys attend (I think I've got the correct campus, but perhaps not). One of those four schools is only ~500m away. There's also a catholic high school within that 2km range. There are plenty options for the parents to move their child out of the school. Although, I do believe it shouldn't have to come to that. The school should be taking action. This particular school was negligent.

The responsibility lies with the school - especially if they punish childrne that chose to defend themselves.

The responsibility definitely lies with the school, especially given that Casey estimates he's filled in 60-70 "incident reports" over the years that the school hasn't acted upon. With that said, I believe Casey does need to understand what could have very easily resulted from his actions. This time, it stopped his bully and he got a suspension. Next time, it might kill his bully, and he'll ruin his own life in one moment of anger. Is a suspension the best way for him to learn that? I don't really think so, but then again, I don't know jack about psychology.

 

[Legend]

Just watched another Today Tonight story. "Ritchard" wrote a letter that read something like: "Hi Casey, sorry for hitting you. I should have gone to the office first. I hope everything can stop now." Something like that. It seems so staged, he still wants Casey to apologise. The idiot who recorded it sounded about as believable as someone on Cops, and took the opportunity to liken Casey to an elephant, saying that Casey "mouthed off" first.

It wouldn't qualify under current Australian self-defence standards either, because self-defence relies upon using an equal amount of force as was applied to you.

Which is a stupid law, in my opinion, just as a side note to the discussion.

Yes it is, or at least it is in the same way as violence is a solution.



Or you don't walk away and you hit back and "win" that day and then on the walk home the next day the bully and three of his friends jump you and beat you to a pulp...

I think you're pretty much right in saying that it depends on the situation, but when we're talking about a kid who has clearly been taking the exact "walking away" approach others are recommending for his whole high school life to no effect, I think it's more than appropriate to pick the kid up and slam him into the ground as hard as you can after he starts punching you. You can't expect Casey to lie down again.

No one, I don't think, is suggesting that as soon as someone pushes you you should just body-slam them to a molecule, but even if it is the first time they've physically assaulted you by punching you like that, you've got every invitation to. It's seems far more likely to me that doing so would prevent future problems before walking away would, let alone walking away for the Xth time.

 

[Dancing David]

You'd think schools would invest in tons of cameras in order to help protect them in sexual assault lawsuits.

You would think schools would have enough money to buy furniture and fix things.

 

[Dancing David]

The best bully prevention programs take a layered approach, staff involvement and lack of tolerance, peer intervention and support, things like that.

Cameras don't do anything unless staff are on board , peer support of victims really works.

"Boys will be boys"
"They just need to fight back"
"It happened to me I survived"
"It makes you tougher"

 

[TragicMonkey]

You would think schools would have enough money to buy furniture and fix things.

No, I wouldn't. They need to take a lesson from the Catholic Church and devote more money to legal defense funds than to maintenance. I mean, teaching is just talking at people, they don't really need to sit on chairs to do that. Kids love sitting on the floor. Also, it would cut down on the violence because they can't throw chairs at each other.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The best bully prevention programs take a layered approach, staff involvement and lack of tolerance, peer intervention and support, things like that.

Cameras don't do anything unless staff are on board , peer support of victims really works.

Exactly. Harsh punishments to all bystanders, especially teachers who are filmed not doing anything. "Mrs Krabappel, on 3/14/2010 you remarked 'boys will be boys' when a complaint of bullying was brought to you. We're taking 10% of your accumulated 401k funds to date as punishment. Oh, and all children in Sector 3A at the time of the incident will be held back one year."

 

[Sabretooth]

There seems to be two big questions here:

1. Did Casey over-react?
2. Did the punishment fit the crime?

I say NO and NO.

Reason to #1: Casey had every human right to defend himself. He incapacitated the aggressor and walked away. He didn't continue to beat the runt, stomp him into eternity, sit on him, or kick his face in. He ended the engagement and got out of there. That is exactly what he should have done.

Had Casey done nothing (and it seems this was the case in previous encounters), nothing would have changed. How much crap do you expect the kid to take before he finally snaps? Had Casey crippled the poor toad, I still believe it's justified. The people in charge obviously did not take action...so this time Casey did. Good for him.

Reason to #2: No one should ever be punished for defending themselves from danger. The little runt was punching Casey in the face for FS. Casey ended the encounter and walked away. This is ultimately the school's fault, not Casey's. All this says to bullies is; if you instigate a fight, your victim will be brought down with you, so go right ahead and swing away.

Would you be OK with a law that gave you the same punishment as the drunk driver that hit your car? The whole idea that punishment is deserving of both parties is bass ackward.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I do not believe that anyone is advocating a one size fits all approach.

I am. Punish everybody, collectively, for every offense. Bystanders, too. Collective punishment may be injust, but it's effective. And it would teach kids all sorts of valuable life lessons about powerlessness, authoritarianism, and prepare them somewhat if their future lives include any prison time.

Although that's a thought as well--if the kids insist on fighting each other it might be safer and more effective to have them attend classes remotely while locked in separate secure facilities. Perhaps their own homes? Parents could lock their children in cells in the home, and the children could use computers to telecommute into school. Why not seek a technological solution to an ancient problem like bullying? There might not be a need to assemble the students together physically at all, except for team sports. For which they could be transported in prison vans, supervised by professional guards armed with tasers to prevent mischief. This approach would solve a lot of modern problems--bullying, kidnapping, truancy, etc.

 

[Darat]

Bullying requires an imbalance of power real or perceived. Walking away reinforces that imbalance. It does not make the bullying less palatable to the bully. The bully can continue to attack the victim physically even if the victim is moving.


Possible but unlikely. In this video did the friends of the bully jump in? If the bully can find people to gang up with him, he can do that at any time. He can do it in response to being suspended or arrested. Whatever steps are taken after walking away can be taken after fighting back to defend yourself physically and then walking away.

You are prescribing a tactic that grants all of the power to the bully through fear of violence.
...snip...

I'm not prescribing any tactic, that you think I am indicates you've not understood my post.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

You wrote, "Or you don't walk away and you hit back and "win" that day and then on the walk home the next day the bully and three of his friends jump you and beat you to a pulp..."

To me this seemed to prescribe a tactic of not fighting back in the face of immediate violence for fear of possible future escalated violence. If that is incorrect, please clarify.

The post I was primarily replying to had presented a hypothetical situation (if a kid just walks away), I was presenting a similar hypothetical that had the kid using violence.

My whole post was about not "prescribing a tactic".

 

[preptic]

Fighting back is not the best solution

That's kind of easy to say when you aren't the one being repeatedly punched in the face...

You have a better idea of the situation than those who work with these kids daily?

It sounds to me like you made a general statement:

"Fighting back is not the best solution"

I would say that this depends entirely on the situation. While we only have the video to go by, the video clearly shows one kid punching another, while the kind being punched is just standing there doing nothing... at first.

Walking away.

Yes, like all the other times when walking away likely only made things worse. When the bullies would simply follow the victim. Being forced into a corner, surrounded by kids who love seeing you being beaten and bullied. That kind of walking away?

If the principal in question had discretion in suspending the victim, I believe he or she should be relieved of his or her position.

I kind of disagree. When there's a fight, it's a good idea to suspend both parties until the actual facts are uncovered. Not as a punishment as such, but to avoid escalation, and to make sure all the facts are available, so that the guilty party can be properly punished.

 

[ThunderChunky]

It's obviously self defense. Those saying a body slam is dangerous...well so is repeatedly punching someone in the face.

Zero tolerance policies in schools are retarded. It sounds good and all but you have to actually look at each situation and make a decision base on the circumstances.

 

[George 152]

The little (whuss) bully is now claiming that it was all the other kids fault.
The usual 'Life is so hard' BS.
Again I ask, where were the teachers who are supposed to be monitoring the playground?

 

[Darat]

OK.

Escalation of violence is a possibility no matter what anyone does. Bullies rely upon this fear.
...snip...

I doubt that there is that much rationalisation by a child who is a bully, plus even if some do I doubt it is all of them. Back when I was a kid it would have been more or less accurate to say that bullies were enabled by the relevant authorities either downplaying the seriousness of some bullying or ignoring it. (And throw in a not so occasional dash of sheer stupidity of the kind "bullies are cowards just stand up to them" or "hit him back".)

 

[gnome]

Zero tolerance policies in schools are retarded. It sounds good and all but you have to actually look at each situation and make a decision base on the circumstances.

Schools hate that, because when they are asked to actually exercise judgment, they might be wrong, and held accountable.

If they just have to follow a rule that doesn't require judgment, the outcome can still be wrong, but now they can't be held responsible. To me Zero-Tolerance is an excuse by schools to avoid accountability.

 

[Sabretooth]

I doubt that there is that much rationalisation by a child who is a bully, plus even if some do I doubt it is all of them. Back when I was a kid it would have been more or less accurate to say that bullies were enabled by the relevant authorities either downplaying the seriousness of some bullying or ignoring it. (And throw in a not so occasional dash of sheer stupidity of the kind "bullies are cowards just stand up to them" or "hit him back".)

From personal experience, sometimes giving a little hell back to a bully is all it takes to end future encounters.

 

[roger]

We don't just have the video to go on. Articles quoted students at the school that reported both that this harassment has been going on for a long time and this is the first time the boy fought back, and that there is a culture of fear in the school due to all the bullying (not just of this one kid).

If true, then I don't see how the principal is handling this well. If they allow a culture of bullying and fear, and then just punish kids for doing what the educators aren't, then in my view they are failing badly. In such an environment, walking away is not (generally speaking, we can always find counterexamples) the best option by far.