Kid gets suspended after standing up to bully

[IDB87]

Exactly. The bully should be smarter in picking his fights. Again - potential Darwin Award here.

I don't disagree here. But we are talking about much younger kids who may not know any better and are just discovering that pack mentality.

If one is being assaulted, one has a right to defend oneself.

I never said he did not have the right to do so.

But is it possible to go over board while defending yourself? How much is 'too much' in this case, according to you HG?

The victim picked up the bully and tossed him aside.

Not quite. He was picked up and slammed onto a concrete floor. Could very easily have cracked his skull open. The possibility of a very young kid getting crippled because he sucker punched a bigger kid is kind of revolting to me, especially when people cheer it on.

The victim is not a mind reader. He did not know how far the bully was going to go. He didn't know if the bully's friends were going to join in. He didn't know if he was going to be hurt or how badly. He had every right to defend himself, and he picked the simplest method by just picking up the trash and tossing it away.

Again, implying I said he didn't have a right to defend himself. When you realize that, your posts will thin out.

You also assume that the victim knew how to slap or punch - not every person does.

You are of course assuming he only knew how to body slam a kid. Well, what if their sizes had been reversed - what would the victim do then?

You have this problem with the sizes of the kids.

Yes. They are quite different. This would be like if a small girl was slapping him in the face and bullying him - would it have been OK for the victim to body slam the girl onto concrete?

I was beaten up by bullies when I was about 8-9 years old.

I'm sorry to hear that

It is silly, since it didn't happen. Once the bully was on the ground, the victim walked away, which is exactly what he should have done. He didn't go for revenge or retaliation - he simply defended himself and left the area.

We're not talking about happened after, but before. What if he didn't know how to pick someone up and slam them properly? What if he felt safer with a gun (or a pen-knife) and felt that was the only way to truly defend himself?

But, had his toss down of the bully resulted in the bully's death, well, as I said above, whatever happened to the bully was caused by the bully.

While it's perfectly fine for you to disregard human life so easily, you shouldn't attribute that mentality to me.

 

[IDB87]

I don't follow the logic here, either. I also see no other way than just enduring whatever happens to you lest you be punished for defending yourself or others.

I never said he should endure and ignore the punches, only that for being such a bigger kid, was he really in that much danger? Several posters have already nominated the bully for the Darwin award for attacking such a bigger kid - well why does his size make a difference for them, then? Could it be that he was physically stronger and hardier?

In the case of the video news say that both children have been suspended for four days according to regulations - which clearly shows me that the regulations are laughable at best.

I heard the bully got 24 days.

 

[IDB87]

FWIW, when I was little I twice managed to hospitalize my younger sister. All I had to do was shove her. She once fell and another time hit her head against a wall - that was enough for a concussion. A simple shove, not a punch in the face or anywhere on the head, mind you.

Turns out if you hit your head on any solid surface, chances are you can get hurt pretty bad, as you just demonstrated. Getting socked in the cheek bone probably won't end your life.

We were a lot younger than the kids in the video, so chances are she was a lot more fragile, but it really doesn't take a lot to cause serious harm.

That disparity may not change with age - she may just be a fragile person.

 

[IDB87]

(snipped - bolding mine.)


I'm sure you meant to say 'prevent any violence. Otherwise you're suggesting that there's an acceptable level of violence from one kid to another.

Well I would assume it's impossible to 'prevent' violence entirely. Having teachers present could stop the really serious stuff from happening, though.

Personal anecdote:

When I was in High-school, whenever a fight broke out, there was a crew of kids who would form a ring around the fighters and physically prevent teachers from breaking it up. Still shocked to this day when I think about the first time I saw that

 

[Vladd]

Could have been worse, as a kid I was constantly provoked and one day I snapped, a teacher had to remove my hands from around the idiot's throat. I was taken to one side and the teacher told me to calm down and don't let them get to me. Funny thing was I was left alone for a while after that.

 

[King of the Americas]

I'm having a difficult time with this one. I feel for the kid, I was a husky boy who was constantly picked on in elementary and middle school. I still remember coming home from school every day and crying because of what the kids said to me, and I was frequently beaten up. The teachers were all too happy to ignore it (boys will be boys) and I was regularly seeing a shrink in the fifth grade because I had attempted suicide. So I understand what it means to be bullied. And because of that, I find it really difficult to sympathize with the kid who was body slammed. Part of me wants to pat the victim on his back and tell him he did a good job standing up for himself. But the adult that I am now says he went too far and could have seriously hurt -- or killed -- the kid who was slammed.

Still, you mess with a bull, don't be surprised when you get the horns...

The ONLY reason anyone has the sentiment you expressed, is the body slammer was quite a bit bigger.

If a smaller child were to successfully fend off a larger bully attack, he would not, and should NOT, be punished.

 

[Reeco]

The bully got what he deserved, and the victim was unfairly punished. The bully might even learn something important from this and have a better life because of it.

 

[Rasmus]

I never said he should endure and ignore the punches, only that for being such a bigger kid, was he really in that much danger?

Yes, he was. The bully attacked his head. And even if he hadn't, it is not the duty of the victim to wait and see if the bully will stop or intesify his attacks.

And while you are indeed not saying that the victim should not juit have taken it, that is what it boils down to if you insist the victim should not have risked to injure the bully. You cannot fight without taking that risk - at all.

Several posters have already nominated the bully for the Darwin award for attacking such a bigger kid - well why does his size make a difference for them, then? Could it be that he was physically stronger and hardier?

Yes, I am fairly certain that the victim was bigger at least. Stronger - not so sure. Body weight doesn't translate into muscles quite as directly. And, yes, of course a Darwin award would have been in order: All else being different, a bigger opponent has better chances against you than a smaller one.

But the fact that the victim was smaller doesn't mean he was in any way excessive or too violent or should have acted differently or more careful.

I heard the bully got 24 days.

The Daily Telegraph[/URL]]
"Both students in a fight at the school shown on the Internet have been suspended ... the only injury sustained was a grazed knee,'' the spokeswoman said.
It is understood the suspensions are for four days but further action may be taken after school completes an investigation of the incident.

The problem here is that the victim got suspended at all, though. I wonder how the administration of the school would answer the question what he should have done in the situation he was in and how much violence he should have to endure before being allowed to defend himself.

 

[Modified]

How does a kid, standing around minding his own business, who is violently assaulted by another kid avoid having a suspension at all? Just let the attacker hit him?

Defending yourself gets you suspeneded, but it's okay cos it's not as harsh a sentence as the attacker?

When I was in high school, both would get equal suspensions, ten days automatic for "fighting", whether in self defense or not. These rules come about because the administration don't want the responsibility or hassle of deciding who is at fault. Their justification is usually "It takes two to tango".

 

[Rasmus]

Turns out if you hit your head on any solid surface, chances are you can get hurt pretty bad, as you just demonstrated. Getting socked in the cheek bone probably won't end your life.

No, but it is still possible.

And that is the problem with self defense: I *need* to use a level of force ad violence that will stop my attacker. If I was restricted to an amount of force that could not injure him there could never be an incentive for him to stop attacking me.

That disparity may not change with age - she may just be a fragile person.

The point was that 3 year olds are a lot more fragile than 9 year olds, so it took substantially less force than anything we saw in the video. It is a lot more dangerous to push a three year old over than a 12 year old.

(Also, I saved her from drowning once so I hope it kinda evens out ...)

 

[King of the Americas]

...


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

I am sorry, but I can't agree with anything you've said...

If you go picking on someone, and you get your ass handed back to you, it isn't the defender's fault. It is not up to the defender to show restraint.

Now, if the overweight kid had taken out a gun and shot the little bully, then I think you'd have a point.

 

[Checkmite]

No one else is either. We are cheering the fact that a bully got his just reward. Big difference.

No, you're cheering the injury of a little kid. The smaller boy could barely walk when the "victim", who walked away without a scratch, was done with him.

ITT: some sick individuals who think 9 year olds deserve to need crutches for being annoying, and who are talking about this idiotic spat between two small children as a serious issue of "self defense", self-preservation, and justice.

 

[King of the Americas]

No, you're cheering the injury of a little kid. The smaller boy could barely walk when the "victim", who walked away without a scratch, was done with him.

ITT: some sick individuals who think 9 year olds deserve to need crutches for being annoying, and who are talking about this idiotic spat between two small children as a serious issue of "self defense", self-preservation, and justice.

"...without a scratch..."?

I'll bet he had a visual bruise, which is about the the little twerp got.

I cheered, not at the injury of a little boy, but because there were consequences for unwise actions.

Do you think the little bully would have learned anything, had the larger one just shrugged off the 'physical attack'? Of course not, he'd have kept doing it, daily, weekly, and to others.

I didn't see this as anything more than a tit for a tat. If you muck with someone or something, and you get injured as a result IT'S YOUR FAULT.

 

[IDB87]

I cheered, not at the injury of a little boy, but because there were consequences for unwise actions.

And if the boy had been seriously injured, would you still be cheering? Remember, these aren't high-schoolers or people who -should- know better. These are young, impressionable kids who have a lot to learn about life.

Do you think the little bully would have learned anything, had the larger one just shrugged off the 'physical attack'?

Is it unheard of? I know it's cliche, but violence doesn't solve anything.

I didn't see this as anything more than a tit for a tat. If you muck with someone or something, and you get injured as a result IT'S YOUR FAULT.

Yes, it does appear to be tit for tat. Had the kid's skull been cracked open, it would no longer be tit for tat.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I haven't found a good news source, the name of the child who acts back is Casey Heynes and news.yahoo doesn't have good account yet. It looks as though he received a four ay suspension. So I can't really say much at this point.

There is something not quite right about all this.

We don't have any good information on what acutally happened here.

My question is this, It appears thatthe video was posted by a parent or friend of Casey's (I can't access the site right now). Yet the whole circumstance of the video indicates some sort of preplanning on someones part (the bully's or the victem's).

How did the person who posted the video get a hold of it? If it was indeed a friend of Casey's, then was it a freind of Casey's who took the video? If so, then there would appear to have been some sort of premeditated action to this. More info is needed.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Also, is it possible that the posting of this video itself is a form of cyberbullying?

 

[Rasmus]

Now, if the overweight kid had taken out a gun and shot the little bully, then I think you'd have a point.

No, not even then.

He was being attacked at close range, repeatedly and the initial punch was in the face/on the head. The attacker then continued to punch the victim.

-> Pulling a gun and shooting as such is not automatically excessive. He could not hold back the attacker, since he was already too close. (Too close, too, to assume the victim could securely hold on to the gun.)

In general, I don't think people should be allowed to run with loaded weapons and I'd think it would not be allowed on school property - but in a situation like that if the gun was available it would be permissible to use it.

Again, should the victim be forced to just let the bully beat him up because the means he could have for his defense are deemed "excessive"?

Escalation of the situation happens on both sides:

- The bully decided to start an attack on his victim.
- The victim actually waited for a few moments, possible out of sheer surprise or shock, but maybe out of self restraint.
- The bully decided to keep attacking his victim. He did not stop after the first punch, he kept on hitting the victim, taunting and hurting it further.
- The victim decides to fight back.
- The bully here does not turn and run. (Mostly, because he never had the time for that.)
- Now the bully and the victim are fighting, so the bully has an incentive to fight back, stronger than before, even. (Suddenly, I am not only picking on some other kid, I am actually at risk of being hurt myself and want that risk to disappear.)

That last step is entirely foreseeable and a likely consequence of the victim deciding to fight back. But the victim still cannot be expected to sustain further attacks, so the amount of force the victim can legitimately chose is greater than what would be needed just to push the aggressor away once.

The victim has a choice between a gun and a fist fight. Why should the victim be expected to chose the more dangerous option for him just to protect the bully?

 

[IDB87]

Also, is it possible that the posting of this video itself is a form of cyberbullying?

Perhaps - the video is being taken down on YT and other sites, but standing firm at liveleak.

If the victims details get out, I'm sure trolls everywhere will harass him, which is sad.

 

[Modified]

How did the person who posted the video get a hold of it? If it was indeed a friend of Casey's, then was it a freind of Casey's who took the video? If so, then there would appear to have been some sort of premeditated action to this. More info is needed.

I suspect that once having a video like this, even the bully's friend couldn't resist sending it to everyone he knew.

 

[IDB87]

I suspect that once having a video like this, even the bully's friend couldn't resist sending it to everyone he knew.

It's also a good laugh when a seemingly beta member of your group gets hurt for biting off more than he could chew.