Kid gets suspended after standing up to bully

[Nihilianth]

What a crock. He was laughing because his friends were there and he had to save face in front of them.

So? The kid was fine.

 

[IDB87]

And THAT is the big question in this thread.....

How, and for what, is the victim being blamed?

 

[Nihilianth]

His "stumbling around", if anything, is a sign of a severe blow on the head, and not one of "not getting hurt". All Schadenfreude aside, the child was in need of a doctor at that point.

It was a sign that he banged his knee or ankle. You can clearly see his ankle got banged off the curb thing. But he got up, and was able to use it. He needed no doctor. The kid was fine.

That is not "the same" it is the exact opposite, since you claim the kid didn't hurt whereas you were hurting despite the laughing.

I didn't claim he didn't hurt. I claimed that he was laughing, despite being hurt. Which you can see in the video. lol.

As much as I agree with you, you earlier said



Why is that better? At what size does it become okay to attack someone else?

I was thinking of the old saying "pick on someone your own size." Well, in this situation, he didn't pick on someone his own size either. He picked on someone larger than him. At least twice as large as him! That either takes guts, or stupidity. Or maybe a little bit of both.

But you're right. It shouldn't matter the size of the victim. Bullying is bullying.

 

[sadhatter]

Could the parents sue the school over the matter? If self defense isn't permitted, surely the school takes on the responsibility to ensure it isn't needed and they failed in this duty, trauma of being suspended, etc. Could make for a nice little earner.

As someone who was pretty huge in public and early high school ( and picked on after that due to my choice of style. ) i can say this " zero tolerance" crap, does noting but harm the victims.

I have always had an interest in martial arts, and applied it in different situations. No one was ever seriously harmed, and i never started the fights, but every time i was punished as much as the person who started the fight. The worst example of this was in grade 8 when i was literally beaten to the point of not being able to move by a group of 8 people, 1 of which started a fight, began to lose ( through no real martial skill, i must admit. Being over 200 pounds, and very short, once it went to the ground, there was no chance of him getting up.) , and before i knew it i was laying in a puddle of my own blood, unable to get up until the principal left school and helped me inside.

The next day when he was called in and it was seen he suffered a black eye from the matter, we were both given detention for 4+ hours ( everything from cleaning paint pots to using an eraser to clean scuff marks from the gym.) for the entire school year. While this would be an appropriate punishment for an 8 person beating, it wasn't for someone who was defending themself. The only thing i learned from this, is that if there was a fight, to make damn sure that the teachers didn't find out about it.

And through high school i got the same speech every time " You don't have to fight back." and my rebuttal was always the same. I was an above average student, i never got into trouble, i didn't want to fight, but the systems in place didn't prevent violence in any way shape or form. And in fact, bullies of all stripes would hide behind the zero tolerance policy.

I was actually, in high school removed from all extra circular activities, because someone who was literally 90 pounds, thought it would be funny to try and body check me. He took a running start from one end of the hallway, which i noticed, and i simply stood still, and shifted a bit of momentum to the left when he hit. Being about 300 pounds at the time, he sprung off at a rather accelerated pace, into a locker injuring himself in a way that caused him to miss, what i was told was some important wrestling matches. As there was a " zero tolerance" policy, they thought the fair option was to remove me from the plays i was in at the time.

When i asked what i should have done, i was told " move out of the way. " or " run to a teacher. ". AS if i could enter " Bullet time" and done the later without being hit myself. ( as some clarification, i could barely get up three stairs, at that weight without a rest. "running" anywhere would have been an obviously impossible option. )

As an aside, being a wrestler, i have no idea what he was thinking in trying to throw the body check. The kid could have been carrying a bag of bowling balls and still not budged me.

 

[Nihilianth]

Right, and I'm saying I'm not comfortable watching children using unrestrained attacks to defend themselves when no one is around (no teachers, that is) to mitigate any sort of excessive violence.

It may not make you comfortable, but it is a fact of life. Life is rarely, if ever, comforting.

In any case, I think it is far more comforting to know that a victim of bullying is able to stand up for himself.

No one is saying the attacker shouldn't have gotten his fair share of licks (and I resent the posters that are implying that I'm advocating that) but you obviously didn't purposefully stomp on the kids chest, or where ever he got hurt. And of course your situation is not analogous to this story. You were not 1 on 1 with a kid half your size (going the other way) who was trying to slap you around.

Potentially neither was the victim. The little bully had some friends standing around. The big tall kid who got in his face (and looked like he ran after the victim just as the camera shut off) looked even bigger than the victim yet. He was taller, and looked more physically fit.

So instead of it being 2 on one, against people of similar size, it was at least 3 or 4 on one with at least one that was taller and more fit.

 

[Rasmus]

It was a sign that he banged his knee or ankle. You can clearly see his ankle got banged off the curb thing. But he got up, and was able to use it. He needed no doctor. The kid was fine.

I saw a kid being thrown to the ground and swaying as he got up. That is a reason to call a doctor. Nobody else is in any position to decide that the kid was fine. If it later turns out that no doctor was needed then it is pure dumb luck by those responsible for the kids well-being. (But then, I shouldn't expect them to suddenly have gotten their act together, should i?)

I didn't claim he didn't hurt. I claimed that he was laughing, despite being hurt. Which you can see in the video. lol.

The kid didn't get hurt.

 

[Nihilianth]

How, and for what, is the victim being blamed?

Well....pretty much everything. He got suspended, for one. Which I think is an excessive punishment for self-defense. And you are making the claims that the fat kid "used excessive force." Sure, but you must remember that hindsight is 20/20. In the heat of the moment, the fat kid clearly was not thinking after getting hit at least once, with one of two other minor jabs. After the small little bully went for his face again, the fat kid kind of lost it.

I know someone who comes up and gets in my face and starts trying to mess with me, I don't care who you are. I'm coming after you to put a stop to it. It is self-defense, and is perfectly legal.

 

[sadhatter]

Additionally, I don't see how anybody can criticize the school for suspending the bigger kid over this. They were presented with a scenario with one big, uninjured kid and a smaller, skinny, obviously physically-weaker kid who could barely walk after an altercation. There's absolutely no other context by which to judge - the cell phone video does not in any way rule out the possibility that the bigger kid started it, and the story about the littler one being some kind of "bully" is nothing but unsupported hearsay which the school had no choice but to reject in the interest of fairness and impartiality. How do YOU know the smaller kid wasn't "finally" standing up to the much bigger bully?

Where does this " bigger" equals better fighter crap come in?

As a huge kid, i couldn't throw a punch to save my life, i wasn't a bodybuilder i was a fat kid. Even with training in martial arts, my blows were slow, and not nearly as accurate as those of a smaller guy. And i didn't have the ability to dance about, meaning that punches to the face would have to be absorbed.

What i could preform correctly, with dramatically increased body weight was throws, chokes, and holds. Exactly what this kid did, using what advantages he had in order to win the fight.

This sin't an issue of " revenge fantasy" as it is not letting a small guy get away with attacking someone because he is bigger, and therefore , for some reason, required not to effectively fight. Going up against someone bigger, you punch, going against someone smaller, you tangle them up. You can't fault the big guy for not playing an unbalance game.

( and as an aside, in the adult world. You see this all the time at the bar. A guy my size picking a fight, because he knows if the big guy beats him, a lot of people will react like this, and if he wins he will be a barroom hero. It is rather pathetic.)

 

[IDB87]

Well....pretty much everything. He got suspended, for one. Which I think is an excessive punishment for self-defense. And you are making the claims that the fat kid "used excessive force." Sure, but you must remember that hindsight is 20/20. In the heat of the moment, the fat kid clearly was not thinking after getting hit at least once, with one of two other minor jabs. After the small little bully went for his face again, the fat kid kind of lost it.

I didn't blame him for anything. Had the kid's head cracked open, I would blame the victim, yes, but also the bully. Since that didn't happen, what, exactly am I blaming the victim for?

 

[IDB87]

This sin't an issue of " revenge fantasy" as it is not letting a small guy get away with attacking someone because he is bigger, and therefore , for some reason, required not to effectively fight. Going up against someone bigger, you punch, going against someone smaller, you tangle them up. You can't fault the big guy for not playing an unbalance game.

Who said anything about not effectively fighting? The victim wasn't obese, and he could move rather quickly (enough to get a hold of the bully), so what leads you to believe he couldn't throw a punch, or heck even shove the kid away? And this victim wasn't in any sort of life-threatening situation (like yours with the 8:1) where he 'had no choice' but to slam the kid to the pavement in order to survive.

One punch was landed on his head - enough to warrant potentially cracking a kids head open over? Well, it's up to the individual observer to determine that. I say it's hard to justify.

 

[Dancing David]

Not when you're trying to determine whether the possibility of seriously crippling a bully is justified based on the attack captured on video.

That is assuming a nine year old can meet the standard of care to know that their actions were likely to have that consequence.

 

[Rasmus]

I didn't blame him for anything. Had the kid's head cracked open, I would blame the victim, yes, but also the bully. Since that didn't happen, what, exactly am I blaming the victim for?

For being to violent in his response. Of course, your repeated claim that he was being "excessive" already gave that away.

Hint: When you claim that so,someone was being excessive you do blame them for their actions.

I don't see why you decide whether to do that based only on the outcome. If the bully's head had cracked open that would have been a chance result, just as his head not being cracked open was a chance result. (The latter being more likely than the former, but both are likely possibilities in the scenario we had here.)

You can't have it both ways:

Either the victim reacted in a manner that was if not entirely justified then at least acceptable. The victim then deserves no blame regardless of the actual outcome of those actions.

Or the use of force was excessive and disproportionate. Then the victim was in the wrong and he should not have acted as he did, even if he was lucky enough to not cause major injuries on the bully (who would then be the new victim)

What you do can either be right or wrong. In both cases, you might be lucky or unlucky in the outcome of the action - but the latter should not be used to decide the former.

 

[IDB87]

That is assuming a nine year old can meet the standard of care to know that their actions were likely to have that consequence.

Does this apply to the bully as well?

 

[sadhatter]

Who said anything about not effectively fighting? The victim wasn't obese, and he could move rather quickly (enough to get a hold of the bully), so what leads you to believe he couldn't throw a punch, or heck even shove the kid away? And this victim wasn't in any sort of life-threatening situation (like yours with the 8:1) where he 'had no choice' but to slam the kid to the pavement in order to survive.

One punch was landed on his head - enough to warrant potentially cracking a kids head open over? Well, it's up to the individual observer to determine that. I say it's hard to justify.

What does it matter the method of defense he used? One doesn't agree to queensbury rules when starting a fistfight. If his punches would have been more effective, i am sure he would have thrown them.

 

[Dancing David]

Does this apply to the bully as well?

I was not addressing that but your comment about potentially crippling.

 

[Rasmus]

That is assuming a nine year old can meet the standard of care to know that their actions were likely to have that consequence.

Even that wouldn't be enough.

The nine year old didn't have many alternatives and he had to chose one that had good chances of success and carried a minimum risk for himself.

So what if he had hit the other kid? What if the first hit had not brought the bully down and ended the fight? What if the bully had decided to fight back even harder?

What if it had? Wouldn't we then be hearing the same mantra about how there was no need to pummel the bully senseless or knocking him out, even?

The decision of which course of action to chose here lies with the victim. If the bully doesn't like it he simply shouldn't have been punching people in the face!

 

[Dancing David]

Um, Casey Heynes is sixteen so he might meet the standard of care actually. Should have open handed slapped the kid.

CASEY Heynes, 16, has been suspended from Chifley College, Dunheved Campus in St. Marys North, NSW

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...er-fighting-back/story-e6freuzi-1226022076411


There is really a lot of editorial there.

 

[Dancing David]

Even that wouldn't be enough.

The nine year old didn't have many alternatives and he had to chose one that had good chances of success and carried a minimum risk for himself.

So what if he had hit the other kid? What if the first hit had not brought the bully down and ended the fight? What if the bully had decided to fight back even harder?

What if it had? Wouldn't we then be hearing the same mantra about how there was no need to pummel the bully senseless or knocking him out, even?

The decision of which course of action to chose here lies with the victim. If the bully doesn't like it he simply shouldn't have been punching people in the face!

Don't get me wrong, I agree that it was self defense and therefore 'justified' in the heat of the moment. The younger student is at fault in the video. But the proportionate nature of the response is questionable, I am not sure who started the wrestle, but the yournger kids made a very poor choice and the consequence should be on him.

he started the incident and appears to have had his friend video it. So unless there is more history it is his responsibility.

ETA: If the bully has been subdued then going past subdual is further violence and not self defense.

 

[applecorped]

So, they both were suspended and the only injury was a grazed knee. Moving on.

 

[Rasmus]

+ But the proportionate nature of the response is questionable,

Only if we can assume that the bigger kid had a less violent alternative that was readily available to him, had at least equal chances of success and at most an equal chance of being on the receiving end of even more violence from the bully.

And we must assume that that alternative was bleedingly obviously fulfilling all these conditions, too, and that the victim was aware of all of that the moment he decided to fight back.

ETA: If the bully has been subdued then going past subdual is further violence and not self defense.

Yes, of course. I hope nothing I said could be understood otherwise.