Kid gets suspended after standing up to bully

[King of the Americas]

...

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

...

Has the larger boy 'continued' to suffer this sort of physical attack?

Or has the violence stopped?

If the attacks continue, then indeed the action solved nothing.

If the attacks have ceased. Problem solved.

 

[Tippit]

Of course avoidance doesn't work, but you can't just drop people on their heads. That can easily kill someone.

So what? Here's a thought, if you don't want to run the risk of getting killed, don't bully people.

 

[roger]

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

Naw, we can't move on. We must speculate wildly about the horrible injuries that could have happened to the bully, and must not speculate at all about the injuries that could have happened to the victim.

 

[GlennB]

Who recorded it?

It looked like this was a set up of some sort.

In what sense? The small kid couldn't possibly have consented to being body-slammed like that. At least not if he really knew what was coming.

Hmmmm. as I read this thread my feelings were naturally on the side of the bullied boy. Having now seen a move that could easily have caused major damage I'm not so sure. Would a nearby 2x4 to the head also have been excusable?

 

[roger]

deleted. My comment was unnecessarily snarky, though it was intended as humor. Sorry, Glenn.

 

[tyr_13]

And that's the problem here. You don't have enough evidence to judge. Nobody does, not on an internet messageboard. People who know the kids, other kids, witnesses, teachers...they can judge because they have more information. There's a minimum amount of evidence needed before any judgment can reasonably take place, and one film clip isn't enough.

This is a pretty major problem today. Soundbites. Film clips. Stick 'em on the air, and invite the viewer to "make their own judgments!" The viewers aren't qualified. The evidence isn't enough evidence (even if it's not selectively edited and selectively chosen to begin with) to make judgments, but the audience doesn't care. They feel smart because they made up their own minds! "I haven't been manipulated, because I saw the clip!" So not only is a rush to judgment made on incomplete, possibly improper, possibly irrelevant evidence, but everyone feels very certain because hey, it was based on evidence.

Sorry, but I have to disagree strongly here. We don't have enough background to conclusively say that the attacker is a bully or that the victim of this attack is a victim of bullying, but the video shows everything we need to judge the act recorded. The smaller guy comes up and attacks the larger one. Even if the larger one is a bully and could be proven such based on history we don't have access too, this attack is still unjustified. The larger student is still right to defend himself. Unless the video missed the larger student doing some attack on the smaller one first, that is all the information needed, for the attack. Even if the larger student is a bully, that doesn't make it alright to come up and punch him in the face a few times and that doesn't mean he shouldn't defend himself it he is.

Yeah, there is a lot of speculation going on, but it seems that a good deal of it is to explore the larger issues of bullying, fights, self-defense, and double standards rather than speculation used as evidence for the specific attack the video recorded.

 

[roger]

We don't have enough background to conclusively say that the attacker is a bully or that the victim of this attack is a victim of bullying, but the video shows everything we need to judge the act recorded.

Actually, we do. Read the link provided in post #297. The kid was bullied everyday, students at the school regularly provoke fights, videotape them, then post them online, and other students at the school are scared due to the atmosphere.

 

[tyr_13]

Actually, we do. Read the link provided in post #297. The kid was bullied everyday, students at the school regularly provoke fights, videotape them, then post them online, and other students at the school are scared due to the atmosphere.

Ah, thank you. I'll read that.

 

[sadhatter]

In what sense? The small kid couldn't possibly have consented to being body-slammed like that. At least not if he really knew what was coming.

Hmmmm. as I read this thread my feelings were naturally on the side of the bullied boy. Having now seen a move that could easily have caused major damage I'm not so sure. Would a nearby 2x4 to the head also have been excusable?

If someone started hitting you, and it was the only available option, would you, personally say " well, i am going to let them keep hitting me because unfortunately, my only option is unfair."

When you start a fistfight, you are saying " i intend to hurt you, you have no idea what means i am going to use, or my level of ability to harm you. Taking this into account, fight back. " you can't fault someone for using something effective.

Now if the kid hit him with the 2X4 then continued to smash his head into a pulp, the situation would be different.

Commenting on what someone " should have" done in a fight, is nothing more than an extreme example of the monday morning quarterback. They are in a situation where there only concern ( and it should be) is staying as safe as possible. Assuming they are not the person instigating the fight, faulting them for methods used ( assuming they stop when the person is incapacitated, or in the event of a group beating, when they are safe.) is nothing more than saying your favorite team should have used a different play.

A fight is not an RPG, one person does not select " Punch to face" and the other does not select " Body slam.". Descisions are made within seconds, and based on survival. Unless you expect this kid to have the level of control of a seasoned martial artist ( and even then, they have been known to make poor descisions in the heat of the moment.) , saying that he should have used methods you find acceptable, is simply unrealistic.

 

[ehcks]

So what? Here's a thought, if you don't want to run the risk of getting killed, don't bully people.

Come on, now. There's a reason I haven't posted here for 7 pages. My statement was from the powers of hindsight, and I've retracted them, at least to myself.

Should I have said so earlier?

 

[sadhatter]

Sorry, but I have to disagree strongly here. We don't have enough background to conclusively say that the attacker is a bully or that the victim of this attack is a victim of bullying, but the video shows everything we need to judge the act recorded. The smaller guy comes up and attacks the larger one. Even if the larger one is a bully and could be proven such based on history we don't have access too, this attack is still unjustified. The larger student is still right to defend himself. Unless the video missed the larger student doing some attack on the smaller one first, that is all the information needed, for the attack. Even if the larger student is a bully, that doesn't make it alright to come up and punch him in the face a few times and that doesn't mean he shouldn't defend himself it he is.

Yeah, there is a lot of speculation going on, but it seems that a good deal of it is to explore the larger issues of bullying, fights, self-defense, and double standards rather than speculation used as evidence for the specific attack the video recorded.

And i would extend this even further.

Even if the big guy was the bully, and the little guy was simply taking advantage of a situation for some deserved revenge. Well, he still chose to start, and get into a fight. A fight is not a pleasent thing, there is no referee, cement can crack a skull, and you never know what someone is packing. So if you chose to get into one ( and by this i mean start one.) you have no right to complain about how it turns out.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Sorry, but I have to disagree strongly here. We don't have enough background to conclusively say that the attacker is a bully or that the victim of this attack is a victim of bullying, but the video shows everything we need to judge the act recorded. The smaller guy comes up and attacks the larger one. Even if the larger one is a bully and could be proven such based on history we don't have access too, this attack is still unjustified. The larger student is still right to defend himself. Unless the video missed the larger student doing some attack on the smaller one first, that is all the information needed, for the attack. Even if the larger student is a bully, that doesn't make it alright to come up and punch him in the face a few times and that doesn't mean he shouldn't defend himself it he is.

Yeah, there is a lot of speculation going on, but it seems that a good deal of it is to explore the larger issues of bullying, fights, self-defense, and double standards rather than speculation used as evidence for the specific attack the video recorded.

I didn't realize justification for actions had to be confined to the time limits of the action itself. Tell me, was D-Day justifiable? After all, France hadn't been invaded immediately before. So if I showed you a film clip that started with the first boat landing, would you rule out the prior events as irrelevant to the question and conclude that the Allies were the aggressors and their landing unjustifiable? Because of your belief that you can judge the justification based solely on the single incident viewed?

 

[Nihilianth]

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 used the wrong word. He wasn't really injured.

 

[TragicMonkey]

And i would extend this even further.

Even if the big guy was the bully, and the little guy was simply taking advantage of a situation for some deserved revenge. Well, he still chose to start, and get into a fight. A fight is not a pleasent thing, there is no referee, cement can crack a skull, and you never know what someone is packing. So if you chose to get into one ( and by this i mean start one.) you have no right to complain about how it turns out.

Then it sucks even worse to be the victim of a bully because your only recourse is to "stand up to them", and of course it will be your fault if you fail. And unless you happen to be one of the lucky minority who is being bullied by someone weaker than yourself, it's pretty much damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't. You get beaten up either way, so the choice is to be a wimp and take it or be an aggressive bully yourself.

We don't run prisons like that, so why is it acceptable for schools?

 

[Nihilianth]

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?

You did say quite repeatedly that the big kid "used excessive force."

And if the bully got his head cracked open, that means the big kid was more at fault? Doesn't make any sense. The big kid used the tools he had in order to win a fight. As sadhatter has said, a big kid who is as untrained as the vicitm in the video appeared, dancing around a smaller quicker kid and trying to throw punches to defend himself will only get him further beat up.

I was just wondering what the difference is between the bully getting his head cracked open or not. Obviously, this is a possibililty in any fight. And the victim is the one to blame if the attacking bully gets hurt in such a manner? Just doesn't make any sense, especially considering that self-defense is perfectly legal.

 

[Nihilianth]

Does this apply to the bully as well?

No.

 

[Nihilianth]

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.

Exactly. Considering that the victim just up and walked away after slamming the bully to the ground is evidence that it was self-defense. He eliminated the threat quickly and efficiently, and walked away. But not before someone even bigger got in his face momentarily.

 

[Checkmite]

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

Many people in this thread are willing to extend exactly this bye to the actions of the bigger kid in this video, but refuse to even entertain that the smaller and perhaps younger kid is eligible for the same excuse, because they have objectified the latter.

 

[Nihilianth]

In what sense? The small kid couldn't possibly have consented to being body-slammed like that. At least not if he really knew what was coming.

Hmmmm. as I read this thread my feelings were naturally on the side of the bullied boy. Having now seen a move that could easily have caused major damage I'm not so sure. Would a nearby 2x4 to the head also have been excusable?

The bully didn't consent to being body-slammed, that is true. However, that doesn't mean it couldn't have been a set-up.

Bullying someone is pre-meditated. A victim of bullying body-slamming someone is not.

 

[Checkmite]

And i would extend this even further.

Even if the big guy was the bully, and the little guy was simply taking advantage of a situation for some deserved revenge. Well, he still chose to start, and get into a fight. A fight is not a pleasent thing, there is no referee, cement can crack a skull, and you never know what someone is packing. So if you chose to get into one ( and by this i mean start one.) you have no right to complain about how it turns out.

You are talking about young children, not adults in control of all their faculties. This cavelier attitude in the face of that circumstance is sickening. I'm sorry, but it is.

In fact, this entire thread is just getting too disturbing. Peace out.