Kid gets suspended after standing up to bully

[Nihilianth]

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 was tending to agree with Tragic Monkey, but your second paragraph does have a point in this conversation. It isn't necessarily about the video, so much as it is about the larger picture of bullying in general, and what and what not constitutes appropriate force in self-defense. Especially if, hypothetically speaking, the larger kid truly is a victim of bullying.

I gave an example of a kid in my classroom who IS a known bully picking on someone smaller than him on the playground. The smaller kid fought back, but they both got the same punishment. My question is: Why? Why is the victim punished the same as the bully for self-defense? Why is the victim punished at all? In a court of law with adults, we don't punish a victim for self-defense. Why is it any different for children on a school playground?

 

[Nihilianth]

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.

I suppose that is the effect of too much Final Fantasy?

I sure would hate to be a victim of a crime who killed or seriously injured someone in self-defense in about 10 to 20 years in the future, when kids who grew up with Final Fantasy will be the ones sitting on a jury.

 

[Nihilianth]

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?

+1 in respect for you sir. Someone who is not afraid to retract a statement.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I gave an example of a kid in my classroom who IS a known bully picking on someone smaller than him on the playground. The smaller kid fought back, but they both got the same punishment. My question is: Why? Why is the victim punished the same as the bully for self-defense? Why is the victim punished at all? In a court of law with adults, we don't punish a victim for self-defense. Why is it any different for children on a school playground?

Is the child being punished for defending himself? Or is he being punished for using violence? If the goal is to stop children being violent, then discouragement of violence even when "justified" would be necessary. Which means the "stand up to bullies" course of action, which is culturally entrenched and well-favored by many, would be in direct opposition to the establishment.

Those in charge of a given institution have to chose: are they going to try to prevent violence, or are they going to allow violence in some situations as being justified? There are pros and cons to both approaches, but whichever one is adopted should be followed through with--half-assing it will just make everything worse because the kids won't be able to trust authority that sometimes acts one way, sometimes another.

I think it's pretty obvious that most schools are going to go the no violence, "zero tolerance" route. Not necessarily because it's better, but because (and this is somewhat cynical) it's the less likely to lead to the school losing a lawsuit. Being sued for punishing a student for hitting another, justified or not, is a much nicer outcome for a school than being sued for letting one kid beat up another because the victim was a notorious bully.

 

[Avicenna]

What the bullied kid did was kind of dangerous. Dropping anyone on the head is pretty iffy but look at how far back the kid's neck goes.

If he crippled the bully would we be singing the same tune? No, we would be calling for changes to the school system and wouldn't care about the suspension.

The kid comes up punch drunk. A boxing match would be called off if a fighter was moving like that. I don't think the bullied kid should have been punished but should have been sat down and had the situation explained. As in that he could have crippled or killed the other kid because of that move.

I fear this may be due to the school's policy on fights. If fights are as common as he says it is then the school may have instated a "scorched earth policy" when it comes to them suspending all involved. The problem is suspension only works if you have the parenting power to back it up. I am sure if most of us were suspended we would have been on the receiving end of some pretty harsh punishments at home. The kid starting the fight had no fear of that doing it in the open.

 

[King of the Americas]

I just want to add, that this has been my favorite online video, this year.

I've been laughing all morning over this.

---

*I suffered for years at the hands of bullies. It ended when I stood up for myself and beat down a much larger attacker in front of onlookers.

Once you've been single out as a candidate for attack, they all swarm... The only way to stop the attacks is to be the dog with more fight in'em...

I repeat. I LOVE this video.

 

[tyr_13]

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?

Countries aren't people, and countries at war is a terrible analogy for these events.

I was being very specific, but you seem lost in a sea of straw. Let me be perfectly clear, it is not justifiable to go out and attack another student even if that student is a bully but if you are attacked, it is justifiable to defend yourself. Physical retaliation for a past event is unjustifiable. In this case, if the attacker had walk away after the first swing, it would not have been justifiable for the victim to walk after him then throw him down for example. What would have been justified is reporting the incidence. Based on past experience this would have probably resulted in either nothing, or both of them being punished again. That's how it was in my school. If I had reported being punched in the face, I would have been in trouble for fighting because of zero tolerance.

 

[HistoryGal]

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

You are the one with the callous disregard for life. Don't pawn that off on me. I was never a bully. You were. Case closed.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Countries aren't people, and countries at war is a terrible analogy for these events.

I was being very specific, but you see lost in a sea of straw. Let me be perfectly clear, it is not justifiable to go out and attack another student even if that student is a bully but if you are attacked, it is justifiable to defend yourself. Physical retaliation for a past event is unjustifiable. In this case, if the attacker had walk away after the first swing, it would not have been justifiable for the victim to walk after him then throw him down for example.

What's the maximum permitted time before retaliation becomes unjustifiable? Also, are you introducing a distance component as well, with this "walk after him" bit? What's the maximum distance before it becomes unjustifiable? If you're going to make ethical rulings based on measurable standards, you ought to be able to quantify them. Kid A hits Kid B, Kid B hits back. What's the acceptable passage of time between the two events before Kid B stops being justified? Five seconds? Three minutes? Three minutes and ten feet away from the original incident? One minute thirty seconds and fifty-seven feet?

What would have been justified is reporting the incidence. Based on past experience this would have probably resulted in either nothing, or both of them being punished again. That's how it was in my school. If I had reported being punched in the face, I would have been in trouble for fighting because of zero tolerance.

And you'd get beat up again for tattling. Courses of action that achieve nothing (or actively cause a worse outcome) will not be pursued, whether they are the only ones you'll grant your seal of approval to or not.


eta: Oh, and for your situation with the walking-away making retaliation unjustified: does that mean I could hit you, run a few feet away, and then you'd be the aggressor if you hit me in turn?

 

[tyr_13]

What's the maximum permitted time before retaliation becomes unjustifiable? Also, are you introducing a distance component as well, with this "walk after him" bit? What's the maximum distance before it becomes unjustifiable? If you're going to make ethical rulings based on measurable standards, you ought to be able to quantify them. Kid A hits Kid B, Kid B hits back. What's the acceptable passage of time between the two events before Kid B stops being justified? Five seconds? Three minutes? Three minutes and ten feet away from the original incident? One minute thirty seconds and fifty-seven feet?

You want a math equation? Ask a police officer or a lawyer the same damn question. Justice isn't as simple as a rule book.

And you'd get beat up again for tattling. Courses of action that achieve nothing (or actively cause a worse outcome) will not be pursued, whether they are the only ones you'll grant your seal of approval to or not.


eta: Oh, and for your situation with the walking-away making retaliation unjustified: does that mean I could hit you, run a few feet away, and then you'd be the aggressor if you hit me in turn?

No, but it would be unjustified because I, hypothetically, have a more civilized recourse to prevent further injury to myself. Which is the entire point by the way.

 

[Nihilianth]

Is the child being punished for defending himself? Or is he being punished for using violence? If the goal is to stop children being violent, then discouragement of violence even when "justified" would be necessary. Which means the "stand up to bullies" course of action, which is culturally entrenched and well-favored by many, would be in direct opposition to the establishment.

Defending one's self, and using violence is one and the same. Unless you use violence in order to protect yourself from a bully who is attacking you physically, then you're going to get your ass kicked. It is inherently a rule of nature.

I think it is just as wrong to tell a kid not to defend himself. Especially if the kid is a victim of bullying. From the moment I saw the bully begin picking on the smaller kid, to the moment I finally arrived from across the playground (probably about 50 yards away,) a full-blown fight between the two broke out. The smaller kid put up a fight which fended off the bully long enough for me to get there and break it up. Had the VICTIM not put up a fight, likely he would have been beat to a complete and bloody pulp. You think that would be fine? For a victim to not defend himself, and end up being beat to a bloody pulp? There was even a video tape from the camera on the side of the building, which showed more than what I personally saw. It was completely obvious it was a case of self-defense. And yet, they received the same punishment.

Sorry, but that wouldn't even fly in prison, as someone had said. It wouldn't fly in a court room, either. Why should a school be any different? I thin kit is unconscionable to tell a victim of bullying they are not allowed to defend themselves, and yet, they receive no help from teachers who either happen to be too far away to put a quick end to it, or, worse, not around at all.

Those in charge of a given institution have to chose: are they going to try to prevent violence, or are they going to allow violence in some situations as being justified? There are pros and cons to both approaches, but whichever one is adopted should be followed through with--half-assing it will just make everything worse because the kids won't be able to trust authority that sometimes acts one way, sometimes another.

Punishing both the victim and the bully the same sends the wrong message that does more harm than good. It sends the message that kids have no hope against bullies at all, if they get punished for defending themselves anyway. It sends a message to the bullies that the victim will receive the same punishment, and it becomes easier for the bully to to continue with his actions, without getting in any more trouble than his victims.

I think it's pretty obvious that most schools are going to go the no violence, "zero tolerance" route. Not necessarily because it's better, but because (and this is somewhat cynical) it's the less likely to lead to the school losing a lawsuit. Being sued for punishing a student for hitting another, justified or not, is a much nicer outcome for a school than being sued for letting one kid beat up another because the victim was a notorious bully.

I would be pressing a lawsuit if my child was a victim of bullying, and received the same punishment as the bully. Punishment has to fit the crime. And considering self-defense is not a crime, punishment should not be an option.

ETA: As I have said before, I am not one to condone violence. Especially in school. But there are most definitely times when self-defense justifies violence.

 

[GlennB]

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

No prob, as I didn't read it. So it is a prob as I now want to know what you said

Having said that I find it hard to read anything into my post that might attract any extreme reaction.

I suspect that we have all experienced major or minor bullying, even down to the level of regular irritation from the 'inadequate' colleague at work who draws attention to some aspect of our behaviour or appearance that goes just a little too far, a little too often (I think it's called "riding"?). Been there. Or the jerk in the pub trying to provoke a response from anyone. And I fear the accumulated effect of putting up with years of these trivial injustices colours our response when the victim fights back big time. What's it called, "revenge fantasy", like Charles Bronson in Death Wish righting wrongs in a mega-violent fashion?

My response to the video, frankly, was "Yeah big guy break his *********** back". Shortly followed my "Oh jesus he could have broken his back". Which is why, I suppose, we have laws that include the idea of proportionality.

 

[Nihilianth]

Countries aren't people, and countries at war is a terrible analogy for these events.

I was being very specific, but you seem lost in a sea of straw. Let me be perfectly clear, it is not justifiable to go out and attack another student even if that student is a bully but if you are attacked, it is justifiable to defend yourself. Physical retaliation for a past event is unjustifiable. In this case, if the attacker had walk away after the first swing, it would not have been justifiable for the victim to walk after him then throw him down for example. What would have been justified is reporting the incidence. Based on past experience this would have probably resulted in either nothing, or both of them being punished again. That's how it was in my school. If I had reported being punched in the face, I would have been in trouble for fighting because of zero tolerance.

That is most DEFINITELY the wrong message to send! The school would be totally in the wrong for punishing ANYONE if they report getting punched in the face! We encourage kids to report when they are hit!! Meting out punishment for reporting said violence is the most counter-productive thing I have ever heard, and smells in the face of hypocrisy, and wrongheadedness.

At the Catholic school I went to until 8th grade, my twin brother and I were jumped by most the 8th grade boys. We were absolutely tiny. But fast as hell. We both were able to defend ourselves, taking out two or three kids before we got overwhelmed. We were on the ground, getting beat down until my older brother and an older cousin who were both seniors turned the corner, and saved us. I am almost positive we would have been far worse off, had we just allowed the first 2 or 3 attackers to come at us.

My brother and cousin destroyed several of the 8th grade boys. Broke someone's nose, and so forth. School tried getting involved, but my brother, being 18, got the police involved. The other boys' parents wanted us to be punished just as much, but my uncle said he will be pressing a lawsuit against the school, and bringing criminal charges against all the other boys and let the judge decide the matter, if the school even so much as tried bringing any sort of punishment against the four of us. With a camera on the corner of the building which caught it all, it was very obvious, in plain black-and-white, exactly what transpired.

My uncle, being a lawyer, threatened the school and the other parents, insisting that criminal behavior is criminal behavior, whether on the school grounds or not. Self-defense is self-defense whether on school grounds or not. School rules do NOT trump the law. He would be more than happy to bring the evidence into court, and state the case that it was self-defense against assault, and the school has no right to hand out any punishment on any of the four of us. Period.

Of course, the school backed off. The next day, the 8th grade was devoid of all boys, except for 2 or 3 other kids who were not at all involved, and whom we actually got along with. A total of 8 or 9 kids were suspended, and assault charges pressed. 3 or 4 of the kids were found guilty, and were placed on house arrest with several hours of community service.

 

[sadhatter]

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?

The problem is, when it comes to the social implications of the fight, such as the " your fault if you fail." that you mention. It isn't the school that controls it, it is the children themselves.

There is no way to remove that social aspect from the children. There is always going to be that push to " get back" at the bully, or for that matter, the victorious victim. this is not something instituted by the school, but simply inherent in the social contract of being a kid.

So in answer to your question, we don't run it that way. It is ran that way by the immature minds of the kids themselves. Adults have a lot less control over children than they would like to think.

 

[sadhatter]

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.

Reality is often disturbing.

Attempting to state that taking a realistic approach to it is somehow evil, is doing nothing more than burying your head in the sand. Much like running from the thread because it disturbs your sensibilities.

 

[sadhatter]

What the bullied kid did was kind of dangerous. Dropping anyone on the head is pretty iffy but look at how far back the kid's neck goes.

If he crippled the bully would we be singing the same tune? No, we would be calling for changes to the school system and wouldn't care about the suspension.

The kid comes up punch drunk. A boxing match would be called off if a fighter was moving like that. I don't think the bullied kid should have been punished but should have been sat down and had the situation explained. As in that he could have crippled or killed the other kid because of that move.

I fear this may be due to the school's policy on fights. If fights are as common as he says it is then the school may have instated a "scorched earth policy" when it comes to them suspending all involved. The problem is suspension only works if you have the parenting power to back it up. I am sure if most of us were suspended we would have been on the receiving end of some pretty harsh punishments at home. The kid starting the fight had no fear of that doing it in the open.

The attitude that this kid could have " picked" a better option astounds me.

This is a fight , not a chess match, you do not have time to sit and think " My goodness if i do this, i could seriously harm this person." especially if your not the aggressor. The irony is the aggressor does have this option available at the start of the fight, but this option, with the exception of those well trained in martial arts ( and even then, it is not a guarantee.) is not available to the person being attacked , they cannot say " Listen, give me a second, i have to decide how to handle this. ".

Regardless of the outcome, this kid was attacked, and defended himself and he stopped when the other person was subdued. You do not have the time to browse your attack list, and select the least lethal option, as some seem to be trying to say.

 

[Nihilianth]

The problem is, when it comes to the social implications of the fight, such as the " your fault if you fail." that you mention. It isn't the school that controls it, it is the children themselves.

There is no way to remove that social aspect from the children. There is always going to be that push to " get back" at the bully, or for that matter, the victorious victim. this is not something instituted by the school, but simply inherent in the social contract of being a kid.

So in answer to your question, we don't run it that way. It is ran that way by the immature minds of the kids themselves. Adults have a lot less control over children than they would like to think.

Exactly! Which is why violence in self-defense will continue to be a viable option in cases of physical assault.

To even suggest any sort of message that kids are not allowed to fight back in order to defend themselves, is kind of bad. Certainly, schools shouldn't PROMOTE the use of violence! Not by any means! But neither should a school punish the victim for defending themselves.

 

[pgwenthold]

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".

Same here, but in our case, the two punishments were not necessarily viewed the same. In fact, a very similar incident to this happened at our school, and, indeed, both got suspended. The difference was that the ahole who started it got the riot treatment from the admin, with a similar approach to the parents about how this student was being punished and needed to change his behavior.

The guy who fought back was brought in with his parents where the principal said, the school requires that you get suspended for this, so you will be. So you get X days off. Enjoy your vacation, and we'll see you when you get back.

Similarly, the teachers didn't hold the suspension against him or anything. The other guy didn't care about schoolwork, so it wouldn't do any good to fret over it.

Personally, I figure that "suspension" for a 10 year old is as bad as your parents make it. If you get suspended and your parents are as upset over it, then it's rough. However, if your parents shrug it off and let you goof off at home and meet up with your friends after school and stuff, it's no big deal.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Exactly a punch can be lethal, although that bully doesn't punch very well.

 

[TsarBomba]

Since this happened in New South Wales, perhaps it is illustrative to look at the actual law on self defense in that state.

Section 418 of the Crimes Act of 1900 (as amended), provides:

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 418

Self-defence-when available 418 Self-defence-when available

(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the person carries out the conduct constituting the offence in self-defence.​

(2) A person carries out conduct in self-defence if and only if the person believes the conduct is necessary:

(a) to defend himself or herself or another person, or​

(b) to prevent or terminate the unlawful deprivation of his or her liberty or the liberty of another person, or​

(c) to protect property from unlawful taking, destruction, damage or interference, or​

(d) to prevent criminal trespass to any land or premises or to remove a person committing any such criminal trespass,​

and the conduct is a reasonable response in the circumstances as he or she perceives them.​

Of course we are talking about a school suspension, and not a criminal prosecution, but it would seem to me that if this kid was legally entitled to do what he did under the laws of New South Wales, he should not have been suspended. It appears from the video that he was clearly defending himself, as is required by subsection 2(a). The question then becomes whether the conduct was "a reasonable response in the circumstances as he or she perceives them." I don't know how anyone can look at this and conclude that what this kid was not reasonable. What was he supposed to do? Slap the kid? Give me the break. That would not have likely stopped the assault, only prolonged the fight. Punch the kid? Same answer. He did what was necessary to stop the assault, which I would think any New South Wales jury would find is self-defense.

I would also note Section 419 of the Crimes Act:

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 419

Self-defence-onus of proof 419 Self-defence-onus of proof

In any criminal proceedings in which the application of this Division is raised, the prosecution has the onus of proving, beyond reasonable doubt, that the person did not carry out the conduct in self-defence.

Thus, were this a criminal prosecution in New South Wales, it would be the prosecution's burden to establish that the kid was not reasonable. He would have no burden of proof at all.

One would think that the school officials could look at the law and see that this kid was legally justified in what he did, but I guess in this modern day and age, school officials are chicken _____ all over.