Kid gets suspended after standing up to bully

[Nihilianth]

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:



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:



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.

Ah yes. True, the law as described for New South Wales does appear to support the kid.

In any case, I doubt, even in New South Wales, that school rules can trump the law. The school should not be justified in bring any punishments against the victim. This was the argument my uncle used against the school I went to. And he is a lawyer. He told the school administration that they were not at all justified in bringing any punishment down on our heads for self-defense. And he would be more than glad to bring it to court, and let the law decide, rather than school rules.

It was amazing how quickly the school administration and the other parents backed off. Needless to say, we were even less popular among our classmates. But became legends with the upper classmen (who were a heck of a lot more civil.) So we had to switch schools starting in 9th grade. We received better education, participated on a better baseball team, and had more friends, anyway.

 

[tyr_13]

There are things which are perfectly legal for an adult that a school still is in the right for punishing a student for.

I just don't think this is one of those.

 

[rwguinn]

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.

At my kid's High school, I asked a very specific question:
If a kid is walking down the hall, and another kid comes up behind him and slugs him, what is the penalty?
Answer: Both kids get suspended equally for fighting.
Zero Tolerance in the US...

 

[Rasmus]

In any case, I doubt, even in New South Wales, that school rules can trump the law.

They don't. The kid will not go to jail or anything.

The school is simply establishing its own rules of conduct for their own property - that is their right. Unfortunately, they chose to make use of their right in an extremely idiotic way.

The school should not be justified in bring any punishments against the victim. This was the argument my uncle used against the school I went to. And he is a lawyer. He told the school administration that they were not at all justified in bringing any punishment down on our heads for self-defense. And he would be more than glad to bring it to court, and let the law decide, rather than school rules.

I am not sure if the school would have lost that case. I would certainly hope so, but if they can punish unwanted behavior with suspensions at all, then they can do so in a manner that would not be permissible in a court of law.

(Personally, I think that even suspensions are problematic, but that will largely depend on the overall system in use.)

It was amazing how quickly the school administration and the other parents backed off.

Yes - they fear lawsuits. Which is probably a reason for the idiotic rules in the first place: Zero tolerance mans they can never be blamed for letting any sort of violence go unchallenged.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Or it was the 403rd altercation, with the larger kid being the bully in the first 402. Or the two kids hadn't ever fought before this, but the larger kid had just beaten up the smaller kid's friend. Or the larger kid had stolen the smaller kid's prized possession an hour before and taunted him to "do something about it". For all we know is right--we don't know much at all. Just two kids during one stretch of time. The meaning of events in that time might not be the obvious one.

One of my friends knows the big kid and his family. Apparently the small kids and friends had bullied the big kid for quite some time.

 

[Avicenna]

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. ".

I must point out that dropping someone on the head can end with that person dying or being paralysed for life. There is justifiable force in assaults. Punching someone back is different from kicking someone in the throat. If any bit of that had gone even the slightest bit wrong we would be laying into the bullied kid for excessive violence that caused the crippling of another child.

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.

If he had killed the other kid would that excuse satisfy him? That he was punched in the face so broke the guy's neck? Look kids don't know how to fight. The bully is obviously a little **** who should have been dealt with a long time ago. But not by dropping him on his head. I cannot stress how risky that move is and how many people die or are paralysed from similar injuries.

Much as we like to see bullies get their comeuppance we must realise that this was kind of dangerous and could have gone horrifically wrong. And that we should not encourage either of this kind of behaviour.

If the father knew about the bullying was any official complaint placed? There seems to be a giant gap in the presence of adults at this school.

 

[Rasmus]

I must point out that dropping someone on the head can end with that person dying or being paralysed for life.

I think the vast majority of posters have noticed as much.

There is justifiable force in assaults. Punching someone back is different from kicking someone in the throat. If any bit of that had gone even the slightest bit wrong we would be laying into the bullied kid for excessive violence that caused the crippling of another child.

Who is this "we" you speak of? I wouldn't.

In fact: I am not.

And I am not basing the judgment of whether the amount of force used was adequate or not on the chance outcome of the event.

If he had killed the other kid would that excuse satisfy him?

Probably not. So?

That he was punched in the face so broke the guy's neck? Look kids don't know how to fight. The bully is obviously a little **** who should have been dealt with a long time ago. But not by dropping him on his head. I cannot stress how risky that move is and how many people die or are paralysed from similar injuries.

So?

Much as we like to see bullies get their comeuppance we must realise that this was kind of dangerous and could have gone horrifically wrong. And that we should not encourage either of this kind of behaviour.

Feel free to explain how a child should react if another child punches it in the face and then continues to beat the victim. I'm all ears.

If the father knew about the bullying was any official complaint placed? There seems to be a giant gap in the presence of adults at this school.

Yes. So? What difference does that make in the situation?

 

[GeeMack]

If any bit of that had gone even the slightest bit wrong we would be laying into the bullied kid for excessive violence that caused the crippling of another child.

We would? I wouldn't. If people don't want to risk getting crippled or dead, they shouldn't go around hitting people.

 

[Valkyrie144]

The big kid should have smashed the camera first, then taken care of business

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Very surprised people are glorying in this video, it made me feel physically sick.

I don't condone the bullying and I can't really blame the bigger kid for his response but I don't condone it either. He didn't look in serious physical danger but he couldn't know that. The response was odd though, most threatened people would punch or kick out not go into a wrestling move (perhaps that's a generational thing) but once he did that he looked way more in control, the other kid didn't stand a chance and a slam down on concrete (with one leg hitting a raised area) just looked...well..frightening.

As I say, it made me feel physically sick. I'm not sure how badly the kid was hurt but it could have easily been a permanent, crippling injury or death. Hardly a proportionate result (again I don't blame the retaliator, I just don't condone it and certainly don't glory in it).

For those who think 'Ha he got his just deserts', do you have kids? If your kid had been egged on to pick on the 'fat kid' and had ended up crippled or killed, would you say 'Ha you deserved it son. You shouldn't be a bully'? Would you think it a proportionate response? I seriously doubt it.

We'll never know the full story behind this and to be so judgemental about a small child starting a fight and ending up badly injured, well, keyboard warrior syndrome looms large I'd say.

 

[Rasmus]

The big kid should have smashed the camera first, then taken care of business

The big kid looks good in the clip, though.

I honestly don't see how how can be blamed by people here.

He took the first punches calmly, yet surprisingly the bully didn't stop. The big kid decided he should defend himself and did just that. Then, instead of seeking revenge or kicking someone who was on the ground, he walked away.

(Haven't double checked to see if he tried to go after the other guy with the camera, but I think that would have been okay too.)

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

We would? I wouldn't. If people don't want to risk getting crippled or dead, they shouldn't go around hitting people.

They're kids for heaven's sake. Peer pressure can be a bitch and you simply don't know the whole story.

Loads of people on this thread claim to have been bullied as kids, well so was I - though nothing that scarred me for life. I've met the bullies since and they have no concept that they bullied me. It was all a bit of a laugh to them and nothing much more to it. No deep enmity and they've all grown up to be relatively respectable members of society. Should I be wishing I'd been able to cause them serious injury?

 

[applecorped]

For those who think 'Ha he got his just deserts', do you have kids? If your kid had been egged on to pick on the 'fat kid' and had ended up crippled or killed, would you say 'Ha you deserved it son. You shouldn't be a bully'? Would you think it a proportionate response? I seriously doubt it.

We'll never know the full story behind this and to be so judgemental about a small child starting a fight and ending up badly injured, well, keyboard warrior syndrome looms large I'd say.

But this didn't happen.

 

[Rasmus]

They're kids for heaven's sake. Peer pressure can be a bitch and you simply don't know the whole story.

oh, and so because it was peer pressure the victim should just have stood there and taken it or what?

 

[qayak]

These are young, impressionable kids who have a lot to learn about life.

Exactly! And the bully learned a valuable lesson which is why I don't get your argument. The bully wouldn't have learned anything from the victim just taking the abuse, lucckily he had the opportunity to learn one of life's cruel lessons.

 

[Babbylonian]

We'll never know the full story behind this and to be so judgemental about a small child starting a fight and ending up badly injured, well, keyboard warrior syndrome looms large I'd say.

You could always read the whole thread and the links therein if you want to know the "full[er] story." Or, you could mount up on your high horse, kick it with the ole spurs, and try really hard to make people feel bad despite the fact that I don't recall a single post here glorying in the idea that a small child may have been (but wasn't) "badly injured."

At worst, I've seen an attitude that a kid attacking another kid takes his chances, and if he gets hurt then that's one way he might learn a lesson.

 

[qayak]

They're kids for heaven's sake. Peer pressure can be a bitch and you simply don't know the whole story.

And...?

Loads of people on this thread claim to have been bullied as kids, well so was I - though nothing that scarred me for life. I've met the bullies since and they have no concept that they bullied me. It was all a bit of a laugh to them and nothing much more to it. No deep enmity and they've all grown up to be relatively respectable members of society. Should I be wishing I'd been able to cause them serious injury?

Did they punch you in the face and stomach on a regular basis?

Why do you think you weren't scarred for life? You remember the incidents whereas the bullies don't remember anything of them. Scarring is a reminder of an injury. Obviously you are reminded while they are not.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

But this didn't happen.

I didn't say it had, but that could easily have been the result. Also, wasn't there a report that the kid had a fractured kneecap? I'd say that was pretty serious if true.

Look I can accept a certain 'Oh goody, a bully got his just deserts' but some of the wallowing in this is pretty distasteful and some posters have suggested they wouldn't have been bothered if the kid was crippled or killed which is pretty sick in my opinion when all we can see is he threw a few ineffectual punches at a much bigger kid.

We really don't know the backstory here. I've only ever started one fight in my life (even then I didn't really throw the first punch but I pretty much caused it) when I got into an argument with an unpopular kid and got egged on by my peers to take it further. I'm ashamed to say I did (probably the only time I've ever succumbed to peer pressure). Had someone videoed just that moment it wouldn't have looked dis-similar to this - except the bigger kid just punched me back and then wrestled me to the ground until I 'gave in'. Would I have deserved to get crippled if he had picked me up and thrown me instead? I'd like to think not, especially as he was as much responsible for the argument and reciprocal name-calling that led to the fight.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

oh, and so because it was peer pressure the victim should just have stood there and taken it or what?

If you can point to where I said that I'll happily retract it.

 

[Rasmus]

If you can point to where I said that I'll happily retract it.

Then kindly tell me what the kid should have done if you don't think that self-defense - which by the looks of it would have been perfectly legal under the circumstances - is not a good reaction.