Kid gets suspended after standing up to bully

[Legend]

I was merely explaining that, in my event, it wasn't the norm for kids to attack as a pack but it was the norm for them to gather excitedly around an impending fight and indeed to encourage it to happen. You could sometimes see that neither protagonist actually wished to go through with it but got pressurised by the baying mob. After a few clumsy blows an excuse was usually found to end matters - or a teacher intervened, attracted by the noise.

Well that's not the case here at all. The camera is on the victim, then/as the antagonist approaches the subject of the video and the fight starts. Aside from that, I recognise the circumstances, this is preconceived no doubt. They've put the challenge to that little dweeb, told him he could take him down, inflated his ego, and he's accepted the challenge for reputation points.

And got his backside whooped. I like adding that part.

 

[Rasmus]

Yes, I felt responsible for it because I confronted him in an aggressive manner when I could have walked away.

It's not an event I'm proud of so perhaps I over-emphasised my role - but I could have walked away. I went back to him rather than him marching up to me.

I am quite happy to concede that you were not a bully in that instance. (If you never had any other fights, you weren't a bully otherwise either way.)

If you weren't and the fight had left you injured, crippled or dead, it would have been a simple accident.

But if you were, then it would have been your own responsibility and your victim would have justified in causing you these amounts of harm (under the various conditions I discussed previously.)

My problem with those comments that are not directly blaming the victim - however subtle - is that the decision to view the actions of the victim as just as regrettable or shocking as those of the attacker is that this makes both look equally bad.

It's like watching a video of an arson and the subsequent fire where a house burns to the ground and saying that you're shocked that someone could set a house on fire with people in it and that you're shocked to see the firemen breaking into the house through doors and windows with axes in their attempt to rescue the trapped people.

 

[qayak]

There have been other bullying threads here in which those who endured it as children were told, repeatedly, vehemently, and with a bullying tone, that they should have stood up for themselves and beat the living snot out of just one of the bullies, just once, and it would have stopped. That being bullied was their own fault, because they wouldn't stand up and fight. And it should be a decisive fight, nothing wimpy, make your point once and for all and be done.

No, what you were told is that all the bully theories being bandied about don't work, have never worked, and probably never will work. That in the real world of bullying it comes down to the bully and the target.

What you mistook for bullying behaviour was insistence in the face of name calling and toxic labelling. In other words, we wouldn't change our interpretation of the evidence when we were personally attacked.

Now we see the very thing so stridently insisted upon as the only proper course of action being decried as the wrong thing to do?

I think you'll find that the ones arguing for confrontation in the other threads are the ones insisting the victim did good in this one. Also, victims don't have to destroy the bully like this, that's just a bonus. All they have to do is show they were not an easy target, that everytime the bully confronts them he will be in for a battle. Bullies tend to pick easy targets so make yourself a tough one.

Make up your flipping minds, or STFU about things you cannot, apparently, comprehend.

I think you should adhere to your own advice. As you have seen once again, engaging a bully works very well as a deterent. You just need to type "Bully" into Youtube or Google videos to come up with other examples of this. Cellphone video cameras are great.

It's the choice everyone has. You decide if you are a perpetual victim or a one time target. Life's a fight from birth to death, embrace it.

 

[qayak]

This is actually a classical example that so often is missed in these cases by those who hold authority. Bullies attack in packs. Using the smallest guy of the pack, often also the youngest member or a girl, to insult or physically hurt the victim is usually thought to be "very funny" and seen as more humiliating by the bullies. The attack is accompanied with comments like "You are such a puss, look, even Little Jonny (or "a girl") can kick your ass. lol". The victim is faced with a dilemma - if he punches the small bully (can he even punch a girl!?), he risks being attacked by the rest of the pack (or at least it's biggest member, usually older than himself). Also, what would the teachers say? The victim is larger than the bully! The bully is a girl? Who will believe that this girl attacked him!? So often the victim has to suffer the humiliation or risk being blamed.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In this case the victim used a very appropriate strategy - retaliate with such a force that the rest of the pack is too scared to do anything. Then he walked away. Very smart of him.

^^^^^^^^^^^AND THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Pure gold!

 

[Nihilianth]

Maybe I've missed it in the comments, but it seems you all are ignoring the fact that this was not a 1-on-1 fight at all.

There are many posts about the bully being much smaller than the victim and therefore victims response might have been over the top. You all seem to be ignoring that the attack was carried out by a pack of bullies. One is holding the phone (probably the leader, he is also encouraging the small bully), then there is one tall and well built fellow who comes into the screen after the retaliation to shelter the small bully from further injuries. So there where at least three attackers here.

This is actually a classical example that so often is missed in these cases by those who hold authority. Bullies attack in packs. Using the smallest guy of the pack, often also the youngest member or a girl, to insult or physically hurt the victim is usually thought to be "very funny" and seen as more humiliating by the bullies. The attack is accompanied with comments like "You are such a puss, look, even Little Jonny (or "a girl") can kick your ass. lol". The victim is faced with a dilemma - if he punches the small bully (can he even punch a girl!?), he risks being attacked by the rest of the pack (or at least it's biggest member, usually older than himself). Also, what would the teachers say? The victim is larger than the bully! The bully is a girl? Who will believe that this girl attacked him!? So often the victim has to suffer the humiliation or risk being blamed.

In this case the victim used a very appropriate strategy - retaliate with such a force that the rest of the pack is too scared to do anything. Then he walked away. Very smart of him.

Another strategy would be to attack the leader of the pack. But in this scenario, person, who seems to be the leader of the pack, was too far away and held a camera.

Reminds me of the movie "A Christmas Story." It had the small little punk kid who did most of the bullying, standing in front of the bigger guy.

But yeah, I have mentioned several times that there was someone even bigger than the victim who got in his face after that throw-down. The victim decided to turn around and walk away. But the big guy was stopped by a girl, but walked around her. It looked like he was going to give chase, as he started up in a jog real quick in the last few frames of the video.

 

[Nihilianth]

You seem to have missed a fairly critical word when you quoted me. No it did not make me physically sick, it made me feel physically sick.

Heh, ok. But the point is still the same.

 

[Nihilianth]

Are there any?

And what risks do those carry for the one defending himself?

If whatever the defender does first isn't working he risks another counter attack. Fighting back doesn't mean that you'd want the attacker to eventually stop, the aim is to get him to stop before he has a chance to continue his attack.

And that is a very basic rule of thumb in karate. Take out your opponent as quickly, swiftly, and efficiently as possible. I assume it is the same rule of thumb for all martial arts.

 

[Nihilianth]

True. This is a video of how you ideally handle a bully.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6Ig_0LR7m4

Haha, thanks for that link!

 

[slingblade]

No, what you were told is that all the bully theories being bandied about don't work, have never worked, and probably never will work. That in the real world of bullying it comes down to the bully and the target.

What you mistook for bullying behaviour was insistence in the face of name calling and toxic labelling. In other words, we wouldn't change our interpretation of the evidence when we were personally attacked.

I've never mistaken bullying behavior. I know what I was told. It doesn't match this fantasy you've cooked up.

I think you'll find that the ones arguing for confrontation in the other threads are the ones insisting the victim did good in this one. Also, victims don't have to destroy the bully like this, that's just a bonus. All they have to do is show they were not an easy target, that everytime the bully confronts them he will be in for a battle. Bullies tend to pick easy targets so make yourself a tough one.

Been there, lived it, and know for a certain fact you don't have all the answers for every person in every situation. You sure make it sound easy, though. It isn't.

I think you should adhere to your own advice. As you have seen once again, engaging a bully works very well as a deterent. You just need to type "Bully" into Youtube or Google videos to come up with other examples of this. Cellphone video cameras are great.

I think I don't care what you think. When I do care, I'll ask. Don't wait up.

It's the choice everyone has. You decide if you are a perpetual victim or a one time target. Life's a fight from birth to death, embrace it.

Thanks, Captain Obvious. I didn't ask for your "wisdom." Keep it.

So, how'd I do? Are you thrashed yet? Yeah, didn't think so. Carry on.

 

[Nihilianth]

It depends on the interpretation of zero tolerance, almost all schools have it. But in my district initiation of the fight always gets a severe punishment, if you throw punches in response to being punched, you will be suspended for the rest of the day.

If the punches at you stop and you continue, then you will get a longer suspension.

And in K-6 you in fact only get suspended if you fight more than once as the initiator.

Zero tolerance varies, weapons are the big no-no as are street drugs.

A suspension for the rest of the day, I think I can see. It could be used as a "cooling off" period for the victim, rather than as a punishment specifically.

I will note that some schools in my state require a victim to take three punches or hits before they are allowed to retaliate. HUH!?

Sorry, but like someone said, if I trained my kid to take three punches to the face before he is allowed to retiate as per school rules, I would hold the school, not just the bully, liable for any broken bones, including the nose. Then I would sue the school for negligence in allowing this to happen, and teaching the kids that they do not have the basic human right of self-defense.

But yeah, I can see your point in a tiered system of punishment in different types of situations. That actually makes a lot more sense, rather than just a simple "zero tolerance." I have no idea what the specific rules of my school are. I guess I could ask the principal if they know where I can find the exact code of conduct and punishment, as written by the governing council for the school.

 

[Dancing David]

Because I had no issue with those posts (Checkmite for example has said much the same as me - he just expressed it better).



Agreed.

I think my wife might also require a written essay.

 

[qayak]

So, how'd I do?

Not bad at all.

The thing I find really interesting is that bullying is a part of human evolution, all societies, all cultures and yet we expect children to be able to find solutions on their own and punish them when they can't... or we come up with poorly thought out policies, and then pretend it isn't happeing anymore.

Well, it isn't happening anymore but it isn't happening any less, either.

 

[Dancing David]

A suspension for the rest of the day, I think I can see. It could be used as a "cooling off" period for the victim, rather than as a punishment specifically.

I will note that some schools in my state require a victim to take three punches or hits before they are allowed to retaliate. HUH!?

Sorry, but like someone said, if I trained my kid to take three punches to the face before he is allowed to retiate as per school rules, I would hold the school, not just the bully, liable for any broken bones, including the nose. Then I would sue the school for negligence in allowing this to happen, and teaching the kids that they do not have the basic human right of self-defense.

But yeah, I can see your point in a tiered system of punishment in different types of situations. That actually makes a lot more sense, rather than just a simple "zero tolerance." I have no idea what the specific rules of my school are. I guess I could ask the principal if they know where I can find the exact code of conduct and punishment, as written by the governing council for the school.

Well, one of teh issue is that principals have a lot of say about what happnes, both of teh schools I work in are in low SES neighborhoods, so there is lots of agression and playfighting. The tiers are not formal, justa recognition of teh development of the students and the neighborhood they come from. But then we as staff all call out bully behavior.

We also place responsibility on teh students they are asked to:
-ignore
-move away
-talk firmly and friendly
-ask for adult help

It actually defuses a lot of the back and forth and escalation.

Now the other issue is staff input, when I worked in a middle school, I had a student impulsively grab my arms and dig his thumb into the flesh very hard and deep. (I had a huge bruise two days later.) It was stupid and impulsive, it was not thought out or malicious. I said so, and the assistant principal and the dean agreed with me. So he got some in school suspension.

Other staff in similar situations, escalated the violence and then insisted on out of school suspension or expulsion. Which then proceded.

 

[sadhatter]

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.



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.

Your missing the point entirely. I have to ask you an honest question.

Have you even been in a fight?

You do not choose your "moves" like you are in an rpg, it is a lot like sex, if your not versed in it, your just going to do what comes naturally. Even professional fighters have trouble sticking to a strategy in a fight, let alone a kid. Claiming that one has the ability to choose their method of defense, especially at that age, simply shows ignorance of fight mechanics.

 

[Nihilianth]

Well, one of teh issue is that principals have a lot of say about what happnes, both of teh schools I work in are in low SES neighborhoods, so there is lots of agression and playfighting. The tiers are not formal, justa recognition of teh development of the students and the neighborhood they come from. But then we as staff all call out bully behavior.

We also place responsibility on teh students they are asked to:
-ignore
-move away
-talk firmly and friendly
-ask for adult help

It actually defuses a lot of the back and forth and escalation.

Now the other issue is staff input, when I worked in a middle school, I had a student impulsively grab my arms and dig his thumb into the flesh very hard and deep. (I had a huge bruise two days later.) It was stupid and impulsive, it was not thought out or malicious. I said so, and the assistant principal and the dean agreed with me. So he got some in school suspension.

Other staff in similar situations, escalated the violence and then insisted on out of school suspension or expulsion. Which then proceded.

Just wondering. Why did the kid "impulsively dig into your arm?"

There may not be a formal tiered structure of punishment depending on situations. But there really probably should be. It is completely ineffective to just hand out suspensions like they are candy on Halloween, no matter the situation and who is "more" at fault. Suspensions begin to lose their "punishment" value, especially in light of the fact that victims end up punished exactly the same as the bully. And the kids know this all too well.

 

[Dancing David]

Just wondering. Why did the kid "impulsively dig into your arm?"

Good question, stupid lack of impulse control, he viewed me as a peer and was being macho.

There may not be a formal tiered structure of punishment depending on situations. But there really probably should be. It is completely ineffective to just hand out suspensions like they are candy on Halloween, no matter the situation and who is "more" at fault. Suspensions begin to lose their "punishment" value, especially in light of the fact that victims end up punished exactly the same as the bully. And the kids know this all too well.

Suspensions work solely because it gets the parents attention. Again victims do not get equal punishment in my district.

 

[Nihilianth]

Good question, stupid lack of impulse control, he viewed me as a peer and was being macho.

Well, I think he deserved to be punished the way he did then. Student, teacher....it doesn't matter. There is no excuse for that kind of behavior. (Unless, of course, the kid has some sort of mental disability or something. But even then, there is no reason not to punish the child in some way.)

Suspensions work solely because it gets the parents attention. Again victims do not get equal punishment in my district.

Then it's going about it the wrong way. A call home should be more than enough to get the parents' attention. Whatever punishment the school imposes on the child, must be effective towards that child. It doesn't do the child any good if a punishment directed towards him/her for the sole purpose of getting the parents' attention.

The school must have an effective means of doling out punishment to let the child know that certain actions are not ok. Not to let the parents know this.

 

[Babbylonian]

Let's not forget that, depending on a child's age and home situation, a suspension could mean that a parent loses a day (or more) of work and the money/job performance that goes along with that. It's a shame that zero tolerance policies can't take that into account.

 

[Tony]

Good for the big kid! Screw the school. I say standing up for yourself is worth a suspension.

 

[thaiboxerken]

And that is a very basic rule of thumb in karate. Take out your opponent as quickly, swiftly, and efficiently as possible. I assume it is the same rule of thumb for all martial arts.

Take out? What does this mean? I suspect your assumption is wrong.