Kid gets suspended after standing up to bully

[Cainkane1]

I'd love to say that what the bullied kid did was wrong--but I'd be lying through my teeth.

Insofar as teaching the bullied kid that there are more appropriate ways to defend himself, sorry, but walking away and/or trying to reason with the bully are not rational ways of dealing with an irrational person.

Michael

You're right. Trying to reason with someone doing something like this only makes the bully madder.

 

[qayak]

It's not a matter of the bully understanding what's dangerous or not, it's about the victim understanding that doing something like he did could seriously hurt his attacker. Again, I'm not say what he did was wrong PER SE, only that it was excessive.

I've done worse. A lot worse.

There is a possibility that any action taken could have resulted in further attacks. You seem to be looking at this situation with some seriously biased hind-sight.

No, you are continuing to push a system of bully prevention that has never worked and continues to fail even though "authorities" say it works against all evidence.

 

[One Tenth]

So then you agree that what the victim did was excessive?

No. Do you agree that in the anecdote I related, the proximate cause of the person's near death was the punch that knocked him unconscious, immediately after which his head struck the ground?

 

[quixotecoyote]

So then you agree that what the victim did was excessive?

Of course not. Knocking someone unconscious is a reasonably foreseeable outcome of hitting someone in the head. That does not mean it is never appropriate to punch someone in the head. If someone is punching you in the head, it is more than okay to punch them in the head.

You can't cut out context, cut out the justification, and then try to use the emaciated remainder as an analogy to condemn the act of self-defense.

 

[pipelineaudio]

For anyone who believes punches in the face aren't "deadly force", put your life where your mouth is and I know where we can make PILES of money testing that theory

 

[IDB87]

Why should anyone give a ***** about whether the bully gets hurt?

Edited by Locknar: 

Moderated content edited.

I don't care if he gets a black eye or bloodied nose. I care when he could potentially be crippled for life or potentially killed for being a stupid bully.

If he didn't want to get hurt, he shouldn't have been punching other kids in the face.

Agreeable, but we aren't talking about simply getting hurt - we're talking about a life changing injury and possibly death.

And you are quite wrong. You do not fend of attacks by being as gentle and careful as you can. And the law doesn't require you to do that, either.

No one is saying the victim should have tickled him away. Stop putting words in my mouth.

No, I am just granting the victim the right to defend himself as he sees fit. And if whatever strategy he had chosen would have not worked out or even backfired it would still have been the bully's fault.

Where does it, in your opinion, become excessive?

 

[quixotecoyote]

Any effective act of self-defense by an untrained person will carry a significant risk of harm to the attacker. Period.

I was getting bullied by two kids when I was in second grade that had me in a corner. I got a punch to one in the belly and ran over him away. I found out later that he ended up in the hospital. I had a parent as a teacher in that school that managed to keep me out of trouble, but if you're being attacked, and you fight back enough to stop the attacker, there's a chance the bully is going to get hurt. That isn't on the victim, it's on the attacker.

 

[IDB87]

I've done worse. A lot worse.

Cool. Did you do 'a lot worse' to kids who posed no real threat to you?

No, you are continuing to push a system of bully prevention that has never worked and continues to fail even though "authorities" say it works against all evidence.

I can't really push an opinion as some sort of bully prevention - I've said this whole thread that the situation could have had the same outcome with a good helping of fisticuffs.

 

[Rasmus]

Lesson learned. And if he had cracked his skull open and died from his injuries?

Tough ****. Maybe he shouldn't have been a bully and maybe he shouldn't have been punching other kids in the face.

Not at all. I've said this situation could have had the same outcome (bully learns his lesson) from a punch up or a few heavy-handed slaps administered by the larger kid - the situation was not so grave that it required a body slam that could potentially kill or cripple the bully.

The situation JUSTIFIED use of force, and that can always result in major injuries or death.

And if the kid had damaged his spine, a few boot kicks to finish it off wouldn't be excessive. Alright then.

No, additional kicks after the bully was on the ground would have been excessive. A broken spine during the fall would have been just tough luck for the little creep.

Since we're no longer tip-toeing around the subject of kids dying as a result of bullying, would you support straight-out murder in retaliation?

This was self-defense. Murder, by definition, would not be.

Apparently manslaughter is OK, but whatever it takes to make the bullying stop, right?

I see no manslaughter here, I see entirely justified self-defense. I see no intention of the victim to kill the bully. And if the bully had died as a consequence of the self-defense: Tough ****.

And, no, not necessarily "whatever" makes the bullying stop, but yes, a great many violent responses would have been perfectly justified here. I used to run around with a pen knife at school. In a situation like this, stabbing the bully would have been justified, too. Smashing the bully's face in with whatever was in the victims bag would have been justified as well. (A laptop say.)

Are you arguing with someone else that has made that claim? I don't seem to recall saying such a thing.

That is what it boils down to. There is no need for the victim to chose a method of self-defense that causes as little harm as necessary/possible to stop the attack.

The force used was in no way excessive just because it was dangerous and just because less force could maybe have been enough. A victim doesn't have to risk further attacks for a "maybe".

 

[applecorped]

Why is the victim being blamed here?

 

[IDB87]

Any effective act of self-defense by an untrained person will carry a significant risk of harm to the attacker. Period.

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.

I was getting bullied by two kids when I was in second grade that had me in a corner. I got a punch to one in the belly and ran over him away. I found out later that he ending up in the hospital. I had a parent as a teacher in that school that managed to keep me out of trouble, but if you're being attacked, and you fight back enough to stop the attacker, there's a chance the bully is going to get hurt. That isn't on the victim, it's on the attacker.

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.

 

[quixotecoyote]

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.

I'm sure this wasn't as stupid in your head as it came out here. The victim does not have the luxury of choosing to have adults around. Nor does the phrase "unrestrained attacks to defend themselves" have any meaning outside the Ministry of Truth.

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.

Neither did this kid. He was attacked, he threw the attacker down. No stomping, no followup. He faced a threat, he dealt with the threat.

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.

Don't backslide, you had stopped arguing that being punched in the face wasn't a big deal cause the puncher was smaller.

 

[JWideman]

@IDB87:
Every bully knows that mercy is weakness. You don't punch a bully or give him "heavy-handed slaps". You beat the crap out of him. If you don't, he knows you're weak, and he'll never leave you alone.
I really quite puzzled why you have taken the stance you have. You say you were raised to avoid physical confrontation, so you must have been beaten up every single day of school.

 

[quixotecoyote]

@IDB87:
Every bully knows that mercy is weakness. You don't punch a bully or give him "heavy-handed slaps". You beat the crap out of him. If you don't, he knows you're weak, and he'll never leave you alone.

Disagree. You win the fight if he starts it, but you don't give the followup beating that "beat the crap out of him" implies. That leaves the realm of self defense.

I really quite puzzled why you have taken the stance you have. You say you were raised to avoid physical confrontation, so you must have been beaten up every single day of school.

He's also said he was a bully and had been bullied and that he's okay with the bully getting his fair share of licks, so he's a bit all over the board on that one.

 

[Rasmus]

I don't care if he gets a black eye or bloodied nose. I care when he could potentially be crippled for life or potentially killed for being a stupid bully.

Oh, I care.

But that risk is there no matter what, and it is the bully's fault and responsibility for starting a fight.

Agreeable, but we aren't talking about simply getting hurt - we're talking about a life changing injury and possibly death.

Tough ****.

No one is saying the victim should have tickled him away. Stop putting words in my mouth.

You insist on viewing the reaction as "excessive" - I see a single counter attack that is stopped as soon as it is successful.

Where does it, in your opinion, become excessive?

Once the bully is on the ground, no longer attempting to fight back or get up and the victim then continuing to attack the bully. (In the video, the bully did get up even though he was staggering and it seems the other kid may have been wanting to attack. A kick in the head of the bully to keep him down while then taking on the other kid would have been utterly justified.)

A knife attack would have been justified. If, after drawing the knife the bullies had retreated a further pursuit might be excessive - but that would depend on how much reason the victim had to believe the bullying would continue later.

Pulling a gun and shooting at the bully would have been justified! (I don't think having a gun in the first place would have been legal but that is a different issue.) Shooting the bully after the bully had surrendered and was being controlled with the gun would most likely have been excessive - but then, there were two bullies. So I can imagine scenarios where shoting one to keep on top of things with the other one would still not have been excessive.

It is really, really simple: If you punch other people in the head those other people have permission to stop you in a way that is both effective, reliable and carries as little risk for the victim as possible. That means, it is okay to shoot the bully just to be on the safe side in lieu of hoping that tackling him and slamming him down might work.

A punch in the face is potentially deadly. If someone is attacked in a potentially deadly manner, then using potentially deadly force in self-defense is far from being excessive.

 

[IDB87]

The situation JUSTIFIED use of force, and that can always result in major injuries or death.

There is use of force, and then there is excessive use of force. You think excessive use of force would be kicking the kid while he was down. I think it's excessive for such a big kid to throw a little kid onto the pavement so hard for a punch to the face.

This was self-defense. Murder, by definition, would not be.

What if the victim had brought a knife, or even a handgun to school and killed the bully straight-out after being punched once? That would be self defense, right? It's also incredibly excessive.

I see no manslaughter here, I see entirely justified self-defense. I see no intention of the victim to kill the bully. And if the bully had died as a consequence of the self-defense.

Manslaughter is a legal term for the killing of a human being, in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder.

And, no, not necessarily "whatever" makes the bullying stop, but yes, a great many violent responses would have been perfectly justified here.

Well that's what you're advocating. I'm glad to see you're at least stepping back from that, and at least attempting to define 'excessive' force.

I used to run around with a pen knife at school. In a situation like this, stabbing the bully would have been justified, too. Smashing the bully's face in with whatever was in the victims bag would have been justified as well. (A laptop say.)

A tendency toward violence aside, you are saying it is OK to stab someone with a pen-knife if they are half your size and punch you once. If you were jumped by a pack of them and beaten savagely, you may have a point.

That is what it boils down to. There is no need for the victim to chose a method of self-defense that causes as little harm as necessary/possible to stop the attack.

No one has said that.

The force used was in no way excessive just because it was dangerous and just because less force could maybe have been enough. A victim doesn't have to risk further attacks for a "maybe".

It wasn't your definition of excessive because he wasn't seriously hurt. But then, if he had been seriously hurt (up to dying) you'd be fine with it, because the bigger kid got punched in the side of the head.

 

[quixotecoyote]

No one has said that.

You keep saying that by continually using "excessive" in the way you are doing. Once someone starts an attack, punching someone else about the head and body, the victim has a right to defend themselves with force that may extend to lethality without being excessive:

"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable."Runyan v. State (57 Ind. 80)

This kid, to our knowledge, was not doing anything to place himself at fault. To our knowledge he was in a place where he had a right to be. He was violently assaulted. He repelled his attacker by force. If the assailant was killed, it would have been legally defensible. He has the legally recognized right* to defend himself in the manner he did. He does not have a responsibility to the attacker to respond in a way to minimize the risk of harm to the attacker.

The only confounding factor is that we're dealing with kids in a school system, and where the attacker would have been arrested and the victim left alone as an adult, in the ********** up school system they both were punished.

eta:* at least in the US, in other countries, YMMV

 

[Sledge]

We are not talking about a learned student of marshal arts here. We're talking about whether a normal person understands that throwing someone violently onto their back on concrete is potentially dangerous or not.

You continue to miss my point, to a level that makes me wonder why. A trained person can remain calm and choose an appropriate level of force. An untrained person will become angry and react with what they've got. This kid wasn't thinking "How can I do the most damage to this kid." Having been in that kid's position, I can tell you he wasn't thinking anything. The red mist descended and he defended himself with what he had.

And yet he remained calm after the first one and only reacted after the 5th. That shows some restraint to me.

Yes, and that restraint was admirable. He gave his attacker a chance to leave. His attacker refused repeated chances to leave. Exactly how many times does someone have to be punched before they have the right to defend themselves?

Who said anything about training?

Me. If you're having trouble following the discussion, I suggest you stop trying to take part.

I was raised that way, but I don't necessarily follow it to a T (shall we reference your upbringing now?)

Go ahead, if you think it's relevant.

 

[IDB87]

I'm sure this wasn't as stupid in your head as it came out here.

It never is

But, I never said he had the luxury, more that it worried me that there were no adults around at the time of the incident or anywhere in sight.

Unrestrained:

1. Not controlled or held in check; immoderate:
2. Free of constraint; spontaneous and natural

He got hit in the side of the head - he didn't get jumped or beaten down. From growing up seeing kids actually get beaten pretty badly or jumped by a group of 'bullies', I don't really find this kind of reaction to be warranted.

Neither did this kid. He was attacked, he threw the attacker down. No stomping, no followup. He faced a threat, he dealt with the threat.

Why would stomping or followup matter? That wouldn't be excessive to some here, but I'm glad to see you tend to agree that it would. Throwing a kid onto his back on concrete could do what stomping someones head in would do, or kicking them in the spine could do.

Don't backslide, you had stopped arguing that being punched in the face wasn't a big deal cause the puncher was smaller.

Whose backsliding? If you stomped on some kids chest after he punched you in the side of face (and, oh yeah, he's half your size), it'd be analogous.

 

[IDB87]

"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable."Runyan v. State (57 Ind. 80)

Right. We're talking about reasonable exercise of his right of self defense. Potentially killing the kid for a punch to the side of the head is hard to justify, not that some people won't try!

To our knowledge he was in a place where he had a right to be. He was violently assaulted. He repelled his attacker by force. If the assailant was killed, it would have been legally defensible if the response was reasonable

Bolded added.