Kid gets suspended after standing up to bully

[quixotecoyote]

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.

It would be nice to have adults around, but it's a rather out of place comment when you're arguing that the victim did wrong.

Unrestrained:

Congratulations. You found a dictionary. Have a cookie. When you finish, wipe the crumbs and connect it to your argument.

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.

Yes. He didn't get jumped by the bullies friends and beaten down. Nor did he allow the bully to continue beating him. The latter we can definitelty attribute to did successful self-defense. Regarding the former, we can only speculate on what would have happen if the attacker were allowed to continue.

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.

Because that wouldn't be using appropriate force to stop a threat. That would move beyond self defense.

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.

No, because it would completely obscure the appropriate similarities. Stomping on the chest would imply I'd already knocked him down and out of the fight. And you keep repeating the other kid was smaller as if it matters, although you've yet to actually argue why.

 

[Modified]

Yes he slammed the bully on his face and knocked him senseless but he then stopped. It seems that one of the bully's friends tried to start something then and the big kid walked off and a (seemingly) older student put an end to any pursuit.

The bully's friend does some kind of fist pump right at the end of the video. Either he's pissed off at the outcome or he's still after the victim and psyching himself up.

 

[IDB87]

You continue to miss my point, to a level that makes me wonder why.

Do you have one? Don't blame the victim bro!

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.

I promise I won't pretend to know what the kid was thinking if you do the same.

Yes, and that restraint was admirable. He gave his attacker a chance to leave. His attacker refused repeated chances to leave.

When was this option to leave given? His attacker decided to continue throwing wimpy punches, not to decide whether or not to leave.

Exactly how many times does someone have to be punched before they have the right to defend themselves?

That's quite the straw man you have here.

 

[quixotecoyote]

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!

A punch to the side of the head is a violent assault. That triggers his right to self defense. You need to do a lot more to argue that throwing someone down is an unreasonable exercise.

 

[quixotecoyote]

When was this option to leave given? His attacker decided to continue throwing wimpy punches, not to decide whether or not to leave.

Right there.

 

[IDB87]

It would be nice to have adults around, but it's a rather out of place comment when you're arguing that the victim did wrong.

Did what,wrong, Quix? That he acted in self defense, or that he took it too far?

Congratulations. You found a dictionary. Have a cookie. When you finish, wipe the crumbs and connect it to your argument.

I was giving the definition for your sake, since it didn't seem to register with you.

Yes. He didn't get jumped by the bullies friends and beaten down.

Meaning he wasn't in any sort of serious danger, which in my opinion does not warrant an attack that could potentially cripple the bully. Nothing wrong with a bloody nose or something, but that's me

Because that wouldn't be using appropriate force to stop a threat. That would move beyond self defense.

I don't like bringing other people into arguments, but Rasmus was saying just that.

No, because it would completely obscure the appropriate similarities.

It was your analogy. What were the similarities between you getting jumped by two kids, and a one on one between a much larger victim and a tiny bully?

 

[IDB87]

A punch to the side of the head is a violent assault.

Perhaps we should prosecute the kid for violent assault then, and give him an appropriate sentence for someone who is acting as an adult.

That triggers his right to self defense. You need to do a lot more to argue that throwing someone down is an unreasonable exercise.

If it was on grass, go for it. Concrete is a tad different.

 

[IDB87]

Right there.

Right there what?

Have you never been in a fight before?

 

[quixotecoyote]

Did wrong what, Quix? That he acted in self defense, or that he took it too far?

It's your argument. You tell me.

I was giving the definition for your sake, since it didn't seem to register with you.

And when you connect it to an argument, it will start to be relevant.

Meaning he wasn't in any sort of serious danger, which in my opinion does not warrant an attack that could potentially cripple the bully. Nothing wrong with a bloody nose or something, but that's me

Punches to the head are a violent assault and trigger his right to self defense, whether or not you think he should have been able to soak it up.

I don't like bringing other people into arguments, but Rasmus was saying just that.

No. Rasmus said it becomes 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.

You just grossly misrepresented his position.

It was your analogy. What were the similarities between you getting jumped by two kids, and a one on one between a much larger victim and a tiny bully?

Maybe if you gave the full quote, you might have seen it?

 

[quixotecoyote]

Right there what?

Have you never been in a fight before?

Yes. He decided to continue attacking instead of stopping before the other kid defended himself.

Have you ever been in an argument before?

 

[IDB87]

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

I would be happy to test this theory, if you would pay for my dental work

 

[quixotecoyote]

Perhaps we should prosecute the kid for violent assault then, and give him an appropriate sentence for someone who is acting as an adult.

First part seems reasonable, although I'm not sure why you don't think a juvenile court would be appropriate.

If it was on grass, go for it. Concrete is a tad different.

And once again, you're arguing that the victim has to make sure he doesn't seriously injure the attacker. According to you, he has to make sure the attacker only gets a bloody nose or a black eye. Legally and morally, he has no such obligation. If he punched the other person back, he could very well fall on the concrete and hit his head.

You're back to demanding victims tickle-fight their defense.

 

[pipelineaudio]

I would be happy to test this theory, if you would pay for my dental work

I can do one better and pay for your plane ticket to Hawaii also. We should find a way to test this properly, like a JREF million dollar challenge, and find a way to protect your killer from any prosecution. I know guys who will take the bet without that, but I'd rather do it on the up and up for science's sake.

Can anyone help set this up?

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

I would be happy to test this theory, if you would pay for my dental work

You don't have to. One of my friends was killed by a single punch to the jaw, at the boxing gym (they were wearing gloves).

 

[IDB87]

It's your argument. You tell me.

You were the one who claimed I thought he did something wrong. So, what were you talking about?

And when you connect it to an argument, it will start to be relevant.

Since it's a matter of opinion on what unrestrained means to you and I in this context, it may very well be irrelevant anyway.

Punches to the head are a violent assault and trigger his right to self defense, whether or not you think he should have been able to soak it up.

Do you think the kid should be prosecuted as an adult who commits violent assault?


No. Rasmus said it becomes excessive:

He also said,

Additional kicking after the bully went down might have been excessive. Still very much understandable and excusable, I think.

Understandable and excusable.

Maybe if you gave the full quote, you might have seen it?

Sure,

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.

You didn't purposefully 'ran over him away', so what's the point of the anecdote? One punch and you fled, and the kid got hurt on accident.

How is that similar?

 

[IDB87]

First part seems reasonable, although I'm not sure why you don't think a juvenile court would be appropriate.

Probably would be more appropriate, but we are talking about an act of violence that would warrant self-defense up to the point of manslaughter.

But it would seem the school is in violation of this kids right of self defense. It will be interesting to see what comes of this from the schools standpoint.

And once again, you're arguing that the victim has to make sure he doesn't seriously injure the attacker.

I never said accidents can't happen and that kids shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves, only that it'd be tragic if something horrible did happen (and for me, personally, would be hard to morally justify, not legally).

According to you, he has to make sure the attacker only gets a bloody nose or a black eye.

I'm saying that it would be proportionate enough to A) Stop the bullying and B) morally justify.

You're back to demanding victims tickle-fight their defense.

Don't be silly.

 

[tyr_13]

I'm sure the pain-train was screaming in.

It could have been. But most importantly, the victim didn't know if it was or not.

I don't recall any of the kids friends 'surrounding' the victim - they were off to the side, where the bully retreated.

Find 'confronted in a situation in which you can't escape'. Which is as good as being surrounded. You think the victim could have outrun his attacker or attackers if it came to that?

But you, nor he (nor I), knows if the bullying will stop. Perhaps the kids are scared of the victim, and now they WILL group up to take him on. See where this silliness leads to? Chances are they'll leave him alone, but there are no guarantees.

What silliness? The attack stopped, that much we know. The others didn't end up joining in, even though it looked like at least one was going to. You're the one arguing from some ideal hypothetical situation where the victim, a child, is supposed to know the exact amount of force to use even though the amount he did use wasn't excessive.

This is your own made up situation. The friends of the bully were not posturing around the victim - they were off to the side video-taping the confrontation. He was not 'surrounded'.

He was confronted in a situation where escape wasn't an apparent option. He might as well have been literally surrounded.

I didn't say he was responsible for the entire situation, only for his actions.

His actions were very restrained and appropriate. It was the bully's actions that put himself at risk.

I see this same line of absurd reasoning with home invasion robberies. 'Just give them what they want, it isn't worth a life'. Well I don't think it's worth a life either, but then it's the attacker making that choice, not the victim. There was no way the victim could have known the minimal action required to stop the situation. He went with something with a good chance of working, and it did.

 

[IDB87]

I can do one better and pay for your plane ticket to Hawaii also. We should find a way to test this properly, like a JREF million dollar challenge, and find a way to protect your killer from any prosecution. I know guys who will take the bet without that, but I'd rather do it on the up and up for science's sake.

Can anyone help set this up?

Apparently you're adding a stipulation that is not relevant to the thread in any way. Where'd you come up with that idea?

 

[quixotecoyote]

You were the one who claimed I thought he did something wrong. So, what were you talking about?

Well if you don't think he did anything wrong, wonderful. We agree. If you do think he did something wrong, you'd rather play dumbass gotcha games than state your position. So my interest in this conversation is waning.

Do you think the kid should be prosecuted as an adult who commits violent assault?

Do you even read my posts before responding?

He also said,

Understandable and excusable.

Which, since we were arguing excessive, is completely irrelevant.

You didn't purposefully 'ran over him away', so what's the point of the anecdote? One punch and you fled, and the kid got hurt on accident.

How is that similar?

Please review the following exchange and try to spot where you go off the rails.

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.

No, because it would completely obscure the appropriate similarities. Stomping on the chest would imply I'd already knocked him down and out of the fight. And you keep repeating the other kid was smaller as if it matters, although you've yet to actually argue why.

[Only quotes first sentence of above] It was your analogy. What were the similarities between you getting jumped by two kids, and a one on one between a much larger victim and a tiny bully?

Maybe if you gave the full quote, you might have seen it?

Sure, [quotes completely different post]

How is that similar

 

[Sledge]

Do you have one? Don't blame the victim bro!

What? I'm praising the victim for successfully defending himself against an unprovoked attack.

I promise I won't pretend to know what the kid was thinking if you do the same.

I don't particularly care what you do, although I would request you try and stick to the point of this thread.

When was this option to leave given? His attacker decided to continue throwing wimpy punches, not to decide whether or not to leave.

Is what you type making any sense to you, because it seems to be gibberish to me. The option to leave was given every time his victim blocked a punch without trying to fight back. The attacker chose not to take this option and got what he richly deserved.

That's quite the straw man you have here.

Explain.