Kid gets suspended after standing up to bully

[IDB87]

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

Nor did he know fighting back wouldn't guarantee a beat-down from the bullies friends. It's silly to look at this in hindsight.

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?

What made it impossible to escape?

What silliness?

Discussing any possible outcome besides what actually happened.

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.

At what point does a person become aware of their size in comparison to other people?

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

This is entirely your opinion. Besides, it's silly to say there was no other course of action, because we don't know any other variables besides what is presented in the video. There could very well have been a teacher around the corner, and had the kid fled, the bully may not have actually gone through with his provocations.

 

[quixotecoyote]

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.

I see what you tried to do there.

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.

Nothing unless the kid's parent's push it.

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

Whose talking accidents? I'm talking about self-defense against an attack. The consequences of that are not an accident, just unpredictable. You attack me, I try to hurt you bad enough that you stop. If you sustain serious damage, that's not an accident, that's just an unpredictable consequence. I'd agree 'tragic' but only in the broader scope of someone raised such that he became a bully and wasted his life when someone stopped him.

(and for me, personally, would be hard to morally justify, not legally).

Ahh, that's why you tried to sidle in the manslaughter reference above. Obviously.

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

And until you define a morally justifiable method of self defense that doesn't inevitably reduce to tickle-fighting, you will continue to be silly.

Don't be silly.

After you, my dear Alphonse.

 

[slingblade]

No. Rasmus said it becomes excessive:

He also said,



Understandable and excusable.

Wait. Did you watch the video?

Rasmus is saying that if the kid had kicked the puncher after body-slamming him, that would have been excessive. But this did not actually happen. And Rasmus was not saying it did happen. He was only citing that as an example of excess, not as what occurred.

If I'm reading you wrong, I apologize. But you seem to think the bigger kid slams the smaller one, the bully, and then kicks him. He doesn't. He watches the kid get up, haltingly, and then he turns and leaves.

Have I just misunderstood you?

 

[king catfish]

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

Agreed in full.

 

[IDB87]

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.

A lot of posters have been saying he shouldn't have defended himself (paraphrasing my argument). I've never said this, only that it's my opinion that he went a little far and could have really hurt the kid when it wasn't a serious (as in dangerous) fight.

Do you even read my posts before responding?

Posted after I replied (or was in the process of).

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

It was about what's acceptable in terms of self defense.

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

You posted your anecdote. I said it wasn't analogous.

It isn't.

You were in a fight (seemingly) with two kids. You punched one in the belly and accidentally hurt him running away. It seems you were fine with him getting put in the hospital, since he basically brought it on itself. That's fine, since it was an accident. Trying to draw parallels between you stepping on him on accident and the victim in this story body-slamming the (much smaller) bully on the concrete and potentially seriously hurting him is certainly confusing, but only because it's not analogous.

 

[IDB87]

Wait. Did you watch the video?

A few times.

Rasmus is saying that if the kid had kicked the puncher after body-slamming him, that would have been excessive.

And I took issue with him saying it'd be understandable and excusable. It's a very fine line between understandable and excusable and justified.

If I'm reading you wrong, I apologize. But you seem to think the bigger kid slams the smaller one, the bully, and then kicks him. He doesn't. He watches the kid get up, haltingly, and then he turns and leaves.

Have I just misunderstood you?

Kind of, but it's no big deal. Kind of a silly thread, really, since everyone has their opinions about what is and isn't appropriate when it comes to kids fighting.

 

[GeeMack]

Why is the victim being blamed here?

It seems the only one really blaming the victim is a self admitted bully...

Not really. I've done my fair share of bullying, [...]

 

[tyr_13]

Nor did he know fighting back wouldn't guarantee a beat-down from the bullies friends. It's silly to look at this in hindsight.

Wait, what? Really? You don't see how your argument in this sentence completely negates everything else you have been arguing. It's silly to look at this in hindsight? What the hell are you doing then?

What made it impossible to escape?

Being confronted by a bunch of people who would try to prevent said escape especially when you're not exactly a 'runner' would certainly decrease the possibility of getting away safely and would guarantee more attacks. Besides, who said 'impossible'? Even being literally surrounded doesn't make escape escape impossible. It does make it an unreasonable option.

Discussing any possible outcome besides what actually happened.

Again, then what the hell are you doing? What actually happened was the attack was stopped and the victim got away fairly uninjured.

At what point does a person become aware of their size in comparison to other people?

It does not matter in this case. In no way does it make what he victim did unreasonable or what the attacker did more reasonable. If you want to make an argument as to why being the physically larger person means taking punches to the face, make it. Don't sift that burden onto me.

And how does that make the force used unreasonable? If the victim was the same size as the attacker and he threw the attacker down, would gravity had held back and made injury less likely?

It's not any better attacking someone larger than it is someone your same size. Being larger does not make any force used automatically worse. Being capable of applying more force makes one responsible for that force, but this is regardless if that force comes from larger muscles, or from having a weapon. There is no reason to go easier on a smaller target because fights are unpredictable enough that even a MUCH smaller attacker and do real damage at any point.

This is entirely your opinion. Besides, it's silly to say there was no other course of action, because we don't know any other variables besides what is presented in the video. There could very well have been a teacher around the corner, and had the kid fled, the bully may not have actually gone through with his provocations.

This again torpedoes your own argument. The victim had no reason to assume any of this other information of what 'might' have been and was completely right with going with what he knew had a chance of working. And it did work.

 

[IDB87]

It seems the only one really blaming the victim is a self admitted bully...

What am I blaming the victim for?

How am I blaming him for something?

Is it impossible for people to overreact when threatened?

I don't like the idea of kids getting hurt, especially when they're very young, impressionable, and prone to make stupid decisions like bullying.

And yes, I was kind of a jerk when I was younger. What's your point? Read the rest of that post you snipped that line from - you may see the relevance.

 

[quixotecoyote]

A

It isn't.

You were in a fight (seemingly) with two kids. You punched one in the belly and accidentally hurt him running away. It seems you were fine with him getting put in the hospital, since he basically brought it on itself. That's fine, since it was an accident. Trying to draw parallels between you stepping on him on accident and the victim in this story body-slamming the (much smaller) bully on the concrete and potentially seriously hurting him is certainly confusing, but only because it's not analogous.

Apparently my fault for communicating badly, I didn't hurt him running away, I hurt him by punching him and then ran way after he fell down.

 

[Sledge]

IDB87, what do you think the victim should have done?

 

[shandyjan]

The little pratt didnt get slammed onto his head. A broken arm would have been deserved. Ive seen a 'big lad' reduced to almost killing himself through constant bullying, he was big in body but very soft natured!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Link:

everyjoe dot com/play/video-casey-heynes-bodyslams-bully/

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6e9_1300102958

Personally, I think the (bullied) kid was in his right to do what he did and suspending him is completely ridiculous. What's your opinion?

(You have to fix the link manually, as I have too few posts uder my belt)

ETA new link.

I bet that kid won't bother Casey any more. Problem solved.

 

[IDB87]

Wait, what? Really? You don't see how your argument in this sentence completely negates everything else you have been arguing. It's silly to look at this in hindsight? What the hell are you doing then?

You were saying anything could have happened because you know how it turns out. Because it didn't happen any other way, you can safely speculate to support your position that fighting is OK.

Being confronted by a bunch of people who would try to prevent said escape especially when you're not exactly a 'runner' would certainly decrease the possibility of getting away safely and would guarantee more attacks. Besides, who said 'impossible'? Even being literally surrounded doesn't make escape escape impossible. It does make it an unreasonable option.

How did you determine he wasn't a runner? Husky kids can't run/bowl through people to get away? Aren't they called line-backers?

Again, then what the hell are you doing? What actually happened was the attack was stopped and the victim got away fairly uninjured.

Forgive me if I don't go back to read all of my posts to see what you're talking about, but I don't recall speculating about any other possible outcome.

It does not matter in this case.

It does, though. For one thing, a kid his size can probably stand up to his fair share of punches from someone his own size, not to mention a kid HALF his size. This makes any outcome dependent on the physical harm received (arguing of course self defense, and what is and is not excessive).

In no way does it make what he victim did unreasonable or what the attacker did more reasonable.

It would if the kid had used his full force in response to a simple punch to the side of the head.

If you want to make an argument as to why being the physically larger person means taking punches to the face, make it. Don't sift that burden onto me.

It didn't have so much to do with the size of the victim as it did with the size of the bully. Being that size helped, I'm sure. Bigger bones and all

And how does that make the force used unreasonable?

It doesn't. We just differ on what we consider to be excessive.

If the victim was the same size as the attacker and he threw the attacker down, would gravity had held back and made injury less likely?

Not at all, but more weight being thrown around equates to more of an actual fight. If the victim was actually being beaten down pretty badly, sure, whatever happens happens in a fight.

Being larger does not make any force used automatically worse.

I didn't say it did. I don't think the potential risk involved in body slamming a smaller kid onto concrete is proportional to getting smacked in the side of the face.

Being capable of applying more force makes one responsible for that force

Glad we agree.

There is no reason to go easier on a smaller target because fights are unpredictable enough that even a MUCH smaller attacker and do real damage at any point.

So where does responsibility for your weight/power factor into the equation?

And it did work.

TBD.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Not really. I've done my fair share of bullying, and vice versa - none of what I did or had done to me would warrant a body slam that could potentially cripple me/them.

I guess asking you where the line for 'retaliation' is drawn would be a relevant question?

He was being physically attacked. Given his size, it is not likely that he could have run away. He neutralized his attacker, which he had every right to do. Especially when he was outnumbered.

 

[IDB87]

IDB87, what do you think the victim should have done?

I have no problem with fistfights. I've seen plenty and been in a few (DESPITE my upbringing). Yes, there is a possibility that severe injury can occur, but if it that were common, I think there would be a high death injury from fistfights.

Bare knuckles = go for it.

Rolls of quarters tucked in your palms = excessive.

There are distinctions when it comes to fighting what some would consider a 'fair' fight.

 

[IDB87]

He was being physically attacked. Given his size, it is not likely that he could have run away. He neutralized his attacker, which he had every right to do. Especially when he was outnumbered.

Has no one read this thread?

I've never said he doesn't have a right to put the bully in his place.

And what makes you say outnumbered?

We have the cameraman, and one kid that runs over after the fight stops - whose to say he was part of that crew? We can't.

 

[GeeMack]

And yes, I was kind of a jerk when I was younger.

Yes, you mentioned that already.

If you had been dropped on your head a few times by big guys who had taken enough of your bullying, would you have maybe straightened up your act sooner?

 

[Sledge]

I have no problem with fistfights. I've seen plenty and been in a few (DESPITE my upbringing). Yes, there is a possibility that severe injury can occur <SNIP>

Riveting stuff, I'm sure. Now can you answer my question: what do you think the victim should have done?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Has no one read this thread?

I've never said he doesn't have a right to put the bully in his place.

And what makes you say outnumbered?

We have the cameraman, and one kid that runs over after the fight stops - whose to say he was part of that crew? We can't.

So at best it was 2 against 1. At worst, 3 against 1.