Kid gets suspended after standing up to bully

[thaiboxerken]

Casey defended himself, as best he'd knew how. After his retaliation he sought escape. Toss is nothing more than self defense. The school is wrong to suspend him.

 

[IDB87]

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?

I grew up.

So, how, and for what, did I blame the victim?

 

[Sledge]

Casey defended himself, as best he'd knew how. After his retaliation he sought escape. Toss is nothing more than self defense. The school is wrong to suspend him.

Could the parents sue the school over the matter? If self defense isn't permitted, surely the school takes on the responsibility to ensure it isn't needed and they failed in this duty, trauma of being suspended, etc. Could make for a nice little earner.

 

[IDB87]

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

Read the first line of the post you quoted.

 

[IDB87]

Could the parents sue the school over the matter? If self defense isn't permitted

Apparently it's a violation of his rights to suspend him for exercising said rights. Pointless argument aside, it will be interesting to see what comes of this.

 

[GeeMack]

I grew up.

I'm not sure why this is uncomfortable to answer, but then I wasn't ever a bully. Care to try again?...

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]

Read the first line of the post you quoted.

Again: what do you suggest the victim of this attack should have done?

 

[IDB87]

I'm not sure why this is uncomfortable to answer, but then I wasn't ever a bully. Care to try again?...

Don't know - different person, different crowd. I'd say getting the snot kicked out of me would have had an impact, sure.

But you seem to be struggling to keep up. I've never said the victim didn't have a right to defend himself.

Now, how, and for what, have I blamed the victim? Either answer it, retract it, or onto ignore you go since you're making this already pointless thread carry on.

 

[IDB87]

Again: what do you suggest the victim of this attack should have done?

Broken the bullies nose after the first punch.

In before "oh god that could kill him/ harm him too you know!"

Goodness, I can already see it coming.

 

[thaiboxerken]

He retaliated, then he sought to escapee the situation. This is self defense. Had he mounted the billy and pounded him, he would have been wrong.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Broken the bullies nose after the first punch.

In before "oh god that could kill him/ harm him too you know!"

Goodness, I can already see it coming.

So only boxing would have been appropriate?

 

[Sledge]

Broken the bullies nose after the first punch.

In before "oh god that could kill him/ harm him too you know!"

Goodness, I can already see it coming.

Then why say it? Your course of action was just as likely to cause death or permanent damage as what the victim actually did, so why are you saying what he did was wrong?

 

[IDB87]

So only boxing would have been appropriate?

Who said anything about boxing?

I don't know if you've ever been punched in the nose, but if you aren't a seasoned fighter, it tends to take the wind out of your sails.

 

[slingblade]

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.

Okay, no big deal, and totally my misunderstanding. Thanks for clearing it up. Carry on.

 

[Sledge]

Who said anything about boxing?

I don't know if you've ever been punched in the nose, but if you aren't a seasoned fighter, it tends to take the wind out of your sails.

If you need to be a seasoned fighter to know that, how would the victim have known to do that?

 

[tyr_13]

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.

No. Try again.

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?

So now you know the victim better than the victim? He obviously didn't think escape was a good option. I'm beginning to suspect more and more that you don't actually know how physical confrontations work. No, the husky kid is very, very unlikely to be able to just bust through and get away. Knock a couple down yes, just to get pulled down from behind. And if he had done that you'd be saying it was unreasonable because he knocked down people who would no doubt say they were completely innocent.

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.

You don't recall speculating that 'a few slaps' would have been better, or maybe if he had turned a corner there might have been an adult (and that adult would have helped), or that he's a runner/linebacker, or he could have run/walked away? All of your insights rely completely on speculation on what might have worked.

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.

Alright, you obviously don't know how physical confrontations can work. One, no one has to stand to stand up to a 'fair share' of punches from anyone, half size, twice size, or same size. Second, what on earth makes you say that? I've out punch forced guys who can lift twice what I do. I've seen girls a third my size do punches that could crack a skull and did break a brick. There is absolutely no reason to subject one's self to that possibility.

This makes any outcome dependent on the physical harm received (arguing of course self defense, and what is and is not excessive).

It doesn't depend on all possible outcomes, or even the actual outcome, but what a reasonable expected outcome would be. If a man grabs my shirt and I wrist lock him, which causes him to have a heart attack, I'd be unlikely to go to jail.

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

He didn't, and again, you're wrong. Even a single punch to the side of the head indicates that more attacks are coming and it's reasonable to prevent the perceived imminent threat. You want him to stand there and go, 'alright, he hit me once, but one event isn't a pattern, so let's see if he's going to hit me again, oh he's hitting me again, but perhaps he'll stop now.'

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

So being small makes it alright to attack people? No.

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

I'm thinking we differ on how you view large people and responsibility.

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.

So he wasn't being attacked enough? This is ridiculous. By the time one is getting beaten down pretty badly, it's in all likelihood WAAY too late.

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.

There is no reason to expect response to be proportional. Why would it be?

Glad we agree.

I don't think we do because...

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

In this case it doesn't.

TBD.

So you don't know if the victim is still being attacked or if he got away? Really?

No one can say for sure if this stopped the bullying but the schools abysmal stupidity destroyed any chance to know if it would because it's a much stronger confounding factor.


There are many battered husbands out there who would love to have your thoughts on what is right for 'proportional' and what is 'excessive' for example. Some of us have worked with people much smaller in the dojo enough to know that while size is the largest determining factor in how a straight up fight will turn out, we also know to respect any use of force and the problems social dynamics can bring.

 

[IDB87]

Then why say it? Your course of action was just as likely to cause death or permanent damage as what the victim actually did, so why are you saying what he did was wrong?

I should have applied for that Million!

What a glorious 'got-cha' moment for you, eh Sledge? Given the circumstances, I would have avoided the fight PERSONALLY but since you don't seem to be in favor of non-violence, I'd want to give you something tangible, and lo and behold, it's a fault against me.

Silly.

 

[IDB87]

If you need to be a seasoned fighter to know that, how would the victim have known to do that?

What? It doesn't matter what he knows about fighting - I don't think a kid that size can stomach a broken nose.

 

[Drs_Res]

Who said anything about boxing?

I don't know if you've ever been punched in the nose, but if you aren't a seasoned fighter, it tends to take the wind out of your sails.

What if the larger kid could not land a blow to the bully's face?
Maybe the bully is faster, reaction wise. The kid being bullied used what he had.

And by the way, the bully was dropped on his front, not on his back. (Minor correction)

 

[Sledge]

I should have applied for that Million!

What a glorious 'got-cha' moment for you, eh Sledge? Given the circumstances, I would have avoided the fight PERSONALLY but since you don't seem to be in favor of non-violence, I'd want to give you something tangible, and lo and behold, it's a fault against me.

Silly.

Let me use my psychic powers to explain the problem here: you don't have a goddamn clue what you're talking about. You took up a position either as devil's advocate or because you thought it was right, only to find that other people have actually thought about their views before posting them. Now you're desperately scrabbling around trying to score points instead of saying "Hmm, this issue seems to be more complex than I thought. I'd best go away and think about this."

Because I'm feeling nice and the co-codamol is kicking in, I'll let you in on a secret: I'm not psychic. So stop worrying, I'm not really seeing into your mind. What I have is more experience than is probably healthy with online arguments, and I can spot someone who's in over their head when I see one. If you want to continue the discussion rationally, you can answer my questions and stop trying to score points. If you want to continue on your present path, pretty much everyone who responds will make you look very silly.

Well, sillier.