I'd like to know where the Hell you live, the police have visited my house several times before anyone got hurt because my sister was out of control.
OT: The kid's mom is braindead. "Should I call the police...nah, I'll just give him a stun gun, what could possibly go wrong?"
Again, at your house and not at school.
Police CANNOT arrest you for a shoolyard fight unless someone is dead, dying, or has drugs. Weapons also fall under that category. Unless the 6 kids use lead pipes, the police won't care and its under the school's jurisdiction.
Funny you mention that, my school HAS a police officer, as in she's always standing in the middle of the cafeteria at lunch with a pistol and a taser...again where do you live?
I call bullshit.
There's no goddamn way a police officer would bring a gun on a school campus with no good reason, unless your school is a cesspool of violence and drugs. Even a taser is stretching things a bit thin.
TheDrunkNinja: Hmmm... Yeah, I got no problem with this. The article has a lot of draw words that sound harsh to generate more sympathy for the kid, but it never mentioned any act of violence being committed against him. Therefore I will assume no such behavior actually happened. Insults and hotair threats in a school environment are bullshit even when people are "surrounding" you, and the sooner he learns that the easier it will be to ignore them. Responding with a weapon makes you the antagonist, and I guess he wasn't ready to take the responsibility of brandishing a weapon on school grounds. Plain and simple.
There's a victim of bullying here, but there's no victim of an "unjust" expulsion.
Yeah, but what's the end result of the bullies being ignored? My guess is that it would lead to escalation. You're also dismissing his claim that he felt he was about to be jumped without any sort of reason to do so. There's no mention of act of violence, since none occured, but there's no information on whether or not he has been the victim of physical violence.
This leads to either two outcomes - either he has been the victim of physical violence and felt he needed to protect himself, a position agreed upon by his mother -or- both he and his mother are insane and responded to "hotair threats" with a stun gun.
One seems to make more sense then the other. As for the nature of who is the antagonist, using six people to menace a not-very-large (in the picture) gay high school student makes me question your assumption that the gay student was the true antagonist.
I think your position shows a lack of understanding for the current school environment for GLBT students, especially in heavily christian communities. It's not all bad, and there's lots of school boards working to get better just as much as there are boards and districts working efficiently to get worse.
Between the two - I'll take the stun gun. I don't think he should get off free, but in this case - perhaps education for both sides is the proper response. He should be punished, but he should also be an example as to how the school's social education and discipline systems are failing.
Wolverine18: My my, all these people who have no concept of reality and would rather use a weapon than their head.
Using your head is overrated. It's harder to hide the injuries afterwards. Plus, your neck hurts afterwards, as well as restricting the swing area required to make a good hit. Most people tend to protect their heads in these situations as one's fists, feet or carried object typically makes a better blunt weapon. Alternatively, a static stun gun or pepper spray. Those are the most effective and are more likely to doscourage the bully from trying again.
Unless you're referring to Macgyvering a shield out of the air, walls and floor as six brutes bear down on you. In which case, go ahead.
(Generally, people who tell bullied kids to "use your head" are simply too lazy and aloof and don't care enough to come up with an actual solution.)
Fortunately I'm from a country where both stun guns and pepper spray are illegal to use. Somehow kids manage to deal with bullies without that.Plus by finding solutions that don't involve a weapon they don't escalate the matter into a weapons battle that eventually they will lose, they don't break laws, and they actually find ways to stop problems that build their confidence and discourage future bullies by generating respect.
And I did supply a series of answers above to alternatives.
What we seem to have here is a cross dressing boy who wasn't smart enough to talk down agressors, tone down his dress, or simply have friends. He must have demonstrated lack of confidence or they wouldn't have picked on him for any length of time. Through the absense of the father in the story, he was probably without a father and thus didn't know how to handle himself as a man in that situation. So what did he do? Pulled a weapon? A cowardly response that will only make his life worse. He's lucky, for example, that they fled. He pulled a weapon first, at that point they could have taken him out and reasonably claimed self defence.
*clap*
The ignorance in this statement is staggering. YouTube comments section level. I applaud you.
According to the story, he had been harrassed, picked on and attacked. There was a clear history of violence.
"Cross dressing boy" so he deserves to be bullied for being gay? Good to know.
"Tone down his dress" so basically if someone wanted him to give up his freedom or get beaten up, he should give up his freedom? Good to know.
"Probably doesn't have a father" And that has what to do with the story, exactly? Implying that no father made him gay or just weak?
Seriously, I don't know what magic pixie land you live in, but the kid did the EXACTLY CORRECT RESPONSE. He used a non-lethal deterrent only when threatened with extreme violence. You cannot ask for a better response.
Police CANNOT arrest you for a shoolyard fight unless someone is dead, dying, or has drugs. Weapons also fall under that category. Unless the 6 kids use lead pipes, the police won't care and its under the school's jurisdiction.
Funny you mention that, my school HAS a police officer, as in she's always standing in the middle of the cafeteria at lunch with a pistol and a taser...again where do you live?
I call bullshit.
There's no goddamn way a police officer would bring a gun on a school campus with no good reason, unless your school is a cesspool of violence and drugs. Even a taser is stretching things a bit thin.
You can call BS all that you want, I've seen the freaking thing.
Police CANNOT arrest you for a shoolyard fight unless someone is dead, dying, or has drugs. Weapons also fall under that category. Unless the 6 kids use lead pipes, the police won't care and its under the school's jurisdiction.
Funny you mention that, my school HAS a police officer, as in she's always standing in the middle of the cafeteria at lunch with a pistol and a taser...again where do you live?
I call bullshit.
There's no goddamn way a police officer would bring a gun on a school campus with no good reason, unless your school is a cesspool of violence and drugs. Even a taser is stretching things a bit thin.
My high school's police officer carried a gun on campus and that school was no where near in the bad part of town.
Funny you mention that, my school HAS a police officer, as in she's always standing in the middle of the cafeteria at lunch with a pistol and a taser...again where do you live?
I call bullshit.
There's no goddamn way a police officer would bring a gun on a school campus with no good reason, unless your school is a cesspool of violence and drugs. Even a taser is stretching things a bit thin.
You can call BS all that you want, I've seen the freaking thing.
I'd be afraid to go to your school then, my friend. Most schools tend to want to keep firearms as far away as possible from the area.
You call THE POLICE. It's their job. The school can deal with small stuff, but threatening a physical attack is a crime.
Be realistic, if you're surrounded by 6 people I doubt they'll let you whip out your phone and call the police before they swat the phone out of your hands or something.
The moment to call the police was the moment where he decided to proactively violate the law and bring a weapon to school.
WTF? So you're in favor of hitting people in self defense but not a stun gun?
If you have taken self defense training you would understand that it isn't about learning how to hit people. However, push comes to shove, yes, I'd rather see people use fists than weapons. Less dead kids that way.
What self defense training taken reasonably would have provided him the skills to handle six attackers in the amount of time needed to be relevant? He's not an especially large young man either, not that it's especially relevant.
Also, since he didn't utilize it on any of the students, never truly showed intent to utilize it on any of the students, and unless any of those students have a major atrial issue - how exactly is that stun gun threat worse then a series of trained martial arts strikes in the measurement of what has the potential to be fatal?
I'd like to know where the Hell you live, the police have visited my house several times before anyone got hurt because my sister was out of control.
OT: The kid's mom is braindead. "Should I call the police...nah, I'll just give him a stun gun, what could possibly go wrong?"
Again, at your house and not at school.
Police CANNOT arrest you for a shoolyard fight unless someone is dead, dying, or has drugs. Weapons also fall under that category. Unless the 6 kids use lead pipes, the police won't care and its under the school's jurisdiction.
Funny you mention that, my school HAS a police officer, as in she's always standing in the middle of the cafeteria at lunch with a pistol and a taser...again where do you live?
Not all schools have a police officer. They are not always needed. Even when I went to schools with security guards, they were useless.
There's no goddamn way a police officer would bring a gun on a school campus with no good reason, unless your school is a cesspool of violence and drugs. Even a taser is stretching things a bit thin.
You can call BS all that you want, I've seen the freaking thing.
I'd be afraid to go to your school then, my friend. Most schools tend to want to keep firearms as far away as possible from the area.
"Shrugs" suit yourself, I have to say she's one of the nicest people I've ever met though.
Police CANNOT arrest you for a shoolyard fight unless someone is dead, dying, or has drugs. Weapons also fall under that category. Unless the 6 kids use lead pipes, the police won't care and its under the school's jurisdiction.
Funny you mention that, my school HAS a police officer, as in she's always standing in the middle of the cafeteria at lunch with a pistol and a taser...again where do you live?
Not all schools have a police officer. They are not always needed. Even when I went to schools with security guards, they were useless.
I can't help but feel that not all schools were like that. Heck, I had a bullying problem in my Freshman year, dickwad kept throwing things at me in class. Got to the point where I nearly wailed on the guy in the hallway and the gym teacher spotted us. He pieced together what was going on and marched him to the principle's office. So...yeah, I must be blessed or something because my school is pretty good about handling bullies.
Heaven's Guardian: The kid brought a weapon to school. The instant someone does that, you absolutely have to expel the kid, no matter what the circumstances were. I'm not sure that there was a good option for the kid if the administration genuinely wasn't doing enough, but worst-case scenario, the stun gun could kill someone, and you only use something like that in a genuinely life-threatening situation, one that I doubt was really ever a possibility. If there was a real threat to the kid's life, he wouldn't have been going to school. At least he didn't actually use it on anyone, so he probably won't end up with a criminal record.
I agree. if this boy truly feared for his life, he could have done a number of things.
1. He could have changed schools 2. Homeschooling would work as well 3. A little extreme but if your life is on the line, moving is another option 4. If threats are made, inform the police 5. If at all possible, trying to fight them without weapons 6. At the very least, don't use weapons until they start something first.
Alright, in order. 1) Could have been the only school close enough for them to go to. Also, it is still costly to change schools. 2) She may not have the time and neither would the father I can assume. 3) Same as number one, to costly. 4) What would the police do, send the kid to juvy? Most likely the police would ignore the threats and do exactly what most teachers do. Which is just ignore it till it go's away. 5) Yes, because everyone is fit enough to take on a group of three or four dudes at once. Right, you keep telling yourself that. As a child, I highly doubt he alone would be able to fight a group of three stronger people by himself while also in fear. 6) From the sounds of it, they already did and I can tell you that words are as harmful as fists. Suicide and depression don't have to come from being beaten, but from having your own self respect beaten down.
-------------------------------------
Do you guys remember the kid who was being chased down by a gang of bullies and stabbed the leader one 11 times with a knife because they were promising to beat him up, and I'm guessing kill him, but just told the authorities they were going to beat him up and a lot of us said that this was all his fault and he needs to go to prison for trying to defend himself? Because I do remember that and I'm sure theres a comment in these 11+ pages with several pages of people saying that he should be expelled for using a stun gun in self defense.
Lets think of different outcomes if he had instead used nothing but fists and feet, shall we? Well more then likely, and I'm just guessing here, a broken bone in one spot, several bruises and maybe a cut. OH YEAH, and a detention for him for getting into a fist-fight at school. Now if he brought a knife we could suspect him to get expelled and one of the bullies cut bad. Gun would obviously be something that the court would bring up and most likely prison time.
Best option was the Stun-Gun and if he didn't use it we would instead have no story but this kid would have most likely gotten very badly beaten up and the school would still not take any action.
I'd be afraid to go to your school then, my friend. Most schools tend to want to keep firearms as far away as possible from the area.
"Shrugs" suit yourself, I have to say she's one of the nicest people I've ever met though.
I wasn't questioning her character, I'm just questioning why the hell she'd need to carry a gun on her while scanning the lunchroom.
Well, you know the old saying, better to have something and not need it than to need it and not have it. Besides, after Columbine you can never be too careful, or at least that's the general consensus.
So after reading a good deal of posts I have come to the conclusion that this thread has devolved into naive liberalism vs conservative self-defense. Why can't we see that EVERYONE was wrong here.
>The school refused to take action when informed of bullying (violation of the "zero tolerance" act). >The bullies are.... well bullies (violation of the "zero tolerance" act). Also, 6 on 1... really? >The mom instigated an illegal act (arming the child with a stun gun). >The child brought a weapon on school grounds (illegal). The child used the threat of force to deter physical harm (violation of the "zero tolerance" act).
However, speaking from experience schools do not do enough to stop bullying and the "zero tolerance" act is a joke. It basically states that if you are getting beaten up you have to take it. If you fight back you will receive the same punishment as those who were assaulting you. I by no means say taking a weapon to school was the right call, but perhaps this had to happen so the media would get involved and the country would tear this school apart.
Off topic- solve media = good afternoon Not anymore it aint...
Heaven's Guardian: The kid brought a weapon to school. The instant someone does that, you absolutely have to expel the kid, no matter what the circumstances were. I'm not sure that there was a good option for the kid if the administration genuinely wasn't doing enough, but worst-case scenario, the stun gun could kill someone, and you only use something like that in a genuinely life-threatening situation, one that I doubt was really ever a possibility. If there was a real threat to the kid's life, he wouldn't have been going to school. At least he didn't actually use it on anyone, so he probably won't end up with a criminal record.
I agree. if this boy truly feared for his life, he could have done a number of things.
1. He could have changed schools 2. Homeschooling would work as well 3. A little extreme but if your life is on the line, moving is another option 4. If threats are made, inform the police 5. If at all possible, trying to fight them without weapons 6. At the very least, don't use weapons until they start something first.
Alright, in order. 1) Could have been the only school close enough for them to go to. Also, it is still costly to change schools. 2) She may not have the time and neither would the father I can assume. 3) Same as number one, to costly. 4) What would the police do, send the kid to juvy? Most likely the police would ignore the threats and do exactly what most teachers do. Which is just ignore it till it go's away. 5) Yes, because everyone is fit enough to take on a group of three or four dudes at once. Right, you keep telling yourself that. As a child, I highly doubt he alone would be able to fight a group of three stronger people by himself while also in fear. 6) From the sounds of it, they already did and I can tell you that words are as harmful as fists. Suicide and depression don't have to come from being beaten, but from having your own self respect beaten down.
-------------------------------------
Do you guys remember the kid who was being chased down by a gang of bullies and stabbed the leader one 11 times with a knife because they were promising to beat him up, and I'm guessing kill him, but just told the authorities they were going to beat him up and a lot of us said that this was all his fault and he needs to go to prison for trying to defend himself? Because I do remember that and I'm sure theres a comment in these 11+ pages with several pages of people saying that he should be expelled for using a stun gun in self defense.
Lets think of different outcomes if he had instead used nothing but fists and feet, shall we? Well more then likely, and I'm just guessing here, a broken bone in one spot, several bruises and maybe a cut. OH YEAH, and a detention for him for getting into a fist-fight at school. Now if he brought a knife we could suspect him to get expelled and one of the bullies cut bad. Gun would obviously be something that the court would bring up and most likely prison time.
Best option was the Stun-Gun and if he didn't use it we would instead have no story but this kid would have most likely gotten very badly beaten up and the school would still not take any action.
Yes, I believe your absolutely right. The options I gave probably would not work, the path he took was likely the best one, and I believe everyone of those punks should have gotten a taser to the face. However, if he went to do all the things that I had suggested, and things still went south, his position would be a little better. It is wrong what happened to this kid, but now he is put in the same light as one who isn't stable. He was right, but now he doesn't have anything to call on.
TheDrunkNinja: Hmmm... Yeah, I got no problem with this. The article has a lot of draw words that sound harsh to generate more sympathy for the kid, but it never mentioned any act of violence being committed against him. Therefore I will assume no such behavior actually happened. Insults and hotair threats in a school environment are bullshit even when people are "surrounding" you, and the sooner he learns that the easier it will be to ignore them. Responding with a weapon makes you the antagonist, and I guess he wasn't ready to take the responsibility of brandishing a weapon on school grounds. Plain and simple.
There's a victim of bullying here, but there's no victim of an "unjust" expulsion.
Yeah, but what's the end result of the bullies being ignored? My guess is that it would lead to escalation. You're also dismissing his claim that he felt he was about to be jumped without any sort of reason to do so. There's no mention of act of violence, since none occured, but there's no information on whether or not he has been the victim of physical violence.
This leads to either two outcomes - either he has been the victim of physical violence and felt he needed to protect himself, a position agreed upon by his mother -or- both he and his mother are insane and responded to "hotair threats" with a stun gun.
One seems to make more sense then the other. As for the nature of who is the antagonist, using six people to menace a not-very-large (in the picture) gay high school student makes me question your assumption that the gay student was the true antagonist.
I think your position shows a lack of understanding for the current school environment for GLBT students, especially in heavily christian communities. It's not all bad, and there's lots of school boards working to get better just as much as there are boards and districts working efficiently to get worse.
Between the two - I'll take the stun gun. I don't think he should get off free, but in this case - perhaps education for both sides is the proper response. He should be punished, but he should also be an example as to how the school's social education and discipline systems are failing.
I think both of our positions are mainly based on assumptions considering the article is extremely vague in the details rather than either of us having a lack of understanding of anything.
I've taken my position based on the assumption that he was never physically assaulted and still hasn't beyond a few threats. The reason being for this is my interpretation of the article. The way it was written suggests a subtle tone that garners sympathy for the kid with the draw words I mentioned. I might be wrong on that, but one would assume if the article was siding with the kid, however subtle, a key fact would be if he has been subjected to physical abuse in the past. Such acts are not mentioned, and instead, the acts of the kids harassing him has been relegated to the simple word "bullying". The lack of this key fact in the article is what leads me to believe that no such violence ever occurred, making all the bullying that happened to be just verbal hotair.
Also, the actual act of using the stun-gun to ward off bullies comes across as more stupid than insane (personally, something truly insane to me is an entire town declaring war on a bunch of kids). I mean, it's just as easy to assume that he was never planning on actually using the stun-gun in place of using it to threaten. I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time--respond to the threats of physical violence with the threat of a stun-gun; the kid doesn't have to use it, just threaten with it. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if all he ever planned to do was just wave it around menacingly.
Again, these are all just assumptions on a very vague article. Most of the posts in this thread basically amount to just pissing in the wind considering how little we actually know of the true situation.
personally i would have taken the stungun to the school myself and used it on the guidance counselor first and said my son is going to be using this on the bullies if you dont' do you f***ing job.
and then beat the sh!t out of him if the cops showed up.
Heaven's Guardian: The kid brought a weapon to school. The instant someone does that, you absolutely have to expel the kid, no matter what the circumstances were. I'm not sure that there was a good option for the kid if the administration genuinely wasn't doing enough, but worst-case scenario, the stun gun could kill someone, and you only use something like that in a genuinely life-threatening situation, one that I doubt was really ever a possibility. If there was a real threat to the kid's life, he wouldn't have been going to school. At least he didn't actually use it on anyone, so he probably won't end up with a criminal record.
I agree. if this boy truly feared for his life, he could have done a number of things.
1. He could have changed schools 2. Homeschooling would work as well 3. A little extreme but if your life is on the line, moving is another option 4. If threats are made, inform the police 5. If at all possible, trying to fight them without weapons 6. At the very least, don't use weapons until they start something first.
1. American transfers in the middle of the semester could mean he has to repeat the grade, and/or wait 6-12 months to go back to school. 2. Homeschooling doesn't always have standards or structure in the more unregulated states. Worst case scenario his education may be entirely fucked. 3. Moving is expensive, has the same problems as 1. 4.Police have no authority when it doesn't include a weapon on their part. A school yard beating WONT be investigated unless they use a deadly weapon. Its under the school's authority and the police have NO case against the kids. Get this fact through your fucking head, I am sick and tired of having to repeat it. 5. You cant fight 6 kids at once. 6. If they start it, you would need to have surgery to reconstruct your broken face and bones. Very expensive, very painful. First rule is not to let them have the first hit unless you like hospitals.
I can see where this kid's coming from on the issue, but the fact still remains he brought a stun gun to school. Any school district doesn't want to have kids walking around with tasers. Especially if the kid starts toting a 9mm by the jeans pocket or starts bringing a crew or it starts causing bad press & the school's enrollment rate drops significantly.
It's a shame, because I've seen this shit & even been bullied. Trust me, when you're bullied, bringing a concealed knife to school doesn't sound so bad. The school wasn't doing anything to help the kid, so he took things into his own hands. I've seen niggas get jumped outta the blue & start to walk around with improvised stabbing weapons if it happens again. Trust me: I still do it today, even though it's not middle school anymore because I'm so used to doing it.
And negotiation doesn't work either. I know it doesn't work; I've tried. I've tried the get the teachers involved approach; I nearly lost my head for it.
I can see where the kid's coming from though. You get bullied, the school ain't helping matters & your own crew doesn't seem willing to help out. So ya gotta take things into your own hands.
You know, I didn't expect to be able to use this picture two days in a row. Some people in this thread have either never been bullied, never seen anyone be bullied, or are the misbegotten bastards of Judge Dredd.
Daystar Clarion: It's all fun and games until someone gets shocked into cardiac arrest.
Back in my day, when we had to deal with bullies, we performed a musical number that showed the bullies why they wrong to do such nasty things. They would then join in with our song, proclaiming their lives changed.
The more you know.
Because no one is getting beat up with seven years of ballet and two of jazz tap!
Funny you mention that, my school HAS a police officer, as in she's always standing in the middle of the cafeteria at lunch with a pistol and a taser...again where do you live?
You know something is wrong with your culture when you have to station armed guards at a school.
Look, I'm against weapons in almost all situations but this is an exception. No one can say this was a bad course of action if they pay attention to the fact that he had feared for his life, that it was 6 on 1, that the schools had done jack shit and that it was a non lethal non tazer stun gun. I find it simply fucking stupid that people can say he is in the wrong, especially saying the mother is in the wrong. She was doing her best to help her child because he was being bullied because of his sexuality and no one had done anything to help.
I hardly believe she would say something like "Zap the fuckers" or anything quite that violent, I would expect she said something along the lines of "Look, I don't want you to use this unless they come up to you and threaten you. You don't even need to actually use it, just fire a shot into the air to scar them off," because I kn ow that's what I would have done and said in that situation (providing I actually HAD a stun gun).
So everybody, please stop saying the kid was wrong. What would YOU do in that situation? If you called the cops, not only would getting there take too long but getting out the phone, dialing and calling would take alot of time too. Providing they actually do ANYTHING at all. Would you tell them to stop? Bullshit. I've tried the same in real life and it makes them MORE pissed off, they push you around because it makes you look like an even bigger target who wouldn't fight for his life. Fight with your bear hands? 6 on 1... I'd love to see you get you're arse kicked. Tell a teacher? Still wouldn't do anything, makes you a bigger target even if they do get a talk. Sometimes drastic measures can be the only way.
Police CANNOT arrest you for a shoolyard fight unless someone is dead, dying, or has drugs. Weapons also fall under that category. Unless the 6 kids use lead pipes, the police won't care and its under the school's jurisdiction.
Ultratwinkie: 4.Police have no authority when it doesn't include a weapon on their part. A school yard beating WONT be investigated unless they use a deadly weapon. Its under the school's authority and the police have NO case against the kids. Get this fact through your fucking head, I am sick and tired of having to repeat it.
Can you please point me at the section of the legislation that exempts school yard fights from the law and stops police from making arrests?
Be realistic, if you're surrounded by 6 people I doubt they'll let you whip out your phone and call the police before they swat the phone out of your hands or something.
The moment to call the police was the moment where he decided to proactively violate the law and bring a weapon to school.
WTF? So you're in favor of hitting people in self defense but not a stun gun?
If you have taken self defense training you would understand that it isn't about learning how to hit people. However, push comes to shove, yes, I'd rather see people use fists than weapons. Less dead kids that way.
What self defense training taken reasonably would have provided him the skills to handle six attackers in the amount of time needed to be relevant? He's not an especially large young man either, not that it's especially relevant.
Also, since he didn't utilize it on any of the students, never truly showed intent to utilize it on any of the students, and unless any of those students have a major atrial issue - how exactly is that stun gun threat worse then a series of trained martial arts strikes in the measurement of what has the potential to be fatal?
Since you obviously didn't READ the comment of mine you quoted, I'll just send this back to you as it answers that very quesiton. Please reread the reply above and you will have your answer.
Sarge034: So after reading a good deal of posts I have come to the conclusion that this thread has devolved into naive liberalism vs conservative self-defense. Why can't we see that EVERYONE was wrong here.
>The school refused to take action when informed of bullying (violation of the "zero tolerance" act). >The bullies are.... well bullies (violation of the "zero tolerance" act). Also, 6 on 1... really? >The mom instigated an illegal act (arming the child with a stun gun). >The child brought a weapon on school grounds (illegal). The child used the threat of force to deter physical harm (violation of the "zero tolerance" act).
However, speaking from experience schools do not do enough to stop bullying and the "zero tolerance" act is a joke. It basically states that if you are getting beaten up you have to take it. If you fight back you will receive the same punishment as those who were assaulting you. I by no means say taking a weapon to school was the right call, but perhaps this had to happen so the media would get involved and the country would tear this school apart.
Off topic- solve media = good afternoon Not anymore it aint...
We don't have enough information of course to really be sure that the 17 year old's version of the story matches reality, but assuming it does... I agree, the bullies, school, mother, and the 17 year old were all doing something wrong based on the information in the report.
Boris Goodenough: I support the kid in this case, nothing else he could have done except maybe endured, which is not the most pleasent option in this case.
Funny you mention that, my school HAS a police officer, as in she's always standing in the middle of the cafeteria at lunch with a pistol and a taser...again where do you live?
You know something is wrong with your culture when you have to station armed guards at a school.
Don't forget the metal detectors and searches that also are used in some US schools.
Using your head is overrated. It's harder to hide the injuries afterwards. Plus, your neck hurts afterwards, as well as restricting the swing area required to make a good hit. Most people tend to protect their heads in these situations as one's fists, feet or carried object typically makes a better blunt weapon. Alternatively, a static stun gun or pepper spray. Those are the most effective and are more likely to doscourage the bully from trying again.
Unless you're referring to Macgyvering a shield out of the air, walls and floor as six brutes bear down on you. In which case, go ahead.
(Generally, people who tell bullied kids to "use your head" are simply too lazy and aloof and don't care enough to come up with an actual solution.)
Fortunately I'm from a country where both stun guns and pepper spray are illegal to use. Somehow kids manage to deal with bullies without that.Plus by finding solutions that don't involve a weapon they don't escalate the matter into a weapons battle that eventually they will lose, they don't break laws, and they actually find ways to stop problems that build their confidence and discourage future bullies by generating respect.
And I did supply a series of answers above to alternatives.
What we seem to have here is a cross dressing boy who wasn't smart enough to talk down agressors, tone down his dress, or simply have friends. He must have demonstrated lack of confidence or they wouldn't have picked on him for any length of time. Through the absense of the father in the story, he was probably without a father and thus didn't know how to handle himself as a man in that situation. So what did he do? Pulled a weapon? A cowardly response that will only make his life worse. He's lucky, for example, that they fled. He pulled a weapon first, at that point they could have taken him out and reasonably claimed self defence.
*clap*
The ignorance in this statement is staggering. YouTube comments section level. I applaud you.
Ah, personal attacks, the first indication of an argument with no merit that is about to be presented.
According to the story, he had been harrassed, picked on and attacked. There was a clear history of violence.
No, I don't think it says that. Can you quote me the line in the story that states there was any violence in the past? I only see references to name calling and suggesting he was sleeping with teachers.
"Cross dressing boy" so he deserves to be bullied for being gay? Good to know.
"Tone down his dress" so basically if someone wanted him to give up his freedom or get beaten up, he should give up his freedom? Good to know.
No, I didn't say that. However, having a brain suggests that if wearing flip flops to school gets you picked on and you don't have the confidence to deal with those insults, wearing flip flops to school is a bad idea. He had the opportunity to deescelate things and failed to take it. Don't get me wrong, he should be allowed to show up in whatever he wants to wear, but we all know kids pick on any kind of different.
"Probably doesn't have a father" And that has what to do with the story, exactly? Implying that no father made him gay or just weak?
I believe a male roll model in the house would have let him better deal with male on male violence or bullying than a female roll model. Studies have repeatedly shown that male and female bullying is different in a number of ways. His father would probably have been better equipped than his mother to deal with this. In addition, in my personal and non scientific experience, people who grow up with one parent missing often have confidence issues. This boy clearly exihibitted such an issue. With two supportive parents (of either gender) while he may still have had no confidence, there would have been one less strike against him in that area.
Seriously, I don't know what magic pixie land you live in, but the kid did the EXACTLY CORRECT RESPONSE. He used a non-lethal deterrent only when threatened with extreme violence. You cannot ask for a better response.
No, he used a less lethal WEAPON in the face of name calling and intimidation. We have no indication I see of extreme violence being indicated, although it is possible he genuinely felt the reasonable fear of violence when surrounded. However, my main point from the beginning was him ever BRINGING the weapon. What would have happened if one of those kids also had a weapon? Dead 17 year old bullying victim.
Daystar Clarion: It's all fun and games until someone gets shocked into cardiac arrest.
Back in my day, when we had to deal with bullies, we performed a musical number that showed the bullies why they wrong to do such nasty things. They would then join in with our song, proclaiming their lives changed.
Police CANNOT arrest you for a shoolyard fight unless someone is dead, dying, or has drugs. Weapons also fall under that category. Unless the 6 kids use lead pipes, the police won't care and its under the school's jurisdiction.
Ultratwinkie: 4.Police have no authority when it doesn't include a weapon on their part. A school yard beating WONT be investigated unless they use a deadly weapon. Its under the school's authority and the police have NO case against the kids. Get this fact through your fucking head, I am sick and tired of having to repeat it.
Can you please point me at the section of the legislation that exempts school yard fights from the law and stops police from making arrests?
It doesn't need a law to be exempted, if its not covered by a law its not illegal. The only thing that I know of that comes close to it is California penal code 415, which is only used for those who commit a crime on a campus they DON'T attend. Even then, its as low as 90 days to six months or a 1,000$ fine.
I looked through the Indiana penal code 20-33-8, nothing to be found on bullying when it comes to police. It only explicitly outlines the powers of schools.
funny thing. i always thought that it was a schools legal responsibility to protect their students, otherwise they could be sued for negligence.
Edit: wait did he say, and i quote "I didn't know what to do and I thought about suicide," Young said. "I hate saying that word because God blessed me with this life." A gay AND religious person living in america getting persecuted......well thats new isn't it?
I call bullshit.
There's no goddamn way a police officer would bring a gun on a school campus with no good reason, unless your school is a cesspool of violence and drugs. Even a taser is stretching things a bit thin.