Teen faces expulsion after brining stun-gun to school to fend off bullies

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT
 

Wolverine18:

After you stun the first one and the other five tackle you, use the stun gun on you, and then beat you to death...

You pretty much countered your own argument when you said that using a stun gun in that situation isn't self defense, because the bullies are capable and are willing to beat you to death in your example. I understand that it's under slightly different circumstances if the kid uses a stun gun on one of them, but they would not need to do more then restrain the kid to avoid getting stunned themselves.

If I knew there were a group of kids that would beat me to death when given provacation I wouldn't feel safe unless I had some sort of weapon myself. Preferably a samurai sword.

Hipster Chick:
Let's not make stuff up?

The article said he was dressed "flamboyantly" and identified as gay, not a cross-dresser or anything close to trans*. Of course, your think that means he was dressed like a woman: if you knew the first thing about queer or trans* issues, you'd know how ignorant that assumption is. He was being bullied because he looked gay, which the article never really qualifies in a meaningful way.

But I'll concede the point. It's like telling a girl who's being bullied because she dresses like a tomboy that she should rectify the situation by wearing dresses and makeup. That's appropriate, right?

Or is it only alright to tell a gay child being beaten up because people think he looks like a faggot not to look so much like a faggot?

Leethe1Girl:
Err, no. That's a little something called discrimination.

Little fuckers known as bullies will find some sort of detail to pick on someone for no matter what. Even if the kid was not dressed in a funny way it wouldn't matter. They'd pick on someone for their hairstyle, the way their nose sits on their face, if they have freckles, etc.

Ah yes, this old argument. "You don't agree with me, so you must be biased and discriminatory".

Firstly, all people are biased, that's the nature of humanity.

Secondly, I'm not discriminatory against anyone (ergo why, in the post that you both quoted but didn't read, I stated that I hate bullying of any kind against any person).

Now that we've gotten that tired old argument out of the way, how about a real discussion now?

It's been noted that the entire reason he was being bullied is because he "looks gay". So why exactly is it wrong to point this fact out to the child, and to suggest to him that if he adjusts his dress, that the problem might go away? No one's saying "stop being gay, kid!", and the school isn't even forcing him to change his dress if he doesn't want to. But his dress is something that he can choose to change, and so telling him "hey, I know you're expressing yourself, but I think your choice of outfits might be part of the reason they're targeting you" is NOT a statement that is intended to offend him or force him to conform to "social norms". If he wants to dress that way anyways, fine, but this is a situation that he could have potentially defused without even involving security or the school. He never actually TRIED this to see if it would work, so we'll never know if it would have worked or not, though I'm certain you'll both happily argue until you're blue in the face that it wouldn't have worked. I, on the other hand, won't, because it's a hypothetical that has already passed. He chose not to try, so we'll never know.

And again, the article doesn't state that he has received any sort of actions against him beyond generic "I'm gonna beat you up" verbal threats. I'd point out that these sorts of threats occur every single day in every single school in the United States, and are rarely honest-to-god threats. Bringing a stun gun to school so that you can scare the bully away with a weapon is hardly what I'd call the reaction of a mentally stable individual, or a responsible parent. Were my kid in the same situation, I'd be teaching him how to fight and defend himself from attackers, NOT giving him a weapon. That teaches him that the law isn't important so long as you think you have a good reason for breaking it.

GeneralFungi:

Wolverine18:

After you stun the first one and the other five tackle you, use the stun gun on you, and then beat you to death...

You pretty much countered your own argument when you said that using a stun gun in that situation isn't self defense, because the bullies are capable and are willing to beat you to death in your example. I understand that it's under slightly different circumstances if the kid uses a stun gun on one of them, but they would not need to do more then restrain the kid to avoid getting stunned themselves.

If I knew there were a group of kids that would beat me to death when given provacation I wouldn't feel safe unless I had some sort of weapon myself. Preferably a samurai sword.

I didn't counter my argument, I put up a totally different situation, you know, one where the kids had been a thread.

And after your last comment, pretty hard to take you seriously.

Day 1) Kid gets threatened. Mum gives his stun gun
Day 2) Bullies approach kid. Kid pulls stun gun and fires defensive shot. Bullies retreat.

He got lucky. I would have expected either

Day 2 cont...) Bullies pull a knife, kid gets destroyed
or
Day 3) Bullies get their own weapons.

Whether in the form of bats/clubs, knives or guns, 6 bullies are more likely to have access to and knowledge to use weaponry that one bullied kid. The kid will end up hurt.

In reality, the kid should have worked out why he was being picked on. If it's anything he can change, its better to conform than to get pummelled/expelled. If not, it is up to him to stay within sight of teachers/friends/parents/reasonable adults. The mother should have picked him up from school, not given him a weapon. If this was at lunch time, I highly doubt the teachers would object to him remaining inside if he felt threatened.

Defend his rights all you want. I fought bullies in school myself. It was once I realised that its up to me to change, rather than hope they will, that things got better.

I am curious how this would be viewed with a pepper spray instead of a tazer. Same ideal, a non-lethally used aggressor deterrent meant for self defense, though the spray no where near as overly glamorized as a "weapon"

Anything you pick up is a weapon, people. All a weapon is is a tool used as a means of force. If the kid had a pencil in his hand and threw a punch or stabbed a kid with it, it is a weapon. Thus zero tolerance is flawed in concept, to say nothing of the issues it can have in execution.

I mention the pepper spray earlier because I recall the cop at my school carrying that around everywhere. They might have had a tazer, never looked that closely, but I don't see why they wouldn't as a means to avoid using a gun. The whole zero tolerance thing again about guns on campus. Of course the history of police abusing tazers in unwarranted situations can be ignored, but civilians can't protect themselves?

Lets try some thought experiments. What if the kid trained in a martial arts? His hands and feet are weapons. What does zero tolerance say about that. If he kicked the other kids asses instead of scaring them off with his skill? If he accidentally killed one?

What if he picked up a broken stick or a mop from nearby to defend himself? Again, how about if he beat them down or killed one with that?

This is rediculous. The kid tried the proper channels and got the shaft so his mom worked within the means she knew while following the law to keep her kid safe. Tazers are legal tools for deterring aggressors and her son was quite likely to be on the receiving end of a beating because of bigotry and bullying. I say the tool did it's job and the school, who should be damn well ashamed for letting shit get that far in the first place, should start looking at the personnel and if their personal feelings in the matter of his lifestyle had affected how they treated the kid's concerns, as well as exactly what their reaction here is saying. To me, it tells me that kids are at the mercy of those who abuse the system to be the top dog in the school, using apathetic administrators and denial of any means to defend themselves to prey on the weaker.

CriticKitten:

It's been noted that the entire reason he was being bullied is because he "looks gay". So why exactly is it wrong to point this fact out to the child, and to suggest to him that if he adjusts his dress, that the problem might go away? No one's saying "stop being gay, kid!", and the school isn't even forcing him to change his dress if he doesn't want to. But his dress is something that he can choose to change, and so telling him "hey, I know you're expressing yourself, but I think your choice of outfits might be part of the reason they're targeting you" is NOT a statement that is intended to offend him or force him to conform to "social norms". If he wants to dress that way anyways, fine, but this is a situation that he could have potentially defused without even involving security or the school. He never actually TRIED this to see if it would work, so we'll never know if it would have worked or not, though I'm certain you'll both happily argue until you're blue in the face that it wouldn't have worked. I, on the other hand, won't, because it's a hypothetical that has already passed. He chose not to try, so we'll never know.

You are right, his choice of dress might have been why he was bullied. And a women in a short skirt might have been raped for the same reason. Telling the victim to change their clothes though is not the right way to do things, as it blames them for the way others treat them and the crimes done to them. If I want to dress like a clown, I STILL expect to be able to have a safe environment to do my school work and not live in fear. Ostracization, certainly, but not threats, violence or the like.
You can not make excuses like this for why people are abused as though the victim is the one who needs to change. The rules apply to everyone and in school, this includes a safe environment free from abuse. Saying the kid should have shut up and sit down only validates the actions of the bullies in the exact same way saying a woman should have dressed head to toe in thick wools would validate a rapist.

And again, the article doesn't state that he has received any sort of actions against him beyond generic "I'm gonna beat you up" verbal threats. I'd point out that these sorts of threats occur every single day in every single school in the United States, and are rarely honest-to-god threats. Bringing a stun gun to school so that you can scare the bully away with a weapon is hardly what I'd call the reaction of a mentally stable individual, or a responsible parent. Were my kid in the same situation, I'd be teaching him how to fight and defend himself from attackers, NOT giving him a weapon. That teaches him that the law isn't important so long as you think you have a good reason for breaking it.

Go ahead and tell a cop you will beat him up. Or a crowded theater you'll set it on fire. Just because they might be empty threats does not make them less serious. You can still get in trouble for making them, and NO ONE should receive them. They create stressful environments and can do psychological trama if the victim legitimately believes them. The fact of if they were going to follow through or not doesn't matter much when they victimize the kid, crowd around him and make threatening behavior enough that he felt, after all other avenues had failed, he had to take a stun gun. But nice to see you taking the high road about his mental stability and assuming he was aware he was breaking the law. A stun gun is a tool for deterrent, non-lethal and used by police to take down people. They are also perfectly legal. For all we know, he could have thought it acceptable. There is also a case that could be made about how the "law" refused to act in this case to the point he presumed he had to act for survival.

But no, keep on telling yourself the bullies were alright to pick on the kid because he didn't conform to their norms, keep telling yourself that threats and the stress and trama they can cause is just harmless. Keep telling yourself the kid acted in spite of the law instead of in ignorance of it, or if indeed in spite, then out of lack of options. The go and apply that logic to hate crimes or rape victims and see how far it goes.

runic knight:
You are right, his choice of dress might have been why he was bullied. And a women in a short skirt might have been raped for the same reason.

Stopped reading this paragraph after that, because yes, you just compared rape victims to ordinary childhood bullying. Nice lack of perspective there.

And you're trying to spin ME as insensitive? Pot, meet kettle.

Go ahead and tell a cop you will beat him up. Or a crowded theater you'll set it on fire. Just because they might be empty threats does not make them less serious.

Most cops are going to be mature enough not to use a stun gun on you if you say "I'm gonna beat you up". He's a high school kid, granted, maturity is lacking in that department, but his mother should have been mature enough to know better. The fact that she didn't means she's not being a proper role model. You can teach your kid self-defense without teaching him to break the law.

You can still get in trouble for making them, and NO ONE should receive them. They create stressful environments and can do psychological trama if the victim legitimately believes them. The fact of if they were going to follow through or not doesn't matter much when they victimize the kid, crowd around him and make threatening behavior enough that he felt, after all other avenues had failed, he had to take a stun gun.

Psychological "torture" isn't a valid excuse for breaking the law and endangering other students. Nice try though.

Tell ya what though, it's amazing how many people manage to survive bullying without the "mental scarring" that everyone claims we should have. Maybe I've just been hypnotized into forgetting all of that awful torment I suffered at the hands of my bullies? Or maybe, just maybe, I'm made of slightly sterner stuff? Hard to tell, really, but it seems like our psych wards should be full of people if indeed bully victims are as "psychologically tortured" as people like to claim they are.

Or perhaps people just like to throw that phrase around so much that it's completely lost all meaning. Bullies will always exist, and while we should always do something about it, they'll always exist. And more importantly, when the bullies grow up and become adult bullies, what will these kids do then, when no one is around to comfort them? People need to be able to bounce back, to adjust and to take some hits. If you never let them learn as a kid, they won't be able to cope with adult life.

inb4 you try to spin THIS as me being callous and unfeeling, too.

But nice to see you taking the high road about his mental stability and assuming he was aware he was breaking the law. A stun gun is a tool for deterrent, non-lethal and used by police to take down people. They are also perfectly legal.

Not on school grounds. Civilians are not allowed to carry firearms on school grounds, even if the weapon is registered. It's a public safety law that exists for a damn good reason. If you actually think it's legal for a kid to bring a stun gun to school then you're being willfully ignorant of your own country's laws.

For all we know, he could have thought it acceptable.

Obviously he knew better if he had never done it in the past. And allegedly he only did so because his mother told him to. He knew it wasn't okay, but did it anyways. He shares blame with his parent for this one.

There is also a case that could be made about how the "law" refused to act in this case to the point he presumed he had to act for survival.

No, there isn't.

But no, keep on telling yourself the bullies were alright to pick on the kid because he didn't conform to their norms, keep telling yourself that threats and the stress and trama they can cause is just harmless. Keep telling yourself the kid acted in spite of the law instead of in ignorance of it, or if indeed in spite, then out of lack of options.

I'm so glad you haven't bothered to go back and read some of my previous posts. No, it's much easier to make sweeping assumptions based on the content of the one post you're quoting.

I already said that I didn't think it was okay for the bullies to pick on him. That I was bullied in my past too. That I think all kinds of bullying against any person for any reason is wrong. I'm just not going to believe that the stun gun was "the only way" to solve this problem, because from personal experience, there are always other ways. He chose the one that violates the law, so he gets to accept the consequences of his actions and maybe next time he'll employ smarter tactics against people who put him down or pick on him, because he'll be dealing with it for the rest of his life just like everyone else.

texanarob:
Day 1) Kid gets threatened. Mum gives his stun gun
Day 2) Bullies approach kid. Kid pulls stun gun and fires defensive shot. Bullies retreat.

He got lucky. I would have expected either

Day 2 cont...) Bullies pull a knife, kid gets destroyed
or
Day 3) Bullies get their own weapons.

Whether in the form of bats/clubs, knives or guns, 6 bullies are more likely to have access to and knowledge to use weaponry that one bullied kid. The kid will end up hurt.

In reality, the kid should have worked out why he was being picked on. If it's anything he can change, its better to conform than to get pummelled/expelled. If not, it is up to him to stay within sight of teachers/friends/parents/reasonable adults. The mother should have picked him up from school, not given him a weapon. If this was at lunch time, I highly doubt the teachers would object to him remaining inside if he felt threatened.

Defend his rights all you want. I fought bullies in school myself. It was once I realised that its up to me to change, rather than hope they will, that things got better.

This is such BS. Why should he have to conform? We constantly talk about schools as having safe environments - well is it or isn't it? If it's only safe if you make every effort to not stand out from the crowd, if you hide your identity and act submissively, then that isn't safe. Allowing bullies and hatred to run a school and define the identities of everyone else is utter garbage. Dirty looks and lack of acceptance is one thing - intimidation, threats, insults, and violence is another. It's severely f****d up that a school principal would suggest to a student to conform more, which is basically an acknowledgement that he is utterly useless at enforcing the rules, and he deserve to be expelled nearly as much as the student. The student was wrong for bringing a stun gun, but the school is wrong for creating an environment where a student felt he needed to bring a stun gun.

And it's everywhere. I had to enforce my right to be who I was with a baseball bat and a helping of unbridled rage. If it had happened at school, I would have been expelled. In public, maybe arrested and sent to a reform house. My "crime" was simply being gifted. I can't imagine what it's like to be gay or transgender.

At the end of the day, he does need to get away from that school, but not because he did something wrong, but because they've decided that the much easier solution to failed social policy enforcement is to cover up the policy by blaming the victims and encouraging them to not create situations that highlight their failure to enforce their own policies. That's the type of lazy backwards thinking that should have been abolished years ago. Maybe instead of threatening the bullies, he should have shocked the administrators, because obviously, their hearts have stopped.

Personally, If my child was being bullied and the school system did nothing to stop it. I'd sit down with the parents of the bullying children, offer a cup of tea, and threaten to press charges... Such is the English way.

to be honest i think he could even used a gun with live ammunition (no blanks or rubbers). if they would attack him he acted out of self defense. someone threatens to hurt him he made sure they could not. he defended himself.

also am i the only one who think fox news is not reliable as a news source. also this let me think of a funny story a friend of my told me

They deserve it. If it was me, they'd all be bloody pulps on the side of the street.

I would and i would gladly use it
If it was my kid, i wouldnt blame him at all, and it wouldnt be my lack of judgement
All it takes for evil to succeed is for the good to do nothing, basically.

So i see this as justified.

J.d. Scott:

texanarob:
Day 1) Kid gets threatened. Mum gives his stun gun
Day 2) Bullies approach kid. Kid pulls stun gun and fires defensive shot. Bullies retreat.

He got lucky. I would have expected either

Day 2 cont...) Bullies pull a knife, kid gets destroyed
or
Day 3) Bullies get their own weapons.

Whether in the form of bats/clubs, knives or guns, 6 bullies are more likely to have access to and knowledge to use weaponry that one bullied kid. The kid will end up hurt.

In reality, the kid should have worked out why he was being picked on. If it's anything he can change, its better to conform than to get pummelled/expelled. If not, it is up to him to stay within sight of teachers/friends/parents/reasonable adults. The mother should have picked him up from school, not given him a weapon. If this was at lunch time, I highly doubt the teachers would object to him remaining inside if he felt threatened.

Defend his rights all you want. I fought bullies in school myself. It was once I realised that its up to me to change, rather than hope they will, that things got better.

This is such BS. Why should he have to conform? We constantly talk about schools as having safe environments - well is it or isn't it? If it's only safe if you make every effort to not stand out from the crowd, if you hide your identity and act submissively, then that isn't safe. Allowing bullies and hatred to run a school and define the identities of everyone else is utter garbage. Dirty looks and lack of acceptance is one thing - intimidation, threats, insults, and violence is another. It's severely f****d up that a school principal would suggest to a student to conform more, which is basically an acknowledgement that he is utterly useless at enforcing the rules, and he deserve to be expelled nearly as much as the student. The student was wrong for bringing a stun gun, but the school is wrong for creating an environment where a student felt he needed to bring a stun gun.

And it's everywhere. I had to enforce my right to be who I was with a baseball bat and a helping of unbridled rage. If it had happened at school, I would have been expelled. In public, maybe arrested and sent to a reform house. My "crime" was simply being gifted. I can't imagine what it's like to be gay or transgender.

At the end of the day, he does need to get away from that school, but not because he did something wrong, but because they've decided that the much easier solution to failed social policy enforcement is to cover up the policy by blaming the victims and encouraging them to not create situations that highlight their failure to enforce their own policies. That's the type of lazy backwards thinking that should have been abolished years ago. Maybe instead of threatening the bullies, he should have shocked the administrators, because obviously, their hearts have stopped.

If you bring a weapon to a fight against a group of presumably more violent individuals than yourself, you are a fool not to expect them to retaliate. They are likely more proficient with weaponry than you anyway, and more likely to use it.

At the end of the day, I didn't claim the school had a perfectly safe environment. It doesn't. That isn't practical, and would be terrible preparation for reality. What I said was that there is a reason the bullies picked on the kid, for being overtly camp. There are certain ways people have to learn to act, and ways not to act in certain situations. Its not ideal, but its true. In a room full of evident homophobes, don't parade yourself as homosexual. After all, in the jungle with wild animals I wouldn't try to parade myself as being tasty.

We can't change the way animals act. That doesn't mean we provoke them, either with unwise actions or attacking them.

Treblaine:
snip

From personal experience, I know that bullies are complete pussies. Seems contradictory, right? But that's exactly the reason they often get together in packs and use weapons (like knives).

The minute they see an "escalation" of violence they piss themselves because they never expect it.

I am not a firm believer on tasers but the minute you see a harmless kid shocking a dude and going on a rage fueled rampage, you assess your priorities.

Which is running. Fighting with someone with a taser is a good way to get everyone involved sharing electric hugs.

Wolverine18:
If you make a credible threat, we'll call the police. She won't however go get a gun.

"I" am watching her trough the window.

The police will take 5-20 minutes to get here. Let's see how far "I" can go before they get here.

Jesus, this started as a way to try and tell you that you just need a "threat" to be in danger, but you trust people too much. Don't do that.

Wolverine18:
No, it didn't.

If I point at a random guy and say "I'm going to fucking stop that guy's head in the curb" and you don't stop me you're an awful person.

If you hear someone say "I'm going to kick the shit out of you" and you don't apply the basic instinct of SURVIVAL you just won a Darwin award.

Wolverine18:
self defense is required to be appropriate to the situation and not excessive. Automatically assuming you should put a bullet in someone because they are in your house will get you jailed in civilized places.

First, I am making an analogy.

The moment you say "You're getting your ass kicked" you put yourself into the "attacker" role. In "civilized" countries the "victim" has the right to respond with all necessary force.

If you actually paid attention to what happened, he was called names and was under the threat of physical abuse.

Also, self-defense if definitely appropriate. When someone enters your house, he is automatically committing attempted murder, rape, kidnap or whatever. Why? Because it's not reasonable to wait for the crime to be committed. That's why it is called self-defense, not "retaliation" or "vigilantism". That is doing justice with your own hands and I definitely do not endorse it.

I live in a "civilized" place.

Do you know what happens in a "civilized" place? I had friends who had to make use of self-defense and got treated like criminals even if the actual criminals were unscratched and legally turned to the police.

Do you know what happens in a "civilized" place? An old guy defending himself got life sentence while the intruder tries claim a compensation.

In "civilized" places victims are treated like shit and criminals do whatever they want because they know that the law protects them against citizens.

Wolverine18:
After you stun the first one and the other five tackle you, use the stun gun on you, and then beat you to death...

Like I said in the other post, electric hugs.

You don't fight someone with a taser, just like you don't touch a person who just stuck a knife into an electric socket. If you want to fight after you just seen a guy getting tasered, you are getting yourself in a world of hurt and you deserve the pain you're going to get.

ElPatron:

Wolverine18:
If you make a credible threat, we'll call the police. She won't however go get a gun.

"I" am watching her trough the window.

The police will take 5-20 minutes to get here. Let's see how far "I" can go before they get here.

They certainly wouldn't take more than 5 minutes on a peeper call, especially one were a direct comment like yours was made. In the interim, you are not an immediate threat outside. As long as you are outside, *shrugs*, wait there for the police if you want.

Jesus, this started as a way to try and tell you that you just need a "threat" to be in danger, but you trust people too much. Don't do that.

It's not a matter of trust, its a matter of understanding the law, and understanding the concept of "reasonable" response.

Wolverine18:
No, it didn't.

If I point at a random guy and say "I'm going to fucking stop that guy's head in the curb" and you don't stop me you're an awful person.

If you hear someone say "I'm going to kick the shit out of you" and you don't apply the basic instinct of SURVIVAL you just won a Darwin award.

If you had done that many times before and not done anything then I'd understand you to be a windbag and no real immediate threat.

Wolverine18:
self defense is required to be appropriate to the situation and not excessive. Automatically assuming you should put a bullet in someone because they are in your house will get you jailed in civilized places.

First, I am making an analogy.

The moment you say "You're getting your ass kicked" you put yourself into the "attacker" role. In "civilized" countries the "victim" has the right to respond with all necessary force.

If you actually paid attention to what happened, he was called names and was under the threat of physical abuse.

There was no serious threats being made based on a long history, and you yourself indicated the key word, NECESSARY. Bringing a weapon when there had been no real threat was not necessary. Using the weapon when they hadn't done anything they hadn't done before (ie - it was unlikely they would attack) is not necessary.

Also, self-defense if definitely appropriate. When someone enters your house, he is automatically committing attempted murder, rape, kidnap or whatever.

Not under the law in most countries they haven't.

I live in a "civilized" place.

Clearly not if there is a castle doctorine in place. Then again you might not know the law.

J.d. Scott:

texanarob:
Day 1) Kid gets threatened. Mum gives his stun gun
Day 2) Bullies approach kid. Kid pulls stun gun and fires defensive shot. Bullies retreat.

He got lucky. I would have expected either

Day 2 cont...) Bullies pull a knife, kid gets destroyed
or
Day 3) Bullies get their own weapons.

Whether in the form of bats/clubs, knives or guns, 6 bullies are more likely to have access to and knowledge to use weaponry that one bullied kid. The kid will end up hurt.

In reality, the kid should have worked out why he was being picked on. If it's anything he can change, its better to conform than to get pummelled/expelled. If not, it is up to him to stay within sight of teachers/friends/parents/reasonable adults. The mother should have picked him up from school, not given him a weapon. If this was at lunch time, I highly doubt the teachers would object to him remaining inside if he felt threatened.

Defend his rights all you want. I fought bullies in school myself. It was once I realised that its up to me to change, rather than hope they will, that things got better.

This is such BS. Why should he have to conform? We constantly talk about schools as having safe environments - well is it or isn't it? If it's only safe if you make every effort to not stand out from the crowd, if you hide your identity and act submissively, then that isn't safe. Allowing bullies and hatred to run a school and define the identities of everyone else is utter garbage. Dirty looks and lack of acceptance is one thing - intimidation, threats, insults, and violence is another. It's severely f****d up that a school principal would suggest to a student to conform more, which is basically an acknowledgement that he is utterly useless at enforcing the rules, and he deserve to be expelled nearly as much as the student. The student was wrong for bringing a stun gun, but the school is wrong for creating an environment where a student felt he needed to bring a stun gun.

And it's everywhere. I had to enforce my right to be who I was with a baseball bat and a helping of unbridled rage. If it had happened at school, I would have been expelled. In public, maybe arrested and sent to a reform house. My "crime" was simply being gifted. I can't imagine what it's like to be gay or transgender.

At the end of the day, he does need to get away from that school, but not because he did something wrong, but because they've decided that the much easier solution to failed social policy enforcement is to cover up the policy by blaming the victims and encouraging them to not create situations that highlight their failure to enforce their own policies. That's the type of lazy backwards thinking that should have been abolished years ago. Maybe instead of threatening the bullies, he should have shocked the administrators, because obviously, their hearts have stopped.

Yes, society is bullshit. Schools don't do anything about bullying. Discrimination is still a big problem. These are all things that have already been established. Sometimes you have to take some bullshit to make the problem go away. Is it the kid's fault that he wants to dress a certain way? No. Is it his fault that some kids in the school are assholes? Certainly not. But if acting and dressing a certain way is going to get him bullied, he should probably try toning down his mannerisms. I'm not blaming him, I'm saying that it's bullshit, but it's still the way things work right now. Not everyone gets to be themselves without fear of discrimination ever, because we don't live in a rainbow fantasy land.

Wolverine18:
They certainly wouldn't take more than 5 minutes on a peeper call

I put 5/20 because there might be happening something at the moment and they can't dispatch a car because of reasons.

And don't forget not everyone lives in the city.

Wolverine18:
If you had done that many times before and not done anything then I'd understand you to be a windbag and no real immediate threat.

Bullies gonna bully.

Wolverine18:
and you yourself indicated the key word, NECESSARY. Bringing a weapon when there had been no real threat was not necessary. Using the weapon when they hadn't done anything they hadn't done before (ie - it was unlikely they would attack) is not necessary.

Like I said before, your argument is a non-issue. I already stated many times that people should not bring a weapon to school.

Yet his case should have been taken as a self-defense from day one. That is all I am saying.

If you can call the police when you are under threat, that means that it requires some kind of defense. Otherwise you're abusing the emergency system.

If you are not abusing the system, then you need the police. When the police is not there, you defend yourself.

See my point? You're trying to fight what is almost a circular logic. If a threat does not require self-defense, then calling the police is abusing the system because you don't need to be defended.

Wolverine18:

I live in a "civilized" place.

Clearly not if there is a castle doctorine in place. Then again you might not know the law.

Who said anything about Castle Doctrine? And thanks for implying that the glorious states that prevent victims from being legally prosecuted are not civilized.

Like I said, I live in a "civilized" country where picking up a legal gun and stop an entire gang of intruders and have them at gunpoint until the police arrives is such an inconvenient for the gang (who are the nicest people around and only wanted to make a late night surprise - that's what the ski masks are for) that you will be treated like a criminal.

That happened to a friend of mine. Plus, they took away his gun (worth 3000 euros, because of retardedly high taxes and the stupid "extortion fees" associated with owning a firearm in a Socialist state) so that it could sit in a evidence locker for 3 years until he got it back again.

I find it disgusting to live in a country that calls itself "civilized" when violent crime is on the rise and criminals can fire gunshots at the police, caught a few minutes later and released because they were no longer committing a crime.

That's right. You have to be literally caught in the act to be arrested, because you are totally a nice person and you won't harass your victims to prevent them to testify against you in court.

CIVILIZATION!

ElPatron:

Treblaine:
snip

From personal experience, I know that bullies are complete pussies. Seems contradictory, right? But that's exactly the reason they often get together in packs and use weapons (like knives).

The minute they see an "escalation" of violence they piss themselves because they never expect it.

I am not a firm believer on tasers but the minute you see a harmless kid shocking a dude and going on a rage fueled rampage, you assess your priorities.

Which is running. Fighting with someone with a taser is a good way to get everyone involved sharing electric hugs.

Well my strategy for self-defence is any situation I have to arm myself to go into, the option should be considered is how I could not even be in this situation? In other words, the PRIMARY antidote to lions is not a revolver, it is NOT go into the lions den! I'm saying this kid doesn't have to go to this school, he should get out of there and not wait to be expelled. If he has gotten to the position that he even considers a stun gun, that's a time to move school or learn from home.

Now I'm not saying it's never right to arm yourself, if you HAVE to walk through lions territory you'd better arm yourself. There are so many situations where the situation is thrust upon you, such as at home or work where you might be prone to armed robbery, or when travelling and likely to be mugged or hijacked.

But generally - NOT always- but generally escape is the best defence. The current advice on mass-shooting or terrorist attack scenario is to evacuate, get the hell out of there. From 9/11 to Virginia Tech, do NOT stay put, get out of the area. Move.

But that doesn't mean turning your back on your foe, then you'll just be tired and expose your blind side. Look at the survival strategies of animals, if you've ever hunted you'll know at the first sign of danger they flee and if you missed with the first shot you'll probably miss the next. But if you ever do corner them, suddenly they turn and ATTACK! That wild deer that fled so scared suddenly uses his antlers and mauls you getting out.

So hierarchy is (1)avoidance, (2)escape, and (3)sudden retaliation.

It's worth stopping to consider where George Zimmerman may have gone wrong with the little we know. He pursued that kid and assuming what he said was true that the kid punched him that's to be expected, HE CHASED HIM! Zimmerman wasn't a cop, yet was armed, and chasing him. He reasonably thought he meant harm and fought back. Now if it was a cop - who identified himself as a cop - who chased that kid, the kid wouldn't have a reason to suspect he was being attacked by an armed criminal but that the police simply wanted to arrest him for questioning, it is part of their duty to chase them.

The kid did the right thing, he didn't enter a dangerous situation, Zimmerman thrust it upon him, he ran to avoid him, and when cornered he struck back.

It is a VITAL element from a legal and MORAL standpoint that in justified self-defence that you be DEFENSIVE! You avoid dangerous situations, and if in a dangerous situation make at least consideration of escaping it, only using weapons and violence as a last resort. The important thing about this is you can't have a scenario where both sides claim self-defence. If that kid had lived, I'm quite sure he'd say he struck Zimmerman in self-defence, and then Zimmerman would claim he shot the kid in self-defence. When you consider your actions, follow the Golden Rule, would I like others to do unto me as I do unto them?

[NOTE: My personal theory, Zimmerman simply pointed the gun at the kid (itself and over-reaction) and like an idiot with poor trigger discipline accidentally shot him. Makes sense as if you REALLY fear for your life you empty the mag and that is what self-defence firearm courses train. I think a similar thing happened with that Brazilian electrician the UK police shot in the underground metro train, they were too aggressive in arrest with muzzle on him and finger on trigger, one flinch and they fire a shot. Later they rationalise they MEANT to do it when really they were just reacting without thinking]

I don't think this is in contradiction with Florida's "stand your ground" laws (and I think George Zimmerman is NOT protected by them) as that is saying there isn't an absolute legal requirement to flee as sometimes you cannot flee. But it does NOT give people permission to chase people down.

Legally, in the UK I cannot arm myself for defence. But speaking internationally in a moral sense, I'd only seek to arm myself if I thought it likely I'd be forced into a dangerous situation (1), that I could not passively escape (2) that violence could effect defence or escape (3). Incidentally, that is not any part of my life in the UK

runic knight:

Anything you pick up is a weapon, people. All a weapon is is a tool used as a means of force. If the kid had a pencil in his hand and threw a punch or stabbed a kid with it, it is a weapon. Thus zero tolerance is flawed in concept, to say nothing of the issues it can have in execution.

Only in the sense that "every tool is also a hammer", is every tool a weapon. Really it means you can use any tool as a hammer, you can also use any tool as a weapon.

The point is does it only have one practical purpose, to harm individuals to a significant extent, then it is a weapon. A pencil is a totally impractical weapon and its usefulness as a writing implement far outweighs it's uselessness as a weapon. You can stomp someone to death with shoes on your feet, but it's outweighed by their utility in protecting people's feet in day to day use. Now a carving knife is arguably for carving meat and as a fighting knife is poor for its relative brittleness, but what do you need a carving knife for in maths class? You don't, it clearly exists there as a weapon. Weapons are by why they are brought there.

Zero tolerance rules exist mainly for liability purposes. If a student is caught with a weapon and is let in again and harms or kills another student with the weapon, then the teacher is liable for not expelling that student. Even if it is a 1-in-100 chance that the student will bring another weapon into school and use it on another student, that is a Million Dollar Lawsuit that the school will have to pick up the bill for.

They cannot afford discretion.

You find a way that schools won't be liable if they let a student return to school and harm another schoolmate, even though they'd been caught with a weapon before, THEN you can see an end to zero tolerance weapons policies.

Being a Martial arts don't make your hands and feet much more weapons. Just read some criminal case files on people being beaten to death you'll see the perpetrators didn't have any amazing Far Eastern Kung Fu training, they just were strong and had a huge capacity to inflict suffering. You knock someone down and stomp on their throat, they'll die. You slam someone's head repeatedly into a concrete wall, they'll die. There is not great art to killing, just need a capacity for unrelenting and vicious cruelty. And a martial artist wouldn't kill by accident, beyond some unusual environmental hazards they wouldn't encounter in their dojo. They train their moves and KNOW what they are doing. They'd know the risks involved in trying any particular move.

I'm currently in school, and I can say that kids are cruel. Especially to people who aren't like them.

In my school, there are a few homosexual kids. Most of them don't ask for extra attention or act any different from normal kids. We're cool with these people.

However, there are one or two kids who do their hair in a womanly fashion, paint their nails, dress in all pink, do a high pitched voice, etc. They're the ones who get picked on.

Yeah, it would be nice if everyone could act and dress the way they wanted, but sometimes you just have to deal with it and fit the common definition of 'normal'.

EDIT: Also, schools will never change. It's just how the Human brain works, to shun what's not normal. Everyone has to deal with it, but some try to act out, and guess what? They deal with the consequences.

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.

and that's where you're wrong. stun guns and tazers don't fire actual bullets, and it's not like he had a bayonet on the end. the school is to blame. they should have done something about the bullying in the first place, and if anyone's answerable, it's them.

Treblaine:
It is a VITAL element from a legal and MORAL standpoint that in justified self-defence that you be DEFENSIVE! You avoid dangerous situations, and if in a dangerous situation make at least consideration of escaping it, only using weapons and violence as a last resort.

Funny, like I said in another post we are living in a "civilized" area where we think it's normal for criminals to dictate where you can or can't go at night.

I once got off a train and to leave the platform I had to pass trough a tunnel where no natural light could get in and the lighting was very dim. The station had put on a sign saying that we should avoid risky situations.

Sorry to use this buzzword but VICTIM BLAMING. If you want to get off the train you have to go trough the tunnel anyway, the logic of avoiding risks basically means that if you are a hot woman in skirt you're taking "risks" and you should blamed in case you are raped.

Treblaine:
Zimmerman

Funny that you mentioned that prick (tired of hearing about him) because you have NO. IDEA. OF. WHAT. HAPPENED.

Zimmerman only drew the gun when he was down and being beaten. After he had called for help and nobody came. Treyvon did not do the right thing, he DID the retarded, thuggish thing to do. "Oh, no a person is looking at me funny. I better stalk him and confront him from behind." - typical "thug" behavior.

Why are you implying it was a negligent discharge when there is photographic evidence of Zimmerman's bleeding head? The police investigated the scene and said it had been a textbook self-defense shooting.

By the way, Zimmerman wasn't a cop but he was properly LICENSED by the state to carry a firearm, which means he had to undergo proper TRAINING.

Treblaine:
The point is does it only have one practical purpose, to harm individuals to a significant extent, then it is a weapon. A pencil is a totally impractical weapon and its usefulness as a writing implement far outweighs it's uselessness as a weapon.

Obviously you have never seen someone getting stabbed by a pencil.

Anything is a goddamned weapon, garbage bags, chairs, etc everything can be used to kill.

talker:
and that's where you're wrong. stun guns and tazers don't fire actual bullets, and it's not like he had a bayonet on the end. the school is to blame. they should have done something about the bullying in the first place, and if anyone's answerable, it's them.

Swords don't fire bullets, and they are goddamned weapons. L2terminology.

manic_depressive13:
Jesus christ, she thought giving him a weapon was a more appropriate response than, I don't know, sending him to a different school?

Edit: Also, this is why school uniforms should be compulsory.

I have to agree with this bloke right 'ere mistah.

I never really saw the point of school uniform until i realised what it's like in Non-Uniformed schools.

And if you're going to give you child a weapon that has the /potential/ to kill someone, may as well give him something a bit more scary that a little prod stick.

ElPatron:

Treblaine:
It is a VITAL element from a legal and MORAL standpoint that in justified self-defence that you be DEFENSIVE! You avoid dangerous situations, and if in a dangerous situation make at least consideration of escaping it, only using weapons and violence as a last resort.

Funny, like I said in another post we are living in a "civilized" area where we think it's normal for criminals to dictate where you can or can't go at night.

I once got off a train and to leave the platform I had to pass trough a tunnel where no natural light could get in and the lighting was very dim. The station had put on a sign saying that we should avoid risky situations.

Sorry to use this buzzword but VICTIM BLAMING. If you want to get off the train you have to go trough the tunnel anyway, the logic of avoiding risks basically means that if you are a hot woman in skirt you're taking "risks" and you should blamed in case you are raped.

Treblaine:
Zimmerman

Funny that you mentioned that prick (tired of hearing about him) because you have NO. IDEA. OF. WHAT. HAPPENED.

Zimmerman only drew the gun when he was down and being beaten. After he had called for help and nobody came. Treyvon did not do the right thing, he DID the retarded, thuggish thing to do. "Oh, no a person is looking at me funny. I better stalk him and confront him from behind." - typical "thug" behavior.

Why are you implying it was a negligent discharge when there is photographic evidence of Zimmerman's bleeding head? The police investigated the scene and said it had been a textbook self-defense shooting.

By the way, Zimmerman wasn't a cop but he was properly LICENSED by the state to carry a firearm, which means he had to undergo proper TRAINING.

Treblaine:
The point is does it only have one practical purpose, to harm individuals to a significant extent, then it is a weapon. A pencil is a totally impractical weapon and its usefulness as a writing implement far outweighs it's uselessness as a weapon.

Obviously you have never seen someone getting stabbed by a pencil.

Anything is a goddamned weapon, garbage bags, chairs, etc everything can be used to kill.

"for criminals to dictate where you can or can't go at night."

But how does that justify seeking confrontation?

I didn't say you can never put yourself in risk of violent confrontation but if you GENUINELY are acting on self-defence you should be avoiding confrontation. In other words, don't go to the rough part of town unless you have legitimate business there. Remember, violence is a last resort, even the lives and well-being of your attacker are important

This is not "victim blaming" and don't compare yourself to woman stalked by rapists who will likely be weaker and defenceless from any attacker. My argument in no way equivalent to the "she wore a short skirt and asked to be raped". No woman wants that. They never truly thought that men would do that, they wear a short skirt to attract noble suitors not savages.

But vigilantes want to be attacked as they can strike back with lethal force and kill certain gangs that they despise. Hell, one gang to another want this. Think about how gang members can abuse such a self-defence law that allows you to strike even when you provoke an attack. Some gang banger just has to walk into another territory, provoke them to take a punch or rob him then shoot him dead.

I am saying when you deliberately go somewhere knowing there will confrontation, especially when you are armed, then you are not the victim. You are the aggressor trying to rationalise victim-hood to justify violence. The justification for violence is as a last resort. You talk about a civilised society, well even criminals have rights in a civilised society, violent force can only be justified against them

The responsibility for making areas free to travel through it NOT down to individual armed citizens, it is down to the ACCOUNTABLE authorities! If they aren't doing their job that doesn't licence vigilantism. So the school bullying must be stopped by the school authorities so it is safe to return. A violent gang neighbourhood needs to be brought into order by the police and the law courts and local legislation if necessary.

The key part of self-Defence is the DEFENCE part. Seeking confrontation is the opposite of defence.

There are exceptions by extreme circumstance, like if you see a woman being raped then you have business to intervene and escalate force correspondingly to stop the assault. But it doesn't give you licence to walk over and shoot him in the back of the head.

The basic rule is DO NOT GO OUT WITH AN INTENTION TO KILL! The escalation of force must be lethal force as a final measure. Lethal force because that is the only option you have left from death or severe injury. By severe injury I mean rape or losing a limb, not a bloody nose from some kid popping you on the nose.

Vigilantes are not those who prevent crimes being committed, or record crimes and help police. They want to kill criminals because they have a murderous cruelty streak.

I do have a fairly good idea of the facts surrounding the Zimmerman case, though I DID add the caveat that this was based on the limited amount that I knew. But lets go through this:

-Zimmerman was stalking the kid, NOT the other way around. He was chasing him and the police records don't show he clearly identified that he was trying to enforce the law. Zimmerman confronted him from behind and tackled him
-You corroborate that the kid struck Zimmerman, but that is to be expected after this strange man chased him down and tackled him trying to restrain him. He might have thought he was some sort of pervert that wanted to rape this young boy. Reasonably you would strike back if you were in his position especially after you tried to run.
-I'm giving Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt it was a Negligent Discharge as it would be pure spite to shoot an unarmed kid just because he gave him a bloody nose. Drawing the gun maybe, but it is no justified reason to DELIBERATELY shoot as there was no serious threat that justified lethal force.
-Licences to carry a weapon does not come with adequate training on how to make arrests. It's enough to make sure you don't break the most basic rules of general firearm use.
Police have VERY specific training on how to make armed arrests that Zimmerman didn't have, like making it 100% clear that they are the police and they are making a lawful arrest. The police are known to be accountable to a public organisation, while some guy with a gun is not.

Self defence from a puny pugilist is not simply drawing a gun and shooting them. That is totally out of proportion to shoot someone who punched you especially after you stalked them, chased them, and tackled them the had reason to punch you in the first place.

Think about it, what is the reasonable thing to do to stop someone punching you? It is shoving them away and encouraging them to leave you, give them an opportunity to leave. If they clearly have no intention of punching to escape and you seriously think they can put you in the hospital before help arrives (with that kid?) then draw your weapon and give them a final chance to freely leave.

And the state of Florida argues that Zimmerman has broken the law. Police stated on the night of the incident they didn't think it was self-defence when they initially arrested him, it's not unusual to not immediately charge a suspect as if you've read any criminal investigations they don't want to charge till they have a good case.

As to bringing weapons into school because pencils are allowed.
I've seen wounds from a pencil and also knife wounds, I worked in a hospital treating knife wounds. Pencil doesn't compare. You cannot get a good grip on a pencil, it often struggles to penetrate cotton clothing before it breaks and has a very narrow wound track it is more likely to push past a major blood vessel than sever it. A hole in the lung or torso is too small for air to move at a significant rate and the heart is simply too strong to be punctured let alone get through the sternum.

Now a knife wound is far more serious. It can break bones and cuts a broad wound rather than poke a narrow hole stretched open that stretches closed from a pencil. A deep longitudinal cut from a knife stab it hugely likely to hit a major blood vessel and break bones. A stab wound to the thorax will quickly lead to a collapsed lung as the long cut can "eyelid" open and allow air and blood to freely pass through. Due to a considerable handle and its strength many rapid stabs can be performed. Particularly deadly is a small blade with a large handle for a good grip how it can give a forceful hooking "slash". Poke in an inch into the abdomen and trust laterally to disembowel. Into the neck and slit their throat cutting the huge cluster of nerves, blood vessels and trachea that are concentrated in the throat.

You cannot justify weapons like knives or other weapons in schools because of pencils remote possibility to do superficial harm.

manic_depressive13:
Jesus christ, she thought giving him a weapon was a more appropriate response than, I don't know, sending him to a different school?

Edit: Also, this is why school uniforms should be compulsory.

The problem with school uniforms is wouldn't the school THEN be doing to this student what the bullies are doing? The bullies don't like the way he dresses, his hairstyle, so they drive him out of school so he conforms. Conformity.

So the solution to Enforced Conformity it Enforced Conformity. A school uniform that would even eliminate his flamboyant hairstyle would be EXACTLY what the bullies want.

If everyone is wearing the same thing, the jocks and poplar kids get their way.

And this doesn't teach tolerance, it teaches authoritarian exceptionalism, that you can simply ban inconveniences. It just sweeps the issue under the rug of learning to live and work with people who dress or act differently, and just delays the issue till they leave school.

This american school needs to actually ENFORCE it's free-dress policy! And that means stopping any member of the school intimidating another for their dress that expresses their benign nature. The way people dress is important otherwise this kid would have just changed his dress style.

Treblaine:
I've seen wounds from a pencil and also knife wounds, I worked in a hospital treating knife wounds. Pencil doesn't compare. You cannot get a good grip on a pencil, it often struggles to penetrate cotton clothing before it breaks and has a very narrow wound track it is more likely to push past a major blood vessel than sever it. A hole in the lung or torso is too small for air to move at a significant rate and the heart is simply too strong to be punctured let alone get through the sternum.

Now a knife wound is far more serious. It can break bones and cuts a broad wound rather than poke a narrow hole stretched open that stretches closed from a pencil. A deep longitudinal cut from a knife stab it hugely likely to hit a major blood vessel and break bones. A stab wound to the thorax will quickly lead to a collapsed lung as the long cut can "eyelid" open and allow air and blood to freely pass through. Due to a considerable handle and its strength many rapid stabs can be performed. Particularly deadly is a small blade with a large handle for a good grip how it can give a forceful hooking "slash". Poke in an inch into the abdomen and trust laterally to disembowel. Into the neck and slit their throat cutting the huge cluster of nerves, blood vessels and trachea that are concentrated in the throat.

You cannot justify weapons like knives or other weapons in schools because of pencils remote possibility to do superficial harm.

I used to think that way. Until I learned that a bear has been killed with .22 Short.

The hell with "lethality", people have been shot in the head and survived, and people have been killed by freak accidents.

Also, the grip you get in a pencil is about the same you get in a budget folding knife - shit, but it puts people into a world of hurt.

gang members

Further down the post you say that criminals have rights. So I suppose they have the right to self-defense, no? Anyway...

Where your logic fails: convicted felons can't own firearms so if they walk around with a gun, it's an illegal gun. They can't get concealed carry permits either, so they are carrying an illegal weapon, legally.

THEREFORE, THEY CAN'T GET AWAY WITH SELF-DEFENSE.

The responsibility for making areas free to travel through it NOT down to individual armed citizens, it is down to the ACCOUNTABLE authorities!

The police does not have the obligation to protect your life. It has been established by cases like DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989) and Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005)

The WHOLE DAMNED POINT of issuing concealed carry permits is discouraging crime - just google it, crime drops in places where CCW is issued, while restrictive states like California and New York have very high criminal activity.

Zimmerman was stalking the kid, NOT the other way around (...) Zimmerman confronted him from behind and tackled him

[CITATION NEEDED]

it would be pure spite to shoot an unarmed kid just because he gave him a bloody nose. Drawing the gun maybe, but it is no justified reason to DELIBERATELY shoot as there was no serious threat that justified lethal force.

FIREARMS SAFETY RULE #2 - Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.

What you just said violates every principle of gun safety - you NEVER pull a gun out unless you are willing to shot, and you NEVER point a gun at anyone unless you intend to stop that person.

Plus, it's perfectly acceptable to make use of lethal force when you are under threat of severe bodily harm - Zimmerman was getting his head bashed in by Treyvon, who was on top of him. He feared for his life and he followed the law.

The only reason this case if being a shitstorm is because the Media is praying that black people see it as a hate crime and start riots like in LA. Goddamn it, Zimmerman is Hispanic but he was presented as a caucasian by the media to instigate hate.

you have business to intervene and escalate force correspondingly to stop the assault. But it doesn't give you licence to walk over and shoot him in the back of the head.

First, you don't aim for the head. That is for movies or exceptionally trained individuals. You shoot center-mass and you don't stop pulling the trigger until the threat is down - that's how the police does it, that's how self-defense instructors train you.

Second, I don't believe in corresponding force - to stop someone from raping another person, I will definitely not rape the rapist, and I won't try reasoning with him, he might be armed.

When you have to make use of violence, you go all out. It's stupid to die helping someone, it's preferable to incapacitate the criminal in the least amount of time

Terminate421:
She was dumb to give the kid a weapon, though for self defense purposes weapons are great, especially guns. BUT NOT AT SCHOOLS, what I mean is, a weapon is acceptable in life or death scenarios, this guy was not in one of those scenarios.

The school may not have done its job, but the parent pretty much caused mutiny. Weapons are not allowed in schools, period.

She should have taught him martial arts, much more legal.

1. guns can be used if you feel either
A. your life is threatened
B. you fear for serious bodily harm (which the kid did)
C. you fear rape
that's the law and IMO that is correct, if it was my kid I would have given him something even more serious than a stun gun as a stun gun is not actually effective in a group situation and the kid was lucky the ran away instead of beating the shit out of him

2. if I was being bullied at school and the school wasn't stopping it I would absolutely take it into my own hands and bring in a weapon (so would anyone else with any common sense), the school failed to protect the kid and he was forced to protect himself with a weapon making it the schools fault not the kids

3. martial arts do not work in a 6 vs 1 situation, period even the black belts I know wouldn't fight and win 6 vs 1 and ecven in terms of winning a 2 vs 1 is unlikely even after serious training and the kid is being bullied know and training for afew months then getting beat up by a group of bullies is a really shit idea

the way the kid and his mum acted was correct except the point that stun guns wont work in a group situation (especially not 6 vs 1) and the school acted way put of order, by not helping the kid the school forcing him to protect himself then the school tried to expell him for protecting himself, its pretty fucked up and trying to put the kid is the wrong or the school is in the right is even more fucked up

CriticKitten:
Stopped reading this paragraph after that, because yes, you just compared rape victims to ordinary childhood bullying. Nice lack of perspective there.

And you're trying to spin ME as insensitive? Pot, meet kettle.

I'm sorry, would you care to point out how my point was invalid or will you just call this alternative "godwin's law" as though it invalidates what I have said? When a parallel exists, as I clearly explained before how, just because it is a difference in scale does not invalidate it. Indeed, you avoid addressing any of it under the pretense that drawing parallels to rape somehow doesn't require it anymore. It still does and I am waiting on a response to how what the victim does or does not wear in ANY way justifies or excuses actions taken to them.

Most cops are going to be mature enough not to use a stun gun on you if you say "I'm gonna beat you up". He's a high school kid, granted, maturity is lacking in that department, but his mother should have been mature enough to know better. The fact that she didn't means she's not being a proper role model. You can teach your kid self-defense without teaching him to break the law.

He was surrounded by 6 kids, and held the non-lethal stun gun into the air and released is to scare them off. So no, I don't think his maturity is lacking there. A cop in that situation could have shot his way out with a real gun and not been fired for it either. Why do people assume that a police officer is more responsible then a civilian? They are just as capable of horrible acts of violence or stupidity, and conversely just as capable of mature and rational thought.

Psychological "torture" isn't a valid excuse for breaking the law and endangering other students. Nice try though.

Tell ya what though, it's amazing how many people manage to survive bullying without the "mental scarring" that everyone claims we should have. Maybe I've just been hypnotized into forgetting all of that awful torment I suffered at the hands of my bullies? Or maybe, just maybe, I'm made of slightly sterner stuff? Hard to tell, really, but it seems like our psych wards should be full of people if indeed bully victims are as "psychologically tortured" as people like to claim they are.

Or perhaps people just like to throw that phrase around so much that it's completely lost all meaning. Bullies will always exist, and while we should always do something about it, they'll always exist. And more importantly, when the bullies grow up and become adult bullies, what will these kids do then, when no one is around to comfort them? People need to be able to bounce back, to adjust and to take some hits. If you never let them learn as a kid, they won't be able to cope with adult life.

inb4 you try to spin THIS as me being callous and unfeeling, too.

Where did he endanger other students? Having a tool does not automatically endanger them. Holding it in the air and using it to scare off bullies still does not endanger other students. I am not saying that people can't survive being bullied, merely they should not have to be subjected to it. I am also not saying all kids suffer trauma, but some can and do. Well, unless you want to disregard the whole "increased rate of depression/suicide aspect of the bullied. You survived? good for you. Some don't. I'd rather be concerned about those who aren't made of "sterner stuff" and making an environment where they are protected.
I call bullshit on that "bullies will always exist" the same way I do to people saying the poor will always exist. There will always be those who try to bully, but that does not mean the system in place should turn a blind eye or can not stop it. Hell, even if they can't, decreasing the effect is STILL an admirable goal to strive for. Sorry if I don't see things as "can't be perfect, wont bother". And for all the people beat to a pulp because bullying went too far, I am sure they bounce just fine. If bullying is something children have to deal with, then why do we, as adults, not do more to try and prevent it? Or even, as you said, to teach them how to defend themselves with the skills and tools available to civilians in public. Oh wait, that is exactly what got this mess started, isn't it?

Not on school grounds. Civilians are not allowed to carry firearms on school grounds, even if the weapon is registered. It's a public safety law that exists for a damn good reason. If you actually think it's legal for a kid to bring a stun gun to school then you're being willfully ignorant of your own country's laws.

Firearms are not stun guns. Stun guns are not actual "guns" and therefore may be looked at under a different classification. Part of the whole "might have been confusion instead of blatant disregard" part of my post concerning it. I could argue how zones like that can cause as many issues as they stop, how there are grey zones when it comes to pepper spray or stun sticks and the like, etc.

Obviously he knew better if he had never done it in the past. And allegedly he only did so because his mother told him to. He knew it wasn't okay, but did it anyways. He shares blame with his parent for this one.

Bullshit. If he had not felt the need to he wouldn't. I never felt the need to wear a football helmet to school, but it has nothing to do with thoughts of legality, it is just lack of desire to do so. So no, unless he said he knew it was against the rules himself, you can not claim this without being full of shit.

No, there isn't.

Yes, there is. You are familiar with the idea of civil disobedience, yes? You know, people the law overlooked if not outright treated unfairly breaking the law for moral reasons? You can't see how a kid defending himself from bullies when the law did nothing to stop it as anything like this, can you?

I'm so glad you haven't bothered to go back and read some of my previous posts. No, it's much easier to make sweeping assumptions based on the content of the one post you're quoting.

I already said that I didn't think it was okay for the bullies to pick on him. That I was bullied in my past too. That I think all kinds of bullying against any person for any reason is wrong. I'm just not going to believe that the stun gun was "the only way" to solve this problem, because from personal experience, there are always other ways. He chose the one that violates the law, so he gets to accept the consequences of his actions and maybe next time he'll employ smarter tactics against people who put him down or pick on him, because he'll be dealing with it for the rest of his life just like everyone else.

I never said it was the only way to solve it, merely it was justifiable. And no, I have not read your past posts because my comments here were about the post I quoted. If you meant something else, that is one thing, but from all I have read, you project a lot of extra fault and malice on the kid and his mom, and seem cartoonishly supportive of the letter of the law in this case, in spite of how it is not cut and dry, and even the letter of the law may not be as sharp. I have brought up reasons why could be justifiable, how the logic you use is flawed and how you repeatedly attribute knowing aggression when motivation, foreknowledge and full details of the situation are not known to you or me.

Now, can you please explain why a comparison to rape is not justifiable to make when in both cases, the garb of the wearer is cited as a motivation for the action taken against them. Can you explain how you know they deliberately disobeyed as opposed to uncertainty about the letter of the law. And can you explain why no one should ever break the law regardless if it is screwing you over in an unfair manner, and regardless that the makers and enforcers of said law are as flawed a human being as the ones following it and that the kid was facing a potential threat that could have been life threatening.

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.

Or the bullies could beat him to death. But I guess cold blooded murder is a lesser crime than self-defense in your mind.

Wolverine18:
My my, all these people who have no concept of reality and would rather use a weapon than their head.

Starting to wonder about your concept of reality if you think a group of gay-bashers is going to just walk away cause the kid just stood there. Of course your other ideas of having him and his family uproot their entire lives and run away or watching a few Bruce Lee movies and instantly becoming a Kung Fu master are totally more realistic.

I get the feeling you're on the bullies side and just want the victims to take their beatings or cower in fear every day.

thaluikhain:
Bringing a weapon to school is obviously a bad idea.

Fortunately, there are plenty of other options someone in that position has.

Unfortunately none of them will actually work, but, um...don't be gay? Yeah, problem solved, I'll go back to ignoring it now.

I may be ignorant here, but how does one stop being gay? Ar'n't they born that way?

Evil Smurf:

I may be ignorant here, but how does one stop being gay? Ar'n't they born that way?

I think that was the point of the post, to show the absurdity of many of the alternative ideas bantered about. And something to the effect that he could no sooner stop being who he was as he could stop having his hair color.
Personally I think a lot of the alternatives are either the same thing with a different face, like to learn martial arts to beat them up(as though using a tool to defend yourself is somehow 'dirty fighting' in spite of overwhelming size and numbers), unreasonable, like moving to a different school or getting the police to intervene when the school is not, or vindicating the actions of the bullies by having the kid pipe down, hide who he is, (thereby saying that the actions of the bullies was justified because differences need to be hidden or else bad things will happen to you and the law wont protect you if you are different).

runic knight:

Evil Smurf:

I may be ignorant here, but how does one stop being gay? Ar'n't they born that way?

I think that was the point of the post, to show the absurdity of many of the alternative ideas bantered about. And something to the effect that he could no sooner stop being who he was as he could stop having his hair color.
Personally I think a lot of the alternatives are either the same thing with a different face, like to learn martial arts to beat them up(as though using a tool to defend yourself is somehow 'dirty fighting' in spite of overwhelming size and numbers), unreasonable, like moving to a different school or getting the police to intervene when the school is not, or vindicating the actions of the bullies by having the kid pipe down, hide who he is, (thereby saying that the actions of the bullies was justified because differences need to be hidden or else bad things will happen to you and the law wont protect you if you are different).

my bad, sarcasm does not really go down well on the internet

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked