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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 16 NEXT
 

Kendarik:

People keep saying what "the school does". After the first physical assault its a crime unless the kids are so young that they can't be legally charged (not the case with a 17 year old).

This guy is ***17***. He's pretty much an adult, he should have had this in hand without mommy giving him a weapon.

Bullies get away with physical violence only when the victims are too submissive to deal with the problem. They need to learn to stand up for themselves. That doesn't necessarily mean using force, but it also doesn't mean crying on youtube or a forum, it means taking positive action.

I'm not saying it isn't a crime, I'm saying that the current setup makes it difficult to actually prosecute anyone involved, except depressingly enough in some cases the kids that actually fight back and then own up to their actions.

As for the rest, I've heard that before too. What positive action? Throughout this entire thread, I have yet to see anyone suggest an alternative solution for this kid to attempt that has a reasonable chance of success. It seems to me like he found a solution that works, and had the presence of mind to use it in a manner that caused no one any physical harm. Punishing him for it, while STILL not offering to actually help with the serious problems he faces, is extremely hypocritical.

Kendarik:

As a girl, let me say no, I wouldn't have supported her. I would have supported her calling the police.

As a girl, in a self defense class, she would have learned hold breaks, escape techniques, the use of keys as deadly weapons, and more. She also would have gained the knowledge and confidence so that 6 guys in a schoolyard couldn't put her in that situation of fear - all without ever being touched.

The police can do nothing, their hands are tied, calling them does not help. At least not for the simple bullying case, an actual escalation to rape would bring serious attention. But those cases don't have an incredibly high conviction rate either, and in the meantime, I'd rather make sure it doesn't happen to begin with.

In addition, I heartily applaud the concept of learning to defend yourself, but no self defense course you can reasonably expect a youth to master can train you to handle 6 opponents with a strength advantage, even if they're untrained. Generally, the best you can realistically hope for against such odds is to cause a few of them temporary pain before they pin you, or to create an opportunity to escape before they have a chance (which isn't bad, but a school bully would just try again in an area where you cannot run.)

If you go all out, you could kill one, which would scare the others off and guarantee that you will be left alone by them, but aside from the "minor" legal issues with that action, I thought we were talking about keeping the level of violence down.

Capitano Segnaposto:

Saulkar:
People can spout all the legal/moral/ethical/empirically logical fucking bullshit they want but that is because they have never been in a situation where THEY FEARED/FOUGHT FOR THEIR LIFE. I have had multiple attempts on my life by youth street gangs be it with knives, knuckle dusters, or hammers.

The system (school, cops) did nothing for months until a cop stopped a knife from gutting me (actually had his gun out, safety off). I had a lead pipe in my hand and I was ready to kill, you do not think in those situations, you do. I know what I am talking about, until you are put into a situation where you fear for your life, how well do you know how you will react?

You could argue this kid hand hindsight and he made the choice to take the weapon or not but until you have been in a situation where you believe that you may one day never come home after God knows how much abuse, how well do you know what you would do?

As told from the survivor of multiple murder attempts as a thirteen year old.

Sorry, this is the internet so I don't believe a word of that.

Anyways, even if you did supposedly get threatened and "almost murdered" as a 13 y/o, this boy was just threatened of being beat up. He needs to man up and stop being a pussy.

See the difference? Beaten compared to Stabbed. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. When I was a kid, we got into fights daily, this wasn't the 80's, this wasn't the 70's this was the late 90's. How can the world completely turn the new generation to being such... such... pussies?

Gah it makes no damn sense.

Too Lazy; Didn't Read -

If being threatened of being knocked down a few times, stand up and act like a damn man. Seriously I have seen 10 year old girls more manly than this child. (Not you Saulkar, the person in the OP).

I don't give a flying fuck what you think, whether you believe me or not, my point was that I knew what I was talking about when I said that when you fear for you life you do not think rationally. What I do care about is neither of us were there and for all we know these kids who ganged up on him had the capacity to injure, maim, or kill him. Kids are not becoming weaker, bullying which has always been a life crippling issue that many turned a blind eye to is now becoming more transparent. It has always been there and it has always hurt people, manning up is rarely the solution. Not all people are capable of the same levels resistance to it, physically or mentally, giving a few words of advice and expecting them to sort it all out is just laziness.

The kid was stupid for bringing a weapon to school, hopefully thought the bully issue gets dealt with.

Ptsh, we all know he could talk down those six bullies with his 100 speechcraft, anyone disagreeing is plainly an idiot.

Failing that, he should've invested 100 in Unarmed and taken them all down using VATS, fucking moron.

Because that's how real life works.

Not cool... what if it had been a knife? Would you still sympathise?

As much as I root for this kid, the stun gun is not a great plan. Mummy should've known better.

Back in my day we dealt with bullies by challenging them to a childrens card game, and then when they lost giving them brain damage.

image

Ok, this next post is for the internet toughguys like wolverine. Here's what he and others think will happen when you stand up for yourself:

Do you see a pattern in all of these videos? First off, the victim is usually bigger than the person pushing him around. Second, it's one on one. There's no mob waiting to jump in the second the victim isn't looking. What would happen if the victim this thread is talking about stood up for himself? This:

So, is it the asian kid's fault for not "manning up" and "quit being a pussy"? Is that why he didn't win this attack?

First off the chances of an average person beating two other average people in a 2 vs 1 are basically nill unless your training is flawless and your assailants dont use the fact there are two if them by attack together. Or getting one to hold you while another hits you. You CANNOT fight more than one person. You just cant. Even if you are a little stronger you need a HUGE advantage to win a 2 vs 1. Lets not even go into 6.

I see a trend emerging here. The police are inept. And society doesnt take bullying seriously. The weapon was a mistake. It shouldnt be neccessary. But it was. And thats terrible. Attack the root of the issue or these stories will become more common.

Honestly if i knew the option was a tazor or a 6 on one beating id pick the tazor. A beating with 2 is bad enough. 6. Fuck. No thanks. If i was as scared as he was id want a weapon too. Its easy to feel desperate and optionless when in that situation. Playing devils advocate is easy.

Would I do the same?

If I was the kid, probably not. I don't know, however, I haven't been in that situation before. That's the problem with most of the posts in this thread. This situation didn't happen to any of us. None of us are that kid. Some people were called names and just dealt with it. Others had attempts on their life and used violence in response. What does or doesn't "work" in any situation is entirely dependent on that specific situation. Being able to talk them down might have worked in your situation, it might not have worked for this situation. Pulling a gun might have been necessary in your situation, it might not have been necessary in this situation. Maybe your school didn't do "enough", maybe your school did.

There's no point in discussing what "might" "should" "could" or "would" have happened, because it didn't.

What did happen is he brought a weapon to school. Bringing a weapon to school is a serious violation. He is experiencing the consequences for that.

The long and short of that rule is that a weapon in the school is a potential danger to all students. Even if only brought for self-defense, it can still be used in "unrighteous" ways. What if it malfunctioned in his backpack? What if the student got really pissed at a teacher? What if the bullies got a hold on it? What if because the kid brought a stun gun, the bullies bring a bat, then the kid brings a knife, then the bullies bring a gun?

It doesn't validate the bullying, or invalidate the consequences for the bullies, just as the bullying doesn't validate bringing a weapon to school, or invalidate the consequences thereof. The bullies should be held accountable for their bullying, just the student should be held responsible for bringing a weapon to school.

It doesn't matter why he did it. He did it. Now he has to own up to it. The end.

BiscuitTrouser:
First off the chances of an average person beating two other average people in a 2 vs 1 are basically nill unless your training is flawless and your assailants dont use the fact there are two if them by attack together. Or getting one to hold you while another hits you. You CANNOT fight more than one person. You just cant. Even if you are a little stronger you need a HUGE advantage to win a 2 vs 1. Lets not even go into 6.

I see a trend emerging here. The police are inept. And society doesnt take bullying seriously. The weapon was a mistake. It shouldnt be neccessary. But it was. And thats terrible. Attack the root of the issue or these stories will become more common.

Honestly if i knew the option was a tazor or a 6 on one beating id pick the tazor. A beating with 2 is bad enough. 6. Fuck. No thanks. If i was as scared as he was id want a weapon too. Its easy to feel desperate and optionless when in that situation. Playing devils advocate is easy.

Very true. Even a skilled fighter can still get overwhelmed. Example:

Helmholtz Watson:

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.

This^. I feel sympathy for the kid, but it doesn't change the fact that he brought a weapon to school. This time he might not kill somebody, but you never know if the next time if he will bring a gun to school.

Well, it's entirely the school's fault for letting it get that far. It's entirely possible they could have beaten him to death, crippled/permanently injured him or driven him to suicide (which he had remarked upon), and from a logical point of view, if someone's life has to be risked, I'm going to prefer it isn't the guy who's only defending himself. The school doesn't want weapons brought in, they should crack down on this harder. The mother is making it damn clear she only gave him the thing because it was the last ditch effort to ensure his safety.

If I were a parent and it got to that, I'd happily give my kid a stun gun.

Kendarik:

As a girl, let me say no, I wouldn't have supported her. I would have supported her calling the police.

As a girl, in a self defense class, she would have learned hold breaks, escape techniques, the use of keys as deadly weapons, and more. She also would have gained the knowledge and confidence so that 6 guys in a schoolyard couldn't put her in that situation of fear - all without ever being touched.

I don't know what self defense classes you've taken (since you appear to be an expert here), but I've been explicitly warned in Karate, Akido, Jujutsu (admittedly the last two from the same instructor), Tae Kwon Do and a brief stint in Judo about the dangers of numbers.

I'm also curious why use of keys as a deadly weapon would be acceptable and not a taser. I mean, my dad (ironically a pacifist) taught me that one, but it seems like that should be a no-no.

kman123:

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.

....are you part of the cast of Glee by some chance?

OT: If a school isn't doing enough, I don't think raising the violence level is the answer. Sure, the kid's story sucks, but...I'm pulling a 'domino' effect here but it's one step away from bringing a fully loaded gun into school.

He is the cast of Glee. All of them. Its a shared account, They share with okami and Batman.

OT: I think the kid shouldn't have been sanctioned in any way. The kids bullying him should've been long up for expulsion. The fact official channels didn't step in shows something inherantly wrong with that school, and of they expel him the mom should sue them for homophobia.

Wolverine18:
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.

Did you even read what you posted?
Defending yourself against SIX opponents with a non-lethal weapon is cowardly??
Words fail me..............

Maybe he should have done what this guy did(Graphic video of an unresisting man being beaten to death by several police officers)
http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/08/the-da-just-released-surveillance-footag

Ultratwinkie:

Wolverine18:

kickyourass:
The kid was being threatened by 6 people and a 6 on 1 beating is absolutely a life threatening situation. The school wasn't doing anything to protect him for this sort of thing so what else was he supposed to do?
If you have a better solution I'd honestly love to hear it, but I don't see any other options this kid had

You call THE POLICE. It's their job. The school can deal with small stuff, but threatening a physical attack is a crime.

There is also self defense training, deescaelation training, walking with friends, standing down bullies (most will back off if pushed), switching schools, and MANY other solutions.

In addition to the kid being charged in this case, I'm rather disappointed the mother wasn't charged as well. At the very least child services needs to review her custody, she doesn't appear to be a fit parent. I wonder where the dad is in all this, oh wait, I can probably guess.

I dealt with bullies as kids, a stun gun is not the answer. There are plenty of answers, that isn't one of them.

What kind of gated community white bread police do YOU have? In the REAL world the cops don't come until after the fact. Some schoolyard threat of a fight is NOT going to get them off their ass. EVER.

AMERICAN POLICE DO NOT COME UNTIL SOMEONE IS DEAD, DYING, OR HAS DRUGS. PERIOD.

Kids bully others all the time, and the only time anything is done is AFTER the fact and ONLY in extreme circumstances. This is what the school system does. They talk tough but they are useless for anything other than a "talking to." No consequence, no actual help. It only serves to make the matter worse.

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?"

Nuke_em_05:

What did happen is he brought a weapon to school. Bringing a weapon to school is a serious violation. He is experiencing the consequences for that.

The long and short of that rule is that a weapon in the school is a potential danger to all students. Even if only brought for self-defense, it can still be used in "unrighteous" ways. What if it malfunctioned in his backpack? What if the student got really pissed at a teacher? What if the bullies got a hold on it? What if because the kid brought a stun gun, the bullies bring a bat, then the kid brings a knife, then the bullies bring a gun?

The pens and/or pencils found in the pockets and bookbags of every one of those students are FAR more deadly than a standard stun gun. It is designed to cause as little actual damage as possible, even with improper use, while one good stab with a pen can easily cause a fatal wound. You might as well outlaw plastic bags while you are at it if your definition of a weapon is that broad.

In addition, bullies already bring bats and other weapons of minor destruction, and a kid pissed enough to attack a teacher can and almost certainly will do so with or without a stun gun.

P.S. If a stun gun malfunctions in the kid's backpack, nothing happens. The tool must be held directly next to, or preferably actually touching, a living being to have any appreciable affect. The device's total power isn't even enough to get past the plastic casing in order to fry any calculators in the same pocket.

JeanLuc761:

Wolverine18:
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.

I don't know what kind of idealism you were brought up on but your logic is straight out of a Disney movie. "Talking down your aggressors" pretty much never works, and that goes triple if the people in question are homophobic/racist bigots. Then there's "Tone down his dress;" sure, let's tell the kid it's not okay to be who he wants to be and instead make him hide so people won't bully him.

If you're fearing for your own life, it isn't even slightly cowardly to pull a weapon out in self-defense. To be honest, you sound like someone who was fortunate enough to grow up in a very sheltered environment, and I'm damn certain that you've never been the victim of any serious persecution.

I dunno what kind of ideology you've grown up on, but if you crossdress, people will always give you shit for it, Always.

People won't learn, they wont go away, those people will ALWAYS exist. So if he cant deal with it now, he shouldn't dress that way, because it may get somewhat easier eventually, but it never goes away.

I'm reading some pretty harsh criticisms of the boy and his actions. To which I say: why? Now I have noticed a tendency amongst the Escapist community to often blame the victim. They say using a stun gun is 'too extreme', and while I agree that it is an extreme resort, a 6 v 1 fight is an extreme situation. Furthermore, it seems like Young's response was a measured one, he let everyone in that group know that the next one who touched him was in for a very unpleasant day.

So the kid brings forth a clearly measured and proportional response to a threat of violence; a threat that has persisted despite efforts to enable the 'system' to resolve it in its own way, and for that his educational career should be torpedoed in expulsion?

I agree that no student should bring a stun gun to school in so far as no student should HAVE to. And I just can't help but laugh at the divine satire of the victimized teen being punished for protecting himself by the same system that completely failed to protect him -even after he asked for its help.

Now I could see some form of reprimand occurring, just simply on account of certain rules being violated. Extra course work, janitorial duties, even suspension if necessary. But The only ones who should be truly punished here are the initiators of the attack, and the purveyors of a system that demands total faith without accountability.

Quite frankly, until our educational and legal systems enforce some form of punishment for bullying, I cannot blame someone, having exhasted all other avenues, for having to resort to the use of force. Adminstration will typically do nothing useful as they are unable or unwilling to make the neccessary policy changes. Police will do nothing as there is not really any law for them to enforce.

IMO, our right to self-defense has been steadily eliminated by a passivist culture more concerned about safety than justice. If these bullies really did surround him and were threatening to physically assualt him, then he was well within his right to protect himself. If on the off chance one of the morons dies from a cardiac arrhythmia, so be it. The bully made the autonomous choice to physically intimidate and threaten. If the authority figures of our society are failing to protect and legislate, why should citizens passively wait until they are beaten to a bloody pulp or their loved one commits suicide?

While many will point the finger at the victim because he brought a weapon to a school, his actions only go to show what a desperate situation he and his family had been put in. If the school board wishes to blindly and irrationally apply their no self defense policy, then they should be required to have security personnel present on school grounds during classroom hours. All other public instituitions with similar policy are required to have security on the premises (ex. hospitals, courthouses). Why are most schools the exception? This situation could have been avoided (on school grounds anyway..) if there was sufficient surveillance and authority figures on hand.

Helmholtz Watson:

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.

This^. I feel sympathy for the kid, but it doesn't change the fact that he brought a weapon to school. This time he might not kill somebody, but you never know if the next time if he will bring a gun to school.

except your also a criminal for not going to school. This country is a joke though, nothing but bigots and bullies. The school board would clearly have been happier to see the snot kicked out of this kid than to actually take any preventative action.

Binnsyboy:

Helmholtz Watson:

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.

This^. I feel sympathy for the kid, but it doesn't change the fact that he brought a weapon to school. This time he might not kill somebody, but you never know if the next time if he will bring a gun to school.

Well, it's entirely the school's fault for letting it get that far. It's entirely possible they could have beaten him to death, crippled/permanently injured him or driven him to suicide (which he had remarked upon), and from a logical point of view, if someone's life has to be risked, I'm going to prefer it isn't the guy who's only defending himself. The school doesn't want weapons brought in, they should crack down on this harder. The mother is making it damn clear she only gave him the thing because it was the last ditch effort to ensure his safety.

If I were a parent and it got to that, I'd happily give my kid a stun gun.

I never said that the school couldn't have done more, but the kid is not justified in bringing a weapon to school. As I mentioned before, if a kid reads about this story and how the victim was right to bring a tazer, the next person might think their justified in bringing a gun to school.

Sandytimeman:

Helmholtz Watson:

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.

This^. I feel sympathy for the kid, but it doesn't change the fact that he brought a weapon to school. This time he might not kill somebody, but you never know if the next time if he will bring a gun to school.

except your also a criminal for not going to school. This country is a joke though, nothing but bigots and bullies. The school board would clearly have been happier to see the snot kicked out of this kid than to actually take any preventative action.

Again, the kid went to far when he brought a weapon to school. If were talking about last ditch efforts, the kid should have dressed differently because when deciding whether or not to bring a weapon to school or moderate how you dress, the latter is obviously the more reasonable choice.

Helmholtz Watson:

Sandytimeman:

Helmholtz Watson:
This^. I feel sympathy for the kid, but it doesn't change the fact that he brought a weapon to school. This time he might not kill somebody, but you never know if the next time if he will bring a gun to school.

except your also a criminal for not going to school. This country is a joke though, nothing but bigots and bullies. The school board would clearly have been happier to see the snot kicked out of this kid than to actually take any preventative action.

Again, the kid went to far when he brought a weapon to school. If were talking about last ditch efforts, the kid should have dressed differently because when deciding whether or not to bring a weapon to school or moderate how you dress, the latter is obviously the more reasonable choice.

Would dressing differently have truly changed anything? The cat was already 'out of the bag' as it were. Do you think the bullies were acting more like fashion police than bigots?

Helmholtz Watson:

Sandytimeman:

Helmholtz Watson:
This^. I feel sympathy for the kid, but it doesn't change the fact that he brought a weapon to school. This time he might not kill somebody, but you never know if the next time if he will bring a gun to school.

except your also a criminal for not going to school. This country is a joke though, nothing but bigots and bullies. The school board would clearly have been happier to see the snot kicked out of this kid than to actually take any preventative action.

Again, the kid went to far when he brought a weapon to school. If were talking about last ditch efforts, the kid should have dressed differently because when deciding whether or not to bring a weapon to school or moderate how you dress, the latter is obviously the more reasonable choice.

Again his mom sent him to school with a generally non-lethal deterant. She was doing the best she could for her son. And believe me not "dressing homosexually" isn't going to stop people from bullying you once they have you targeted.

Personally the kid probably should keep that with him. Last kid in my area that was publicly known to be gay got beaten severely dragged to a field and tied to a barb wire fence to die of exposure. By two Christians no less. Source

And overall this just highlights why I haven't publicly come out, because again this country would rather encourage bullying and let kids get pushed to the physical and psychological extremes of lashing out instead of helping them.

Helmholtz Watson:

Binnsyboy:

Helmholtz Watson:
This^. I feel sympathy for the kid, but it doesn't change the fact that he brought a weapon to school. This time he might not kill somebody, but you never know if the next time if he will bring a gun to school.

Well, it's entirely the school's fault for letting it get that far. It's entirely possible they could have beaten him to death, crippled/permanently injured him or driven him to suicide (which he had remarked upon), and from a logical point of view, if someone's life has to be risked, I'm going to prefer it isn't the guy who's only defending himself. The school doesn't want weapons brought in, they should crack down on this harder. The mother is making it damn clear she only gave him the thing because it was the last ditch effort to ensure his safety.

If I were a parent and it got to that, I'd happily give my kid a stun gun.

I never said that the school couldn't have done more, but the kid is not justified in bringing a weapon to school. As I mentioned before, if a kid reads about this story and how the victim was right to bring a tazer, the next person might think their justified in bringing a gun to school.

I'm sorry, but just fuck slippery slope arguments. Nine times out of ten, they're complete bullshit. Anyone who would be willing to bring a gun into school would probably not need the provocation of a stun gun wielding victim to do so. And no, the mother giving her child a stun gun wouldn't escalate to giving him a knife or actual gun.

The fact is tasers and stun guns are designed as self defense weapons. Shame, I guess that a minority of people have heart conditions. I'm not saying "oh yay, he brought a stun gun into school", I'm saying you do have to make harsh decisions sometimes, and if the school wants to enforce a weapons free environment, they absolutely HAVE to make sure their school is an environment where people don't feel the need to have a weapon of some kind to guarantee their safety. I'm happy to call case by case basis here, the kid didn't jump to bringing a stun gun, this was in answer to a hugely long standing incident.

I agree that in general, bringing in weapons like this shouldn't be allowed, but I don't know if you've seen the damage that one can inflict on another with their bare hands. A lot more times than you might think, stuff does not heal the way it used to. This wasn't a fight that broke out, this was a premeditated cornering, with intent to inflict harm. Really, look up some homophobic assault stories, the end results tend to be gruesome. The kid did what he had to do to stave off violence. If it happened that one of those kids had a heart condition, well... sucks to be him. One more reason on top of the moral ones why he shouldn't go dicking with people.

I think in this individual situation, there wasn't much else to be done about it besides take a horrific beating, which nobody should expect him to stand for. He shouldn't be expelled because the school and the bullies forced his hand.

He brought a weapon to the school. I am sorry for his ordeal, but that hyperbolic response could have ended a lot worst than a sanction from the school.

Helmholtz Watson:
I never said that the school couldn't have done more, but the kid is not justified in bringing a weapon to school. As I mentioned before, if a kid reads about this story and how the victim was right to bring a tazer, the next person might think their justified in bringing a gun to school.

I think that's a bit of a stretch, I'm pretty sure high schoolers understand the difference between what police refer to as "less then lethal" force and guns. And it wasn't a taser, it was a stun gun. There's an important difference in both usability (projectile cartridges) and effect.

Frankly, you can play hypotheticals in any direction. If this isn't justified, then the next one might decide that his only reasonable escape is to preemptively kill his tormentors. It's a poor slippery slope argument. If they're stupid enough to not distinguish between bringing a stungun and a real gun, it seems all the more likely.

Off topic: I keep misreading this thread as "Teen face explosion".

Are you people serious? Fuck! The kid didn't even hurt anyone, he just zapped it while holding it in the air to scare them off because they were going to beat him up. If anything I'd say it's going soft on them. Schools do absolutely nothing to combat bullying, no matter how much they say they do, and when kids try to do anything about it themselves, this happens. It's fucking pathetic.

No, the kid shouldn't be expelled. In fact on behalf of everyone that's had to put up with that shit, he should be applauded. And even if he zapped them with it, bullies don't even deserve to be given the same rights as other human beings.

hermes200:
He brought a weapon to the school. I am sorry for his ordeal, but that hyperbolic response could have ended a lot worst than a sanction from the school.

And I wonder what the reply would have been had it turned into another Matthew Shepard incident. It isnt all that hard to kill someone with bare hands and a few well placed blows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard

Comando96:

Leadfinger:
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say bringing a stun-gun to school was not the best way to handle the situation.

Of course not...

There are easier, much more effective ways of getting the Media's attention to deal with a homophobic school board.

I agree. The issue was the homophobic school board, but by bringing the stun-gun to school, the victim unfortunately made it a bringing a weapon to school issue.

Leadfinger:

Comando96:

Leadfinger:
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say bringing a stun-gun to school was not the best way to handle the situation.

Of course not...

There are easier, much more effective ways of getting the Media's attention to deal with a homophobic school board.

I agree. The issue was the homophobic school board, but by bringing the stun-gun to school, the victim unfortunately made it a bringing a weapon to school issue.

If he had just balled up on the ground and was lucky enough to survive they could have totally blown that whole "homophobic school board" thing wide open!

Though if he woke up from the coma, or had use of his legs, or lived to actually crawl away from a 6 on 1 beating motivated by homophobia and hate then I'm sure it all could have been resolved peaceably.

That's sarcasm btw, everyone of those six kids should be punished in the harshest criminal manner.

Sandytimeman:

Leadfinger:

Comando96:

Of course not...

There are easier, much more effective ways of getting the Media's attention to deal with a homophobic school board.

I agree. The issue was the homophobic school board, but by bringing the stun-gun to school, the victim unfortunately made it a bringing a weapon to school issue.

If he had just balled up on the ground and was lucky enough to survive they could have totally blown that whole "homophobic school board" thing wide open!

Though if he woke up from the coma, or had use of his legs, or lived to actually crawl away from a 6 on 1 beating motivated by homophobia and hate then I'm sure it all could have been resolved peaceably.

That's sarcasm btw, everyone of those six kids should be punished in the harshest criminal manner.

So you think bringing an illegal weapon to school was the best solution?

Buretsu:

Leadfinger:
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say bringing a stun-gun to school was not the best way to handle the situation.

Obviously. The best way to handle the situation would have been to curl into a fetal ball, protect the head and kidneys, and hope that the 6 bullies get tired of kicking you before they cause a critical or fatal injury....

Those are the only two options you are able to perceive in this situation? How about pressing charges against the bullies? Or having your parents get a lawyer to sue the school board?

senordesol:

Would dressing differently have truly changed anything? The cat was already 'out of the bag' as it were. Do you think the bullies were acting more like fashion police than bigots?

Perhaps, because it was what the principle suggested.

Sandytimeman:

Again his mom sent him to school with a generally non-lethal deterant. She was doing the best she could for her son. And believe me not "dressing homosexually" isn't going to stop people from bullying you once they have you targeted.

Personally the kid probably should keep that with him. Last kid in my area that was publicly known to be gay got beaten severely dragged to a field and tied to a barb wire fence to die of exposure. By two Christians no less. Source

And overall this just highlights why I haven't publicly come out, because again this country would rather encourage bullying and let kids get pushed to the physical and psychological extremes of lashing out instead of helping them.

Again, when you bring a weapon to school(I don't care if its lethal or not) you are no longer just the victim. As for letting the kid continue to bring a weapon to school in the future, you...must...be...joking.

Heronblade:

Nuke_em_05:

What did happen is he brought a weapon to school. Bringing a weapon to school is a serious violation. He is experiencing the consequences for that.

The long and short of that rule is that a weapon in the school is a potential danger to all students. Even if only brought for self-defense, it can still be used in "unrighteous" ways. What if it malfunctioned in his backpack? What if the student got really pissed at a teacher? What if the bullies got a hold on it? What if because the kid brought a stun gun, the bullies bring a bat, then the kid brings a knife, then the bullies bring a gun?

The pens and/or pencils found in the pockets and bookbags of every one of those students are FAR more deadly than a standard stun gun. It is designed to cause as little actual damage as possible, even with improper use, while one good stab with a pen can easily cause a fatal wound. You might as well outlaw plastic bags while you are at it if your definition of a weapon is that broad.

In addition, bullies already bring bats and other weapons of minor destruction, and a kid pissed enough to attack a teacher can and almost certainly will do so with or without a stun gun.

P.S. If a stun gun malfunctions in the kid's backpack, nothing happens. The tool must be held directly next to, or preferably actually touching, a living being to have any appreciable affect. The device's total power isn't even enough to get past the plastic casing in order to fry any calculators in the same pocket.

My definition of a weapon, which happens to generally coincide with most policy and legal definitions, is something which is specifically designed and intended to be used as such. Anything can be used as a "weapon", but a weapon (in my definition) can generally only be used as weapon.

People breaking the rules doesn't invalidate the rules for other people.

The point is simply that no matter the intent with which it was brought, a weapon on campus presents a potential danger to everyone on campus. Which is why they are not allowed.

I sympathize with the kid. I'm not saying he wasn't "justified", but "justified" or no, he broke the rules, and he needs to accept the consequences for that.

I can be completely "justified" in being late for work, it doesn't change the fact that I either have to work late or use leave to make up the time.

I can be completely "justified" in murdering the man who killed my father, it doesn't change the fact that I am a murderer.

Being "justified" in an action does not exempt one from the consequences of that action.

Dags90:

Helmholtz Watson:
I never said that the school couldn't have done more, but the kid is not justified in bringing a weapon to school. As I mentioned before, if a kid reads about this story and how the victim was right to bring a tazer, the next person might think their justified in bringing a gun to school.

I think that's a bit of a stretch, I'm pretty sure high schoolers understand the difference between what police refer to as "less then lethal" force and guns. And it wasn't a taser, it was a stun gun. There's an important difference in both usability (projectile cartridges) and effect.

Frankly, you can play hypotheticals in any direction. If this isn't justified, then the next one might decide that his only reasonable escape is to preemptively kill his tormentors. It's a poor slippery slope argument. If they're stupid enough to not distinguish between bringing a stungun and a real gun, it seems all the more likely.

Off topic: I keep misreading this thread as "Teen face explosion".

I guess my concern is that the kid brought a weapon to school, which in my eyes crosses the line from victim to bully, because who's to say that the kid won't "accidentally" taze somebody who is giving him a hard time?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 16 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked