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

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 . . . 16 NEXT
 

bobstone:

Becuase life sucks and the world is not fair. And if it was we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Said the plantation owner to the slave..or the feudal lord to the serf. You're right, absolutely nothing in human society can be changed for the better.

it makes me depressed to see that the general view is that the victim is at fault. is the victim at fault in standard abuse? it feels like the concensus is that the bullies would not bully if the victim was not present, wich is simply not true, if the demographics the victim is pulled from is non exsistant and there is no demographic avalible lower on the social totem pole than the bullies they will turn in wards and bully eachother.

Higgs303:

bobstone:

Becuase life sucks and the world is not fair. And if it was we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Said the plantation owner to the slave..or the feudal lord to the serf. You're right, absolutely nothing in human society can be changed for the better.

well get up and be more proactive about it other then typing on the internet to people whos minds you wont change with just text they read from someone they don't know.

since I am not trying to change the world yes I am partly at fault, but to be talked down to someone that thinks arguing on the escapist web site will do anything is insulting. stop typing and get out and do something. I am not going to because life sucks and then we die. but I am also not telling people about how the world should change in a way that does nothing to change it.

Helmholtz Watson:
In a previous post I stated that I wasn't against the kid defending himself, I was against him bringing a weapon to school. You can dress it up all you want, but the kid brought a weapon to school, that is a clear violation and he should be punished for bringing it to school.

We are clear on the fact that the kid broke the rules. Yes. That doesn't mean he should be punished. It's a concept called extenuating circumstances.

You were the one comparing bringing a non-lethal (and legal) weapon for self-defense to bringing a gun. That's not me dressing anything up, that's you dressing this up as a serious violation (which it isn't, the circumstances considered). And that is also why the outcome of this case is still being debated at the school.

--

Genuine Evil:

Higgs303:

Genuine Evil:
As someone who used to bring a knife to school for protection I can tell you this is a horrible idea , because sooner or later you are going to use it and then shit gets worse , of course a knife is not the same as a stun-gun but there have been cases of people getting seriously fuck up by them .
im not going to say the kid is at fault here because at that age anything seems like a good idea, but I am going to say that his mother is a horribly irresponsible woman . I understand she wants to protect her son but she didn't think of what might have happened ones he used it , the reaction of the other kids could have been to go and get revenge of their friend . I've seen that happen after one kid in my parallel class hit his bully on the head with a chair .

also i understand that the escapist community I mostly built out of nerds (like me) so it's understandable that you all have a strong hatred for bullies but I think it's important to remember that 8 times out of 10 the bully is also the one getting bullied . that kid who made your life hell while you were at school probably got beat 3 times worse by his alcoholic dad when he got home .

people here seem to say " lets bully the bullies" and first that doesn't make you any better than them and also remember that bullies are often just as abused as you are .

While I appreciate the point of your post, abuse at home does not justify bullying at school. Despite the fact that there are resources and legal protections available to abuse victims (unlike bullying victims), many make the autonomous choice to cope with their problems at home by making other's lives miserable. My response to this argument is "their problems are not my fault, they need to f-off and find some other way to sort things out." All bullies have excuses for their behaviour, none of them change the criminality of it in my mind.

I never said it' ok to bully and that was the point of my post when I said that bulling the bullies isn't a good idea .
I don't want to come off as someone who thinks that all you need is love or some shit like that but the escapists attitude bothered me to much . the bullied often become bullies and that's also true for nerds like us

Yea, I kinda put words in your mouth. Sorry, didn't read your post carefully enough.

Can understand the kid and how 'proper channels' dont work, however he went way overboard but shouldnt be thrown out of school thats just not fair given the reason he did it in the first place.

senordesol:

verdant monkai:

1.) Taking a stand is fine if it will work and you wont get hurt or killed because of doing so.

2.) Yes it is unpleasant that he was attacked for being gay, but people will always pick on those who are different, it is in human nature to do so. Single someone out when you are in a group, encouraged by safety in numbers, proceed to make the outsider feel bad too make your self feel good.
(not you obviously just people in general)

He cant really win here unless the school expel the bullies, but then the bullies friends will give him a hard time for that. So what's wrong with a fresh start for him?

1.) Which is what happened.

2.) It may be 'human nature', but it is an aspect of our nature that we should seek to suppress (just as we suppress violence in anger, or involuntary congress in lust). It is understandable, but it is no excuse. For it is also human nature to defend oneself when threatened and to seek safety and protection from threats. That aspect of human nature, if not encouraged, at the very least should not be infringed.

The bully's friends may give him a hard time, and maybe they won't. Who's to say, I'm not a fortune teller. It's very likely though that people will think twice before laying a finger on him again, now knowing that he is quite willing to defend himself.

So what's wrong with a fresh start, you ask? Nothing. If that is his CHOICE. And if he chooses to defend himself, there's nothing wrong with that either. Both are responses to a threat: fight-or-flight; the most basic animalistic responses the brain develops, present in all vertebrates. The fact is, however, neither would be necessary if he had been left alone or if the system in which he was supposed to place his faith had did its job.

There is...no need to... get upset.
1.) my point exactly he got in trouble for making a stand he should have just moved schools.

2.) Good luck suppressing human nature
people would verbally bully him, call him a whiny little bitch or a snitch. You don't need to be an auger to work that out.
Yes it is sad this happened but the sensible choice is to move to a better school. Not bring in a weapon. Lets not get all technical here and pretend we know anything about the brain or deep inherent reactions. It will make us sound stupid.
Also if you feel strongly about the school system why not become a teacher or a govenor, and do something about it. Rather than try and make some poor randomer's perfectly reasonable suggestion look stupid over the internet?

3.) how dare you edit my post :p

Wow. I read the article, and I couldn't help but think that the kid (and his mother) did the right thing. Did he break the rules? Yes. Should he be punished for it? Yes, unfortunately. But the important thing is that he's safe. And, secondarily, so are the bullies -- no one got hurt, not even a scratch. I think the kid handled being surrounded by six bullies well; he fired into the air, not at the bullies, which is a great way to make clear that he'd fight back without risking harming anyone.

When I was a kid, no one ever beat me up, but they did beat up my older brother -- they threw a rock at his head, and it hit him in the eye. He has severely damaged vision for weeks, and I remember my mother was scared that it would be permanent. As much as weary or inept administrators may not think so sometimes, bullying can be extremely dangerous -- or lethal.

One thing the article doesn't mention -- did the bullies get in trouble? Cause as much as they're making a fuss about the stun gun, I'm honestly a lot more worried about the damage six unchecked bullies can do.

kickyourass:
I'm not expecting the school to do everything, I'm expecting them to do SOMETHING, I don't expect them to expel kids for every instance of bullying, but I DO expect them to step the fuck and end that shit when 6 kids are all going after one. I will agree that it was a huge mistake giving the kid a stun gun since there are vastly less lethal means of defending yourself, but the thing is he shouldn't need to defend himself from SIX FUCKING PEOPLE. Is it really too much for me to expect school staff to provide some kind of protection to the kids we send them?

We aren't told anything about what the school did or didn't do, as far as I'm seeing. At least, we're only hearing it from one side. And what person on that side wouldn't just say, "They didn't do anything!"?

In this case, this is the first incident we know of in which six kids surrounded and taunted him. We don't know what was said, or anything of the sort, but we aren't told this has happened this way before. So, how exactly could the school have gotten involved if this is the first they're hearing of the six-man team-up?

As to verbal teasing, there's not a whole hell of a lot schools can do. If they're not RIGHT THERE hearing it, there's no evidence, there's no case. The principal recommended to the kid, "Hey, if you want some of it to stop, we can only do so much. Maybe if you tone down the dress, you'll draw less attention." What else could we say or do as teachers? Should every "odd" kid, or every openly homosexual student get issued a personal security detail at taxpayer expense?

I'm not saying there isn't a problem. I'm just saying the school has none of the tools it needs to adequately handle most of this stuff. We can provide supervision 99% of the time, but I know parents wouldn't want to have teachers standing in every bathroom stall while kids are dropping their daily deuces, so there's going to be time where they are unsupervised. Or how about the time that two of our teachers got in trouble for not breaking up a fight, because they were breaking up another fight at the time? (And they couldn't send one to each fight, because there had been problems in the past with having no "witnesses" in case the student claims a teacher assaulted them.)

People blame the schools. Why? Because, whether it fixes the problem or not, you can fire a teacher, and you can't fire a parent. So we get to be public scapegoats.

- The government punishes us when a student fails, even though it's because that student lives in abuse, neglect, poverty, and hunger. He never studies, and no one makes him do homework, he never has a pencil, and he had no sleep or food for two days before the test. But teachers get the blame for the failings of parents.

- Parents blame us for not doing things that the government won't give us the money for. (ex. Used to be that each school had a police officer assigned to it in case we needed it. Last round of budget cuts, half of them went away. We have one split across 4 schools, and he spends most of his time at the high school.) But parents won't go after the government, because they don't want taxes to go up to pay for all the stuff they expect us to have the resources and manpower to do.

kgpspyguy:
So basically you people think he should have just taken his beating like a good little sheep?

Apparently most of these people have never gotten into a situation where they can't exactly escape. They got off lucky, we used to carry knives in case we got jumped where I live, much more final than a stun gun that was fired into the AIR.

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

Are you serious? Have you ever been jumped for your appearance or beliefs? You can't always stop a situation with pure thinking.

I have to say I have done not only do the same but far worse. A stun gun in which no one gets injured but you got you ass kicked, seriously I have no issue with the kid with the stun gun.

I put up with all kinds of verbal abuse and only retaliated with a few very cutting verbal remarks, the few times some one laid hands on me I did far worse though i never got physical. Generally I just broke their tech equipment and rendered it useless because I am nerd and the kids that did this ran in packs and all had 50+ LBS on me. I did this 3 times and 2 of those could be reversed one got reversed and no real ill consequences took effect, the others one of with is a dead iPod and the third of which is by far the worst is a laptop that "magically" sent 5K to charities and the got hit with a bunch of high power magnets so it could never ever work again.

So that should be a lesson, if you know me and then fire staples into my chest and arms with your credit card info in on your laptop, kiss a few grand and the laptop goodbye.

Oh and in all 3 cases someone stood up for me and even knocked one of the motherfuckers out cold and yeah that was laptop guy.

As for standing up for some one with violence on my part that has happened as well only it was me sticking up for someone else who was being beaten to the point of where if my friend and I did not step in it would be less of a beating and more of a murder. This incident happened to a gay fiend of mine who was jumped by 4 kids, little did they know he was going to be meting me an another kid who drove up as he was being attacked and promptly kicked their ass. the other two members of my party feel to this day a scene of regret i never shared. we left our opponent FAR worse off than they let us and perhaps that is accuse i happened to grab a tire iron and apply it to two of the kids skulls, it is not that what i think my actions are right as must as i simply do not regret them that makes say that i can never admit to not encouraging violence because it defiantly solved the fucking problem.

Athinira:

Helmholtz Watson:
In a previous post I stated that I wasn't against the kid defending himself, I was against him bringing a weapon to school. You can dress it up all you want, but the kid brought a weapon to school, that is a clear violation and he should be punished for bringing it to school.

We are clear on the fact that the kid broke the rules. Yes. That doesn't mean he should be punished. It's a concept called extenuating circumstances.

You were the one comparing bringing a non-lethal (and legal) weapon for self-defense to bringing a gun. That's not me dressing anything up, that's you dressing this up as a serious violation (which it isn't, the circumstances considered). And that is also why the outcome of this case is still being debated at the school.

I stand by what I said, the kid should be punished for bringing a weapon to school. Should he be treated with leniency? Yes, but punished all the same.

verdant monkai:

senordesol:

verdant monkai:

1.) Taking a stand is fine if it will work and you wont get hurt or killed because of doing so.

2.) Yes it is unpleasant that he was attacked for being gay, but people will always pick on those who are different, it is in human nature to do so. Single someone out when you are in a group, encouraged by safety in numbers, proceed to make the outsider feel bad too make your self feel good.
(not you obviously just people in general)

He cant really win here unless the school expel the bullies, but then the bullies friends will give him a hard time for that. So what's wrong with a fresh start for him?

1.) Which is what happened.

2.) It may be 'human nature', but it is an aspect of our nature that we should seek to suppress (just as we suppress violence in anger, or involuntary congress in lust). It is understandable, but it is no excuse. For it is also human nature to defend oneself when threatened and to seek safety and protection from threats. That aspect of human nature, if not encouraged, at the very least should not be infringed.

The bully's friends may give him a hard time, and maybe they won't. Who's to say, I'm not a fortune teller. It's very likely though that people will think twice before laying a finger on him again, now knowing that he is quite willing to defend himself.

So what's wrong with a fresh start, you ask? Nothing. If that is his CHOICE. And if he chooses to defend himself, there's nothing wrong with that either. Both are responses to a threat: fight-or-flight; the most basic animalistic responses the brain develops, present in all vertebrates. The fact is, however, neither would be necessary if he had been left alone or if the system in which he was supposed to place his faith had did its job.

There is...no need to... get upset.
1.) my point exactly he got in trouble for making a stand he should have just moved schools.

2.) Good luck suppressing human nature
people would verbally bully him, call him a whiny little bitch or a snitch. You don't need to be an auger to work that out.
Yes it is sad this happened but the sensible choice is to move to a better school. Not bring in a weapon. Lets not get all technical here and pretend we know anything about the brain or deep inherent reactions. It will make us sound stupid.
Also if you feel strongly about the school system why not become a teacher or a govenor, and do something about it. Rather than try and make some poor randomer's perfectly reasonable suggestion look stupid over the internet?

3.) how dare you edit my post :p

I. Am. Not. Upset. I. Am. Just. Passionate. ;P

1.) You said it would be 'fine' for him to take a stand. By 'fine' I assume you mean fine -as in 'acceptable'. So since that is what happened, that you appear 'unfine' with it seems to be a bit of a contradiction, eh?

2.) We suppress human nature ALL THE TIME. If you see a hot girl and don't immediately rip her clothes off and start screwing her; you are suppressing human nature. Just so, when you see someone who dresses funny and don't immediately grab five of your friends for a circle stomp...

When you argue that it is 'human nature' and 'good luck suppressing it' what you are telling me is that this is -too a degree- acceptable. That may not be what you mean, but that is what you are telling me. Of course, I need only counter this argument with one that says 'Defending yourself against threats is human nature too'. If you accept that argument, then you have to accept what happened was perfectly natural, unavoidable circumstances.

Based on the quality of your content so far, I'm going to go ahead and assume that you have a working brain and disregard that notion as silly (please let me know if I am mistaken). So now we come down to 'what was the sensible choice'? Was changing schools a sensible choice? Perhaps, it has the advantage of getting away from that particular group of assholes, but among it are several disadvantages (moving, catching up on coursework, being placed in an unfamiliar environment, and -not least of all- being involved in the same set of circumstances with a different set of assholes). Was fighting a sensible choice and with it, deploying a weapon? Well his assailants scattered, and while they still remain lurking in the corners they now know that Young is no longer a 'soft target'. The disadvantages, of course are the disciplinary and legal implications - which I argue are more indicative of the failure of the system, rather than a personal failing on Young's behalf.

I did not find your suggestion 'unreasonable', I found your contention that your suggestion was the only reasonable option to be 'unreasonable' (more specifically, that your solution 'solved' anything). And since this is a place for discussion, don't complain about the fact that I take your opinion seriously enough to discuss it.

Metalchic:
it makes me depressed to see that the general view is that the victim is at fault.

He is. He carried a weapon. End of any discussion. In addition, he carried a weapon into a freaking school.

Homosexual in America, yes, I'm quite willing to believe he's bullied terribly, and school administrators are quite content to let it happen. I also think homophobic bullies deserve everything that happens to them. If the headline had been "Gay kid hospitalises bully, may never recover" my response would be good for him.
But one who carries a weapon is always at fault, no matter the circumstances.

Weapons can't be used for self-defense, that's a silly myth. Weapons only lead to a false sense of safety, do never resolve conflicts and agrevate violence.

For instance if someone pulls such a stungun on me, he's taking the closest bit of furniture to the face, repeatedly if that's what needed to bring him down, because it's not safe to get near and I need to bring him down before he uses it once. A weapon means that all bets are off and everything's allowed.

Blablahb:

Weapons can't be used for self-defense, that's a silly myth. Weapons only lead to a false sense of safety, do never resolve conflicts and agrevate violence.

Interesting sentiment. I wonder why mankind has employed weapons for all these thousands of years then if they're so darned ineffective?

Captcha: Bated Breath
-Even Captcha wants an answer.

senordesol:
Interesting sentiment. I wonder why mankind has employed weapons for all these thousands of years then if they're so darned ineffective?

For that to be a valid comparison, all use of weapons ever would need to be for self-defense.

Let's pick one example: Al Qaida destroying the twin towers using knives as their main weapon. I wish anyone wanting to pursue that argument good luck arguing the self-defense in that case.


In this case, do you think the weapon will make those kids back off? No, the conditions haven't changed. The victim is still a victim. Except if they attack him next time, they don't close in obviously, but they'd jump him, and the results would probably be worse.

senordesol:

verdant monkai:

There is...no need to... get upset.
1.) my point exactly he got in trouble for making a stand he should have just moved schools.

2.) Good luck suppressing human nature
people would verbally bully him, call him a whiny little bitch or a snitch. You don't need to be an auger to work that out.
Yes it is sad this happened but the sensible choice is to move to a better school. Not bring in a weapon. Lets not get all technical here and pretend we know anything about the brain or deep inherent reactions. It will make us sound stupid.
Also if you feel strongly about the school system why not become a teacher or a govenor, and do something about it. Rather than try and make some poor randomer's perfectly reasonable suggestion look stupid over the internet?

3.) how dare you edit my post :p

I. Am. Not. Upset. I. Am. Just. Passionate. ;P

1.) You said it would be 'fine' for him to take a stand. By 'fine' I assume you mean fine -as in 'acceptable'. So since that is what happened, that you appear 'unfine' with it seems to be a bit of a contradiction, eh?

2.) We suppress human nature ALL THE TIME. If you see a hot girl and don't immediately rip her clothes off and start screwing her; you are suppressing human nature. Just so, when you see someone who dresses funny and don't immediately grab five of your friends for a circle stomp...

When you argue that it is 'human nature' and 'good luck suppressing it' what you are telling me is that this is -too a degree- acceptable. That may not be what you mean, but that is what you are telling me. Of course, I need only counter this argument with one that says 'Defending yourself against threats is human nature too'. If you accept that argument, then you have to accept what happened was perfectly natural, unavoidable circumstances.

Based on the quality of your content so far, I'm going to go ahead and assume that you have a working brain and disregard that notion as silly (please let me know if I am mistaken). So now we come down to 'what was the sensible choice'? Was changing schools a sensible choice? Perhaps, it has the advantage of getting away from that particular group of assholes, but among it are several disadvantages (moving, catching up on coursework, being placed in an unfamiliar environment, and -not least of all- being involved in the same set of circumstances with a different set of assholes). Was fighting a sensible choice and with it, deploying a weapon? Well his assailants scattered, and while they still remain lurking in the corners they now know that Young is no longer a 'soft target'. The disadvantages, of course are the disciplinary and legal implications - which I argue are more indicative of the failure of the system, rather than a personal failing on Young's behalf.

I did not find your suggestion 'unreasonable', I found your contention that your suggestion was the only reasonable option to be 'unreasonable' (more specifically, that your solution 'solved' anything). And since this is a place for discussion, don't complain about the fact that I take your opinion seriously enough to discuss it.

1.) I meant as in if that is what he wants that is fine. But bad things will happen to him if he decides to take that course of action. To me it is the only reasonable course of action, rather than getting involved in a fight he cannot win.

2.)Never felt the need to circle stomp someone....but I understand what you mean. Some people will always show less restraint than you or I would. Please stop making stuff up I never said this was avoidable or unavoidable, I merely suggested a reasonable course of action in response to it.
You are very mistaken I am having my brain mended tomorrow (too much A level stress).
As for moving schools why not? It is manageable as I said the gay guy in our school managed it. And surely the inconveniences, do not outweigh the advantage of not getting attacked by fellow students. I think that blatantly solves his problem.
As for my complaining I was hoping to inspire you to become the worlds best teacher or something, so I could get a portion of your glory as "that guy who gave him the idea".
But really we have to accept. I think my suggestion of he should move schools would sort him out. You think it is the schools fault.
Maybe we are both right, maybe we are both wrong...........but one thing is for sure. I don't care anymore. Because he is probably American and there is nothing I can do for him, yes that is a defeatist attitude, and no I don't care.
but thankyou you have provided a thought provoking discussion.

Blablahb:
But one who carries a weapon is always at fault, no matter the circumstances.

"Always at fault"?
[citation needed]

And in cases like this, it's the fault of the old man, not the three teens who decided they were going to assault him?

Blablahb:

Weapons can't be used for self-defense, that's a silly myth. Weapons only lead to a false sense of safety, do never resolve conflicts and agrevate violence.

[citation needed]

Considering you tend to classify self-defense with weapons as "murder", it's no wonder you came to that conclusion.

I'm having a little trouble understanding how this sort of thing happens in a developed country. I mean, it's not like schools are new or anything. Why exactly is it okay for 6 kids to beat a smaller kid up but it's not okay for the same smaller kid to defend himself? That reeks of hypocrisy, stun "gun" or not.

I mean, it's obvious they've done this sort of thing in the past, which means they'd get a slap across the wrists this time as well. Yet he's getting EXPELLED? For DEFENDING himself?!

verdant monkai:

1.) I meant as in if that is what he wants that is fine. But bad things will happen to him if he decides to take that course of action. To me it is the only reasonable course of action, rather than getting involved in a fight he cannot win.

2.)Never felt the need to circle stomp someone....but I understand what you mean. Some people will always show less restraint than you or I would. Please stop making stuff up I never said this was avoidable or unavoidable, I merely suggested a reasonable course of action in response to it.
You are very mistaken I am having my brain mended tomorrow (too much A level stress).
As for moving schools why not? It is manageable as I said the gay guy in our school managed it. And surely the inconveniences, do not outweigh the advantage of not getting attacked by fellow students. I think that blatantly solves his problem.
As for my complaining I was hoping to inspire you to become the worlds best teacher or something, so I could get a portion of your glory as "that guy who gave him the idea".
But really we have to accept. I think my suggestion of he should move schools would sort him out. You think it is the schools fault.
Maybe we are both right, maybe we are both wrong...........but one thing is for sure. I don't care anymore. Because he is probably American and there is nothing I can do for him, yes that is a defeatist attitude, and no I don't care.
but thankyou you have provided a thought provoking discussion.

1.) Thank you for clarifying. Nothing further need be discussed here.

2.) I think I see our disconnect. You regard this as his problem. I regard this as a systemic problem. As I see it: the problem isn't that bullies are beating him up, that is a symptom of a larger problem of a system that ALLOWS students to be beaten up in school. Switching schools does not solve that problem, denying bullies their victims does. Now if he switched schools -yes- those bullies are denied that particular victim. But there will be others, and there will always be others so long as we sweep this crap under the rug.

When the onus is placed on the victims to look after themselves, we cannot complain when they do just that. So if Young had made a personal choice to switch schools if that were feasible (your own gay schoolmate's circumstances being irrelevant to this case), it still would not solve the systemic problem that yielded circumstances so severe that someone, at some point, was forced to pull a stun gun to defend himself.

CM156:

Blablahb:
But one who carries a weapon is always at fault, no matter the circumstances.

"Always at fault"?
[citation needed]

And in cases like this, it's the fault of the old man, not the three teens who decided they were going to assault him?

Blablahb:

Weapons can't be used for self-defense, that's a silly myth. Weapons only lead to a false sense of safety, do never resolve conflicts and agrevate violence.

[citation needed]

Considering you tend to classify self-defense with weapons as "murder", it's no wonder you came to that conclusion.

Ah yes, if I recall correctly, this is the same poster who described a woman cornered in her own home with naught but her infant daughter and a rifle while a knife wielding burglar spent 20 minutes breaking down her door as 'lying in wait'

senordesol:

CM156:

Blablahb:
But one who carries a weapon is always at fault, no matter the circumstances.

"Always at fault"?
[citation needed]

And in cases like this, it's the fault of the old man, not the three teens who decided they were going to assault him?

Blablahb:

Weapons can't be used for self-defense, that's a silly myth. Weapons only lead to a false sense of safety, do never resolve conflicts and agrevate violence.

[citation needed]

Considering you tend to classify self-defense with weapons as "murder", it's no wonder you came to that conclusion.

Ah yes, if I recall correctly, this is the same poster who described a woman cornered in her own home with naught but her infant daughter and a rifle while a knife wielding burglar spent 20 minutes breaking down her door as 'lying in wait'

You are correct. He did, along with calling her a "murderess" and stating that she simply should have used words to make the angry knife wielding man go away.

Risingblade:
Back in my day we had adults patrolling the school to avoid this kind of shit (sure it still happened but at least it was something).

Back in my day if you attacked someone in our area six on one that person would get their family from the steel works to have a go at you one at time...for all twenty of them.

Blablahb:

Metalchic:
it makes me depressed to see that the general view is that the victim is at fault.

He is. He carried a weapon. End of any discussion. In addition, he carried a weapon into a freaking school.

Homosexual in America, yes, I'm quite willing to believe he's bullied terribly, and school administrators are quite content to let it happen. I also think homophobic bullies deserve everything that happens to them. If the headline had been "Gay kid hospitalises bully, may never recover" my response would be good for him.
But one who carries a weapon is always at fault, no matter the circumstances.

Weapons can't be used for self-defense, that's a silly myth. Weapons only lead to a false sense of safety, do never resolve conflicts and agrevate violence.

For instance if someone pulls such a stungun on me, he's taking the closest bit of furniture to the face, repeatedly if that's what needed to bring him down, because it's not safe to get near and I need to bring him down before he uses it once. A weapon means that all bets are off and everything's allowed.

Really? Out of these two outcomes:

-Gay kid brandishes a "weapon" that barely qualifies for the term (the definition requires that it be designed to cause physical harm, which a stun gun almost cannot do), and manages to get six bullies to back the hell off without causing anyone any harm at all.

-Gay kid hospitalized by six homophobic wastes of sperm.

You dare sit there and tell the rest of us that the second option is preferable because the assholes who started the violence didn't use a weapon other than their fists? I can understand not wanting to make an exception for the no weapon rules, even if I strongly disagree due to the circumstances, but this?

You freely admit that you don't care if a bully gets seriously injured, so what the f*** is any morally different about hospitalizing someone with a fist, or a bat, or a gun? Hell, if the victim in question managed to injure, much less hospitalize, one of his opponents with a civilian stun gun, I'd be praising his quick thinking and ingenuity, because its generally considered to be impossible outside of carefully controlled conditions.

Bring in a means of protection against terrifying foes that will only get stronger and will never leave you alone as long as you're in viewing distance, never actually use it, get punished. Ruined education even further.

Sigh... Where is the justice?

Helmholtz Watson:
I stand by what I said, the kid should be punished for bringing a weapon to school. Should he be treated with leniency? Yes, but punished all the same.

Fair, we'll just have to disagree then.

My opinion is that people who are getting pushed or pressured to the extreme are excused by their actions as long as they don't harm (or directly attempt to harm) anyone. It's human nature to react in extreme ways when pushed into desperation. Basically anyone can get driven over the edge. He equipped himself with a harmless weapon which he flashed to scare them away in this case. You might consider that bad, but consider the two worst case scenarios: another school shooting, or him committing suicide.

It's VERY important that problems like these are dealt with at the root, in this case the bullies. I consider it the fault of the school for not having intervened earlier (assuming they had been informed about the bullying). Like i said, it's just simply human nature to react with extreme measures when they get pressured into desperation and there is no help to be had. Action -> Reaction.

I'll admit, I haven't read the entire thread, but I think there is a serious issue here everyone is overlooking.

A taser is a weapon that shoots little barbs out a distance and shocks someone.

A stun gun requires close contact with the person.

Why aren't those names reversed!? Clearly, the taser should be the stun gun and the stun gun should be the taser! Wake up people, we're going down the rabbit hole!

Heronblade:
You dare sit there and tell the rest of us that the second option is preferable

Yes. In the latter case I'm pretty sure no bully would make the mistake of starting a physical confrontation anymore. (take it from someone who they wouldn't leave alone untill he did) In the former, nothing changes, and the bullies will be back tomorrow, and the next day, and the next week, and so on.

And in that case they are very likely to use more violence, faster, or bring weapons by themselves. The newspaper headline, considering it's the US, could well end up being "Gay kid with tazer stabbed/shot by bully".

Heronblade:
You freely admit that you don't care if a bully gets seriously injured, so what the f*** is any morally different about hospitalizing someone with a fist, or a bat, or a gun?

If people use weapons, the results are worse than a few bruises, both due to the assault and the escalating response to that.

It's not about who's agressor and who's victim, it's about everybody being worse off if weapons are used. Because I can tell you, next time those bullies aren't showing up slowly to intimidate first, and neither are they coming empty-handed, and then we could probably argue over a topic called "Gay kid in hospital with skull fracture after struck from behind with chair by bully".

lacktheknack:

Wolverine18:

lacktheknack:

Using your head is overrated. It's harder to hide the injuries afterwards. Plus, your neck hurts afterwards, as well as restricting the swing area required to make a good hit. Most people tend to protect their heads in these situations as one's fists, feet or carried object typically makes a better blunt weapon. Alternatively, a static stun gun or pepper spray. Those are the most effective and are more likely to doscourage the bully from trying again.

Unless you're referring to Macgyvering a shield out of the air, walls and floor as six brutes bear down on you. In which case, go ahead.

(Generally, people who tell bullied kids to "use your head" are simply too lazy and aloof and don't care enough to come up with an actual solution.)

Fortunately I'm from a country where both stun guns and pepper spray are illegal to use. Somehow kids manage to deal with bullies without that.Plus by finding solutions that don't involve a weapon they don't escalate the matter into a weapons battle that eventually they will lose, they don't break laws, and they actually find ways to stop problems that build their confidence and discourage future bullies by generating respect.

And I did supply a series of answers above to alternatives.

What we seem to have here is a cross dressing boy who wasn't smart enough to talk down agressors, tone down his dress, or simply have friends. He must have demonstrated lack of confidence or they wouldn't have picked on him for any length of time. Through the absense of the father in the story, he was probably without a father and thus didn't know how to handle himself as a man in that situation. So what did he do? Pulled a weapon? A cowardly response that will only make his life worse. He's lucky, for example, that they fled. He pulled a weapon first, at that point they could have taken him out and reasonably claimed self defence.

I don't give a damn what brought him up to that point in time, what matters is that he was at it. And his options at that exact moment were A. pull a stun gun, or B. take a beating.

The excuse of every criminal. "I had no choice". Of course he did. There isn't any evidence that he would have taken a beating.

From what i can see, the kid didn't do anything wrong, he had the stun gum, was threatened, demonstrated it would work without using it and they left him alone.
I have seen that some kids after being bulled kill themselves or take a gun into school and shoot people.
By all accounts, he wasn't after revenge, he just wanted to be left alone.

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.

Understanding you are a part of a society and that there are things you can do to work within that society is an imporant life lesson. You are absoutely wrong to suggest you can't talk down a bully, deescelation techniques do work if you have been taught them or even have a good understanding of human nature.

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.

BRINGING it was cowardly. Pulling it out was cowardly. There is NO evidence he had any reasonable cause to fear for his life. Basic reasonable person defense law. They were picking on him, as they had done before. We have not one comment anywhere suggesting they had actually touched him and thus he had little real reason to fear for his life. If he really feared for his life, I want to hear about the police report he filed. I think he turned into the bully when he armed himself against unarmed people.

Blablahb:

Heronblade:
You dare sit there and tell the rest of us that the second option is preferable

Yes. In the latter case I'm pretty sure no bully would make the mistake of starting a physical confrontation anymore. (take it from someone who they wouldn't leave alone untill he did) In the former, nothing changes, and the bullies will be back tomorrow, and the next day, and the next week, and so on.

And in that case they are very likely to use more violence, faster, or bring weapons by themselves. The newspaper headline, considering it's the US, could well end up being "Gay kid with tazer stabbed/shot by bully".

Heronblade:
You freely admit that you don't care if a bully gets seriously injured, so what the f*** is any morally different about hospitalizing someone with a fist, or a bat, or a gun?

If people use weapons, the results are worse than a few bruises, both due to the assault and the escalating response to that.

It's not about who's agressor and who's victim, it's about everybody being worse off if weapons are used. Because I can tell you, next time those bullies aren't showing up slowly to intimidate first, and neither are they coming empty-handed, and then we could probably argue over a topic called "Gay kid in hospital with skull fracture after struck from behind with chair by bully".

I've never seen a case where escalation of the sort you mention actually happens on a personal level. I won't claim it doesn't, but it seems to at the very least be relatively rare, even here in the evil states of triggerhappyredneckland.Bullies have a tendency to give up on a target that fights back in any case, they prey on those too weak to do so.

As such, given the choice of:

Allowing myself to be hospitalized today, and next month, and the month after that, because one thing is for certain, getting beaten up does nothing to stop a bully, it encourages them.

or

Finding a way to fight back, and almost certainly never being attacked again, with a slim chance of facing a worse attack later.

I'll take door #2 thank you very much, especially if I cannot find any third options.

Wolverine18:

The excuse of every criminal. "I had no choice". Of course he did. There isn't any evidence that he would have taken a beating.

You don't have any evidence, that doesn't mean evidence doesn't exist, or that the kid in question didn't have a reasonable fear. Should he have waited until he was starting to black out from the punches before attempting to defend himself? The tactician in me for some odd reason is screaming something about it being a bad idea.

Leadfinger:

Sandytimeman:

Leadfinger:
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?

I don't. I would have walked into the school, filmed it and threataned a media shitstorm on all involved and their parents and their parents businesses etc etc. Its not blackmail as blackmail is for financial gain... but basically I would "legally blackmail" all the fuckers involved.

That said I am a devious schemer. Most people aren't and a stun gun is the best logical conclusion that they could think of. I mean... what else can you do... pad you kid up in body armor? Its possible that you could put a wire on him but that's not as good as having the fuckers faces exposed on YouTube... if they don't stop...

A Stun Gun while certainly not the best solution I don't fucking blame his mother.

Wolverine18:

lacktheknack:

Wolverine18:

Fortunately I'm from a country where both stun guns and pepper spray are illegal to use. Somehow kids manage to deal with bullies without that.Plus by finding solutions that don't involve a weapon they don't escalate the matter into a weapons battle that eventually they will lose, they don't break laws, and they actually find ways to stop problems that build their confidence and discourage future bullies by generating respect.

And I did supply a series of answers above to alternatives.

What we seem to have here is a cross dressing boy who wasn't smart enough to talk down agressors, tone down his dress, or simply have friends. He must have demonstrated lack of confidence or they wouldn't have picked on him for any length of time. Through the absense of the father in the story, he was probably without a father and thus didn't know how to handle himself as a man in that situation. So what did he do? Pulled a weapon? A cowardly response that will only make his life worse. He's lucky, for example, that they fled. He pulled a weapon first, at that point they could have taken him out and reasonably claimed self defence.

I don't give a damn what brought him up to that point in time, what matters is that he was at it. And his options at that exact moment were A. pull a stun gun, or B. take a beating.

The excuse of every criminal. "I had no choice". Of course he did. There isn't any evidence that he would have taken a beating.

I don't think "evidence" means what you think it means.

ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing.
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

Note the use of the word "tends".

He reports that he's been beaten before, presumably from the same people repeatedly. Seeing how the conditions in which the beatings were administered haven't changed, that's EVIDENCE that it would happen again.

Also, the bullies that cornered him claimed they were going to beat him. THAT'S PERFECT EVIDENCE that he was going to be beaten.

The sentence you were looking for was "We don't know 100% for sure that he would have been beaten", which is true. However, I dare YOU to stand your ground in a situation where there's a 99.5% of getting injured and saying "I can't be sure I'll be hurt". Go on, I dare you.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 . . . 16 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked