Bully Pays the Price When Victim Fights Back

[JollyRoger]

If the bully punched first, its self-defense. Anything goes at that point. I don't care if the bully is crippled for life, absolutely no punishment. Self-defense is self-defense. Don't start fights.

The standard for self defense is not anything goes. You are entitled to reasonable force to protect yourself.

 

[Brighteye]

And what does the law say about people who don't know how much is reasonable? Are they allowed to go up to the upper limit of what they guess, or the lower limit? When there's uncertaintly, which gets priority: self defence, or protection of criminals?

 

[Holycannoli]

Reasonable force is ultimately up to the jury.

 

[JollyRoger]

And what does the law say about people who don't know how much is reasonable? Are they allowed to go up to the upper limit of what they guess, or the lower limit? When there's uncertaintly, which gets priority: self defence, or protection of criminals?

If you exceed reasonable force, you are a criminal.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Assault is a crime. No, only the instigator should be punished. The victim is the one who has to defend themselves and should not be punished, even if they leave the assailant a bloody pulp. If you don't want to get beat to a bloody pulp, don't attack someone out of the blue.

I'd like to repeat this, because it bears repeating.

If that little kid had been permanently messed up from the incident, too bad. Sometimes bad things happen to rotten little kids who look for dangerous trouble, and then find it. They have Darwin awards for a reason. If you run up to a bear and slap it in the face, and the bear eats you, that's nature balancing itself out.

 

[Holycannoli]

...and there's only so many times you can kick a dog before it bites your ass.

These kids are also now pumped full of testosterone. What used to be a fun case of bullying for the bully now becomes a potential trip to the hospital as the victim is more likely to defend himself aggressively now. Even the meek can snap and beat the snot out of someone when punched in the face like this kid when intense levels of testosterone are involved.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Just a side-question, how many mods here feel that standing up for yourself and fighting back is a better option than asking a teacher to punish the bully?

The bully probably doesn't care about suspension or anything a teacher can deal out.

So, quite frankly, I'm all in favor of taking matters into your own paws.

Many bullies are sympathetic villains however; they often come from broken homes. Shows we need to address parental apathy above all.

 

[amadeus]

Good on the kid for fighting back and then showing restraint when the kid was down.

The bullied kid deserves no punishment. He was provoked. That much was clear. The rest was self-defense.

How schools excuse bullying is very sad.

DT, you know darn well most school admins turn a blind eye towards bullying. I learned that the only way to stop the bullying was to hurt the bully.

I hereby bestow upon you the PERFECT POST OF THE MONTH award.

 

[emzie]

So, quite frankly, I'm all in favor of taking matters into your own paws.

Yeah, I'm not always going take the side of the victims.

 

[El_Machinae]

Based on that advice, I'm telling my kids to punish the groins of any bullies.

I don't think they want the rep of being a groin-puncher, either. I was a straight up 'punish the body' kinda kid, and it worked out pretty well.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Kiss them, then punch their groin. No one is going to mess with you after that. You only need to do it once then you can get down to studying for the rest of your days.

 

[amadeus]

Link to video.

 

[Hygro]

Or go for plan (b) - give the bully a big kiss in front of all his mates. That will probably put them off doing it again.

That would work fantastically on some, but could get you killed if you do it to the wrong person.


Mise, not really sure why you so aggressively reject that fighting like the Romans against Pyrrhus is a bad strategy. Yeah, the bully will win the fight, but you cease being a worthwhile target.

The problem, though, in most instances of bullying is not a matter of size or strength, but of self confidence and sociability. There's a reason in the OP video the little guy has his hands on the big guy's throat, cornering him. The little dude is entirely confident and the big guy isn't. The reason that people get bullied in the first place usually involves not being able to project enough strength of character of sorts combined with being unlucky. That's reasonable, not everyone has gained that self confidence in grade school, especially if you get ostracized by bullies before you self-actualize.

Still, the solution to getting bullied is to learn to act a boss, and they will back off.

 

[Camikaze]

When there is no other solution to bullying, then punishing violence is condoning bullying. Bullying really, truly, destroys people's childhoods. A slap on the wrist, or even a suspension, is nothing compared to the 'punishment' the victim gets for having to put up with it. Nothing a school ever does about bullying is even close to adequate recompense.

Why is there no other solution? I cannot know that this kid or the school didn't fully explore all the official avenues and procedures that are in place for dealing with bullying, but neither can you know that it was a last resort. The chances are that the school did not know about the bullying. Ignoring the problem may be what happens in isolated incidents, but if principals and deputies want to keep their jobs, then they must follow procedure and protocol, which is quite harsh in its treatment of bullying.

And why isn't the school defusing the problem recompense? Why doesn't defusing the situation have exactly the same effect as letting them sort it out between each other? And if nothing but physical violence is compensation for the damage done, then we aren't we executing these bullies, or at least outsourcing gangs to beat them up (would seem more efficient than allowing everyone to take the duty upon themselves)?

A bully needs to understand that ruining other people's lives is one of the most unpleasant things he can ever do, and probably will ever do. Someone clearly and blatantly caught needs detentions for a whole school term, not a week-long holiday from school.

I haven't seen the length of suspension mentioned, but I'm guessing that the bully got a 24 day suspension, and the victim a 4 day suspension. 20 is the standard for that type of thing.

Additionally, the Suspension and Expulsion of School Students - Procedures (2011) is pretty clear that suspension is not a punishment but 'one strategy for managing inappropriate behaviour' (5.0.1), that allows 'time for school personnel to plan appropriate support for the student to assist with successful re-entry' (5.0.2). You will also see from 6.1.2 that suspension is not taken as an isolated action, but as a measure involving a series of steps to rectify behaviour.

You will also note that 6.1.4 is explicit in dealings with violent behaviour. I quote:

With consideration having been given to the factors outlined in 4.0.4, 4.0.5 and 4.0.6, principals must suspend immediately and consistently with these procedures (including procedural fairness) any student who:

• is physically violent: Any student who is physically violent, resulting in injury, or whose violent behaviour seriously interferes with the safety and well being of others, is to be suspended immediately. The matter must also be reported to the School Safety and Response hotline on 1300 363 778 where advice will be provided on managing and reporting the incident.

A longer suspension would be imposed on the bully under 6.3.2, with the difference between the two suspensions being allowed for by the 'merit and circumstances of the particular case' clause in 6.3.1.

As you can see, the guidelines are pretty explicit and there are specific steps to take to deal with the behaviour. It is not ignored. 'Bullying' is included under 'aggressive behaviour' in 6.2.1 and 'serious misbehaviour' in 6.3.2.

Until schools not only take bullying seriously, but scale the punishments for bullying to the consequences, then it's not surprise that some children, like myself when I was younger, will dole out real justice themselves.

Did the school not take this incident seriously? How do you know the kid had actually informed teachers about the bullying?

It really does seem very unjust to anyone who's experienced it that if he uses violence even once, he gets punished harshly because violence can cause nasty things, but that the bully whose actions cause lifelong misery and mis-development only ever gets punishments as bad.
Violence is not intrinsically wrong, nor evil. Our law allows for wars, and it allows for self-defence. The US constitution makes specific provision for the overthrow of tyranny, using violence.

Is the school playground an appropriate place to be applying distinctions between just and unjust violence? On the basis of a kid taking it upon themselves to decide whether it is or not?

Violence is the means of last resort. We can only judge it as wrong when we know the end for which it is being employed. Every young boy intuitively knows this. That's why 'he started it' is, in his mind, the perfect reason. That there's agreement only between international lawyers and young boys, and teachers and mothers are left behind, needs addressing, by educating teachers and mothers!

Every young boy knows that there is a difference between unjust and just violence, yes. But they most certainly do not know where the line is drawn, and allowing them to test it out for themselves at school is not a safe path to take. The generalisation of 'all violence is bad' as applied in schools is close enough to the truth to be acceptable. Just violence is really the exception to the rule, but allowing every kid to think they have wriggle room in the exception would be quite dangerous.

And I bet if violence was considered acceptable, you'd see a shift towards a 'sort it out yourself' policy in regards to bullying. At the moment, the onus is entirely on the school and a school's administration to deal with the problem. Changing that isn't going to help.

I read somewhere on reddit that teh bully was 15.

I trust SMH (which also included his school year; 7, with the victim being in year 10) over reddit.

 

[Mise]

That would work fantastically on some, but could get you killed if you do it to the wrong person.


Mise, not really sure why you so aggressively reject that fighting like the Romans against Pyrrhus is a bad strategy. Yeah, the bully will win the fight, but you cease being a worthwhile target.

The problem, though, in most instances of bullying is not a matter of size or strength, but of self confidence and sociability. There's a reason in the OP video the little guy has his hands on the big guy's throat, cornering him. The little dude is entirely confident and the big guy isn't. The reason that people get bullied in the first place usually involves not being able to project enough strength of character of sorts combined with being unlucky. That's reasonable, not everyone has gained that self confidence in grade school, especially if you get ostracized by bullies before you self-actualize.

Still, the solution to getting bullied is to learn to act a boss, and they will back off.

Yes, for me, that was a much preferable solution to actually getting my face kicked in. Make friends with popular and/or larger kids = problem solved Why anyone would suggest risking permanent damage to the moneymaker as a solution to bullying is simply unfathomable, unless you are a power ranger (or are otherwise sufficiently deluded to believe that you can win the fight). It might be a good idea for a massive 16 yr old vs a tiny 12 yr old, but for 99.999% of people, there are waaaaaaay less ******** options than getting your ass kicked in public (which isn't guaranteed to work anyway). I couldn't have said it better myself - it's absolutely a Pyrrhic victory.

 

[Hygro]

Well yeah, make friends with people who will have your back is important... but say you are already sufficiently outcasted and terrorized, the point was that when the bully beats you up, he will "enjoy" the Pyrrhic victory, for he will have beaten you up, but at a cost that is too great for him to repeat. The only danger is if he can convince a group to jump you in retaliation.

 

[Mise]

Yeah, I know that was the point, but my point was that it's your pyrrhic victory, not his! You "win", in the sense that you might not get bullied again, but you've also got your face kicked in. If someone isn't the type of person who is capable of fighting a bully, then I don't see why telling them to suddenly change into the type of person who is capable of fighting a bully is any more realistic an expectation than getting someone who is "already sufficiently outcasted and terrorised" - i.e. someone who isn't the type of person who has popular friends - to suddenly change into the type of person who is capable of making popular friends. The only difference is that, my way, you end up with popular friends, whereas your way, you end up with your face kicked in.

 

[Brighteye]

Why is there no other solution? I cannot know that this kid or the school didn't fully explore all the official avenues and procedures that are in place for dealing with bullying, but neither can you know that it was a last resort. The chances are that the school did not know about the bullying. Ignoring the problem may be what happens in isolated incidents, but if principals and deputies want to keep their jobs, then they must follow procedure and protocol, which is quite harsh in its treatment of bullying.

There might be another solution, but in general schools never appear to present an adequate solution. Schools often claim that their treatment of bullying is harsh, but as I tried to say, the punishment hardly fits the crime at all.

And why isn't the school defusing the problem recompense?

Because the bully gets a light punishment compared to the punishment he doles out. I'm not suggesting that violence is the only solution, but that bullies need much harsher punishments than the 'harsh' punishments schools do give. As I suggested, a quick suspension and a couple of detentions, which was the maximum my school ever seemed to give, are completely incomparable to the degree of bullying that occurred, which for a suspension would have been physical. Bullies repeatedly spoil others' enjoyment of life. It's an every moment of every day thing: a little word here, an insult there, a sneer, a punch, a theft, some prolonged taunting... until the very sight of the creature makes you ready for trouble. For many victims, being ready for trouble means permanent fear and being unable to be outgoing for fear of giving the bully more material.
That sort of person needs permanent punishment. This doesn't have to be violent. It can be detention every day, being deprived of break-times or being isolated in lessons, or all three. But the 'harsh' punishments are invariably one-offs.

I haven't seen the length of suspension mentioned, but I'm guessing that the bully got a 24 day suspension, and the victim a 4 day suspension. 20 is the standard for that type of thing.

Since, as you say, suspensions are merely to help deal with violent students, it's a shame that we haven't learned what other actions have been taken to deal with these two.

You will also note that 6.1.4 is explicit in dealings with violent behaviour.

It is, and I think that it's wrong. Violence in self-defence shouldn't merit suspension.

Did the school not take this incident seriously? How do you know the kid had actually informed teachers about the bullying?

The school took it seriously, but not the right part of it. As for knowing about it beforehand, that's not really relevant.

Every young boy knows that there is a difference between unjust and just violence, yes. But they most certainly do not know where the line is drawn, and allowing them to test it out for themselves at school is not a safe path to take. The generalisation of 'all violence is bad' as applied in schools is close enough to the truth to be acceptable. Just violence is really the exception to the rule, but allowing every kid to think they have wriggle room in the exception would be quite dangerous.

Well, I think that 'self-defence' is not that unclear a distinction. Children always test rules out by breaking them, and they learn the rule by its imposition. I think that teaching them to accept physical attacks as 'acts of God' that can only be dealt with afterwards is not a good lesson. If we're arguing 'wiggle room', then I can suggest that any fine distinction in rules is pointless.
Perhaps we should punish every child for being late to a lesson... even if he was held up by another teacher. That's an exception to a rule that simply provides wriggle room. The world is filled with general rules that have exceptions, and teaching children that there are no exceptions teaches them a simplistic and wrong view of the world.

 

[Kyriakos]

It is possible that nearly no amount of punishment by school will realistically deter a bully, at least under some circumstances. It might even backfire.
As has been said usually these bullies are horrible students anyway. Their parents might apply some pressure on them, due to the detention, but it would seem likely that they too have given up on their academic prowess.
Permanent expulsions could be a better way to deal with this issue, although if it it exists in force then it may too be unrealistic. As a paradigm of austerity it could work though.
Assuming the role of the revenger might be appealing, but most children who are bullied are not very near to taking such a stance anyway. In this case it is probable that this kid will not be bullied again by that group, but not even that is certain.

 

[Hygro]

Yeah, I know that was the point, but my point was that it's your pyrrhic victory, not his! You "win", in the sense that you might not get bullied again, but you've also got your face kicked in. If someone isn't the type of person who is capable of fighting a bully, then I don't see why telling them to suddenly change into the type of person who is capable of fighting a bully is any more realistic an expectation than getting someone who is "already sufficiently outcasted and terrorised" - i.e. someone who isn't the type of person who has popular friends - to suddenly change into the type of person who is capable of making popular friends. The only difference is that, my way, you end up with popular friends, whereas your way, you end up with your face kicked in.

That's not a pyrrhic victory, that's just a loss
I jest, I actually agree
Well, agreed your method is largely superior. But I do think it's more realistic that someone will snap and fight back, ala JerichoHill. And there is a personality who will need to fight to get it out of their system lest they always regret not fighting back and compensate lifelong. Pop psychology #1