Bully Pays the Price When Victim Fights Back

[Yeekim]

Well, throwing someone 1/3 of one's size into the ground does not exactly make one a "hero". Let's just say he can't be blamed for choosing that path of action.

 

[Kyriakos]

I swear, in my head, I heard the all too familiar voice, "Finish him!".

 

[NedimNapoleon]

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

ECW! ECW! ECW! ECW! EC....

Uh, sorry, I got caught in the moment there. Anyway, I was bullied myself to a lesser extent. I have no sympathy for the skinny kid. Bullies are vermin; send the little sprat off to a lab for testing and maybe humanity will have some use for him.

EDIT: Now I want to find out what that move was called. I'm going to ask a pro-wrestler.

 

[Normal User]

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.

Completely false. The bullied kid clearly exercised a level of violent force in self-defense that was way out of proportion to the threat, which means he has committed a crime. He probably won't be charged or convicted, though he should be (along with the assailant).

 

[Yeekim]

The bullied kid clearly exercised a level of violent force in self-defense that was way out of proportion to the threat.

Unless the bully was seriously injured, you really can't claim that.

 

[Normal User]

Unless the bully was seriously injured, you really can't claim that.

I can. For one thing, it seems obvious from his behavior that he was seriously injured, but even if he was not, that does not decrease the seriousness of the force. For instance, if I hit you over the head with a lead pipe or shoot you in the face and in either case end up not killing you, that does not legally mean I did not use deadly force against you.

 

[Aegis]

Completely false. The bullied kid clearly exercised a level of violent force in self-defense that was way out of proportion to the threat, which means he has committed a crime. He probably won't be charged or convicted, though he should be (along with the assailant).

I'd like to see how you would respond to being encircled by a gang of adversaries, one of whom is repeatedly punching you in the face.

He probably did not intend for the kid to hit his head on the pavement, but oh well - accidents happen and the kid deserved to have his bell rung. He could have done far more damage had he beaten his face to a pulp, or kicked the crap out of him while he was lying there on the ground, but he chose not to and de-escalated the situation by walking away.

I can. For one thing, it seems obvious from his behavior that he was seriously injured, but even if he was not, that does not decrease the seriousness of the force. For instance, if I hit you over the head with a lead pipe or shoot you in the face and in either case end up not killing you, that does not legally mean I did not use deadly force against you.

Can you please point out to us in any self-defense, or even military, manual where the action of throwing a person to the ground is intended to kill a person?

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Okay, it was a modified gutwrench powerbomb or some such. Vince McMahon should be calling this kid for an interview.

 

[Normal User]

He probably did not intend for the kid to hit his head on the pavement, but oh well - accidents happen and the kid deserved to have his bell rung. He could have done far more damage had he beaten his face to a pulp, or kicked the crap out of him while he was lying there on the ground, but he chose not to and de-escalated the situation by walking away.

In the case of self-defense, intent doesn't really matter. One is expected to be able to determine the level of force necessary to defend oneself if one chooses to exercise self-defense as a response to a threat. If you can't, then don't do it.

And the child does not really get to argue intent anyways. If I swing a baseball bat at your head and end up doing permanent brain damage, do I get to claim that I never intended to really hurt you that badly?

 

[Normal User]

Can you please point out to us in any self-defense, or even military, manual where the action of throwing a person to the ground is intended to kill a person?

I wasn't saying that this kid exercised lethal force, just using that as an example of how the result of an action is not necessarily connected legally to the action itself. Lethal force can be non-lethal.

Intent is irrelevant. You don't get to (for example) shoot someone in the face and then claim you never meant serious harm.

And this kid didn't simply throw someone to the ground, he picked someone up and threw him at the ground. The action was clearly meant to harm.

I'm not trying to be a jerk to the bullied kid; surely bullied kids deserve sympathy. I'm simply explaining to you that the bullied kid is criminally liable; this is the law, not my opinion.

 

[Aegis]

Normal User, you are not demonstrating that throwing him to the ground was excessive.

And the child does not really get to argue intent anyways. If I swing a baseball bat at your head and end up doing permanent brain damage, do I get to claim that I never intended to really hurt you that badly?

No, because swinging a baseball bat at a person's head is a very predictable way of causing a brain injury. Throwing someone to the ground, is not.

 

[Normal User]

In the manner in which he did? It absolutely is.

You clearly don't like the law; that's fine. There are plenty of laws I disagree with.

 

[Aegis]

Throwing someone to the ground is not considered use of lethal force. If you can prove otherwise, please do so.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Damn I love the internet.


Link to video.

 

[Normal User]

Throwing someone to the ground is not considered use of lethal force. If you can prove otherwise, please do so.

Have you seen the video? The bullied kid did not simply throw the bully to the ground. He picked the bully up a few feet off the ground and dropped him. That is not throwing something to the ground. Also, I never said the bullied kid exercised lethal force; I simply used analogies to illustrate a concept. Please do not put words in my mouth; doing so is the domain of the intellectually deficit.

If you have seen the video, I'm not quite sure what to say. You're looking at a duck and calling it a cat.

 

[Aegis]

Have you seen the video? The bullied kid did not simply throw the bully to the ground. He picked the bully up a few feet off the ground and dropped him. That is not throwing something to the ground.

If you have seen the video, I'm not quite sure what to say. You're looking at a duck and calling it a cat.

Of course I have seen the video. In order to throw something to the ground, you first have to pick it up. Otherwise you're just pushing it over. Saying that he threw him to the ground is an accurate description.

I'm still waiting on your proof that throwing someone to the ground is considered using deadly/lethal force. I think that it will be pretty difficult for you to prove, seeing how the bully is, ya know... still alive, and the act of tossing someone is in no way comparable to shooting them or hitting them over the head with a pipe/bat.

Also, I never said the bullied kid exercised lethal force; I simply used analogies to illustrate a concept. Please do not put words in my mouth; doing so is the domain of the intellectually deficit.

You do it to yourself when you claim that his response was excessive to the point where it is a crime, and then equate throwing someone to the ground with shooting/clubbing them with a bat/pipe. Unfortunately for your point, using force intended to harm with self-defense and self-preservation in mind, is not a crime.

 

[Normal User]

I say again, I've never said the kid exercised lethal force, just that he exercised a level of force that was out of proportion to the thread. I have said that lethal force does not have to cause death in order to be considered lethal force; again, a gunshot that does not kill is still considered lethal force according to the law.

You do it to yourself when you claim that his response was excessive to the point where it is a crime, and then equate throwing someone to the ground with shooting/clubbing them with a bat/pipe. Unfortunately for your point, using force intended to harm with self-defense and self-preservation in mind, is not a crime.

Well, I never equated his act with the act of shooting someone, at least not in the way you claim. I used the analogy of shooting someone in the head simply to illustrate the point that the result of an act does is not necessarily connected to the legality of that act; the specific analogy was that lethal force does not have to be lethal in order to be lethal force. Another could be that injurious force does not have to actually cause injury in order to be considered injurious. I thought this was fairly obvious; do you understand? And secondly, using "force intended to harm with self-defense and self-preservation" absolutely can be a crime, if it is not in proportion to the threat. Is this a difficult concept? I can understand how you may not wish this to be so; as I said, this is fine, since I don't like many laws myself and think they should be changed. But you can't argue it isn't a crime, as the law is what it is.

 

[RedRalph]

I'm actually not so sure Aegis, in some countries kicking someone in the head is considered using lethal force. Frankly, he could have killed him. Still think he did the right thing though.

 

[Holycannoli]

What was he supposed to do, only punch back? He effectively stopped his assailant using non-lethal force. If he put him in a choke hold that eventually killed him, then yes that would be excessive.

I don't see a jury anywhere except maybe certain parts of California convicting this kid of anything. It's not a question of law anyway, and IMO he shouldn't have even been suspended...if the law says he's within his rights, then the school should also. But that's my opinion.

EDIT: Oh my source for my last reply is an interesting discussion in another forum, with it's own sources cited http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=120292&page=2. I copy/pasted a copy/paste. I didn't read through that whole thread until just now, but page 3 echoes what I said about needing to understand the history and culture of the area and people involved. That's what's important, because without it we interpret according to our own culture.