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).
People who know more about fighting are held to greater standards of responsibility. This is a young fat boy who knows nothing about causing harm. He is allowed reasonable force, and this is the case even if he does not know what that is. Here he finds that his weight and strength lead him to throw his attacker. Perhaps he saw the move on television, where it never leads to serious injury. Perhaps he made it up on the spot. Either way, for him to be criminally liable you need to prove that he had other, obvious options; that he knew about them; and that he knew that these other options would be sufficient but less violent.
Of the options he had, he's chosen one that's had a remarkably harmless conclusion, and he walked away afterwards having dished out very little defence, before he could even have known that his assailant was out of action. As a case of excessive force, no prosecutor could make this stick. Not that I'm a lawyer, but I don't see it happening.
Really? I mean, as bad at this bully is...he's like ten years old. You'd be okay with possibly killing the kid?
The child can defend himself. When he's too young to know how to disable someone without permanent injury then I'd rather he were able to defend himself than we tried to prevent nasty little wastes of space dying.
@RRW: Repeatedly kicking a person in the head could be considered lethal force because the person being kicked is most likely on the ground and no longer a threat, that I can agree with.
People on the ground can still be a threat. Many bullies are at their most dangerous when they get up, because they feel they've got to regain lost 'face' after being downed, and that makes them vindictive. Their cosy little sense of superiority has been violated, and the 'game' of making someone else's life hell becomes an even nastier chase for revenge.
I was a fit young child, just quite quiet. I didn't really have a preference between letting the bully up and still giving him a thrashing, or making sure he didn't get up. But many victims need to make sure that their attackers are thoroughly incapable of further action as soon as they get the chance, because they're too weak to take an angry bully on directly.
All the sources of seen say that he has a busted/broken nose and broken shin.
The kid was never a threat to begin with, that really bothers me. The dudes literally twice his size.
When you put these 2 factors together you have a bigger guy causing serious physical damage to a non-threatening little weakling.
Again, both are in the wrong, and that SF2 video was hilarious.
Punching you in the face isn't a threat? Being surrounded by a crowd of vicious assailants isn't a threatening situation?
I'm not so old that I don't remember how some fat children are. They're socially awkward, don't understand people very well, and can actually feel pain. When you've been bullied for years and suddenly you're surrounded by a group of hostile people cheering someone on as he punches your face, you don't say to yourself
"Oh, right, it's just a little pain and a little of my time. Any injuries will heal in a week or two."
Well, you might do actually, because it's become such a part of your life that you have to find some way to reconcile yourself to it. But with a hostile crowd you know that you could be attacked by more than just the little twerp currently punching you. And being punched is a threat.
You need to end this situation, fast, because soon it could turn into an outright beating by the whole crowd.
He won't stop. You don't like the situation: you try to get away; you try to ignore him, but he just keeps on going. Unless something happens soon the crowd might join in... and if the something that happens is you running away, or similar, there's a chance they'll chase you down, and a certainty that you'll be bullid harder than ever in the next few weeks.
You're definitely being threatened, and you have very little option.
My symphaties go to the bullied kid, but there should be consenquences for breaking someone's leg, even in that context.
I agree! In this context, the consequences should be being taken out for a free party by every sane parent in the area.
It's not sending that message at all. "Violence is not a solution to problems" does not translate to "it's okay to bully people" by any stretch of the imagination. Punishing retaliatory violence does not in any way implicitly condone the bullying that led to it.
If you're going to fight back, then accept the punishment. Fine, you've found a way of dealing with your problems, but don't expect to get away with violence scot free. Pure defence is a different matter, but the 16 year old in this case went above and beyond that.If he thinks that's a decent trade off, good for him. Otherwise, don't resort to violence with the expectation that there will be no ramifications.
I wonder if the teachers could've known about the bullying taking place.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
I hate bullies. I remember one time when I was 14 this kid was ripping on me constantly & I just dismissed him once & then ignored him but these other kids were like "You should kick his ass". I didn't really comment but after class everyone was like "Yo, Narz's gonna fight this guy" & then he came at me swinging. I didn't even fight back, just dodged & he threw three punches, ended up punching a locker & I just laughed at his ass. Then a teacher came, told us both we were in trouble & we both ended up suspended. I protested, not because I liked school but because I was missing a track meet (the only thing I enjoyed about public school). They ignored me. A couple months later I dropped out.
A perfect example of how 'I can't be bothered with justice' was no doubt justified as 'All violence needs discouragement', and actually sent the message 'teachers support the bullies in their attempts to make their victims suffer'.
Schools need to cut that suffering, not enhance it by punishing victims. Victims need to have a way out of suffering, not merely a number of unpleasant alternatives.
Maybe it's because people who have a chance of winning the fight do fight back, and people who have no chance don't fight back, and so end up getting bullied the most? It's not rocket science. "Bullies target the ones who don't fight back" might as well say "bullies target the ones who are too weak to fight back". Not that hard a concept...
It depends on the bullying, but for many bullies the risk of a few bruises and some scratches isn't worth it, even if the victim comes off worse. Bullies are looking for a quick emotional fix. As soon as it comes with any consequences, however minor, they have to think more carefully. They don't care that you come off much worse; what matters is that emotional fix now has a cost.
Well, the 12 vs. 16 disparity, plus the broken leg, kinda change my opinion on this whole thing.
It's a big age gap, but many fat, awkward 16-year olds have less social skill or nous than a popular 12-year old.