Bully Fatally Stabbed, Killer Walks Free

[ToniForelli]

If i would be bullied i would stab 12 times myself. Just like the news told me.

[Mike Tequeli]

 

My justification for carrying a knife myself is again, because I genuinely fear for my safety in the areas I live in and/or have to travel through. Just the same as the rest of the thousands of people who carry weapons in case they have to defend themselves with them. Are they all irresponsible sh*theads too?

For the most part, yes.

 

Statistically, your more likely to be attacked, killed or seriously injured if you are carrying a weapon in public than if not, so that kind of flies in the face of your whole "I fear for my safety" justification. In fact, carrying a knife in public makes you considerably less safe, according to all available statistics. So, what is left after that justification is rendered pointless- emotional support? That said, it's nice to see mandatory suspended prison sentences for people carrying concealed weapons in public at the moment, and burden of proof lies with the defendant to demonstrate that they had good reason to be in possession of the weapon, so if caught you should expect to spend some time at Her Majesty's pleasure.

It's been stated many times so I won't go into full detail but those statistics are mostly meaningless. It isn't the act of carrying the knife that brings more danger to yourself, that would be idiotic considering most knives cannot be seen at all. Concealed weapons are hardly the issue, I imagine violent crime in the UK goes much deeper than that, moreover it's ridiculous that the UK insists on banning every form of weapon assuming that is going to deal with the underlying problem. It didn't work for guns.

 

Anyway I don't think it's excessive force, normally when someone gets stabbed to death they get stabbed the f*ck to death. By which I mean stabbings can happen really quickly and 12 stab wounds sounds like a lot but I bet if you saw the incident it would not seem excessive. In fact stabbing someone once probably would not bring an end to his assault, this isn't pay it forward where getting stabbed by a 2 inch blade causes you keel over and die immediately.

[lil weasel]

Police reports and ER statements say, Getting stabbed feels like being punched. Many people don't even know they have been stabbed until later.

Those statements of a person dying instantly are just to make the relatives feel better.

[sivispacem]

 

Sivisspacem: Yeah, I can't imagine you get many adrenaline rushes sat at your PC looking up statistics on Google so I wouldn't expect you to understand. No matter how logical your arguements may seem, without any personal life experience you're arguing nothing but uninformed, moot points.

What makes you think I'm arguing without any experience? Thought it was many, many years ago, I was severely bullied at school. I never stabbed anyone. I headbutted someone in the face, sure, but I didn't carry on pounding after they went down.

Edited January 6, 2012 by sivispacem

[Vil.]

Sorry to hear that you were bullied. I should've taken a more delicate approach with my post. My point of everybody having their breaking point still stands though. The severity of their outbursts obviously varies from person to person, but this boy had clearly had enough, felt he'd exhausted all other attempts to dispel the bullies and simply wanted a resolution. You can only push some people so far before they snap. Whether there were any underlying mental conditions or whatever lying dorment beneathe the surface remains to be seen. My guess is he just got caught up in the heat of the moment. Adrenaline pumping and all that.

[Pat]

you don't use a weapon with out the intent of killing some one.

So I guess every police officer who has incapacitated a suspect with a taser or used a small-caliber handgun for a non-lethal takedown has been doing so with the intent to kill. Because they're both weapons, so according to your logic, they can't be used without the intent to kill.

[ccrogers15]

Serves the kid right. Sure, the killing should of not happened, however the kid should know that its bad. At schools in jackson MI, if you bully and get caught its a $500 fine.

[sivispacem]

 

Sorry to hear that you were bullied. I should've taken a more delicate approach with my post. My point of everybody having their breaking point still stands though. The severity of their outbursts obviously varies from person to person, but this boy had clearly had enough, felt he'd exhausted all other attempts to dispel the bullies and simply wanted a resolution. You can only push some people so far before they snap. Whether there were any underlying mental conditions or whatever lying dorment beneathe the surface remains to be seen. My guess is he just got caught up in the heat of the moment. Adrenaline pumping and all that.

I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm also not disputing that one could quite feasibly argue that the bully in this circumstance "deserved it". My argument was purely to refute the idea that the number of blows involved in a violent assault is irrelevant- that a proportional response shows soundness of mind and the capability to rise above tit-for-tat violence is a morally positive choice- and it is a choice. I understand the argument that the individual involved in this incident "reached breaking point" and I don't dispute that- it's obvious he did. But the fact that he responded in such an overtly violent way is still disproportionate. He has mitigating circumstances- these have been taken into account by him not finding himself behind bars- but to suggest that this kind of response is legitimate and proportionate sets a dangerous precedent. Unfortunately, bulling is a fact of life- it happens in the business world just as much as it does in schools and educational establishments, and there's little that can be done to stop it indefinitely. I understand why this individual responded in the way they did, and I understand the emotional mindset that drove him to respond in this way, but that doesn't absolve him of the responsibility with regards to the life he's taken, or set any kind of precedent dealing with these issues by force.

 

Whether the bully deserved it is up for personal, moral debate. The response, though understandable in the circumstances, cannot be seen, in my view, as anything other than morally repugnant. That doesn't mean that I feel the victim should be punished for their actions- it's merely an objective statement about the actions he took. It's the same as a robbery victim resisting hist assailant, pacifying him then murdering him. It's understandable given the circumstance, but that doesn't make it right. It's still "murder" according to all technical definitions.

 

 

you don't use a weapon with out the intent of killing some one.

So I guess every police officer who has incapacitated a suspect with a taser or used a small-caliber handgun for a non-lethal takedown has been doing so with the intent to kill. Because they're both weapons, so according to your logic, they can't be used without the intent to kill.

I can only speak from a British perspective, but authorised firearms officers are never trained to use a small-calibre weapon for non-lethal take-downs. If a firearm is used in the UK in response to criminal activity, it is always with the intent of killing the perpetrator. Though I see your point, a "non-lethal-take-down" with a firearm is as much about luck as it is about any kind of skill. I mean, you aim for a limb- you may even actually hit a limb- and it's perfectly possible for a round to end up in someone's liver, heart or spleen. As far as I know, the classic mantra still holds in police circles- never point the muzzle of a firearm at anything you don't intend to kill.

 

Tasers are intentionally designed to be non-lethal and non-crippling, so it's a moot point with regards to them.

Edited January 6, 2012 by sivispacem

[Pat]

Though I see your point, a "non-lethal-take-down" with a firearm is as much about luck as it is about any kind of skill.

We aren't talking about luck or skill, however, we're talking about intent, and the fact remains that various weapons can and have been used without the intent to kill. Your argument is true in some regards, but let us consider that police officers are not the only owners of small-caliber handguns, and they are not the only ones that have ever used them without the intent of killing their opponent. Think of small business owners, for example. Hell, let's even move past handguns, and move onto shotguns; how can a shotgun be used non-lethally? Beanbag ammunition. Has a shotgun loaded with beanbags ever been used with lethal intent? You tell me.

 

 

Tasers are intentionally designed to be non-lethal and non-crippling, so it's a moot point with regards to them.

Tasers are a weapon. If he is claiming that weapons cannot be used without lethal intent, tasers must be included, and if he says "oh well, of course there are exceptions," then he is in fact wrong and weapons can be used without lethal intent. It's one or the other.

[sivispacem]

Tasers are a weapon. If he is claiming that weapons cannot be used without lethal intent, tasers must be included, and if he says "oh well, of course there are exceptions," then he is in fact wrong and weapons can be used without lethal intent. It's one or the other.

Just to clarify- I'm not saying that weapons can only be used with a lethal intent- just that police use of firearms is, to my knowledge, almost universally with lethal intent.

[Pat]

Tasers are a weapon. If he is claiming that weapons cannot be used without lethal intent, tasers must be included, and if he says "oh well, of course there are exceptions," then he is in fact wrong and weapons can be used without lethal intent. It's one or the other.

Just to clarify- I'm not saying that weapons can only be used with a lethal intent- just that police use of firearms is, to my knowledge, almost universally with lethal intent.

That's why I said that he is wrong, not you.

[Tryst]

Though I see your point, a "non-lethal-take-down" with a firearm is as much about luck as it is about any kind of skill.

We aren't talking about luck or skill, however, we're talking about intent, and the fact remains that various weapons can and have been used without the intent to kill. Your argument is true in some regards, but let us consider that police officers are not the only owners of small-caliber handguns, and they are not the only ones that have ever used them without the intent of killing their opponent. Think of small business owners, for example. Hell, let's even move past handguns, and move onto shotguns; how can a shotgun be used non-lethally? Beanbag ammunition. Has a shotgun loaded with beanbags ever been used with lethal intent? You tell me.

 

 

Tasers are intentionally designed to be non-lethal and non-crippling, so it's a moot point with regards to them.

Tasers are a weapon. If he is claiming that weapons cannot be used without lethal intent, tasers must be included, and if he says "oh well, of course there are exceptions," then he is in fact wrong and weapons can be used without lethal intent. It's one or the other.

Jesus christ pat, have you ever held a gun before? You are told never to point a gun at some one unless you intend to kill them with it, not even a small caliber can kill, other wise you might as well be holding baloons.

They aren't built with sun settings.

 

The same thing goes for tasers, you don't shoot those off for fun those are built to take a man down any weapon you hold is designed to take a man down (even those you are trained to hold as if you are going to fire a real normal gun). Knifes are built to stab, guns are built to kill. If you don't understand what I am saying then I'm afraid is safty scissors for you.

[Pat]

Jesus christ pat, have you ever held a gun before? You are told never to point a gun at some one unless you intend to kill them with it, not even a small caliber can kill, other wise you might as well be holding baloons.

They aren't built with sun settings.

Multiple times. You are misreading my argument, however (not that I am surprised); I am not by any stretch of imagination arguing that firearms are more commonly used without lethal intent. Quite the contrary; if I personally am aiming a firearm at someone, they are going to die. The point is, however, that it is possible to use a firearm without lethal intent. You have claimed that it is not. I also love how you completely skirted around the issue of beanbag ammunition for shotguns, which in itself is more than enough to disprove your argument.

 

 

The same thing goes for tasers, you don't shoot those off for fun those are built to take a man down any weapon you hold is designed to take a man down (even those you are trained to hold as if you are going to fire a real normal gun)

I'm sorry, are we arguing takedowns, or lethality? I could've sworn we were arguing lethality. Let me check your original post.

 

 

you don't use a weapon with out the intent of killing some one.

Yep. We are arguing over whether or not a weapon can be used without lethal intent. You do realize what the term "lethal" means, correct? Moving on, you have claimed that I cannot use a weapon without the intent to kill. A taser is a weapon, and it can be (and is always) used without the intent to kill.

 

It really is no fun debating with you when you have such a hard time grasping even the most basic arguments I can manage.

[sivispacem]

Perhaps it would be better to say that "you don't (or at least shouldn't) use a lethal weapon unless you have the intent of killing someone"? Would that represent a better statement?

[Pat]

Perhaps it would be better to say that "you don't (or at least shouldn't) use a lethal weapon unless you have the intent of killing someone"? Would that represent a better statement?

Absolutely. If that is what he meant, I cannot be blamed for his inability to properly convey it.

[Tryst]

No Patrick, you are miss reading mine. Yes you can not kill with a gun if you choose not to I never said you couldn't, but if you ever draw a weapon designed to cause harm you must be prepared to kill or you have no right even holding that weapon.

 

Have you ever heard of internal bleeding? Its not fun, bean bags can cause that, so if you fire be prepared for killing some one. No weapon is 100% safe, there is even plenty of debate as to how safe tasers are.

 

You treating weapons like they can be used to not kill is the same argument as holding a nuclear bomb stockpile to 'deter' others from using it. Its a bad argument.

[sivispacem]

You treating weapons like they can be used to not kill is the same argument as holding a nuclear bomb stockpile to 'deter' others from using it. Its a bad argument.

I don't think the nuclear weapons argument is valid, because nuclear weapons have little to no strategic or tactical value. They're not designed to be deployed, the exist entirely as a deterrent,

[Tryst]

kay lets set a couple off then.

[lil weasel]

you don't use a weapon with out the intent of killing some one.

So I guess every police officer who has incapacitated a suspect with a taser or used a small-caliber handgun for a non-lethal takedown has been doing so with the intent to kill. Because they're both weapons, so according to your logic, they can't be used without the intent to kill.

Our training was "If you draw, you aim to kill. There are no warning shots". The idea is if it is serious enough to require deadly force you use it.

Otherwise use the Baton.

Didn't have tasers in those days, and we had to leave the Mase in the car as it was supposed to be too dangerous to use without superior officer approval. Since then the Pepper Spray replaced the Mace.

[sivispacem]

kay lets set a couple off then.

Your missing the point. Cars and trucks are potentially offensive weapons, but only if used as such. The primary purpose of a nuclear weapons is as a deterrent, not as an offensive weapon.

[Tryst]

Thats pure politician logic right there, bombs blow up that is thier job, ask japan. They were designed to kill, and are touted as weapons of peace, witch is my point of bullsh*t logic.

[lil weasel]

Balderdash, so were the Gatling and Maxim.

[visionist]

You hear this? It's the world's smallest violin, playing for all the bullies.

[sivispacem]

 

Thats pure politician logic right there, bombs blow up that is thier job, ask japan. They were designed to kill, and are touted as weapons of peace, witch is my point of bullsh*t logic.

Okay, how many people have been killed by nuclear weapons since their role changed from being offensive weapon to deterrent?

 

It's not pure "politician's logic", it's just actual logic.

[trip]

Sorry to just jump in without reading the entire discussion.

 

I like the ruling. It just may send a needed message to bullies. And maybe even their parents. But...I dream allot.

[Tryst]

Thats pure politician logic right there, bombs blow up that is thier job, ask japan. They were designed to kill, and are touted as weapons of peace, witch is my point of bullsh*t logic.

Okay, how many people have been killed by nuclear weapons since their role changed from being offensive weapon to deterrent?

 

It's not pure "politician's logic", it's just actual logic.

The only kind of detering I see them do is, a knee jerk oh yeah I have them and mine is bigger kind of reaction.

[Creed Bratton]

Thats pure politician logic right there, bombs blow up that is thier job, ask japan. They were designed to kill, and are touted as weapons of peace, witch is my point of bullsh*t logic.

Okay, how many people have been killed by nuclear weapons since their role changed from being offensive weapon to deterrent?

 

It's not pure "politician's logic", it's just actual logic.

All weapons are offensive. It really is a bullsh*t politician logic to call them any other name. And you always seem to fall for those political manipulations of words and concepts. You know it's just a matter of time before someone gets an idea to use a nuke? Do you really think humans are smart enough not to use them eventually? We're f*ckin' stupid. You have a lot of faith in human race. Don't be so naive.

[Vercetti27]

You treating weapons like they can be used to not kill is the same argument as holding a nuclear bomb stockpile to 'deter' others from using it. Its a bad argument.

I don't think the nuclear weapons argument is valid, because nuclear weapons have little to no strategic or tactical value. They're not designed to be deployed, the exist entirely as a deterrent,

so your saying they're used for intimidation only?

[ryuclan]

Damn, can we talk about the bully being stabbed or should a mod change the topic title?

[sivispacem]

You treating weapons like they can be used to not kill is the same argument as holding a nuclear bomb stockpile to 'deter' others from using it. Its a bad argument.

I don't think the nuclear weapons argument is valid, because nuclear weapons have little to no strategic or tactical value. They're not designed to be deployed, the exist entirely as a deterrent,

so your saying they're used for intimidation only?

Not intimidation, deterrence. Intimidation suggests that the threat of their use is a tool for extracting concessions from other states, when in reality the threat of their use is a deterrent from preventing other states making power plays against the possessor. They have no strategic value as offensive weapons, because regardless of which nation state deploys them, the repercussions for that state would be worse than if they had not used them in anger (negative-sum game). Ergo, no rational state would use a nuclear weapon as anything other than a deterrent. That isn't to say that a state or non-state actor won't use one as an offensive weapon at some point, but their role in current military arsenals is entirely as a deterrent.

 

Back on topic, I'm inclined to agree with trip that the ruling sends out a "message" to bullies; though I don't agree with the individual's action, positive good can come of it. On the flip side, however, if incidents like this continue to happen, isn't there a chance we could actually see an increase in the amount of violence used by bullies, in order to counteract the threat of victims arming up?