Bully Fatally Stabbed, Killer Walks Free

[Creed Bratton]

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?

Bullies aren't that complicated. A bully won't become a bigger bully just because his victim may carry a weapon. Bullies are insecure little pricks. As soon as they're threatened by their victim they'll find another one, and leave the dangerous one alone.

[sivispacem]

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?

Bullies aren't that complicated. A bully won't become a bigger bully just because his victim may carry a weapon. Bullies are insecure little pricks. As soon as they're threatened by their victim they'll find another one, and leave the dangerous one alone.

Whilst you might be right in many cases, it's still a generalisation. Not all people who bully do so because they're insecure, or to deflect their own personal issues onto others- some just do it because they're unpleasant, violent and unhinged people who enjoy the suffering they cause. The do it purely out of malice.

[guib]

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?

Bullies aren't that complicated. A bully won't become a bigger bully just because his victim may carry a weapon. Bullies are insecure little pricks. As soon as they're threatened by their victim they'll find another one, and leave the dangerous one alone.

Whilst you might be right in many cases, it's still a generalisation. Not all people who bully do so because they're insecure, or to deflect their own personal issues onto others- some just do it because they're unpleasant, violent and unhinged people who enjoy the suffering they cause. The do it purely out of malice.

I agree, I happen to know a bully who isn't insecure, and the moment that I threaten him back, he becomes more violent and aggressive against me...

[SaintJimmy]

We've all been in those shoes before I guess.

This. Everybody gets bullied in their life. Its part of being a kid. Hell, most 'victims' hve probably teased kids at some stage. f*ck, if anything its a good learning process. This kid couldn't handle it and saw murder as the only way out. If it's a sign of things to come he'll probably be a weak man, and his unproportioned response going unpunished resulted in one dead kid who wont be able to grow up.

 

Then again, I don't know the extent of the bullying, and maybe that kid would've grown up to be a real c*nt. But i just think this vigilante mindset of 'urhh hes a bully he deserves death' is unjustified and stupid

[ryuclan]

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?

Bullies aren't that complicated. A bully won't become a bigger bully just because his victim may carry a weapon. Bullies are insecure little pricks. As soon as they're threatened by their victim they'll find another one, and leave the dangerous one alone.

Whilst you might be right in many cases, it's still a generalisation. Not all people who bully do so because they're insecure, or to deflect their own personal issues onto others- some just do it because they're unpleasant, violent and unhinged people who enjoy the suffering they cause. The do it purely out of malice.

I agree, I happen to know a bully who isn't insecure, and the moment that I threaten him back, he becomes more violent and aggressive against me...

Shoot him.

 

 

 

Cause Bullies aren't Bulletproof.

[Absurdity]

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?

This ship has all but sailed and I don't think it ever gave a sh*t about how scared you allegedly are or how you feel this is somehow an exclusive affair that apparently dissolves your choice to carry a weapon.

 

We'll get on to the mayor and organise a compensational ham for you. He'll be right over with it after as soon as he's done being threatened with a stanley selloaped to a hammer down the bottom of his local one way.

 

But as it buggers off in to the distance, etched on the hull of this ship is a message for your consideration. It's got f*ck all to do with those who wish you harm, but to do with having enough respect for the people who do not wish you harm - and not to introduce that manner of apparatus in to their environment.

 

Until you at least try to tackle that concept you will never be ready to join us in the adult world. Always just a scared little wanker reaching for the shaft on your little prick.

 

[guib]

Cause Bullies aren't Bulletproof.

Well, this one was pretty fat, so I think the bullet would disappear in his fat...

[lil weasel]

Bullies are just a manifastation of the Class Clown. Except for the Professional bully out for your money. They do most of their act-up in front of crowds. The mob likes to see Others being pushed around. And, find it most amusing if the Bully can humiliate the coward, right. Else they would find a way to Rat out the Bully.

And when the Bullys grow-up, their the <...> that let you stop at the sign as they breeze through, cut you off, take the reserved parking space, cut the line, grab the last whatever from your daughters hand in the store, etc. All because they weren't put down early on.

 

Love thy Neighbour because, whatever, (s)he deserves it more than you.

[Creed Bratton]

 

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?

Bullies aren't that complicated. A bully won't become a bigger bully just because his victim may carry a weapon. Bullies are insecure little pricks. As soon as they're threatened by their victim they'll find another one, and leave the dangerous one alone.

Whilst you might be right in many cases, it's still a generalisation. Not all people who bully do so because they're insecure, or to deflect their own personal issues onto others- some just do it because they're unpleasant, violent and unhinged people who enjoy the suffering they cause. The do it purely out of malice.

Those aren't just bullies. They also belong in another group: sadists and psychopaths. And that label overshadows their bully status IMO. They should be killed.

[Brad]

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. Every single person in the entire world has a breaking point so proportionality is entirely irrelevant. Have you ever lost all control? Are you implying you're a saint? Take into account the victims frame of mind. He had been persistently persecuted by these bullies and tried numerous methods of avoiding confrontation which speaks a 1000 words about the boys rationality. He was pushed, he snapped, the bully got what was inevitiably coming to him. Good show.

Isn't that what the law is in essence, aimed to achieve? To maintain order and security due to the aggressive and self-interest behaviour of humans? The basis of the law works as objective as possible, while attempting to appreciate subjective circumstances. There's a point of when proportionate response turns into aggravated violence. After three or four stabs, it is clear that it moves out of proportionality and hence cannot be considered self-defence. I haven't studied the case so I cannot really comment on the mitigating circumstances so saying the bully deserved it is moot. However, whether or not he did deserve it is a different matter and is not applicable in law.

[Pansy.]

Surely he'd be dead by then anyways? I don't think you can murder dead people to be honest.

[Pat]

 

After three or four stabs, it is clear that it moves out of proportionality and hence cannot be considered self-defence.

You can't say that without any evidence of just how the fight proceeded, however. You say it as if we know for a fact that the bully was stabbed several times, he fell to the ground, and then the kid kept stabbing him. We don't know if that's what happened. For all we know, the bully could have been on just as much of an adrenaline rush after seeing the knife and realizing that his opponent fully intended to use it. He could've been standing until the last few stabs. Not to mention that you treat this issue like the stabbing was a period of minutes, when in reality, it probably took a fraction of a minute.

 

Without evidence of exactly how the fight went, you cannot rightfully claim that twelve stabs was or was not excessive force.

[Fireman]

 

After three or four stabs, it is clear that it moves out of proportionality and hence cannot be considered self-defence.

Without evidence of exactly how the fight went, you cannot rightfully claim that twelve stabs was or was not excessive force.

Yet you (and others) can prove the opposite (that it was justified self-defense) by MAGIC. That or you were all there.

 

And by repeating flight and fight response over and over again, cause that's cool.

[Pat]

Yet you (and others) can prove the opposite (that it was justified self-defense) by MAGIC. That or you were all there.

The judge heard testimony of eye witnesses and based her ruling on their testimonies. I have confidence that she knew what she was doing when she ruled that it was self-defense.

 

 

And by repeating flight and fight response over and over again, cause that's cool.

I see no reason to bring up a different argument when you can't even be bothered to raise a counter point against it.

[ryuclan]

 

After three or four stabs, it is clear that it moves out of proportionality and hence cannot be considered self-defence.

Without evidence of exactly how the fight went, you cannot rightfully claim that twelve stabs was or was not excessive force.

Yet you (and others) can prove the opposite (that it was justified self-defense) by MAGIC. That or you were all there.

 

And by repeating flight and fight response over and over again, cause that's cool.

They don't have to prove hes innocent...they have to prove hes guilty. So many people forget this. The judge ruled it was self defense and we can only assume it was. The judge heard all the eye witness accounts and she probably read the forensics reports and autopsy reports. She made a decision and we have to live with it. All of this debating is purely hindsight.

 

 

 

Also the boy got off the bus early in an attempt to avoid the fight. The other boy followed him and attacked him. If this would have happened a couple weeks after it did then the boy would have been 18. Technically grown and initiating a fight with a freshman. I don't condone the use of the knife but I do support the judges decision.

Edited January 7, 2012 by ryuclan

[lil weasel]

How about we all move to Florida and Recall the Judge, and legislature for passing the law?

[Saggy]

There's a lot of people in here that don't know the first thing about how lethal fists or knives are. Twelve stabs is not excessive... Twelve stabs is a quick encounter compared to actual premeditated attacks. I read the papers about the ones here... 26 stabs here, 50 there, 150 is the record I've seen. Have any of you actually seen a stabbing? It's pretty much identical to a fist fight, except it's over a lot quicker. Of course some people stick around to beat a dead horse...

 

Someone punching you in the head not a threat to your life? Ridiculous... That's part of the reason kids wind up being beaten to death every year, because people think, "Oh, just boy hood fights," when in reality there's a lot of trauma a fist can deliver. Past that, how can you consider him arming himself premeditation? Did he premeditate running? Did he premeditate being hit in the back of the head first? It's ridiculous to act like he had the knife because he wanted to kill the other boy, it was his last resort and the courts have decided he was in fear for his life, the witnesses testified he was trying to flee, how much more clear cut can it really be?

 

The spin on this is what is effecting peoples' judgement. The media wants this to be about a student killing another and it being okay because he was "bullied". That is not what happened here. If this type of scenario had played out in the world of adults... If someone followed you from work to your home, punched you in the back of the head, and then pursued you as you fled? This was about a person being attacked and defending themselves.

 

The one thing here that is really subject to bias is the circumstance that it was a knife. If this actually had been something that happened between adults, the contention that, "Oh, he was just packing the knife for his first chance of using it," just might stick, as often happens in these kinds of cases. That's why knives aren't really highly recommended as defensive weapons, because it's so likely for the prosecution to try to claim premeditation, and so many people view them with a bias as being just a murderous weapon, indicative of intent. But trying to argue premeditation in this case is doomed way before that argument.

 

This is pretty simple to me though... The kid was under attack, he wasn't trying to set something up to where he could stab the guy, he even tried running. The idea that, "Oh, he should have just stabbed him once with a really decisive blow," is a really naive notion that shows ignorance on the matter. Life isn't a comic book with the final blow that runs the villain clean-through... In the real world it's a lot messier than that, and I'll say again, twelve is actually a modest number.

 

So why the knife? What else is he going to do? Tote a bat along with him? Lot of good that would do if the bigger guy grabbed it and used it against him anyway. Obviously he needed something concealable he could keep on him. I suppose the kid is supposed to go get a tazer? At the end of the day there's nothing that dictates what type of force he is required to use to meet force anyway and a lot of circumstances to consider. The end of the day though, we're supposed to have a right to defend ourselves.

[Twang.]

This f*ckin' douchenozzle bully should have realized that if you pick a fight with someone, there's a chance they'll fight back, and that there's a chance that them fighting back may end with his death. Maybe he should think of the consequences of his actions before he does stupid sh*t.

[lil weasel]

No one thinks they can get hurt. Come on, how many wimps have you bullyed that faught back?

The whole idea is to push the jerk around for the fun of the crowd, and maybe a little lunch money.

 

The wimp is a runner, who had to be trapped. When do you expect a wimp to fight?

The game is to push, push, push, push.

 

The thing now according to the pro bully crowd is make it a crime to fight back, thus increaseing the Fun of it. We don't want the bully to have to worry about the crazies fighting, it ruins the Fun.

SLAP, SLAP, Run weiny Run!

[Fireman]

They don't have to prove hes innocent...they have to prove hes guilty. So many people forget this. The judge ruled it was self defense and we can only assume it was. The judge heard all the eye witness accounts and she probably read the forensics reports and autopsy reports. She made a decision and we have to live with it. All of this debating is purely hindsight

 

I already stated that this (for me) wasn't about that it was justified by law (but if it was, a judge is not the all-seeing eye), but whether it was morally justified and to me killing a person because you feel threatened isn't.

 

I said we can all read and we all know he's walking free, but this is NOT the right way to deal with things. You seem to agree that everyone should stab a person as soon as they feel threatened by them (or if they get hit in the back of the head), because it's justified by the law anyway, who cares about life.

 

 

 

 

 

[ryuclan]

They don't have to prove hes innocent...they have to prove hes guilty. So many people forget this. The judge ruled it was self defense and we can only assume it was. The judge heard all the eye witness accounts and she probably read the forensics reports and autopsy reports. She made a decision and we have to live with it. All of this debating is purely hindsight

 

I already stated that this (for me) wasn't about that it was justified by law (but if it was, a judge is not the all-seeing eye), but whether it was morally justified and to me killing a person because you feel threatened isn't.

 

I said we can all read and we all know he's walking free, but this is NOT the right way to deal with things. You seem to agree that everyone should stab a person as soon as they feel threatened by them (or if they get hit in the back of the head), because it's justified by the law anyway, who cares about life.

The bully could have killed the boy when he punched him in the back of the head. And morality is not black and white. Killing another to protect oneself can be considered right when given the right situation. For you to say murder as self defense is always wrong is complete and utter garbage. A lot of the times it happens so fast that you can't really think logically about it. sh*t happens when you're given a fight or flight situation especially when you already tried to escape. What if the boy didn't use a knife? What if he punched the bully in the forehead and caused him to have a seizure resulting in his death. Would he still be wrong? The bully did more than threaten him, he pursued him. He was practically a grown man trying to fight a freshman.

[lil weasel]

So for a RECAP we have

39 = Judgement OK

12 = Hang the Kid

6 = Wishy Washy

6 = Unclear

 

 

For the Judgment.

1. Pat

2. Indi

3. Lil weasel

4. Mockage

5. finn4life

6. goin-god

7. SPMovies

8. sonnyBlack

9. TDP992

10. Killer783

11. Rebel

12. Vercetti27

13. Methods

14. RomansMoobs

15. bobgtafan

16. jaysteels

17. Otter

18. Jimmy_Leppard

19. d0mm2k8

20. OchyGTA

21. Adler

22. SmC12

23. .2D

24. Joe

25. TheGreatGig23

26. SmC12

27. fireguy109

28. Sakuya

29. ryuclan

30. GTAvanja

31. Warlord

32. ZDANZ96

33. Blacklisted

34. ToniForelli

35. Mike Tequeli

36. ccrogers15

37. visionist

38. trip

39. SagaciousKJB

 

Hang the Bastard.

1. theCacti

2. mrpain

3. Greenline

4. Fireman

5. Tryst

6. top gear

7. Law0070

8. Mr.Mister

9. GTA_stu

10. Rusty Balls

11. abishai.kochara

12. sivispacem

 

Wishy Washy.

3niX

Hambones

UNRATED69

.Trooper.

SaintJimmy

Brad

 

Unclear

NaidRaida

Fozzy Fozborne

BGModder

leik oh em jeez!

guib

Pansy

Edited January 8, 2012 by lil weasel

[Pat]

<snip>

I was looking forward to your thoughts on the situation with high expectations, and you did not disappoint. I could not agree more with everything you said.

[Absurdity]

I could think of someone more worthy to take a dangle right now, lil weasel.

 

I'd imagine you'd get further in your plight to be heard if you refrained from including everyone here in your own personal vendettas against the ruffians.

 

[Tryst]

Yep the only possible conclusion is those that don't think the kid was in the right to stab some one to death are evil pro bully bastards who think the kid should fry.

 

Thanks for clearing that up weasle.

[sivispacem]

Nice job of completely misunderstanding my point, weasel. I never said "he deserves to hang for this". I never even said that he deserved to be punished. I merely pointed out that it's idiotic to try and say it was a proportional action and therefore is objectively wrong.

[lil weasel]

Based on:

 

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?

 

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.

What is the discussion here?

1) Did the legislature have a right to make a law?

2) Did the Judge have a right to ‘judge’ without a jury?

3) Did a bankrupt judicial system affect the Judge’s decision?

4) Should the Tax payers have to fund a Criminal Jury trial on all deaths, regardless of the specific situation?

5) Does a person have the right to defend when assaulted in public?

6) Does a death change the right of a physical defense?

7) What was the Coroner’s jury decision?

8) Why didn’t the District Attorney appeal?

9) Will there be a ‘Wrongful Death’ lawsuit?

10) What do the peers of this child think?

11) Will Florida change its laws on carrying concealed weapons?

12) Will Florida change any law regarding this situation?

13) Should the Judge be subject to recall?

Edited January 8, 2012 by lil weasel

[K^2]

Weasel, sivispacem is absolutely right. You don't take out a lethal weapon unless you are planning to kill somebody, and you don't bring it with you unless you are prepared to use it. These are the first things one learns in any kind of lethal weapons training.

 

But that doesn't translate into possession = intent. So I really don't see what your problem with sivispacem's posts is.

 

Edit: FYI, it's defendant's right to be tried by jury. Defendant can also decline said right and be tried by Judge.

[Icarus]

8) Why didn’t the District Attorney appeal?

Usually the prosecution doesn't appeal unless they believe there's a reasonable chance of an overturn (successful appeal). Chances are, given the nature of the situation, the ruling would be upheld by an appellate court. Appeals are quite costly, so the D.A. isn't going to push for an appeal if there's minimal chance for a successful appeal.

[GTA_stu]

Am I right in thinking Weasel is one of the oldest members on here? Cos you sure wouldn't know it looking at his posts in this thread. Just because we don't agree with the principal of "it's ok to retaliate with disproportionate force to a perceived threat, as long as said threat has been mean" doesn't mean we are bully lovers. It is actually possible not to have polarised views on a subject you know.

 

A conversation in the weasel household:

 

weasel: "Hey you want a ham sandwhich?"

 

Weasel family member: "No thanks, I'm not hungry right now"

 

weasel: "F*CKING WHAT? GOD DAMN HIPPY VEGETARIAN PIECE OF SH*T, ISLAMIC JEW LOVING TREE HUGGER GET THE F*CK OUT OF THIS HOUSE!"