terrifNick21 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 STUPID comparison, man. Not even close to the same thing. There are laws concerning someone breaking into your house. And there are rules at every school. Every kid knows that if you get into a fight at school, more than likely you're gonna get suspended. You guys are being ridiculous. No, it's not stupid. So if someone came up to you at school and started punching you over and over over, and you get fed up and retaliate, you think YOU should be suspended? **** outta here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 again- what was he supposed to do? let the little kid continue to hit him? attempt to walk away (you think the little kid wouldnt have come after him)? what was he supposed to do? you said 'he got into a fight at school'. thats where you and most of the rest of us disagree. he was getting bullied. big difference. you do know that? ---------- Post added March-20th-2011 at 11:09 PM ---------- I have to dissagree, he did not get into a fight, he was attacked, and had to defend himself. .. just said the same thing. i think this is what bubble screen is missing. and it explains his opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 It could be that it's one of those schools with a zero tolerance for fighting. Could be the administrator is a by the book kind of a person. Could be this school has a bit of history,(bad),with fighting. Could be none of that as well. Either way,(as we all have learned over the years),there are exceptions to every rule and imho,this would be one of them. The lad had been the victim of years of bullying and that generally means that walking away wasn't an option. Walking away probably encouraged more of it actually,(that's been my experience anyway). He finally had enough,snapped,and defended himself. These would be a couple of the extenuating circumstances I think that should have excluded him from a suspension. Oh. With all that in mind,his reaction was actually quite tame. It could have been much,much worse. Made his point and walked away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 It could be that it's one of those schools with a zero tolerance for fighting. Sorta like States with "No-Fault" insurance laws Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I have to dissagree, he did not get into a fight, he was attacked, and had to defend himself. And from where i sit it looks like that school is already out of control with that "bully" punching him over and over with nobody doing a thing.We will have to agree to dissagree on this one.... You're missing the point. The big kid didn't HAVE to retailiate. Yes, he would have been a ***** had he walked away, but it would have kept him in school. Ideally, the big kid should have done what he did after school somehwere, like in the little kid's neighborhood or something. That way he could have done the very same thing, and suffered no consequences. He was at school, guys. There are rules. I can't believe I'm the only one that gets this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I agree, the response was a little disproportional. The big kid had the right idea, but he seriously could have killed the bully. Bullying is awful, but I don't think it warrants being killed. Or suffering irreparable damage to your spine.edit: after watching the video again more closely, he didn't drop him on his head. I'm 100% on the kid's side, he did the right thing and stood up for himself. Little kid is lucky, hopefully that punk won't go around picking fights again. I noticed the same after seeing it a second time, he got just enough rotation on the drop to avoid the direct blow to the head. Certainly did the little guy a huge favor there. Enter Apotheosis, watch the interview and see if that changes your mind whether it was an overreaction. i dont really know exactly what you expected of the big kid. you want him to somehow stop him without slamming him to the ground. honestly, i dont know how he could have done it any better. the skinny kid is actually lucky he didnt get hurt worse. i'd have beat his brains into the concrete and not thought twice about it.i get the feeling youre bothered by the fact that the kid who got pwned is clearly smaller and not as strong as the fat kid. i'm not. on principle, the proper result was achieved. moral- mess with a bigger dude, no matter how nerdy he may be, you may get hurt. I'm still not quite sure what it is that people think I've been saying in this thread. I keep getting told to re-evaluate opinions that I haven't even professed Let's go ahead and sum up what I do believe and have expressed so we're all on the same page: 1. The big guy was justified in fighting back and the little guy deserved what he got. 2. In any fight that is not strictly a matter of life and death you should try not to escalate things more than necessary. Do what you need to do to get out relatively unscathed, nothing more. The big kid did a pretty good job of that, all things considered. Dropping the kid directly on his head would have been a more dangerous maneuver than is called for in that specific situation. Fortunately, that did not happen. 3. If you have ever been in a public school system with a zero tolerance policy you should be completely unsurprised that the school would suspend both kids, even if you strongly disagree with the reasoning behind it. That's just the way it works. 4. Mickalino downplayed the fact that the fat kid was physically much larger (all body fat aside) than the little douchebag and I called him out on it. Any disagreement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 No, it's not stupid. So if someone came up to you at school and started punching you over and over over, and you get fed up and retaliate, you think YOU should be suspended? **** outta here. Dude, learn how to read please. I clearly stated in another post that I likely would have beaten the little kid to a pulp, if I were in fat guy's shoes. But I would have accepted my suspension. And I would have expected to be suspended had I beat up another kid. Seriously, were all of you guys home-schooled or something? There are RULES, people! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Seriously, were all of you guys home-schooled or something? There are RULES, people! Yes Bubbles, there's rules. Like the Rule of Self Defense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrifNick21 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Dude, learn how to read please. I clearly stated in another post that I likely would have beaten the little kid to a pulp, if I were in fat guy's shoes. But I would have accepted my suspension. And I would have expected to be suspended had I beat up another kid. Seriously, were all of you guys home-schooled or something? There are RULES, people! Dude, I'm not going back and reading all of your posts. And of COURSE you would've accepted it. Yeah, there are RULES, but there are also EXCEPTIONS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Yes Bubbles, there's rules. Like the Rule of Self Defense You read all my responses, correct? I clearly said the little kid had it coming. Where we differ is on the punishment. You guys aren't looking at this objectively. I think PCS is the only one that is. You know what zero tolerance is, right? I dunno know about your job, but if two people get into a fight where I work, they're both gone. And there aren't really any questions asked. Its the same way at most schools, only you get a second chance at school. Its pretty clear. And I'm sure that schools still pass out papers at school early in the year, expressing this. Yeah, big kid had had enough. I understand that. But he had other options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 For the record, I'd say that Bubble is pretty on point (not necessarily speaking infallible truth, mind you, but his opinion is sound). You guys need to chill out a bit and read what he's said more carefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Dude, I'm not going back and reading all of your posts. And of COURSE you would've accepted it. Yeah, there are RULES, but there are also EXCEPTIONS! There are rarely exceptions, where I come from. Its made pretty clear. No fighing. And I'm pretty sure big kid isn't whining about his suspension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonOfWashington Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 funny. what exactly were his injuries? and, can you make that pic bigger? Don't know. And I can't find it bigger anywhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 For the record, I'd say that Bubble is pretty on point (not necessarily speaking infallible truth, mind you, but his opinion is sound). You guys need to chill out a bit and read what he's said more carefully. Thanks, man. And I know its hard for you to agree with me. I know I'm not always the most likable person here. But I think I'm definitely right on this one. What's funny, is I agree with these other guys on everything but the suspension part. It sucks that big kid got punished. But it certainly shouldn't come as a surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 It could be that it's one of those schools with a zero tolerance for fighting. Could be the administrator is a by the book kind of a person. Could be this school has a bit of history,(bad),with fighting. Could be none of that as well. Yup, all are possibilities. I agree with your post. For me, I think this "zero" tolerance policy at the end of the day is just nobody in the school systems want to have to deal with hearing both sides of the story, and make a judgement call/decision on who is at fault, more at fault, or if all parties involved are equally at fault. In other words, get the facts. In this instance, IMO one kid was "fighting" the other "defended himself" which to me is not automatically the same thing. If Casey slammed him, and then struck him/kicked him in the head a couple of times, yeah he went overboard. This one was about as easy a call as you will ever get. You have visual evidence of a clear cut case of self-defense. The other kid struck Casey or tried to strike him FIVE times, before he reacted. Is there any reason to believe if he would have started to walk away that the bully would have stopped striking him? I don't think so. Doing the right thing should never get you punished. You have the right to be secure in your person, and unless you want to be walked over and abused for the rest of your life you have to make a stand. I think most people understand this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 There are rarely exceptions, where I come from. Its made pretty clear. No fighing. And I'm pretty sure big kid isn't whining about his suspension. Exceptions are also much, MUCH less likely when an incident draws a lot of attention and cannot easily be swept under the rug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Yup, all are possibilities. I agree with your post.For me, I think this "zero" tolerance policy at the end of the day is just nobody in the school systems want to have to deal with hearing both sides of the story, and make a judgement call/decision on who is at fault, more at fault, or if all parties involved are equally at fault. In other words, get the facts. In this instance, IMO one kid was "fighting" the other "defended himself" which to me is not automatically the same thing. If Casey slammed him, and then struck him/kicked him in the head a couple of times, yeah he went overboard. This one was about as easy a call as you will ever get. You have visual evidence of a clear cut case of self-defense. The other kid struck Casey or tried to strike him FIVE times, before he reacted. Is there any reason to believe if he would have started to walk away that the bully would have stopped striking him? I don't think so. Doing the right thing should never get you punished. You have the right to be secure in your person, and unless you want to be walked over and abused for the rest of your life you have to make a stand. I think most people understand this. But the school's response would have been (even with the video), that Casey should have walked away, and reported scrawny kid. I know that's easier said than done. But that's what would have happened. This is a perfect example of two wrongs don't make a right. I hate that expression. But it fits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 You read all my responses, correct? I clearly said the little kid had it coming. Where we differ is on the punishment. You guys aren't looking at this objectively. I think PCS is the only one that is. You know what zero tolerance is, right? Do you know for a fact, that that school has that policy, and that that is the reason he was suspended ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Exceptions are also much, MUCH less likely when an incident draws a lot of attention and cannot easily be swept under the rug. Exactly. If they had not suspended the big kid it would have opened themselves up from criticism, especially from the little guy's family. And it would have almost certainly resulted in more fights, etc This way, there are no taking sides. Those two knew what the punishment was. It sucks for big guy, but it is what it is. ---------- Post added March-20th-2011 at 11:55 PM ---------- Do you know for a fact, that that school has that policy, and that that is the reason he was suspended ? No, but that's probably the way 9 out of 10 schools handle that sort of thing. Zero tolerance means just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 but somebody with common sense should see that he could not retreat. Your an idiot if you walk away from somebody who is hitting you in the face, and you turn your back on them. If that's the school's response, then the school is wrong. Plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Do you know for a fact, that that school has that policy, and that that is the reason he was suspended ? Don't be lazy, Mick. This is a question you can answer for yourself via an easy Google search. A spokeswoman for the NSW Department of Education and Training at Chifley College, Dunheved Campus, the Australian high school said, "does not tolerate any violence and deals with all cases according to its community-agreed discipline code." "Both students in a fight at the school shown on the Internet have been suspended ... the only injury sustained was a grazed knee." Source: http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/141594/283/Kid-Fights-Back-Against-Bully-Gets-Suspended If that's the school's response, then the school is wrong. Plain and simple. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who doesn't believe that zero-tolerance policies have inherent flaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Bubble Screen is saying two different things. First he said he would have given both kids the same punishment. People called him out on that. Then he said it sucks, but zero tolerance means both kids should get punished. So, Bubble, which is it? Would YOU blindly give both kids the same punishment, as you said in one of your posts? Do you agree with a zero tolerance policy that would punish an aggressor and a victim equally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Bubble Screen is saying two different things. First he said he would have given both kids the same punishment. People called him out on that. Then he said it sucks, but zero tolerance means both kids should get punished. So, Bubble, which is it? Would YOU blindly give both kids the same punishment, as you said in one of your posts? Do you agree with a zero tolerance policy that would punish an aggressor and a victim equally? I'm not seeing it. Everything he's said seems to be fairly consistent and falls in the context of his own experience and expectations having operated within a zero-tolerance school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I'm not seeing it. Everything he's said seems to be fairly consistent and falls in the context of his own experience and expectations having operated within a zero-tolerance school. It's pretty plain. Sorry I can't help you see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 but somebody with common sense should see that he could not retreat. Your an idiot if you walk away from somebody who is hitting you in the face, and you turn your back on them. If that's the school's response, then the school is wrong. Plain and simple. Look at the sizes of those two kids. Do you really think the big kid was that afraid to turn and walk away? Seriously? The little kid didn't pose any serious threat to the big kid. He was more a nuisance than anything. And I'm sure the school, if they didn't have a zero tolerance in place, would have looked at the size of the big kid and told him he should have just walked away. Yeah, that sucks, but that's what would have happened. ---------- Post added March-21st-2011 at 12:06 AM ---------- Bubble Screen is saying two different things. First he said he would have given both kids the same punishment. People called him out on that. Then he said it sucks, but zero tolerance means both kids should get punished. So, Bubble, which is it? Would YOU blindly give both kids the same punishment, as you said in one of your posts? Do you agree with a zero tolerance policy that would punish an aggressor and a victim equally? I'm not saying two different things at all. Not even close. Not sure where you're getting that from what I've said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.