Commander PK Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 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. but it's not taking sides. It's right and wrong. Casey was not wrong for what he did, no matter what "policy" they want to come up with. Casey did not fight. Casey defended himself. Defending yourself is not fighting, unless you use more force than is needed to stop the threat. I don't think he did at all. There is a difference whether you want to admit that or not. Casey did not initiate the incident, and didn't need to know what the "punishment" was until after the bully started hitting him in the face. What if the kid had broken Casey's nose or severely damaged his eye. Heck, some people have gone into a coma and died just with a simple blow to the head from internal bleeding they didn't even know was happening. Admittedly, often it wouldn't be this easy to make a judgement call. Sometimes, you probably just can't do that, because you can't always get the facts, but at least make an effort. In this particular case your job was made easy for you with a captured video that clearly shows Casey was not at fault. Who cares what the bullies parents think. Their kid was wrong and deserved what he got, and that's it...period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I'm not saying two different things at all. Not even close. Not sure where you're getting that from what I've said. Let's simplify this. Forget the school's policy. You have to mete out punishment to neither,one, or both of those kids. What do you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Let's simplify this. Forget the school's policy. You have to mete out punishment to neither,one, or both of those kids. What do you do? In a school setting? I likely handle it the same way the school did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney B Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 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. Maybe, except he's not just walking away from the little kid. The little kid seems to have some friends with him: the bigger kid who gets delayed by the girl, the kid who filmed the whole setup, and whoever else, if anyone, might be with them. Internet scuttlebut (hard to verify, of course) has it that the little kid got a long supension, and the heavy kid got a short one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 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.d Bubble, seriously I can't believe that you really believe what you are typing. A nuisance? Dude, the bully was striking him in the face! FIVE swings to be exact. You call that "nuisance" just because the victim weighed more than the person striking him? Would you call it a "nuisance" if somebody who weighed 50 pounds less than you walked up to you and struck you five times in the face? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Maybe, except he's not just walking away from the little kid. The little kid has his friends with him: the bigger kid who gets delayed by the girl, the kid who filmed the whole setup, and whoever else, if anyone, might be with them. Internet scuttlebut (hard to verify, of course) has it that the little kid got a long supension, and the heavy kid got a short one. The school handled it the way you're supposed to, imo. If the little kid got more of a suspension, so be it. But big kid had a suspension coming, himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 N/M. Not worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Bubble, seriously I can't believe that you really believe what you are typing. A nuisance? Dude, the bully was striking him in the face! FIVE swings to be exact. You call that "nuisance" just because the victim weighed more than the person striking him? Would you call it a "nuisance" if somebody who weighed 50 pounds less than you walked up to you and struck you five times in the face? You guys can do better than this? Most guys that weigh another one by that much wouldn't ALLOW that to happen. And I certainly fall into that category. You guys are acting like the big kid "couldn't" get away. He definitely could have. Would I have? No. But that doesn't mean the big kid shouldn't have to face suspension. Pretty sure the school had a zero tolerance policy in place. If so, all this talk here is pointless. ---------- Post added March-21st-2011 at 12:17 AM ---------- How did they handle it? They suspended both kids, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 In a school setting? I likely handle it the same way the school did. yeah, but what is right is right, and what is wrong is wrong. The setting shouldn't matter. Adult or child shouldn't matter. Just because the school doesn't want to spend the time to do their job properly, doesn't make it right. ---------- Post added March-21st-2011 at 12:26 AM ---------- You guys can do better than this? Most guys that weigh another one by that much wouldn't ALLOW that to happen. And I certainly fall into that category. You guys are acting like the big kid "couldn't" get away. He definitely could have. Would I have? No. But that doesn't mean the big kid shouldn't have to face suspension. Pretty sure the school had a zero tolerance policy in place. If so, all this talk here is pointless. Again, I ask the question. Would you call it a "nuisance" if somebody who weighed 50 pounds less than you came up to you and struck you in the face, swinging a full 5 times? I'll ask a few more also. Let's say for certain the school has a zero tolerance policy for fighting. (Which Casey did not do) Does that make them right just because they have implemented a policy telling themselves that they are right? Does school policy supersede common sense and the inalienable right to protect yourself from bodily harm? Is there places where this right does not apply? Age groups? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Give it up, guys. There's a bubble in every crowd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrifNick21 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Give it up, guys.There's a bubble in every crowd Isn't that the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 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. the two-wrongs expression implies Casey did something wrong. He did not do something wrong, he defended himself which is right. Now, had he instead taken the beating, and then jumped little douche-bag after school when not under immediate threat of attack, then it would be a case of two wrongs. ---------- Post added March-21st-2011 at 12:42 AM ---------- No, but that's probably the way 9 out of 10 schools handle that sort of thing. Zero tolerance means just that. I've always argued Zero Tolerance meant Zero Intelligence, but that's just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Guys this is a waste of time. I can tell we're never gonna see eye to eye on this. As much as I'm glad the big kid stood up for himself, it still doesn't exclude him from being punished. Again, that's always been the way schools handle this sort of thing. I know it was that way when I was in school, and I've heard that's pretty much the way most schools generally handle it. Not sure why some of you guys are acting so surprised. And to the guys that keep saying he didn't do anything wrong, or that he didn't fight the other kid, you're wrong. He could have walked away. He could have reported the other kid. He wasn't being prevented from removing himself of the situation. And I don't know how its not considered "fighting" when one kid basically pile-drives another into the concrete. Like it or not, the school handled it the right way. Sucks for big Case, but such is life. He proved his point. And likely he will never get bullied again. At least not by this kid. He will likely come out of this with more confidence and self-worth. He's to be commended for standing up for himself, but he's not excluded from being punished. The end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 ^^^^no they did not, and you repeating that same thing over and over doesn't make it truth, right, moral, or legal, but fair enough. The end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I agree with you Bubble. School has to follow their rules. But at the same time, this kid would have got a pass on my watch. The evidence is there that he was forced to defend himself. Policy or not, he should have been excused from further punishment, as he was only defending himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I agree with you Bubble. School has to follow their rules. But at the same time, this kid would have got a pass on my watch. The evidence is there that he was forced to defend himself. Policy or not, he should have been excused from further punishment, as he was only defending himself. I never stated he wasn't defending himself. But like it or not, he had other options. Granted, I would have beat the scrawny kid down, myself. But to not expect punishment, well, I just don't get that reasoning. Not sure what's so hard to understand, you get into a fight at school, expect to be suspended. Btw, someone posted earlier that the little kid got a bigger punishment. That's fine. And rightfully so. Or at least I have no problem with that. But you still have to punish the bigger kid. Those are the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportjunkie07 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 wow twice in a week that ive agreed with bubble screen when no one else has. this is getting weird. i dont see why everyone thinks it's an atrocity that the big guy got suspended. really what did you expect? he bodyslammed another kid. this is the way it works in schools. you fight, you get suspended. i dont necessarily agree with that, and the big kid did nothing wrong, but the outcome was predictable. its done so as not to encourage fighting all the time. in other words, if you fight, you'd better have a good reason. there are exceptions to rules, but whats the big deal anyways. and have you ever been suspended for a situation that you handled correctly? its actually pretty cool, you wear it like a badge of honour. i have to say though, the big kid handled it really well, though he should have jumped the kid before he threw the first punch. seriously, though, what was the little guy thinking, he punched him square in the face and it didnt even phase the big guy. that should have told him something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Like I said, I agree with you Bubble. I feel like those type of no gray area rules, are both good and bad at times. With this situation, I think it is bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 wow twice in a week that ive agreed with bubble screen when no one else has. this is getting weird. I'm glad I have a few supporters. But honestly, I think alot of these guys are just disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreeing with me. I could say Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are two of the best QBs in the NFL, yet there would probably be a handful of guys chiming in that they aren't. It is what it is. But what I really find amusing is that we're bascially agreeing on everything except the punishment. And like you said, that outcome was pretty predictable. Btw, what was the other thing we agreed on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 But like it or not, he had other options. What are these "multiple options" he had, that you continue to speak of ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Agree with Bubble and SJ07 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Mick, his options were to walk away and tell on the kid, otherwise get his butt kicked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Mick, his options were to walk away and tell on the kid, otherwise get his butt kicked. The scrawny kid was not making that possible. He was blocking the path for the other guy to walk away from. Therefore the smaller kid needed to be disposed of, to clear that path. Secondly, you NEVER turn your back on someone who is swinging on you, and who's relentless and determined to hurt you. That's just plain stupid. And asking for yourself to get hurt even worse than originally possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Come on dude, the scrawny kid wasn't gonna stop him from going anywhere. And he didn't need to turn his back on kid to walk away. It's called backing up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 As I stated earlier,walking away was not an option for the boy,(f what he states is true). Oh sure. By "rule" he should have,but then my guess is that "by rule" that scrawny kid,(his friends and those before him as well),shouldn't have been bullying him either. Walking away in the past accomplished nothing but to invite more of the same treatment. Telling teachers and counselors,(have no idea if he had done so prior to this incident),invites it even more. That's the way it works with bullies for the most part. So in that lads mind,walking away wasn't something he could do. Anymore. And again,as I stated earlier,that leads to the exception to the rule thing. My own,unfortunate experiences in that area,(in several school systems around the country),says that there are just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.