15-year old Stabs Bully 11 Times at Bus Stop, Gets Away With It

[viranimus]

in his defense... as a minor take the responsibility of your own defense into your own hands, because that is exactly what he did.

Key phrases there. His entire 'plan' hinged on someone else attempting to beat the crap out of him. That it was very likely just means that his preparation was well-informed.

He DID NOT manipulate the bully into getting off the bus before his stop. He DID NOT manipulate the bully into chasing him. He DID NOT manipulate the bully into beating him. These were choices his attacker (also a key word) made. These are criminal acts that could very easily result in grievous injury or even death.

Unless you are suggesting that the bully somehow has a right and expectation to beat his victims in the street, there was no reason for anyone to get hurt other than self defense. On the other hand, EVERYONE (minor or not) has the RIGHT and EXPECTATION to be able to defend themselves against life threatening injuries or grievous bodily harm when threatened. Should he have told a teacher/parents? Perhaps, and I've not heard evidence that he didn't. But schools are notoriously slow and ineffective in dealing with bullies; and 'ratting someone out' can easily lead to retaliation. So you can bemoan his process and methods, but he did what he had EVERY LEGAL AND MORAL RIGHT to do. He sought no conflict, avoided altercation, and when no avenue of escape was available, ENDED the confrontation.

No, Im not suggesting that. You are literally putting words in my mouth by editing my statement as well as implying im saying things that I am not. So it really does not matter what I say, you've already made up your mind on this matter, which is your prerogative, and your choosing to ignore what ive said when it conflicts with your assertion of the situation or twisting my words around when they dont conform with your ideology.

So I really see no point to continue. There are dozens of questions left unanswered here. Enough to at least consider the possibility that this was in fact premeditated. Just because one individual sees a path that premeditated murder would take does not mean that is the only way it can occur.

So I am going to end with three questions.

Who did he tell? Considering this had been an ongoing harassment for over a year, had he told family, faculty, or authorities something would have been done long before it got to the point of killing another human being. There is simply no way the parents, public school system or police would allow this to go on for over a year had they known and effective measures CAN be put into place to put an immediate stop to it.

How long had he been carrying the weapon to school, because at the the very least it is known that the altercation occurred at the end of the school day. That means he was carrying a weapon with him in a place he knew he was not supposed to have a weapon for right around 6-8 hours and surely he did not simply risk carrying a weapon into school without thinking on the impact of if he was caught with it. Was that the first time he carried it? Cause that definitely implies premeditation considering this had gone on for over a year. The longer he was carrying the weapon simply means the more time he was pro actively considering that weapons usage thus increasing the level of premeditation? Why did he also tell two kids about having the weapon before the altercation began? Surely he did not mention it just to brag about having a weapon in school.

If his intention for carrying the weapon to school was not to kill, then what was the purpose to carry the weapon for defense? Much as was suggested, actions taken against the bullies would equal retaliation and most likely escalation. If he simply brandished the knife as an idle threat the bully would likely back off, but it would also mean an escalation of the violence because the next time the bully would be equally prepared So what would be the point?. If he actually used it in a purely defensive capacity, that would have most likely resulted in injury, which would have stopped the bully that time but would have to be explained and it would take the blame off the bully and put that blame squarely on him for attacking an unarmed student with a deadly weapon regardless of his motivations.

Unless these three questions can be fully answered and explained then there is absolutely no way that the possibility that this was in fact a premeditated action can be ignored. However it IS being ignored. It is was ignored by the prosecution who saw this case as an already lost battle and phoned it in. It was ignored by the judge who did not address these matters and instead chose to cite legal justifications that are not applicable to minors knowing it would cause public outcry. It is ignored by the public because the public sees this as "justice" being done thanks in part because of the insane level of bullying PSAs, the "love and tolerate the shit out of you" culture, and the simple fact that there are invariably more people who have at one point been bullied in their life than those who either had not or were the bully.

Also please do not misunderstand me. In no way shape or form were the actions of the bully forgivable. I am NOT implying such. At the same time I know two wrongs never make a right, and I think that is what has been consistently overlooked here.

So my involvement with this thread is done. I know that some will want to misread me, ignore my statements, or try to spin my statements to mean something they clearly dont. I know this. I expect this. I am unconcerned. I have worked in police and public service fields long enough to understand how laws work, and I have been a student of human psychology long enough to clearly see that this kid had malicious intent when he brought a weapon to school, bragged about it to other kids and then when finally cornered and surrounded used it not defensively, but in offensive retaliation. So you may be entitled to disagree, but that disagreement does not diminish the fact that my points do legitimately point out that the possibility of premeditation does in fact exist. So I will no longer continue to waste my time writing responses on this matter or anyone elses time to read it.

EDIT:

I am not sure which generation you are referring to but it for me it has always been made explicit that going to the authorities will do nothing to help you against bullies and it will only cause you to be beat up more. Maybe in the last decade things have radically changed in the school systems.

I am referring to the generation this kid was a part of. The generation of kids who never saw a single day of school that did not exist in a post columbine structure. And yes, the school systems have RADICALLY changed over the last 15 years as it relates to bullying and school violence. A fact I learned personally when I started interacting with my former step children's school system and the rapid adoption of Zero tolerance policies, locking students on campus, more intensive psychological profiling and a myriad of other overzealous reactions put into place to keep things like this from happening because of the steady increase of school related violence that kept spiraling upward through the 1980s and 90s.

 

[senordesol]

in his defense... as a minor take the responsibility of your own defense into your own hands, because that is exactly what he did.

Key phrases there. His entire 'plan' hinged on someone else attempting to beat the crap out of him. That it was very likely just means that his preparation was well-informed.

He DID NOT manipulate the bully into getting off the bus before his stop. He DID NOT manipulate the bully into chasing him. He DID NOT manipulate the bully into beating him. These were choices his attacker (also a key word) made. These are criminal acts that could very easily result in grievous injury or even death.

Unless you are suggesting that the bully somehow has a right and expectation to beat his victims in the street, there was no reason for anyone to get hurt other than self defense. On the other hand, EVERYONE (minor or not) has the RIGHT and EXPECTATION to be able to defend themselves against life threatening injuries or grievous bodily harm when threatened. Should he have told a teacher/parents? Perhaps, and I've not heard evidence that he didn't. But schools are notoriously slow and ineffective in dealing with bullies; and 'ratting someone out' can easily lead to retaliation. So you can bemoan his process and methods, but he did what he had EVERY LEGAL AND MORAL RIGHT to do. He sought no conflict, avoided altercation, and when no avenue of escape was available, ENDED the confrontation.

No, Im not suggesting that. You are literally putting words in my mouth by editing my statement as well as implying im saying things that I am not. So it really does not matter what I say, you've already made up your mind on this matter, which is your prerogative, and your choosing to ignore what ive said when it conflicts with your assertion of the situation or twisting my words around when they dont conform with your ideology.

So I really see no point to continue. There are dozens of questions left unanswered here. Enough to at least consider the possibility that this was in fact premeditated. Just because one individual sees a path that premeditated murder would take does not mean that is the only way it can occur.

So I am going to end with three questions.

Who did he tell? Considering this had been an ongoing harassment for over a year, had he told family, faculty, or authorities something would have been done long before it got to the point of killing another human being. There is simply no way the parents, public school system or police would allow this to go on for over a year had they known and effective measures CAN be put into place to put an immediate stop to it.

How long had he been carrying the weapon to school, because at the the very least it is known that the altercation occurred at the end of the school day. That means he was carrying a weapon with him in a place he knew he was not supposed to have a weapon for right around 6-8 hours and surely he did not simply risk carrying a weapon into school without thinking on the impact of if he was caught with it. Was that the first time he carried it? Cause that definitely implies premeditation considering this had gone on for over a year. The longer he was carrying the weapon simply means the more time he was pro actively considering that weapons usage thus increasing the level of premeditation? Why did he also tell two kids about having the weapon before the altercation began? Surely he did not mention it just to brag about having a weapon in school.

If his intention for carrying the weapon to school was not to kill, then what was the purpose to carry the weapon for defense? Much as was suggested, actions taken against the bullies would equal retaliation and most likely escalation. If he simply brandished the knife as an idle threat the bully would likely back off, but it would also mean an escalation of the violence because the next time the bully would be equally prepared So what would be the point?. If he actually used it in a purely defensive capacity, that would have most likely resulted in injury, which would have stopped the bully that time but would have to be explained and it would take the blame off the bully and put that blame squarely on him for attacking an unarmed student with a deadly weapon regardless of his motivations.

Unless these three questions can be fully answered and explained then there is absolutely no way that the possibility that this was in fact a premeditated action can be ignored. However it IS being ignored. It is was ignored by the prosecution who saw this case as an already lost battle and phoned it in. It was ignored by the judge who did not address these matters and instead chose to cite legal justifications that are not applicable to minors knowing it would cause public outcry. It is ignored by the public because the public sees this as "justice" being done thanks in part because of the insane level of bullying PSAs, the "love and tolerate the shit out of you" culture, and the simple fact that there are invariably more people who have at one point been bullied in their life than those who either had not or were the bully.

Also please do not misunderstand me. In no way shape or form were the actions of the bully forgivable. I am NOT implying such. At the same time I know two wrongs never make a right, and I think that is what has been consistently overlooked here.

So my involvement with this thread is done. I know that some will want to misread me, ignore my statements, or try to spin my statements to mean something they clearly dont. I know this. I expect this. I am unconcerned. I have worked in police and public service fields long enough to understand how laws work, and I have been a student of human psychology long enough to clearly see that this kid had malicious intent when he brought a weapon to school, bragged about it to other kids and then when finally cornered and surrounded used it not defensively, but in offensive retaliation. So you may be entitled to disagree, but that disagreement does not diminish the fact that my points do legitimately point out that the possibility of premeditation does in fact exist. So I will no longer continue to waste my time writing responses on this matter or anyone elses time to read it.

EDIT:

I am not sure which generation you are referring to but it for me it has always been made explicit that going to the authorities will do nothing to help you against bullies and it will only cause you to be beat up more. Maybe in the last decade things have radically changed in the school systems.

I am referring to the generation this kid was a part of. The generation of kids who never saw a single day of school that did not exist in a post columbine structure. And yes, the school systems have RADICALLY changed over the last 15 years as it relates to bullying and school violence. A fact I learned personally when I started interacting with my former step children's school system and the rapid adoption of Zero tolerance policies, locking students on campus, more intensive psychological profiling and a myriad of other overzealous reactions put into place to keep things like this from happening because of the steady increase of school related violence that kept spiraling upward through the 1980s and 90s.

That's quite a rant.

To answer your first question: I don't know. Perhaps he suffered in silence. Perhaps, like many other victims, admitting the pain was made all the more worse. Or maybe he did tell somebody, and they did fuck-all about it.

Second Question: According to the story, he would have been carrying the weapon for most of the school day. As others pointed out, it may not have been technically illegal for him to have it, though it surely would have been confiscated had it been discovered (amongst other penalties). So why risk it? FEAR. Fear of what would happen, what would continue to happen if he didn't have it.

Third question: You're likely over-thinking it. Carrying the weapon was likely a reactionary comfort. He probably had no idea what he was actually going to do with it when he needed it. All he knew was that maybe if he used the knife (with the definition of 'use' uncertain, even to him) the daily torment would stop, somehow.

However, all of your questions are completely and totally irrelevant. If he had or had not told anyone, it did not matter when he found himself being chased down in the streets. The situation at hand was that he was in IMMEDIATE DANGER. Nothing else beyond that matters. He was in immediate danger and escape was impossible. He had to defend himself. He had every RIGHT to defend himself. So your accusation of the judge "Not addressing these matters and instead chose to cite legal justifications that are not applicable to minors" is false, because it DOES apply to minors. Minors ARE allowed to defend themselves if attacked.

So, on the whole, the notion that this killing was premeditated doesn't gel with the victim's actions. He tried to put himself as far away from his 'target' as possible. He tried to avoid altercation as much as possible. Only after all other non-violent avenues were exhausted did he defend himself.

So how was this premeditated? Just because he had a knife? How could he predict that Dylan (the bully) would pursue him even when he exited the bus before his stop? How could he predict Dylan would chase him down? If he could, somehow, predict that (perhaps not all that difficult with a sociopath a-hole like Nuno) it still would have meant that Jorge (the victim) would have been in danger no matter what he did (within the context of the span of time between leaving the bus and making it home). That does not legally constitute 'premeditation', as premeditation would indicate that the killing happened according to the designs of the killer; usually by waiting for or otherwise luring an unsuspecting victim who poses no danger to the attacker otherwise. Legally, I highly doubt 'fleeing for your life' counts as a 'lure', so this case fails in every way to meet the criteria of 'premeditation'. Yes, Jorge brought a weapon, however it is clear from his actions that his only 'intention' to use it was as a last resort.

You say that 'two wrongs don't make a right', but I contend that Jorge didn't do anything wrong. He did what every life-loving breathing being on this earth would be expected to do if attacked, and that was: to defend himself.

He was the victim of an unprovoked attack (several, in fact), was pursued even to the great inconvenience of his pursuers. He was alone with no one around to help him. On any other day of the week, we'd expect to see him dead or in the hospital after such an encounter. But thankfully for Jorge, he wasn't interested in simply being the victim.

If more of these scenarios ended the way Jorge's did, I would mark that as a good thing.

 

[PiggyJibbleFish]

I have sympathy for both of them.

Nobody deserves to be killed for acting like a fool in high school.
On the other hand, nobody deserves to be victimised the way that this poor lad was, and he had obviously reached breaking point. The fact is, everybody has a point of no return, and he had simply passed his. It's tragic, yes, but it was avoidable, and the boy who died ought to have recognised what he was doing to the other student. He should not have died, but his death shouldn't make him a martyr either. He knew what he was doing , and the consequences -although deadly - were his own fault.

Having said that, Jorge ought to have been punished. A death is still a death, and he responded excessively. He should have at least been made to do community service, or spent a few months in a prison.

 

[Schizocorpse]

Simple to say; serves him right. Anything else is meaningless semantics, imo.2