Oh no, a bully tormented a kid to the point where the kid was scared enough to be carrying a knife and got stabbed because of it? What a fucking tragedy.
15-year old Stabs Bully 11 Times at Bus Stop, Gets Away With It
- Thread starter AndyFromMonday
- Start date
The judge made the right decision. Jorge Saavedra doesn't need a prison cell, he needs counselling and therapy.
/facepalm.Stublore said:
Ok, then what term would you use for an strike made not with the intention to defend, or repel, but to kill? How about death blow, final strike, stabbity stabbity stab stab?
You should try actually reading the articles before you make an assertion that something isnt there.
Also, yes the torso and abdomen are a larger target, but it is NOT an easier target to hit at least until the opponent is wounded because naturally it is also the area we as humans instinctively know to protect. Its easier to cut an arm, leg, hand, etc not only because of the more natural range of motion of a slash than a stab, but also because survival instinct tends to kick in and when the head or torso is threatened humans typically will try and throw out an arm or leg in order to protect them if there is no other recourse.
The reason being is because with a knife, even a large bowie type knife in order to stab the target you have to make a slower and more easily deflectable forward thrust (as it is a more unnatural range of motion) as opposed to a side to side slash that invariably would be infinitely more likely to hit an arm, leg, face dependent on where it was aimed. The most likely event is the kid waited until his attacker was in close enough proximity as if he was charging to attack, wounded with a quick thrusting jab to the side causing his attacker to recoil and then remained focused on that area until he stopped moving, Not as it was said he was trying to keep away from his attacker or keeping at a defensible position. He wasnt trying to keep himself safe, or keep his opponent at bay.
Also all the stabs do not have to be clustered around the heart, the fact they were clustered in the torso and abdomen still has the same effect because theres a myriad of vital organs that can be stabbed, damaged and result in death, not just the heart. The kid was going for maximum damage and was striking in the perfect place to accomplish that.
As for mental health, It IS a gift I have had all my life which is why I chose to go into the field. I am trained and will be a licensed psychologist by September. Also, I am flypaper for freaks and have spent most my life around mentally unstable people and beyond that and likely the most relevant point is that I was shot twice and damn near murdered and the same eyes and facial expressions are devoid of emotional context and filled with the blank 1000 yard stare that let me know 6 months before it happened that I would be shot, are the same eyes and emotionally blank facial expressions you see in the photos and video of this kid.
So Yes I would be reasonably justified based on those criteria to make that snap determination.
Side note: Last night when looking for newscasts regarding the situation I came across what is insanely insensitive regarding this situation. Regardless of which side you align with, this should never have been made.
Humanity astounds me sometimes. For this and on so many other levels.
The death of anyone, any child, even a bully is a terrible thing. The whole situation should have been taken care of long before it ever got to this state, but even these days bullying is not taken seriously. In this case, it was the bully who died. That doesn't make it any less sad that nobody taught him how to act around others and little things like "Don't push people because you don't know when they may snap and stab you."
I was bullied a lot in school. Most times I ignored it, walked away, didn't react.. all the things adults say you should do about bullies. They usually just kept at it though, trying to provoke the reaction. Sometimes I would snap. Suppressed anger and aggression, especially in hormone addled teens, can go off any time. When I finally did snap and go after my bullies, I was out of control. All I saw was a red haze and all I wanted to do was to hurt them.
In one case, while in middle school, I was harassed and bullied on a daily basis by another kid. The day I finally snapped I chased him around the stop for a good long time until he tripped and I sat on him, then proceeded to bash his face with my fists until two high school students pulled me off. Had nobody been there to stop me? I probably would have killed the kid.
When you are lost to rage and adrenalline, you don't think "Oh, I'll just hit them a couple times and they'll back off." All you are thinking is "RAAAAAAAAAAA HURT YOU!" The kid should not have brought a knife into this situation. I don't blame him for snapping and attacking the bully.
But there is no reason for a 15 year old to be carrying a knife to school. That he should be punished for. The death though? It was self defense. He should not have escalated to deadly force, but he was acting in defense to a physical attack on his person, as well as all the bullying.
And in truth, he's probably suffering a lot as it is. Most people can't just kill someone, even someone they hate, and then just brush it off as if nothing happened.
I was bullied a lot in school. Most times I ignored it, walked away, didn't react.. all the things adults say you should do about bullies. They usually just kept at it though, trying to provoke the reaction. Sometimes I would snap. Suppressed anger and aggression, especially in hormone addled teens, can go off any time. When I finally did snap and go after my bullies, I was out of control. All I saw was a red haze and all I wanted to do was to hurt them.
In one case, while in middle school, I was harassed and bullied on a daily basis by another kid. The day I finally snapped I chased him around the stop for a good long time until he tripped and I sat on him, then proceeded to bash his face with my fists until two high school students pulled me off. Had nobody been there to stop me? I probably would have killed the kid.
When you are lost to rage and adrenalline, you don't think "Oh, I'll just hit them a couple times and they'll back off." All you are thinking is "RAAAAAAAAAAA HURT YOU!" The kid should not have brought a knife into this situation. I don't blame him for snapping and attacking the bully.
But there is no reason for a 15 year old to be carrying a knife to school. That he should be punished for. The death though? It was self defense. He should not have escalated to deadly force, but he was acting in defense to a physical attack on his person, as well as all the bullying.
And in truth, he's probably suffering a lot as it is. Most people can't just kill someone, even someone they hate, and then just brush it off as if nothing happened.
A year or two ago a kid that went to the high school I went to decided to just take the beating. He is now paralyzed from the waist down for the rest of his life and has permanent brain damage. I recall him being in the hospital for a month. From a single unarmed beating.
I know this is anecdotal, but it actually happened. Damages this bad may be rare or it may not, I don't really know the statistics, but you don't know until after how bad it will be and I don't think anyone can reasonably expect a person to take that chance.
The kid did what he had to too defend himself. I completely agree with the ruling and the law. It is tragic, but that is what happens when people commit crimes like assault and battery. The victim sometimes decides to defend themselves.
I know this is anecdotal, but it actually happened. Damages this bad may be rare or it may not, I don't really know the statistics, but you don't know until after how bad it will be and I don't think anyone can reasonably expect a person to take that chance.
The kid did what he had to too defend himself. I completely agree with the ruling and the law. It is tragic, but that is what happens when people commit crimes like assault and battery. The victim sometimes decides to defend themselves.
Meh, back in the day people could stand their ground. Why is it now days if you do that, it's bad and wrong? If someone starts a fight with you, why aren't you allowed to finish it? This makes no sense to me.
If someone starts a fight with me, I finish it. If it became a life-or-death thing, I would pick me. If I feared my life was in danger and I had a weapon, I would use it.
Seems pretty straight forward to me. By attacking me, you put yourself in danger. Isn't that how it works in nature anyway? Could anyone(Apart from Crazy religious Zealots) Really sit there and take a beating?
If someone starts a fight with me, I finish it. If it became a life-or-death thing, I would pick me. If I feared my life was in danger and I had a weapon, I would use it.
Seems pretty straight forward to me. By attacking me, you put yourself in danger. Isn't that how it works in nature anyway? Could anyone(Apart from Crazy religious Zealots) Really sit there and take a beating?
Who said he had the option of running away? Were you there? Getting punched in the back of the head after trying to avoid the fight in the first place doesn't give a person much chance. Now add the built up stress and anxiety associated with being bullied to the immediate threat to one's physical safety and you have a volatile situation. It's really unfortunate a kid got killed, but the knife as a weapon, and the number of stab wounds, is immaterial. The basis for the decision lies in the logic of self-defense. The law isn't perfect, but bullying and premeditated assault are unlawful acts. Self-defense is not.GrandmaFunk said:
agreed.TestECull said:
unless the evidence is false, the kid tried to avoid the fight at all possible, you bet your ass if i was in the kids shoes and i was cornered/followed off the bus after being harassed before, my heart and adrenaline would be at max capacity as i stabbed my enemy
slightly on topic with that, how many times have you seen movies/etc where they let the enemy go, to only have that person get up with a cheap shot from behind or come back a few hours later and blow your head away?
not that i wanted that kid to die,at all, just saying, in self defense it's really quiet hard to think everything out logically while everything is happening so fast, the only thing on your mind is survival and making sure the threat is eliminated.
Having just finished reading Ender's Game, I can't help but draw some parallels here. In the book, Ender winds up killing two people in self defense. Children like himself. He doesn't mean to kill them, only to defend himself and make sure they never bother him again. He doesn't even know he's killed them until near the end of the book, but even so, he's tormented the entire time by his actions. And the one thing he always thinks when its all over is this: "Why didn't they just leave me alone? I didn't want to hurt them. They should have just left me alone."
I can guarantee you that this kid is feeling the exact same way. He's going to have to live with this on his head for the rest of his life. It's going to affect him in ways we can't even begin to imagine. He'll probably be in therapy over it for years, if not decades.
There is no good side to this story. It's a tragedy on both sides. Punishing the kid for defending himself isn't going to change anything. The chances of him reoffending are pretty much nonexistent, and he's probably punishing himself enough as it is.
I can guarantee you that this kid is feeling the exact same way. He's going to have to live with this on his head for the rest of his life. It's going to affect him in ways we can't even begin to imagine. He'll probably be in therapy over it for years, if not decades.
There is no good side to this story. It's a tragedy on both sides. Punishing the kid for defending himself isn't going to change anything. The chances of him reoffending are pretty much nonexistent, and he's probably punishing himself enough as it is.
And that is why I don't see any ridiculous thing such as "honor" in a fight. If someone comes at me with the intent of doing me physical harm, especially if they're doing it for no other reason than to show that they can, I'll go right for your crotch and crush your berries in my fist until you're singing like a canary.
If you're coming at me and I think you're gonna try to seriously hurt me then it's become no holds barred and I'm free to defend myself however and with whatever I can.
If you're coming at me and I think you're gonna try to seriously hurt me then it's become no holds barred and I'm free to defend myself however and with whatever I can.
EXCUSE ME?!Idocreating said:
What, is the kid some sort of Navy SEAL and I've just missed it in the article? How else could people expect him to neutralize the threat in ONE STAB? He was 14, significantly weaker than his attackers, outnumbered 4-to-1, scared out of his mind and being physically assaulted. Incessantly! This reasoning of "well he could have just moderately killed him!" has been debunked in court time and again by trained self-defence experts - untrained people have the right to defend themselves any way they can, and shouldn't be expected to kill cleanly and quickly as if they were hitmen. Emptying a magazine/stabbing many times just shows that you're not emotionless, and probably aren't very good at violence either - despite what stupid TV crime dramas tell you.
"Of course there's a bunch of idiots who've killed themselves with non-lethal weapons. There's people who have killed themselves with forks."
I was referring to evidence of actual use by law enforcement which, even though used properly, resulted in death.
"Look the point is that these weapons DO, like it or not, go through rigorous testing to prove they are nearly harmless when used correctly."
That's unsupportable scientifically...and you say *I* pull stuff out of my ass?
"A knife is used to seriously injure another person.
To argue otherwise is lunacy."
...really? So arguing that using a small knife to make a small cut on someone's hand is of course a 'serious injury'? Apparently I have 'attempted to seriously injure' myself multiple times when using knives, as I've accidentally cut myself fairly often.
"I like your version of the story. I made up my own version of events that fits my opinion but I'm gonna keep it to myself so I don't look like an idiot by talking out of my ass."
And your version was of course based on actual knowledge of the event?
"Yes, it is very NOT difficult. I thought the other guy said it was 2". Where is this information coming from?"
I was using the Legal Blade Length for a non-weapon pocket knife, which is 3". And could you back up your claim with some kind of facts?
"Tell you what, why don't we fight, and I get to use a pocket knife and stab you and you get to punch me. Sounds totally fair to me."
Considering my level of training and experience, I would be happy to give you a Swiss army knife and use only my hands. Actually considering how likely it is the pocket knife would fold up during use (many pocket knives don't have blade locks, so if you move the blade wrong it folds back up) I think my chances are great.
"Okay, I'm going to ignore this one. I just can't argue with a statement as insanely nonsensical as that."
So...you're saying that clothing would in no way impede a small knife blade. And *I* am being nonsensical? Try cutting a leather jacket with a pocket knife. Actually, try hanging a leather jacket in a closet, and try stabbing it *without holding into the jacket* and see how well you do. If you honestly try it I think you'll be surprised how hard it is.
"Seriously..."
Since you haven't come up with serious evidence or backing for anything you've said, that would be a change.
"Again, I love the amount that you will just pull shit out of your ass here. Not only are you suddenly an expert on "blade wounds", but you also just played the drug card."
Never said I was an expert. I used commonly available data on the web, which you should as well before you flap your gums like a Pez dispenser. And I reasonably suggested a method by which a stab wound could be not noticed in the heat of a fight, and brought up the possibility of Drugs. Actually very reasonable.
"I could make shit up about how the psychotic stabber kid was doing keybumps of cocaine off his knife before the fight, but I'm not going to do that because doing things like that makes for poor debate."
Do you have data that Saavedra was psychotic? Or did you 'pull that out of your ass'? Do you have data on most of *your* claims and theories? Nope.
I was referring to evidence of actual use by law enforcement which, even though used properly, resulted in death.
"Look the point is that these weapons DO, like it or not, go through rigorous testing to prove they are nearly harmless when used correctly."
That's unsupportable scientifically...and you say *I* pull stuff out of my ass?
"A knife is used to seriously injure another person.
To argue otherwise is lunacy."
...really? So arguing that using a small knife to make a small cut on someone's hand is of course a 'serious injury'? Apparently I have 'attempted to seriously injure' myself multiple times when using knives, as I've accidentally cut myself fairly often.
"I like your version of the story. I made up my own version of events that fits my opinion but I'm gonna keep it to myself so I don't look like an idiot by talking out of my ass."
And your version was of course based on actual knowledge of the event?
"Yes, it is very NOT difficult. I thought the other guy said it was 2". Where is this information coming from?"
I was using the Legal Blade Length for a non-weapon pocket knife, which is 3". And could you back up your claim with some kind of facts?
"Tell you what, why don't we fight, and I get to use a pocket knife and stab you and you get to punch me. Sounds totally fair to me."
Considering my level of training and experience, I would be happy to give you a Swiss army knife and use only my hands. Actually considering how likely it is the pocket knife would fold up during use (many pocket knives don't have blade locks, so if you move the blade wrong it folds back up) I think my chances are great.
"Okay, I'm going to ignore this one. I just can't argue with a statement as insanely nonsensical as that."
So...you're saying that clothing would in no way impede a small knife blade. And *I* am being nonsensical? Try cutting a leather jacket with a pocket knife. Actually, try hanging a leather jacket in a closet, and try stabbing it *without holding into the jacket* and see how well you do. If you honestly try it I think you'll be surprised how hard it is.
"Seriously..."
Since you haven't come up with serious evidence or backing for anything you've said, that would be a change.
"Again, I love the amount that you will just pull shit out of your ass here. Not only are you suddenly an expert on "blade wounds", but you also just played the drug card."
Never said I was an expert. I used commonly available data on the web, which you should as well before you flap your gums like a Pez dispenser. And I reasonably suggested a method by which a stab wound could be not noticed in the heat of a fight, and brought up the possibility of Drugs. Actually very reasonable.
"I could make shit up about how the psychotic stabber kid was doing keybumps of cocaine off his knife before the fight, but I'm not going to do that because doing things like that makes for poor debate."
Do you have data that Saavedra was psychotic? Or did you 'pull that out of your ass'? Do you have data on most of *your* claims and theories? Nope.
"I am totally in favor of the kid here but isn't it kind of obvious? Like a court room wouldn't be able to operate under this assumption but really. The odds are he had it because he knew he was in danger and may have had to use it to defend himself. Pretty simple."
That's my point, though. Too many people are throwing murdermurdermurder around and my point is that we can assume whatever we want- but Reasonable Doubt is key to our justice system. People are making the *assumption* he brought the knife for protection- which is possible, even likely- but then they say 'well because we assume that, it must have been Premeditated Murder!!!'
My point is that assumption assumption = Premeditated Murder is a joke.
"I don't get why you're so hard pressed on defending the kid not having any plans to use the thing in self defense. People are allowed to carry guns for self defense and no one would argue that shooting a guy running at you with a knife isn't self defense. He was bullied, he probably got beat up by that scumbag before, he probably considered a worst case scenario. I know I sure as hell would."
See, I'm not saying the kid didn't have plans to *defend himself*. I am arguing against the people who claim- why, I'm not sure- that he planned to *murder someone*. There is plenty of reasons for why he had the knife, self-defense being one of them- but I absolutely disagree with the claims he 'intended to murder' with it.
That's my point, though. Too many people are throwing murdermurdermurder around and my point is that we can assume whatever we want- but Reasonable Doubt is key to our justice system. People are making the *assumption* he brought the knife for protection- which is possible, even likely- but then they say 'well because we assume that, it must have been Premeditated Murder!!!'
My point is that assumption assumption = Premeditated Murder is a joke.
"I don't get why you're so hard pressed on defending the kid not having any plans to use the thing in self defense. People are allowed to carry guns for self defense and no one would argue that shooting a guy running at you with a knife isn't self defense. He was bullied, he probably got beat up by that scumbag before, he probably considered a worst case scenario. I know I sure as hell would."
See, I'm not saying the kid didn't have plans to *defend himself*. I am arguing against the people who claim- why, I'm not sure- that he planned to *murder someone*. There is plenty of reasons for why he had the knife, self-defense being one of them- but I absolutely disagree with the claims he 'intended to murder' with it.
some damn jock got what he deserved wish I would have had the chance to do the same to my "problems" in high school. Oh well I remember their names and faces and someday somehow, they will suffer I'm patient. Never let any kind of attack on yourself go unpunished, even if it takes years and years to get revenge, your moment of triumph will make it all worth it. If someone spits in your face make sure to hit them with a fire hose in return.
Society is a consensus. An agreement between everyone to work together and limit disagreements to a set acceptable level. A mutual Agreement, that is important. There is nothing intrinsically stopping me from beating to death an old man because I covet his watch. Consequences of that action would, obviously, be general society turning on me and punishing my breaking of the agreement. That punishment is, in itself, exerting a force in breach of the agreement, but that?s ok, I already signed out of the contract. I can forcibly be put behind bars for the rest of my life, even killed in some places for my actions. The reaction of the society is morally sound, in the society?s moral framework.
If someone attacks you, for any reason, and steps outside what society deems acceptable. Let us be clear, bullying is outside what society deems to be acceptable. Then as far as I am concerned they have exercised their capacity to step outside of societal constraints, and as such lose any rights they had under those societal constraints. If you are assaulted, as happened in this case, you are well within your moral rights to fight back with as much force as you want. If that force is sufficient to kill your attacker then too bad for him; he miscalculated his assault.
Now I?m not saying that any of the above is in line with any law in any country. That is my interpretation of actions within a society and part of my personal moral system. You may disagree with that, and you are most free to do so; however from my point of view he was perfectly within his moral rights to kill his attacker. Where I in his position now, I would not feel remorse for my actions.
If someone attacks you, for any reason, and steps outside what society deems acceptable. Let us be clear, bullying is outside what society deems to be acceptable. Then as far as I am concerned they have exercised their capacity to step outside of societal constraints, and as such lose any rights they had under those societal constraints. If you are assaulted, as happened in this case, you are well within your moral rights to fight back with as much force as you want. If that force is sufficient to kill your attacker then too bad for him; he miscalculated his assault.
Now I?m not saying that any of the above is in line with any law in any country. That is my interpretation of actions within a society and part of my personal moral system. You may disagree with that, and you are most free to do so; however from my point of view he was perfectly within his moral rights to kill his attacker. Where I in his position now, I would not feel remorse for my actions.