bully someone and expect some bad karma, his happened to be he got his ass shanked.....personally i fond it hilarious.
Really?Insanity72 said:I'm saying it's not hard to pick out a non-vital area when all your opponent has is his hands and feet to fight with. sure you might get punched once or twice but that way the other kid wouldn't have died.
I've never been in a fight that's involved a knife, but i have been in fist fights and it is incredibly easy to pick a spot to hit, especially to the torso.Mortai Gravesend said:Are you saying this from experience or are you just making shit up like I think you are? Because quite frankly I don't know where the hell you get the idea it's easy to pick a spot to hit in a fight.Insanity72 said:I'm saying it's not hard to pick out a non-vital area when all your opponent has is his hands and feet to fight with. sure you might get punched once or twice but that way the other kid wouldn't have died. And don't you think the other kid stopped fighting back and tried to get away after being stabbed a couple of times? and no he will not flee the kid will be thinking "oh crap i've just been stabbed" and probably pass out from shock.Mortai Gravesend said:That's a ridiculous statement. He's supposed to stab ONCE in a non-vital area. Yes, the attacker will stand still while he picks out a non-vital area, and the second he's done the attacker will instantly flee. Isn't this fantasy land glorious?Insanity72 said:^ I agree with this, he had the right to defend himself but 11 times is pretty excessive, since according to their law he was legally allowed to, he should have been a lot more careful and stabbed once in a non-vital area.Drop_D-Bombshell said:I have mixed emotions on this story.
Firstly i believe that the kid had a right to defend himself, every kid does, but was stabbing him 11 times necessary. I'm sure once would have been enough.
And no, if someone started stabbing me I wouldn't try to get away, I'd try to freaking kill them because I think they're going to kill me and running won't get me away fast enough.
And LOL. Come on show me where it says most people pass out from shock from just being stabbed a few times. Go on. Do it.
And lastly another big LOL at your contradictory accounts. Yes, go from asking if he won't try to get away athen saying "and no he will not flee" that instead he'll simply pass out from the shock.
Thinking that it is easier to aim a gun to a certain spot of the body in comparison to a knife is ridiculous. You've got flight trajectory, wind speed, the Coriolis effect all to deal with when shooting. It is near impossible to do it with a firearm when there are so many different factors involved.Stublore said:Really?Insanity72 said:I'm saying it's not hard to pick out a non-vital area when all your opponent has is his hands and feet to fight with. sure you might get punched once or twice but that way the other kid wouldn't have died.
If it's so easy to do why aren't say the police trained with firearms to hit hon vital areas with firearms? If it's so easy to do with a knife it should be a LOT easier to do with a firearm, right???
Yes it is actually quite easy to do when all your opponent has is fists to fight with.Stublore said:If you're in a fight do you think it's easy to "target" a non vital area?
No this is something they teach you in self defense classes.Stublore said:Is this something that is taught in school, that I was not aware of?
This situation you propose is completely different to the one at hand, an attack from behind is going to startle you and cause you to not think properly, this was a face to face confrontation. Much much different.Stublore said:Tell you what, you give me your name, address and photo, and one day I'll walk up behind you to "attack" you, all you have to do is tap me with your finger on non vital areas. Think you'd be able to do that?
It's pretty easy to be aware not to stab in the vicinity of the heart and lungs. With the correct attention you can easily survive a stab wound to the kidney / stomach an artery etc. and i'm assuming the bus driver or older students have taken first aid course to know how to block blood flow and so forth.Stublore said:Why are you expecting a kid, to have a knowledge of the safe points to stab someone,
No, he would probably be standing there saying "wtf are you crazy?"Stublore said:And why would you expect the bully to react any differently if he was cut lightly, and then got the knife away from the victim? Think he would have had the wherewithal to not stab, probably repeatedly his victim?
Oh, hmm, I must have skimmed the article too quickly. It seems that the kid did make several efforts to avoid a fight.Spy_Guy said:I'd still argue that it was justified self-defense. If we look at the below:
When I look at the article, I see it as several teens having expressed the intent to fight Saavedra at some bus stop. In other words, he must have been expecting at least three people to physically assault him, when they reached their destination.AndyFromMonday said:/.../
...testified that several teens announced the fight on the bus, and Saavedra got off several stops early in Golden Gate Estates.
/.../
Add to that the fact that when he decided to get off the bus, these people followed him, and one of them subsequently attacked him. Naturally he assumed that said fight was about to start, and had a very legitimate fear for his life.
I would still argue that it was not retaliation for "a smack on the head", but self-defense in a situation he perceived as dangerous, if I consider the context.
I take more of the "weapon as deterrent" method. If someone is targeting you, it's usually because they believe they have an advantage. And they're probably right, since they're deciding the terms of engagement... unless you change the terms. But, like any tool, the weapon has a job -- you use it to create your opening for escape.jimbob123432 said:I still stick with my statement of "don't grab anything" unless the assailant(s) themselves have a weapon . Your opponent may feel threatened by it and, because they don't want to back down, they may escalate.
Well a knife is easy to hold and conceal and honestly I would be more scared of a knife than bat. Plus a knife is faster to attack with. Also he could of stabbed so many times because he was scared.Drop_D-Bombshell said:I have mixed emotions on this story.
Firstly i believe that the kid had a right to defend himself, every kid does, but was stabbing him 11 times necessary. I'm sure once would have been enough.
Second, why a knife, couldn't he have just battered him for a bit with a bat or something? It doesn't make sense why he would carry a knife as stab as many times as he did.
Should he get away with it? No, but he shouldn't be prosecuted as a murderer, maybe given a less harsh punishment. Seems only fair.
EDIT: whoa! My inbox got flooded with messages about the bat thing. It's just an example as to say "Why was he carrying a knife to begin with?"
I thought the exact same way, landed me 2.5 years.Dastardly said:I take more of the "weapon as deterrent" method. If someone is targeting you, it's usually because they believe they have an advantage. And they're probably right, since they're deciding the terms of engagement... unless you change the terms. But, like any tool, the weapon has a job -- you use it to create your opening for escape.jimbob123432 said:I still stick with my statement of "don't grab anything" unless the assailant(s) themselves have a weapon . Your opponent may feel threatened by it and, because they don't want to back down, they may escalate.
Personally, I find knives to be one of the worst. You have to be in too close to use it, and there's too much danger of it being turned against you. Any good self-defense weapon allows you to keep your opponent at a distance. Swing a club, and they'll step back, and if they manage to get it away from you in a close-up scuffle, it's of limited use unless they get some distance on you (in which case you have your opening).
But another thing to keep in mind is that having superior numbers is also a "weapon" your assailant may have on you. A group of people threatening you has already escalated things to a place that threatens death or serious bodily harm. A weapon may be the only chance of getting out of there at all.
But, with all things, it depends on the circumstances. In a case where the assailant's goal is just to "get in a fight with you," yes, a weapon can unnecessarily escalate things. But in a case where they mean to truly harm, possibly even kill you, you're under no obligation to allow them to decide the terms of engagement, and you have no reason to fight fair.