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

[BarbaricGoose]

Isn't someone just as bad a person if they outright kill someone who doesn't have the power to kill them, even if they're under duress? Why didn't the boy slash with the knife, which would've been more defensive moves that were also less likely to be fatal. Stabbing is a far more aggressive action that suggests he attacked with the knife, rather than simply defended himself with it.

And the actions of others does not excuse his actions. He was molested, yes, but he was the one who had the knife, and he was the one who killed an unarmed boy.

Do you not understand how the human psyche works?

Well, me neither, but I do know it's not as simple as you're making it out to be. Have you ever stuck a knife into someone who's been tormenting you for god knows how long? No? Are you psychologist? No? Then you probably have no @#$%ing idea what was going through this poor kid's head.

I can tell you, however, that this kid did not have the mental clarity at the time to "Slash the boy with the knife." He was defending himself, and primal instincts took over. You think this kid had any training whatsoever in combat? No? Then he probably shouldn't be expected to keep his composure in a fight. And what if the bully managed to take his knife from him? He probably thought he'd be killed, so there's that extra threat of death lingering around. And once that first stab goes in, I think that's when his mind exploded. If you didn't know, it's not exactly fun to stab somebody. I'd imagine it's pretty damn terrifying. All that blood, having to force the knife into somebody's skin, hearing them screen in pain. Yeah, let's expect a 15-year-old to be able to back up, ignoring the screaming, and say, "You know what, I've stabbed him once, so he's no longer a threat to me. I'm gonna leave now. This has been a pleasant experience."

 

[Technomage333]

I'm totally just thinking Ender's game here, you make sure if you're going to fight back that whoever picked this fight isn't going to come back later with backup by beating the daylights out of them. I doubt the death was intentional and 11 times if you're scared and he's still moving is not out of the realm of possibility.

 

[irishda]

Isn't someone just as bad a person if they outright kill someone who doesn't have the power to kill them, even if they're under duress? Why didn't the boy slash with the knife, which would've been more defensive moves that were also less likely to be fatal. Stabbing is a far more aggressive action that suggests he attacked with the knife, rather than simply defended himself with it.

And the actions of others does not excuse his actions. He was molested, yes, but he was the one who had the knife, and he was the one who killed an unarmed boy.

Hands and feet alone have the power to kill, so your question is not pertinent to the issue at hand. Suffice it to say, being unarmed did not mean the bully did not have the power to kill his victim.

Stabbing is quicker and more effective than slashing. It's a great way to stop a threat who's in close. It is not incumbent upon the victim to consider the general safety and welfare of his attacker. Once engaged in a fight he did not initiate; his one and only concern is: stop the fight. If his attacker dies in the process, that is his attacker's own fault as the instigator.

Stabbing an unarmed attacker doesn't make you a 'bad' person, it just makes you the most effective combatant.

Hands and feet have the power but it's not necessarily the intent of a bully to kill someone unless you're in an 80's movie.

And it's not incumbent upon the victim to consider the safety of an attacker but that doesn't mean the condition of the attacker after the fact won't be held against you. That's why he was charged with manslaughter in the first place.

My entire point has been that a level of proportional response has to be maintained. If someone starts yelling at you, you can't just smack em in the face with a baseball bat and say, "He was displaying an intent to harm." The judge's reasoning that force can be met with deadly force is flawed. When does "I was defending myself" turn into "that was murder"?

 

[BrionJames]

well, it's sad to see it come to that. I think the parents are to blame. Honestly, if people were more involved with their children's lives, maybe stuff like this wouldn't happen. The kid should get some counseling at the very least. Killing someone, that will probably haunt him the rest of his life. Hopefully...

 

[senordesol]

Hands and feet have the power but it's not necessarily the intent of a bully to kill someone unless you're in an 80's movie.

And it's not incumbent upon the victim to consider the safety of an attacker but that doesn't mean the condition of the attacker after the fact won't be held against you. That's why he was charged with manslaughter in the first place.

My entire point has been that a level of proportional response has to be maintained. If someone starts yelling at you, you can't just smack em in the face with a baseball bat and say, "He was displaying an intent to harm." The judge's reasoning that force can be met with deadly force is flawed. When does "I was defending myself" turn into "that was murder"?

Intent is irrelevant. The attack alone can kill, that is the only thing to consider. You have no moral obligation to gamble with your life. And the 'charge' is less relevant than the acquittal (which was the right call).

Comparing physical assault (an act of violence) to yelling is disingenuous. I don't know of anyone who can kill you by yelling at you who doesn't live in Skyrim.

Defending yourself turns to murder only when the attacker was provably no longer a threat. Given that the time between stab 1 and stab 11 was probably only a few seconds, I'll warrant that even his attacker didn't know he was mortally wounded until the kid rolled away.

 

[Thistlehart]

That's exactly why weapon possesion and use must at all times be forbidden.

In essence, you believe only criminals should have access to weapons? A ban on weapons would not affect criminals in any way (since they tend to ignore such laws, it's a qualification after all). And doing so you declare open season on all law-abiding folk (who apparently are too stupid to use weapons to protect themselves).

You, sir, are either a fool or you don't know what you just said. And judging from your other posts to this thread, I'm hard-pressed to reckon which is true.

 

[irishda]

Isn't someone just as bad a person if they outright kill someone who doesn't have the power to kill them, even if they're under duress? Why didn't the boy slash with the knife, which would've been more defensive moves that were also less likely to be fatal. Stabbing is a far more aggressive action that suggests he attacked with the knife, rather than simply defended himself with it.

And the actions of others does not excuse his actions. He was molested, yes, but he was the one who had the knife, and he was the one who killed an unarmed boy.

Do you not understand how the human psyche works?

Well, me neither, but I do know it's not as simple as you're making it out to be. Have you ever stuck a knife into someone who's been tormenting you for god knows how long? No? Are you psychologist? No? Then you probably have no @#$%ing idea what was going through this poor kid's head.

I can tell you, however, that this kid did not have the mental clarity at the time to "Slash the boy with the knife." He was defending himself, and primal instincts took over. You think this kid had any training whatsoever in combat? No? Then he probably shouldn't be expected to keep his composure in a fight. And what if the bully managed to take his knife from him? He probably thought he'd be killed, so there's that extra threat of death lingering around. And once that first stab goes in, I think that's when his mind exploded. If you didn't know, it's not exactly fun to stab somebody. I'd imagine it's pretty damn terrifying. All that blood, having to force the knife into somebody's skin, hearing them screen in pain. Yeah, let's expect a 15-year-old to be able to back up, ignoring the screaming, and say, "You know what, I've stabbed him once, so he's no longer a threat to me. I'm gonna leave now. This has been a pleasant experience."

Gotcha, we'll let him off the hook for manslaughter because his "mind exploded". But no your right, all that blood and screaming from the dying boy probably made him very scared, so he was right to do it 11 more times.

You know what the bully (who remember is still a person) thought? Oh right, nothing, because he's dead now. Why? Because he picked a fight he shouldn't have and because the other kid didn't have the sense to actually defend himself. Always remember the facts of this. A kid died in a fight with another kid. And this wasn't some rapist or a murderer or a mugger or even a gangster. This was some dumb, insecure kid who doesn't even have a chance now.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

It's good that this is deemed a justifiable homicide, not cause it was but cause it'll have more bullies scared to do the same in the future since they might get stabbed to death.


The kid should have stopped at the first few stabbings, it definitely was in anger and not in self-preservation. The onlookers should have jumped in and pulled him away as soon as they saw the knife even, the stabber may have been in self-defense but the rest of them were negligent in not stopping the fight once they realized that someone was about to be stabbed. I doubt they'd go the route of prosecuting the other kids though.

They never get those "others", which is a problem too, if the onlookers were charged with the same offenses as the ones done by the people they allowed to act then a lot of bullying cases would be stopped instead of cheered by the crowds, out of fear of them being mixed up in it.

 

[GraegoriHauss]

Perhaps he should have just accepted the beating, but from the opposite side I have no sympathy for the dead kid. It'll certainly teach him not to do that again, and that there are often unexpected consequences to being a bully.

I'm not condoning deadly force as a solution to this sort of problem by any means, but if you are going to assault another human being you have to be aware that occasionally they might lash out in response.

It is not only possible, but alarmingly common for children to be beaten to death or at least grievous injury by bullies. I wholeheartedly support the judge's decision; kids have gotten REALLY stupid and apathetic to the sanctity of life. The victim's life was likely in danger. It was him or the bully, and I'm glad it was the bully who was unfortunate. He would have grown up to be worse.

 

[senordesol]

It's good that this is deemed a justifiable homicide, not cause it was but cause it'll have more bullies scared to do the same in the future since they might get stabbed to death.


The kid should have stopped at the first few stabbings, it definitely was in anger and not in self-preservation. The onlookers should have jumped in and pulled him away as soon as they saw the knife even, the stabber may have been in self-defense but the rest of them were negligent in not stopping the fight once they realized that someone was about to be stabbed. I doubt they'd go the route of prosecuting the other kids though.

They never get those "others", which is a problem too, if the onlookers were charged with the same offenses as the ones done by the people they allowed to act then a lot of bullying cases would be stopped instead of cheered by the crowds, out of fear of them being mixed up in it.

You assume they had time or even saw it. If the bully was grappling the kid, they might not have even seen the blade until he was bleeding on the pavement. A fight in real life is nothing like Mortal Kombat or Street FIghter. They are not calm, clinical affairs where people take turns exchanging combos. People get in close, swing wildly, and the entire matter can be over in moments.

And I don't know about you, but there's no way I would try and lay hands on a person with a knife.

 

[ShadowKatt]

Apparently I arrived late, but after hearing all the stories about the victims being punished for the wrongdoings of their attackers like homeowners being sent to prison for killing an invader or that kid that was sued for sexual assault after kicking a bully in the balls, I'm SO behind this kid I'd knife someone that wanted to go after him. Seriously, I'd like to order about ten more of this kid and show the world that if you bully, if you threaten, if you harm anyone else, you could very well be forfeiting your LIFE. That's right, you threaten me, and I KILL you.

Imagine how much nicer and more polite the world would be.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

It's good that this is deemed a justifiable homicide, not cause it was but cause it'll have more bullies scared to do the same in the future since they might get stabbed to death.


The kid should have stopped at the first few stabbings, it definitely was in anger and not in self-preservation. The onlookers should have jumped in and pulled him away as soon as they saw the knife even, the stabber may have been in self-defense but the rest of them were negligent in not stopping the fight once they realized that someone was about to be stabbed. I doubt they'd go the route of prosecuting the other kids though.

They never get those "others", which is a problem too, if the onlookers were charged with the same offenses as the ones done by the people they allowed to act then a lot of bullying cases would be stopped instead of cheered by the crowds, out of fear of them being mixed up in it.

You assume they had time or even saw it. If the bully was grappling the kid, they might not have even seen the blade until he was bleeding on the pavement. A fight in real life is nothing like Mortal Kombat or Street FIghter. They are not calm, clinical affairs where people take turns exchanging combos. People get in close, swing wildly, and the entire matter can be over in moments.

And I don't know about you, but there's no way I would try and lay hands on a person with a knife.

No, I do not assume anything, I know it by reading the first post in this thread.

Brodie based her decision this week on the findings from a two-day December hearing, during which students who witnessed the events Jan. 24, 2011, testified that several teens announced the fight on the bus, and Saavedra got off several stops early in Golden Gate Estates. Saavedra showed a pocket knife to two teens on the bus that afternoon.

These teens should have instantly told the bully that he was about to get stabbed once he first started hitting the kid on the back of the head. Hell, they should have instantly gone to the teacher or bus driver and reported the kid was carrying a concealed weapon, no matter how you look at it it's negligence.


Oh and I know how fights are, I was in quite a few myself up to the later years of middleschool, a couple of knees to the gut is usually all it takes for someone to back off. This wasn't just a fight though, this was a bullied kid who was pushed in the corner, they probably extended the scene like a comedic villain would, rather than get into it and out of it right away, I'm willing to bet the kids taunted him even AFTER seeing the knife, taking him as too much of a wimp to do anything with it. The bully prolly tried to karate the knife out of his hands even, I seriously doubt the kid just instantly pulled in and stabbed the other kid before anyone could see or do anything.

 

[senordesol]

It's good that this is deemed a justifiable homicide, not cause it was but cause it'll have more bullies scared to do the same in the future since they might get stabbed to death.


The kid should have stopped at the first few stabbings, it definitely was in anger and not in self-preservation. The onlookers should have jumped in and pulled him away as soon as they saw the knife even, the stabber may have been in self-defense but the rest of them were negligent in not stopping the fight once they realized that someone was about to be stabbed. I doubt they'd go the route of prosecuting the other kids though.

They never get those "others", which is a problem too, if the onlookers were charged with the same offenses as the ones done by the people they allowed to act then a lot of bullying cases would be stopped instead of cheered by the crowds, out of fear of them being mixed up in it.

You assume they had time or even saw it. If the bully was grappling the kid, they might not have even seen the blade until he was bleeding on the pavement. A fight in real life is nothing like Mortal Kombat or Street FIghter. They are not calm, clinical affairs where people take turns exchanging combos. People get in close, swing wildly, and the entire matter can be over in moments.

And I don't know about you, but there's no way I would try and lay hands on a person with a knife.

No, I do not assume anything, I know it by reading the first post in this thread.

Brodie based her decision this week on the findings from a two-day December hearing, during which students who witnessed the events Jan. 24, 2011, testified that several teens announced the fight on the bus, and Saavedra got off several stops early in Golden Gate Estates. Saavedra showed a pocket knife to two teens on the bus that afternoon.

These teens should have instantly told the bully that he was about to get stabbed once he first started hitting the kid on the back of the head. Hell, they should have instantly gone to the teacher or bus driver and reported the kid was carrying a concealed weapon, no matter how you look at it it's negligence.

Were these the same teens? More than four people tend to ride the bus. I agree that they should have told someone (and that's on them), but in the context of the fight it might have happened too fast for them to see it or do anything about it (again, assuming these are the same teens in question).

 

[senordesol]

Apparently I arrived late, but after hearing all the stories about the victims being punished for the wrongdoings of their attackers like homeowners being sent to prison for killing an invader or that kid that was sued for sexual assault after kicking a bully in the balls, I'm SO behind this kid I'd knife someone that wanted to go after him. Seriously, I'd like to order about ten more of this kid and show the world that if you bully, if you threaten, if you harm anyone else, you could very well be forfeiting your LIFE. That's right, you threaten me, and I KILL you.

Imagine how much nicer and more polite the world would be.

*raises glass* Amen.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

It's good that this is deemed a justifiable homicide, not cause it was but cause it'll have more bullies scared to do the same in the future since they might get stabbed to death.


The kid should have stopped at the first few stabbings, it definitely was in anger and not in self-preservation. The onlookers should have jumped in and pulled him away as soon as they saw the knife even, the stabber may have been in self-defense but the rest of them were negligent in not stopping the fight once they realized that someone was about to be stabbed. I doubt they'd go the route of prosecuting the other kids though.

They never get those "others", which is a problem too, if the onlookers were charged with the same offenses as the ones done by the people they allowed to act then a lot of bullying cases would be stopped instead of cheered by the crowds, out of fear of them being mixed up in it.

You assume they had time or even saw it. If the bully was grappling the kid, they might not have even seen the blade until he was bleeding on the pavement. A fight in real life is nothing like Mortal Kombat or Street FIghter. They are not calm, clinical affairs where people take turns exchanging combos. People get in close, swing wildly, and the entire matter can be over in moments.

And I don't know about you, but there's no way I would try and lay hands on a person with a knife.

No, I do not assume anything, I know it by reading the first post in this thread.

Brodie based her decision this week on the findings from a two-day December hearing, during which students who witnessed the events Jan. 24, 2011, testified that several teens announced the fight on the bus, and Saavedra got off several stops early in Golden Gate Estates. Saavedra showed a pocket knife to two teens on the bus that afternoon.

These teens should have instantly told the bully that he was about to get stabbed once he first started hitting the kid on the back of the head. Hell, they should have instantly gone to the teacher or bus driver and reported the kid was carrying a concealed weapon, no matter how you look at it it's negligence.

Were these the same teens? More than four people tend to ride the bus. I agree that they should have told someone (and that's on them), but in the context of the fight it might have happened too fast for them to see it or do anything about it (again, assuming these are the same teens in question).

It's negligence to not report it, even if they weren't the same ones (it doesn't specify if they were or weren't) they should be held accountable for not doing anything. They knew that the kid was about to get into a fight since it was announced way before and they knew he was carrying a knife, put 2 and 2 together.


Furthermore, if the same students are the ones testifying to both that he showed the knife and that he got off early and to the events of the actual fight, I find it more likely than not that they were the same people who he showed the knife to. They probably got some sort of deal for their testimony so that they'd come forward and they did not admit who were the ones among them who actually saw the knife, so that they'd not be charged as accomplishes.

 

[BarbaricGoose]

Gotcha, we'll let him off the hook for manslaughter because his "mind exploded". But no your right, all that blood and screaming from the dying boy probably made him very scared, so he was right to do it 11 more times.

You know what the bully (who remember is still a person) thought? Oh right, nothing, because he's dead now. Why? Because he picked a fight he shouldn't have and because the other kid didn't have the sense to actually defend himself. Always remember the facts of this. A kid died in a fight with another kid. And this wasn't some rapist or a murderer or a mugger or even a gangster. This was some dumb, insecure kid who doesn't even have a chance now.

Let's be clear, he was being charged for second degree murder, NOT manslaughter. There's a pretty big difference. Usually in the form of several years. I think it's you who needs to remember the facts. Jorge should've been tried for involuntary manslaughter, but he wasn't, he was tried for second degree murder, which is bullshit--he was being terrorized, and he had no intent to kill.

And Jorge did defend himself, but admittedly not in the smartest way. Then again, he's 15. Teenagers aren't exactly the smartest, most reasonable bunch to begin with, but throw in raging hormones, and bullies, and well... things can clearly get out of hand. It's easy to say that he "Should've just stopped stabbing," but that's not how easy it would've been in reality.

And don't think I'm not sympathetic for Dylan. I don't think it's good that he's dead. But I also don't think that a 15-year-old should go to jail for second degree murder, when there's no reason. He's not a criminal, but jail would turn him into one. A child has already lost their life, we shouldn't rob another child of their's.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

One less d*ck in the world, sounds good to me.

 

[irishda]

Hands and feet have the power but it's not necessarily the intent of a bully to kill someone unless you're in an 80's movie.

And it's not incumbent upon the victim to consider the safety of an attacker but that doesn't mean the condition of the attacker after the fact won't be held against you. That's why he was charged with manslaughter in the first place.

My entire point has been that a level of proportional response has to be maintained. If someone starts yelling at you, you can't just smack em in the face with a baseball bat and say, "He was displaying an intent to harm." The judge's reasoning that force can be met with deadly force is flawed. When does "I was defending myself" turn into "that was murder"?

Intent is irrelevant. The attack alone can kill, that is the only thing to consider. You have no moral obligation to gamble with your life. And the 'charge' is less relevant than the acquittal (which was the right call).

Comparing physical assault (an act of violence) to yelling is disingenuous. I don't know of anyone who can kill you by yelling at you who doesn't live in Skyrim.

Defending yourself turns to murder only when the attacker was provably no longer a threat. Given that the time between stab 1 and stab 11 was probably only a few seconds, I'll warrant that even his attacker didn't know he was mortally wounded until the kid rolled away.

Then logically any and all violence against someone should be met with deadly force. Why would you ever go with anything less if attacks alone can kill? And the yelling is a valid comparison. After all, if an attack can kill and intent is irrelevant, why wouldn't you operate under the assumption that any sort of action suggesting aggression would be a threat to kill? There's no moral obligation to gamble with your life (your words) so why wouldn't you act first lest the aggression turn to violence?

If you act under the presumption that any attack can kill and therefore any attacker must be presumed to have intent to kill, than there is no extreme for self-defense. I commend this kid for taking all the measures he did to ensure there wasn't conflict, but he went too far in protecting himself. "At all costs" is the creed of people who believe the ends justifies the means. And if he didn't intend too, then that is unfortunate but the blood is still on his hands.

 

[Thyunda]

Hands and feet have the power but it's not necessarily the intent of a bully to kill someone unless you're in an 80's movie.

And it's not incumbent upon the victim to consider the safety of an attacker but that doesn't mean the condition of the attacker after the fact won't be held against you. That's why he was charged with manslaughter in the first place.

My entire point has been that a level of proportional response has to be maintained. If someone starts yelling at you, you can't just smack em in the face with a baseball bat and say, "He was displaying an intent to harm." The judge's reasoning that force can be met with deadly force is flawed. When does "I was defending myself" turn into "that was murder"?

Intent is irrelevant. The attack alone can kill, that is the only thing to consider. You have no moral obligation to gamble with your life. And the 'charge' is less relevant than the acquittal (which was the right call).

Comparing physical assault (an act of violence) to yelling is disingenuous. I don't know of anyone who can kill you by yelling at you who doesn't live in Skyrim.

Defending yourself turns to murder only when the attacker was provably no longer a threat. Given that the time between stab 1 and stab 11 was probably only a few seconds, I'll warrant that even his attacker didn't know he was mortally wounded until the kid rolled away.

Then logically any and all violence against someone should be met with deadly force. Why would you ever go with anything less if attacks alone can kill? And the yelling is a valid comparison. After all, if an attack can kill and intent is irrelevant, why wouldn't you operate under the assumption that any sort of action suggesting aggression would be a threat to kill? There's no moral obligation to gamble with your life (your words) so why wouldn't you act first lest the aggression turn to violence?

If you act under the presumption that any attack can kill and therefore any attacker must be presumed to have intent to kill, than there is no extreme for self-defense. I commend this kid for taking all the measures he did to ensure there wasn't conflict, but he went too far in protecting himself. "At all costs" is the creed of people who believe the ends justifies the means. And if he didn't intend too, then that is unfortunate but the blood is still on his hands.

Okay. I have to intervene. I've argued this point, successfully I might add, earlier in the thread.

The bully punched Saavedra in the back of the head and moved to continue the attack. Panicking, dazed and frightened, Saavedra pulled his knife, a THREE INCH BLADE, and started stabbing. Not aiming for specific points. He's a fifteen year old kid with a pen knife. He's not a fucking trained assassin. He stabs and he stabs and he stabs until that bully isn't standing anymore. The bully, meanwhile, started his attack with malicious intent, and as soon as that knife entered his body, his own survival instincts kick in, the adrenaline flows and he's fighting for his life, so he doesn't fall until the twelfth stab.
Maybe Saavedra didn't believe a three inch knife could kill somebody. He fought in self defence. You can walk away from a shout. This bully already proved that he's not above hitting you in the back of the head. Saavedra was in a corner and he did what he had to do to protect himself.

 

[slopeslider]

Only 4 of the wounds broke skin, and two were fatal, one of which was to his heart
so most of them were just red lines in his skin that didn't even make him bleed.
You cant call that overkill.