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

[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.

Do you have a source on that?

Though it's really what I would expect. And it makes it sound like he was likely just attacking like you'd expect from a scared kid who feels threatened instead of the cold blooded murderer a lot of people seem to think he must be, calculating every hit for maximum blood loss or something instead of stabbing until the guy goes down.

I actually can't find it right now, so I guess you cant take my word for it
However, I do have this
http://media.naplesnews.com/media/static/20111230150108.pdf
After the stabbing, Dylan told his friends to 'go get him'
He wasn't dead on the spot, he died later due to the knife nicking his heart.

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2012/jan/03/collier-judge-upholds-stand-your-ground-defense-ca/?partn
Only two were fatal, one of which was to the heart. 10 were non fatal knife wounds, to be expected with an untrained kid and a small pocket knife.

 

[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.

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.

Panicking, dazed and frightened, Saavedra should've started swinging with his fists, instead of pulling a weapon. It was an accident to be sure, but not one that should simply be turned away from. Maybe the consequences of knowing he killed someone is enough.

Also: LOL at believing any argument on the internet is successful.

 

[Wargamer]

I approve of this wholeheartedly, and hope to see more assholes stabbed to death in the future.

 

[Wilfy]

I personally don't think lethal force should be used, unless you yourself are in lethal danger. From the story, the bully didn't have a weapon other than his fists.

His life was in danger. The very first blow could have killed him, and there is no reason to assume similarly dangerous blows would not have been used had the fight continued. The idea that someone using their fists isn't a lethal threat is only true in the movies. In reality punches are a form of blunt-force trauma that can cause everything from minor bruises to organ damage.

I understand that a punch in the back of the head can in certain circumstances be fatal, but I don't see how that warrants twelve stabs with a knife. As people have pointed out, adrenaline will have kicked in, but I would have thought that since he had been trying to escape the whole time, he would stab him once, maybe twice and run. He stabbed the bully twelve times though,to me that seems like he decided to really go for the guy. This is based on my very limited knowledge of fights involving knives however.

First, I was responding to your statement that lethal force should only be a response to lethal danger. There was lethal danger, so lethal force was justified.

Second, do you have any actual data to support the claim that 12 stabs is excessive for a fight like this?

I understand the lethal force, lethal danger thing. But I personally would say 12 stabs is excessive for any fight. One punch in the back of the head is a lot less likely to kill than 12 stabs.

 

[Mr. In-between]

ITT: People siding with assholes.


Three things, guys. One: It doesn't take long to stab eleven times, especially under stress. It probably lasted no more than ten or fifteen seconds, at the most. Try it for yourself, hold your hand as if you had a knife in it and see how quick you can 'stab' your pillow eleven times. Then factor in how much faster people move when they perceive their lives in danger, and there ya go. The kid likely stopped when he saw the bully wasn't attacking him anymore. Two: The court of law has ruled it a self defense. That's the end of it. Three: Get off your high horses, shit like this happens all around the world. The only reason half of you are moaning about it is because of the country it happened in.

Exactly.

Maybe the prick shouldn't have tried to tough guy up and pick a fight. I wish more bullies would get hospitalized/killed in this country so we'd have less kids hanging themselves because they are shitting their pants in fear of having to deal with the pain and humiliation of going to school each and every day.

 

[Rottweiler]

Just to point out, I am well aware of how people react in such a situation as I've been the victim of an assault and a mugging. As such, I think I have the experience to make the judgement. Adrenaline can come through in either fight or flight decisions; this case he chose fight and so removed the stressor. I personally chose flight in my situations, which is why my views are of such.

Which is fine. In fact, the victim (Saavedra) *attempted* to choose flight, but was cut off and assaulted. The bully chose *for* him, and we saw the result.

A swipe or stab can be a quick or slow as the weilder makes it. If he was used to handling such a weapon, we can assume that it would be very quick. If that's the case, then he would be well aware of what he was doing and where he was aiming; a small blade like that would jarr against bone very easily. If he wasn't trained, it means that the bully was totally open to the attack.

From all reports, Saavedra knew enough to swing wildly probably whilst yelling 'get away from me, stop hurting me'. I sincerely doubt he was 'trained' in using any form of weapon, let alone a knife. As for Nuno, the bully, I'm sure he had plenty of 'on the job training' in physically assaulting smaller, weaker kids.

Self-defense can come in many forms, when you say "neutralised" that can be from a broken nose to knocking the attacker out to, in this case, death. You can't justify murder in self-defence if it took 11 attempts to "neutralise" the threat.

Okay...stop. Absolutely, stop. Again, despite all the evidence presented here (I presented some of it) do you people not *read*? "11 times 11 times 11 times" is being parroted here like it's a weird form of Tourette's. In a quick web search I found documented evidence of someone who was stabbed *20 TIMES* and SURVIVED. And *he* was being stabbed by a full adult with an actual decent-sized knife as I recall.

Yet, despite the fact that no witnesses even *hinted* that the Bully surrendered/ran away/attempted to run away/fell to the ground helpless you keep saying 'if it took 11 attempts' and then link it to a murder accusation against the victim of the bullying?

When anyone here can show any witness statement that '1 stab was enough' in this case, you have something to back your theory. However, the *utter lack* of such statements, when Nuno's friends have every motivation to claim them to defend their dead friend, is a rather strong indicator that *it Did Not Happen*.

People who have actually been stabbed (I'm one of them) have given accounts here that we didn't even *notice* being stabbed due to the heat of the moment and adrenaline. In my case, in at least 5 incidents from my past (bar bouncer for 11+ years) I ended a fight with a belligerent drunk in handcuffs, and only 20 minutes *after* the incident did I feel:

~ a stab wound in my thigh
~ 2 broken fingers
~ enough bruises I should have had most of my blood supply in my outer skin layers
~ 2 loosened teeth

I didn't notice *any* of that until after the incident was over and I *came down off the adrenalin rush*. Therefore, I believe rather understandably that 9 rather small incisions can be completely ignored during a fight, and that even 2 more deadly ones might be noticed only in passing. I assure you *I* did not 'back off' or 'surrender' or 'run away' after receiving those injuries, therefore as I am not a superhuman nor am I some kind of pain-resistant commando that perhaps, just perhaps my reaction was not that uncommon.

Now, please- before *anyone* else gabs off with 'rar 11 wounds bad only 1 stab needed' please research the matter and show some kind of reason behind this instead of naked assumption based on misunderstanding.

 

[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.

Panicking, dazed and frightened, Saavedra should've started swinging with his fists, instead of pulling a weapon. It was an accident to be sure, but not one that should simply be turned away from. Maybe the consequences of knowing he killed someone is enough.

Also: LOL at believing any argument on the internet is successful.

Ah, you're such a funny guy. You should have read the thread before you interrupted with your own uneducated viewpoint. Once you've been beaten up enough times, you decide to get an insurance policy. Sometimes you're forced to use it.

 

[The Rainmaker]

The thing is, I don't think the kid wanted to kill him, he just wanted to stop him from abusing him. I can completely sympathize with that, but when rage and adrenaline kicks in then it probably felt like it only took a few seconds to stab him 12 times. I don't think the kid is a psycopath, so I am going to guess he isn't happy that he killed someone. He is going to be haunted by this for the rest of his life, and I feel sorry for him as he wasn't the one who started assaulting.

 

[Locke_Cole]

Love how half the posts in here are calling the kid a murderer. People need to teach real criminals how it's done because apparently doing your best to get AWAY from someone(IE: Leaving the bus early, trying to retreat after attacked, etc) and then fending off an attack is how you "murder" them.

Usually murders, especially premeditated murderers tend to go AFTER their targets, not try to get away from them.

 

[Mallon]

Jorge would've been terrified and when he couldn't get away he snapped, then he was not only no longer scared but angry, so he released that anger by stabbing Dylan ten more times.

Jorge needs to be punished. He needs to know that resorting to physical violence of that extent is not a good thing, but I will acknowledge that his parents, teachers and society in general weren't going to stop that bully. He went too far is all.

It all comes down to the upbringing and education.

 

[ultrabiome]

it doesn't seem to me that Jorge was actually trying to kill the bully, but was an unfortunate result his choice of self-defense from a situation he clearly tried to avoid. one of the stabs 'nicked' the bully's heart, which probably meant that in the 10-15 seconds that it happened, Jorge was acting on instinct. after all, he was being chased (after trying to get off the bus early) and then attacked by 3 guys at once.

if you were smaller and weaker than 3 opponents that desperately wanted to beat your ass, what would you do? take it? try to hit them and miss or countered? a weapon is sadly, a logical choice given those options - sadly the sequence of events ended with one kid dead.

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

This is...really difficult to form an opinion on. On the one hand it is really extreme to stab someone 11 times in the chest.

On the other hand, the guy has no one to blame but himself. You can't systematically drill into someone without expecting repercussions. Although the stabbing is an extreme repercussion...

 

[pxk]

Kind of a miss-leading title, considering it was a 14 year old that stabbed a 11 year old, not a 15 year old. That makes a slight difference to me, seeing as I felt more grown up at 15 then I ever did at 14. Just saying, but I think it's the same for everyone else too (?)

 

[Clankenbeard]

Stabber: Jorge Saavedra (Age 14-freshman)
Being Stabbed: Dylan Nuno (Age 16-junior)
Number of Stabs: 12 times in chest/abdomen (two wounds fatal-1 nicked the heart)

So is the number of stabs an issue? I don't think so. This kid likely had a small pen knife. (Yes, that is only conjecture on my part.) That's the likeliest choice to get away with in school. Stabbing once with a small knife if likely to piss somebody off unless you have serious ninja skills. Stabbing 12 times still might not get the job done--only two of these wounds were actually bad enough to be fatal.

FYI: The stabbing was on January 24, 2011 in Naples, Florida (LO=46°F HI=76° for that day. http://www.accuweather.com/en/us/naples-fl/34102/january-weather/337577?year=2011 ) It's winter, but still relatively warm. Video of kids getting off the bus shows some in jackets and others without. So he could have concealed a larger knife, but I doubt it. http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2011/jan/24/teen-rushed-hospital-after-stabbing-golden-gate-es/

 

[GoddyofAus]

Gotta love the politically correct nongs trying to call this kid a Murderer.

He had no desire to fight or get in a confrontation with the Bully. The Bully had different ideas, thinking he has massive cojones picking fights with younger kids. He got what he deserved and what he invited upon himself.

 

[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.

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.

Logically, if someone attacks you and forces you into a fight you have tried to escape, yes, you do anything to stop the fight. If includes killing your assailant, so be it. There's no such thing as 'going too far' to protect yourself against your assailant; save, obviously, collateral damage or risk to bystanders/uninvolved.

Yelling at someone is aggressive, but does not predicate a fight. Yelling alone is not dangerous, only swinging or drawing a weapon is.