Bullying - how far can you go to defend from it?

[silasbufu]

In my opinion , it's one thing when someone does bad things because he may have a mental problem or something, but if you're just really stupid and do harass people for fun you deserve to die in the worst way. Because the world is full of stupid and/or evil people and we're overpopulated already , so go ahead and shoot some more Mr. Father.

 

[LordSphinx]

These kids would never have done anything right with their lives. Good riddance. I'm more sorry for the family, which had to endure all this stress. I don't understand why it had to come to this to stop however, they should have been severely punished before then.

 

[Cherry Cola]

It's a dog eat dog world.

I get that a lot of people say that it was wrong of him to kill that kid, but if I was in his shoes, I would kill him too.

It has nothing to do with justice. It is retribution.

I just cannot understand how this is acceptable in any way.

Your morals are yours, and my morals are mine. Who am I to question you, and who are you to question me?

I understand why people wouldn't want to kill him, I really do. But when someone comes to my house, armed with melee weapons, ready to beat my son, and my family, then they are a threat and I will hunt those fuckers down. I wouldn't kill him because he's an asshole, I would kill him because he is a threat to my family.

 

[FoolKiller]

He wasn't a child, he was a teenager.
It doesn't matter if he was abused by his father or not, you don't harass a mentally challenged kid, then go to his house during the middle of the night to beat the living shit out of him.
That kind of Bullying is just too far. I have an immense hatred for bullying. I stand by my point, he deserved what he got.

I agree. It is unfortunate but the fact that the community and law enforcement did nothing to protect them means that he has to do whatever he can to protect his family. While hunting the kid down and killing him wasn't exactly self-defence, it may still have been necessary as a deterrent to the rest of the gang.

I understand the reason that self-defence states you "can't bring a gun to a knife fight" but I am tired of the fact that the criminals always get to dictate the level and escalate it at their will. What would have happened if they came back with guns the following week or just tried to burn the house down while they slept? It's just not fair to state that to remain law-abiding you must remain at a disadvantage to your attackers.

 

[Layz92]

I don't like it that someone died. That being said however these kids (kids... I'm only 18 myself, you people are making me speak like an older person) must have had some concept that things were going to turn out badly. If you grab weapons during the night outside someones home and start making threatening calls there are a few things that can happen. A person feeling cornered is going to have a go at you in self defence of themselves or their family (what happened here), a really pissed off person is going to come out and attempt to beat you up, or the people will stay inside and the cops will show up. Now since this is a farm I would just make an assumption there is a gun around (for getting rid of dingos/boars/foxes/wolves/whatever they have there). All of these things add up to me not feeling too sorry for the group other than the one who died.

Also at midnight it wouldn't be "getting rid of teenagers" it would be "repelling adult criminals from your house in the middle of the night" since you can't see anything other than shadowy people.

 

[GreyWolf257]

I would have done the same thing. From what it seems, those kids were going to kill someone, so he was well within his natural rights to harm or even kill those kids. He shouldn't have had to pay for them, though.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Can't say I have any respect for the law just because it is the law, if I don't believe in it or it doesn't serve its intended purpose, it can kiss the darkest part of my butt for all I care. I'm of course talking about the part where the police didn't do anything about the fuckers just because they were underage.

I don't respect the law either.

What this world really need is a God. An omnipotent being who is just and fair. A god that personally can take care of matters like this.

Instead, we get a system filled with fucking loop-holes that talented lawyers can use to get clients out of trouble, a system that's out-dated, a system that can't possibly have thought out every possible crime or scenario that could happen in a crime. Plus, the law goes by the dated thought of teenagers only being kids that shouldn't be punished hard.

Teenagers need to be judged on the base of their actions and not because of their fucking age.

 

[malestrithe]

From a legal standpoint, the entire incident is justified under U.S. law. The owner was defending his family and himself against a perceived act of violence. He would not be found criminally liable for it.

Where it gets cloudy is in civil court. Whenever you hear about criminals suing people, chances are good that it is in civil court and not criminal court. In a civil trial, you can sue over pretty much anything. Even though they would have a snowball's chance in hell to get anywhere in a criminal trial, the family of the slain kid could sue for damages in a civil one. They could claim that the owner was justified in shooting their son the first time, he was not justified after their son started to run away.

Then again, the United States tends to be a lot more selfish than the rest of the world, so I do not know how it applies to Sweden.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Yes. I think he did act right in the circumstances.

It might sound black and white now, but at the time he would have had no idea if they were going to kill him and his family. When that happens, people go into a heightened sense of danger based on instinct, it's impossible to blame him for what he did.

It has nothing to do with justice. It is retribution.

I pretty much agree with you, although as I said, I doubt if he had time to consider his actions he would've killed them. It's just a danger reflex, and it doesn't mean he's a bad person or that he'd kill again.

I'm on that side too.

If I stood face to face with the kid in a courtroom, I wouldn't want him dead. But when he comes to my house, with the intent to hurt my family, I'm taking that fucker down.

 

[Jenova65]

Snip

I'm with you all the way.

Teenagers are children in the eyes of the law!

What does that have to do with anything? Just because the law says a 15-year old is a child doesn't mean that I have to think so. The law exists so that we can have clear rules in society, it doesn't exist so that it can impose it's own morals on people.

By the same token just because you think he is not a child doesn't mean I have to agree!
Maybe I am the only parent in this discussion, I don't know, but I do know that young people do a lot of very stupid and cruel things and they do grow out of it mostly. ''Let he who is without sin'' and all that! :/

That father did the right thing. Perhaps those idiots have learned a life lesson for once.

Lesson for life? How, when one of them is dead? That isn't teaching a life lesson, that is executing someone for bullying!

Though I don't believe he should have hunted down the teen he killed, they were way past the point of bullying when they were on his property with weapons. That is intent to do harm.

Dead! A 15/16 year old is dead! He was already avenged when he shot the child in the arm, surely? That is my point.

That father did the right thing. Perhaps those idiots have learned a life lesson for once.

Lesson for life? How, when one of them is dead? That isn't teaching a life lesson, that is executing someone for bullying!

It's a guy that has terrorized your family for the longest time, and then he shows up at your house to take revenge on you. You think you might want to defend yourself?

He didn't need to execute the kid, he should have restrained him after the first shot and called the cops. But as a hunter and gun owner, if people show up on my property that I know are hostile to me, I would do just what this guy did.

That again is my point, the first shot was at the very least, enough. A child is dead. The child might have been an asshole, but death? Community service or boot camp would have been suitable, not death.

15 Year olds are still kids?
Teenagers are very different from Children, He was a teenager, He was a **** nugget, He got what he deserved.

He was a child, and you do not know what his background was maybe he went home after school and got beaten by his dad, maybe he didn't, however by your standards - Bullying = death sentence, I respectfully disagree with you! Many teens are assholes, and go on to be better adults and make right the things they did when they were young!

He wasn't a child, he was a teenager.
It doesn't matter if he was abused by his father or not, you don't harass a mentally challenged kid, then go to his house during the middle of the night to beat the living shit out of him.
That kind of Bullying is just too far. I have an immense hatred for bullying. I stand by my point, he deserved what he got.

Teenagers are children in the eyes of the law! He was a child, he was an asshole, but yet again a death sentence was overkill, or we are just living in many of the games we play and if people can shoot someone dead for that sort of crime we are inches away from anarchy. I merely disagree with you is all, I hate bullying too my 18 year old son was pushed in front of a car by his bully when he was at school, I totally felt hatred for the kid, but kill him? No. We just disagree on this, simple.

*snip*

Then you need to clarify that. Your last statement clearly said that "executed for bullying" which it wasn't. It was executing for assault with a deadly weapon (at least here in the states). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault "assault may refer only to the threat of violence caused by an immediate show of force."

I don't know about you, but if a group of teens come onto my property, after putting my family through hell day in and day out, with a bunch of makeshift weapons, threatening my family, I'm going to be in a blind rage. It's easy to sit back and say "oh that's horrible, I would never do that", it's quite another scenario when you are the person defending yourself.

I never understood the whole "buck fever" mentality with hunting until I hunted myself. The adrenaline rush you get. The knowing that you have the power to take a life (no I don't hunt for sport, I hunt for meat, don't even try to start an argument about that crap [not directed at you Jenova65]} is incredibly exciting and sobering at the same time.

Heck, I just got done telling off a co-worker who regularly drinks/smokes pot and drives that he had better never get into an accident with me (statistic improbability, I know) or my wife or kids, and if he does, he better make sure I'm dead or incapacitated because though I know it's wrong, I'd have a very hard time not beating him to a bloody pulp. Crimes of passion happen because the logic portion of our brains sometimes are overwhelmed by the emotional portions, especially for individuals who have a very strong protective instinct, such as myself and quite a few other men. To not understand that is to choose to be oblivious to the fact that a huge number people are human (last time i checked) and ruled by more than just logic.

*snip*

Gotcha, I thought you meant the teens bring a shotgun. I could feel my rage meter rising. Glad I had you clarify. hehe =P

I don't live in the US guns are illegal here. And he was executed. The first shot to the arm was more than enough he was then helpless and running away (it almost becomes cold blooded at that point) Also guns pretty much trump most farm tools. But my point wasn't that they were wrong for defending themselves only the shot that killed.

Child in the eyes of the law...
He is a teenager in my eyes, and most others eyes aswell except for yours/
A 15 year old is not a fucking child.

There is no need to be offensive. I have been very polite and you are just being rude. He is (in Britain) as far as the law is concerned a child (and since I live in Britain, he is a child in my opinion) What he certainly isn't is an adult.
I will not reply to any more quotes you make on this if you continue to be offensive, it is pointless.

How exactly is that offensive? I was pointing out for the 100th time.
A 15 year old is not a child, "fucking" was added to try and get that point across, not to insult you.

OK, maybe not offensive (I apologise) but we just disagree you don't need to imply that only I think he is child He did not deserve death imo, that is all.

I'm with Jenova. After shooting someone once, reloading, chasing them down, and shooting them again to kill them is just too far.

Thank you.

*snip*

In some cultures the age of 13 is the "age of manhood". Teenagers are just as capable of making responsible choices as the rest of society. They just have a higher risk taking ratio then 18+ adults. A big portion of why teenagers aren't legally considered adults is because of the voting age. Teens are much more impressionable then adults, therefore it's easier to sway them one direction or another (not saying that's the only reason, just using it as one example).

I can understand where you come from with the whole "executed" thing, and to some point I agree. I stated that he was wrong to actually kill the teen in my first post I believe. What I'm trying to convey though, is that I understand where the father came from as well when I put myself in his situation. Though I can easily say "I would never do that," I know that given the circumstances, I'm not entirely sure how I would react in that situation. People don't think clearly under a high stress, adrenaline rush, fight-or-flight mindset. Does that make it ok? Of course not. Turning it into cold blooded murder though? Not so much. That's a crime of passion at most which can regularly (here in the states) be taken down to manslaughter.

BTW, guns aren't illegal in Britain. You can get a shotgun permit. http://www.gunrunner.cc/firearms_laws.htm

We do not, however have the right to 'bear arms'!
And if you read one of my replies (regarding the bullying of my now 18 year old son) you will see that I totally get where the dad was coming from, please don't get me wrong, those kids probably deserved an ass kicking but not death that was all I was saying (and I wasn't actually disagreeing with your first comment just quoting you to further my own point, iyswim?)
The difficulty is that it is an emotive issue, as a parent with 3 kids between the age of 18 years and 9 months old, do I see what motivated the guy? Sure I do. Would I keep shooting once I had hit the kid in the arm, hell no! And believe me I had some very dark thoughts about the kid that bullied my son......

 

[Borrowed Time]

*snip*

I'm on that side too.

If I stood face to face with the kid in a courtroom, I wouldn't want him dead. But when he comes to my house, with the intent to hurt my family, I'm taking that fucker down.[/quote]

How dare you want to defend your family!!!!one111! [/sarcasm]

Seriously though, I agree with both of you guys. Though I'll be the first to say, from a societal standpoint he "shouldn't" have killed the teen, I would probably have done the same thing. And as I was explaining before, even from a criminal standpoint, the most he could be charged with is manslaughter (US) for a crime of passion. Hense, your logical mind being completely overshadowed by instinct and emotion.

We do not, however have the right to 'bear arms'!
And if you read one of my replies (regarding the bullying of my now 18 year old son) you will see that I totally get where the dad was coming from, please don't get me wrong, those kids probably deserved an ass kicking but not death that was all I was saying (and I wasn't actually disagreeing with your first comment just quoting you to further my own point, iyswim?)
The difficulty is that it is an emotive issue, as a parent with 3 kids between the age of 18 years and 9 months old, do I see what motivated the guy? Sure I do. Would I keep shooting once I had hit the kid in the arm, hell no! And believe me I had some very dark thoughts about the kid that bullied my son......

Then you really need to start stating what you mean. Thank you for clarifying though, concerning the "bearing of arms".

I'm sure that you can say that right now, as I stated myself it was wrong, but how can you know that you'd really have a clear and logical mindset (especially if you had mental disorders) under a high-stress, fight-or-flight situation where a group of individuals (not teens, since it's late at night) are threatening you and your family with weapons (not just idle bullying) and you feel a justifiable threat to you and your family's life. You won't, unless you're not a human being. I'm not justifying what he did, all I'm saying is that I understand why he did it and I can't really say whether I would or wouldn't do the same. At least I'm man enough to admit that.

 

[RaikuFA]

ive been a victim of bullying since i was in elementry school. it wasnt stuff like "youre a doodyhead" i had sissors and shit thrown at me. school refused to do anything. one kid crank called my house and then beat me to the point where i was hospitalized, police wouldnt do shit despite the fact there were witnesses. i was also beaten up by 6 other kids and got suspended because they said i provoked it by threatening to kill them

in short, kid deserved it. the end

 

[Cherry Cola]

Snip

I'm with you all the way.

Teenagers are children in the eyes of the law!

What does that have to do with anything? Just because the law says a 15-year old is a child doesn't mean that I have to think so. The law exists so that we can have clear rules in society, it doesn't exist so that it can impose it's own morals on people.

By the same token just because you think he is not a child doesn't mean I have to agree!
Maybe I am the only parent in this discussion, I don't know, but I do know that young people do a lot of very stupid and cruel things and they do grow out of it mostly. ''Let he who is without sin'' and all that! :/

No, you don't have to agree, I'm just questioning why you brought up the law.

You're having a debate about morals and then you basically say "THE LAW IS ON MY SIDE"

It isn't. The law doesn't take sides

 

[MentalBakura]

I'd say the little shits deserved what they got.

 

[kommunizt kat]

Trespassing so technically he couldve killed them and not have charges pressed on him...

 

[Cherry Cola]

I'm on that side too.

If I stood face to face with the kid in a courtroom, I wouldn't want him dead. But when he comes to my house, with the intent to hurt my family, I'm taking that fucker down.

It all reminds me somewhat of Hippykillers dad.

He beat a burglar to death with a hurley (for playing Hurling, an Irish sport, like a cross between Rugby and Hockey) because he thought the burglar was a protestant militant there to kill him.

And then hippykiller himself killed a British soldier when he was 15. But that's a story for another day, kiddies!

It's a cruel world out there.

I'm hoping that I never get to experience that. Not because I'm afraid, but because I want to remain unbiased on such an issue.

Although I must say, all of these people are a disappointment in the eyes of Sweden. We are pussies neutral when it comes to disputes. We don't start arguments, we ignore them

[sub]I'm totally making that my Swedish slogan[/sub]