Kid Becomes "Little Zangief" in Response to Bullying

[Gindil]

They were standing in a hallway in the middle of a school day, assuming the teachers aren't fucking plants who have to actually grow themselves to where they want to go, if he shouted he could have had an adult there in like 5 seconds or less, he chose not to though, he chose to put a kid into a situation that could have likely ended in paralysis or death.

Nope, it was afterschool and if you've read any history on this, he's had this happen for years. And contrary to popular belief, children don't think like that. The new video on Christopher's Koulouris' post seems to show exactly what he was thinking about.

 

[ecoho]

So we're celebrating and praising a kid for pile-driving a smaller kid into the ground?

No. We are praising self-defense. Notice that after a bully got thrown on the ground, that kid just walked away, while he could beat him up some more. I respect him for that.

Still, he could have killed the kid if he had dropped him on his head. Responding to a violent person with more violence is natural, but it's not necessary. If Casey didn't retaliate and the video made it onto the internet, then the bully would have no doubt been expelled and his friends suspended.

you were never bullied were you?
if you were you would know that this does NOT stop till you make them. the system in place doesnt work these kids would probily have said he started it and the teachers would have beleaved them due to the fact there are more of them.

Alright no, this is not alright.

We all want to stand up to bullies, and a good punch to the face would have been great, but this could have literally killed the guy if he landed just a little bit differently.

It is sheer luck this didn't become a story about a murder, so no, it's not alright, I sympathize with the kid, and I do think he should have retaliated, but we shouldn't be praising him for using force that could have easily been lethal.

i aggree that this could have gone bad but if he had killed the prick (and yes he is a prick) it would have been manslauter in self defense. Now if this would of happened it would of been tragic that a kid who was bullied killed someone when he didnt mean to but to be fair had it happened it was his own fault and while tragic would have been fully suported by my slef and most people i know.

So bullying means you deserve to get murdered? You'd support murder in response to bullying? Seriously?

I get that capital punishment is a hot debate recently, but capital punishment for schoolyard bullying isn't a debate that anyone is having.

I think you need to get your priorities straight, do you want to live in a world where someone is justified to murder a school bully?

It would certainly cut down on the bullying.

Yeah, murder tends to cut down a lot of things, except maybe the amount of weeping family members, and the amount of murderers.

i support manslauter in self defense which is what this would be. Not by any means would this be murder. As i said before it would have been tragic for the kid who was bullied not for the kid who did it i have absolutely NO pity for the bully himself people like that cause suicides and as far as im conserned deserve to be beaten to a pulp then draged through the streets.

 

[Doctor Glocktor]

So we're celebrating and praising a kid for pile-driving a smaller kid into the ground?

No. We are praising self-defense. Notice that after a bully got thrown on the ground, that kid just walked away, while he could beat him up some more. I respect him for that.

Still, he could have killed the kid if he had dropped him on his head. Responding to a violent person with more violence is natural, but it's not necessary. If Casey didn't retaliate and the video made it onto the internet, then the bully would have no doubt been expelled and his friends suspended.

you were never bullied were you?
if you were you would know that this does NOT stop till you make them. the system in place doesnt work these kids would probily have said he started it and the teachers would have beleaved them due to the fact there are more of them.

Alright no, this is not alright.

We all want to stand up to bullies, and a good punch to the face would have been great, but this could have literally killed the guy if he landed just a little bit differently.

It is sheer luck this didn't become a story about a murder, so no, it's not alright, I sympathize with the kid, and I do think he should have retaliated, but we shouldn't be praising him for using force that could have easily been lethal.

i aggree that this could have gone bad but if he had killed the prick (and yes he is a prick) it would have been manslauter in self defense. Now if this would of happened it would of been tragic that a kid who was bullied killed someone when he didnt mean to but to be fair had it happened it was his own fault and while tragic would have been fully suported by my slef and most people i know.

So bullying means you deserve to get murdered? You'd support murder in response to bullying? Seriously?

I get that capital punishment is a hot debate recently, but capital punishment for schoolyard bullying isn't a debate that anyone is having.

I think you need to get your priorities straight, do you want to live in a world where someone is justified to murder a school bully?

Use the terminology correctly. For it to be murder, there has to be intent to kill. What this would be (if the little bastard had croaked it) is manslaughter. Killed by accident, with no intent to do so, combined with it being self-defense. Manslaughter, and low level manslaughter at that. It may seem to be nit picking, but the different crimes exist because the differences are bloody important.

Casey got hit, several times. Casey defended himself, using appropriate force levels (non-lethal force versus non-lethal force, and yes, an unarmed body slam is considered non-lethal force). If the kid had gotten killed or badly hurt, that would have been too bad, but I'd have had to consider it a self inflicted injury. As it is, he's relatively unhurt, and maybe Casey will have fewer bullies to worry about in the future. I sure wouldn't want to mess with the guy.

You realize that self defense requires appropriate levels of force right? That is, only enough to remove the threat of harm to yourself.

Casey clearly removed the harm to himself when he grabbed the kid, the kid could no longer hit him, after removing the threat, Casey then proceeded to lift him and basically drop him on his head.

Much like you can't shoot someone in the face 5 times for slapping you, this was nowhere near "appropriate force levels"

What do YOU suggest he should've done after he grabbed the little shit, then? Put him down nicely?

Yelled at the top of his lungs for a teacher.

Yes I know it doesn't sound as exciting as "Slam the fucker onto the ground head-fucking-first" but we live in the real world, dropping someone on their head is a great way to be sent to jail for murder.

He should've yelled for a teacher, while holding a kid that is smaller than him, and have a bunch of the smaller kids friends around him.

Yeah, that'll work out well.

It would have worked out fine, the same video that we all saw would have cleared his name.

Clearly you think executing a maneuver that could have killed the kid is a better idea? What the fuck is wrong with everyone!? A kid could have died here, and all anyone cares about is the fact that he got back at a bully and it looked cool. For god's sake I thought the people on this site were intelligent, but it looks like all it takes for them to lose all sense of reality is a video of someone fulfilling Escapist users' collective repressed desire to get back at bullies while looking cool.

Let's review alright?

What is more important:

1.) Getting back at a bully

2.) Not committing manslaughter

(pro tip: This is a really easy question)

I'll ignore for a second that you seem to think holding the kid down would have resulted in a bigger punishment than dropping him on his head (which makes absolutely no sense), wouldn't the teacher have wondered why he yelled "teacher" while holding a kid down? Most people who start a fight don't yell for a teacher so she can bear witness to them doing something wrong, and he sure as HELL wouldn't have been suspended for it.

I know it's a very cool video, but think logically please.

Okay, lets think logically.

Lets say, you like want to have happened, he held the kid and he yelled for a teacher. Then what? The teacher will come, and tell Casey to put the kid down. All the while, all of the rats friends are yelling to the teacher about how Casey assaulted the rat out of nowhere, and they were just joking around with him. Who do YOU think the teacher is gonna believe? Think logically.

Hell, even in your best case scenario, whats the stop the rat from bullying him AFTER the teacher gave him a slap on the wrist? Casey quickly and effectively not only stopped his attacker, but stopped his bully dead in his tracks.

And no, the rat couldn't have died. If you actually watched the video, you'll see that he landed on his side. Broken bone? Yes. Death? Nope.

Plus, do you honestly believe, even for a second, that if something not as exciting as the drop had happened the video would have gotten out? Or that the kids would even give evidence that the whole thing was recorded to the teacher?

 

[Danpascooch]

Yes, it is still possible for the gang attack, but it changes the nature of the conflict. Kids that may be fine with bullying may shy away from literal assault and battery.

Yes, Casey could have killed the kid. But bullying kills kids too, full stop. Why are you so you concerned about worst case consequences for the bully, but not the victim? Everyone is talking about hypothetical cases here.

Because one is hypothetical in the respect that no steps have been taken and no evidence has been shown that it will ever occur in the future.

And the other is an action that already happened and could have easily resulted in death had the head landed like, 1 inch shifted in the wrong direction.

Any guy I pass on the street could hypothetically some day kill me with a baseball bat, that doesn't mean I'm justified to drop them on their head because of some very unlikely hypothetical scenario in which they one day kill me.

A kid has been bullied. That right there is steps that have been taken and evidence it could occur in the future.

In fact, since the bullying predates Casey's attack some of those actions had already happened and could have resulted in the death of a kid or kids.

No, you can't drop a random passerby, even if he is carrying a bat. But if he is swinging that bat at you, absolutely you can drop him.

Would it have been better if his physical response was something a bit less life threatening? Yes, it would have. If the bully had died it certainly would have been tragic, but I don't think there is strong evidence that Casey acted with malice. This isn't a case of shooting a fleeing robber in the back. I think you're holding him to too high a standard, if they were both adults your case would be much stronger.

Something you just said there was interesting "if they both were adults your case would be stronger"

Does that mean you're saying his mistake is understandable because he's a kid? Because if so you basically just agreed with my whole argument.

If you rewind to the front of this, I never said Casey should be jailed, all I said was he should not be treated like a hero for this, if you think this action is something that someone with the judgment of an adult shouldn't do, then surely you agree this kid isn't some sort of hero who should be praised for what he did.

I had a pretty serious argument with some of the people living on my floor yesterday, and they are very pissed at me, that shows evidence of a tiny step taken toward them ganging up on me and killing me, should I piledrive one of them?

 

[Danpascooch]

So we're celebrating and praising a kid for pile-driving a smaller kid into the ground?

No. We are praising self-defense. Notice that after a bully got thrown on the ground, that kid just walked away, while he could beat him up some more. I respect him for that.

Still, he could have killed the kid if he had dropped him on his head. Responding to a violent person with more violence is natural, but it's not necessary. If Casey didn't retaliate and the video made it onto the internet, then the bully would have no doubt been expelled and his friends suspended.

you were never bullied were you?
if you were you would know that this does NOT stop till you make them. the system in place doesnt work these kids would probily have said he started it and the teachers would have beleaved them due to the fact there are more of them.

Alright no, this is not alright.

We all want to stand up to bullies, and a good punch to the face would have been great, but this could have literally killed the guy if he landed just a little bit differently.

It is sheer luck this didn't become a story about a murder, so no, it's not alright, I sympathize with the kid, and I do think he should have retaliated, but we shouldn't be praising him for using force that could have easily been lethal.

i aggree that this could have gone bad but if he had killed the prick (and yes he is a prick) it would have been manslauter in self defense. Now if this would of happened it would of been tragic that a kid who was bullied killed someone when he didnt mean to but to be fair had it happened it was his own fault and while tragic would have been fully suported by my slef and most people i know.

So bullying means you deserve to get murdered? You'd support murder in response to bullying? Seriously?

I get that capital punishment is a hot debate recently, but capital punishment for schoolyard bullying isn't a debate that anyone is having.

I think you need to get your priorities straight, do you want to live in a world where someone is justified to murder a school bully?

It would certainly cut down on the bullying.

Yeah, murder tends to cut down a lot of things, except maybe the amount of weeping family members, and the amount of murderers.

i support manslauter in self defense which is what this would be. Not by any means would this be murder. As i said before it would have been tragic for the kid who was bullied not for the kid who did it i have absolutely NO pity for the bully himself people like that cause suicides and as far as im conserned deserve to be beaten to a pulp then draged through the streets.

Self defense only counts when you use only the force necessary to keep yourself safe, once he was holding the kid down he was safe, and then could have yelled for a teacher, dropping him on his head was beyond the force necessary to keep him safe, and thus no longer self defense in they eyes of the law.

 

[Doctor Glocktor]

Yes, it is still possible for the gang attack, but it changes the nature of the conflict. Kids that may be fine with bullying may shy away from literal assault and battery.

Yes, Casey could have killed the kid. But bullying kills kids too, full stop. Why are you so you concerned about worst case consequences for the bully, but not the victim? Everyone is talking about hypothetical cases here.

Because one is hypothetical in the respect that no steps have been taken and no evidence has been shown that it will ever occur in the future.

And the other is an action that already happened and could have easily resulted in death had the head landed like, 1 inch shifted in the wrong direction.

Any guy I pass on the street could hypothetically some day kill me with a baseball bat, that doesn't mean I'm justified to drop them on their head because of some very unlikely hypothetical scenario in which they one day kill me.

A kid has been bullied. That right there is steps that have been taken and evidence it could occur in the future.

In fact, since the bullying predates Casey's attack some of those actions had already happened and could have resulted in the death of a kid or kids.

No, you can't drop a random passerby, even if he is carrying a bat. But if he is swinging that bat at you, absolutely you can drop him.

Would it have been better if his physical response was something a bit less life threatening? Yes, it would have. If the bully had died it certainly would have been tragic, but I don't think there is strong evidence that Casey acted with malice. This isn't a case of shooting a fleeing robber in the back. I think you're holding him to too high a standard, if they were both adults your case would be much stronger.

I had a pretty serious argument with some of the people living on my floor yesterday, and they are very pissed at me, that shows evidence of a tiny step taken toward them ganging up on me and killing me, should I piledrive one of them?

That depends. Were they physically assaulting you, harassing you mentally, and surrounding you so that you don't have a means of escape?

If so, then yes, you do have the right to fight back.

 

[Danpascooch]

So we're celebrating and praising a kid for pile-driving a smaller kid into the ground?

No. We are praising self-defense. Notice that after a bully got thrown on the ground, that kid just walked away, while he could beat him up some more. I respect him for that.

Still, he could have killed the kid if he had dropped him on his head. Responding to a violent person with more violence is natural, but it's not necessary. If Casey didn't retaliate and the video made it onto the internet, then the bully would have no doubt been expelled and his friends suspended.

you were never bullied were you?
if you were you would know that this does NOT stop till you make them. the system in place doesnt work these kids would probily have said he started it and the teachers would have beleaved them due to the fact there are more of them.

Alright no, this is not alright.

We all want to stand up to bullies, and a good punch to the face would have been great, but this could have literally killed the guy if he landed just a little bit differently.

It is sheer luck this didn't become a story about a murder, so no, it's not alright, I sympathize with the kid, and I do think he should have retaliated, but we shouldn't be praising him for using force that could have easily been lethal.

i aggree that this could have gone bad but if he had killed the prick (and yes he is a prick) it would have been manslauter in self defense. Now if this would of happened it would of been tragic that a kid who was bullied killed someone when he didnt mean to but to be fair had it happened it was his own fault and while tragic would have been fully suported by my slef and most people i know.

So bullying means you deserve to get murdered? You'd support murder in response to bullying? Seriously?

I get that capital punishment is a hot debate recently, but capital punishment for schoolyard bullying isn't a debate that anyone is having.

I think you need to get your priorities straight, do you want to live in a world where someone is justified to murder a school bully?

Use the terminology correctly. For it to be murder, there has to be intent to kill. What this would be (if the little bastard had croaked it) is manslaughter. Killed by accident, with no intent to do so, combined with it being self-defense. Manslaughter, and low level manslaughter at that. It may seem to be nit picking, but the different crimes exist because the differences are bloody important.

Casey got hit, several times. Casey defended himself, using appropriate force levels (non-lethal force versus non-lethal force, and yes, an unarmed body slam is considered non-lethal force). If the kid had gotten killed or badly hurt, that would have been too bad, but I'd have had to consider it a self inflicted injury. As it is, he's relatively unhurt, and maybe Casey will have fewer bullies to worry about in the future. I sure wouldn't want to mess with the guy.

You realize that self defense requires appropriate levels of force right? That is, only enough to remove the threat of harm to yourself.

Casey clearly removed the harm to himself when he grabbed the kid, the kid could no longer hit him, after removing the threat, Casey then proceeded to lift him and basically drop him on his head.

Much like you can't shoot someone in the face 5 times for slapping you, this was nowhere near "appropriate force levels"

What do YOU suggest he should've done after he grabbed the little shit, then? Put him down nicely?

Yelled at the top of his lungs for a teacher.

Yes I know it doesn't sound as exciting as "Slam the fucker onto the ground head-fucking-first" but we live in the real world, dropping someone on their head is a great way to be sent to jail for murder.

He should've yelled for a teacher, while holding a kid that is smaller than him, and have a bunch of the smaller kids friends around him.

Yeah, that'll work out well.

It would have worked out fine, the same video that we all saw would have cleared his name.

Clearly you think executing a maneuver that could have killed the kid is a better idea? What the fuck is wrong with everyone!? A kid could have died here, and all anyone cares about is the fact that he got back at a bully and it looked cool. For god's sake I thought the people on this site were intelligent, but it looks like all it takes for them to lose all sense of reality is a video of someone fulfilling Escapist users' collective repressed desire to get back at bullies while looking cool.

Let's review alright?

What is more important:

1.) Getting back at a bully

2.) Not committing manslaughter

(pro tip: This is a really easy question)

I'll ignore for a second that you seem to think holding the kid down would have resulted in a bigger punishment than dropping him on his head (which makes absolutely no sense), wouldn't the teacher have wondered why he yelled "teacher" while holding a kid down? Most people who start a fight don't yell for a teacher so she can bear witness to them doing something wrong, and he sure as HELL wouldn't have been suspended for it.

I know it's a very cool video, but think logically please.

Okay, lets think logically.

Lets say, you like want to have happened, he held the kid and he yelled for a teacher. Then what? The teacher will come, and tell Casey to put the kid down. All the while, all of the rats friends are yelling to the teacher about how Casey assaulted the rat out of nowhere, and they were just joking around with him. Who do YOU think the teacher is gonna believe? Think logically.

Hell, even in your best case scenario, whats the stop the rat from bullying him AFTER the teacher gave him a slap on the wrist? Casey quickly and effectively not only stopped his attacker, but stopped his bully dead in his tracks.

And no, the rat couldn't have died. If you actually watched the video, you'll see that he landed on his side. Broken bone? Yes. Death? Nope.

Plus, do you honestly believe, even for a second, that if something not as exciting as the drop had happened the video would have gotten out? Or that the kids would even give evidence that the whole thing was recorded to the teacher?

look at 0:24, just before the kid hits the ground, what part of him is facing the floor? The top of his head, he hit with enough speed to quickly flop onto his side, but his head hit first.

If you have deluded yourself to the point where you don't even see the same video as me, I have no interest in continuing this discussion.

Bullying < killing

End of story.

 

[Doctor Glocktor]

So we're celebrating and praising a kid for pile-driving a smaller kid into the ground?

No. We are praising self-defense. Notice that after a bully got thrown on the ground, that kid just walked away, while he could beat him up some more. I respect him for that.

Still, he could have killed the kid if he had dropped him on his head. Responding to a violent person with more violence is natural, but it's not necessary. If Casey didn't retaliate and the video made it onto the internet, then the bully would have no doubt been expelled and his friends suspended.

you were never bullied were you?
if you were you would know that this does NOT stop till you make them. the system in place doesnt work these kids would probily have said he started it and the teachers would have beleaved them due to the fact there are more of them.

Alright no, this is not alright.

We all want to stand up to bullies, and a good punch to the face would have been great, but this could have literally killed the guy if he landed just a little bit differently.

It is sheer luck this didn't become a story about a murder, so no, it's not alright, I sympathize with the kid, and I do think he should have retaliated, but we shouldn't be praising him for using force that could have easily been lethal.

i aggree that this could have gone bad but if he had killed the prick (and yes he is a prick) it would have been manslauter in self defense. Now if this would of happened it would of been tragic that a kid who was bullied killed someone when he didnt mean to but to be fair had it happened it was his own fault and while tragic would have been fully suported by my slef and most people i know.

So bullying means you deserve to get murdered? You'd support murder in response to bullying? Seriously?

I get that capital punishment is a hot debate recently, but capital punishment for schoolyard bullying isn't a debate that anyone is having.

I think you need to get your priorities straight, do you want to live in a world where someone is justified to murder a school bully?

Use the terminology correctly. For it to be murder, there has to be intent to kill. What this would be (if the little bastard had croaked it) is manslaughter. Killed by accident, with no intent to do so, combined with it being self-defense. Manslaughter, and low level manslaughter at that. It may seem to be nit picking, but the different crimes exist because the differences are bloody important.

Casey got hit, several times. Casey defended himself, using appropriate force levels (non-lethal force versus non-lethal force, and yes, an unarmed body slam is considered non-lethal force). If the kid had gotten killed or badly hurt, that would have been too bad, but I'd have had to consider it a self inflicted injury. As it is, he's relatively unhurt, and maybe Casey will have fewer bullies to worry about in the future. I sure wouldn't want to mess with the guy.

You realize that self defense requires appropriate levels of force right? That is, only enough to remove the threat of harm to yourself.

Casey clearly removed the harm to himself when he grabbed the kid, the kid could no longer hit him, after removing the threat, Casey then proceeded to lift him and basically drop him on his head.

Much like you can't shoot someone in the face 5 times for slapping you, this was nowhere near "appropriate force levels"

What do YOU suggest he should've done after he grabbed the little shit, then? Put him down nicely?

Yelled at the top of his lungs for a teacher.

Yes I know it doesn't sound as exciting as "Slam the fucker onto the ground head-fucking-first" but we live in the real world, dropping someone on their head is a great way to be sent to jail for murder.

He should've yelled for a teacher, while holding a kid that is smaller than him, and have a bunch of the smaller kids friends around him.

Yeah, that'll work out well.

It would have worked out fine, the same video that we all saw would have cleared his name.

Clearly you think executing a maneuver that could have killed the kid is a better idea? What the fuck is wrong with everyone!? A kid could have died here, and all anyone cares about is the fact that he got back at a bully and it looked cool. For god's sake I thought the people on this site were intelligent, but it looks like all it takes for them to lose all sense of reality is a video of someone fulfilling Escapist users' collective repressed desire to get back at bullies while looking cool.

Let's review alright?

What is more important:

1.) Getting back at a bully

2.) Not committing manslaughter

(pro tip: This is a really easy question)

I'll ignore for a second that you seem to think holding the kid down would have resulted in a bigger punishment than dropping him on his head (which makes absolutely no sense), wouldn't the teacher have wondered why he yelled "teacher" while holding a kid down? Most people who start a fight don't yell for a teacher so she can bear witness to them doing something wrong, and he sure as HELL wouldn't have been suspended for it.

I know it's a very cool video, but think logically please.

Okay, lets think logically.

Lets say, you like want to have happened, he held the kid and he yelled for a teacher. Then what? The teacher will come, and tell Casey to put the kid down. All the while, all of the rats friends are yelling to the teacher about how Casey assaulted the rat out of nowhere, and they were just joking around with him. Who do YOU think the teacher is gonna believe? Think logically.

Hell, even in your best case scenario, whats the stop the rat from bullying him AFTER the teacher gave him a slap on the wrist? Casey quickly and effectively not only stopped his attacker, but stopped his bully dead in his tracks.

And no, the rat couldn't have died. If you actually watched the video, you'll see that he landed on his side. Broken bone? Yes. Death? Nope.

Plus, do you honestly believe, even for a second, that if something not as exciting as the drop had happened the video would have gotten out? Or that the kids would even give evidence that the whole thing was recorded to the teacher?

look at 0:24, just before the kid hits the ground, what part of him is facing the floor? The top of his head, he hit with enough speed to quickly flop onto his side, but his head hit first.

If you have deluded yourself to the point where you don't even see the same video as me, I have no interest in continuing this discussion.

Bullying < killing

End of story.

I suggest you look at the same video. His front hit the ground first, followed by his head.

Besides, he DIDN'T die. So whats the problem?

 

[Danpascooch]

Yes, it is still possible for the gang attack, but it changes the nature of the conflict. Kids that may be fine with bullying may shy away from literal assault and battery.

Yes, Casey could have killed the kid. But bullying kills kids too, full stop. Why are you so you concerned about worst case consequences for the bully, but not the victim? Everyone is talking about hypothetical cases here.

Because one is hypothetical in the respect that no steps have been taken and no evidence has been shown that it will ever occur in the future.

And the other is an action that already happened and could have easily resulted in death had the head landed like, 1 inch shifted in the wrong direction.

Any guy I pass on the street could hypothetically some day kill me with a baseball bat, that doesn't mean I'm justified to drop them on their head because of some very unlikely hypothetical scenario in which they one day kill me.

A kid has been bullied. That right there is steps that have been taken and evidence it could occur in the future.

In fact, since the bullying predates Casey's attack some of those actions had already happened and could have resulted in the death of a kid or kids.

No, you can't drop a random passerby, even if he is carrying a bat. But if he is swinging that bat at you, absolutely you can drop him.

Would it have been better if his physical response was something a bit less life threatening? Yes, it would have. If the bully had died it certainly would have been tragic, but I don't think there is strong evidence that Casey acted with malice. This isn't a case of shooting a fleeing robber in the back. I think you're holding him to too high a standard, if they were both adults your case would be much stronger.

I had a pretty serious argument with some of the people living on my floor yesterday, and they are very pissed at me, that shows evidence of a tiny step taken toward them ganging up on me and killing me, should I piledrive one of them?

That depends. Were they physically assaulting you, harassing you mentally, and surrounding you so that you don't have a means of escape?

If so, then yes, you do have the right to fight back.

Surrounded?


I'm going to say the same thing to you that I say to everyone who tries to pull what you just did, if you lie to me, I have no interest in debating further with you.

In the frame there was one kid, and two girls watching who then left, surrounded my ass.

 

[4173]

Yes, it is still possible for the gang attack, but it changes the nature of the conflict. Kids that may be fine with bullying may shy away from literal assault and battery.

Yes, Casey could have killed the kid. But bullying kills kids too, full stop. Why are you so you concerned about worst case consequences for the bully, but not the victim? Everyone is talking about hypothetical cases here.

Because one is hypothetical in the respect that no steps have been taken and no evidence has been shown that it will ever occur in the future.

And the other is an action that already happened and could have easily resulted in death had the head landed like, 1 inch shifted in the wrong direction.

Any guy I pass on the street could hypothetically some day kill me with a baseball bat, that doesn't mean I'm justified to drop them on their head because of some very unlikely hypothetical scenario in which they one day kill me.

A kid has been bullied. That right there is steps that have been taken and evidence it could occur in the future.

In fact, since the bullying predates Casey's attack some of those actions had already happened and could have resulted in the death of a kid or kids.

No, you can't drop a random passerby, even if he is carrying a bat. But if he is swinging that bat at you, absolutely you can drop him.

Would it have been better if his physical response was something a bit less life threatening? Yes, it would have. If the bully had died it certainly would have been tragic, but I don't think there is strong evidence that Casey acted with malice. This isn't a case of shooting a fleeing robber in the back. I think you're holding him to too high a standard, if they were both adults your case would be much stronger.

Something you just said there was interesting "if they both were adults your case would be stronger"

Does that mean you're saying his mistake is understandable because he's a kid? Because if so you basically just agreed with my whole argument.

If you rewind to the front of this, I never said Casey should be jailed, all I said was he should not be treated like a hero for this, if you think this action is something that someone with the judgment of an adult shouldn't do, then surely you agree this kid isn't some sort of hero who should be praised for what he did.

I had a pretty serious argument with some of the people living on my floor yesterday, and they are very pissed at me, that shows evidence of a tiny step taken toward them ganging up on me and killing me, should I piledrive one of them?

Almost. He isn't a hero for the specific attack he used, no. But since he is a kid, I think we can separate the action from the act. Standing up for himself in a more or less reasonable way; he had tried non-violent responses, he didn't jump the kid from behind, he didn't use a weapon, he didn't kill himself, he didn't continue the attack. Because of those factors, I think we can applaud part of what he did, while also trying to teach him (because he is a kid) that wasn't an ideal kind of physical defense.

I'll assume you're a legal adult, it which case that sort of separation is almost certainly not warranted. You would also be making a pre-meditated, preemptive attack, a completely different context from Casey's case.

 

[Danpascooch]

So we're celebrating and praising a kid for pile-driving a smaller kid into the ground?

No. We are praising self-defense. Notice that after a bully got thrown on the ground, that kid just walked away, while he could beat him up some more. I respect him for that.

Still, he could have killed the kid if he had dropped him on his head. Responding to a violent person with more violence is natural, but it's not necessary. If Casey didn't retaliate and the video made it onto the internet, then the bully would have no doubt been expelled and his friends suspended.

you were never bullied were you?
if you were you would know that this does NOT stop till you make them. the system in place doesnt work these kids would probily have said he started it and the teachers would have beleaved them due to the fact there are more of them.

Alright no, this is not alright.

We all want to stand up to bullies, and a good punch to the face would have been great, but this could have literally killed the guy if he landed just a little bit differently.

It is sheer luck this didn't become a story about a murder, so no, it's not alright, I sympathize with the kid, and I do think he should have retaliated, but we shouldn't be praising him for using force that could have easily been lethal.

i aggree that this could have gone bad but if he had killed the prick (and yes he is a prick) it would have been manslauter in self defense. Now if this would of happened it would of been tragic that a kid who was bullied killed someone when he didnt mean to but to be fair had it happened it was his own fault and while tragic would have been fully suported by my slef and most people i know.

So bullying means you deserve to get murdered? You'd support murder in response to bullying? Seriously?

I get that capital punishment is a hot debate recently, but capital punishment for schoolyard bullying isn't a debate that anyone is having.

I think you need to get your priorities straight, do you want to live in a world where someone is justified to murder a school bully?

Use the terminology correctly. For it to be murder, there has to be intent to kill. What this would be (if the little bastard had croaked it) is manslaughter. Killed by accident, with no intent to do so, combined with it being self-defense. Manslaughter, and low level manslaughter at that. It may seem to be nit picking, but the different crimes exist because the differences are bloody important.

Casey got hit, several times. Casey defended himself, using appropriate force levels (non-lethal force versus non-lethal force, and yes, an unarmed body slam is considered non-lethal force). If the kid had gotten killed or badly hurt, that would have been too bad, but I'd have had to consider it a self inflicted injury. As it is, he's relatively unhurt, and maybe Casey will have fewer bullies to worry about in the future. I sure wouldn't want to mess with the guy.

You realize that self defense requires appropriate levels of force right? That is, only enough to remove the threat of harm to yourself.

Casey clearly removed the harm to himself when he grabbed the kid, the kid could no longer hit him, after removing the threat, Casey then proceeded to lift him and basically drop him on his head.

Much like you can't shoot someone in the face 5 times for slapping you, this was nowhere near "appropriate force levels"

What do YOU suggest he should've done after he grabbed the little shit, then? Put him down nicely?

Yelled at the top of his lungs for a teacher.

Yes I know it doesn't sound as exciting as "Slam the fucker onto the ground head-fucking-first" but we live in the real world, dropping someone on their head is a great way to be sent to jail for murder.

He should've yelled for a teacher, while holding a kid that is smaller than him, and have a bunch of the smaller kids friends around him.

Yeah, that'll work out well.

It would have worked out fine, the same video that we all saw would have cleared his name.

Clearly you think executing a maneuver that could have killed the kid is a better idea? What the fuck is wrong with everyone!? A kid could have died here, and all anyone cares about is the fact that he got back at a bully and it looked cool. For god's sake I thought the people on this site were intelligent, but it looks like all it takes for them to lose all sense of reality is a video of someone fulfilling Escapist users' collective repressed desire to get back at bullies while looking cool.

Let's review alright?

What is more important:

1.) Getting back at a bully

2.) Not committing manslaughter

(pro tip: This is a really easy question)

I'll ignore for a second that you seem to think holding the kid down would have resulted in a bigger punishment than dropping him on his head (which makes absolutely no sense), wouldn't the teacher have wondered why he yelled "teacher" while holding a kid down? Most people who start a fight don't yell for a teacher so she can bear witness to them doing something wrong, and he sure as HELL wouldn't have been suspended for it.

I know it's a very cool video, but think logically please.

Okay, lets think logically.

Lets say, you like want to have happened, he held the kid and he yelled for a teacher. Then what? The teacher will come, and tell Casey to put the kid down. All the while, all of the rats friends are yelling to the teacher about how Casey assaulted the rat out of nowhere, and they were just joking around with him. Who do YOU think the teacher is gonna believe? Think logically.

Hell, even in your best case scenario, whats the stop the rat from bullying him AFTER the teacher gave him a slap on the wrist? Casey quickly and effectively not only stopped his attacker, but stopped his bully dead in his tracks.

And no, the rat couldn't have died. If you actually watched the video, you'll see that he landed on his side. Broken bone? Yes. Death? Nope.

Plus, do you honestly believe, even for a second, that if something not as exciting as the drop had happened the video would have gotten out? Or that the kids would even give evidence that the whole thing was recorded to the teacher?

look at 0:24, just before the kid hits the ground, what part of him is facing the floor? The top of his head, he hit with enough speed to quickly flop onto his side, but his head hit first.

If you have deluded yourself to the point where you don't even see the same video as me, I have no interest in continuing this discussion.

Bullying < killing

End of story.

I suggest you look at the same video. His front hit the ground first, followed by his head.

Besides, he DIDN'T die. So whats the problem?

First off, look at JUST before he hit the ground, unless someone with Jedi powers used the force to rotate him one centimeter before he hit the ground, the head hit first.

Secondly, that's true, he didn't die, but did you forget what my original argument was? My argument was that he should NOT be lauded as a hero, because the only reason he didn't kill a person is sheer luck, as far as judging his actions go, it's actually not really relevant if he died, the point is he dropped him in such a way that he easily could have died. I don't judge people based on their luck, I judge them based their actions, and if you take luck out of the equation, there is nothing separating him from someone who kills a bully.

 

[Danpascooch]

Yes, it is still possible for the gang attack, but it changes the nature of the conflict. Kids that may be fine with bullying may shy away from literal assault and battery.

Yes, Casey could have killed the kid. But bullying kills kids too, full stop. Why are you so you concerned about worst case consequences for the bully, but not the victim? Everyone is talking about hypothetical cases here.

Because one is hypothetical in the respect that no steps have been taken and no evidence has been shown that it will ever occur in the future.

And the other is an action that already happened and could have easily resulted in death had the head landed like, 1 inch shifted in the wrong direction.

Any guy I pass on the street could hypothetically some day kill me with a baseball bat, that doesn't mean I'm justified to drop them on their head because of some very unlikely hypothetical scenario in which they one day kill me.

A kid has been bullied. That right there is steps that have been taken and evidence it could occur in the future.

In fact, since the bullying predates Casey's attack some of those actions had already happened and could have resulted in the death of a kid or kids.

No, you can't drop a random passerby, even if he is carrying a bat. But if he is swinging that bat at you, absolutely you can drop him.

Would it have been better if his physical response was something a bit less life threatening? Yes, it would have. If the bully had died it certainly would have been tragic, but I don't think there is strong evidence that Casey acted with malice. This isn't a case of shooting a fleeing robber in the back. I think you're holding him to too high a standard, if they were both adults your case would be much stronger.

Something you just said there was interesting "if they both were adults your case would be stronger"

Does that mean you're saying his mistake is understandable because he's a kid? Because if so you basically just agreed with my whole argument.

If you rewind to the front of this, I never said Casey should be jailed, all I said was he should not be treated like a hero for this, if you think this action is something that someone with the judgment of an adult shouldn't do, then surely you agree this kid isn't some sort of hero who should be praised for what he did.

I had a pretty serious argument with some of the people living on my floor yesterday, and they are very pissed at me, that shows evidence of a tiny step taken toward them ganging up on me and killing me, should I piledrive one of them?

Almost. He isn't a hero for the specific attack he used, no. But since he is a kid, I think we can separate the action from the act. Standing up for himself in a more or less reasonable way; he had tried non-violent responses, he didn't jump the kid from behind, he didn't use a weapon, he didn't kill himself, he didn't continue the attack. Because of those factors, I think we can applaud part of what he did, while also trying to teach him (because he is a kid) that wasn't an ideal kind of physical defense.

I'll assume you're a legal adult, it which case that sort of separation is almost certainly not warranted. You would also be making a pre-meditated, preemptive attack, a completely different context from Casey's case.

So a kid who does something that the average adult should know not to do makes him a hero? Just how stupid are kids anyway that they can fit into the category of "child hero" and "below average adult" at the same time?

I don't think we can separate the action from the act at all, he wasn't like 7 years old, he should know right from wrong, and the way he stood up for himself wasn't reasonable, but for the grace of luck it was manslaughter.

I would be one of this kids most avid supporters if he grabbed the kid and called a teacher, or even punched him in the face hard, but this could have killed him, and I can't applaud that.

 

[Dwarfman]

Snip

That was fucking awesome!!!!

I used to be bullied all the way through primary school and even a little in secondary. It's nice to see the bully get his own medicine.

I'm so glad that as a modern society we celebrate acts of violence rather than being, you know, civilized.

I really don't get why this has garnered so much attention though. Not the first time something like this has happened.

If society has progressed to a point where any act of violence is unabashedly refused consideration, that society is not long for this world.

What do you suppose the civilized solution would be? What is your proposal? I would be interested in hearing ANYTHING, ANYTHING AT ALL that would both give the bullied kid a small measure of self-respect back AND perhaps give the bully an actual, visceral reason to, in the future, consider the repercussions of his actions (asking the bully to stop due to empathy towards the bullied is a fool's errand -- that's jumping to the end of the race before it even starts).

Welcome to reality, where VIOLENCE IS NEVER OUT OF THE QUESTION. It may be a terrible decision, it may be the wrong decision in almost every situation, but it's never something we should put out of mind. That's like living your life with the expectation that it will never rain, and that all rain is bad.

This is good violence. This video is making the rounds because, with all the terrible shit going on world-wide right now, it's good to see that at least some times terrible things are used for good ends. Violence in defense of the innocent against the transgressions of the evil IS ALWAYS GOOD.

Without the capability to do violence against those who would do violence to you, there can be no freedom. Period.

This. And this again. One should always find a solution to ones problems that doesn't invlove violence, however sometimes you just have to take a stand.

 

[Gindil]

First off, look at JUST before he hit the ground, unless someone with Jedi powers used the force to rotate him one centimeter before he hit the ground, the head hit first.

Secondly, that's true, he didn't die, but did you forget what my original argument was? My argument was that he should NOT be lauded as a hero, because the only reason he didn't kill a person is sheer luck, as far as judging his actions go, it's actually not really relevant if he died, the point is he dropped him in such a way that he easily could have died. I don't judge people based on their luck, I judge them based their actions, and if you take luck out of the equation, there is nothing separating him from someone who kills a bully.

There's a bit of physics involved here. How Casey had his head, Richard spun and hit his side, not the head. The main thing that caused the fracture was his leg hitting the concrete block because of the force. Now if Casey had spiked him, that would have been excessive force. Even going through the motions myself, the head is going to spin away from the ground just based on how it was cupped. The most damage that I could see is Casey dropping him forward, onto his face. That would have been excessive.

 

[Firia]

Surrounded?


I'm going to say the same thing to you that I say to everyone who tries to pull what you just did, if you lie to me, I have no interest in debating further with you.

In the frame there was one kid, and two girls watching who then left, surrounded my ass.

I don't mean to interrupt this internet battle of the wits, bit you folks are arguing about something that has an actual right answer, and is not subject to opinion. Casey faced at least three people that we know of. Only one is so obvious; he's the boy throwing punches. The other is the cameraboy. He may not be jumping into the fight, but his jeering is company enough. The third we don't see until the piledriver is over with. The tall boy steps in to confront Casey, but the girl tells him to back down.

Watch the tall boy, his posture, what he does. He's tense and rigid; probably never been in a fight in his life, but he's stepping in in front of Chris. His posture; It's confrontational, it's hostile, and he follows Casey.

There are at least three people confronting Casey. Two girls flee the fight, and the tall girl that steps in breaks it up. But the tall boy, camera boy, and Chris are in this together.

 

[Shihoudani]

First off, look at JUST before he hit the ground, unless someone with Jedi powers used the force to rotate him one centimeter before he hit the ground, the head hit first.

Secondly, that's true, he didn't die, but did you forget what my original argument was? My argument was that he should NOT be lauded as a hero, because the only reason he didn't kill a person is sheer luck, as far as judging his actions go, it's actually not really relevant if he died, the point is he dropped him in such a way that he easily could have died. I don't judge people based on their luck, I judge them based their actions, and if you take luck out of the equation, there is nothing separating him from someone who kills a bully.

I really don't see how you can even say his head hit first. It's pretty obvious that his side took the full brunt of the impact followed by his head. Unless he decided to spike the kid on his head directly, physics would beg to differ on your conclusion.

 

[roostuf]

i am so happy for him.

 

[Shihoudani]

The bully needed this really. he needed to be shown that he isn't the boss of the school.

So very true. It seems a lot of people don't understand that you can't just win with words alone, you're just showing weakness and that's exactly what a bully prey's upon. Even if he called for a teacher, which I'm sure he's done in the past considering this has been going on for years.. it wouldn't have changed anything. It would of happened again and then what? Perhaps he would of been injured instead of the bully? An eye for an eye has it's purposes, it shows that you aren't willing to just take being injured and not even attempt to fight back. By doing this I think it may show a lesson to others who may try to do the same to him and give them much needed pause. Good for you Casey and yes, that kid is a hero despite how others here try to degrade the kids actions.