Kid Becomes "Little Zangief" in Response to Bullying

[Royas]

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"

Not correct, at least not in the jurisdiction in which I live in. Appropriate levels of force basically means lethal versus non-lethal force. Casey responded to an unarmed attack (non-lethal) with an unarmed attack (also non-lethal). Yes, non-lethal attacks can kill, it happens. But it's still appropriate force use. And I'm even simplifying this too much here, you can use lethal force against non-lethal force if you really feel your life is in danger and you can't defend yourself any other way, such as when a woman is grabbed by a much larger man intent on raping her. She's allowed to shoot said man, even if he's not armed, because that may be all she's got.

As far as the threat being ended when Casey grabbed his tormentor, I'd say you were very wrong. I've been in fights before where I was grabbed, even lifted off the ground. I've managed to do a lot of damage in many of those cases. It's called infighting, and you can really hurts somebody that way, even if being held. Being grabbed does not end the fight. It just moves it to grappling versus stand off hitting. He grabbed the kid, for a moment the kid could not hit him... until the kid gets loose or his friends jump in. After dumping him on the ground, then and only then was the threat potentially neutralized. Personally, I would have done more, the other guy isn't safe until he can not attack any longer. I'm not going to grab him and wait to see what he does, I'm going to grab him and then hurt him until he can't hurt me any longer. That's what you do in a real fight, you fight to win. If the other guy gets hurt, well then I guess he shouldn't have started the fight to begin with.

And while you are right, you can't shoot somebody in the face after he/she slaps you, you sure can put them down forcefully. Somebody strikes you and you can't retreat safely (usually you can't), you have the absolute right to stop them. That can mean calling for help, it can also mean grabbing their hand and breaking a couple of fingers before smashing them into a wall. Appropriate use of force does not mean you have to use exactly the same methods. That would be a truly stupid interpretation of the law.

 

[klaynexas3]

http://www.controltheriot.com/bullying/

the video was removed from youtube so i don't want anyone else missing out on it

OT: good for Casey. i do think it may have been a bit too far, but who knows, maybe he meant to make it look like he was about to break the bullies neck, but threw him in such a way that it wouldn't, so as not to hurt him, but to show him that Casey was capable of seriously hurting him if necessary. or maybe he did it cause he knew it'd look badass, but didn't want to kill the kid. either way, i applaud Casey for what he did. stand up to those that push you down and show them that you won't take their shit.

 

[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"

Not correct, at least not in the jurisdiction in which I live in. Appropriate levels of force basically means lethal versus non-lethal force. Casey responded to an unarmed attack (non-lethal) with an unarmed attack (also non-lethal). Yes, non-lethal attacks can kill, it happens. But it's still appropriate force use. And I'm even simplifying this too much here, you can use lethal force against non-lethal force if you really feel your life is in danger and you can't defend yourself any other way, such as when a woman is grabbed by a much larger man intent on raping her. She's allowed to shoot said man, even if he's not armed, because that may be all she's got.

As far as the threat being ended when Casey grabbed his tormentor, I'd say you were very wrong. I've been in fights before where I was grabbed, even lifted off the ground. I've managed to do a lot of damage in many of those cases. It's called infighting, and you can really hurts somebody that way, even if being held. Being grabbed does not end the fight. It just moves it to grappling versus stand off hitting. He grabbed the kid, for a moment the kid could not hit him... until the kid gets loose or his friends jump in. After dumping him on the ground, then and only then was the threat potentially neutralized. Personally, I would have done more, the other guy isn't safe until he can not attack any longer. I'm not going to grab him and wait to see what he does, I'm going to grab him and then hurt him until he can't hurt me any longer. That's what you do in a real fight, you fight to win. If the other guy gets hurt, well then I guess he shouldn't have started the fight to begin with.

And while you are right, you can't shoot somebody in the face after he/she slaps you, you sure can put them down forcefully. Somebody strikes you and you can't retreat safely (usually you can't), you have the absolute right to stop them. That can mean calling for help, it can also mean grabbing their hand and breaking a couple of fingers before smashing them into a wall. Appropriate use of force does not mean you have to use exactly the same methods. That would be a truly stupid interpretation of the law.

The kid lives in civilization, he's not in the wilderness here, once he was held down he had plenty of time to call for a teacher, this isn't fight club, the kid wasn't a blackbelt in martial arts out for blood, this was a school yard fight, and he had the kid pinned.

Also you're wrong about lethal vs non-lethal, it's not that simple, where do you live? Sealand? International waters? What you just described isn't the self defense law in any place I know of.

Here is the law for New York State:

1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:

See that bolded part? The part that says you can only use the amount appropriate to defend yourself?

Here is what you said:

Not correct, at least not in the jurisdiction in which I live in. Appropriate levels of force basically means lethal versus non-lethal force. Casey responded to an unarmed attack (non-lethal) with an unarmed attack (also non-lethal).

Under your backwards definition, non-lethal = non-lethal, which means if someone slapped me once, I could beat them till they were covered in blood and paraplegic as long as it didn't kill them, I hope to god you realize how crazy that is.

 

[klaynexas3]

Oh come on, Anonymous... DDOSing the school? Why?

It's not constructive, impressive, or even that difficult. It doesn't do anything useful, and is the equivalent of randomly punching people in the street when you see them do something slightly antisocial.

cause the victim is being punished as well. its like arresing a rape victim who was raped in a alleyway for public sex

Yeah... but the victim then stabbed the attacker through the chest.

if you're talking about the scenario above, i think stabbing someone for raping you is proper self defense and that person shouldn't be punished for using that kind of defense.

now, i think this is a bad comparison of scenarios, someone's punching you, you don't go for a fatality. but i saw an interview of Casey, and he said what he did was not just to beat the one bully, but to ward off the others that might step in afterwards. this, i think was a proper thing to do. if you hit back, this will only anger them, but if you hurt them bad, they'll be too afraid to try anything, so i think the reasons he did this for, it was a proper response

 

[AJW89]

Black Stone's Law Book cites, in effect, that a physical response to a threat may be "instinctive" and "immediate", and may only be measured by the one fighting back, against the perception of being 'safe'. 'Safe' is referred to as there no longer being a danger present, and the retaliation to the danger may persist until the danger is no longer present, thusly achieving 'safety'.

Sustained retaliation (which is not the case here) may be viewed as deliberate and uncontrolled aggression, but if you view this recording from an objective (and not purely 'face-value') standpoint, you can intelligently assume that Casey Heynes had suffered at least one other confrontation with Richard prior to this video (which directly or indirectly involved Richard (he need only be present during a confrontation to elicit feelings of danger)) being made that his response thereafter (and as such recorded and on which we're making our judgements) was cumulatively in response to previous sessions of bullying.

Bear in mind the psychological trauma a student with clear size may suffer when a spirited bully targets them. We are not talking about a single one-off passing act of aggression and retaliation. Clearly Richard feels he can ashame Casey by his rather public display of confidence and apparent desire to intimidate Casey. This would ordinarily be born out of A) a wave of pressure from his circle of friends, or B) a confidence gained from watching others facilitate the abuse, while, for some reason, feeling the need to belong to a group of like minded individuals (rendering them more hive minded).

So I for one (and going by many others, I'm not alone) say, "very well done and congrats - do it again".

The point being raised about the possibility Richard could have been killed is - ironically - pointless. Dealing with facts, he was not. End of. Someone rightly pointed out that Casey not only did NOT kill the bully, but he also walked away and left the twerp to hobble back to his friends.

Having been a victim of intense bullying myself, overcome it, and worked in the Extreme Sports and Entertainment sector for some 2 years where I had to mediate sometimes between groups who got a little too - 'spirited' - I'm well suited to see all sides of this coin. This bully's act is purely that of intimidation, display of status and wild over confidence. It's high time more bullies are planted and more support placed in those who need to overcome bullies - BEFORE they're made to suffer for years after with the psychological trauma and God knows what physical damage.

I hadn't registered before now, happy to pop onto Zero Punctuation, UnSkippable etc., but this article's made me want to say something, and there it is.

Again I refer you to Black Stone's Law Book.

 

[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"

Not correct, at least not in the jurisdiction in which I live in. Appropriate levels of force basically means lethal versus non-lethal force. Casey responded to an unarmed attack (non-lethal) with an unarmed attack (also non-lethal). Yes, non-lethal attacks can kill, it happens. But it's still appropriate force use. And I'm even simplifying this too much here, you can use lethal force against non-lethal force if you really feel your life is in danger and you can't defend yourself any other way, such as when a woman is grabbed by a much larger man intent on raping her. She's allowed to shoot said man, even if he's not armed, because that may be all she's got.

As far as the threat being ended when Casey grabbed his tormentor, I'd say you were very wrong. I've been in fights before where I was grabbed, even lifted off the ground. I've managed to do a lot of damage in many of those cases. It's called infighting, and you can really hurts somebody that way, even if being held. Being grabbed does not end the fight. It just moves it to grappling versus stand off hitting. He grabbed the kid, for a moment the kid could not hit him... until the kid gets loose or his friends jump in. After dumping him on the ground, then and only then was the threat potentially neutralized. Personally, I would have done more, the other guy isn't safe until he can not attack any longer. I'm not going to grab him and wait to see what he does, I'm going to grab him and then hurt him until he can't hurt me any longer. That's what you do in a real fight, you fight to win. If the other guy gets hurt, well then I guess he shouldn't have started the fight to begin with.

And while you are right, you can't shoot somebody in the face after he/she slaps you, you sure can put them down forcefully. Somebody strikes you and you can't retreat safely (usually you can't), you have the absolute right to stop them. That can mean calling for help, it can also mean grabbing their hand and breaking a couple of fingers before smashing them into a wall. Appropriate use of force does not mean you have to use exactly the same methods. That would be a truly stupid interpretation of the law.

The kid lives in civilization, he's not in the wilderness here, once he was held down he had plenty of time to call for a teacher, this isn't fight club, the kid wasn't a blackbelt in martial arts out for blood, this was a school yard fight, and he had the kid pinned.

Also you're wrong about lethal vs non-lethal, it's not that simple, where do you live? Sealand? International waters? What you just described isn't the self defense law in any place I know of.

Here is the law for New York State:

1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:

See that bolded part? The part that says you can only use the amount appropriate to defend yourself?

Did YOU see the bolded part? The one where is says:

to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself

Casey believed he was in real danger, and thus acted appropriately.

 

[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"

Not correct, at least not in the jurisdiction in which I live in. Appropriate levels of force basically means lethal versus non-lethal force. Casey responded to an unarmed attack (non-lethal) with an unarmed attack (also non-lethal). Yes, non-lethal attacks can kill, it happens. But it's still appropriate force use. And I'm even simplifying this too much here, you can use lethal force against non-lethal force if you really feel your life is in danger and you can't defend yourself any other way, such as when a woman is grabbed by a much larger man intent on raping her. She's allowed to shoot said man, even if he's not armed, because that may be all she's got.

As far as the threat being ended when Casey grabbed his tormentor, I'd say you were very wrong. I've been in fights before where I was grabbed, even lifted off the ground. I've managed to do a lot of damage in many of those cases. It's called infighting, and you can really hurts somebody that way, even if being held. Being grabbed does not end the fight. It just moves it to grappling versus stand off hitting. He grabbed the kid, for a moment the kid could not hit him... until the kid gets loose or his friends jump in. After dumping him on the ground, then and only then was the threat potentially neutralized. Personally, I would have done more, the other guy isn't safe until he can not attack any longer. I'm not going to grab him and wait to see what he does, I'm going to grab him and then hurt him until he can't hurt me any longer. That's what you do in a real fight, you fight to win. If the other guy gets hurt, well then I guess he shouldn't have started the fight to begin with.

And while you are right, you can't shoot somebody in the face after he/she slaps you, you sure can put them down forcefully. Somebody strikes you and you can't retreat safely (usually you can't), you have the absolute right to stop them. That can mean calling for help, it can also mean grabbing their hand and breaking a couple of fingers before smashing them into a wall. Appropriate use of force does not mean you have to use exactly the same methods. That would be a truly stupid interpretation of the law.

The kid lives in civilization, he's not in the wilderness here, once he was held down he had plenty of time to call for a teacher, this isn't fight club, the kid wasn't a blackbelt in martial arts out for blood, this was a school yard fight, and he had the kid pinned.

Also you're wrong about lethal vs non-lethal, it's not that simple, where do you live? Sealand? International waters? What you just described isn't the self defense law in any place I know of.

Here is the law for New York State:

1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:

See that bolded part? The part that says you can only use the amount appropriate to defend yourself?

Did YOU see the bolded part? The one where is says:

to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself

Casey believed he was in real danger, and thus acted appropriately.

Appropriately is not dropping someone on their head once they've been restrained and you can call for a teacher.

 

[4173]

I don't really see much restraint. The bully had at least 1 arm, 2 legs loose and friends. The only time he looks restrained to me is when Casey lifted him. Surely you don't expect him to carry the squirming bully and use him as a shield until help arrives?

 

[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"

Not correct, at least not in the jurisdiction in which I live in. Appropriate levels of force basically means lethal versus non-lethal force. Casey responded to an unarmed attack (non-lethal) with an unarmed attack (also non-lethal). Yes, non-lethal attacks can kill, it happens. But it's still appropriate force use. And I'm even simplifying this too much here, you can use lethal force against non-lethal force if you really feel your life is in danger and you can't defend yourself any other way, such as when a woman is grabbed by a much larger man intent on raping her. She's allowed to shoot said man, even if he's not armed, because that may be all she's got.

As far as the threat being ended when Casey grabbed his tormentor, I'd say you were very wrong. I've been in fights before where I was grabbed, even lifted off the ground. I've managed to do a lot of damage in many of those cases. It's called infighting, and you can really hurts somebody that way, even if being held. Being grabbed does not end the fight. It just moves it to grappling versus stand off hitting. He grabbed the kid, for a moment the kid could not hit him... until the kid gets loose or his friends jump in. After dumping him on the ground, then and only then was the threat potentially neutralized. Personally, I would have done more, the other guy isn't safe until he can not attack any longer. I'm not going to grab him and wait to see what he does, I'm going to grab him and then hurt him until he can't hurt me any longer. That's what you do in a real fight, you fight to win. If the other guy gets hurt, well then I guess he shouldn't have started the fight to begin with.

And while you are right, you can't shoot somebody in the face after he/she slaps you, you sure can put them down forcefully. Somebody strikes you and you can't retreat safely (usually you can't), you have the absolute right to stop them. That can mean calling for help, it can also mean grabbing their hand and breaking a couple of fingers before smashing them into a wall. Appropriate use of force does not mean you have to use exactly the same methods. That would be a truly stupid interpretation of the law.

The kid lives in civilization, he's not in the wilderness here, once he was held down he had plenty of time to call for a teacher, this isn't fight club, the kid wasn't a blackbelt in martial arts out for blood, this was a school yard fight, and he had the kid pinned.

Also you're wrong about lethal vs non-lethal, it's not that simple, where do you live? Sealand? International waters? What you just described isn't the self defense law in any place I know of.

Here is the law for New York State:

1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:

See that bolded part? The part that says you can only use the amount appropriate to defend yourself?

Did YOU see the bolded part? The one where is says:

to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself

Casey believed he was in real danger, and thus acted appropriately.

Appropriately is not dropping someone on their head once they've been restrained and you can call for a teacher.

It doesn't matter what you think is appropriate. Because that's purely subjective.

In the link you posted, it states that you can react with what you believe is appropriate force. So, in the eyes of the law, Casey is entirely in the right. He was being assaulted, and he responded appropriately.

 

[G-Force]

Appropriately is not dropping someone on their head once they've been restrained and you can call for a teacher.

Have you ever stopped to think that these are kids we're talking about? Hell I don't even think Casey even knew self defense laws existed in the first place when he was attacked in the hall. Put yourself in Casey's shoes for a bit. The guy had been a victim of bullying for years and was always alone cause kids wouldn't even be his friend out of her. Hell he was even tied to a flagpole with duct tape. Then he meets this trio of kids who decide to escalate things by attacking him during a school day! While only one kid was hitting Casey there were two others nearby supporting his actions, one holding the camera and another laughing and egging the kid on while laughing at Casey's misfortune. According to Casey he was scared during the whole deal.

You hear that, scared. I'm sorry but when I'm scared and in danger I'm only thinking of how to get out of said danger and not about the law. Can you honestly think a young kid like him, while being punched and laughed at, who has had a long history of being bullied will stop and rationally think "I should simply restrain him and wait for help."

Could he have used a less dangerous move, sure, hindsight is 20/20. We can't think straights in such life threatening situations and many times it takes a massive amount of time to hone one's thinking so they can still remain calm in the most dire of predicaments.

I had a similar story as Casey in middle school where I had a group of bullies mess with me. I tried everything, asking them to stop, getting teachers to try to stop them, even tried to best them mentally. Then when the lead bully put me in a headache I just lost it. I didn't think of the law, being suspended or his safety all I wanted was to get this guy to stop hurting me. Out of pure instinct I scooped the bully up by his legs and slammed him onto the floor. No surprise I was suspended but when the school asked my classmates for testimony they ALL mentioned about me being bullied in addition that the same day the guy threatened me saying "one of these days you'll be lying in a pool of your own blood." It was only after the fight did the bullying stop and I could finally enjoy going to school.

So I'm sorry as someone who has been in Casey's shoes and did something similar to him I can honestly say that thinking of rational ways simply does not happen when bullies attack you.

 

[Hungry Donner]

So much win... I think suspension is fine, but 21 days a bit too long. He still did risk breaking the bully's neck and possibly killing him, but then, I think he's definitely awesome for making sure that nobody can shit on him anymore and get it noticed.

THE AUTHORITEH!

He was suspended for 4 days, the bully was the one suspended for 21.

 

[Ghaleon640]

Pile driving and all, I thought little Zangief was remarkably conservative in the fight. He tried avoiding confrontation at first, he didn't throw any fists, and most important he didn't continue punishing Gale once he was down and obviously defenseless. He didn't "snap," he handled his business and moved on. Good for him.

Oh yeah, it was respectable of him to just let him have it and move on. I can't say that if I was in his position I'd do the same. I mean, he doesn't yell at him, laugh at him, or even step on the kid's hat or anything. I mean, yes, he beat on someone smaller than him... WOOOOOOOOOO! GO CASEY! A prick is a prick is a prick. Sometimes a person has to learn the hard way, and I think that partially because society doesn't usually condone the hard way anymore that it resonates with us. Adults can't get into schoolyard fights, so when you run into a complete asshole at work, you can't do anything but take it... day in, day out.

 

[CD-R]

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 don't know what video you're watching but the bully's head didn't even touch the ground. Unless the kid has osteoporosis there's no way he could be seriously injured from a fall like that. And if he does he really shouldn't be picking fights with people.

 

[gurall200]

Everytime I watch that vid (well not the one linked in particular, apparently that is filed under hate speech strangely enough, I understand taking it down though), there slightly crunch sound when the bully hits the ground is so satisfying to hear....and I feel really guilty about that.

As someone who has dealt with pricks like that before, words cannot describe seeing someone do that for real, it's a shame that has to happen and really shouldn't, as pointed out before SEVERAL TIME OVER, violence is a last resort, but given there is very little anyone can do about it, it's hard to say the bullied kid had much of a option.

So Anonymous felt related to a fat kid being bullied, i wonder why.

there is root beer flowing out of my nose because of that statement lol

 

[AsianMafiaSin]

I hope Casey grows up knowing the world loves him for who he is and nothing can change that