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

[Aceraptor]

This just goes to show you how extreme the issue of bulling has gotten in recent years. It should be an outrage that he got let off without any kind of punishment. There are clearly other options when dealing with a bully, such as contact school administration, it is there for a reason!

You mean school administrations that do nothing but say that boys will be boys and other crap like that? Who are so afraid of getting sued that they do nothing and hide behind rules and codes of conduct? Whom will punish a teacher who stops bullies rather then deal with the bully problem? Read up on other bullying stories, most of them the school does NOTHING!

Also, who would the school value more? An average student/special needs/learning disability student or a star student whos an athlete? Think of that. The school would more likely tell the bullied kid to shut it and take the lumps since the bully is so much more valuable to the school.

Also, to those of you that keep bringing up the 11/12 stabs issue. The kid was NOT trained in fighting with a knife, he was NOT trained how to use a knife nor was he trained on how to stop a person rather then kill him with a knife. Consider the situation. He did not have the capability nor the chance to pause and take in the damage. He was in a stressful situation with adrenaline pumping, fight or flight instinct active. He did NOT have a big knife that takes time to pull out of whatever you stuck it into. Have someone else hit you (or some other activity to get your adrenaline pumping) and then use a small tableknife or some other small knife and stab something like a piece of meat or a pillow and see how long it takes to stab 12 times. If your adrenalines pumping you'd be able to do it in seconds.

I repeat, the kid was afraid, he was being chased, boxed in by this bully and his buddies, the bully had already started hitting him. He was NOT trained to take in and access the situation. So he struck back with the most potent tool he had.

 

[Stalydan]

Yeah, neither of them are right. The kid had a right to fight back against the bully but carrying a knife with the intent to use it as a deadly weapon? Even if the kid wasn't going to be convicted of manslaughter, he should have been convicted of possession of illegal weapons.

Bullying is an awful thing, this just furthers that fact and the consequences of it.

 

[Stalydan]

This just goes to show you how extreme the issue of bulling has gotten in recent years. It should be an outrage that he got let off without any kind of punishment. There are clearly other options when dealing with a bully, such as contact school administration, it is there for a reason!

How was he going to contact the school administrator when he was getting the shit kicked out of him on a public street?

Obviously murder is the answer.

Obviously ignorance of the law is your forte here. Self-defense isn't murder.

You can't stab someone 11 times in self-defence. Once, maybe twice. Not 11. No way.

A 15 year old kid died, no one can just walk away from that. And certinly not after 11 stab wounds.

http://media.naplesnews.com/media/static/20111230150108.pdf

Considering he was still alive enough to tell his friends to get the kid afterwards... Yeah you're just sticking to ignorance here. Yup, you can stab someone in self-defense 11 times because once or twice isn't necessarily enough to take someone down. You're just too busy making snap judgments to care about looking at reality.

Well the kid had stabbed him. I don't think anybody would be passive about that. Just going to quote myself here.

Yeah, neither of them are right. The kid had a right to fight back against the bully but carrying a knife with the intent to use it as a deadly weapon? Even if the kid wasn't going to be convicted of manslaughter, he should have been convicted of possession of illegal weapons.

Bullying is an awful thing, this just furthers that fact and the consequences of it.

 

[Thyunda]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I never heard any evidence he brought the knife specifically to defend himself, only that he presented it to friends. Also, I'm not gonna read through 22 pages after the first page told me there were gonna be three kinds of people in this thread.

The people who thought the kid was excessive in defending himself.
The people who think it's unfortunate, but the bully shouldn't have started a fight.
And the people living out revenge fantasies because they were picked on and think all bullies deserve to die

And then there's me. The fourth kind. The ones who can tell the difference between a trained fighter and a fifteen year old kid with a pen-knife. A trained fighter could have taken the bully down in three stabs. An untrained kid would be lucky to kill in less than twenty. I think you're forgetting that the bully did not die on the spot. He bled to death, meaning he was still perfectly conscious after the stabbing.

If you want to throw a kid in a God damned jail cell because he defended himself, then what hope have we for the future? When somebody attacks us, do we just throw our hands in the air and let it happen, because 'violence is wrong'?
No. We stand up for ourselves. Sometimes we don't know what we're doing and it goes wrong.
Context gives us the clues the article didn't directly state. Saavedra had been beaten up many times before. This time he has a knife. He got off the bus at an earlier stop. Evidently he shared a stop with the bully, and he beat him up every single time. So he showed his pen knife to his friends. He's a kid. That's what kids do. The bully still attacked him, and Saavedra genuinely feared for his life.

Just grow up. Please. It's not a 'revenge fantasy'. It's real life.

 

[Locke_Cole]

A lot of people are quick to point out that the defendant wasn't a trained assassin but a scared kid, and they forget the flipside of that. The bully wasn't some monster who ruined lives, it was also just some kid, probably a very insecure one at that too.

Bullies can and do ruin lives, psychological damage is no joke.

Bullies operate on intimidation and trying to psychologically wear you down. But they only have as much power over your mind as you let them. Bullies in the adult world? The ones in the office who threaten you, who hold power over you? They can ruin lives, destroy careers, etc. Kids? High school? The worst a bully can do then, without committing a full on felony, is humiliate. But again, that humiliation is entirely dependent on how much the victim lets it.

Most children do not have the mental fortitude that an adult has so comparing apples to oranges isn't a proper argument here. Also there is no real way to effectively dissuade a child bully as there is between adults. If an adult is beaten up you can charge the other adult with assault and there will be actual negative effects on the guilty party. How many children do you see getting charged with assault for bullying/beating up other kids? At best you're looking at detention which the bully will just shrug off anyway and if it's off school grounds, as this case was, you're SOL.

 

[Jezzy54]

I had a bullying problem all through high school, and honestly? I feel very little sympathy for the guy who got stabbed. I myself brought a knife to school for a time, but I couldn't bring myself to use it as a deterrent or threat or whatever. That said, the guy who hassled me didn't follow me on the way home to attack me.

 

[Ian Lutz]

This just goes to show you how extreme the issue of bulling has gotten in recent years. It should be an outrage that he got let off without any kind of punishment. There are clearly other options when dealing with a bully, such as contact school administration, it is there for a reason!

You mean school administrations that do nothing but say that boys will be boys and other crap like that? Who are so afraid of getting sued that they do nothing and hide behind rules and codes of conduct? Whom will punish a teacher who stops bullies rather then deal with the bully problem? Read up on other bullying stories, most of them the school does NOTHING!

Also, who would the school value more? An average student/special needs/learning disability student or a star student whos an athlete? Think of that. The school would more likely tell the bullied kid to shut it and take the lumps since the bully is so much more valuable to the school.

Also, to those of you that keep bringing up the 11/12 stabs issue. The kid was NOT trained in fighting with a knife, he was NOT trained how to use a knife nor was he trained on how to stop a person rather then kill him with a knife. Consider the situation. He did not have the capability nor the chance to pause and take in the damage. He was in a stressful situation with adrenaline pumping, fight or flight instinct active. He did NOT have a big knife that takes time to pull out of whatever you stuck it into. Have someone else hit you (or some other activity to get your adrenaline pumping) and then use a small tableknife or some other small knife and stab something like a piece of meat or a pillow and see how long it takes to stab 12 times. If your adrenalines pumping you'd be able to do it in seconds.

I repeat, the kid was afraid, he was being chased, boxed in by this bully and his buddies, the bully had already started hitting him. He was NOT trained to take in and access the situation. So he struck back with the most potent tool he had.

Hold on a moment, Nothing in the news story told us anything about either kid's social standing or events prior to the incident. I admit that I did not fully understand the story before and originally thought that this was a retaliation started by the bullied kid against the bully. That said, I still hold on to the opinion that getting the school administration involved would have been a better option. The kid acknowledge that he knew that there would be a fight prior to being chased, so unless this altercation happened on the school bus, I see no reason for administrators not to be informed. I can now see the case for self-defense and if the kid did show the bully the knife before the confrontation that was an ill-decision on the bully's part.

 

[Treblaine]

So how well do you know this case, how well do you known Italian law and how well do you understand modernday Napelian culture? So now think again about arguing with an Italian judge about an italian case.

This is Naples, Florida.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naples_florida

Like Paris, Texas.

It's in the United States of America. OK, Florida, but it still counts.

 

[Ian Lutz]

This just goes to show you how extreme the issue of bulling has gotten in recent years. It should be an outrage that he got let off without any kind of punishment. There are clearly other options when dealing with a bully, such as contact school administration, it is there for a reason!

How was he going to contact the school administrator when he was getting the shit kicked out of him on a public street?

The story isn't exactly clear whether or not the kid knew the fight would happen before he got on the bus. I think it is possible since he did have a knife on him, but it could have just been a keepsake. Had he known he could have informed school officials that there would be a fight. Still even if the fight was planed on the bus, it is clear that this kid had been bullied prior to this, which if reported could have prevented the incident. Had he took this step and had it not worked I'd be able to understand why these event took place better.

 

[Treblaine]

"Force must be met with force, even deadly force."

No. No it doesn't. There's always a way out. There's always an escape.

No there isn't. How can you say there is always a way to escape? This kid tried to avoid the abuse but they chased him down.

And I'm sorry but you speak in breathlessly naive term, as if a woman being attacked by a rapist supposed to just "deal with it" rather than fight back with lethal force? Submit at all costs? What about the other day the story on these forums of that woman cowing in her bedroom with her newborn baby as men with knives try to break in? She shot them.

Escape doesn't always mean running away or submitting.

I would've agreed with the sentiment deadly force must be met with deadly force. People invading a person's home armed is another matter entirely. And in defending against a rapist, I would incline that his life is certainly not a priority either. But these weren't rapists or terrorists or even armed thugs. These were just bullies.

A lot of people are quick to point out that the defendant wasn't a trained assassin but a scared kid, and they forget the flipside of that. The bully wasn't some monster who ruined lives, it was also just some kid, probably a very insecure one at that too.

OK, so if they shouldn't Run-Away, Submit or Resist... what else could you do that doesn't fit into any of those categories?

Jorge tried to avoid escalating the situation, but the bullies were dead set on their course of action and it was his very nerdy and meek nature that they despised.

And to fight back against any assailant you need literally overwhelming force, you can't just put up a show and hurt them a bit, that'll only piss them off and defeat the purpose of fighting back.

Self Defence importantly does not judge the assailant's character, but solely his actions. You (like so many) seem to view self-defence as a citizen's right for summary executions THAT IS MOST DEFINITELY NOT THE CASE! For you to bring up whether the bully is a monster, saint, madman or whatever is a judgement factor totally irrelevant to self-defence. An insecure kid can still ruin lives with his fists whether they mean to or not, whether they are mentally insane or whatever.

You have to also understand the phrase "justified lethal force" does not mean "right to kill" it means "right to use as much force, even if it might kill them" (killing is not the goal) and it is qualified that it is only for a certain extent, in this case preventing criminal harm being caused. This Dylan had several friends jeering him on clearly looking for an excuse to join in, that's multiple larger and more muscular people bearing down.

The court documents clearly state that Jorge stabbed only as long as the punches continued and when the bully broke off he still ordered his confederates to "get him".

This all seems very reasonable. Done with reason.

 

[Baralak]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I never heard any evidence he brought the knife specifically to defend himself, only that he presented it to friends. Also, I'm not gonna read through 22 pages after the first page told me there were gonna be three kinds of people in this thread.

The people who thought the kid was excessive in defending himself.
The people who think it's unfortunate, but the bully shouldn't have started a fight.
And the people living out revenge fantasies because they were picked on and think all bullies deserve to die

And then there's me. The fourth kind. The ones who can tell the difference between a trained fighter and a fifteen year old kid with a pen-knife. A trained fighter could have taken the bully down in three stabs. An untrained kid would be lucky to kill in less than twenty. I think you're forgetting that the bully did not die on the spot. He bled to death, meaning he was still perfectly conscious after the stabbing.

If you want to throw a kid in a God damned jail cell because he defended himself, then what hope have we for the future? When somebody attacks us, do we just throw our hands in the air and let it happen, because 'violence is wrong'?
No. We stand up for ourselves. Sometimes we don't know what we're doing and it goes wrong.
Context gives us the clues the article didn't directly state. Saavedra had been beaten up many times before. This time he has a knife. He got off the bus at an earlier stop. Evidently he shared a stop with the bully, and he beat him up every single time. So he showed his pen knife to his friends. He's a kid. That's what kids do. The bully still attacked him, and Saavedra genuinely feared for his life.

Just grow up. Please. It's not a 'revenge fantasy'. It's real life.

I have to say, I agree whole heartedly. I was bullied very badly as a kid, to the point where they once chased me into my own home. You pretty much said what I would have. Although I somewhat laugh about my bullying now, because after that incident, my mom finally called the cops, and the ACLU, sueing both the bully and the school system itself for not intervening. The boy actually said that I, a scrawny 12 year old, would run up and start fights with him, with his friends around. He was a big boy, too. Judge looked at me, then looked at him, and said "You're saying this little boy would run up to you, with your friends around, and attack you? You're lying."

Little sister actually started getting bullied recently, and she's 14. Past day or so, she's been talking personally with school staff, and doing legal research for her case if she has to sue again, all while telling my sister that she has every right to fight back and defend herself. I love my mom.

 

[Thyunda]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I never heard any evidence he brought the knife specifically to defend himself, only that he presented it to friends. Also, I'm not gonna read through 22 pages after the first page told me there were gonna be three kinds of people in this thread.

The people who thought the kid was excessive in defending himself.
The people who think it's unfortunate, but the bully shouldn't have started a fight.
And the people living out revenge fantasies because they were picked on and think all bullies deserve to die

And then there's me. The fourth kind. The ones who can tell the difference between a trained fighter and a fifteen year old kid with a pen-knife. A trained fighter could have taken the bully down in three stabs. An untrained kid would be lucky to kill in less than twenty. I think you're forgetting that the bully did not die on the spot. He bled to death, meaning he was still perfectly conscious after the stabbing.

If you want to throw a kid in a God damned jail cell because he defended himself, then what hope have we for the future? When somebody attacks us, do we just throw our hands in the air and let it happen, because 'violence is wrong'?
No. We stand up for ourselves. Sometimes we don't know what we're doing and it goes wrong.
Context gives us the clues the article didn't directly state. Saavedra had been beaten up many times before. This time he has a knife. He got off the bus at an earlier stop. Evidently he shared a stop with the bully, and he beat him up every single time. So he showed his pen knife to his friends. He's a kid. That's what kids do. The bully still attacked him, and Saavedra genuinely feared for his life.

Just grow up. Please. It's not a 'revenge fantasy'. It's real life.

I have to say, I agree whole heartedly. I was bullied very badly as a kid, to the point where they once chased me into my own home. You pretty much said what I would have. Although I somewhat laugh about my bullying now, because after that incident, my mom finally called the cops, and the ACLU, sueing both the bully and the school system itself for not intervening. The boy actually said that I, a scrawny 12 year old, would run up and start fights with him, with his friends around. He was a big boy, too. Judge looked at me, then looked at him, and said "You're saying this little boy would run up to you, with your friends around, and attack you? You're lying."

Little sister actually started getting bullied recently, and she's 14. Past day or so, she's been talking personally with school staff, and doing legal research for her case if she has to sue again, all while telling my sister that she has every right to fight back and defend herself. I love my mom.

I didn't want to mention in my original reply because I didn't want to scuttle my argument with 'revenge fantasy', but I spent my whole school life getting beaten up by varying bullies. They never found out where I lived - never let them. Was concerned that I'd get a brick through the window one night. Glaswegian father ensured that people didn't come anywhere near me when I was out with family, so I was safe in that respect.
Only problem was, there was no defence at school. They always got me when nobody was around. So I persuaded a teacher to let me and a friend go for lunch early, or go home early. I only needed it for the one lesson when they kept battering me before I could get home...but hey, early lunch means freakin' oatcakes.

And upon finding this out, the bully dumbly asked,
"Have you said we've been bullying you....?"

I replied, none too sarcastically,
"Not at all. Told them we're the best of friends and it was stopping me getting home on time because I was always caught up in enthralling conversation and cuddles with the lot of you."

Cue the stupidest question of all time.
"Are you taking the piss?"

Needless to say, that 'get out of class early' card came in handy.


EDIT: Also, this has to be said. What kind of bullshit argument is 'The bully is as insecure as the victim is scared'?! I don't give a flying fuck if your rottweiler has recently been neutered, if it doesn't remove its jaws from my leg, I'm GOING TO HIT IT WITH A SHOVEL. There are more pressing matters here than your dog's missing testicles! A bully being insecure doesn't mean we should give them any fucking leeway!

 

[RedDeadFred]

And here I thought this was happening in Italy (in which case my reaction would be 'Meh, southern Italy...'). Seriously, Americans, can't you think of your own names for cities!?

Haha I thought the same thing until I saw Florida law.

 

[Rottweiler]

Obviously murder is the answer.

Obviously you haven't the slightest idea what the legal definition of 'murder' is and less than no idea of the situation to use it correctly.

Wasn't murder. Don't care if you want to label any human death 'murder' to make yourself feel superior. Factually not the case and you saying it means you refuse to even *try* to understand the case and instead label it incorrectly in cheap, short-sentence pronouncements with nothing to back it.

 

[SIXVI06-M]

Moral of the story: "Don't be a dick".

Sometimes, people just want hell to stop. And when you run out of cheeks to 'take it', you know that whoever's doing it is simply abusing your cheek-turning quota. That bully's friends and general public is possibly lucky Jorge didn't bring a gun instead - goodness knows how much collateral damage 11 bullets could do.

 

[SIXVI06-M]

This just goes to show you how extreme the issue of bulling has gotten in recent years. It should be an outrage that he got let off without any kind of punishment. There are clearly other options when dealing with a bully, such as contact school administration, it is there for a reason!

How was he going to contact the school administrator when he was getting the shit kicked out of him on a public street?

Obviously murder is the answer.

Obviously ignorance of the law is your forte here. Self-defense isn't murder.

You can't stab someone 11 times in self-defence. Once, maybe twice. Not 11. No way.

A 15 year old kid died, no one can just walk away from that. And certinly not after 11 stab wounds.

Nope, I'd stab someone 11 times or more in self defense, especially if I didn't know what I was doing and person I'm defending myself from is flailing around making angry or hysterical noises. That and given a campaign of terror put against me over a decent amount of time and put up against all the bullies friends surrounding me? nah- I'd lose my shit.

Who knows, maybe after the kid killed the bully, he found peace and justice, or maybe he's tormented for life knowing he has the blood of the bully on his hands coz maybe the kid should have just continued to take it because being bullied is simply not worth stopping.

I maintain that people- like bullies- really need to stop making people try to seek peace and justice through self-defense. If you want some kid to lose their shit at you and kill you because you're a dick, well- not only did you deserve it, it's probably the most hilariously pitiful ways to end your own life. I just love what it says "I died because I was a dick". Best epitaph ever.

 

[Zakarrum]

There is also a stigma associated with being a snitch. If he knew there was a fight and told the administrators or police word would have gotten out that he was a snitch and a coward and even more bullying and ostracizing would occur that may or may not lead to more violence. Just a thought for those pondering why he did not contact some authority figure if he knew about the fight before hand.