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

[Burninator]

This guy's in the clear. He got punched in the head and had good reason to believe worse would happen. Stabbing him repeatedly went beyond his immediate need for self-defense, but that is acceptable in situations of great fear or confusion.

The fact that he thought to bring the knife and maybe even expected the confrontation does indicate that he could have taken means to avoid the fight, but ultimately, he has no legal obligation to take these measures, and tried to take them anyway! He didn't provoke an attack, and when the attack did happen, he defended it in a way that didn't go beyond the permissible. He didn't have to bring a knife, no. But if he's legally allowed to carry it, then there's no problem. He's allowed to carry the means to defend himself with him, particularly if he considers it necessary to defend himself. People mention that he could have used, say, a baseball bat instead, but he didn't have a bat on hand. At the moment of the attack, he just had a knife. He could have brought a bat along, in expectation of a fight, but he had no legal obligation to make sure that he has a non-lethal method of self-defense on hand, even when he's expecting that he might need to defend himself. Besides, a baseball bat can be pretty lethal too.

Mind you. This is all assuming that the guy actually went beyond his immediate need for self-defense out of fear. If it was premeditated, then everything between the first 2 or 3 stabs no longer falls under self-defense, in which case murder is a possiblitiy.

But apparently the judge believed the he wanted to avoid the confrontation and wanted to prevent anyone from getting hurt. Probably because that is pretty much what his behavior shows.

Anyway, the legislature that allows this is really based on the idea that a law-abiding citizen can defend their own rights from being infringed upon by the necessary means. That's a principle upheld in quite a lot of western countries. This situation falls smack-dab in the middle of that.

 

[KeyMaster45]

I say good on the kid, one less asshole that makes it to adulthood. I bet no one fucks with that kid ever again. I have zero pity or sympathy for that bully. He made it his personal mission to break some poor kid and got exactly that.

I'm glad the kid is walking away without so much as a blemish on his record. Bullies deserve no protection from the law and deserve no justice. They're just festering scum that go on to breed more festering scum.

 

[Lenvoran]

Honestly, this sort of situation isn't really about morality. It's about the motivation behind each party.

If I were genuinely concerned for my safety, I would bring and make it known that I had a potentially lethal weapon to ward off those who might harm me. If they continued to pursue in a group of even just two or three,though I get the impression this was more like four or five, I would definitely feel my life and well being were in danger. I'd use the knife.

My motivation wouldn't be to murder someone, it'd be to keep myself safe. If that means that the bully ended up dead, yeah I'd feel bad that I'd killed someone, but I wouldn't feel that I took the wrong course of action.

I've been bullied before, but not to the point of feeling like I was in potentially mortal danger. The only time I've been in a situation where such an emotion would've been even remotely conceivable was when there were some boys bullying my younger sister. I barely even remember the majority of the fight. I remember seeing them hurting her, starting my attack, and then them running away.

So yeah. I can buy that in an elevated emotional state that the kid would A) bring a method to defend himself (especially if it was a group of bullies) and B) using it when he was clearly afraid of his well-being.

It is a tragic situation, yes, but the bully and his group were definitely in the wrong and the kid should be allowed to defend himself. He left the bus early specifically to avoid the conflict and they pursued.

That, to me, means that he shouldn't be punished for what he did to protect himself. Should he get therapy? Hell yes. He probably feels awful for both the situation he was in and the fact that he killed someone. But I don't really consider therapy a punishment, so... Eh.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

It's a continuing of a sad US tradition where murder is approved of. Like the case of that paranoid jogger who carried a firearm with the intention of committing murder. One day two sixteen year old children walk up and demand money from him. Instead of saying no, he murders one of them. The judge also acquitted him; "Good job dear jogger, you murdered a child. Clearly this is what society needs more".

Are you talking about this [http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/jogger-wont-be-charged-in-fatal-town-n-country-shooting/1144768] case? Because you've NEED to check your facts there, skippy. You've really twisted the story to the point where I'm going to have to outright accuse you of lying.

Baker told detectives Mustelier punched him in the face.

On their way, they passed Baker. Mustelier told the friend he planned to rob Baker, according to the Sheriff's Office report.

After going to the store, they passed Baker again, and Mustelier said, "I'm gonna knock him out," according to the report.

That's when Mustelier lunged at Baker, swinging his fists, the report states.

The 16-year-old told detectives that Baker responded, "You wanna play games? You wanna play games?"

Baker said he was punched in the face. His lip was cut and his vision blurred, he told detectives.

Learn to fact check. Thanks, and have a sunshine filled day.

Oh, and fun fact: This took place late at night. Not "Some day". While not an outright deception, it misses the fact that it's not out when you can see well.

EDIT: Oh, and how is your quest for world peace going your Holyness? I hope you can give us an update soon?

 

[Isalan]

The lesson here is "Don't bully people, cos one day you might bully someone who's mental and has a knife."

OT: Senseless loss of life no longer effects me anymore. So.... good on the kid, I guess?

 

[magter3001]

I was surprised that the stabbed was also white. Can't believe the judge actually let the kid go.

 

[Edible Avatar]

Brodie based her decision this week on the findings from a two-day December hearing, during which students who witnessed the events Jan. 24, 2011, testified that several teens announced the fight on the bus, and Saavedra got off several stops early in Golden Gate Estates. Saavedra showed a pocket knife to two teens on the bus that afternoon.

In a nine-page document released Tuesday by the State Attorney's Office, Brodie stated that by getting off the bus several stops before the location where the fight was to happen, Saavedra "demonstrated that, with or without a knife, (he) had no desire to fight with Dylan Nuno."

Accompanied by several students, Dylan Nuno, a junior, followed Saavedra, a freshman, off the bus. He then punched him in the back of the head, according to court documents and testimony.

Saavedra attempted to get away once, witnesses said. He then stabbed Dylan Nuno 12 times in the chest and abdomen

he brought along a knife with the explicit and only motive of committing murder upon that bully. It was pre-meditated.

Then why did he get off the bus to avoid the fight? Why did he try to run away?
....

Spoiler

 

[willis888]

*edit*

 

[Marcus Kehoe]

Ok lets take away the fact this is a school setting. The kid knew his life was potentially in danger and knowingly tried to avoid the danger. But the attacker chased him and delivered a punch to the back of the head which is dangerous and potentially lethal. The kid again tried to flee but was again attacked in which he defended himself with what he had on him.

The amount of stab wounds is situationional and could have been due to many different reasons, but they were still in self defense. He didn't break the law, but the attacker did and he payed the price. The fact that their kids only adds to the situation of unknowing of how to handle the situation.

 

[joe-h2o]

quote fail, I was pointing out the same thing.

Whoops, my bad.

Sorry about that.

[sub]*quietly leaves*[/sub]

That quote was originally mine, and it was very obviously facetious. It seems it was a little too obtuse for some people, but I did point it out in the thread a little further down.

 

[ImperialSunlight]

A 16 year old who beats upon another person in contempt in order to gain a disgusting, twisted feeling of superiority

It's interesting how you have this magical insight into the "bully"'s emotional state and reasoning.

Well, that's how most people see the motivation of bullies. I don't really see how there could be any better reason for what they do.

...shouldn't be handled any differently than an adult who does so.

there seems to be a big discrepancy between the leeway given to each kid by many posters:


"one kid has issues(unknown to us) which lead him to bully/beat-up another, therefor he has a lethal stabbing coming to him"

and

"one kid had issues(getting bullied) which lead him to STAB SOMEONE TO DEATH, therefor he was just protecting himself"

If we look at bullying as justifiable by unknown issues, we are forced to do the same for all crimes, including simple murder. All murderers murder someone for some reason, so I suppose all murder is justified? This line of thinking leads nowhere good. The specific "issues" are what matter. If a person was brought up badly and became a bully as a result, they are still a bully. If someone commits a crime because of severe psychological stress caused by the victim, they shouldn't be punished because they were not in a logical enough state of mind in order to escape the situation through other means and because the victim provoked the attack.

 

[Nielas]

Yes, carrying a weapon with the sole intent of committing murder upon someone is always wrong. Self-defense with weapons is a myth anyway, all it does is increase the amount of violence. Like I said: I don't subscribe to the American idea that it is alright to commit murder upon anyone who might wrong you.

The way I see it the bully was carrying his fists as a weapon with the sole intent of attempting to kill the kid. You start punching people in the back of the head, you probably do not care if you kill them that way.

If someone attacks me with potentially lethal violence, I will try to fight back even if I have to kill the attacker. If someone threatens me with potentially lethal violence, I will arm myself to the best of my abilities so I can defend myself when attacked.

I simply do not believe in allowing another person to kill me without fighting back.

 

[Rottweiler]

"Something which would've been preferable in this case. One or two stabs and someone's child would still have been alive at this point. It would've been wrong as well, but at least get a point across without someone dying."


You have no basis for self-defense being wrong, and you vastly overestimate- or have an insanely high standard- for how calm under assault a child should be. Being relentlessly stalked by a group who intends to do you bodily harm, you've tried to escape, the group is loudly announcing their intention to harm you...and when it happens, of course the child should very calmly and methodically do *everything in their power to protect the attacker*.

Stupid.


"Ussually the more methodical violence gets, the lesser the overall damage. How do you think it comes that security guards, doormen and policemen who deal with violence on a professional basis all get trained in fighting techniques? Because it allows them to minimise the violence."

Sadly, not something universally given to bullied kids in our schools. So why are you bringing this up?


"If some idiot pulls a knife at work at monday, I could for instance choose to deliver a crippling kick on his liver that would incapitate him for minutes, totally safe. He'd hate his life for some five minutes while I called the police, but after that everybody would go home alright.
Compare that to the 'American alternative' of me using a weapon to commit murder on that person, or go at him flailing my arms, hoping I'd hit something before he stabs me."

What country are you from that *everyone* has the 'Non-American Alternative' of knowing how to place a crippling liver kick without causing permanent harm and without being hurt yourself?

What's the 'African Alternative', use an AK-47? I mean, if you're going to make baseless statements, why stop there?


"Providing it's actually agression of the sort worth worrying about and if words don't work of course. I've already had someone pull a knife in a fight between clients, and I talked him out of it and into putting it away without even raising a fist. If it's frustration-agression, let them wave their weapons as much as they want. If you don't kick them even further out of their tree, nothing will go wrong."

You are making an argument that Saavedra is a murderer based on *your own* level of training, maturity, and experience? What? A high school freshman can be judged by comparing him to a trained, physically capable experienced adult?


"Kids at that age don't even have the power to actually injure eachother with bare hands."

...what? Okay now I have to tear you down completely for that statement. Have you *any* idea how many children have indeed been beaten to death or to permanent injury by other children? You want me to, I'll utterly destroy that statement with the plethora of police reports and news reports that not only contradict you but show you have no idea what you're speaking of to make such a statement.

" And if they do, that's what you have a police force for: to ensure the perpetrator wishes they hadn't by the time they hear their sentence."

So they can't..."and if they do". Which is it?



"Yes, carrying a weapon with the sole intent of committing murder upon someone is always wrong."

Doesn't apply to this case. At no time was Saavedra shown to, or claimed to, intend to Kill. So how do you base your murder claim? You don't have a legal leg to stand on.

And for the record:

Self-defense

Acting in self-defense or in defense of another person is generally accepted as legal justification for killing a person in situations that would otherwise have been murder. However, a self-defense killing might be considered manslaughter if the killer established control of the situation before the killing took place. In the case of self-defense it is called a "justifiable homicide".[22] A killing simply to prevent the theft of one's property may not be a justifiable homicide, depending on the laws of a place.


" Self-defense with weapons is a myth anyway, all it does is increase the amount of violence. Like I said: I don't subscribe to the American idea that it is alright to commit murder upon anyone who might wrong you."

And I don't subscribe to your smug assumption that 'murder' is when someone else dies at the hands of another human being. That statement is legally unsupportable and shows you truly aren't interested in facts, but in your own biased opion.

And I'd like to see your supporting evidence of 'self defense with weapons' being a myth. Seems to have worked historically in any number of situations, up to an including several world wars, where people defended themselves with weapons rather effectively.


"As demonstrated in this case. Instead of a few bruises, there's now a funeral. A funeral of a child."

How do you know? Tell every one of us how you know *anything* about the situation to make such a smug, conceited statement like that. Did you have some statement from the assailants where they promised only to bruise Saavedra? Hm? Or do you just 'know' somehow like you 'know' about other situations you've ignorantly made pronouncements about in this thread?


"At the very least the murderer should be given some kind of sentence which involves having him learn of the consequences of his act, or he might not regret murdering someone at all. This acquital signals him and others that it's okay to commit murder upon people who might want to have a swing at you. Like there isn't enough violence in the US already..."

Learn the *actual* definition of Murder, sir. It doesn't mean what you think it means and that's throwing your entire discussion out the window.

"It's a continuing of a sad US tradition where murder is approved of. Like the case of that paranoid jogger who carried a firearm with the intention of committing murder."

And you know that person had the intention of murder because...

because...

Oh wait. You *don't*.


"One day two sixteen year old children walk up and demand money from him. Instead of saying no, he murders one of them. The judge also acquitted him; "Good job dear jogger, you murdered a child. Clearly this is what society needs more"

And if those two 'children' had murdered the jogger and taken his money...where would you have been? Hm? Sitting behind your smug wall of superiority nodding and saying 'well that jogger is dead, but at least those two 16 year old criminals are okay.'

You truly need to get off the idea that 'murder' is automatically the definition of any instance where a person kills another person. That is *not* the correct definition in almost any court of Law nor is it something I agree with. Basing your accusatory and ultimately baseless conclusions on this is simply your own bias being used to judge entire countries based on *your* beliefs instead of the rule of law and common sense.

 

[nathan-dts]

I have mixed emotions on this story.

Firstly i believe that the kid had a right to defend himself, every kid does, but was stabbing him 11 times necessary. I'm sure once would have been enough.

Second, why a knife, couldn't he have just battered him for a bit with a bat or something? It doesn't make sense why he would carry a knife as stab as many times as he did.

Should he get away with it? No, but he shouldn't be prosecuted as a murderer, maybe given a less harsh punishment. Seems only fair.

Bats are impractical, knives are small and can easily be carried, obvious really. As for the number of times he stabbed him I would like to pose the question, have you ever been in a fight? Adrenaline can do strange things.

 

[stinkyrobot]

This reminds me of the outsiders when Johny stabbed the sock

 

[RonHiler]

Self defense is the correct ruling. The judge got it right.

The kid did his best to avoid the conflict (got off the bus early). He was followed and attacked (punched in the back of the head). At that point, he has a right to defend himself. If he feels he is in mortal danger or in danger of great bodily harm, he has the right to defend himself with lethal force. Who's to say if he hadn't defended himself he wouldn't be dead or hospitalized right now? He did what he had to do to protect himself. Simple as that.

What happened was unfortunate, no doubt about it. I'm sure the family of the bully is devastated, and I feel for them. But perhaps they need to reflect a bit on WHY their son was a bully, was there a parenting problem? Does something in that family need to be fixed to ensure any other children they might have aren't going down the same path? In my experience, bullies are created in the home, generally as a result of poor parenting skills and/or a bad environment.

What happened was in fact, his (the bully's) own fault. It is sad, to be sure, but not as sad as it would have been had the bullied kid been the one to end up dead.

 

[ToxicOranges]

As much as I applaud standing up to a bully, I don't think stabbing them is the best course of action...

Frankly, I think this guy got away by the skin of his teeth. Another judge might just as easily have said that 11 stab wounds is outside of what constitutes self-defence. I also find it weird, being ignorant of weapons laws in the USA, that he wasn't even charged with carrying an offensive weapon. Over here, he would have got up to 5 years just for having the knife on him!

But - what a scummy coward (the bully). Who the hell starts a fight with a punch to the BACK of the head? Ultimatly, he got his come-uppance. And its one less bit of total scum the world has to deal with.

 

[Sentox6]

We do not tolerate bullying

To be fair, your viewpoints do make more sense if this is how you believe the world actually works.

As you say, the above story is a perfect example. Clearly the police force and the courts were not particularly helpful to this kid.

Still, if I'm ever in a situation where someone physically assaults me, I'll be sure to ask them very nicely to wait while I call the police.

Oh yes. Just the other day, a friend was telling me about how bank lobbyists put a stop to anti-bullying campaigns. Its obviously in their best interests to keep bullying alive. (Sarcasm, in case you are not enlightened enough to tell.)

Your sparkling wit astounds me.

You're missing the more fundamental point. I'd genuinely like to know how you ascertained the true majority viewpoint. I'm certainly not privy to the collective consciousness of my country's population. I'm just pointing out that you can't assume that a Western democracy reflects the desires of the majority. Irrespective of my viewpoints or yours, this is obviously an incredibly naive political analysis.

So I repeat: how do you know the viewpoint of the majority? I doubt they agree with me (far too many bleeding hearts for that), but you seem to be suggesting that someone who was repeatedly bullied and ended up killing his tormenter in an emotionally charged and confrontational situation should be charged as a murderer. Do you really think everyone would agree with this?

 

[SideSmash]

So this is what happens when someone takes a stand. Personally, I've always followed the "make him suffer immensely but don't kill him" rule, so maybe the kid was pushed to the brink.

But still, if that bully was so damn horrible, I couldn't tell you what I'D do.