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

[KiKiweaky]

Indeed. I have been bullied, and I am ashamed to say that I bullied others, but no one ever intervened properly.

I think it comes down to the better him/her than me. I remember reading before if you have a group of friends in school and are ignored by pretty much everyone else your doing well, sad to say but I think its kind of true for some people.

If only the person being bullied hadnt used a weapon to defend himself, we'd most likely not have a thread like this

 

[Asmundr]

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.

Knives are usually easier to get a hold of and conceal. When people start harassing you it's hard to control you rage which is why I believe the guy ended up stabbing the bully 11 times. I agree with the judge's ruling by the way, he might have had a choice but honestly, prosecuting a teenager that is clearly mentally disturbed from years of being bullied on the counts of manslaughter is not the right thing to do.

Ok, yeah, pushed to the limit is totally understandable, similar to that Australian kid, but rage making him stab 11 times is still pushing it a little. I agree with you that he shouldn't be prosecuted, but the whole stabbing thing was not needed, once or twice, yeah ok, but not that many stabs, even while enraged.

Most folks don't know how much it takes to kill a person. That, combined with large amounts of anger can make one go berserk in a fight.

 

[zentario]

The kid's a total criminal mastermind. Murdering the bully and getting away with it by calling it self defense because this pre-teen knows the ins and outs of the justice system like the back of his hand. It only took a few years of planning but it was masterfully pulled off.

Thank you for reasoning with people who are obviously trolling.
There is no point defending this offensive, criminal idiot. You can argue that the 11y should have asked someone for help, but I guess they will create that environment now where you can feel safe. Simple people like to learn from harsh experiences - so it seems.

In a friends town in rural Canada, they had a gang of four kids who liked to burn cats and harass everybody, stealing, et. al. The overworked parents didn't do squat. One night, two broke of them into a girls sleepover (about 8 girls between 10 and 12) and created quite aggressive havok, tried to get them undressed etc. Police was called, but minutes away.

The two older girls who where there to watch everything got so scared that the let loose a german shepherd, and the dog bit the one boy so hard and so violently, that they had to cut his hand not to lose the rest of the arm.

The father of the boy sued for 100s of reasons. It was quite a stir locally. They managed to get the dog to be put down, even it was in obvious self defense to a break in, by some law trickery. At the end nothing really happened. The boy without the hand moved away. New idiots roam the streets there. Everybody got dogs now, because its like having a knife or gun.

My friends two boys who live there have phones with good cameras. There is no joking around with anything. By the slightest nuance, a photo/video is made and then send to the police.

Its quite sad that even the rural western world has come to that. Other countries with angry young men start revolutions. "We" just troll around and start making people uncomfortable out of institutionalized boringness.

 

[Rottweiler]

The justice system can eat a dick for all I care about. It's because of the justice system women can murder their boyfriends/husbands and call it BWS and hide it behind nonsense like the Duluth model.

So, basically, you aren't basing your statements on anything factual, just your own opinion and nothing more. Thank you, that clears up where you stand.

This is another slip up like so many others, and seriously, I couldn't 2 flying shits about your 'bad ass' lifestyle.

Yes indeed, my 'bad ass' lifestyle. I mean, sure, I was a peace officer and was stabbed in the line of duty, but clearly I'm bragging about some kind of 'bad ass lifestyle' by mentioning that I've been stabbed. Wow, you're an idiot.

I also hope this Jorge kid gets hunted down and gets the absolute shit beaten out of him.

You mean like the bully tried to do that day? You mean, the *reason* Saavedra had a knife and the reason he used it? Because he'd been hunted down and had the absolute shit beaten out of him *before*?

What a fucking wimpy ****. If you're gonna go stab people in self defense, THEN FUCKING DO IT RIGHT! A bit of a trolley thing to say, I just can't stand teenagers and their idiotic problems.

Well, I'm glad someone stepped up to the plate and covered this opinion so no one else had to.

 

[Zorg Machine]

I think that it was good that he stepped up to his bully but...12 times? holy shit. That is way past self defense.

The kid is a murderer. He didn't try to scare the bully away, he didn't try to wound the bully and run away. He didn't call the cops or parents from the bus (apparently he had reason to believe that he would die so if he or anybody else on the bus had a cell phone he should have) instead he stabbed a boy a dozen times in the chest, and twice in the heart.

Do you really think calling the cops or his parents would've actually achieved anything? Like the cops were going to be at the bus in a jiffy, or his parents would've been able to do anything remotely, not to mention how much more shit he would've taken for calling the po-po or his folks.

And how do exactly do you think he would've been able to "scare off" the bully? By making veiled threats? Showing a pocketknife? Please, get real.

As far as the multiple stabs, when someone comes up and punches you in the head, your first thought probably isn't going to be hey, lemme just nick him with this here knife. You're pissed, you're scared, and all you want is it for it to end.

There's some arguments that could easily be made against the guy doing the stabbing, sure. But yours? Think about it logically first, please.

...no. If I am in danger (and outnumbered) I get help. If someone punches me I will do the same back and if they are a lot stronger I might pull a knife and try to stab him but after stabbing I would get horrified because of blood and such. I would not react by stabbing them another ten times in the chest...maybe another one or two time but a dozen? There is a fine line between unfortunately necessary defense and sociopathic murder.

 

[G-Force]

While I do respect that you dont let a bully fuck with you, this is premeditated murder based on what the article reads as.

First off, he was carrying a deadly weapon into school which is a massive mistake in this day and age of school shootings and any kid going to school know what risks they run by carrying a weapon into school.

Secondly it seems pretty logical that this happened on a school bus route because concealing a weapon would be infinitely easier on a school bus than going into many schools nowadays with metal detectors at the entrances.

Third, the kid was purposely trying to kill the bully. Even if he was being attacked, he knew he had a weapon and could respond at any time and he knew his opponent did not. If he wanted to get the bully to stop a gash on a hand, arm, leg, or non lethal cut would have been sufficient, but he focused on the chest to do massive damage he nicked the other kids heart which you cannot do unless your specifically going for a kill shot.

So I call bullshit. For one the judge seemingly likely had their own bias, and secondly minors are not typically held to the same laws that adults are, so trying to apply the stand your ground ruling to a minor is completely inappropriate, especially considering the kid was bullied, he wasnt in life or death danger, and during the fight it doesnt stand because he was armed and his opponent was not and if he tried to avoid the fight he knew that before the first slash.

Basically what we see here is someone who made an irrational response (not that he should not have stood up to him, but he purposely aimed to take this well beyond where it should have gone)to the situation sort of implies there is likely a mental instability there, that just got rewarded as appropriate behavior by letting the kid literally get away with murder.

EDIT:

Spoiler: You can even see the mental instability in the kids eyes

Seriously those are not the eyes of a kid who feared for his life, they are the eyes of a kid who meticulously planned out how to react violently to his bullying and what would give himself the best chance of getting away with it while making sure he ended it once and for all.

Not in a life or death danger? I'm gonna have to disagree there.

- Kid was warned by the bully and his friends they were going to beat him up, that's 4 bigger, stronger and older kids threatening him
- Kid gets out of bus several stops EARLY to run away from his attacks
- Attacks STILL follow him and get out of the bus early as well
- Kid tries to FLEE to avoid a fight
- Group of kids STILL follow him
- Kid was punched in the back of the head. Back of the head means that he was facing away from the bully and had no intention of fighting him

What we have here is a kid who did everything he could to avoid a fight, leaving the bus, running away but was then surrounded and assaulted and outnumbered. How is this not dangerous?

 

[viranimus]

Not in a life or death danger? I'm gonna have to disagree there.

- Kid was warned by the bully and his friends they were going to beat him up, that's 4 bigger, stronger and older kids threatening him
- Kid gets out of bus several stops EARLY to run away from his attacks
- Attacks STILL follow him and get out of the bus early as well
- Kid tries to FLEE to avoid a fight
- Group of kids STILL follow him
- Kid was punched in the back of the head. Back of the head means that he was facing away from the bully and had no intention of fighting him

What we have here is a kid who did everything he could to avoid a fight, leaving the bus, running away but was then surrounded and assaulted and outnumbered. How is this not dangerous?

Well your entitled to think as you wish, but I am going to have to disagree with your disagreement.


A: being beaten up is not the same as being killed.
B: He had a weapon, his opponents did not.
C: The bullies only benefit if they keep this kid alive for future torment. So there is no intentional threat of death.


Nothing else need be said because he clearly had malevolent intent and he was not in "life or death danger. Getting your ass handed to you is not being murdered. Killing is counter productive for what a bully wants to do. So there is no way the bully wanted to kill the kid.



So what you have here is a kid, who put into play his plan to start carrying a weapon, premeditating how when and where he would use it, against an adversary that would have no reason to want him dead (tormented and hurt yes, dead no) and people giving undue sympathy because they want to be able cheer someone they perceived to have stood up to a bully even to the point that they will ignore clearly premeditated murder to do so.
_____________________

I think my bigger issue here is not the issue at hand, but why exactly necro this thread, re involve me when there was prolly at least 15 pages of responses since I was actually involved in this topic. Surely if there are 25 pages in the thread im not the only person who thinks the evidence clearly shows where this kid had every intention of murdering his bully.

 

[Aprilgold]

This is why you DON'T FUCKING BULLY PEOPLE!

Is it strange that this is the best comment thats to the point.

I think my bigger issue here is not the issue at hand, but why exactly necro this thread, re involve me when there was prolly at least 15 pages of responses since I was actually involved in this topic. Surely if there are 25 pages in the thread im not the only person who thinks the evidence clearly shows where this kid had every intention of murdering his bully.

I think your onto something. But, it was four kids, and some could have been throwing out death threats, for all we know. Of course the three other boys won't say they were threatening him with death, of course they will try and make it seem as good as possible.

If you beat up on a kid for a long time, eventually, they will revolt. A good metaphor is actually from the Revolution between America and Great Britain. Britain charged large amounts of money on things like Tea, and sent soldiers over to stay in American man made houses, without consent from the individual who owned the house. Then there was the Boston massacre. Do you really blame America for wanting to break free?

This kid, of course, had a malicious intent to use force to protect himself. If he was a insane killer, wouldn't he have killed them off when they were more vulnerable. If you stab a dude near three others, theres a chance that one will stop you, so, if you were pre-planning this, wouldn't it make sense to stab the bully somewhere when there was no chance of getting stopped.

I mean if your going to assassinate someone, then you should be doing it in the easiest possible way, not fetching four bullies that chase you around town during a school time. Saying that it was pre-planned makes sense, but then it speaks colors for the stupidity of the kid.

 

[G-Force]

Not in a life or death danger? I'm gonna have to disagree there.

- Kid was warned by the bully and his friends they were going to beat him up, that's 4 bigger, stronger and older kids threatening him
- Kid gets out of bus several stops EARLY to run away from his attacks
- Attacks STILL follow him and get out of the bus early as well
- Kid tries to FLEE to avoid a fight
- Group of kids STILL follow him
- Kid was punched in the back of the head. Back of the head means that he was facing away from the bully and had no intention of fighting him

What we have here is a kid who did everything he could to avoid a fight, leaving the bus, running away but was then surrounded and assaulted and outnumbered. How is this not dangerous?

Well your entitled to think as you wish, but I am going to have to disagree with your disagreement.


A: being beaten up is not the same as being killed.
B: He had a weapon, his opponents did not.
C: The bullies only benefit if they keep this kid alive for future torment. So there is no intentional threat of death.


Nothing else need be said because he clearly had malevolent intent and he was not in "life or death danger. Getting your ass handed to you is not being murdered. Killing is counter productive for what a bully wants to do. So there is no way the bully wanted to kill the kid.



So what you have here is a kid, who put into play his plan to start carrying a weapon, premeditating how when and where he would use it, against an adversary that would have no reason to want him dead (tormented and hurt yes, dead no) and people giving undue sympathy because they want to be able cheer someone they perceived to have stood up to a bully even to the point that they will ignore clearly premeditated murder to do so.
_____________________

I think my bigger issue here is not the issue at hand, but why exactly necro this thread, re involve me when there was prolly at least 15 pages of responses since I was actually involved in this topic. Surely if there are 25 pages in the thread im not the only person who thinks the evidence clearly shows where this kid had every intention of murdering his bully.

Missed the boat when it comes to the thread during its hot streak and I wanted to at least participate in the discussion. Reason why your post was selected was that while others posters did accuse the kid of murder with no evidence supporting some those replies were quickly quoted with further details on the case. It's just the phrase "premeditated murder" caught my attention where it doesn't really mesh with the actual events. From the way you interpreted the events you made it seem like the kid actually planned out the entire attack making sure to be out number, get off the bus early, walk away then make sure to be hit in the back of the head (which can be fatal, there's a reason why boxers and MMA fighters are forbidden to hit there) THEN proceeded to carry out his plan of killing the bully. The simple question I ask is, if this murder was premeditated then why tale so many steps to run away and even put himself in physical harm?

I don't know how many fights you've been in but when you're chased, out numbered, over sized and been hit first, the untrained person would not be able to tell the difference from "I'm going to die" to "I'm going to get my ass beat severely" which goes double when you're outnumbered. Can you honestly say that a cornered 13 year old teenager has enough emotional, metal and physical training to curb his adrenaline and survival instincts?

 

[RJ 17]

Old topic, so I'm pretty sure anything I could say has been said at least 50 times. So I'll keep it short:

While bullying is a horrible, a "school-yard" fight is no excuse to pull a knife on someone else. I can understand why there were 12 wounds, the kid obviously finally snapped and released all the pent-up anger he had towards the bully. Trying to avoid the fight or not, I don't think there's any excuse for one kid to stab another unless it is clear that the kid who got stabbed CLEARLY intended to flat-out murder the kid who did the stabbing.

That said, I'll leave you with one of my favorite movie quotes: "Awwww, grandma! Not mah prison shank!"

 

[Nielas]

Old topic, so I'm pretty sure anything I could say has been said at least 50 times. So I'll keep it short:

While bullying is a horrible, a "school-yard" fight is no excuse to pull a knife on someone else. I can understand why there were 12 wounds, the kid obviously finally snapped and released all the pent-up anger he had towards the bully. Trying to avoid the fight or not, I don't think there's any excuse for one kid to stab another unless it is clear that the kid who got stabbed CLEARLY intended to flat-out murder the kid who did the stabbing.

It's a matter of perception. What you might see as just a "school-yard" fight I see as just another in a sequence of torture sessions. To me bullying is a form of torture and I consider lethal force to be a justified response to torture.

 

[RJ 17]

Old topic, so I'm pretty sure anything I could say has been said at least 50 times. So I'll keep it short:

While bullying is a horrible, a "school-yard" fight is no excuse to pull a knife on someone else. I can understand why there were 12 wounds, the kid obviously finally snapped and released all the pent-up anger he had towards the bully. Trying to avoid the fight or not, I don't think there's any excuse for one kid to stab another unless it is clear that the kid who got stabbed CLEARLY intended to flat-out murder the kid who did the stabbing.

It's a matter of perception. What you might see as just a "school-yard" fight I see as just another in a sequence of torture sessions. To me bullying is a form of torture and I consider lethal force to be a justified response to torture.

That's fair enough, and I can completely understand your point of view. However the fact remains that out-right murder is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Do I think the bully got exactly what he deserved? Most definitely. But from a purely objective standpoint: there are always alternatives to taking your own or someone else's life.

 

[viranimus]

The simple question I ask is, if this murder was premeditated then why tale so many steps to run away and even put himself in physical harm?

Fair enough on being tardy to the party. Ill keep this response brief, but did want to touch base on this. It boils down to hope for the best, plan for the worst.

I want to try to explain this as simply as I can, so I will use a film quote.

".... I don't want to hurt him, but so help me God if he tries to lay a hand on me again, I am going to kill him right then and there and by the time I am done there wont be enough left to shovel into a body bag."

(cookie for reference)

But that sums it up right there. You can know someones a physical threat. You can plan in your mind what you will do when it escalates to that point, but just because you can forsee that outcome does not mean you WANT to do it, just that you feel you have to do it. However it does not matter how he feels, if he made preemptive plans to defend himself with a deadly weapon it was a malevolent intention none the less.

 

[senordesol]

The simple question I ask is, if this murder was premeditated then why tale so many steps to run away and even put himself in physical harm?

Fair enough on being tardy to the party. Ill keep this response brief, but did want to touch base on this. It boils down to hope for the best, plan for the worst.

I want to try to explain this as simply as I can, so I will use a film quote.

".... I don't want to hurt him, but so help me God if he tries to lay a hand on me again, I am going to kill him right then and there and by the time I am done there wont be enough left to shovel into a body bag."

(cookie for reference)

But that sums it up right there. You can know someones a physical threat. You can plan in your mind what you will do when it escalates to that point, but just because you can forsee that outcome does not mean you WANT to do it, just that you feel you have to do it. However it does not matter how he feels, if he made preemptive plans to defend himself with a deadly weapon it was a malevolent intention none the less.

Then by that logic, every police officer who has used a weapon to shoot and kill a suspect is guilty of premeditated murder as he, too, has 'hoped for the best, yet planned for the worst'.

 

[viranimus]

Then by that logic, every police officer who has used a weapon to shoot and kill a suspect is guilty of premeditated murder as he, too, has 'hoped for the best, yet planned for the worst'.

And how exactly do you come by that? There is an entire world of difference between a kid who is being repeatedly tormented and lashing out at his attackers, and someone who is trained in the use and restraint of use of a weapon. As well as an officer who typically has next to no prior experience with the people involved that require them to shoot the suspect, not days, weeks, months of prior and repeated contact. It is the same as the difference between action and reaction. At best your comparing apples and oranges, and worst your dancing with a straw man.

Look. I know what I am saying is not popular. However I am stating this from a position of facts that do not add up, living with, working with and studying mentally unstable people. This kids expressions and mannerisms indicate strongly that there is something more sinister lying underneath his surface. I do not think he really wanted to kill his bully. However I would be a fool to think that his intentions were completely noble and honest and not 30just a sense of self preservation as it related to both being attacked by the bully and the punishment he would incur for solving his problem.

If you cannot separate your personal bias and sense of right and wrong, you will never see the truth of the matter.

 

[senordesol]

Then by that logic, every police officer who has used a weapon to shoot and kill a suspect is guilty of premeditated murder as he, too, has 'hoped for the best, yet planned for the worst'.

And how exactly do you come by that? There is an entire world of difference between a kid who is being repeatedly tormented and lashing out at his attackers, and someone who is trained in the use and restraint of use of a weapon. As well as an officer who typically has next to no prior experience with the people involved that require them to shoot the suspect, not days, weeks, months of prior and repeated contact. It is the same as the difference between action and reaction. At best your comparing apples and oranges, and worst your dancing with a straw man.

Look. I know what I am saying is not popular. However I am stating this from a position of facts that do not add up, living with, working with and studying mentally unstable people. This kids expressions and mannerisms indicate strongly that there is something more sinister lying underneath his surface. I do not think he really wanted to kill his bully. However I would be a fool to think that his intentions were completely noble and honest and not 30just a sense of self preservation as it related to both being attacked by the bully and the punishment he would incur for solving his problem.

If you cannot separate your personal bias and sense of right and wrong, you will never see the truth of the matter.

'Not completely noble and honest' and 'premeditated murder' are apples and oranges aren't they? Did he consider it likely that he would be attacked? Yes. Did he precipitate the events that led to the attack? If the article (and the judge) is to be believed: No.

So, in other words, while he was not interested in starting any aggressive altercations (and, indeed, made several attempts to avoid said altercation), he came prepared to end it. That means he was prepared for an attack, not that it was premeditated.

A premeditated affair would imply that he manipulated events so that he would control where, when, and how the altercation would go down. Unless you are suggesting that he manipulated his attacker to follow him off the bus, manipulated him to chase him down, and manipulated him into striking him; then you can't claim this was premeditated.

He was chased down by a group of thugs to be beaten and defended himself. That's clear-cut self defense be you a cop or a 15-year-old boy. Whether you know your attacker or not, whether you're trained or not is irrelevant. He had a credible suspicion that he was about to immediately suffer grievous bodily harm or even life-threatening injuries if he did not defend himself. If his attacker did not precipitate an altercation, both would be alive and well right now.

 

[viranimus]

'Not completely noble and honest' and 'premeditated murder' are apples and oranges aren't they? Did he consider it likely that he would be attacked? Yes. Did he precipitate the events that led to the attack? If the article (and the judge) is to be believed: No.

So, in other words, while he was not interested in starting any aggressive altercations (and, indeed, made several attempts to avoid said altercation), he came prepared to end it. That means he was prepared for an attack, not that it was premeditated.

A premeditated affair would imply that he manipulated events so that he would control where, when, and how the altercation would go down. Unless you are suggesting that he manipulated his attacker to follow him off the bus, manipulated him to chase him down, and manipulated him into striking him; then you can't claim this was premeditated.

He was chased down by a group of thugs to be beaten and defended himself. That's clear-cut self defense be you a cop or a 15-year-old boy. Whether you know your attacker or not, whether you're trained or not is irrelevant. He had a credible suspicion that he was about to immediately suffer grievous bodily harm or even life-threatening injuries if he did not defend himself. If his attacker did not precipitate an altercation, both would be alive and well right now.

Ok,

pre·med·i·tat·ed
adjective
done deliberately; planned in advance:

There is nothing premeditated about entering an unknown scene as an officer trained to evaluate and react. Having background in Public service dispatching I know that individual officers get little more than chief complaint before entering a scene. An officer might be directed with as litle as (Domestic disturbance at X address, possible terroristic threatening with deadly weapon) No police officer goes into a scene with the intention to kill. As I said before, this is the difference between action and reaction. An officer uses their weapon as a tool in a reactionary state to unknown circumstances. This kid used the knife as a weapon as a prepared reaction to very clear and known circumstances.

Let me restate that so it is crystal clear. He made the conscious decision to carry on his person an item with the sole intention to inflict potentially lethal damage on his would be assailants in his defense. Even though it has been browbeaten into every child in this generation to tattle on bullies, as well as it has been browbeaten into children how aggressively schools will react to anything resembling violence. If the kid was truly concerned with his defense, why not take the more appropriate defensive action and call on school officials, parents, law enforcement, his friends or any of the mannnny other options before making the decision to as a minor take the responsibility of your own defense into your own hands, because that is exactly what he did.

Was he required as a student to carry this weapon? No,
Was he trained in not only the use, but the proper restraint of his weapon? No.
Was he only carrying a weapon in the service of the general public? debatable, but not really, no.
Was the purpose of him carrying this weapon out of a sense of preparation for unforeseeable events? Absolutely not because he knew this was likely to happen and that is WHY he was carrying the weapon.

And the biggest point was. when was the kid threatened with an actual weapon in all the time he was being bullied? He was not. So that means that this kid was the one to escalate the violence by introducing a weapon. I dont understand how you can get any more planned in advance than that.

So yes, there is absolutely no way that a trained police officer is anything remotely close to the same thing as a kid making conscious plans to not only carry a weapon but deliberately thought on how, where, if and when he would use it. Just the emotional connection to the bully creates the difference as police officers typically will not be allowed onto a scene involving people they know personally because the emotion creates conflict of interest that makes the situation worse as the officer would become a liability.

 

[Nielas]

Let me restate that so it is crystal clear. He made the conscious decision to carry on his person an item with the sole intention to inflict potentially lethal damage on his would be assailants in his defense. Even though it has been browbeaten into every child in this generation to tattle on bullies, as well as it has been browbeaten into children how aggressively schools will react to anything resembling violence. If the kid was truly concerned with his defense, why not take the more appropriate defensive action and call on school officials, parents, law enforcement, his friends or any of the mannnny other options before making the decision to as a minor take the responsibility of your own defense into your own hands, because that is exactly what he did.

I am not sure which generation you are referring to but it for me it has always been made explicit that going to the authorities will do nothing to help you against bullies and it will only cause you to be beat up more. Maybe in the last decade things have radically changed in the school systems.

I would really like to know if there was a record of the kid telling anyone about the bullying and if anything was done about it.

As far as the escalation, bringing a knife would be a natural progression if you want to defend yourself against being beat up by multiple older kids. If he cannot defend himself purely with his fists then a weapon is necessary. A club or stick would probably be insufficient so a blade is the next logical step.

Maybe some people belief that you should only meet an attack with an equal force and if you are not capable of matching the force precisely you should just take the beating. I believe that you are justified to use a level of force that is the minimal level of force practical for you to use to defend yourself. If that minimal practical level has potential to be lethal, that is the attacker's fault for pushing things to that point.

 

[senordesol]

in his defense... as a minor take the responsibility of your own defense into your own hands, because that is exactly what he did.

Key phrases there. His entire 'plan' hinged on someone else attempting to beat the crap out of him. That it was very likely just means that his preparation was well-informed.

He DID NOT manipulate the bully into getting off the bus before his stop. He DID NOT manipulate the bully into chasing him. He DID NOT manipulate the bully into beating him. These were choices his attacker (also a key word) made. These are criminal acts that could very easily result in grievous injury or even death.

Unless you are suggesting that the bully somehow has a right and expectation to beat his victims in the street, there was no reason for anyone to get hurt other than self defense. On the other hand, EVERYONE (minor or not) has the RIGHT and EXPECTATION to be able to defend themselves against life threatening injuries or grievous bodily harm when threatened. Should he have told a teacher/parents? Perhaps, and I've not heard evidence that he didn't. But schools are notoriously slow and ineffective in dealing with bullies; and 'ratting someone out' can easily lead to retaliation. So you can bemoan his process and methods, but he did what he had EVERY LEGAL AND MORAL RIGHT to do. He sought no conflict, avoided altercation, and when no avenue of escape was available, ENDED the confrontation.