Bullying - how far can you go to defend from it?

[Funkysandwich]

Yes. I think he did act right in the circumstances.

It might sound black and white now, but at the time he would have had no idea if they were going to kill him and his family. When that happens, people go into a heightened sense of danger based on instinct, it's impossible to blame him for what he did.

It has nothing to do with justice. It is retribution.

I pretty much agree with you, although as I said, I doubt if he had time to consider his actions he would've killed them. It's just a danger reflex, and it doesn't mean he's a bad person or that he'd kill again.

I'd say he did the wrong thing for the right reasons. I doubt the remaining kids in that group are ever going to trouble anyone again.

But really, the kids should've been stopped before it reached a situation like that. It was common knowledge, by the sound of it, that they were causing problems for this family.

How do you prevent this from happening?

 

[Jenova65]

Snip

I'm with you all the way.

Teenagers are children in the eyes of the law!

What does that have to do with anything? Just because the law says a 15-year old is a child doesn't mean that I have to think so. The law exists so that we can have clear rules in society, it doesn't exist so that it can impose it's own morals on people.

By the same token just because you think he is not a child doesn't mean I have to agree!
Maybe I am the only parent in this discussion, I don't know, but I do know that young people do a lot of very stupid and cruel things and they do grow out of it mostly. ''Let he who is without sin'' and all that! :/

No, you don't have to agree, I'm just questioning why you brought up the law.

You're having a debate about morals and then you basically say "THE LAW IS ON MY SIDE"

It isn't. The law doesn't take sides

Whether you like the law or not, it is there to set certain boundaries for society. Part of that is judging at what age someone should be 'tried as an adult', and becomes intrinsic in how that society views different age groups etc, which is why I made a point of the law, iygwim? Without even stating whether I agree with said law or whether I believe it is on my side.
The written word can be so much easier to misinterpret as we are all trying to make our point in as few words as possible, and maybe this is what happens here (A LOT)
Also it is easier to clarify when you are talking to someone than typing without the benefit of so many nuances that humans rely on to be understood.

 

[Biosophilogical]

I'm a little stumped on this one. I mean, it really depends on
a) If the guy hadn't killed the punk would the gang have continued (albeit at a 'safer distance')
b) What kind of effect the bullying was having/would have had on the family.

I mean, if not killing one of them hadn't stopped the punks from harrassing them and if the harrassment was horribly serious (which it seemed to be), then killing the kid was the 'right' thing to do (and by right I mean a whiter-grey than not killing him). However, if just shooting them would be enough to deter their harassments then killing the kid was too far, but seeing as I don't know enough to determine which is the case then I cannot pass judgement (though admittedly it is the kids' faults, after all, if they hadn't antagonised the family, put the guy's son in danger (among other things) then the father wouldn't have been driven into a rage and none of it would have happened, so really, the families who lost children shouldn't get paid jack-shit as the other family is, no doubt, just as mentally distressed by the events)).

But even so, I succumb to the human condition of procrastinating making morally grey decisions, but from an outsiders perspective I can safely say that acting when the father did probably prevented more harm than it caused, as delaying the choice would have a) given the punks more time to cause emotional distress, b) possibly killed the son/father/other AND c)probably still would have resulted in the kid's death (maybe even the death of more than one).

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Then again, the United States tends to be a lot more selfish than the rest of the world, so I do not know how it applies to Sweden.

Maybe the rest of the world is too passive about the acquisition of wealth . But why not just call the cops? I'm pretty sure there are criminal laws that prevent a person being hunted down, despite the fact that it would have been more safe to alert the police and having them arrest the guy as soon as he heads to a hospital to get treated, or tries to return home to his parents.

At the very least it would have meant more dudes with guns at your place rather than you just running ONE guy down and taking the only firearm on the premise away from the home you're trying to 'protect' when there are others who come with the intent to assault your family scattered elsewhere.

It was just an act of blatant aggression against a defenceless individual. The guy was probably thinking "hey ... I can kill this kid after all the shit he gave me and my boy ...". Think about it ... after years of abuse ... his temper exploded into a fit of rage. Fits of rages leading to death = murder.

Just because there's a hobo that seems to live and sleep near where I work, yelling profanities at any who enter the building, doesn't give my boss the right to put bullets in him. Despite the fact he's on private property, being abusive, and was probably the one who smashed up our windows one night with a brick.

That being said ... sure I'd be tempted to get a gun and tell him "you've got 10 seconds ... start running." ... But that's the difference between civilised individuals, and nut jobs.

 

[JaredXE]

Good for the dad. He probably saved someone's life when he killed that kid. And I mean someone innocent. If you are that abusive at that age, they're not going to "Grow up and be a good adult". No, evil and violent teens become evil and violent adults because really, at that age, you are pretty much done growing up. Your personality is formed.

Good on the dad, he should have shot more often though.


Also, those punk have no rights. Rights also come with responsibilities. If you do not uphold your responsibilities, then you also forfeit your rights. Their responsibility was to not be violent and sadistic assholes who would physically abuse mentally retarded and helpless people.

They lost their right to not get shot and killed.

 

[BabySinclair]

As noted above, technically the group was trespassing which, in most places automatically gives residents the right to use lethal force. Had the teen left the property and then been shot then yes, the father would have violated his legal rights. Since the gang proved to be violent enough to threaten him on his property then any incursion on his land would be a perceivable threat, hence the ability to follow the leader and kill him.

As for the teen being a "child," I'm too lazy to look up Swedish statues but I would assume that by the age of 15 one could be tried as an adult (14 is the age I believe it is in the US.) Since he could be tried as an adult, that would remove him from the "child" category and just hold him in the "minors" bracket. Then again, I don't really know Swedish law but in the US there would be a much greater difference between shooting a 7 year old and a 15 year old, only the former really being identified as a child.

So do I agree with it? No, I never would have taken it that far. Shot to the arm and then one to the leg as a reminder but I would have let them limp away/call for the cops to pick them up. Was he legally justified? Yeah but US civil courts would have bankrupted him but he gets lucky in that and I have a feeling he's going to beat himself over this for a long while.

 

[Monkeytacoz]

what a cool dad shooting that little asshole

 

[Mr.Squishy]

Wtf? The amount of people saying it was ok for the guy to kill the kid is astounding.
Shoot the kid when he is harassing your family on your property is one thing. But once the kid is fleeing for his life you know the guy is going way over the top, and chasing the kid down and shooting him deserves a harsh criminal sentence.

The kids being a problem that is difficult to deal with sounds like a problem with how they are being handled, or the laws of the area. It's not an excuse which allows retribution, or "dealing" with the problem in that respect. because when it comes down to it, the man has performed a worse deed than the bullies did. He murdered someone, the bullies haven't gone that far. He has gone from being the harassed victim to a worse criminal than the instigators.

The 15-16 year old kids (all about 6 of them) turned back to face the house. The father instinctively shot the closest one in the arm

Instinctively? Please explain.

I'm not exactly sure what was meant, I questioned it myself when I read the article, but I think it's like "oh shit, their attention is at me again, I need to do something!"
My theory at least


Also, I think many people are forgetting The dad suffered from amongst other things ADHD, tourettes and angst were listed in the article. His first thought, according to the article, was to take a rifle, which is far less lethal on close range and if you hit in general. Problem is, he was so stressed he couldn't load it nor find his spare bullets. That's at least what I read.
Also, the kids are supposed to have crank called them up to 40 times in one night, many many many nights, not sure if it happened in a row or more spread out.

 

[Spindleweed]

The father was perfectly right.

I found this thread misleading, maybe due to language gap. This is NOT bullying. Bullying is the experience that most people go through in school and you develop a thick skin. You are describing a campaign of harassment.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Snip

I'm with you all the way.

Teenagers are children in the eyes of the law!

What does that have to do with anything? Just because the law says a 15-year old is a child doesn't mean that I have to think so. The law exists so that we can have clear rules in society, it doesn't exist so that it can impose it's own morals on people.

By the same token just because you think he is not a child doesn't mean I have to agree!
Maybe I am the only parent in this discussion, I don't know, but I do know that young people do a lot of very stupid and cruel things and they do grow out of it mostly. ''Let he who is without sin'' and all that! :/

No, you don't have to agree, I'm just questioning why you brought up the law.

You're having a debate about morals and then you basically say "THE LAW IS ON MY SIDE"

It isn't. The law doesn't take sides

Whether you like the law or not, it is there to set certain boundaries for society. Part of that is judging at what age someone should be 'tried as an adult', and becomes intrinsic in how that society views different age groups etc, which is why I made a point of the law, iygwim? Without even stating whether I agree with said law or whether I believe it is on my side.
The written word can be so much easier to misinterpret as we are all trying to make our point in as few words as possible, and maybe this is what happens here (A LOT)
Also it is easier to clarify when you are talking to someone than typing without the benefit of so many nuances that humans rely on to be understood.

I must have misunderstood you. I apologize then.
Although I still don't agree with the law not judging teenagers as adults from a crime-perspective.

 

[Sir_Tor]

Read about this and I must say that I would probably do what the father did but aimed at their mopeds instead. Arn't you legally responsible when your 15? Go to jail and such?

 

[Warped_Ghost]

When a gang grabs farming tools surround your house and threaten you on your property I don't care what he does cause I would have been too fucking angry to think rationally.
BTW anyone over 14 should be able to be charged as an adult. Im 16 I know that if I commit a crime its not right and I shoudn't be let off any easier than the guy 2 years older than me.

 

[Jenova65]

Snip

I'm with you all the way.

Teenagers are children in the eyes of the law!

What does that have to do with anything? Just because the law says a 15-year old is a child doesn't mean that I have to think so. The law exists so that we can have clear rules in society, it doesn't exist so that it can impose it's own morals on people.

By the same token just because you think he is not a child doesn't mean I have to agree!
Maybe I am the only parent in this discussion, I don't know, but I do know that young people do a lot of very stupid and cruel things and they do grow out of it mostly. ''Let he who is without sin'' and all that! :/

No, you don't have to agree, I'm just questioning why you brought up the law.

You're having a debate about morals and then you basically say "THE LAW IS ON MY SIDE"

It isn't. The law doesn't take sides

Whether you like the law or not, it is there to set certain boundaries for society. Part of that is judging at what age someone should be 'tried as an adult', and becomes intrinsic in how that society views different age groups etc, which is why I made a point of the law, iygwim? Without even stating whether I agree with said law or whether I believe it is on my side.
The written word can be so much easier to misinterpret as we are all trying to make our point in as few words as possible, and maybe this is what happens here (A LOT)
Also it is easier to clarify when you are talking to someone than typing without the benefit of so many nuances that humans rely on to be understood.

I must have misunderstood you. I apologize then.
Although I still don't agree with the law not judging teenagers as adults from a crime-perspective.

Weirdly enough (after all that) neither do I. Had they been 35 I would still say that death was too much! which I think is probably the point I should have focused on, but as I said how many dumb assed kids grow up to be responsible and useful members of society, where a 35 year old ass is, let's be honest, probably always going to be an asshole ;-)

 

[D088Y]

i think that that dude did exactly right no actually he shouldve shot the rest of them as well they deseved it and that man deserves a medal

 

[InsanityRequiem]

Given all the circumstances, I would say that the father had legal right to shoot at the teenagers and kill them. He 'hunted' the teen down and killed him in cold-blood is complete bullshit. The father saw a mob of people in front of his house, all known to have down harm to him and his family, carrying threatening weapons. They could have had more weapons with them nearby, the father would not have known that. Add in the fact that the father had a few mental instabilities, I'm surprised only 1 teenager was killed. In all, my hat is tipped to the father for doing the right and just thing.

And to the people saying that he should have called the cops. The 'bullying' these teenagers have been doing has been happening for weeks if not months. The police had more than enough time to arrest the teenagers and charge them, but they didn't. It is specifically said why. The police ignored it because they were 15/16.

And now back to the original point. These teenagers were not there to play hackie-sack with the family. They were there as a mob to do bodily harm (At the least) to the family. The teens may have beaten the entire family half to death as well as rape the mother and daughter. To say that they wouldn't is either a major case of ignorance or you have a problem with denial that teenagers can do horrible things.

In essence: The death of one teenager is not enough for this mob/gang of teens. They all should have been hurt in some way, but that's my sense of justice. The remaining five will now have to live their lives knowing that their behavior has caused the death of one of their closest friends. The psychological damage they caused themselves will have to do.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Snip

I'm with you all the way.

Teenagers are children in the eyes of the law!

What does that have to do with anything? Just because the law says a 15-year old is a child doesn't mean that I have to think so. The law exists so that we can have clear rules in society, it doesn't exist so that it can impose it's own morals on people.

By the same token just because you think he is not a child doesn't mean I have to agree!
Maybe I am the only parent in this discussion, I don't know, but I do know that young people do a lot of very stupid and cruel things and they do grow out of it mostly. ''Let he who is without sin'' and all that! :/

No, you don't have to agree, I'm just questioning why you brought up the law.

You're having a debate about morals and then you basically say "THE LAW IS ON MY SIDE"

It isn't. The law doesn't take sides

Whether you like the law or not, it is there to set certain boundaries for society. Part of that is judging at what age someone should be 'tried as an adult', and becomes intrinsic in how that society views different age groups etc, which is why I made a point of the law, iygwim? Without even stating whether I agree with said law or whether I believe it is on my side.
The written word can be so much easier to misinterpret as we are all trying to make our point in as few words as possible, and maybe this is what happens here (A LOT)
Also it is easier to clarify when you are talking to someone than typing without the benefit of so many nuances that humans rely on to be understood.

I must have misunderstood you. I apologize then.
Although I still don't agree with the law not judging teenagers as adults from a crime-perspective.

Weirdly enough (after all that) neither do I. Had they been 35 I would still say that death was too much! which I think is probably the point I should have focused on, but as I said how many dumb assed kids grow up to be responsible and useful members of society, where a 35 year old ass is, let's be honest, probably always going to be an asshole ;-)

Oh, nobody really deserves death in my opinion either. But in such a situation, whether it is deserved or not, if they where to walk up to my house equipped with melee weapons, human rights would mean nothing to me. It would be "Survival of the fittest".

 

[r0qu3]

Lol its off-topic but i was in Rödeby several times on Vacation...

..and yeah back then the swedish teens where alread doing it.

 

[Zorg Machine]

There has been a lot of this on the news here in Sweden. I believe that the man acted correctly though shooting the injured boy was wrong. Before that, all he did was protecting his family.

 

[Iampringles]

I'd shoot them in the legs at most, maybe he went a bit far, but I can understand.