If I had a simple answer to that, most likely I would be lying. And yet I can't use the defense of "this could have ended up badly with a few well placed blows", and ignore the fact that, once he pulled a weapon, it could have ended up even worst, much easier...Sandytimeman said:
Allow me to rephrase-The only options you are able to perceive in this situation are to allow oneself to be beaten, or to brandish a forbidden weapon at school?Sandytimeman said:
And here in the US we have enough people shooting up schools as is, we don't need to give people more justification to bring weapons to school. As I said before, I sympathized with the kid until I found out he brought a weapon to schoolAthinira said:Saying that he should change himself to avoid bullies is NOT reasonable. First of all, you are assuming the bullying would stop - That's likely not to be the case, especially since they already knew he was gay. Here in Denmark, we have problems with anti-gay gangs luring gay men out on a supposed blind date and then beating them up. When bullying is related to things such as sexual orientation or similar, it's VERY unlikely to stop.Helmholtz Watson said:
Secondly, the only ting that is reasonable is that the perpetrators get the punishment, not the victim. We shouldn't compromise with behavior like that EVER! Hell, the US went to war because they wouldn't compromise with terrorists. Why the hell should victims compromise with bullies? What's next, should rape victims compromise with rapists and "not have worn revealing clothes"?)
As for the whole "weapons" discussion, people seem to forget that we carry weapons on us at all times. They're called fists, and they are, in fact, more lethal thjan a civilian stun gun. "6 bullies" can be classified as a much more dangerous weapon than a non-lethal civilian stun-gun (not to mention the fact that finding an improvised weapon is also relatively easy) - and therefore using a non-lethal weapon as a response to a situation that is potentially very lethal is not inappropriate at all, especially since he didn't use it but only threatened to scare them away. He handled this by the book aka. very appropriately.
Assuming he was at school, is there no teacher that he can run to? Your right, it would be hard for him to walk away, but I go back to my point, he is no longer the victim when he brings a weapon to school, because he has the potentially to accidentally harm other people who are not involved in the conflict.Sandytimeman said:
He was surrounded by six people about to beat the living shit out of him. If he hadn't of had that weapon with him. What would you have done? Ball up? These are motivated homophobes who are not being discouraged by the school at all. He would have died.Leadfinger said:
Please calm down and there is no need for expletives.senordesol said:
So bend over and take it. Is that it? Watch your children either become predators or prey in institutions that are supposed to be safe.Devoneaux said:
Everyone does, but that doesn't mean we should just ignore the fact that people can be effective weapons, especially six on one. The sad fact is that schools don't want to get involved, and it invariably escalates in one of two ways. Either the bullies get more extreme due to no one objecting, or the bullied party responds in some fashion (often with tragic results). In this case, tragedy was avoided in part thanks to the actions of the bullied party.Helmholtz Watson said:
It was a joke, but it's far from ignorant. The NRA had largely this response to the Virginia Tech shootings by saying that 'gun free zones are safety free zones'. [footnote]http://www.nraila.org/138264[/footnote] The NRA wants guns to be as accessible as possible, and it should come as no surprise that they receive substantial funds from the gun industry. They're a corporate interest group operating under the cloak of popular support.ElPatron said:
The facts of the case say different. The Stun Gun (not tazer -- I went out of my way to point that out) ENDED the fight. Now it added some problems, mainly legal/disciplinary ones, but for sake of self-defense it was 100% effective.Devoneaux said:
Why would the bullies bring a weapon at school if they have numbers on their side? Also, last I checked, two wrongs don't make a right, if the bullies bring a weapon and the victim retaliates with his own weapon, it would just be a cycle of revenge.Devoneaux said:
I dont think I implied life was a movie. In fact I dont see how anything you just says bears relevance to our posts. Nor did I say someone is going to be punished just that he should move schools.Devoneaux said:
You are also overlooking the damage a group beating can do. He would not have walked away from a 6 on 1 gang up circle beating without a trip to the hospital.Devoneaux said:
He should still be in trouble for bringing a weapon to school seeing as how it violates the school rules.Dags90 said:
And that would be a relevant critique IF the kid had actually brought a gun to school. He didn't. He brought a stun-gun. Those are two very different things.Helmholtz Watson said:
)
Devoneaux said:
