Teen faces expulsion after brining stun-gun to school to fend off bullies

[senordesol]

1.) I meant as in if that is what he wants that is fine. But bad things will happen to him if he decides to take that course of action. To me it is the only reasonable course of action, rather than getting involved in a fight he cannot win.

2.)Never felt the need to circle stomp someone....but I understand what you mean. Some people will always show less restraint than you or I would. Please stop making stuff up I never said this was avoidable or unavoidable, I merely suggested a reasonable course of action in response to it.
You are very mistaken I am having my brain mended tomorrow (too much A level stress).
As for moving schools why not? It is manageable as I said the gay guy in our school managed it. And surely the inconveniences, do not outweigh the advantage of not getting attacked by fellow students. I think that blatantly solves his problem.
As for my complaining I was hoping to inspire you to become the worlds best teacher or something, so I could get a portion of your glory as "that guy who gave him the idea".
But really we have to accept. I think my suggestion of he should move schools would sort him out. You think it is the schools fault.
Maybe we are both right, maybe we are both wrong...........but one thing is for sure. I don't care anymore. Because he is probably American and there is nothing I can do for him, yes that is a defeatist attitude, and no I don't care.
but thankyou you have provided a thought provoking discussion.

1.) Thank you for clarifying. Nothing further need be discussed here.

2.) I think I see our disconnect. You regard this as his problem. I regard this as a systemic problem. As I see it: the problem isn't that bullies are beating him up, that is a symptom of a larger problem of a system that ALLOWS students to be beaten up in school. Switching schools does not solve that problem, denying bullies their victims does. Now if he switched schools -yes- those bullies are denied that particular victim. But there will be others, and there will always be others so long as we sweep this crap under the rug.

When the onus is placed on the victims to look after themselves, we cannot complain when they do just that. So if Young had made a personal choice to switch schools if that were feasible (your own gay schoolmate's circumstances being irrelevant to this case), it still would not solve the systemic problem that yielded circumstances so severe that someone, at some point, was forced to pull a stun gun to defend himself.

 

[senordesol]

But one who carries a weapon is always at fault, no matter the circumstances.

"Always at fault"?
[citation needed]

And in cases like this [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/26/man-knocked-off-bike-kills-teen_n_1233462.html], it's the fault of the old man, not the three teens who decided they were going to assault him?

Weapons can't be used for self-defense, that's a silly myth. Weapons only lead to a false sense of safety, do never resolve conflicts and agrevate violence.

[citation needed]

Considering you tend to classify self-defense with weapons as "murder", it's no wonder you came to that conclusion.

Ah yes, if I recall correctly, this is the same poster who described a woman cornered in her own home with naught but her infant daughter and a rifle while a knife wielding burglar spent 20 minutes breaking down her door as 'lying in wait'

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

But one who carries a weapon is always at fault, no matter the circumstances.

"Always at fault"?
[citation needed]

And in cases like this [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/26/man-knocked-off-bike-kills-teen_n_1233462.html], it's the fault of the old man, not the three teens who decided they were going to assault him?

Weapons can't be used for self-defense, that's a silly myth. Weapons only lead to a false sense of safety, do never resolve conflicts and agrevate violence.

[citation needed]

Considering you tend to classify self-defense with weapons as "murder", it's no wonder you came to that conclusion.

Ah yes, if I recall correctly, this is the same poster who described a woman cornered in her own home with naught but her infant daughter and a rifle while a knife wielding burglar spent 20 minutes breaking down her door as 'lying in wait'

You are correct. He did, along with calling her a "murderess" and stating that she simply should have used words to make the angry knife wielding man go away.

 

[Heronblade]

it makes me depressed to see that the general view is that the victim is at fault.

He is. He carried a weapon. End of any discussion. In addition, he carried a weapon into a freaking school.

Homosexual in America, yes, I'm quite willing to believe he's bullied terribly, and school administrators are quite content to let it happen. I also think homophobic bullies deserve everything that happens to them. If the headline had been "Gay kid hospitalises bully, may never recover" my response would be good for him.
But one who carries a weapon is always at fault, no matter the circumstances.

Weapons can't be used for self-defense, that's a silly myth. Weapons only lead to a false sense of safety, do never resolve conflicts and agrevate violence.

For instance if someone pulls such a stungun on me, he's taking the closest bit of furniture to the face, repeatedly if that's what needed to bring him down, because it's not safe to get near and I need to bring him down before he uses it once. A weapon means that all bets are off and everything's allowed.

Really? Out of these two outcomes:

-Gay kid brandishes a "weapon" that barely qualifies for the term (the definition requires that it be designed to cause physical harm, which a stun gun almost cannot do), and manages to get six bullies to back the hell off without causing anyone any harm at all.

-Gay kid hospitalized by six homophobic wastes of sperm.

You dare sit there and tell the rest of us that the second option is preferable because the assholes who started the violence didn't use a weapon other than their fists? I can understand not wanting to make an exception for the no weapon rules, even if I strongly disagree due to the circumstances, but this?

You freely admit that you don't care if a bully gets seriously injured, so what the f*** is any morally different about hospitalizing someone with a fist, or a bat, or a gun? Hell, if the victim in question managed to injure, much less hospitalize, one of his opponents with a civilian stun gun, I'd be praising his quick thinking and ingenuity, because its generally considered to be impossible outside of carefully controlled conditions.

 

[Robert Ewing]

Bring in a means of protection against terrifying foes that will only get stronger and will never leave you alone as long as you're in viewing distance, never actually use it, get punished. Ruined education even further.

Sigh... Where is the justice?

 

[Athinira]

I stand by what I said, the kid should be punished for bringing a weapon to school. Should he be treated with leniency? Yes, but punished all the same.

Fair, we'll just have to disagree then.

My opinion is that people who are getting pushed or pressured to the extreme are excused by their actions as long as they don't harm (or directly attempt to harm) anyone. It's human nature to react in extreme ways when pushed into desperation. Basically anyone can get driven over the edge. He equipped himself with a harmless weapon which he flashed to scare them away in this case. You might consider that bad, but consider the two worst case scenarios: another school shooting, or him committing suicide.

It's VERY important that problems like these are dealt with at the root, in this case the bullies. I consider it the fault of the school for not having intervened earlier (assuming they had been informed about the bullying). Like i said, it's just simply human nature to react with extreme measures when they get pressured into desperation and there is no help to be had. Action -> Reaction.

 

[LetalisK]

I'll admit, I haven't read the entire thread, but I think there is a serious issue here everyone is overlooking.

A taser is a weapon that shoots little barbs out a distance and shocks someone.

A stun gun requires close contact with the person.

Why aren't those names reversed!? Clearly, the taser should be the stun gun and the stun gun should be the taser! Wake up people, we're going down the rabbit hole!

 

[Crayven]

From what i can see, the kid didn't do anything wrong, he had the stun gum, was threatened, demonstrated it would work without using it and they left him alone.
I have seen that some kids after being bulled kill themselves or take a gun into school and shoot people.
By all accounts, he wasn't after revenge, he just wanted to be left alone.

 

[Heronblade]

You dare sit there and tell the rest of us that the second option is preferable

Yes. In the latter case I'm pretty sure no bully would make the mistake of starting a physical confrontation anymore. (take it from someone who they wouldn't leave alone untill he did) In the former, nothing changes, and the bullies will be back tomorrow, and the next day, and the next week, and so on.

And in that case they are very likely to use more violence, faster, or bring weapons by themselves. The newspaper headline, considering it's the US, could well end up being "Gay kid with tazer stabbed/shot by bully".

You freely admit that you don't care if a bully gets seriously injured, so what the f*** is any morally different about hospitalizing someone with a fist, or a bat, or a gun?

If people use weapons, the results are worse than a few bruises, both due to the assault and the escalating response to that.

It's not about who's agressor and who's victim, it's about everybody being worse off if weapons are used. Because I can tell you, next time those bullies aren't showing up slowly to intimidate first, and neither are they coming empty-handed, and then we could probably argue over a topic called "Gay kid in hospital with skull fracture after struck from behind with chair by bully".

I've never seen a case where escalation of the sort you mention actually happens on a personal level. I won't claim it doesn't, but it seems to at the very least be relatively rare, even here in the evil states of triggerhappyredneckland.Bullies have a tendency to give up on a target that fights back in any case, they prey on those too weak to do so.

As such, given the choice of:

Allowing myself to be hospitalized today, and next month, and the month after that, because one thing is for certain, getting beaten up does nothing to stop a bully, it encourages them.

or

Finding a way to fight back, and almost certainly never being attacked again, with a slim chance of facing a worse attack later.

I'll take door #2 thank you very much, especially if I cannot find any third options.

The excuse of every criminal. "I had no choice". Of course he did. There isn't any evidence that he would have taken a beating.

You don't have any evidence, that doesn't mean evidence doesn't exist, or that the kid in question didn't have a reasonable fear. Should he have waited until he was starting to black out from the punches before attempting to defend himself? The tactician in me for some odd reason is screaming something about it being a bad idea.

 

[Comando96]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say bringing a stun-gun to school was not the best way to handle the situation.

Of course not...

There are easier, much more effective ways of getting the Media's attention to deal with a homophobic school board.

I agree. The issue was the homophobic school board, but by bringing the stun-gun to school, the victim unfortunately made it a bringing a weapon to school issue.

If he had just balled up on the ground and was lucky enough to survive they could have totally blown that whole "homophobic school board" thing wide open!

Though if he woke up from the coma, or had use of his legs, or lived to actually crawl away from a 6 on 1 beating motivated by homophobia and hate then I'm sure it all could have been resolved peaceably.

That's sarcasm btw, everyone of those six kids should be punished in the harshest criminal manner.

So you think bringing an illegal weapon to school was the best solution?

I don't. I would have walked into the school, filmed it and threataned a media shitstorm on all involved and their parents and their parents businesses etc etc. Its not blackmail as blackmail is for financial gain... but basically I would "legally blackmail" all the fuckers involved.

That said I am a devious schemer. Most people aren't and a stun gun is the best logical conclusion that they could think of. I mean... what else can you do... pad you kid up in body armor? Its possible that you could put a wire on him but that's not as good as having the fuckers faces exposed on YouTube... if they don't stop...

A Stun Gun while certainly not the best solution I don't fucking blame his mother.

 

[lacktheknack]

My my, all these people who have no concept of reality and would rather use a weapon than their head.

Using your head is overrated. It's harder to hide the injuries afterwards. Plus, your neck hurts afterwards, as well as restricting the swing area required to make a good hit. Most people tend to protect their heads in these situations as one's fists, feet or carried object typically makes a better blunt weapon. Alternatively, a static stun gun or pepper spray. Those are the most effective and are more likely to doscourage the bully from trying again.

Unless you're referring to Macgyvering a shield out of the air, walls and floor as six brutes bear down on you. In which case, go ahead.

(Generally, people who tell bullied kids to "use your head" are simply too lazy and aloof and don't care enough to come up with an actual solution.)

Fortunately I'm from a country where both stun guns and pepper spray are illegal to use. Somehow kids manage to deal with bullies without that.Plus by finding solutions that don't involve a weapon they don't escalate the matter into a weapons battle that eventually they will lose, they don't break laws, and they actually find ways to stop problems that build their confidence and discourage future bullies by generating respect.

And I did supply a series of answers above to alternatives.

What we seem to have here is a cross dressing boy who wasn't smart enough to talk down agressors, tone down his dress, or simply have friends. He must have demonstrated lack of confidence or they wouldn't have picked on him for any length of time. Through the absense of the father in the story, he was probably without a father and thus didn't know how to handle himself as a man in that situation. So what did he do? Pulled a weapon? A cowardly response that will only make his life worse. He's lucky, for example, that they fled. He pulled a weapon first, at that point they could have taken him out and reasonably claimed self defence.

I don't give a damn what brought him up to that point in time, what matters is that he was at it. And his options at that exact moment were A. pull a stun gun, or B. take a beating.

The excuse of every criminal. "I had no choice". Of course he did. There isn't any evidence that he would have taken a beating.

I don't think "evidence" means what you think it means.

ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing.
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

Note the use of the word "tends".

He reports that he's been beaten before, presumably from the same people repeatedly. Seeing how the conditions in which the beatings were administered haven't changed, that's EVIDENCE that it would happen again.

Also, the bullies that cornered him claimed they were going to beat him. THAT'S PERFECT EVIDENCE that he was going to be beaten.

The sentence you were looking for was "We don't know 100% for sure that he would have been beaten", which is true. However, I dare YOU to stand your ground in a situation where there's a 99.5% of getting injured and saying "I can't be sure I'll be hurt". Go on, I dare you.

 

[Athinira]

The excuse of every criminal. "I had no choice". Of course he did. There isn't any evidence that he would have taken a beating.

First of all: Just because criminals use that excuse incorrectly, doesn't mean it can't be used correctly by others.and therefore, you can't dismiss it as a bad excuse just because REAL criminals are prone to abuse it.

Second of all: The right to use self-defense doesn't require you to be attacked first. It only requires there to be an imminent threat, meaning that if you have reasonable suspicion that you might be attacked (or in some cases just unlawfully touched), you can initiate self-defense.

Being surrounded by 6 guys who have bullied him before is enough of a justification to initiate non-lethal self-defense, including with non-lethal weapons, until they back off.

 

[Athinira]

Yes, responding to verbal abuse with an illegal weapon makes perfect sense. So now that the bullies have been threatened with a weapon, its obvious THEY should bring bigger and better weapons to confront him next time, right?

Hint: It wasn't verbal abuse. They surrounded and cornered him. That's enough to legally allow him to use non-lethal self-defense (including with civilian-approved non-lethal weapons).