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

[Treblaine]

It is a VITAL element from a legal and MORAL standpoint that in justified self-defence that you be DEFENSIVE! You avoid dangerous situations, and if in a dangerous situation make at least consideration of escaping it, only using weapons and violence as a last resort.

Funny, like I said in another post we are living in a "civilized" area where we think it's normal for criminals to dictate where you can or can't go at night.

I once got off a train and to leave the platform I had to pass trough a tunnel where no natural light could get in and the lighting was very dim. The station had put on a sign saying that we should avoid risky situations.

Sorry to use this buzzword but VICTIM BLAMING. If you want to get off the train you have to go trough the tunnel anyway, the logic of avoiding risks basically means that if you are a hot woman in skirt you're taking "risks" and you should blamed in case you are raped.

Zimmerman

Funny that you mentioned that prick (tired of hearing about him) because you have NO. IDEA. OF. WHAT. HAPPENED.

Zimmerman only drew the gun when he was down and being beaten. After he had called for help and nobody came. Treyvon did not do the right thing, he DID the retarded, thuggish thing to do. "Oh, no a person is looking at me funny. I better stalk him and confront him from behind." - typical "thug" behavior.

Why are you implying it was a negligent discharge when there is photographic evidence of Zimmerman's bleeding head? The police investigated the scene and said it had been a textbook self-defense shooting.

By the way, Zimmerman wasn't a cop but he was properly LICENSED by the state to carry a firearm, which means he had to undergo proper TRAINING.

The point is does it only have one practical purpose, to harm individuals to a significant extent, then it is a weapon. A pencil is a totally impractical weapon and its usefulness as a writing implement far outweighs it's uselessness as a weapon.

Obviously you have never seen someone getting stabbed by a pencil.

Anything is a goddamned weapon, garbage bags, chairs, etc everything can be used to kill.

"for criminals to dictate where you can or can't go at night."

But how does that justify seeking confrontation?

I didn't say you can never put yourself in risk of violent confrontation but if you GENUINELY are acting on self-defence you should be avoiding confrontation. In other words, don't go to the rough part of town unless you have legitimate business there. Remember, violence is a last resort, even the lives and well-being of your attacker are important

This is not "victim blaming" and don't compare yourself to woman stalked by rapists who will likely be weaker and defenceless from any attacker. My argument in no way equivalent to the "she wore a short skirt and asked to be raped". No woman wants that. They never truly thought that men would do that, they wear a short skirt to attract noble suitors not savages.

But vigilantes want to be attacked as they can strike back with lethal force and kill certain gangs that they despise. Hell, one gang to another want this. Think about how gang members can abuse such a self-defence law that allows you to strike even when you provoke an attack. Some gang banger just has to walk into another territory, provoke them to take a punch or rob him then shoot him dead.

I am saying when you deliberately go somewhere knowing there will confrontation, especially when you are armed, then you are not the victim. You are the aggressor trying to rationalise victim-hood to justify violence. The justification for violence is as a last resort. You talk about a civilised society, well even criminals have rights in a civilised society, violent force can only be justified against them

The responsibility for making areas free to travel through it NOT down to individual armed citizens, it is down to the ACCOUNTABLE authorities! If they aren't doing their job that doesn't licence vigilantism. So the school bullying must be stopped by the school authorities so it is safe to return. A violent gang neighbourhood needs to be brought into order by the police and the law courts and local legislation if necessary.

The key part of self-Defence is the DEFENCE part. Seeking confrontation is the opposite of defence.

There are exceptions by extreme circumstance, like if you see a woman being raped then you have business to intervene and escalate force correspondingly to stop the assault. But it doesn't give you licence to walk over and shoot him in the back of the head.

The basic rule is DO NOT GO OUT WITH AN INTENTION TO KILL! The escalation of force must be lethal force as a final measure. Lethal force because that is the only option you have left from death or severe injury. By severe injury I mean rape or losing a limb, not a bloody nose from some kid popping you on the nose.

Vigilantes are not those who prevent crimes being committed, or record crimes and help police. They want to kill criminals because they have a murderous cruelty streak.

I do have a fairly good idea of the facts surrounding the Zimmerman case, though I DID add the caveat that this was based on the limited amount that I knew. But lets go through this:

-Zimmerman was stalking the kid, NOT the other way around. He was chasing him and the police records don't show he clearly identified that he was trying to enforce the law. Zimmerman confronted him from behind and tackled him
-You corroborate that the kid struck Zimmerman, but that is to be expected after this strange man chased him down and tackled him trying to restrain him. He might have thought he was some sort of pervert that wanted to rape this young boy. Reasonably you would strike back if you were in his position especially after you tried to run.
-I'm giving Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt it was a Negligent Discharge as it would be pure spite to shoot an unarmed kid just because he gave him a bloody nose. Drawing the gun maybe, but it is no justified reason to DELIBERATELY shoot as there was no serious threat that justified lethal force.
-Licences to carry a weapon does not come with adequate training on how to make arrests. It's enough to make sure you don't break the most basic rules of general firearm use.
Police have VERY specific training on how to make armed arrests that Zimmerman didn't have, like making it 100% clear that they are the police and they are making a lawful arrest. The police are known to be accountable to a public organisation, while some guy with a gun is not.

Self defence from a puny pugilist is not simply drawing a gun and shooting them. That is totally out of proportion to shoot someone who punched you especially after you stalked them, chased them, and tackled them the had reason to punch you in the first place.

Think about it, what is the reasonable thing to do to stop someone punching you? It is shoving them away and encouraging them to leave you, give them an opportunity to leave. If they clearly have no intention of punching to escape and you seriously think they can put you in the hospital before help arrives (with that kid?) then draw your weapon and give them a final chance to freely leave.

And the state of Florida argues that Zimmerman has broken the law. Police stated on the night of the incident they didn't think it was self-defence when they initially arrested him, it's not unusual to not immediately charge a suspect as if you've read any criminal investigations they don't want to charge till they have a good case.

As to bringing weapons into school because pencils are allowed.
I've seen wounds from a pencil and also knife wounds, I worked in a hospital treating knife wounds. Pencil doesn't compare. You cannot get a good grip on a pencil, it often struggles to penetrate cotton clothing before it breaks and has a very narrow wound track it is more likely to push past a major blood vessel than sever it. A hole in the lung or torso is too small for air to move at a significant rate and the heart is simply too strong to be punctured let alone get through the sternum.

Now a knife wound is far more serious. It can break bones and cuts a broad wound rather than poke a narrow hole stretched open that stretches closed from a pencil. A deep longitudinal cut from a knife stab it hugely likely to hit a major blood vessel and break bones. A stab wound to the thorax will quickly lead to a collapsed lung as the long cut can "eyelid" open and allow air and blood to freely pass through. Due to a considerable handle and its strength many rapid stabs can be performed. Particularly deadly is a small blade with a large handle for a good grip how it can give a forceful hooking "slash". Poke in an inch into the abdomen and trust laterally to disembowel. Into the neck and slit their throat cutting the huge cluster of nerves, blood vessels and trachea that are concentrated in the throat.

You cannot justify weapons like knives or other weapons in schools because of pencils remote possibility to do superficial harm.

 

[Treblaine]

Jesus christ, she thought giving him a weapon was a more appropriate response than, I don't know, sending him to a different school?

Edit: Also, this is why school uniforms should be compulsory.

The problem with school uniforms is wouldn't the school THEN be doing to this student what the bullies are doing? The bullies don't like the way he dresses, his hairstyle, so they drive him out of school so he conforms. Conformity.

So the solution to Enforced Conformity it Enforced Conformity. A school uniform that would even eliminate his flamboyant hairstyle would be EXACTLY what the bullies want.

If everyone is wearing the same thing, the jocks and poplar kids get their way.

And this doesn't teach tolerance, it teaches authoritarian exceptionalism, that you can simply ban inconveniences. It just sweeps the issue under the rug of learning to live and work with people who dress or act differently, and just delays the issue till they leave school.

This american school needs to actually ENFORCE it's free-dress policy! And that means stopping any member of the school intimidating another for their dress that expresses their benign nature. The way people dress is important otherwise this kid would have just changed his dress style.

 

[ElPatron]

I've seen wounds from a pencil and also knife wounds, I worked in a hospital treating knife wounds. Pencil doesn't compare. You cannot get a good grip on a pencil, it often struggles to penetrate cotton clothing before it breaks and has a very narrow wound track it is more likely to push past a major blood vessel than sever it. A hole in the lung or torso is too small for air to move at a significant rate and the heart is simply too strong to be punctured let alone get through the sternum.

Now a knife wound is far more serious. It can break bones and cuts a broad wound rather than poke a narrow hole stretched open that stretches closed from a pencil. A deep longitudinal cut from a knife stab it hugely likely to hit a major blood vessel and break bones. A stab wound to the thorax will quickly lead to a collapsed lung as the long cut can "eyelid" open and allow air and blood to freely pass through. Due to a considerable handle and its strength many rapid stabs can be performed. Particularly deadly is a small blade with a large handle for a good grip how it can give a forceful hooking "slash". Poke in an inch into the abdomen and trust laterally to disembowel. Into the neck and slit their throat cutting the huge cluster of nerves, blood vessels and trachea that are concentrated in the throat.

You cannot justify weapons like knives or other weapons in schools because of pencils remote possibility to do superficial harm.

I used to think that way. Until I learned that a bear has been killed with .22 Short.

The hell with "lethality", people have been shot in the head and survived, and people have been killed by freak accidents.

Also, the grip you get in a pencil is about the same you get in a budget folding knife - shit, but it puts people into a world of hurt.

gang members

Further down the post you say that criminals have rights. So I suppose they have the right to self-defense, no? Anyway...

Where your logic fails: convicted felons can't own firearms so if they walk around with a gun, it's an illegal gun. They can't get concealed carry permits either, so they are carrying an illegal weapon, legally.

THEREFORE, THEY CAN'T GET AWAY WITH SELF-DEFENSE.

The responsibility for making areas free to travel through it NOT down to individual armed citizens, it is down to the ACCOUNTABLE authorities!

The police does not have the obligation to protect your life. It has been established by cases like DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989) and Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005)

The WHOLE DAMNED POINT of issuing concealed carry permits is discouraging crime - just google it, crime drops in places where CCW is issued, while restrictive states like California and New York have very high criminal activity.

Zimmerman was stalking the kid, NOT the other way around (...) Zimmerman confronted him from behind and tackled him

[CITATION NEEDED]

it would be pure spite to shoot an unarmed kid just because he gave him a bloody nose. Drawing the gun maybe, but it is no justified reason to DELIBERATELY shoot as there was no serious threat that justified lethal force.

FIREARMS SAFETY RULE #2 - Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.

What you just said violates every principle of gun safety - you NEVER pull a gun out unless you are willing to shot, and you NEVER point a gun at anyone unless you intend to stop that person.

Plus, it's perfectly acceptable to make use of lethal force when you are under threat of severe bodily harm - Zimmerman was getting his head bashed in by Treyvon, who was on top of him. He feared for his life and he followed the law.

The only reason this case if being a shitstorm is because the Media is praying that black people see it as a hate crime and start riots like in LA. Goddamn it, Zimmerman is Hispanic but he was presented as a caucasian by the media to instigate hate.

you have business to intervene and escalate force correspondingly to stop the assault. But it doesn't give you licence to walk over and shoot him in the back of the head.

First, you don't aim for the head. That is for movies or exceptionally trained individuals. You shoot center-mass and you don't stop pulling the trigger until the threat is down - that's how the police does it, that's how self-defense instructors train you.

Second, I don't believe in corresponding force - to stop someone from raping another person, I will definitely not rape the rapist, and I won't try reasoning with him, he might be armed.

When you have to make use of violence, you go all out. It's stupid to die helping someone, it's preferable to incapacitate the criminal in the least amount of time

 

[HarryScull]

She was dumb to give the kid a weapon, though for self defense purposes weapons are great, especially guns. BUT NOT AT SCHOOLS, what I mean is, a weapon is acceptable in life or death scenarios, this guy was not in one of those scenarios.

The school may not have done its job, but the parent pretty much caused mutiny. Weapons are not allowed in schools, period.

She should have taught him martial arts, much more legal.

1. guns can be used if you feel either
A. your life is threatened
B. you fear for serious bodily harm (which the kid did)
C. you fear rape
that's the law and IMO that is correct, if it was my kid I would have given him something even more serious than a stun gun as a stun gun is not actually effective in a group situation and the kid was lucky the ran away instead of beating the shit out of him

2. if I was being bullied at school and the school wasn't stopping it I would absolutely take it into my own hands and bring in a weapon (so would anyone else with any common sense), the school failed to protect the kid and he was forced to protect himself with a weapon making it the schools fault not the kids

3. martial arts do not work in a 6 vs 1 situation, period even the black belts I know wouldn't fight and win 6 vs 1 and ecven in terms of winning a 2 vs 1 is unlikely even after serious training and the kid is being bullied know and training for afew months then getting beat up by a group of bullies is a really shit idea

the way the kid and his mum acted was correct except the point that stun guns wont work in a group situation (especially not 6 vs 1) and the school acted way put of order, by not helping the kid the school forcing him to protect himself then the school tried to expell him for protecting himself, its pretty fucked up and trying to put the kid is the wrong or the school is in the right is even more fucked up

 

[runic knight]

Stopped reading this paragraph after that, because yes, you just compared rape victims to ordinary childhood bullying. Nice lack of perspective there.

And you're trying to spin ME as insensitive? Pot, meet kettle.

I'm sorry, would you care to point out how my point was invalid or will you just call this alternative "godwin's law" as though it invalidates what I have said? When a parallel exists, as I clearly explained before how, just because it is a difference in scale does not invalidate it. Indeed, you avoid addressing any of it under the pretense that drawing parallels to rape somehow doesn't require it anymore. It still does and I am waiting on a response to how what the victim does or does not wear in ANY way justifies or excuses actions taken to them.

Most cops are going to be mature enough not to use a stun gun on you if you say "I'm gonna beat you up". He's a high school kid, granted, maturity is lacking in that department, but his mother should have been mature enough to know better. The fact that she didn't means she's not being a proper role model. You can teach your kid self-defense without teaching him to break the law.

He was surrounded by 6 kids, and held the non-lethal stun gun into the air and released is to scare them off. So no, I don't think his maturity is lacking there. A cop in that situation could have shot his way out with a real gun and not been fired for it either. Why do people assume that a police officer is more responsible then a civilian? They are just as capable of horrible acts of violence or stupidity, and conversely just as capable of mature and rational thought.

Psychological "torture" isn't a valid excuse for breaking the law and endangering other students. Nice try though.

Tell ya what though, it's amazing how many people manage to survive bullying without the "mental scarring" that everyone claims we should have. Maybe I've just been hypnotized into forgetting all of that awful torment I suffered at the hands of my bullies? Or maybe, just maybe, I'm made of slightly sterner stuff? Hard to tell, really, but it seems like our psych wards should be full of people if indeed bully victims are as "psychologically tortured" as people like to claim they are.

Or perhaps people just like to throw that phrase around so much that it's completely lost all meaning. Bullies will always exist, and while we should always do something about it, they'll always exist. And more importantly, when the bullies grow up and become adult bullies, what will these kids do then, when no one is around to comfort them? People need to be able to bounce back, to adjust and to take some hits. If you never let them learn as a kid, they won't be able to cope with adult life.

inb4 you try to spin THIS as me being callous and unfeeling, too.

Where did he endanger other students? Having a tool does not automatically endanger them. Holding it in the air and using it to scare off bullies still does not endanger other students. I am not saying that people can't survive being bullied, merely they should not have to be subjected to it. I am also not saying all kids suffer trauma, but some can and do. Well, unless you want to disregard the whole "increased rate of depression/suicide aspect of the bullied. You survived? good for you. Some don't. I'd rather be concerned about those who aren't made of "sterner stuff" and making an environment where they are protected.
I call bullshit on that "bullies will always exist" the same way I do to people saying the poor will always exist. There will always be those who try to bully, but that does not mean the system in place should turn a blind eye or can not stop it. Hell, even if they can't, decreasing the effect is STILL an admirable goal to strive for. Sorry if I don't see things as "can't be perfect, wont bother". And for all the people beat to a pulp because bullying went too far, I am sure they bounce just fine. If bullying is something children have to deal with, then why do we, as adults, not do more to try and prevent it? Or even, as you said, to teach them how to defend themselves with the skills and tools available to civilians in public. Oh wait, that is exactly what got this mess started, isn't it?

Not on school grounds. Civilians are not allowed to carry firearms on school grounds, even if the weapon is registered. It's a public safety law that exists for a damn good reason. If you actually think it's legal for a kid to bring a stun gun to school then you're being willfully ignorant of your own country's laws.

Firearms are not stun guns. Stun guns are not actual "guns" and therefore may be looked at under a different classification. Part of the whole "might have been confusion instead of blatant disregard" part of my post concerning it. I could argue how zones like that can cause as many issues as they stop, how there are grey zones when it comes to pepper spray or stun sticks and the like, etc.

Obviously he knew better if he had never done it in the past. And allegedly he only did so because his mother told him to. He knew it wasn't okay, but did it anyways. He shares blame with his parent for this one.

Bullshit. If he had not felt the need to he wouldn't. I never felt the need to wear a football helmet to school, but it has nothing to do with thoughts of legality, it is just lack of desire to do so. So no, unless he said he knew it was against the rules himself, you can not claim this without being full of shit.

No, there isn't.

Yes, there is. You are familiar with the idea of civil disobedience, yes? You know, people the law overlooked if not outright treated unfairly breaking the law for moral reasons? You can't see how a kid defending himself from bullies when the law did nothing to stop it as anything like this, can you?

I'm so glad you haven't bothered to go back and read some of my previous posts. No, it's much easier to make sweeping assumptions based on the content of the one post you're quoting.

I already said that I didn't think it was okay for the bullies to pick on him. That I was bullied in my past too. That I think all kinds of bullying against any person for any reason is wrong. I'm just not going to believe that the stun gun was "the only way" to solve this problem, because from personal experience, there are always other ways. He chose the one that violates the law, so he gets to accept the consequences of his actions and maybe next time he'll employ smarter tactics against people who put him down or pick on him, because he'll be dealing with it for the rest of his life just like everyone else.

I never said it was the only way to solve it, merely it was justifiable. And no, I have not read your past posts because my comments here were about the post I quoted. If you meant something else, that is one thing, but from all I have read, you project a lot of extra fault and malice on the kid and his mom, and seem cartoonishly supportive of the letter of the law in this case, in spite of how it is not cut and dry, and even the letter of the law may not be as sharp. I have brought up reasons why could be justifiable, how the logic you use is flawed and how you repeatedly attribute knowing aggression when motivation, foreknowledge and full details of the situation are not known to you or me.

Now, can you please explain why a comparison to rape is not justifiable to make when in both cases, the garb of the wearer is cited as a motivation for the action taken against them. Can you explain how you know they deliberately disobeyed as opposed to uncertainty about the letter of the law. And can you explain why no one should ever break the law regardless if it is screwing you over in an unfair manner, and regardless that the makers and enforcers of said law are as flawed a human being as the ones following it and that the kid was facing a potential threat that could have been life threatening.

 

[Sylveria]

The kid brought a weapon to school. The instant someone does that, you absolutely have to expel the kid, no matter what the circumstances were. I'm not sure that there was a good option for the kid if the administration genuinely wasn't doing enough, but worst-case scenario, the stun gun could kill someone, and you only use something like that in a genuinely life-threatening situation, one that I doubt was really ever a possibility. If there was a real threat to the kid's life, he wouldn't have been going to school. At least he didn't actually use it on anyone, so he probably won't end up with a criminal record.

Or the bullies could beat him to death. But I guess cold blooded murder is a lesser crime than self-defense in your mind.

 

[Sylveria]

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

Starting to wonder about your concept of reality if you think a group of gay-bashers is going to just walk away cause the kid just stood there. Of course your other ideas of having him and his family uproot their entire lives and run away or watching a few Bruce Lee movies and instantly becoming a Kung Fu master are totally more realistic.

I get the feeling you're on the bullies side and just want the victims to take their beatings or cower in fear every day.

 

[Evil Smurf]

Bringing a weapon to school is obviously a bad idea.

Fortunately, there are plenty of other options someone in that position has.

Unfortunately none of them will actually work, but, um...don't be gay? Yeah, problem solved, I'll go back to ignoring it now.

I may be ignorant here, but how does one stop being gay? Ar'n't they born that way?

 

[runic knight]

I may be ignorant here, but how does one stop being gay? Ar'n't they born that way?

I think that was the point of the post, to show the absurdity of many of the alternative ideas bantered about. And something to the effect that he could no sooner stop being who he was as he could stop having his hair color.
Personally I think a lot of the alternatives are either the same thing with a different face, like to learn martial arts to beat them up(as though using a tool to defend yourself is somehow 'dirty fighting' in spite of overwhelming size and numbers), unreasonable, like moving to a different school or getting the police to intervene when the school is not, or vindicating the actions of the bullies by having the kid pipe down, hide who he is, (thereby saying that the actions of the bullies was justified because differences need to be hidden or else bad things will happen to you and the law wont protect you if you are different).

 

[Evil Smurf]

I may be ignorant here, but how does one stop being gay? Ar'n't they born that way?

I think that was the point of the post, to show the absurdity of many of the alternative ideas bantered about. And something to the effect that he could no sooner stop being who he was as he could stop having his hair color.
Personally I think a lot of the alternatives are either the same thing with a different face, like to learn martial arts to beat them up(as though using a tool to defend yourself is somehow 'dirty fighting' in spite of overwhelming size and numbers), unreasonable, like moving to a different school or getting the police to intervene when the school is not, or vindicating the actions of the bullies by having the kid pipe down, hide who he is, (thereby saying that the actions of the bullies was justified because differences need to be hidden or else bad things will happen to you and the law wont protect you if you are different).

my bad, sarcasm does not really go down well on the internet

 

[Baneat]

It's like how UK teachers are told to say that they can solve the problems just by telling on the bullies, but I've spoken to more than a few teachers in a non-professional circumstance and they firmly believe they just don't have the position to do anything - the best way would be to beat the shit out of them.

Now when you're six on one if you can't elevate you're just fucked - I have no sympathy for bullies getting injured whilst carrying that action out.

 

[Treblaine]

I've seen wounds from a pencil and also knife wounds, I worked in a hospital treating knife wounds. Pencil doesn't compare. You cannot get a good grip on a pencil, it often struggles to penetrate cotton clothing before it breaks and has a very narrow wound track it is more likely to push past a major blood vessel than sever it. A hole in the lung or torso is too small for air to move at a significant rate and the heart is simply too strong to be punctured let alone get through the sternum.

Now a knife wound is far more serious. It can break bones and cuts a broad wound rather than poke a narrow hole stretched open that stretches closed from a pencil. A deep longitudinal cut from a knife stab it hugely likely to hit a major blood vessel and break bones. A stab wound to the thorax will quickly lead to a collapsed lung as the long cut can "eyelid" open and allow air and blood to freely pass through. Due to a considerable handle and its strength many rapid stabs can be performed. Particularly deadly is a small blade with a large handle for a good grip how it can give a forceful hooking "slash". Poke in an inch into the abdomen and trust laterally to disembowel. Into the neck and slit their throat cutting the huge cluster of nerves, blood vessels and trachea that are concentrated in the throat.

You cannot justify weapons like knives or other weapons in schools because of pencils remote possibility to do superficial harm.

I used to think that way. Until I learned that a bear has been killed with .22 Short.

The hell with "lethality", people have been shot in the head and survived, and people have been killed by freak accidents.

Also, the grip you get in a pencil is about the same you get in a budget folding knife - shit, but it puts people into a world of hurt.

A .22 rifle is still a freaking firearm. It's still deadlier than almost any other weapons for its range and inherent penetration power to punch through bone and get to organs like the brain that would be normally protected from all other attacks.

A folding knife has a long very sharp edge with a strong sharp point and shaft that won't bend or break. You can't compare that to a pencil. Pencils do not justify weapons in school.

gang members

Further down the post you say that criminals have rights. So I suppose they have the right to self-defense, no? Anyway...

Where your logic fails: convicted felons can't own firearms so if they walk around with a gun, it's an illegal gun. They can't get concealed carry permits either, so they are carrying an illegal weapon, legally.

THEREFORE, THEY CAN'T GET AWAY WITH SELF-DEFENSE.

No right to guns doesn't mean no right to self-defence, just no right to guns. If a guy with a knife charges at an ex-convict -who is going about his lawful business not interfering in anything - and tries to stab him, the ex-con is within his rights to use force to defend himself. Self-defence.

The no-guns rule for ex-cons is not for how they have no right to self-defence, but how their criminal history makes them so likely to abuse guns not for self-defence but to commit crimes.

The responsibility for making areas free to travel through it NOT down to individual armed citizens, it is down to the ACCOUNTABLE authorities!

The police does not have the obligation to protect your life. It has been established by cases like DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989) and Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005)

The WHOLE DAMNED POINT of issuing concealed carry permits is discouraging crime - just google it, crime drops in places where CCW is issued, while restrictive states like California and New York have very high criminal activity.

I did not say police have the obligation to protect your INDIVIDUAL life, I thought that so well established and not contradicted by anything I said it was redundant. It should be obvious that CANNOT be the police's job to protect every individual as they cannot always be there to protect every citizen all the time. I made clear that defending-yourself is your own responsibility, and why I generally support an armed citizenry.

Clearing out gangs is not personally protecting you, it is a general public service which IS the job of the police. If the police don't have to protect individuals nor even remove criminals from the streets then they apparently have NO responsibilities! That's not the case. It IS the police's job to break up gangs and confront suspects, not some guy with a gun playing vigilante

I won't argue with CCW reducing crime (though I will ask for a source) but as to the correlation between high levels of violent crime and strict gun laws why do you assume the causation is one way rather than the other? It could simply be that high levels of violent crime lead to more comprehensive bans on firearms just out of futility, the legislature feel they must do SOMETHING.

Zimmerman was stalking the kid, NOT the other way around (...) Zimmerman confronted him from behind and tackled him

[CITATION NEEDED]

Zimmerman himself confirmed he was chasing him down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOpGAOXL5Uk

it would be pure spite to shoot an unarmed kid just because he gave him a bloody nose. Drawing the gun maybe, but it is no justified reason to DELIBERATELY shoot as there was no serious threat that justified lethal force.

FIREARMS SAFETY RULE #2 - Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.

What you just said violates every principle of gun safety - you NEVER pull a gun out unless you are willing to shot, and you NEVER point a gun at anyone unless you intend to stop that person.

Plus, it's perfectly acceptable to make use of lethal force when you are under threat of severe bodily harm - Zimmerman was getting his head bashed in by Treyvon, who was on top of him. He feared for his life and he followed the law.

It helps if you read what I say. I said DRAW the weapon, not point it at anyone. Zimmerman clearly was prepared to destroy that poor kid and he had no reason to, he's a big guy this skinny kid couldn't "bash his head in" with with his puny fists. I saw the footage of Zimmerman on his arrest that night, he was not wheeled out in a gurney nor had any bruises nor facial lacerations. Its very easy to get a nose bleed from the slightest knock and he obviously didn't have a huge bleed as footage of him being processed on the nigh of the arrest.

you have business to intervene and escalate force correspondingly to stop the assault. But it doesn't give you licence to walk over and shoot him in the back of the head.

First, you don't aim for the head. That is for movies or exceptionally trained individuals. You shoot center-mass and you don't stop pulling the trigger until the threat is down - that's how the police does it, that's how self-defense instructors train you.

Second, I don't believe in corresponding force - to stop someone from raping another person, I will definitely not rape the rapist, and I won't try reasoning with him, he might be armed.

When you have to make use of violence, you go all out. It's stupid to die helping someone, it's preferable to incapacitate the criminal in the least amount of time

And you can't miss shooting someone in the head if you press the muzzle right up to their cranium. Now if I did catch a sick rapist doing that I'd put the gun to his head but wouldn't shoot. He could have a fully-automatic uzi for all it matters, they aren't dodging this close, they have no choice but to stop and surrender then I'll make it clear he isn't going anywhere her till the police arrive. It is worth reasoning with in that situation because when you have the drop on him then armed or not there is no way he could turn a weapon before being shot, so there is no necessity to shoot.

If he had a projectile weapon drawn and ready to fire, that's the time to mag dump. But not against every threat.

You'll find that legally accountable self-defence classes don't say it's permissible to dump a mag against any or all threats. Which is incidentally why I think Zimmerman had an ND or a moment of spiteful rage. If he REALLY thought that kid was a threat he would have mag-dumped. I think he was either mad that this punk kid dared to hit him and in a moment of wrath pulled the trigger, or was just careless and flinched.

In the heat of the moment, he probably couldn't even say himself whether it was a mistake or malice. But really he shouldn't have been pointing the gun at this unarmed kid who posed no serious threat. He was barely even justified in drawing the weapon. That's why he shouldn't even have been pointing the gun at him with his finger on the trigger. Two of the most fundamental rules broken... or followed if he intended to kill.

I remind you, Zimmerman is on trail for murder for what he did. Just because someone is attacking you, that does not justify any excess of force. Here is an example of the limitation of that:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20066839-504083.html

I just want to tell you about my personal realisation on this. I value life very very much. I know that we have a short time on this world and after that, that's it, gone, finito. Taking a life is hugely significant. Even shooting someone where they survive they may be permanently disabled and suffer from chronic pain from their body shattered by bullets.

I believe strongly in justice, you cannot put a dead man on trial and a one crippled by bullets in arrest will only get undeserved sympathy or clemency.

If you are treating self-defence as an opportunity to kill, then it will not work for you. I detect too much contrivance of reasons to kill like "taking no chances". Oh well thank you for disregarding life so flippantly and jeopardising justice because he may draw a weapon, spin around aim and shoot faster than you can shift sights on target and fire.

This is not like they are suicide bombers who may have bomb belts they could detonate any second and they cannot be given a chance. We are talking about criminals who know they are better off surrendering or fleeing, both preferable options as they cease their crimes.

 

[zehydra]

Day 1) Kid gets threatened. Mum gives his stun gun
Day 2) Bullies approach kid. Kid pulls stun gun and fires defensive shot. Bullies retreat.

He got lucky. I would have expected either

Day 2 cont...) Bullies pull a knife, kid gets destroyed
or
Day 3) Bullies get their own weapons.

Whether in the form of bats/clubs, knives or guns, 6 bullies are more likely to have access to and knowledge to use weaponry that one bullied kid. The kid will end up hurt.

In reality, the kid should have worked out why he was being picked on. If it's anything he can change, its better to conform than to get pummelled/expelled. If not, it is up to him to stay within sight of teachers/friends/parents/reasonable adults. The mother should have picked him up from school, not given him a weapon. If this was at lunch time, I highly doubt the teachers would object to him remaining inside if he felt threatened.

Defend his rights all you want. I fought bullies in school myself. It was once I realised that its up to me to change, rather than hope they will, that things got better.

That kind of makes me sad. You shouldn't have to change.

 

[manic_depressive13]

The problem with school uniforms is wouldn't the school THEN be doing to this student what the bullies are doing? The bullies don't like the way he dresses, his hairstyle, so they drive him out of school so he conforms. Conformity.

So the solution to Enforced Conformity it Enforced Conformity. A school uniform that would even eliminate his flamboyant hairstyle would be EXACTLY what the bullies want.

If everyone is wearing the same thing, the jocks and poplar kids get their way.

And this doesn't teach tolerance, it teaches authoritarian exceptionalism, that you can simply ban inconveniences. It just sweeps the issue under the rug of learning to live and work with people who dress or act differently, and just delays the issue till they leave school.

This american school needs to actually ENFORCE it's free-dress policy! And that means stopping any member of the school intimidating another for their dress that expresses their benign nature. The way people dress is important otherwise this kid would have just changed his dress style.

School is a place where people have the maturity of a nutsack. Yes, enforced conformity is the answer. How is enforcing a certain behavioural standard somehow preferable to enforcing a dress code? Either way you are expecting conformity.

Hence, uniforms. The kid doesn't get to dress like a ponce. The jocks and the cool kids get to wear unflattering, ugly outfits. People like me don't have to wash themselves because we wear the same thing every day anyway so no one can tell.

Everyone wins.

 

[runic knight]

School is a place where people have the maturity of a nutsack. Yes, enforced conformity is the answer. How is enforcing a certain behavioural standard somehow preferable to enforcing a dress code? Either way you are expecting conformity.

Hence, uniforms. The kid doesn't get to dress like a ponce. The jocks and the cool kids get to wear unflattering, ugly outfits. People like me don't have to wash themselves because we wear the same thing every day anyway so no one can tell.

Everyone wins.

Except the kid, since it was because he "dressed like a homo" and was a homosexual that he got mocked. Should he have to hide his sexual orientation and conform to the standard to avoid mocking? Uniforms are not the end all answer, and they do not stop bullies being bullies. Furthermore, why should the kid have to conform? People conform in society as an unspoken agreement of community. Everyone needs to follow rules so the community as a whole can survive and thrive. However there are aspects that do not affect others and therefore should not be enforced as a means to conform. Dress codes beyond what could be deemed as overly distracting (nudity and revealing attire, etc., they would affect student attention), shouldn't be used as an answer for kids picking on other kids for being different. They would just find something else to rag on them about, especially since the kid was gay and the reason he was being ragged on was less about his garb and more about his being open about it.

 

[Treblaine]

The problem with school uniforms is wouldn't the school THEN be doing to this student what the bullies are doing? The bullies don't like the way he dresses, his hairstyle, so they drive him out of school so he conforms. Conformity.

So the solution to Enforced Conformity it Enforced Conformity. A school uniform that would even eliminate his flamboyant hairstyle would be EXACTLY what the bullies want.

If everyone is wearing the same thing, the jocks and poplar kids get their way.

And this doesn't teach tolerance, it teaches authoritarian exceptionalism, that you can simply ban inconveniences. It just sweeps the issue under the rug of learning to live and work with people who dress or act differently, and just delays the issue till they leave school.

This american school needs to actually ENFORCE it's free-dress policy! And that means stopping any member of the school intimidating another for their dress that expresses their benign nature. The way people dress is important otherwise this kid would have just changed his dress style.

School is a place where people have the maturity of a nutsack. Yes, enforced conformity is the answer. How is enforcing a certain behavioural standard somehow preferable to enforcing a dress code? Either way you are expecting conformity.

Hence, uniforms. The kid doesn't get to dress like a ponce. The jocks and the cool kids get to wear unflattering, ugly outfits. People like me don't have to wash themselves because we wear the same thing every day anyway so no one can tell.

Everyone wins.

No, because teaching tolerance and acceptance is a value that stays with them all their lives and the value of the uniform disappears when they leave school. It is not "conformity" to NOT be cruel and malicious to people for how they dress and act. How can you twist acceptance of non-conformity as conformity, that's patently absurd.

It is precisely because of the low maturity of children in school that this lesson be learned there, not later in life (if ever). Schools are not mere glorified daycentres, as nothing more than to consume the time and energy of children till they are adults so they can be spat out. No. Schools are for making educated and well adjusted adults out of children, schools are for EDUCATION! Not just on science and history but how to function in society.

 

[Leethe1Girl]

Let's not make stuff up?

The article said he was dressed "flamboyantly" and identified as gay, not a cross-dresser or anything close to trans*. Of course, your think that means he was dressed like a woman: if you knew the first thing about queer or trans* issues, you'd know how ignorant that assumption is. He was being bullied because he looked gay, which the article never really qualifies in a meaningful way.

But I'll concede the point. It's like telling a girl who's being bullied because she dresses like a tomboy that she should rectify the situation by wearing dresses and makeup. That's appropriate, right?

Or is it only alright to tell a gay child being beaten up because people think he looks like a ****** not to look so much like a ******?

Err, no. That's a little something called discrimination.

Little fuckers known as bullies will find some sort of detail to pick on someone for no matter what. Even if the kid was not dressed in a funny way it wouldn't matter. They'd pick on someone for their hairstyle, the way their nose sits on their face, if they have freckles, etc.

Ah yes, this old argument. "You don't agree with me, so you must be biased and discriminatory".

Firstly, all people are biased, that's the nature of humanity.

Secondly, I'm not discriminatory against anyone (ergo why, in the post that you both quoted but didn't read, I stated that I hate bullying of any kind against any person).

Now that we've gotten that tired old argument out of the way, how about a real discussion now?

It's been noted that the entire reason he was being bullied is because he "looks gay". So why exactly is it wrong to point this fact out to the child, and to suggest to him that if he adjusts his dress, that the problem might go away? No one's saying "stop being gay, kid!", and the school isn't even forcing him to change his dress if he doesn't want to. But his dress is something that he can choose to change, and so telling him "hey, I know you're expressing yourself, but I think your choice of outfits might be part of the reason they're targeting you" is NOT a statement that is intended to offend him or force him to conform to "social norms". If he wants to dress that way anyways, fine, but this is a situation that he could have potentially defused without even involving security or the school. He never actually TRIED this to see if it would work, so we'll never know if it would have worked or not, though I'm certain you'll both happily argue until you're blue in the face that it wouldn't have worked. I, on the other hand, won't, because it's a hypothetical that has already passed. He chose not to try, so we'll never know.

And again, the article doesn't state that he has received any sort of actions against him beyond generic "I'm gonna beat you up" verbal threats. I'd point out that these sorts of threats occur every single day in every single school in the United States, and are rarely honest-to-god threats. Bringing a stun gun to school so that you can scare the bully away with a weapon is hardly what I'd call the reaction of a mentally stable individual, or a responsible parent. Were my kid in the same situation, I'd be teaching him how to fight and defend himself from attackers, NOT giving him a weapon. That teaches him that the law isn't important so long as you think you have a good reason for breaking it.

No, that's not the argument at all, actually. The argument, and the reason your suggestion is "so wrong" is because one person should not have to adjust themselves to fend off a few others. The SECOND part of my argument was that it would NOT work anyway.

The ones in this situation who need to change are the ones who were doing the bullying in the first place. Not their victim. Bullies, seemingly by nature, as I already posted above, please pay attention, will find ANY and ALL possible reasons to point someone out as being different. Whether it's as obvious as dressing differently or simply being more shy than other kids. It's the bullies and not the other kids that need a behavioral adjustment. Even if a bully victim got rid of all reasons for someone to pick on them, the bully would simply move on to someone else.

What would you suggest when that happens? That the next kid changes whatever they're being picked on for too? What if it's because their belly button is an inny and not an outy? Bring out the scissors and disinfectant, I guess.

 

[Saucycarpdog]

The kid is probably going to end up expelled, which is a little upsetting but you know it's the principle of the thing, he did have an actual potential weapon. However the fact that proper channels have constantly failed him proves that we need to teach kids how to handle problems themselves, not constantly intervene. Also that isn't bullying, bullying is when the kid who has absolutely no social skills is shunned because people saw him eating his boogers. This is straight up discrimination.

Did you just say it's bullying when the victim deserves it?

OT: He did bring a weapon to school. That's not something you can get away with.

 

[SmegInThePants]

when I was in school (way back when), telling teachers/counselors/police/anyone was not an option. Not because it was literally not an option, but because 1. it was ineffective and everyone knew it (they'd bring the bully in and have a talk w/him, that's it) and 2. you'd forever be known as a narc and instead of having a group of bullies after you, you'd have the entire student body thinking badly of you and you'd increase the number of bullies you had to deal with.

I moved from an area of very bad neighborhoods that I spent most of my childhood in (getting in lots of fights, was just a part of the culture), to a white-bread silver-spoon area (high school and on). In the poorer areas i lived it was just understood you had to solve your own problem or face even worse being known as a narc. There was a culture present wherein the worst thing you could be, the most stigmatizing thing you could be, was a narc. Fighting back or running away were the only options. Even if you lost fights, the mere fact that you fought for yourself would earn you some respect and bullies would leave you alone in favor of easier prey. Running away was an option some people picked, but it only seemed to encourage the bullies form what I saw.

In the later, richer areas I lived in, confiding in a counselor may well have worked and might have been more acceptable. I don't think anyone tried in my time there so I can't say for certain, but the attitude was definitely different, there was no anti-narc culture, so you probably wouldn't have been stigmatized like you would have had you tried such in the poorer neighborhoods. The rare occasion i had trouble in the richer areas i'd wait till no one was around and i'd throw a few punches and I never had to worry about said person again, they didn't even know how to fight so it was pretty one sided. These days though w/closed circuit cameras everywhere I imagine that might be harder to get away with. Worst case scenario, you get in some juvenile criminal trouble that gets expunged when you are an adult and get a rep. which will cause bullies to leave you alone (bullies stick to prey they know they can beat for the most part).

If I was this kid i'd of waited for some chances for 1 on 1 fights w/no one around and knocked 'em around a bit. Even if he lost, like if he can't fight well, it might have put some fear into them to know that he might be waiting around any corner any time they are alone to get revenge.

But yeah, fighting ain't like the movies, people can die in fist fights, and do. Cops accidentally kill people just by holding them down improperly some times. And a 6v1 fight no less is serious trouble. Now ya got a mob mentality to worry about, all the less likely to stop the beating in time. He should have just run from the 6v1 and fought 1v1 at times of his choosing, no weapon. But I can appreciate his feeling a need to do *something* even if what he chose wasn't the wisest choice. Plus he *did* tell someone, his mother, and she helped him make the poor decision.

If his situation had happened in my day in one of my schools (in the poorer areas) - the thing the fellow students would be talking about most would be - which of those 6 was the narc that told the powers that be that this kid had a stun gun. If it ever came out who it was, that's the kid who'd be having future troubles.