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

[TheTurtleMan]

I think that every kid should go to school with taser. It would eliminate all the douche bags after a couple of weeks. Not kill them, just make them shut up. When everyone walks around with the ability to shock you into convulsions, you probably pick your words more carefully and avoid acting like a jerk.

Seriously though, the kid should not be punished for defending himself. No one got hurt from him bringing a taser to school. Well, he prevented himself from being beat up so I guess it stopped someone from being hurt. If anyone deserves punishment it's the school he goes to and the bullies.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Kid should be expelled for bringing a weapon to school.
Bullies should be expelled for treating the kid that way and taught a valuable life lesson about what is and is not acceptable behaviour.
School should be ashamed of themselves and nationally ridiculed for allowing it to play out this way.

 

[Treblaine]

At first I thought taking a stun gun was out of proportion, but abuse of homosexuals in schools (particular certain schools in certain bible-beating parts of America) this still excessive response is excusable by how the extent of abuse is extreme but far from exceptional.

I still think it's wrong to take a stun gun as typically the way such abuse works is with multiple assailants and NO ONE coming to your help, a stun gun will shock one of them but that will only make him mad and he'll then just use it against you mercilessly. A more appropriate "weapon" is a secret recording device, to record all the threats, abuse and particularly the schools endemic inaction.

 

[Adultism]

I live in Indiana, We have a lot of hate against gays here (Not including me, I like dudes ;D ) But I understand how it is when you can't even get the teachers to punish students because they don't like the student that is getting bullied. At least thats what I'm assuming is going on. Teachers can have bias as well as students. I support what he did and I would do the same thing if I was in that situation. Self defense is A-Okay in my opinion. However I hope that the kid wouldn't go around acting like a tough ass with that weapon lol.

?If you wear female apparel, then kids are kids and they?re going to say whatever it is that they want to say,? Yarrell told The Star. ?Because you want to be different and because you choose to wear female apparel, it may happen."

Well that explains everything he goes to Arsenal that school is terrible.

 

[SkellgrimOrDave]

Far from his weapons a man should never be
For he never knows when foes may appear around him.

You guys are advocating punishing someone who took actions to defend himself, when he already tried the "approved" methods of sorting out his problem?

Strong arms and cruel hearts rule this world, and you're a fool to think anything else.
Paraphrased from Mr Sandor Clegane, and it's true. The world is not sunshine and flowers and niceties.

 

[ElPatron]

Fixed it for you. (I do find that approach rather ignorant BTW)

Alright, do you have a girlfriend? I need her phone number so that I can threaten her.

If you say it's not a reasonable threat, then I suppose it's okay.

I never said it was reasonable to bring a stun gun to school, I said it definitely fell into the definition of self-defense.

And what I said DOES have to do with what happened. You just need to step into my house and you have given me enough reason to assume death threat or grievous bodily hard. Just like threatening someone in real life.

a stun gun will shock one of them but that will only make him mad and he'll then just use it against you mercilessly.

I am against the use of stun guns for self-defense in general because they won't do much to a 200 pound dude on drugs.

But you think that a kid would stand after getting stunned? Check what they do to a sober adult.

 

[tmande2nd]

Teachers are some of the laziest fucks I have ever seen.
they dont care about bullies, they just ignore it.

I would have just pulled my kid from the school and told the local news about it.
Bringing a potentially lethal weapon is to risky.

 

[Kadoodle]

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.

This^. I feel sympathy for the kid, but it doesn't change the fact that he brought a weapon to school. This time he might not kill somebody, but you never know if the next time if he will bring a gun to school.

You just committed a logical fallacy known as the 'Slippery Slope.'

There is no connection between him bringing a stun gun for self defense against physical violence and bringing a loaded firearm; one thing does not lead to another. Furthermore, he did not acquire the stun gun himself. His mother gave it to him. This was HER decision, and he followed through to protect himself.

Also, sure, the stun gun COULD kill somebody, but you know what? If you're going to beat up a kid because he's gay, and his stun gun kills you, you had it coming. That's how self defense works. You make the claim that he should only use it in a life threatening situation. How does he know what the six kids surrounding him are going to do? How can someone tell whether it's a life threatening situation? What if the situation isn't life threatening, but will leave him bruised, bloody, and seriously injured? Is it really so bad to brandish a mostly non-lethal weapon to prevent a dangerous altercation?

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Is it really so bad to brandish a mostly non-lethal weapon to prevent a dangerous altercation?

At a school, where other people might get hurt? Yeah, its pretty bad.

 

[Treblaine]

a stun gun will shock one of them but that will only make him mad and he'll then just use it against you mercilessly.

I am against the use of stun guns for self-defense in general because they won't do much to a 200 pound dude on drugs.

But you think that a kid would stand after getting stunned? Check what they do to a sober adult.

Now you cut out the part where I mentioned the circumstance of multiple assailants. I didn't completely rule out use of any electric-weapons in self-defence.

I believe stun guns (either the direct contact or projectile-barb variant) do have a place on the spectrum on self-defence, but to stay on topic I'll say they are not appropriate in schools. There is a time and a place for escalation of force with various "weapons" (lets consider a Tazer to be a weapon) and a student to defend from other students is not one of those times and places.

In a school setting, the best tactic is avoidance and getting local security to do it's fucking job. And avoidance may extend to getting out of that school entirely until the security guarantees are made.

Consider when there was last this kind of scale of abuse was pervasive in US Schools, against black students. It wasn't solved by the black students arming themselves, but by President Eisenhower sending in the Army to escort the students to their classes as a show of force and commitment that this abuse would not be tolerated. Guns may have a place in wider society, but only used by adults in uncontrollable places and scenarios, schools should not be the places students bring guns for self-defence.

Spoiler: On the Issues of Gun Free Zones

Now on the topic of "Weapon free zones" particularly when applied to schools is it is pointless putting up a sign and passing a law, what MUST be done is it is ENFORCED! You'd think this lesson would have been learned from the first gun-free-zones: airports. What was done at first was merely a prohibition and reluctantly metal detector and searches of luggage. But there were several incidences where gunmen would walk right up to the metal detector and shoot the unarmed guard and storm straight through to the plane. Schools that seek tp be gun-fee-zones must - to spite contradictions - have armed guards patrolling. Because any gunman seeking mass murder would know everyone inside said zone would be unarmed.

But if you are running a convenience store on what used to be a nice part of town but has recently seen more and more violent armed robberies, then arming yourself may be appropriate. Or if you commute often leaves you prone to being mugged or car-jacked as in these circumstances it's beyond the scope of the authorities to ensure your security.

But it is different in a school, the authorities should be able to control these children in their enclosed property and it is the violent and abusive ones who should be excluded.

 

[newwiseman]

Weapons, no matter the reason, are NOT to be carried on school grounds period, end of story, Good Bye, The End.

If school officials refuse to do anything about bullying or harassment, file a police report, that's often what we end up having to do anyway.

Whatever you do, don't arm a kid with a tool he's just as likely to incapacitate himself with as his assailants.

 

[Kadoodle]

Is it really so bad to brandish a mostly non-lethal weapon to prevent a dangerous altercation?

At a school, where other people might get hurt? Yeah, its pretty bad.

Brandishing. Threatening. Not using, in other words.

And once again, if they get hurt, that's what they get for threatening violence. Besides, you don't need a taser to get hurt in school. With or without the taser, somebody was already going to get hurt. In that case, it would have been the kid.

When there are six people surrounding you who HATE you for who you ARE, it doesn't matter where you are. You show that you have a weapon, and make them back the fuck off. Put yourself in the kid's position.

Also, the likelyhood of a taser causing cardiac arrest is on the low side. I don't know where ya'll are getting the idea that a stun gun is a lethal weapon.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Is it really so bad to brandish a mostly non-lethal weapon to prevent a dangerous altercation?

At a school, where other people might get hurt? Yeah, its pretty bad.

Brandishing. Threatening. Not using, in other words.

And once again, if they get hurt, that's what they get for threatening violence. Besides, you don't need a taser to get hurt in school. With or without the taser, somebody was already going to get hurt. In that case, it would have been the kid.

When there are six people surrounding you who HATE you for who you ARE, it doesn't matter where you are. You show that you have a weapon, and make them back the fuck off. Put yourself in the kid's position.

Also, the likelyhood of a taser causing cardiac arrest is on the low side. I don't know where ya'll are getting the idea that a stun gun is a lethal weapon.

I'm not condoning the bullying but bringing a weapon to school takes it too far.

 

[Hipster Chick]

On one hand, I don't like the proliferation of weapons of any sort, nor do I support violence in schools.

But on the other, I hate that gay kids are seen as the perfect, defenseless victims. Bullies target them first. Bigoted school administrators do nothing to help or protect them. I honestly think some of these punks need to be turned into examples of what happens when you mock, bully, or abuse other kids: they defend themselves. Maybe if a couple bullies get shocked or maced or beaten with collapsible batons, they'll think twice about picking on anyone. Because you know what can happen when they're grown-ups? A gay man they try to push around might put two in their chests in self-defence, something he'd be well within his legal right to do.

Also, to anyone who said he should've acted "less gay" to avoid being bullied, that's like telling a black kid to act whiter so racists won't pick on him.

 

[Zingtea]

I'm not condoning the bullying but bringing a weapon to school takes it too far.

So you don't condone the bullying, but you still think he should have let those thugs assault him?

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

I'm not condoning the bullying but bringing a weapon to school takes it too far.

So you don't condone the bullying, but you still think he should have let those thugs assault him?

No, I don't condone bullying, but I don't condone a Chicago tactics [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOvH-7lcjb0] kind of attitude either.

 

[Hipster Chick]

People won't learn, they wont go away, those people will ALWAYS exist. So if he cant deal with it now, he shouldn't dress that way, because it may get somewhat easier eventually, but it never goes away.

...but they might not if you defend yourself when you're feeling threatened.

Like I said, I'm a strong proponent of queer and trans* ADULTS carrying weapons and exercising their right to defend themselves when they're threatened, because hopefully, if enough would-be gaybashers get sent to either the hospital or the morgue, they won't see us as the perfect victims for their own sadistic, bigoted urges.

And don't give me any slippery-slope argument about escalation. Other minority groups have used legal violence to defend themselves for decades without their abusers resorting to greater violence as a result. Past a certain point, people just give up when they see you're not a helpless target.

 

[Mad Sun]

I saw the title and read "Teens face explodes after bringing stun gun..." before the text was cut off. Now I can't take this thread as seriously because now I'm thinking, "At least his face didn't explode..."