User Tag List

First 81617181920 Last

Results 171 to 180 of 195

  1. #171
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    690

    Default

    http://www.naplesnews.com/videos/det...tabbing-death/



    0:15 in

    "He said something about 1 on 1"

  2. #172
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    If the guy doing the bullying unsolicitedly followed the kid off the bus with intent to do physical harm (even if the two had ongoing verbal exchange), the one being bullied had justifiable cause to administer any defense deemed necessary to defend himself, including repeated stab wounds to any part of the body. You cannot pursue someone with intent to do harm and expect to be given mercy.

    I know the situations likely are not comparable, but I know someone who has been beaten as a result of being gay. The assailant was a lone male, but the victim will be forever disfigured in his face and ego.

    People die and the world turns

  3. #173
    ... Tyrinth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    649 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    1,173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swivelinglight View Post
    http://www.naplesnews.com/videos/det...tabbing-death/



    0:15 in

    "He said something about 1 on 1"
    Ah, thanks.

    Hmm, interesting. I'm getting a lot of conflicting information here. They repeatedly say that Nuno was like, the nicest guy they ever met, or something, and he wasn't cruel to anyone, and yet, there is little to no doubt that he was bullying the defendant, Saavedra...

    Apparently, Saavedra's truancy record stems from him wanting to avoid school to avoid ridicule.

    Also, I'm getting conflicting information about what was known or agreed upon about the fight. Some say that both parties agreed to fight, others say that Nuno just went around saying that there would be a fight at a certain location (one of the stops), and Saavedra actually got off early to avoid that location.

    By the way, I think this is noteworthy. Apparently, Nuno was a wrestler, and practiced Jiu Jitsu, which could lend credence to Saavedra's belief that his life was in danger.

    Here are some additional sources I ran across:
    One.
    Two.
    Three.

    Edit: Hah, thanks for the rep. Apparently, I'm fucking up their names, my bad. I never was very good with names.
    ...

  4. #174
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmileyMan View Post
    No, he was surrounded and the only way he could win the fight was probably to use the knife, but that doesn't justify its use.
    He is unquestionably justified, both legally and ethically. When someone does not want to fight, he is entitled to use lethal force if necessary to end the confrontation if it was reasonable for him to believe that serious injuries could result. There is no requirement for the victim to through himself at the mercy of the attacker simply because he lacked physical strength.

    Again, there is only one justified use if it, and that is if you're fearing for your life
    Legally, your position is not supported. The law allow the use of deadly force to prevent serious injuries if specific criteria are met.

    Ethically, you presented no reason why it would be logically for others to adopt your personal preference on the matter.

  5. #175
    ISFJophile zelo1954's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    MBTI
    INfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    218

    Default

    I'm sorry but my sympathy with the bully who died is ZERO. My sympathy for the bleatings of the bully's family is also ZERO. In fact it might even be as low as minus infinity. I simply cannot believe that his family didn't know he was a bully, yet they did precisely sweet FA about it. This article needs to be upfront in the world as a deterrent to any other potential bully.

  6. #176
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    He is unquestionably justified, both legally and ethically. When someone does not want to fight, he is entitled to use lethal force if necessary to end the confrontation if it was reasonable for him to believe that serious injuries could result. There is no requirement for the victim to through himself at the mercy of the attacker simply because he lacked physical strength.


    Legally, your position is not supported. The law allow the use of deadly force to prevent serious injuries if specific criteria are met.

    Ethically, you presented no reason why it would be logically for others to adopt your personal preference on the matter.
    In most states, you can use lethal force in defense if a reasonable person would have believed that death or serious bodily injury were imminent. "Serious bodily injury" means that which could be expected to result in death in the absence of medical treatment. In Florida, you don't have to retreat, but you still must have the reasonable belief that death or serious bodily injury were imminent. So no, legally, just getting an ass kicking from a bully would not justify the use of deadly force in defense, in normal circumstances.

    The only reason it works here is because Florida's law is terribly written, in that it provides immunity from prosecution. The problem is that this means the judge determines what is a "reasonable belief" before trial. This is generally a question of fact for the jury, but in this case, the judge could unilaterally determine that the belief was reasonable, and since the state declined to appeal, it will not be binding on any other court in the state, nor will there be any determination of whether that belief was objectively reasonable as a matter of law.

    How annoying.

  7. #177
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Wait a minute someone kills a bully and the gut reaction is to take the bully's quarter? WTF kind of power/aggressor identified culture do you live in?
    The type that elects Jessie Ventura and Arnold Schwartzenegger to political office? If there are more places like that, then shit.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

  8. #178
    FigerPuppet
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    He is unquestionably justified, both legally and ethically.
    No. The actual threat of the situation is up for debate, and once this has been settled we can move on to debating his feelings and intentions.

    When someone does not want to fight, he is entitled to use lethal force if necessary to end the confrontation if it was reasonable for him to believe that serious injuries could result.
    There is no requirement for the victim to through himself at the mercy of the attacker simply because he lacked physical strength.
    I admit that usage of the knife as tool of incapacitation could be justified on the grounds of how impotent he would be without it; this, I believe, was not the purpose he used it for. If you stab someone 12 times, you want them dead. Saavedra passed the point of defense and turned into the aggressor. This might seem a little off-topic, but it is in principle the same as Russia using the defense of South Ossetia as a casus belli to invade Georgia.

    Legally, your position is not supported. The law allow the use of deadly force to prevent serious injuries if specific criteria are met.

    Ethically, you presented no reason why it would be logically for others to adopt your personal preference on the matter.
    Which specific criteria? That you're about to be beat up in a fashion that is not rare in high school? Getting bruised is not enough; the threat of lifelong paralysis or death most definitely is. How many high school fights out of a thousand do you think end up with the latter as a result?

    Most religions, philosophies and historical fundamental legal texts such as the United States Declaration of Independence, European Convention on Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights declare that life is an inalienable right - clearly, my preference is not just personal. That a right is inalienable basically means that one is allowed to violate it if, and only if, you do so in an attempt to preserve your own. The fact that US law allows the violation of the right when one is faced with the threat of serious injury is because serious injury might lead to death or - let me try to word this carefully - a life of considerably less quality in terms of physical/mental ability (complete vegetable, partial lifelong paralysis, etc.). If we're lucky, we won't even have to deal in such ambigious definitions of life (When does a life go from worthy to unworthy; from life to non-life?) as the latter would have us do, since the threat of such things usually comes with the threat of losing the life of one's organism as well. In many cases, as onemoretime pointed out, it is even specified what exactly can be categorized as serious injury.

    I'm not going to provide you with a logically coherent explanation on why life is an inalienable right, nor why these exist, but the most honourable Mr. Hobbes and Mr. Locke will gladly do so for me.

    There is no question in my mind that Saavedra wasn't facing a real threat to his life, nor one of serious injury. It all comes down to his thoughts and intentions, and we can only really discuss these from the actual events: Saavedra brought a knife to school. At school he was warned about an upcoming fight between him and the bully. He knew he would have to make the fight-or-flight decision while he was on the bus; he showed the knife to two other people before the left the bus in "an attempt to flee". The bully challenged him with ONE hit to the back of the head with his hand; Savedra then turned around and stabbed him TWELVE times.
    These facts tell me that he most likely wasn't acting out of fear for his life, but rather acting out of anger. He wasn't trying to incapacitate the bully, which could be justified given the circumstances - he was trying to kill him. Saavedra should be convicted of voluntary manslaughter. It would even have taken him minimal effort to plan it, making it murder of the first degree, but there is absolutely no way this could be proven unless he was stupid enough to leave physical evidence of his plan.

    I've mentioned this before, but it worries me greatly that a kid can get away with taking a life so easily - both legally and in terms of public perception. It seems to me that the victims of bullying turn into little bloodthirsty buggers who haven't dealt with their own issues. We've all tried the "If I was there, I would have..!" and "If I could turn back time, I would have..!", but you guys are taking it way too far.

  9. #179
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    I can't think of this as anything but an all-around travesty. A child is dead. Another child has experienced killing at the age of 14. Where were the adults? Why did the dead child feel he had carte blanche to terrorize the one who killed him? Why did the killer feel he had no recourse but to kill his bully? This is not something to celebrate. Nobody did anything about a situation that was spiraling out of control into schoolyard/bus stop violence. The lesson in this, IMO, is that school violence should not be considered "normal," "boys being boys," any of that. STOP. IT.

  10. #180
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    @Ivy
    I tend to agree for the most part.

    @SmileyMan
    I also agree that a kid with a knife on a school bus is rather crazy and this should have gone down differently.

    I still don't believe that 'reasonable force' is so cut and dry, though. Where I grew up people would get seriously hurt - some times killed - after the simple 'fist fight' took place. You think that you don't have to respond with great force because they are just punching you, but the problem is that some times once they get you down and not seriously or permanently hurt, but rendered defenseless, they curb stomp your face in.

    Death or severe injury is not always readily apparent and there may be a point of no return where you must act strongly or forego your chance to ever defend at all.

    Edit: also I'd add that the worst aggressors are often sly and devilish, and like to get people by surprise. They might even act friendly to somebody and even have their friends run diversionary tactics but next thing you know fists are flying. Or baseball bats, or bullets.

Similar Threads

  1. 15 Year Old INTP
    By AveryFB in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 02-13-2017, 01:47 PM
  2. 15 year old Genius: Who's gonna claim him?
    By Stansmith in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-19-2013, 02:20 AM
  3. 18 year old girl expelled for having same sex relationship with a 15 year old.
    By kyuuei in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 158
    Last Post: 06-02-2013, 01:41 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO