Discussion Forums > The Lounge

The REAL bully beatdown

<< < (7/11) > >>

datora:
.
Immortalized @EncyclopediaDramatica:

The Casey

Yeah, you wanna click through on that.  It's a pretty brutal and hysterical read.  ;D 8)

[ EDIT:  For example, so many, many beautiful words to choose from, but this is pure poetry:


--- Quote ---Just as any other good working anus, Goatse must occasionally push something out. So it was on June 6th 666 some unknown date in the year 1995, our Villain was "born", or rather "spawned" out the rear of that dude who owns the ass known as Goatse.
--- End quote ---

]

Sebur:

--- Quote from: JoonasTo on March 15, 2011, 11:22:05 PM ---
--- Quote from: BrownMasterV on March 15, 2011, 11:17:51 PM ---
--- Quote from: JoonasTo on March 15, 2011, 11:11:52 PM ---Self-defense, right. Self defence would have been bitch slapping that guy. In court that'd be excessive self-defense with intention to permanently harm the person. A little different angle and *crack* dead or paralysed for life.

But isn't anyone wondering why are they filming their actions?
--- End quote ---

They're children. I don't think he knew when it was "too much" or whether or not he could have harmed him, especially in such a blind rage like that one.

My speculation:
They filmers were the bully's friends, wanting to humiliate the fat boy.
--- End quote ---
And because they're kids it's that much more important they should know. Ruining his life for some low life like that because he was ignorant? I have a slight clue that it might suck for him.
Blind rage? Not exactly what blind rage looks like...

If they were filming it to humiliate him, how exactly? Post it on the nets? Public on the school? For all officials to see and find? Kinda fail ,don't you think?  ;D

--- End quote ---
The kid got what he deserved, personally I believe that the fat kid went a little overboard, but it's the other kids fault for punching him in the face. Do you really find it strange that they were filming him making fun of the other kid?

Burkingam:
Actually, I think in court the fat kid could sue the small one. No, self defence would not have been bitch slapping that guy. Self defence doesn't mean teeth for teeth, eye for eye, that revenge. Self defence means, that in order to protect yourself, you are allowed to physically harm someone who is voluntary putting you in danger. The little kid was physically trying threatening him. He had clearly demonstrated his intention to harm him in, by his words, his physical language and by starting to slap him. It was therefore in his legal right to aggressively protect himself himself. Tell me, what kind of protection would it have given him to bitch slap the little kid? None. Worst it would have put him in even more danger by giving an excuse to the kid to go full strength on him, possibly with his friends help. Note how he immediately stopped after the after throwing him on the ground. That's precisely the time where there he had eliminated the threat. Excessive self-defence would have been to continue hitting him.

From a legal point of view, not only is the fat kid irreproachable, he could even sue the little kid. (If they were adults)

Ixarku:
If I were a juror in the case, I certainly wouldn't convict the fat kid.  It appears to me that he simply reacted in self-defense.  I don't think he trying to kill or permanently injury the bully.  He simply picked the kid up and threw his ass down.  It's pretty clear to me that he was just trying to make the other kid stop.

Guru Zeb:
Yeah the 'quiet fat kid' = QFK as i like to call him in this vid expresses the very definition of reasonable self defence.
Obviously this is precisely defined in slightly different ways in different countries, but here in the UK ( i know this as am 45 year old life long martial artist who used to instruct street self defence classes ).
Legal self defence is defined primarily by two components:

A: Reasonable fear of attack, if someone has already demonstrated physically or verbally an intention to assault you
then you have a clear right of self defence. ie attacked in a bar then attacker states "am gonna cut you up" if you then hit the guy with a chair, under Brit law your pretty clear, even though you saw no knife. Same situation and you hit him with chair because you THINK he has a knife = thin ice.

B: 2nd principal balances your allowable response to a threat forcing proportionality. Basically it states that your response to threat needs to proportionate to the continued level of threat. So if a guy attacks you with a knife its fine hit him with a chair or a bat. If he keeps coming its ok to hit him again. However as soon as he is unable to present a threat ( unconscious or disabled ) or stops attacking, your right self defence stops dead. So if you hit him and he falls unconscious and you then stomp on his head until you reach the pavement ........ the feds are gonna have a LOT of awkward questions for you ending in you being charged with assault ( or maybe worse ).

Back to the vid. The QFK attempts to defend himself non offensively by blowing the blows.
this fails and he gets him a few times. For me this establishes that the attack genuinely intends him harm.

The QFK then takes offensive action, and makes only ONE attack, he makes no attempt to follow the attack up and actually immediately leaves the area. Once the threat stopped he stopped too.

For me this perfectly defines a balanced, reasonable reaction to a self defence situation.

IMHO once you initiate an unprovoked attack on a another you open a Pandora's box and really have little right to bitch about what comes out of it to meet you. Within the bounds of the law you deserve whatever you get.

I'd also like to say that in my experience ( i grew up the only black kid and book worm on an all white rough English housing estate in the 70's, with white foster parents, had to fight my share to not be bullied, and watched lots of others get bullied to fuck ) if more kids and people generally actively defended themselves bullies and other social predators would be less inclined to attack as often as they do. Bullies and social predators aren't looking for a challenge or a fight what they look for is weakness that they can exploit, show them that attacking you WILL have consequences and they will often find easier prey. May cost you a lump or two here or there and its usually not the best response if weapons are involved, but overall being prepared to defend yourself is an essential ( and often maligned ) basic mammalian trait.
 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page