Bullying victim shoots up house-Judge has mercy

chadwick

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Vigilantism is the answer.

fixed

chadwick

pandora wrote:

Now the bullies, let's talk their punishment. What motivates their actions is pure hate and cruelty.
How should we punish a heart like that?

difficult long months/years of extreme manual labor w/ physical exercise something just short of a navy seal, drop them in the middle of the Savannah with spears, bow & arrows, a couple pocket knives & flints.

chadwick

fighting back is the truest answer you will ever have. no one has the right to lay hands on you or taunt you till your breaking point. 99.9% of all bully fuckheads should be set on fire for at least 3 seconds everyday. i fought bullies almost daily. either i was being fucked with or someone else was & it was on. fighting is nothing. defending yourself (or someone who... let's say, cannot defend themselves very well or simply will not) is something.

i've been part of some unreal events & when bullies lose it is the greatest thing in the world. policemen love when mild mannered citizens clean frickin house & the nasty ass bullies bleed & are broken down physically & mentally. good bullies will not snitch on who just beat the crap out of them & their friends.

life changing tragic events. i personally am pleased to be part of this.

vant0037

I am a municipal prosecutor in the Twins Cities area. In sum, that means I deal with everything but felonies (in most Minnesota counties, felonies are handled by a County Attorney).

I happen to believe that people are what we make them; in other words, a kid from a home with two loving parents who taught discipline and love and were able to provide for the child's needs (that's me) probably has a better shot at making it out in the world on their own, than, say, a kid from a home with parents who use drugs, fight, scream, go to jail, abuse themselves or their kids etc. In short, where people come from matters.

At the same time, I think it's difficult to make that belief more important than the letter of the law. The law is, by necessity, inflexible, written with the idea that it should be applied impartially under certain conditions. Lawmakers add exceptions to specifically address those circumstances when the law shouldn't be applied. It's concerning that a judge would consider not applying the law in a case like this, simply because a defendant had a good explanation. If for no other reason, it gives the idea that if you believe your situation is unique enough, or that you've been abused (irrespective of whether you actually have), then you can, from time to time, take the law into your own hands and not pay a price.

I sympathize with this kid (assuming everything he's said is true; for all we know, he was an instigator and deserved what he got and the "bullying" was just what he called it). The criminal system, if it's worth anything at all, can only address what choice you made after everything else that's happened to you. The judge can structure sentences creatively, apply exceptions (if they exist), stay sentences, or do any number of other things to "give this kid a break."

But I happen to believe that the best we can do (on every level) when a defendant walks into court, is send the message that unless there are legal exceptions, the law still applies to you.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

vant0037 wrote:

I am a municipal prosecutor in the Twins Cities area. In sum, that means I deal with everything but felonies (in most Minnesota counties, felonies are handled by a County Attorney).

I happen to believe that people are what we make them; in other words, a kid from a home with two loving parents who taught discipline and love and were able to provide for the child's needs (that's me) probably has a better shot at making it out in the world on their own, than, say, a kid from a home with parents who use drugs, fight, scream, go to jail, abuse themselves or their kids etc. In short, where people come from matters.

At the same time, I think it's difficult to make that belief more important than the letter of the law. The law is, by necessity, inflexible, written with the idea that it should be applied impartially under certain conditions. Lawmakers add exceptions to specifically address those circumstances when the law shouldn't be applied. It's concerning that a judge would consider not applying the law in a case like this, simply because a defendant had a good explanation. If for no other reason, it gives the idea that if you believe your situation is unique enough, or that you've been abused (irrespective of whether you actually have), then you can, from time to time, take the law into your own hands and not pay a price.

I sympathize with this kid (assuming everything he's said is true; for all we know, he was an instigator and deserved what he got and the "bullying" was just what he called it). The criminal system, if it's worth anything at all, can only address what choice you made after everything else that's happened to you. The judge can structure sentences creatively, apply exceptions (if they exist), stay sentences, or do any number of other things to "give this kid a break."

But I happen to believe that the best we can do (on every level) when a defendant walks into court, is send the message that unless there are legal exceptions, the law still applies to you.

Nice to hear from you, Van!

To the contrary though... I feel common sense must prevail!

Long and true story (made short): elementary aged kid with autism is getting roughed up on a daily basis; complains to father and school; bullies are crafty though and elude punishment; father comes to school to pick child up; kid is on ground getting roughed up again; father intercedes while bullies attempt to run away; father forcefully holds one bully and kicks at another as he scampers off; teachers come to the scene.

Now what? As I'm sure you are going to guess... father faces assault charges and they stay.

WTF? Seriously? What was he supposed to do... just let the beating take its course and then dust his son off while patting him on the head? I complained bitterly to our local paper regarding the system's failings in this situation. If we are going to pay people in the legal system a generous wage- which we do- then let's expect a level of service. Judge. Don't just rely on someone else's judgements. You can refer to them, but look at the uniqueness of each case and judge accordingly. This guy did much less than what I would have done- hardly a criminal for defending his beaten down son.

Don't you think?

chadwick

why are we not allowed to help & protect ourselves, our loved ones or perfect strangers in a jam?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

vant0037 wrote:

I am a municipal prosecutor in the Twins Cities area. In sum, that means I deal with everything but felonies (in most Minnesota counties, felonies are handled by a County Attorney).

I happen to believe that people are what we make them; in other words, a kid from a home with two loving parents who taught discipline and love and were able to provide for the child's needs (that's me) probably has a better shot at making it out in the world on their own, than, say, a kid from a home with parents who use drugs, fight, scream, go to jail, abuse themselves or their kids etc. In short, where people come from matters.

At the same time, I think it's difficult to make that belief more important than the letter of the law. The law is, by necessity, inflexible, written with the idea that it should be applied impartially under certain conditions. Lawmakers add exceptions to specifically address those circumstances when the law shouldn't be applied. It's concerning that a judge would consider not applying the law in a case like this, simply because a defendant had a good explanation. If for no other reason, it gives the idea that if you believe your situation is unique enough, or that you've been abused (irrespective of whether you actually have), then you can, from time to time, take the law into your own hands and not pay a price.

I sympathize with this kid (assuming everything he's said is true; for all we know, he was an instigator and deserved what he got and the "bullying" was just what he called it). The criminal system, if it's worth anything at all, can only address what choice you made after everything else that's happened to you. The judge can structure sentences creatively, apply exceptions (if they exist), stay sentences, or do any number of other things to "give this kid a break."

But I happen to believe that the best we can do (on every level) when a defendant walks into court, is send the message that unless there are legal exceptions, the law still applies to you.

incredibly well said.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Nice to hear from you, Van!

To the contrary though... I feel common sense must prevail!

Long and true story (made short): elementary aged kid with autism is getting roughed up on a daily basis; complains to father and school; bullies are crafty though and elude punishment; father comes to school to pick child up; kid is on ground getting roughed up again; father intercedes while bullies attempt to run away; father forcefully holds one bully and kicks at another as he scampers off; teachers come to the scene.

Now what? As I'm sure you are going to guess... father faces assault charges and they stay.

WTF? Seriously? What was he supposed to do... just let the beating take its course and then dust his son off while patting him on the head? I complained bitterly to our local paper regarding the system's failings in this situation. If we are going to pay people in the legal system a generous wage- which we do- then let's expect a level of service. Judge. Don't just rely on someone else's judgements. You can refer to them, but look at the uniqueness of each case and judge accordingly. This guy did much less than what I would have done- hardly a criminal for defending his beaten down son.

Don't you think?

It depends how "forceful" the father was if it's legally assault or if he was simply restraining him. Did he kick the second kid for retribution, or to get him off his son? I know, I know, what would I have done? I'd probably have beat the shit out of anyone beating up my kid, but that doesn't mean it's justified or legal.

it's unfortunate it has come to this, but in part it had to, to protect those from unlawful force being used in civilian situations. on the other side, it's most likely part of the reason people don't want to get involved in a dispute, as they know even if they are just trying to help, if things escalate, the helper could be the ones headed off to prison. I've seen it happen, and it's terrible.

rollings

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Long and true story (made short): elementary aged kid with autism is getting roughed up on a daily basis; complains to father and school; bullies are crafty though and elude punishment; father comes to school to pick child up; kid is on ground getting roughed up again; father intercedes while bullies attempt to run away; father forcefully holds one bully and kicks at another as he scampers off; teachers come to the scene.

also note that teachers come to the scene when the father is there.

where the hell are they when the kid is getting roughed up. :x

vant0037

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

I am a municipal prosecutor in the Twins Cities area. In sum, that means I deal with everything but felonies (in most Minnesota counties, felonies are handled by a County Attorney).

I happen to believe that people are what we make them; in other words, a kid from a home with two loving parents who taught discipline and love and were able to provide for the child's needs (that's me) probably has a better shot at making it out in the world on their own, than, say, a kid from a home with parents who use drugs, fight, scream, go to jail, abuse themselves or their kids etc. In short, where people come from matters.

At the same time, I think it's difficult to make that belief more important than the letter of the law. The law is, by necessity, inflexible, written with the idea that it should be applied impartially under certain conditions. Lawmakers add exceptions to specifically address those circumstances when the law shouldn't be applied. It's concerning that a judge would consider not applying the law in a case like this, simply because a defendant had a good explanation. If for no other reason, it gives the idea that if you believe your situation is unique enough, or that you've been abused (irrespective of whether you actually have), then you can, from time to time, take the law into your own hands and not pay a price.

I sympathize with this kid (assuming everything he's said is true; for all we know, he was an instigator and deserved what he got and the "bullying" was just what he called it). The criminal system, if it's worth anything at all, can only address what choice you made after everything else that's happened to you. The judge can structure sentences creatively, apply exceptions (if they exist), stay sentences, or do any number of other things to "give this kid a break."

But I happen to believe that the best we can do (on every level) when a defendant walks into court, is send the message that unless there are legal exceptions, the law still applies to you.

Nice to hear from you, Van!

To the contrary though... I feel common sense must prevail!

Long and true story (made short): elementary aged kid with autism is getting roughed up on a daily basis; complains to father and school; bullies are crafty though and elude punishment; father comes to school to pick child up; kid is on ground getting roughed up again; father intercedes while bullies attempt to run away; father forcefully holds one bully and kicks at another as he scampers off; teachers come to the scene.

Now what? As I'm sure you are going to guess... father faces assault charges and they stay.

WTF? Seriously? What was he supposed to do... just let the beating take its course and then dust his son off while patting him on the head? I complained bitterly to our local paper regarding the system's failings in this situation. If we are going to pay people in the legal system a generous wage- which we do- then let's expect a level of service. Judge. Don't just rely on someone else's judgements. You can refer to them, but look at the uniqueness of each case and judge accordingly. This guy did much less than what I would have done- hardly a criminal for defending his beaten down son.

Don't you think?

While its tough to speculate on a case without all the facts, I can say that Minnesota law (most US jurisdictions in fact) carve out exceptions for the reasonable use of force in defending others. I'm curious as to why this wouldn't be one of those situations ( assuming laws are the same). My sense: there's more to the story than just dad's side. I can also say that legally, it's very easy to cross over from reasonable use of force to unreasonable.

Anyway, just a thought.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

rollings wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Long and true story (made short): elementary aged kid with autism is getting roughed up on a daily basis; complains to father and school; bullies are crafty though and elude punishment; father comes to school to pick child up; kid is on ground getting roughed up again; father intercedes while bullies attempt to run away; father forcefully holds one bully and kicks at another as he scampers off; teachers come to the scene.

also note that teachers come to the scene when the father is there.

where the hell are they when the kid is getting roughed up. :x

they're teachers, not Batman.

Godfather.

BinauralJam wrote:

Well i'm disappointed in this guy. If your going to get revenge on somebody, be smart about it take your time and really fuck'em over, this was a emotional spur of the moment response and he got caught. You have to stop and think sometimes.

agreed, do when they don't expect it and make sure NOBODY else can see you....gloves and a mask are important also.

Godfather.

rollings

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

rollings wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Long and true story (made short): elementary aged kid with autism is getting roughed up on a daily basis; complains to father and school; bullies are crafty though and elude punishment; father comes to school to pick child up; kid is on ground getting roughed up again; father intercedes while bullies attempt to run away; father forcefully holds one bully and kicks at another as he scampers off; teachers come to the scene.

also note that teachers come to the scene when the father is there.

where the hell are they when the kid is getting roughed up. :x

they're teachers, not Batman.

Well then where was batman?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G18jhC3b53A

Thirty Bills Unpaid

rollings wrote:

Well then where was batman?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G18jhC3b53A

While I agreed with Hugh that blaming teachers for not being there was unfair to say the least... I agree that Batman failed in this particular instance.

And for that matter... where was the Prince of Dorkness?