Bullied kid fights back and gets suspended

[Andy Chase]

The bigger kid in the video is that was getting bullied for awhile. I can't believe he stands there for the first few minutes and doesn't retaliate sooner.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

I think this is the same vid, sans the sportsgrid website that seems to make my browser crawl and has some NSFW items:



<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dkB7Da893jc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



Seemed to me the little guy was goofing around. But then again, even when goofing around, things can go too far.



TJR

 

[Daniel Butler]

Yea.. That little kid definitely is broken.. :bwahaha:

 

[Andrew Wacyra]

You deserve a power slam if you punch someone in the face. Got what he deserved.

 

[Bill V]

The message title says the kid who fights back got suspended. Any info on the other kid? Did he get suspended too? Seems like he should not only be suspended as well, but moreso than the bigger kid, as it definitely seems that the littler guy is instigating...

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Hey, the big kid...I think I have seen him before.



That kid definately seems to be swallowing a lot of aggression, along with a lot of pizzas...ha, ha, ha...pizzas!



<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/clwjOG61og8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[EddieS'04]

IMO, suspend the little guy. Also the little guy deserved the body slam.

I might be wrong, but. My own insight, from being bullied. I see the big guy as a kid that is not a bully but gets bullied. He had enough.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

The little guy deserved something, but a forceful body slam onto concrete by someone 3x his size,... probably not.



But then again, don't start none, won't be none!



Like I said above...seemed more like playful tom-foolery, that the big guy took very seriously at some point. Wouldn't be the first time one kid was messing around, and the other kid took it more seriously than intended.



I think the term that comes to mind is:



proportional response



TJR

 

[Andy Chase]

The little guy probably thought he was goofing around, but Not too many people goof around by punching someone in the face for no real reason. You could argue that the bigger kid could've used lesser force, but to his defense, he didn't retaliate right away by anymeans and the little kid just kept harrassing him os he was deserving of it - kinda like, you don't bring a knife to a gun fight. Casey probably did what he thought he had to do to get the little kid to stop hitting him.

 

[David Ponder]

With the zero tolerance policies now, I am sure they were both suspended.



My youngest son was small, and had been bullied numerous times in the past. As his father I explained the school policy, and also that he should never start a fight. I also told him that if he defends himself, and did not start the fight, I will NOT pushish him at home for defending himself. He tried some, but was still being picked on. He was scared.



Then one summer before his freshman year he hit a growth spurt, and also started getting some personal confidence. The next time he was bullied (Hit in the face to be specific) he fought back. As he tells it, he got in several good hits too. As suspected, he was suspended for 3 days. When the principal asked me to have a talk with him during his suspension, I told him I would right after I stopped and got him and I some Ice Cream... The face the principal made was priceless.. I explained that not only would he not be punished at home, I was going to praise him for defending himself. I explained that he did not start the fight, and while I dissagree with the zero tolerance policy, I certainly will not punish my kid for defending himself. I than asked him, when you were in School, would you just stand there while someone was hitting you? Before he could answer, I said "I think not..."



My son is a Senior now, and hasnt been bullied or picked on in some time. In fact, he has become a moderator of sorts and helps to PREVENT fights and problems at school. The point is, EVERYONE, no matter the size, color, or gender has the right to defend themselves. I dont think that right should be only allowed when off school grounds. Once a kid shows he or she will not "take it" anymore, and will fight back. its no longer fun for the bully.

 

[Steve McKellop]

Hooo-ray for the chunky kid!!!:banana: That face smack didn't look like play to me!:angry: The wormy little bastage got what he deserved!:supercool:



When I was in Jr High (Middle) School my buddy I caught the school bus with was like the chunky kid. Another kid that caught the bus with us was just like the bully, except taller, and he always pulled that crap on my friend. My chunky friend just took it. Ya know, enough is enough. I took the bully out and he never bothered by bud again. Bully's Mom called my Dad and I caught hell .......but it was for a good cause.:bwahaha:

 

[Kevin Lang]

TJR, thx for the alternative video.



I think the response was proportional. That little twerp was using the most strength and "technique" that he could muster, so the bigger guy did the same thing.



IMO he should have kicked the little kid in the head when he started to get up. Violence begets violence, and only awesome violence can stop the cycle.



Right now, I don't think the bigger kid did enought to "shock and awe" the little twerp from trying to get retribution. The twerp's friends, based on human nature & their comments in the video, are going to goad the twerp into trying to get even. The twerp probably won't try an open physical assault again, but will instead find little ways to continue to screw with the bigger kid.



That is worse as, unlike a physical altercation, the bigger kid will have no justified cause to retaliate, and will have to deal with the twerp's schemes perpetually.



That said, the slam was cool, as was the callous and nonchalant way the bigger kid shoots the twerp a look of disdain and calmly walks away :supercool:

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Dave,



Here is another story...



My son got 3 days of in-school suspension (during lunch hour) in 7th grade due to a zero-tolerance bullying incident. The vice-principal called me personally to talk about the incident, and said if it weren't for the zero tolerance policy, he wouldn't have given our son any punishment.



The incident was an older student picking on my son for amusement (for the picker and his peers). The picker would stand in front of our son's locker, not let him by, "accidentally" push into him, etc. It went on for some time, but our son didn't tell us.



Well, one day my son had enough, and in the middle of getting shoved around, accidentally, he hauled off and decked the kid, hard...right in the face, bending his glasses, etc.



The bully then when to the VP and told on our son, trying to get him in trouble. However, the bully was in the VP's office all the time, and a chronic troublemaker, and the VP barely even knew our son...other than he was shy. The VP saw right through it all.



Anyway, the VP told me "Good for your son! I am sure he won't get picked on anymore!", and he was right, he didn't.



We talked quite a bit with our son about that, and why he felt he couldn't talk to us about what was going on in school. I think, all in all, he just wanted to deal with it himself.



And he did.



We punished our son for NOT coming to us. As parents, we had to. We too need a zero tolerance policy and follow-through on many things. But, we made it clear that we were NOT punishing him for getting in the fight...we told him that he has the right to defend himself. We also made it clear that we felt "zero tolerance" is a crappy policy. A better policy is a near-zero policy. That's what we try to enforce as parents.



TJR

 

[Kevin Lang]

TJR, thx for the alternative video.



I think the response was proportional. That little twerp was using the most strength and "technique" that he could muster, so the bigger guy did the same thing.



IMO he should have kicked the little kid in the head when he started to get up. Violence begets violence, and only awesome violence can stop the cycle.



Right now, I don't think the bigger kid did enought to "shock and awe" the little twerp from trying to get retribution. The twerp's friends, based on human nature & their comments in the video, are going to goad the twerp into trying to get even. The twerp probably won't try an open physical assault again, but will instead find little ways to continue to screw with the bigger kid.



That is worse as, unlike a physical altercation, the bigger kid will have no justified cause to retaliate, and will have to deal with the twerp's schemes perpetually.



That said, the slam was cool, as was the callous and nonchalant way the bigger kid shoots the twerp & his trash-talking friend a look of disdain and calmly walks away :supercool:



EDIT: The trash-talking kid who got in the bigger kid's face at the end (whom the girl told to back off), walks off after the bigger kid as the video ends. That doesn't seem good. Maybe that guy will have better "technique" than the twerp. That was abhorrent, a disgrace to pugilists everywhere. It would have been just had the twerp had sufficient strength for him to damage his hand when employing such God-awful technique on those "punches".

 

[Bill V]

TJR, please clarify--



It sounds like you're saying that your son's bully preventing your son from passing or accidentally pushing him was enough to justify your son "hauling off and decking the kid, hard", but that the kid in the video punching the other kid multiple times was just him "fooling around"? I hope you can understand how it sounds like a double standard.



And for the record--from my perspective, good for your son, and good for this kid in the video, responding the way they did. Both were appropriate response.

 

[Andy Chase]

and nonchalant way the bigger kid shoots the twerp & his trash-talking friend a look of disdain and calmly walks away

I doubt I'd be able to just walk away. I give him credit for being able to do that too.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Bill V,



Yes, I understand how that sounds like a double standard. But I never said that the fat kid above wasn't justified or that he shouldn't have defended himself.



Further details on my son's incident:



1. My son's bully taunted him for months, on and off. Not sure if that was the case for the kids in the video.



2. My son was the much smaller kid in his situation, not the bigger one. I think that makes a difference in the level of response.



3. In the case where my son "let loose" on the kid, that particular day the taunting escalated on the part of the bully to being much more violent, to the point where he was repeatedly pushing my son into his locker. My son was defending himself, arguably.



Granted, what my son did, was a little excessive, not proportional, and not entirely justified (one can always walk away), and for those reasons it is similar to the video. That's probably one reason why schools have zero tolerance, so things don't escalate.



I have no problem with my son, or the fat kid above defending himself. Its the excessive nature that I object to, in both cases.



For the fat kid above, he could have walked away, headlocked, the kid, whatever. He could have hit him back. Any of those probably would have stopped it. And, he was the much bigger kid. The little kid was like a gnat to him. A pest.



What he did could have killed the kid, or permanently paralyzed the kid.



My son and I also had a significant talk about the dangers of hitting someone with glasses, whether or not the person had it coming to them. He now knows, that if in a similar situation and he "has to" fight to defend himself, a gut punch, or a jaw punch should suffice.



Again, my point with the above is that it looked like tom foolery of a little kid thinking its fun to pick on the bigger kid, assuming the bigger kid probably won't do anything because of the absurdity of the situation. Its like the little yappy lap dog that goes nipping at the good natured bulldog. It's all fun until the bulldog gets pi$$ed.



That's the way I saw the video. Unlike a bulldog, however, the fat kid in the video responded with potentially back breaking, skull crushing force instead of just a bite.



So, yes, in both cases, I think the kid being tormented is justified in responding, but I think in both cases the response should be measured and proportional to the specifics of the case.



But, I also said several times above, you get what's coming to you, excessive or not. So, I have no sympathy, really, for the bully in these cases. Please don't confuse being critical of the bullied person's response with sympathy for the bully, or an indication that I don't support SOME response on the part of the bullied.



TJR

 

[Kevin Lang]

Its like the little yappy lap dog that goes nipping at the good natured bulldog. It's all fun until the bulldog gets pi$$ed.

Except that the little twerp, your "lap dog", could have debilitated the bigger kid with his "nipping".



What if,by malevolence or by sheer lack of coordination (We know he lacks it), that twerp had hit the bigger kid in the throat?



What if his crappy punch had gone awry and hit the bigger kid in the eye?

For the fat kid above, he could have walked away, headlocked, the kid, whatever. He could have hit him back.

We don't know enough to judge that this is not a recurring torment, and that walking away was tried to no avail in the past.

He now knows, that if in a similar situation and he "has to" fight to defend himself, a gut punch, or a jaw punch should suffice.

A punch with effect isn't effortless to do. Just look at the little kid in this video--he gave it all he had. Though this does seem to negate your premise of preventing injury--it's not as though punches to the gut & mandible are harmless. When you have enough force to make the bully think twice, you have enough force to start doing some damage. If you don't have enough force, well, the other dude just might, and employ it on you. As the video shows.



You said that the bigger kid could have hit him back. What if the bigger kid had thrown a punch that debilitated the twerp? Wouldn't you have the same complaints?

What he did could have killed the kid, or permanently paralyzed the kid.

What if your prescribed punch breaks the other dude's jaw? No fun there. What if it were to knock the other guy out, and he falls to the ground and smashes his head on the ground. Seems like what you're trying to prevent.



How would a headlock accomplish anything? As soon as you let go, the assailant is likely to continue the assault. Restraining the twerp only stops him until you let go.



In the end, the big kid used what he knew to deal with a violent altercation. Both parties are unharmed, and hopefully the big kid will not be screwed with by his peers again. The big kid got a self-esteem boost by dealing with the problem himself, and the twerp got his self-esteem smashed on the pavement.



As a bonus, it was for more entertaining than professional MMA, as a bodyslam such as that is ilegal.



(Edited for superfluous content)

 

[ray moyer]

little guy had it coming, if anything it shoulda been dealt with when the bullying began not after the guy was slammed



:smack:

 

[Bill V]

...and not entirely justified (one can always walk away)...

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. It's not always possible to walk away. In fact, one of the most common techniques used by bullies is to not allow their victim to walk away.

For the fat kid above, he could have walked away, headlocked, the kid, whatever. He could have hit him back. Any of those probably would have stopped it.

I highly doubt it. It definitely wouldn't have stopped it long-term, and even short term it probably wouldn't have put an end to it, especially with all the littler kids friends in on it and likely willing to join in if the response had been anything short of what it was. (The fact that the video camera was running, and the cameraman is pulling people out of the way so he can film it, makes pretty clear to me that this was a planned attack on the bigger kid.) The only true way for the bigger kid to end it was to put the smaller kid at least temporarily out of commission.

Unlike a bulldog, however, the fat kid in the video responded with potentially back breaking, skull crushing force instead of just a bite.

The way I saw it, he showed significant restraint. If the larger kid really wanted to hurt him, he could have slammed him down a few inches to our left and had him hit the corner of that planter.

And, he was the much bigger kid.

Knowing your past difficulties with weight, I'm a bit surprised to hear you say this. Just because someone is physically larger than someone else doesn't mean that they should tolerate bullying any more than someone who is smaller.

Again, my point with the above is that it looked like tom foolery of a little kid thinking its fun to pick on the bigger kid,

The bigger kid's head snapped back pretty violently on the punch 5 seconds in. That, IMHO, hardly qualifies as "tomfoolery".



But yes--I think that for the most part, we're on the same page, in both cases.

My son and I also had a significant talk about the dangers of hitting someone with glasses,

You mean, that your son could potentially end up with cuts on his hands, right?