# Pint-Sized Bully Pays the Price When Victim Fights Back



## Federer (Mar 15, 2011)

Kinda similar like .




> KANSAS CITY, MO. -
> A 16-year-old Australian boy, Casey Heynes, who has been picked on his entire life for his weight, finally had enough when another kid started punching him in the face, and his WWE-worthy response was captured on video and posted to YouTube and Facebook, where kudos and support for the way he fought back have been pouring in.
> According to a Facebook posting, Heynes was suspended from school for the incident. There is no word on whether or not the bully was punished for his role in the fight.



This one has a video. 

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4902r_T-N9E[/YOUTUBE]

If I were him, I would have picked that fucker again and smacked him on the ground again, again and again, till he died. 

My new facebook friend. 

Eddie Murphy better stop making movies about fat people or Casey will go after him.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Mar 15, 2011)

I'll say what I said when I first saw this video, fuck the bully.  Who walks up to someone who is only minding their own business and punches them in the face, especially when they're BIGGER than you?  He's lucky the bigger kid decided to stop there and didn't start stomping him when he was on the ground.

I have no sympathy for bullies who are hurt by their victims.


----------



## Nawheetos (Mar 15, 2011)

.....that was awesome.  Bully kid was an idiot, totally asked for it.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 15, 2011)

Don't fuck with fat kids.  Friend of mine had someone pull a knife on him at school.  He put the kid's face through a locker.  Little asshole deserved it.

Larger people are generally less aggressive because they can really fuck your shit up.


----------



## Federer (Mar 15, 2011)

The 'victim' was bigger, heavier, had more reach and probably has a higher biteforce, definitely after eating a lot of junkfood in his life.

The bully would be a terrible OBD poster.


----------



## sadated_peon (Mar 15, 2011)

Notice the bigger kid who starts walking forward(the one in the white shirt who gets stopped by the girl). 

The small bully had a bigger friend who was backing him up, and the little bitch thought the kid wouldn't fight because of fear of the larger kid. 

I am willing bet that the little bully wouldn't have done shit if the big kid wasn't with him.

- you even see him walking forward at the beginning, but is pull back because they wanted to video just the smaller kid having "fun"


----------



## soulnova (Mar 15, 2011)

I can't wait to go home to watch that video.


----------



## kazuri (Mar 15, 2011)

Theres some more info floating around about this, it is from dramatica, but one of the pics of the bully is definitely the kid from the video. Apparently he got suspended for a few weeks, the victim 4 days supposedly. The bully's knee was also dislocated, hence the knew nickname wobbles.



> the one in the white shirt who gets stopped by the girl



The kids stare stopped him long before the girl.


----------



## aiyanah (Mar 15, 2011)

foolish kid
simply foolish


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Mar 15, 2011)

kazuri said:


> Theres some more info floating around about this, it is from dramatica, but one of the pics of the bully is definitely the kid from the video. Apparently he got suspended for a few weeks, the victim 4 days supposedly. The bully's knee was also dislocated, hence the knew nickname wobbles.



Where did you hear that?  I've heard a lot of varying stories about the injuries the bully suffered but haven't been able to find anything on it myself.


----------



## Pseudo (Mar 15, 2011)

OP is late, already saw it yesterday. Am I the only one who felt sorry for the bully at the end of this?


----------



## Gunners (Mar 15, 2011)

If he dislocated his knee good. It annoys me more when little shits try to bully people twice their size because they have a crowd standing behind them. 

It's good that he was taught his place in the pecking order.



> OP is late, already saw it yesterday. Am I the only one who felt sorry for the bully at the end of this?


Probably. He got off lightly if the victim was as aggressive as the bully he would have stomped the shit out of him when he was on the ground. Fortunately for the little shit he showed that he was the bigger man and left him with a bruised ego.


----------



## Huntress (Mar 15, 2011)

Thats pretty pathetic of the school to suspend the fat kid for defending himself, when they have clear video evidance of him being bullied by that little kid. 
I bet the fat kid had told the teachers about being bullied and they had done nothing to help him.


----------



## kazuri (Mar 15, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Where did you hear that?  I've heard a lot of varying stories about the injuries the bully suffered but haven't been able to find anything on it myself.



There's a page about it on encyclopedia dramatica, the victims name is casey, im sure if you internet those 3 words you'll find it, there's a lot of inappropriate stuff on that site though so I wont post direct link..



If you look carefully in the first pic he is on crutches, and pretty sure thats the hat the little guy couldn't give up.




> It was almost as cool as a german suplex.



That fat guy don't throw punches, he throws bitches.


----------



## zuul (Mar 15, 2011)

Looking at the little puny shit get what he deserves really made my day.

This dude. 

It was almost as cool as a german suplex.


----------



## Pseudo (Mar 15, 2011)

Chicken legs bully seriously had balls. Too bad for him Size>Balls when a kid has had enough.


----------



## Gunners (Mar 15, 2011)

ThePsuedo said:


> Chicken legs bully seriously had balls. Too bad for him Size>Balls when a kid has had enough.



What he did wasn't an act of bravery, as Sadated Peon said if his bigger friend wasn't around he would have continued being a fart in the wind.


----------



## kazuri (Mar 15, 2011)

Finish him!

FatAlity!


----------



## Pseudo (Mar 15, 2011)

Gunners said:


> What he did wasn't an act of bravery, as Sadated Peon said if his bigger friend wasn't around he would have continued being a fart in the wind.



He had a friend? Bully probably tested the waters and realized victim was insecure, then tormented him.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Mar 15, 2011)

The gods have given him the gift of berserker rage. Marked by them he is no longer a mere human, he is the enforcer, chosen to punish the villainous vermin.

All glory to Casey.


----------



## Ciupy (Mar 15, 2011)

Why the heck was he suspended?

He was just defending himself from the little shit.


And I wonder if the big kid would have the balls to fight the bully's friend as well?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Mar 15, 2011)

Ciupy said:


> Why the heck was he suspended?
> 
> He was just defending himself from the little shit.



Because that's the way schools here seem to work.  If you are being beaten on you have to sit there and take it. Fight back and you're both in trouble for fighting.

It reminds me of what my kung fu instructor says, in some situations fighting back will make it worse for you.  Like if a cop is beating on you.  You curl up, take it and sue afterward.  Fight back and injure the cop and its just going to be worse for you later on.

If someone attacks you outright and without provocation I say that they deserve whatever they get from you.


----------



## zuul (Mar 15, 2011)

But as always school officials acting as pathetic wuss.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 15, 2011)

Throwing people onto concrete seems like a really effective way to kick ass.


----------



## zuul (Mar 15, 2011)

He should start judo. He seems to have natural talent for it.


----------



## Level7N00b (Mar 15, 2011)

That little shit got what he deserved, and to be honest, he deserved more. The bigger kid Casey just proved he was above all that. Bet that kid will think twice when he sees Casey in the hallways.


----------



## Sasuke Uchiha (Mar 15, 2011)

I wish that were me. I'd sock that fat kid right in he's mouth. Thinking he tough and shit.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 15, 2011)

zuul said:


> He should start judo. He seems to have natural talent for it.



Judo is really good for big people, because you generally out-mass the opponent and thus have an easier time with the CG.  But it's a good martial art all around too.

Acquaintance of mine got groped in a bookstore.  Judo'd her assaulter and left him on the ground with a broken arm.


----------



## Level7N00b (Mar 15, 2011)

BlueSasuke said:


> I wish that were me. I'd sock that fat kid right in he's mouth. Thinking he tough and shit.



What the hell are you on?

If you were that that kid, you'd have gotten dropped on your neck, just like he did.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Mar 15, 2011)

Good thing the kid didn't land on his head.


----------



## Ultra (Mar 15, 2011)

So kids, what have we learned today?


----------



## Ice Cream (Mar 15, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> Good thing the kid didn't land on his head.



Same thing I was thinking.

Would have been a lot worse if the bigger kid went into rage mode instead
of walking away.

Also, that smaller kid just looked sad trying to being a bully... =/


----------



## Glued (Mar 15, 2011)

that little punk is lucky he didnt get dropped on his neck or skull.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Mar 15, 2011)

The rat wasn't lucky, The Casey knew full well what he was doing. If he wanted to truly crush the vermin, he could have done so in the blink of an eye.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Mar 15, 2011)

That fatass totally went Zangief on that punk's ass.

I wish I was that cool when I was a fat highschooler getting bullied by midgets (this actually happened).


----------



## Saufsoldat (Mar 15, 2011)

CrazyMoronX said:


> I wish I was that cool when I was a fat highschooler getting bullied by midgets (this actually happened).



I wish I was that cool when I was a fat highschooler bullying midgets


----------



## Ninamori Espeon (Mar 15, 2011)

Omg!!! haha this was the first thing that went through my mind when I saw him pick him up!! 


*Spoiler*: __ 









And HELL YEAH!, that kid deserved it and even more! and I laughed when I saw him limping away like a scared hurt dog.


----------



## tashtin (Mar 15, 2011)

Lol, the rat faced bastard got his comeuppance. Loved his teary rat face at the end of the video. Saw this a while back. 

Gotta show respect for the girl who came to stop the fight to and major respect to casey.

The bully got suspended for 28 days after the outcry generated by the Internet and a dislocated knee for his bitch moves. Apparently the parents of the bully are trying to sue casey's parents and the school lol


----------



## UX7 (Mar 15, 2011)

This one of the best vid I seen in a long time  
Somebody make a lop/remix with the music kung fu fighting 



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwg033Ze3Lk[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## -Dargor- (Mar 15, 2011)

I lol'd when I saw the 3 "bullies", they're built like twigs and could so easilly be snapped in 2 by anyone the "victim"'s size.

Glad he grew some balls, hopefully when he goes back to school he starts collecting their lunch money as payback.

Kids these days are so dumb, you don't try to bully someone twice your size. Doesn't matter how much manga you read, reality's gonna bitchslap you when the time comes.

Just after the first punch you can see Ritchard (the lolbully) taking 2-3 steps back because he's scared & about to pee his pants, then he notices the big guy doesn't defend himself and gets back to his wannabe tough guy routine.

Kudos to you Casey Heynes, may more people start fighting back. I'm no fan of wrestling but daaaaaamn that was pwnage.

Edit : Video just got deleted, looks like someone somewhere is ashamed they got man-handled 

The bitch's facebook page is also over-flooded :rofl


----------



## Ra (Mar 15, 2011)

I have a new versus idea for the OBD.


----------



## Federer (Mar 15, 2011)

Replaced the vid.


----------



## Proxy (Mar 15, 2011)

ThePsuedo said:


> OP is late, already saw it yesterday. Am I the only one who felt sorry for the bully at the end of this?



Yes. Yes you are 



The Space Cowboy said:


> Throwing people onto concrete seems like a really effective way to kick ass.



Indeed. No punches need be thrown.


----------



## Milo- (Mar 15, 2011)

Here's the better version : 
[YOUTUBE]FHILUfwEsAo[/YOUTUBE]


This is satisfying in so many ways.


----------



## zuul (Mar 15, 2011)

Proxy said:


> Yes. Yes you are
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. No punches need be thrown.



I'm much more a fan of wrestling than boxing so I find his way of dealing with ratface much more badass than one KO punch.


----------



## Proxy (Mar 15, 2011)

zuul said:


> I'm much more a fan of wrestling than boxing so I find his way of dealing with ratface much more badass than one KO punch.



Plus, it could be easier to end it in one move than one punch


----------



## zuul (Mar 15, 2011)

Look at that little shit, he really think he's badass and menacing with his bony puny prebusecent little torso. Hillarious


----------



## Santeira (Mar 15, 2011)

^ Don't know what can be more pathetic than that. 

He has a video of how bad he failed circulating in the Net--should be very damaging to ego.


----------



## Miss Fortune (Mar 15, 2011)

Don't mess around with someone's weight...

They will fuck you up royally.


----------



## Bioness (Mar 15, 2011)

Hahaha that's awesome, and the best part is when he gets up and can't walk straight :rofl


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 15, 2011)

what kind of damage did he take, looks like he came down with that run don't walk disease.  little dude might kill himself after being so thoroughly embarrassed on the net.


----------



## Motochika (Mar 15, 2011)

LOL I just saw this right before clicking on the thread.


----------



## Flame Emperor (Mar 15, 2011)

zuul said:


> Look at that little shit, he really think he's badass and menacing with his bony puny prebusecent little torso. Hillarious





Retard deserved what he got.


----------



## g_core18 (Mar 15, 2011)

lol little dipshit got his shit fucked up.


----------



## Stripes (Mar 15, 2011)

He deserved it. Kids these days, no common sense!


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 15, 2011)

Federer said:


> Kinda similar like .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 I just now got the chance to see this. Fucking epic.


----------



## Tkae (Mar 15, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> I have no sympathy for *bullies who are hurt by their victims.*



As opposed to... what?


----------



## Goom (Mar 15, 2011)

In most cases fat people are much stronger than they look.  They have the muscles to carry their heavy frames, and if they were to have a lower fat body % they would looked ripped.

All in all don't fuck with fat people or when they get serious they'll fuck you up 


<-- coming from an ectomorph who wishes he was a endomorph or mesomorph



also... he's lucky that skinny kid didn't die.  I mean he almost landed on his head on a concrete floor.


----------



## CrazyAries (Mar 15, 2011)

Federer said:


> Replaced the vid.



I happened to see the original video before it was taken down.  It showed more.  In any event, that slam was fucking epic.  That what that scrawny kid gets for picking on someone twice his size.


----------



## Ceria (Mar 15, 2011)

LOL at that little shit doing the crip walk. ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)


----------



## Angel (Mar 15, 2011)

Good for him standing up for himself.


----------



## -Dargor- (Mar 15, 2011)

Looks like he needs more shit beaten into him.

That's when the internet becomes useful


----------



## kazuri (Mar 15, 2011)

-Dargor- said:


> Looks like he needs more shit beaten into him.



I dunno, it kind of looks like he might have learned something from all this. He obviously knew the pic was going online, and seemed to be a good sport in it. I imagine if he didn't learn anything there wouldn't be any more pics of him going up.


----------



## Stunna (Mar 15, 2011)

That was crazy dude.

Casey, man.

Dude's my hero.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 15, 2011)

Fatties are also resistant to knives


----------



## Stunna (Mar 15, 2011)

There's this thing at my school where kids like to "scoop" the man-boobs of other students as a form of harassment.

I think it's gay. Like, homosexual, but they don't see it.


----------



## UmWhatever (Mar 15, 2011)

Stunna said:


> There's this thing at my school where kids like to "scoop" the man-boobs of other students as a form of harassment.
> 
> I think it's gay. Like, homosexual, but they don't see it.


lol at hungry Vegeta. 

Wow. That is gay. That's sexual harassment. Wtf is with people, seriously? Bitches oughta be slapped for that shit. 

Also, the videos don't work. Apparently they go against youtube's rules. Anyone upload it on a different video site? :[ I really wanna see it...


----------



## Momoka (Mar 15, 2011)

The vid got removed (thanks YT) but I found one here








That scrawny dumbass deserved it, and the big kid needs to be the next model for some bullied victims organization.

At least Casey got 4 days... 
But you know, bullied kids need to have some kind of a 'school law' protecting them. Teachers don't give enough shit about anything so...

And the kid stood up for himself. Like, come on. That bully needs more punishment and be threatened by the school to never do it again. Scare the pants out of them or whatever.


----------



## Proxy (Mar 15, 2011)

> So they approached him, surrounded him. Thought to contain him. Their first mistake.
> 
> So it began in earnest. Taunting came first, it always does. What was it this time? “Ginger”? “Fatty”? Whatever it was, we know it now as “Their Second Mistake.”
> 
> ...



Epic.


----------



## 8 (Mar 15, 2011)

thats what happen when you pick on someone bigger then you. 



reminds me of sasuke vs killerbee. :ho


----------



## Altron (Mar 15, 2011)

Little asshole got what he deserved.


----------



## Emperor Joker (Mar 15, 2011)

Oh right Zangief Kid. I first heard about this on Lord Kat's livestream.

Little punk deserved to get fucked up, the victim was more than twice his size, what did he tink was going to happen if he snapped.


----------



## soulnova (Mar 16, 2011)

8 said:


> reminds me of sasuke vs killerbee. :ho



It was indeed beautiful. :33


----------



## hustler's ambition (Mar 16, 2011)

zuul said:


> Look at that little shit, he really think he's badass and menacing with his bony puny prebusecent little torso. Hillarious



He's not gonna get *any *pussy in high school!:rofl

Casey gonna snatch up all the hos!


----------



## Orochimaru Kusanagi (Mar 16, 2011)

Go Casey!  It's time that one kid took down a bully, brat deserved it.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 16, 2011)

I posted this in Cafe convo thread days ago. Old story is old


----------



## -Dargor- (Mar 16, 2011)

And in that other thread did you call the fatguy a terrorist for fighting back at the bully?  :ho


----------



## EvilMoogle (Mar 16, 2011)

Approves.

"Bully" asked for it, the kid did everything right.  Tried to ignore him at first (even after the first punch).  Tried to back off and go somewhere else.  Then ended it when neither of the above worked.

It's a crock that he's suspended for defending himself.


----------



## Fran (Mar 16, 2011)

so what's that move called?


----------



## Kanali (Mar 16, 2011)

That kid makes Zangief look like shit 

The rat looking shit deserved it


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Mar 16, 2011)

Armpits said:


> so what's that move called?



The Casey.


----------



## strongarm85 (Mar 16, 2011)

Nice Improvisational there, for a kid. 

The move is called a Supplex Slam. To pull that off on an unwilling victim you have to be pretty strong. Pro-wrestlers have an easier time pulling the move off because the person being lifted helps with the lift.

Not bad Casey, not bad at all.


----------



## Shock Therapy (Mar 16, 2011)

This guy is gonna be the next big show.


----------



## Raptorz (Mar 16, 2011)

The bully got off easy.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Mar 16, 2011)

[YOUTUBE]V7mfvkcOO0s[/YOUTUBE]

Heres a video from the bully's mom saying even she thinks he got what he deserved.


----------



## neko-sennin (Mar 16, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> [YOUTUBE]V7mfvkcOO0s[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> Here's a video from the bully's mom saying even she thinks he got what he deserved.



* clap, clap, clap *

Way to go, Mom. This would be a good opportunity to use this as an object lesson that violence has consequences. Now that the little brat's ego has surely been taken down a few pegs, he might be more receptive to *learning* something.


----------



## Syed (Mar 16, 2011)

The mother is smart. Some parents would act as if their bully child is a saint and he wasn't to blame for such incidents. She deserves respect and I hope she teaches the kid a thing or two about respecting others.


----------



## Draffut (Mar 16, 2011)

BlueSasuke said:


> I wish that were me. I'd sock that fat kid right in he's mouth. Thinking he tough and shit.



He did punch the fat kid in the face.

Then the fat kid owned him.

You would have been owned just the same.  Though I can tell from your demenour that you would have also brought 3 friends to help you pick on one kid like a pansy.


----------



## EJ (Mar 16, 2011)

But you know, it fucking sucks this kid needs to explain this in job interviews. "I got pissed this guy was bullying me, so I piled-rived(whatever its called) him to the ground."

That little kid got what he deserved though!


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Mar 16, 2011)

The dumb bully deserved it and good for the victim, good on him walking off too.


----------



## Gray Wolf (Mar 17, 2011)

Armpits said:


> so what's that move called?



The Dominator.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sDgsgIwHUg[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU9DH0bqHf8&NR=1[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Level7N00b (Mar 17, 2011)

Man, that mother gets some serious hand claps from me. Usually mothers of bullies will say that their kid was just playing, or he's going through a phase, or something like that. But she played it straight.


----------



## Benzaiten (Mar 17, 2011)

Dumb kid should have seen it coming.

I would never tease or make fun of people for their weight; well, maybe I do but not in a way that's offensive and not to someone who isn't a friend of mine. Besides, I love fat people and I especially love hugging them.


----------



## Jagon Fox (Mar 17, 2011)

too bad america gets up in arms when the bullied fight back. Way to go kid! :


----------



## Arishem (Mar 17, 2011)

He should have asphyxiated the little bastard in his rolls of blubber.


----------



## Vicious-chan (Mar 17, 2011)

Little shit deserved it and will no doubt stop being a little shit. See? Beating kids works!!



Espionage said:


> But you know, it fucking sucks this kid needs to explain this in job interviews. "I got pissed this guy was bullying me, so I piled-rived(whatever its called) him to the ground."
> 
> That little kid got what he deserved though!



I bet he will get hired fine. The bully on the other hand? Nah. The big kid will be recognized, seen as AWESOME by guys and girls alike, and will be fine if he plays it well. But the bully? He's fucked


----------



## little nin (Mar 17, 2011)

So I hear the mother is suing


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Mar 17, 2011)

little nin said:


> So I hear the mother is suing



Whose mom is suing?


----------



## Bluebeard (Mar 17, 2011)

This is what kids getting bullied need to do. Instead of bringing a gun to school or killing yourself, simply beat the bully's ass. 

Yeah, yeah, I know it's not that simple.


----------



## Vicious-chan (Mar 17, 2011)




----------



## Talon. (Mar 17, 2011)

Armpits said:


> so what's that move called?



Screw Piledriver 

That kid's been getting the name "Little Zangief"


----------



## Elias (Mar 17, 2011)

I still laugh out loud every time at this video.


----------



## Sasori (Mar 17, 2011)

I don't get it. Why is everyone saying the little guy is the bully?

I really don't understand this. Isn't it the big guy picking on the little skinny kid?

The other way round doesn't make sense. Am I watching the same video????????


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Mar 17, 2011)

Sasori said:


> I don't get it. Why is everyone saying the little guy is the bully?
> 
> I really don't understand this. Isn't it the big guy picking on the little skinny kid?
> 
> The other way round doesn't make sense. Am I watching the same video????????



How is the kid minding his own business and turning the other cheek while he's being taunted and punched in the face picking on anyone?


----------



## EvilMoogle (Mar 17, 2011)

It no longer qualifies as someone "picking on" you when you punch them 4 times first.

It's them defending themselves against your attacks.  If their defense is orders of magnitude more effective than your attacks were, perhaps you shouldn't have provoked the fight.


----------



## Le Pirate (Mar 17, 2011)

That little shit got what he deserved. He should be getting suspended, not Casey.


----------



## Sasori (Mar 17, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> How is the kid minding his own business and turning the other cheek while he's being taunted and punched in the face picking on anyone?


He picked up the skinny kid and dropped him......

Again. Am I watching the same video?????


----------



## Netorie (Mar 17, 2011)

Saw this on the news lastnight and couldn't help but laugh my ass off. Lil bastard hit the other kid first, he had every right to fight back.


----------



## Santeira (Mar 17, 2011)

Sasori said:


> He picked up the skinny kid and dropped him......
> 
> Again. Am I watching the same video?????



You're not. Now quit trying to be a smartass and GTFO.


----------



## Sasori (Mar 17, 2011)

......How am I being a smartass?

I'm obviously confused. I was just asking for clarification. But the responses confused me even more.


----------



## Santeira (Mar 17, 2011)

Sasori said:


> ......How am I being a smartass?
> 
> I'm obviously confused. I was just asking for clarification. But the responses confused me even more.



Did you miss the earlier scene where the big kid is punched in the face by the skinny kid, and countinues being taunted by the latter? 

Obviously you're not watching the same video.


----------



## Draffut (Mar 17, 2011)

Sasori said:


> He picked up the skinny kid and dropped him......
> 
> Again. Am I watching the same video?????



Did you see the first half of the video where the little kid punches him in the face twice?


----------



## Detoxified (Mar 17, 2011)

Sasori said:


> ......How am I being a smartass?
> 
> I'm obviously confused. I was just asking for clarification. But the responses confused me even more.



If you're going to state that the big kid smashed the little kid without any recognition about what happened previously, you are basically being a smartass.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Mar 17, 2011)

lol you guys are got trolled 


anyway, thats why successful bullies prey on the weak and not just the weak minded.


----------



## krickitat (Mar 17, 2011)

That was awesome, wish I had been able to do that to some of my bullies as a kid. Oh no wait I was the bully.....hmmm then on the other hand I am glad there was no Casey at my school. 

But I dont like that he got suspended for defending himself, he wasnt escalating the situation, he was just minding his own business. I mean how much are you supposed to take before you can defend yourself? 
And with the whole body slam, well like my Dad always said, if you know your about to get into a fight and you can't ignore it or walk away. FINISH IT. You hit that person so damn hard with your first blow they dont get back up. Don't dick around 

Its called carrying a big stick and casey obviously knows what I mean.


----------



## Scott Pilgrim (Mar 17, 2011)

What's up with all the bullying? I was never bullied in school and I am a fat POS.

I was never bullied, maybe it was because I don't give a shit what people think of me, never have, never will. So if I was I just ignored it, and have since forgotten.

I'm sure other kids were bullied in school, but never me, I wonder why that was. 

Anyways, bully got what he deserved, stupid kid.


----------



## Level7N00b (Mar 18, 2011)

Sasori said:


> ......How am I being a smartass?
> 
> I'm obviously confused. I was just asking for clarification. But the responses confused me even more.



The skinny kid is up in the bigger kid's grill, slapping him in the face like he's a bitch. Then, the bigger kid {Casey} drops him on his ass, like he deserved.

I know it looks strange, a little person bullying a big person, but hey, the kid had an overinflated ego that needing popping.

And Casey being suspended is ridiculous. Anyone who watched he vid can tell he was assaulted first.


----------



## little nin (Mar 18, 2011)




----------



## Gunners (Mar 18, 2011)

"This isn't just an isolated incident. This now becomes law in the school. Every other kid now is free if they're bullied not to do as they're told to turn the other cheek and go to their teachers but to lift up another kid, the bully, and slamming them to ground, risking paralysis or death," Eiglarsh told Fox News.

 it annoys me that the school feels they can ignore self-defence as a defence to assaulting someone.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 18, 2011)

self defense, it's in the books


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 18, 2011)

back in the day there would have been hundred funny gifs of this


----------



## Vicious-chan (Mar 18, 2011)

There are O.o haven't you seen em? lol


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 18, 2011)

yeah, i guess i found em now


----------



## Casyle (Mar 19, 2011)

It's wonderful to see that schools STILL don't do jack-shit until the victim of bullying finally snaps and retaliates, THEN they punish the bully's victim.


----------



## Gilgamesh (Mar 19, 2011)

little nin said:


>



 those photos

Little ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) thing's he's from South Central or something


----------



## Detonator_Fan (Mar 20, 2011)

There is a 12 minutes interview on youtube.
He was bullied most of his life and never fought back before. Suffered all kinds of bullying.
He had 8 friends in the first year of HS. All of them deserted him.


----------



## Fran (Mar 20, 2011)

He has the internet as his friend now. He'll never need another friend again.


----------



## Gray Wolf (Mar 20, 2011)

Detonator_Fan said:


> There is a 12 minutes interview on youtube.
> He was bullied most of his life and never fought back before. Suffered all kinds of bullying.
> He had 8 friends in the first year of HS. All of them deserted him.



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_4HDyhnDO4[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Misha-San (Mar 20, 2011)

Poor Casey that little git deserved it. That will show him not to bully him again.


----------



## -Dargor- (Mar 21, 2011)

> But defense attorney and former prosecutor Mark Eiglarsh said not suspending Heynes would have set a dangerous precedent.
> 
> "This isn't just an isolated incident. This now becomes law in the school. Every other kid now is free if they're bullied not to do as they're told to turn the other cheek and go to their teachers but to lift up another kid, the bully, and slamming them to ground, risking paralysis or death," Eiglarsh told Fox News.
> 
> ...


God forbids bullies'd start being afraid.

They don't want the kids to fight back because that would place the bullies at risk? I mean really?


----------



## Terra Branford (Mar 21, 2011)

Its insane that they punished the victim for standing up for himself. I'm sure some school official saw the poor kid getting bullied at least once or twice, or that the victim told them about it. If they didn't do anything, its up to the kid to defend himself! >.>


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 21, 2011)

ThePsuedo said:


> OP is late, already saw it yesterday. Am I the only one who felt sorry for the bully at the end of this?


Yes fuck that kid.


----------



## Narcissus (Mar 21, 2011)

Bullied kids actually stand up to their bullies all the time, but it's good that one these incidents went viral. I feel not one ounce of sympathy for the bully. Casey stood up for himself, and I really don't think he should have been punished either.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 21, 2011)

Narcissus said:


> Bullied kids actually stand up to their bullies all the time



Is this the reason suicide rates amongst children who was bullied is going up every year?


----------



## Narcissus (Mar 21, 2011)

Hand Banana said:


> Is this the reason suicide rates amongst children who was bullied is going up every year?



A lot of stories of kids standing up to bullies don't go reported like this one. I've personally seen kids standing up to bullies quite a few times. But I never said they were in the majority.


----------



## tinhamodic (Mar 21, 2011)

A pleasant change from all the bullied kids who kill themselves instead. Way to go Casey (and work on that suplex)!


----------



## Federer (Mar 21, 2011)

Still popular, this thread, I see. 

The bully is not happy with his 'fame' right now, I assume.


----------



## Robert Haydn (Mar 21, 2011)

While I'm all for victims getting revenge on bullies I have to wonder if that fat kid went just a little bit overboard. He was obviously stronger than that 'bully' (How the hell was that shrimp even a bully?) and probably could have put him down with 1 punch to the face. Instead he used some throw that could have broken the kids neck. He knew what he was doing too, his form is too good not too. 

Than again, even if he'd accidentally killed the little snot, I'd still say good for you.


----------



## Santeira (Mar 21, 2011)

-Dargor- said:


> God forbids bullies'd start being afraid.
> 
> They don't want the kids to fight back because that would place the bullies at risk? I mean really?



Maybe they want victims to stand up in the manner where they won't hurt the bullies even though the bullies could have escaped scot-free with hurting the victims. 

I wish in real life, TnJ can actually work.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Mar 21, 2011)

That kid has a bright future now.


----------



## Level7N00b (Mar 21, 2011)

Robert Haydn said:


> While I'm all for victims getting revenge on bullies I have to wonder if that fat kid went just a little bit overboard. He was obviously stronger than that 'bully' (*How the hell was that shrimp even a bully*?) and probably could have put him down with 1 punch to the face. Instead he used some throw that could have broken the kids neck. He knew what he was doing too, his form is too good not too.
> 
> Than again, even if he'd accidentally killed the little snot, I'd still say good for you.



Not all bullies are physical assailants. They often bully people with low self esteem because they know they won't fight back.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Mar 21, 2011)

Robert Haydn said:


> While I'm all for victims getting revenge on bullies I have to wonder if that fat kid went just a little bit overboard. He was obviously stronger than that 'bully' (How the hell was that shrimp even a bully?) and *probably could have put him down with 1 punch to the face. *Instead he used some throw that could have broken the kids neck. He knew what he was doing too, his form is too good not too.
> 
> Than again, even if he'd accidentally killed the little snot, I'd still say good for you.



The way he lunged at the kind I doubt what he did followed any kind of plan, he reacted out of anger which was fully justified.

I say once you go up and start punching someone in the face who was minding their own business you deserve whatever they do to you (short of being killed, then I would have said he went too far).


----------



## eHav (Mar 21, 2011)

has anyone posted this one yet? 

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__IjcLVBBYc&feature=player_embedded[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## MunchKing (Mar 21, 2011)

eHav said:


> has anyone posted this one yet?
> -snip-



This is for real?

Anyway, with a face like that, it's no wonder he acts out against easy victims. And is that a fucking piercing on his left eyebrow?


----------



## kazuri (Mar 21, 2011)

Lol so now there is a video of him with a baby mullet and crying online. This kid makes good decisions. 

If anything get a video of JUST you apologizing to casey, stupid fuck.


----------



## Hikari Uzumaki (Mar 21, 2011)

This kid
On another note; I saw that the bully had an interview done. He stated that it was Casey who pushed him first, even thought it wasn't caught on video. BS. And when he was asked if he was sorry for what he did, he said "Ahhh nope," then glanced over to his dad and shook his head and then said "Wait, yes." He got what he deserved.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Mar 21, 2011)

I call BS on his excuses.  If the bigger kid was bullying him would he really have put up with being punched numerous times before retaliating?


----------



## Gunners (Mar 21, 2011)

He looks like a chav. I don't know what is with little shits getting their eye brows pierced.


----------



## eHav (Mar 21, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> I call BS on his excuses.  If the bigger kid was bullying him would he really have put up with being punched numerous times before retaliating?



pretty much this


----------



## Scholzee (Mar 21, 2011)

Casey is a legend!, the other kid isent really sorry at all


----------



## TGC (Mar 22, 2011)

He should have supplexed the other kid to make it an even 2


----------



## -Dargor- (Mar 22, 2011)

Rat's getting pathetic.

And lol at the mullet, piercing and fugly teeths.

His parents appear to be just as horrible and retarded as he is too.


----------



## Terra Branford (Mar 22, 2011)

eHav said:


> has anyone posted this one yet?
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__IjcLVBBYc&feature=player_embedded[/YOUTUBE]



What a liar. If he was being bullied by a 16 year old boy who is bigger than him, the little liar wouldn't have tried to BULLY the 16yr old boy who (supposedly without proof) BULLIED him.

The little turd shouldn't have been hitting people for being over weight (which I know kids get bullied over a lot, so its believable), especially and "if", he was bullied.


----------



## Goom (Mar 22, 2011)

Shit... at some of the replies in this thread.  It's like some online lynching.  We know this kid bullied another kid but some of the replies here are just over the top.

Hes 12 years old for fucks sake, barely developed at all and made some bad decisions in his short life



And at the above poster he didn't say that Casey bullied him in Primary school, that was some other people.


----------



## stomponfrogs (Mar 22, 2011)

This is about a kid being bullied by other kids. Being punched is not justification for throwing a child down in a way that could have legitimately broken his neck. The fat kid is lucky that he just got off with a suspension. The purpose of self defense is to prevent yourself from being damaged, and the fat kid's actions are clearly geared to harm the bully.

Also did all of you go to school in South Central or something? When a kid would be bullied in my high school, if the administration found out, the bully would either be put into 'in school suspension' or a more traditional suspension. I have no idea what schools you went to that handled this so lightly. Even aside from that, the fact that any of you condone violence against children in any instance says a lot about the overall constituency of posters in here.


----------



## Soldaun (Mar 22, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:


> This is about a kid being bullied by other kids. Being punched is not justification for throwing a child down in a way that could have legitimately broken his neck. The fat kid is lucky that he just got off with a suspension. The purpose of self defense is to prevent yourself from being damaged, and the fat kid's actions are clearly geared to harm the bully.
> 
> Also did all of you go to school in South Central or something? When a kid would be bullied in my high school, if the administration found out, the bully would either be put into 'in school suspension' or a more traditional suspension. I have no idea what schools you went to that handled this so lightly. Even aside from that, the fact that any of you condone violence against children in any instance says a lot about the overall constituency of posters in here.



Your arrogance is amazing, and your view that everyone lives in candy land is horrible.  First off going to the teachers wont help, it'll only reinforce the fact he believes your inferior to him, and he will just continue to insult and abuse you.  When he's sent to in school suspension he'll just get more pissed off, creating a situation where him bullying you will become a more common accurance, and in his absence his friends will bully you if they aren't already.  The best option is to generally let them fight, and to let them get their anger off their chest.  A fight where both contestents have friends overwatching the fight to make sure it's even and isn't taken to far is best, and in self defense I could give two shits if I hurt the person coming at me, they shouldn't have attacked me in the first place, so getting hurt is their fault not mine.

So please take your over parenting, sheltered, candy ass view somewhere else, and watch as your kids grow up to be pussies, lifes a bitch get over it and grow up!


----------



## stomponfrogs (Mar 22, 2011)

Soldaun said:


> Your arrogance is amazing, and your view that everyone lives in candy land is horrible.  First off going to the teachers wont help, it'll only reinforce the fact he believes your inferior to him, and he will just continue to insult and abuse you.  When he's sent to in school suspension he'll just get more pissed off, creating a situation where him bullying you will become a more common accurance, and in his absence his friends will bully you if they aren't already.  The best option is to generally let them fight, and to let them get their anger off their chest.  A fight where both contestents have friends overwatching the fight to make sure it's even and isn't taken to far is best, and in self defense I could give two shits if I hurt the person coming at me, they shouldn't have attacked me in the first place, so getting hurt is their fault not mine.
> 
> So please take your over parenting, sheltered, candy ass view somewhere else, and watch as they grow up to be pussies, lifes a bitch get over it and grow up!



I'm glad that you decided to start and end your post with an individual attack to me as a person. Unfortunately, your flame-ridden post opened a door that I'll not walk through, since that's all it will take to be a bigger person than you.

Fighting encourages more fighting to a greater extent than reporting it to an authoritative figure. You could liken it to the idea of a parents beating their child versus them taking away privileges when the kid does something wrong. When implemented properly, nonviolent punishment allows children to "grow up," as you so eloquently put it, much better than violent punishments.

If your point is that injuring a kid will solve violence better than other disciplinary actions, I'm going to have to disagree.


----------



## Soldaun (Mar 22, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:


> You could liken it to the idea of a parents beating their child versus them taking away privileges when the kid does something wrong.  If your point is that injuring a kid will solve violence better than other disciplinary actions, I'm going to have to disagree.



If your asking I do support spanking, but nowhere in my post did I mention parental disipline.  If my kid had a problem where he was being bullied I would support him fighting so long the fight was fair, unfair fights though will breed more anger simply because it was unfair.  Let them fight on a fair playing field (parents or adult figures are not in anyway involved in this, think of it as the two kids coming together and say lets fight after school) and the issue between the two kids will disolve.  Think of it as earning each others respect, you stand up for yourself and you will earn it, and your bully problems will go away.

I've been personally bullied in school, I guarantee my expierience with it is far superior to your belief in ratting on them to a teacher.  You rat on him, he'll call you a punk, you fight him, he'll back down.  I know that personally, so don't tell me what you think is best.


----------



## stomponfrogs (Mar 22, 2011)

Soldaun said:


> If your asking I do support spanking, but nowhere in my post did I mention parental disipline.  If my kid had a problem where he was being bullied I would support him fighting so long the fight was fair, unfair fights though will breed more anger simply because it was unfair.  Let them fight on a fair playing field (parents or adult figures are not in anyway involved in this, think of it as the two kids coming together and say lets fight after school) and the issue between the two kids will disolve.  Think of it as earning each others respect, you stand up for yourself and you will earn it, and your bully problems will go away.



I have never seen or heard of evidence where a fight between two people who dislike each other can earn mutual respect. This isn't boxing or wrestling, this is (if I'm hearing correctly) a bully with lots of friends being beaten up by a fat kid with no friends. If suspensions and parents weren't brought into this, are you really willing to throw out the possibility of the bully's friends attacking the fat kid as a group in the future? Whether a fight is fair or unfair, losing a fight will breed all the anger necessary to start another fight. 

There are better ways of standing up for yourself than picking someone up and almost dropping them on their heads. That was a rash reaction to an unfortunate situation, and behaviors like that should be worked out of a child's system as early as possible. Unfortunately, this video going viral has a chance of influencing the fat kid to indulge more into his obvious temperamental issues. 

I stand by my opinion of him being lucky to just be suspended for a few days, although I do strongly agree with both of them being punished.


----------



## Soldaun (Mar 22, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:


> I have never seen or heard of evidence where a fight between two people who dislike each other can earn mutual respect.



I have seen it happen with another kid who I knew in highschool.  Just because YOU haven't heard of it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.  It also happened to me with a kid I knew in cooking class senior year.


----------



## Scud (Mar 22, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:


> There are better ways of standing up for yourself than picking someone up and almost dropping them on their heads. That was a rash reaction to an unfortunate situation, and behaviors like that should be worked out of a child's system as early as possible. *Unfortunately, this video going viral has a chance of influencing the fat kid to indulge more into his obvious temperamental issues.*
> 
> I stand by my opinion of him being lucky to just be suspended for a few days, although I do strongly agree with both of them being punished.


You, my friend, sound like a dipshit. He was hit multiple times, surrounded by an obviously unfriendly and possibly hostile crowd, and had been teased by that same kid for weeks prior to this video. What would you rather he do, sit there and eat punches? That would only make him a more appealing target. Do you think he should have punched him back? He could have easily done permanent damage to that kid if he hit him in the head hard enough. So stop with your bullshit. Dropping the little fucker posed no more danger than punching the fuck out of him would have. A punch can easily shatter a jaw, put out an eye, or even kill somebody.

And what "obvious temperamental issues"? The kid tolerated their shit for years, despite the fact that he probably could have done the same thing to most of the other kids that have bullied him. Nothing in this video demonstrates a "temperamental issue". 
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCejbz22y2w&feature=channel_video_title[/YOUTUBE]

He doesn't even seem proud that he fought back. He just seems happy that the kid will finally leave him the fuck alone. Watch the end of the video, where he's asked what he would say to children who were bullied like him, and tell me he has "temperamental issues". lulz


----------



## Soldaun (Mar 22, 2011)

Tatumaru, as far as I'm concerned he has no experience in what is going on, and as such his idealistic opinion is ignorant of what actually happens when you rat someone out for picking on you, it simply gets worse.  Ofcourse he doesn't know that though, thats why were here to inform him.


----------



## Santeira (Mar 22, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:


> Unfortunately, this video going viral has a chance of influencing the fat kid to indulge more into his obvious temperamental issues.



I don't know about you but from the way I see it, it was not a temperamental issue. The bigger kid was not the one who started it, he was in no way aggressive, he withstood a punch and only one moment that determination made him act the way he did, after the small kid tried to hit him again and again. He even walked away after that--victorious as he was, he could have hurt the small kid further.

The bigger kid was surrounded by the smaller kid's friends, and you know, if the action he made was less intimidating than taking the small kid up and then dropping him, the rest of the small kid's friends might have been spurred to attack him.

I think it was how intimidating the act was that even what have made the other kid (who was told off by the girl) from approaching the bigger kid after that. 

This isn't a _one on one _situation you know, sorry for sounding like a battledomer--but you have to look at it from the 'fighting' side of it.   

And even though TnJ works in some manga or fiction, in a situation like this, it hardly works IRL.



> Even aside from that, the fact that any of you condone violence against children in any instance says a lot about the overall constituency of posters in here.



It's not so much that people condone violence against children. People just condone 'fighting back when being bullied'. There are people who look back to their childhood and regret for not fighting when they were in the same situation. 

At least, when Casey is an adult, he can look back and be glad that he fought back. The video went viral but that isn't his fault, if you look at the positive side, this can be a clear message out there to bullies and wannabe bullies.


----------



## stomponfrogs (Mar 22, 2011)

Soldaun said:


> I have seen it happen with another kid who I knew in highschool.  Just because YOU haven't heard of it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.  It also happened to me with a kid I knew in cooking class senior year.



As far as evidence goes, this is ludicrous. Teachers don't try to influence students to report bullying to authority for no reason. Maybe you're school had a faculty that was insufficient in enforcing rules, but to assume that that makes assault commendable is completely antisocial. 



Tatumaru said:


> You, my friend, sound like a dipshit.
> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> ...



You seem to be deeply affected by this story due to possibly being beaten up on a regular basis yourself, so I'm going to do what I can to end the potential perpetuation of your flaming and trolling before it starts. A punch by the fat kid with no apparent experience in fighting does not hold the same potential damage as the same fat kid picking up and throwing the bully down on a slab of concrete. I'm sorry if you disagree with that, but I honestly don't know how to explain a concept like that which I feel to be simple.

He was being teased and pushed around, and that lead to him essentially going postal without a gun. Attitudes like this can lead to Columbine. Blame the bully all you want for driving him that far, but it took the actions of the fat kid to take that final step. You make it sound like there was a mob lynching him before he took out his anger on the bully.

If you're saying that a kid can throw another kid like that without obvious issues controlling their actions, I'd suggest that you may have behavioural issues of your own. Beyond that, I don't know how else to help you understand rationally why it is wrong to throw someone with no regard for their health onto concrete. Plenty of people with mental issues show remorse or know how to fake it in the public eye. The fat kid is a danger to society, and the fact that THIS could be what makes him popular increases the likelihood of it happening again.




Santeira said:


> I don't know about you but from the way I see it, it was not a temperamental issue. The bigger kid was not the one who started it, he was in no way aggressive, he withstood a punch and only one moment that determination made him act the way he did, after the small kid tried to hit him again and again. He even walked away after that--victorious as he was, he could have hurt the small kid further.
> 
> The bigger kid was surrounded by the smaller kid's friends, and you know, if the action he made was less intimidating than taking the small kid up and then dropping him, the rest of the small kid's friends might have been spurred to attack him.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you. Picking up and throwing someone on concrete is an act of aggression, regardless of who started it. He didn't exactly push the bully away and try to walk; he went out of his way to cause damage. He walked away backwards after what he did, which I perceived as him being shocked by his own extreme actions. It wasn't exactly oozing in confidence or victory in my opinion. 

Due to this, I'd be willing to bet that he didn't exactly plan the action as a way of keeping the bully's friends away. It just happened in a spur of rage, and that is an extremely dangerous thought. I can't really look at this as 'just a fight'. It's two kids fighting. It's a bully picking on and punching a fat kid, and the fat kid attacking in a way that could have caused permanent physical damage to the bully. In my opinion, which I have earned through experience and education, that is not a healthy reaction to being bullied.



> It's not so much that people condone violence against children. People just condone 'fighting back when being bullied'. There are people who look back to their childhood and regret for not fighting when they were in the same situation. At least, when Casey is an adult, he can look back and be glad that he fought back. The video went viral but that isn't his fault, if you look at the positive side, this can be a clear message out there to bullies and wannabe bullies.



Right, and I agree with the concept of fighting back, but I disagree with it being done the way the fat kid did in this video. In hindsight, we, as humans will always regret things. If things went just a little differently, and the bully actually did land on his head, the fat kid could have much more to regret later in life than just not fighting back. Honestly, I _would_ hope that actions like this would deter bullies, but I feel as though it is more likely to motivate bullies to throw around some of the less hefty people that they are bullying. 

Life will always bring people who struggle in power with you, be it physical, fiscally, socially, or any number of other ways. Almost any other way of dealing with these issues is better than the one that the fat kid in this video employed.


----------



## maj1n (Mar 22, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:


> punch by the fat kid with no apparent experience in fighting does not hold the same potential damage as the same fat kid picking up and throwing the bully down on a slab of concrete. I'm sorry if you disagree with that, but I honestly don't know how to explain a concept like that which I feel to be simple.


Why not? someone punching you in the face is dangerous, as you can be blinded permanently amongst other things.

In fact a non-trained person punching can be worse, since he wouldn't have the self-control nor training to know what not to do.



			
				stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> He was being teased and pushed around, and that lead to him essentially going postal without a gun. Attitudes like this can lead to Columbine. Blame the bully all you want for driving him that far, but it took the actions of the fat kid to take that final step. You make it sound like there was a mob lynching him before he took out his anger on the bully.


I hope you realize that the columbine massacre and other things are due to pent up anger and not letting it out.

Your attitude is one of withholding anger and doing some kind of diplomatic solution, thats not how human nature works.

When you present a solution for human behaviour, that isn't grounded on empathy nor understanding of the human mind, you just come off as lacking any real practicality.



			
				stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> If you're saying that a kid can throw another kid like that without obvious issues controlling their actions, I'd suggest* that you may have behavioural issues of your own. *


Don't ask for some diplomatic solution when you start talking like an asshole.

You display the very thing your against, the bullied person reacted aggressively in anger, what your doing is actually no different.

Or obviously i could ask you to share your life story with whom your replying to and become best friends, but human nature doesn't work that way does it?

Anger is a part of our nature, when you are being picked on continously as a common course, you are going to react violently, saying 'oh we shouldn't act violently' is not the solution.

Stopping people from picking on others, IS the solution.


----------



## stomponfrogs (Mar 22, 2011)

maj1n said:


> Why not? someone punching you in the face is dangerous, as you can be blinded permanently amongst other things.
> 
> In fact a non-trained person punching can be worse, since he wouldn't have the self-control nor training to know what not to do.
> 
> ...



He doesn't know how to throw power into it. An unexperienced punch to the face causing a poke to the eye can't really be compared to suffering paralysis or brain damage. 

The actions of the fat kid in this video are also due to pent up frustration from being picked on for months. If he had handled it through proper authorities earlier, it would not have come to this. That, and not all of us react to pent up anger in violence. Again, that is mentally unhealthy. 

In my quotation, you seemingly conveniently left out my qualifier statement. If you honestly do believe that is normal, it would imply that you'd do something similar. With that being the case, I stand by my opinion that you may have a disorder that could be helped or studied by medical attention. I agree that feeling anger is part of being human, but to concede to violence being acceptable and normal is archaic, barbaric, and possibly antisocial. 

If you are as I perceive you (given my very limited personal knowledge of the way your mind works) I'd highly suggest that you get professional help.


----------



## maj1n (Mar 22, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:


> He doesn't know how to throw power into it. An unexperienced punch to the face causing a poke to the eye can't really be compared to suffering paralysis or brain damage.


You can permanently blind someone just from a glancing hit onto the eye.

There is no shield in front of your eye that somehow deflects the force of blows, as you seem to think there is.



			
				stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> The actions of the fat kid in this video are also due to pent up frustration from being picked on for months. If he had handled it through proper authorities earlier, it would not have come to this. That, and not all of us react to pent up anger in violence. Again, that is mentally unhealthy.


Wrong, acting out in violence due to pent up anger is neither healthy or unhealthy.

To say it is mentally unhealthy generally is ludicrous, since in fact we are more physically designed to act in that way.

It is mentally unhealthy to react violently to trivial things, but that problem is more a case of ones anger disproportionate to whatever is annoying him.

If i physically assault a person who murdered and stabbed and tortured and burnt my family in front of my eyes in anger.

I don't think thats 'mentally unhealthy' of me.

It would be mentally unhealthy of me if i adopted your attitude of seeming no anger and no concern.


			
				stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> In my quotation, you seemingly conveniently left out my qualifier statement. If you honestly do believe that is normal, it would imply that you'd do something similar. With that being the case, I stand by my opinion that you may have a disorder that could be helped or studied by medical attention. I agree that feeling anger is part of being human, but to concede to violence being acceptable and normal is archaic, barbaric, and possibly antisocial.
> 
> If you are as I perceive you (given my very limited personal knowledge of the way your mind works) I'd highly suggest that you get professional help.


What is unhealthy is passing of insults as some kind of objective analysis.

You are being an asshole and insulting for stating people have some mental illness because of their views.

Not only are you an asshole, but your dishonest too.

I would trade someone acting out in anger over people like you, who gloss over their insults with some mask of objectivity.

At least one side is honest.


----------



## Santeira (Mar 22, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:


> I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you. Picking up and throwing someone on concrete is an act of aggression, regardless of who started it. He didn't exactly push the bully away and try to walk; he went out of his way to cause damage. He walked away backwards after what he did, which I perceived as him being shocked by his own extreme actions. It wasn't exactly oozing in confidence or victory in my opinion.



That was not what I meant. Of course he resorted to an aggressive measure, but if he had a temperamental issue, he would have retaliated when the first punch hit him. And yes, he didn't try to push the bully away and try to walk away, but used a more intimidating act, but can you guarantee that it will stop there? The small kid could have approached him again, and yes, the other friends too. Or he could have walked away, by pushing the kid, but it would happen again the next day, and again.

If reporting to the authorities is as effective as the way you suggested it, then cases of bullies sometimes wouldn't have ended up with some bullied children committing suicide, no? You're idealistic, but reality doesn't usually work the way you are suggesting it. 



> Due to this, I'd be willing to bet that he didn't exactly plan the action as a way of keeping the bully's friends away. It just happened in a spur of rage, and that is an extremely dangerous thought. I can't really look at this as 'just a fight'. It's two kids fighting. It's a bully picking on and punching a fat kid, and the fat kid attacking in a way that could have caused permanent physical damage to the bully. In my opinion, which I have earned through experience and education, that is not a healthy reaction to being bullied.



I wasn't saying that he planned it either, but he perceived he could have wanted to resort to a measure that is sending the bullies a clear message. He admitted in the video it happened during a moment he wasn't thinking. Perhaps he didn't realize how damaging the act could have been, he is a child after all, and because he had never fought back before that had spurred him, but it doesn't lessen the fact that if he had done it in a less intimidating way, the other kids could have attacked him. 

They are clearly trying to bully him, capturing on video perhaps with intent to spread the video afterward to humiliate him--and he might have noticed this. And though it is hardly relevant, I happen to have knowledge in child psychology. You are trying to tell us that there is a rational approach to the situation that could have been ideal if Casey is an adult, or what was the right thing to do but Casey is not as educated and experienced as you, and you were not in the situation. 



> Right, and I agree with the concept of fighting back, but I disagree with it being done the way the fat kid did in this video. In hindsight, we, as humans will always regret things. If things went just a little differently, and the bully actually did land on his head, the fat kid could have much more to regret later in life than just not fighting back. Honestly, I _would_ hope that actions like this would deter bullies, but I feel as though it is more likely to motivate bullies to throw around some of the less hefty people that they are bullying.
> 
> Life will always bring people who struggle in power with you, be it physical, fiscally, socially, or any number of other ways. Almost any other way of dealing with these issues is better than the one that the fat kid in this video employed.



Applying your ideals as what could have been a right thing to do, and you proclaim that you have education and experience in it, but still I'm thinking them as ideals that sometimes are not practical in reality. If Casey had not fought back the way he did, years of pent-up frustrations and low self-confidence can develop him to a damaged adult when he grows up. That would be even more dangerous when he finally explodes.


----------



## stomponfrogs (Mar 22, 2011)

maj1n said:


> You can permanently blind someone just from a glancing hit onto the eye.
> 
> There is no shield in front of your eye that somehow deflects the force of blows, as you seem to think there is.


I'm going to ignore the straw man.. and your limited grasp of knowledge pertaining to damage incurred in a fight.



> Wrong, acting out in violence due to pent up anger is neither healthy or unhealthy.
> 
> To say it is mentally unhealthy generally is ludicrous, since in fact we are more physically designed to act in that way.



We are not physically designed (I'm guessing you mean evolutionary) to attack people in fits of rage after holding back anger. Violent acts like that are deemed, by our society, to be abnormal regardless of your personal beliefs.



> It is mentally unhealthy to react violently to trivial things, but that problem is more a case of ones anger disproportionate to whatever is annoying him.
> 
> If i physically assault a person who murdered and stabbed and tortured and burnt my family in front of my eyes in anger.
> 
> I don't think thats 'mentally unhealthy' of me.



Any study of human behavior would disagree. To mourn and to experience feelings of sadness and anger is normal, but looking for and attacking murderers is mentally unhealthy behavior. That's not just my opinion.



> It would be mentally unhealthy of me if i adopted your attitude of seeming no anger and no concern.
> 
> What is unhealthy is passing of insults as some kind of objective analysis.
> 
> ...



The rest of this is strawman arguments and baseless insults that I would probably waste time responding to if I didn't have to get ready for the rest of my day. I sincerely hope that I misunderstood most of what you've been saying, but in case I haven't, please at least have yourself evaluated. Depending on your health insurance, it could be covered, and it wouldn't really take THAT long in the grand scheme of things.

@sant, I'd be happy to read and respond to your post later if you feel like it's important (although I don't see why you would; I'm just one opinion). But for now, I really don't have time. Sorry


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Mar 22, 2011)

> If you're saying that a kid can throw another kid like that without obvious issues controlling their actions, I'd suggest that you may have behavioural issues of your own. Beyond that, I don't know how else to help you understand rationally why it is wrong to throw someone with no regard for their health onto concrete. Plenty of people with mental issues show remorse or know how to fake it in the public eye. The fat kid is a danger to society, and the fact that THIS could be what makes him popular increases the likelihood of it happening again.





> The rest of this is strawman arguments and baseless insults that I would probably waste time responding to if I didn't have to get ready for the rest of my day. I sincerely hope that I misunderstood most of what you've been saying, but in case I haven't, please at least have yourself evaluated. Depending on your health insurance, it could be covered, and it wouldn't really take THAT long in the grand scheme of things.





> If you are as I perceive you (given my very limited personal knowledge of the way your mind works) I'd highly suggest that you get professional help.



Accusing the people you discuss with of having behavioral problems and suffering from mental illness because they find your ideals impractical is not what I would describe as non antisocial or a peaceful way to engage in constructive conversation. Which is an understatement. Of course my paragraph does a poor job describing how offensive and non constructive your tone and content of the parts of your posts I have quoted is.


----------



## maj1n (Mar 22, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:


> I'm going to ignore the straw man.. and your limited grasp of knowledge pertaining to damage incurred in a fight.


Of course you ignore it because you have no rebuttal.
Thanks for conceding.



			
				=stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> We are not physically designed (I'm guessing you mean evolutionary) to attack people in fits of rage after holding back anger. Violent acts like that are deemed, by our society, to be abnormal regardless of your personal beliefs.


yeh actually we are, you don't exactly see animals in the animal kingdom sitting down and talking away their troubles when their insanely angry do you?

Violent acts are not good or bad in our society, only if their disproportionate to the issue involved.

In that regard, our society does not deem violence wrong, it deems unjustified violence wrong.

Police use violence all the time.



			
				=stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> Any study of human behavior would disagree. To mourn and to experience feelings of sadness and anger is normal, but looking for and attacking murderers is mentally unhealthy behavior. That's not just my opinion.


I can safely say that any study would back up my assertion that it is perfectly normal to want to get revenge on someone who tortured my family.

Your idea on normal behaviour is actually insane, your getting to the point of almost saying anger itself is a mental illness.



			
				=stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> The rest of this is strawman arguments and baseless insults that I would probably waste time responding to if I didn't have to get ready for the rest of my day. I sincerely hope that I misunderstood most of what you've been saying, but in case I haven't, please at least have yourself evaluated. Depending on your health insurance, it could be covered, and it wouldn't really take THAT long in the grand scheme of things.


Calling someone mentally retarded, as you have, is an insult.

Again, your attitude is an insulting one, and dishonest, don't bother trying to hide behind some clinical analysis when you say someone should 'go to a hospital to check their mental behaviour' because of their views on this issue.

And everyone can see that.


----------



## zuul (Mar 22, 2011)

His attempt at getting sympathy and falsely playing victim makes him even more despitable.

I wonder who is the retard who told it to do so while he'd better keep a low profile waiting for the shitstorm to die.


----------



## stomponfrogs (Mar 22, 2011)

Santeira said:


> That was not what I meant. Of course he resorted to an aggressive measure, but if he had a temperamental issue, he would have retaliated when the first punch hit him. And yes, he didn't try to push the bully away and try to walk away, but used a more intimidating act, but can you guarantee that it will stop there? The small kid could have approached him again, and yes, the other friends too. Or he could have walked away, by pushing the kid, but it would happen again the next day, and again.
> 
> If reporting to the authorities is as effective as the way you suggested it, then cases of bullies sometimes wouldn't have ended up with some bullied children committing suicide, no? You're idealistic, but reality doesn't usually work the way you are suggesting it.




I think if he had a temperamental issue, he would have picked up the bully and thrown him on hard concrete after letting his frustration build. The only intention behind an attack when the attacker blanks out is to cause damage. If he pushed the kid, walked away, and notified authoritative figures, assuming they do their jobs properly, it won't happen the next day and again.

If I remember right (as I also am studying psychology in preparation for psychiatric rotations), unfortunate cases where bullied children commit suicide tend to be among children who neither report it to officials or even their parents. The child takes his or her own life, and the parents and teachers only find out about the actions through hindsight. 




> I wasn't saying that he planned it either, but he perceived he could have wanted to resort to a measure that is sending the bullies a clear message. He admitted in the video it happened during a moment he wasn't thinking. Perhaps he didn't realize how damaging the act could have been, he is a child after all, and because he had never fought back before that had spurred him, but it doesn't lessen the fact that if he had done it in a less intimidating way, the other kids could have attacked him.
> 
> They are clearly trying to bully him, capturing on video perhaps with intent to spread the video afterward to humiliate him--and he might have noticed this. And though it is hardly relevant, I happen to have knowledge in child psychology. You are trying to tell us that there is a rational approach to the situation that could have been ideal if Casey is an adult, or what was the right thing to do but Casey is not as educated and experienced as you, and you were not in the situation.



The other kids could have attacked him, but as you said, the kid claimed to black out and attack out of pure rage. Regardless of the results or the reactions from other students, that is not a healthy course of action for someone to pick up at any age, much less during development. The rational approach to the situation should be what his parents and teachers taught, which is to go to an adult and inform them of the situation. If the fat kid were unaware of reporting the bullies, I would place some blame on the adults surrounding him. As it stands, actions like this should not be encouraged or treated as spectacles. His actions could have seriously injured another child, and he should be disciplined and taught that such actions are not commendable or acceptable in modern society.



> Applying your ideals as what could have been a right thing to do, and you proclaim that you have education and experience in it, but still I'm thinking them as ideals that sometimes are not practical in reality. If Casey had not fought back the way he did, years of pent-up frustrations and low self-confidence can develop him to a damaged adult when he grows up. That would be even more dangerous when he finally explodes.



I think what we saw was the results of his pent-up frustrations, and I do agree with you in a way. I'm glad that he expressed this without seriously injuring someone and before he was hold enough to be granted access to a weapon. However, I don't feel as though that makes his actions acceptable in any regard. There are plenty of adults who hold their anger in, and they manage to release it without resorting to violence (not that I have statistical evidence of this, so if you want to dispute this, I've got nada). Acts of violence are what criminalize people, and rightfully so in my opinion.



Narutofann12 said:


> Accusing the people you discuss with of having behavioral problems and suffering from mental illness because they find your ideals impractical is not what I would describe as non antisocial or a peaceful way to engage in constructive conversation. Of course my paragraph does a poor job describing how offensive and non constructive your tone and content of the parts of your posts I have quoted is.



If you re-read keeping in mind what I say next, I hope you'll see that you are wrongly criticizing me. I didn't think he has a behavioral problem due to the act of him feeling that my ideals are impractical. I think he has a behavioral problem, because he feels as though picking up a child and throwing him down on concrete was a justifiable action. At no point in that did I throw out curses or consciously try to belittle him. If you feel as though my tone was offensive and nonconstructive, I apologize, but I didn't intend for it to be that way. 

I notice that you made an entire post for the sole purpose of telling me that I seem rude, despite other people in here calling me a 'dipshit', 'arrogant', and probably a few other insults that I may no longer recall. While I don't quite understand or appreciate the gesture, I suppose I could find a way to take it as a compliment if I squint my brain.


EDIT:

Yeah.. I'm finished responding to Majin. You can take it as conceding if you want, but I feel as though I've heard everything you have to say, and while I've explained why I feel you are incorrect, you seem to pick and choose the message you get out of my responses. So I think that's enough for now.


----------



## maj1n (Mar 22, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:


> I think if he had a temperamental issue, he would have picked up the bully and thrown him on hard concrete after letting his frustration build. The only intention behind an attack when the attacker blanks out is to cause damage. If he pushed the kid, walked away, and notified authoritative figures, assuming they do their jobs properly, it won't happen the next day and again.


What makes you think he hasn't? he has walked away from most of his abuse for a long time.

Funny how that didn't stop the abuse did it?

Going to the teachers doesn't stop the abuse, particularly since that is a point OF ridicule as well to schoolchildren.

Anyone who has been to school knows this.



			
				stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> The other kids could have attacked him, but as you said, the kid claimed to black out and attack out of pure rage. Regardless of the results or the reactions from other students, that is not a healthy course of action for someone to pick up at any age, much less during development. The rational approach to the situation should be what his parents and teachers taught, which is to go to an adult and inform them of the situation. If the fat kid were unaware of reporting the bullies, I would place some blame on the adults surrounding him. As it stands, actions like this should not be encouraged or treated as spectacles. His actions could have seriously injured another child, and he should be disciplined and taught that such actions are not commendable or acceptable in modern society.


Going to the teachers doesn't solve anything.



			
				stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> I think what we saw was the results of his pent-up frustrations, and I do agree with you in a way. I'm glad that he expressed this without seriously injuring someone and before he was hold enough to be granted access to a weapon. However, I don't feel as though that makes his actions acceptable in any regard. There are plenty of adults who hold their anger in, and they manage to release it without resorting to violence (not that I have statistical evidence of this, so if you want to dispute this, I've got nada). Acts of violence are what criminalize people, and rightfully so in my opinion.


No, there are not plenty of adults who withhold their anger after being punched in the face multiple times after being subject to a long time of abuse.

Acts of violence don't criminalise people, police use force all the time.

Unjustified violence is wrong.

This is something you seem to be getting wrong 


			
				stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> If you re-read keeping in mind what I say next, I hope you'll see that you are wrongly criticizing me. I didn't think he has a behavioral problem due to the act of him feeling that my ideals are impractical. I think he has a behavioral problem, because he feels as though picking up a child and throwing him down on concrete was a justifiable action. At no point in that did I throw out curses or consciously try to belittle him. If you feel as though my tone was offensive and nonconstructive, I apologize, but I didn't intend for it to be that way.
> 
> I notice that you made an entire post for the sole purpose of telling me that I seem rude, despite other people in here calling me a 'dipshit', 'arrogant', and probably a few other insults that I may no longer recall. While I don't quite understand or appreciate the gesture, I suppose I could find a way to take it as a compliment if I squint my brain.


The difference is that if i called you a dipshit, i would be honest that i am calling you a dipshit.

You telling people they need their mental health checked because of their views on this issue is an insult.

Trying to veil it as some clinical analysis shows your a coward who won't even admit what your doing.

You wanna insult people? fine, don't act like insults are wrong when it is done to you then.


			
				stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> Yeah.. I'm finished responding to Majin. You can take it as conceding if you want, but I feel as though I've heard everything you have to say, and while I've explained why I feel you are incorrect, you seem to pick and choose the message you get out of my responses. So I think that's enough for now.


Because you offer no rebuttal and can't counter my arguments.

Thanks for conceding.

If you want to call what the fat kid done as morally reprehensible, fine, don't get upset if people call your stupid insults in this thread reprehensible either.

If i recall, society also deems it healthy to admit when someone is wrong,funny how you like to use this 'society angle' but conveniently don't follow it huh?

If you act in a bullshit way, i will call out your bullshit behaviour, plain and simple.


----------



## Gilgamesh (Mar 22, 2011)

Kid looks like he has Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, and the hell is with the piercing?


----------



## Santeira (Mar 22, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:


> I think if he had a temperamental issue, he would have picked up the bully and thrown him on hard concrete after letting his frustration build. The only intention behind an attack when the attacker blanks out is to cause damage. If he pushed the kid, walked away, and notified authoritative figures, *assuming they do their jobs properly*, it won't happen the next day and again.



The way I see it, it wasn't that he let his frustrations built--it was because he kept thinking that he shouldn't fight back--perhaps because of lack of confidence. You're holding him to a standard where he is fully educated and experienced in handling the situation, but he isn't. He's just a child. And, that is, assuming that they do their jobs properly, but even then we have no guarantee of this. 



> If I remember right (as I also am studying psychology in preparation for psychiatric rotations), unfortunate cases where bullied children commit suicide tend to be among children who neither report it to officials or even their parents. The child takes his or her own life, and the parents and teachers only find out about the actions through hindsight.



Then again there were children who committed-suicide even with parents and school knowing the children were being bullied and the parents have taken action. Point in case: 




> The other kids could have attacked him, but as you said, the kid claimed to black out and attack out of pure rage. Regardless of the results or the reactions from other students, that is not a healthy course of action for someone to pick up at any age, much less during development. The rational approach to the situation should be what his parents and teachers taught, which is to go to an adult and inform them of the situation. If the fat kid were unaware of reporting the bullies, I would place some blame on the adults surrounding him. As it stands, actions like this should not be encouraged or treated as spectacles. His actions could have seriously injured another child, and he should be disciplined and taught that such actions are not commendable or acceptable in modern society.



I agree with the last point, that somebody should tell Casey that his action could have seriously injured another child, and that any form of aggression could have seriously injured the child. But still, he's just a child. As adults, we can instill him with values, but most of the time ideals hardly work in reality. 

Still, if he had done it in a situation where he _wasn't taunted, wasn't provoked, wasn't assaulted--mentally and physically_, I'd agree it is not healthy. But he's a child, and human, and it's human to resort to self-defense in a situation where rationality is probably not the solution. 



> I think what we saw was the results of his pent-up frustrations, and I do agree with you in a way. I'm glad that he expressed this without seriously injuring someone and before he was hold enough to be granted access to a weapon. However, I don't feel as though that makes his actions acceptable in any regard. There are plenty of adults who hold their anger in, and they manage to release it without resorting to violence (not that I have statistical evidence of this, so if you want to dispute this, I've got nada). Acts of violence are what criminalize people, and rightfully so in my opinion.



I don't know about you, but to me, the _intensity of his action_ (not the action of self-defense itself), though may not be acceptable, is _perfectly understandable_ and I don't fault him for it. I do think you should not hold his rationalization process up to your informed and experienced standard. In the video, he shows that he is not the kind of person that holds malice, and he seems to be speaking in confidence instead of boasting about what he did--there is no arrogance whatsoever. 

Just because he loses his cool in a moment of human-weakness, doesn't mean he is temperamental--as I said, he probably didn't even know what he was capable of inflicting from his action, and I still condone his act of self-defense/fighting back the bullies.


----------



## Scud (Mar 22, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:


> *You seem to be deeply affected by this story due to possibly being beaten up on a regular basis yourself*, so I'm going to do what I can to end the potential perpetuation of your flaming and trolling before it starts.


Before I begin, I'd like to point out the blatant hypocrisy. And for the record, maybe you should try harder next time 



> A punch by the fat kid with no apparent experience in fighting does not hold the same potential damage as the same fat kid picking up and throwing the bully down on a slab of concrete. I'm sorry if you disagree with that, but I honestly don't know how to explain a concept like that which I feel to be simple.


See, you seem to misunderstand. It's not that I disagree with you; it's that you're wrong. It isn't a matter of opinion; it's a fact. Now, do your best to keep up here, because I'm going to make this simple as I can for you (which you obviously require in order to understand).

There are several different areas of the head that, when struck hard enough and/or in the right way, can cause temporary or permanent loss of vision. Likewise, there are a couple (although, far less) areas of the head that, when struck hard enough, will cause your eyeball to dislodge from your skull (Don't try telling me I'm wrong, because I've seen it happen). One way in which this can easily happen is shattering one of the bones around the eyeball that acts as a support to keep it in place. Now, take your finger and place it behind your ear. Notice anything, junior? Yeah, there's a weak spot back there that is unprotected by the skull. If you strike someone there in the right way, they will *die*. There are documented cases of this happening, so, again, don't try to refute this.

Those are just a couple of the extremely serious dangers posed by a simple punch in the head. Do you get it yet? A single punch *always* has the *potential* to do more damage than being dropped. This is a fact, and there is no agree or disagree.



> He was being teased and pushed around, and that lead to him essentially going postal without a gun. Attitudes like this can lead to Columbine. Blame the bully all you want for driving him that far, but it took the actions of the fat kid to take that final step. You make it sound like there was a mob lynching him before he took out his anger on the bully.


This is nothing like "going postal". Maybe if, after throwing the kid down, he had mounted him and continued to assault him, this could be considered anything like "going postal". But we both know that isn't what happened. Your reference to Columbine is hilariously out of place, and does not fit here at all. 

And we can all see that Casey took the "final step". But lets be honest here; had he not, this would have gone on. What was happening here wasn't a simple case of teasing. What you're watching in that video is actually assault, by definition. In your eyes, should he have waited for that lynch mob to show up, ropes in hand, before defending himself? If you would have waited in that situation, then I think there's something wrong with you. Normal people don't openly allow themselves to be assaulted; nor would they wait for the violence against themselves to escalate further before defending themselves.



> If you're saying that a kid can throw another kid like that without obvious issues controlling their actions, I'd suggest that you may have behavioural issues of your own.


Fortunately for me, your opinion means nothing. You've demonstrated that you lack the basic knowledge needed to intelligently discuss this issue. Anybody who would accept advice from you pertaining to mental health issues probably has one.



> Beyond that, I don't know how else to help you understand rationally why it is wrong to throw someone with no regard for their health onto concrete. Plenty of people with mental issues show remorse or know how to fake it in the public eye. The fat kid is a danger to society, and the fact that THIS could be what makes him popular increases the likelihood of it happening again.


All I got out of this was "herp derp, I hate fat kids". You clearly don't have the capacity for intelligent thought needed to understand this. The kid was being attacked. Rather than inviting an open fight, which he was obviously trying to avoid, he threw the kid down in attempt to stop the fisticuff bullshit. Yes, it was a bad decision on his part to drop the kid in the way he did. I never said it wasn't wrong, I simply said it doesn't indicate any kind of mental issue. When you're being attacked like that, you aren't going to patiently think over how you're going to drop the person. You're going to fucking do it. 

In his mind, it was probably the easiest way he saw to get the kid to stop without having an all-out fist fight with him. It's human instinct to look out for your own safety when being attacked, and, in my opinion, the choice he made was better than some of his other potential options. He is not a danger to society; little fuckers who go around picking on and assaulting their peers are.


----------



## Detonator_Fan (Mar 22, 2011)

Reacting is the best way to deal with this shit
If the other one is injured... he is injured. Who cares?

They already made the school life of Casey hell. Depending on what they did in the past to him, maybe he will have problems for the rest of his life because of all the bullying he suffered in the past. 

If they get hurt... they deserved it. I won't feel sad for them.


----------



## Koppachino (Mar 22, 2011)

I saw this video a while ago, one of my friends showed it to me. Loved it then, love it now.


----------



## -Dargor- (Mar 22, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:


> LEAVE BRITTNEY ALONE



Welcome to the jungle.

I'd take off those pink glasses if you don't want to walk right into the reality wall.


----------



## Gunners (Mar 22, 2011)

Looks like its feeding time at the zoo up in here.


----------



## stomponfrogs (Mar 22, 2011)

Tatumaru said:


> Before I begin, I'd like to point out the blatant hypocrisy. And for the record, maybe you should try harder next time



I can see how you would think that. Now let me bold every instance of you going the extra mile to stiffle rational debate, discussion, or any other form of two-way conversation. I'll even make an extra effort to explain why each bolded statement works against the possibility of rational discussion.



> See, you seem to misunderstand. *It's not that I disagree with you; it's that you're wrong. It isn't a matter of opinion; it's a fact. Now, do your best to keep up here, because I'm going to make this simple as I can for you (which you obviously require in order to understand) (this whole paragraph is flamebait placed for the sole purpose of belittling me)*.
> 
> There are several different areas of the head that, when struck hard enough and/or in the right way, can cause temporary or permanent loss of vision. Likewise, there are a couple (although, far less) areas of the head that, when struck hard enough, will cause your eyeball to dislodge from your skull (Don't try telling me I'm wrong, because I've seen it happen). One way in which this can easily happen is shattering one of the bones around the eyeball that acts as a support to keep it in place. Now, take your finger and place it behind your ear. *Notice anything, junior? (derogatory, uncalled for)* Yeah, there's a weak spot back there that is unprotected by the skull. If you strike someone there in the right way, they will die. There are documented cases of this happening,* so, again, don't try to refute this. (demanding/requesting that debate be ceased)*
> 
> ...





-Dargor- said:


> Welcome to the jungle.
> 
> I'd take off those pink glasses if you don't want to walk right into the reality wall.



I thought I lived in a modern society, but you make a good argument. Thanks for your contribution.

...This is why a fair portion of the 'debate' section in these forums is a joke. Clearly, you don't want to actually discuss this issue, but in case you do, I'll respond when you can write more than two paragraphs in a row without immaturely attacking me. With the exception of Santeira (sorry for dropping your  name, I honestly hope it doesn't get you unwanted attention), I have yet to discuss this topic in here without being flamed.


----------



## impersonal (Mar 22, 2011)

Tatumaru said:


> There are several different areas of the head that, when struck hard enough and/or in the right way, can cause temporary or permanent loss of vision. Likewise, there are a couple (although, far less) areas of the head that, when struck hard enough, will cause your eyeball to dislodge from your skull (Don't try telling me I'm wrong, because I've seen it happen). One way in which this can easily happen is shattering one of the bones around the eyeball that acts as a support to keep it in place. Now, take your finger and place it behind your ear. Notice anything, junior? Yeah, there's a weak spot back there that is unprotected by the skull. If you strike someone there in the right way, they will *die*. There are documented cases of this happening, so, again, don't try to refute this.
> 
> Those are just a couple of the extremely serious dangers posed by a simple punch in the head. Do you get it yet? A single punch *always* has the *potential* to do more damage than being dropped. This is a fact, and there is no agree or disagree.


Sure, if you hit someone's seven vital points in the right order, turn your back on them and say _"you're already dead, junior"_, then their head will explode... At least in anime. In the real world, bodies are relatively robust, and you need a fair amount of force to cause any significant damage. This is how professional boxers or MMA fighters manage to survive for so long despite fighting and sparring all the time. A baby like that bully isn't going to do shit to a guy the size of the bullied kid.



			
				stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> The other kids could have attacked him, but as you said, the kid claimed to black out and attack out of pure rage. Regardless of the results or the reactions from other students, that is not a healthy course of action for someone to pick up at any age, much less during development. The rational approach to the situation should be what his parents and teachers taught, which is to go to an adult and inform them of the situation. If the fat kid were unaware of reporting the bullies, I would place some blame on the adults surrounding him. As it stands, actions like this should not be encouraged or treated as spectacles. His actions could have seriously injured another child, and he should be disciplined and taught that such actions are not commendable or acceptable in modern society.


...And we're back in anime territory. Reality is that when someone is being attacked, he responds in kind. That's normal animal and human behaviour: you kick me, I kick you back, the balance of power is established, everybody can go back to normal activities. It is the kind of behaviour that works well at any age and in any situation of life. You respond to attacks.

If you let the small stuff go unpunished, other people are going to push their advantage, and it gets bad. The fat kid probably didn't respond to earlier taunts, probably because he was taught it is _"not civilized to do so"_ by idealists like you, who refuse to see that interactions aren't always mutually beneficial... and that in most situations, there's a bit of a power struggle going on. 

If you just observe friends talking to one another, you'll often see hints of this covered competition for status; people making jokes about one another, gently, and expecting the others to reply back and tease them back. It's part of life. Not seeing this, and not doing your part in these games for status, will cause you to lose the game, to get the lowest status, and that's where things get dangerous: the game goes out of control.

Reporting the situation is better than nothing, as it stops the worst stuff from happening. But it's like starting a fire then calling the firemen. It's stupid. Instead of getting in the position of being bullied and then ask the authority save your ass, you should avoid that position from the start; that means fighting, starting with the little stuff.

The fat kid fought back too late admittedly, but it was a *healthy* reaction.


----------



## stomponfrogs (Mar 22, 2011)

I don't understand quite how this is anime territory (or what that even means, really), but I'll try to address everything you said to better express my feelings on this topic.



impersonal said:


> ...And we're back in anime territory. Reality is that when someone is being attacked, he responds in kind. That's normal animal and human behaviour: you kick me, I kick you back, the balance of power is established, everybody can go back to normal activities. It is the kind of behaviour that works well at any age and in any situation of life. You respond to attacks.



That is the kind of behavior that is rampant in non-humans, but I'm of the opinion that we have mentally evolved past that. If someone in my place of work constantly harasses and punches me for some reason, and I throw him through a cubicle, I will be fired. Allowing behavior like this to go unpunished and unanswered, as some are suggesting, makes it more difficult to teach professional behavior at later stages. 



> If you let the small stuff go unpunished, other people are going to push their advantage, and it gets bad. The fat kid probably didn't respond to earlier taunts, probably because he was taught it is _"not civilized to do so"_ by idealists like you, who refuse to see that interactions aren't always mutually beneficial... and that in most situations, there's a bit of a power struggle going on.



I didn't mean that the fat kid shouldn't respond to taunts or being harassed. I don't feel that responding like a smart-ass would be uncalled for by the fat kid, and as I said before, getting a teacher involved would have diffused the situation, just as getting the police involved when someone harasses or attacks you as an adult is an acceptable way to deal with harassment. 



> If you just observe friends talking to one another, you'll often see hints of this covered competition for status; people making jokes about one another, gently, and expecting the others to reply back and tease them back. It's part of life. Not seeing this, and not doing your part in these games for status, will cause you to lose the game, to get the lowest status, and that's where things get dangerous: the game goes out of control.



I agree that kids and adults always seem to struggle for higher status, and they sometimes do that by making jokes at the expense of others or, in this case, even throwing a few punches. Like I mentioned previously, I feel as though quips are fair game, and as far as a game stays away from blatant violence, I wouldn't argue against it. The bully was absolutely out of hand, and I won' dispute that for a second. However, I feel as though the fat kid throwing him down not only grossly escalated the situation, but also perpetuated the cycle.



> Reporting the situation is better than nothing, as it stops the worst stuff from happening. But it's like starting a fire then calling the firemen. It's stupid. Instead of getting in the position of being bullied and then ask the authority save your ass, you should avoid that position from the start; that means fighting, starting with the little stuff.



I'm not too sure that I understand how your analogy applies. I feel as though reporting the situation is more like finding yourself in a fire then calling the firemen. The fat kid didn't start the fight, he was just unfortunately being bullied. I feel that if he had been quicker to notify an adult before the situation got this far (this is all under the assumption that he didn't inform a teacher or parent.. if he did inform them and they didn't act, I don't think it would be out of line to take disciplinary action against the teacher), the little stuff is where this would have ended.



> The fat kid fought back too late admittedly, but it was a *healthy* reaction.



I agree that the fat kid stood up for himself too late, but I don't think a violent reaction, much less one to this extent, is healthy or acceptable during this stage of development.


----------



## kazuri (Mar 22, 2011)

Sorry, but in the real world you cannot fight back with "just enough" force. Most life has this amazing ability to remember, someone who attacked someone for no reason actually having a reason to attack, is obviously more dangerous than he was before he had a reason and still attacked, now that he does have a reason, revenge.


----------



## impersonal (Mar 22, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:


> I don't understand quite how this is anime territory (or what that even means, really), but I'll try to address everything you said to better express my feelings on this topic.


It's an image, it stands for "fantasy", "la-la land", etc... away from reality.



stomponfrogs said:


> I agree that kids and adults always seem to struggle for higher status, and they sometimes do that by making jokes at the expense of others or, in this case, even throwing a few punches. Like I mentioned previously, I feel as though quips are fair game, and as far as a game stays away from blatant violence, I wouldn't argue against it. The bully was absolutely out of hand, and I won' dispute that for a second. However, I feel as though the fat kid throwing him down not only grossly escalated the situation, but also perpetuated the cycle.


What makes me think of you as a sort of "bleeding heart" is your "no tolerance" policy for physical violence. Physical violence is not different in nature from psychological violence. In this situation, responding to one with the other was self-defence.

Going to the authority is doable in cases of extreme abuse, but it won't stop lighter abuse. So if you rely on authorities -- you're going to remain a victim, because people will simply stop at the limit where the police can kick in.

That is, if a coworker is being a dick-head to you and you don't confront him, he's going to keep on talking behind your back and do stuff to piss you off; he'll just avoid doing the stuff that can have repercussions for him.

You have to learn to play the game, and respond in kind to small aggressions. The fat kid only did so when pushed very far from his comfort zone. But he still learned healthy behaviour.


----------



## stomponfrogs (Mar 22, 2011)

impersonal said:


> It's an image, it stands for "fantasy", "la-la land", etc... away from reality.



Ah, that makes more sense.



> I think your big mistake, and what makes me think of you as a bleeding heart, is your "no tolerance" policy for physical violence. Physical violence is not different in nature from psychological violence. Responding to one with the other is fair game.
> 
> In this case, the situation was not escalated. Rather, it was kept level; to an act of aggression involving some physical violence and a lot of humiliation, he responded with a lot of physical violence... There's no cycle being perpetuated; rather, the cycle ended.



Again, I still find myself disagreeing on a fundamental level. In the case of a child who tries to avoid violence by going to teachers, parents, and by trying to talk to the bully all to no avail, I could understand violence seeming like the only course of action. But nothing in this story suggests that the fat kid did anything other than accept punishment until he snapped. 

Hmm.. I feel that going from psychological attacks and jabs/punches to literally a throw down was a major escalation, at least as far as the amount of damage being done goes. In fact, I would actually guess (although this is all speculation on both of our parts at this junction of time) that the public humiliation would motivate the bully and his little posse, some of whom I believe were visible in the video, to be more likely to escalate their harassment as a result, unless a teacher starts keeping a better eye on his/her students. Rather than continuing to harass the fat kid for being a "loser" or whatever their stupid reason was, they could harass him for making the bully look dumb on the internet, which frankly to me sounds like it could be much worse.


----------



## Gunners (Mar 22, 2011)

> That is the kind of behavior that is rampant in non-humans, but I'm of the opinion that we have mentally evolved past that. If someone in my place of work constantly harasses and punches me for some reason, and I throw him through a cubicle, I will be fired. Allowing behavior like this to go unpunished and unanswered, as some are suggesting, makes it more difficult to teach professional behavior at later stages.


And then you would be able to sue your work place for unfairly dismissing you. If someone started punching you and you through them through a cubicle it would be an act of defence. 

There's a difference between someone assaulting you on the playground and assaulting you at school anyway. If someone attacked you for no good reason or harassed it wouldn't be a long time until they get fired. Which is why you don't see shit like that in the work force or amongst adults because they get appropriately punished, it acts as a deterrent. 



> I didn't mean that the fat kid shouldn't respond to taunts or being harassed. I don't feel that responding like a smart-ass would be uncalled for by the fat kid, and as I said before, getting a teacher involved would have diffused the situation, just as getting the police involved when someone harasses or attacks you as an adult is an acceptable way to deal with harassment.


No it wouldn't diffuse the situation. It would tip them off to the fact that they are getting to you, that you are incapable of handling the situation on your own and piss them off for drawing attention on themselves. They won't get in a lot of trouble because they will have their friends lie for them.


> I agree that the fat kid stood up for himself too late, but I don't think a violent reaction, much less one to this extent, is healthy or acceptable during this stage of development.


''During this stage of development''? You're making things more complicated than they need to be, any age, any species, beings will defend themselves when backed into a corner. 

If he stomped the shit out of him when he was on the ground I could understand your concern over temper but he roughed him up and walked away.


----------



## impersonal (Mar 22, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:


> Hmm.. I feel that going from psychological attacks and jabs/punches to literally a throw down was a major escalation, at least as far as the amount of damage being done goes. In fact, I would actually guess (although this is all speculation on both of our parts at this junction of time) that the public humiliation would motivate the bully and his little posse, some of whom I believe were visible in the video, to be more likely to escalate their harassment as a result, unless a teacher starts keeping a better eye on his/her students. Rather than continuing to harass the fat kid for being a "loser" or whatever their stupid reason was, they could harass him for making the bully look dumb on the internet, which frankly to me sounds like it could be much worse.



No, getting that kind of punishment typically shuts the bully up. Again, this is how people and animals alike tend to behave, they try their luck, but when it doesn't work, they accept that they've found a limit and don't try to cross it again. Secondly, you're seriously underestimating psychological damage if you think having people film you and laugh while you're punched (especially at this stage of development) isn't at least comparable to getting a broken bone. It was pretty serious abuse.


----------



## maj1n (Mar 22, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> Hmm.. I feel that going from psychological attacks and jabs/punches to literally a throw down was a major escalation,


No it isn't, a lifetime of psychological attacks and physical abuse (jabs and punches) on the fat kid, far outweighs one instance of a throwdown.

You earlier made these arguments and i will address them.

1.'Society says etc etc violence is bad.'
The argument of 'society' is simply an argument of 'what most people think' a flawed argument at best, yet the near unanimous support for Casey would make your argument favour Casey wouldn't it?

2. 'Psychology says its not natural to respond with violence so its bad'
I'm sorry but psychology says no such thing, for Casey to disregard this abuse would require a GREAT deal of mental effort on his part, for Casey to go to the teachers requires conditioning and teaching to him that that is the course of action to take.

Both of these are not 'natural' in any sense of the word, to condition children to act in a certain way is equivalent to saying you want them to act in a way other then what is natural.

For Casey to put in a supreme mental effort to disregard all this abuse is also going against what is a natural reaction, fighting back.



All in all, your perspective is wrong, completely, to advocate a course of action that is an unreasonable expectation given the treatment Casey endured, is being not practical.

Whats worse is your also saying what Casey did is MORALLY WRONG, which is going over the line.


----------



## Cthulhu-versailles (Mar 22, 2011)

I've only browsed some of the discussion in here, but in regards to the throw being escalation, I do generally agree that is what it was. Specifically, given Casey has no formal training, I'd purport he'd reason hefting someone above his head and tossing them to the floor with malice is probably going to cause more damage than a punch. Really, the whole point of Casey's action was to strike with extreme force to insure the situation would end. Basically, Casey pulled an Ender Wiggin but the bully didn't die. 

The above being said, I do think the throw is justifiable given the context and people involved. In the first place, we don't hold as high a standard for children(10 and under) when it comes to simple reasoning or restraint as we do adults. Secondly, as was the case with Ender Wiggin, the resulting injury to the Bully is simply self-defense. Casey was just protecting himself. Edit: Going a step further, the law gives leeway to women who have suffered domestic abuse over the course of many years and who finally one day respond with extreme force.

Wherther or not Casey has psychological issues or control issues I don't know. However, just going by that video, I would say he thought as most cornered victims would. In such a case, and especially since it is with little kids,  I don't believe size matters. The mentality and context is what matters. I salute the slam and feel no sympathy for bully.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 22, 2011)

Basically if you corner your prey, they will do anything to retaliate. Casey was cornered into a wall being somewhat blocked off. He defended himself.


----------



## butcher50 (Mar 22, 2011)

Casey allowed the first bullying

then the second act of bullying

then the third

then the fourth

honestly Casey was too soft on that little bully shit.

shoulda ripped his head off and shitted down his neck.


----------



## butcher50 (Mar 22, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:


> Ah, that makes more sense.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



9 out of 10 cases, it takes extreme lengths of reluctance on the teachers/supervisors part to start taking the whole bullied victims issue seriously.

it's easier to boss around the good-behavior, obedient kids rather then the bullies.


----------



## Pseudo (Mar 22, 2011)

I heard the bully said he didn't start the fight.


----------



## Shock Therapy (Mar 22, 2011)

ThePsuedo said:


> I heard the bully said he didn't start the fight.



the fucker blatantly lied on national television. this guy's already gaping asshole needs to be sodomized some more by the media. what a fucking queer.


----------



## stomponfrogs (Mar 23, 2011)

impersonal said:


> No, getting that kind of punishment typically shuts the bully up. Again, this is how people and animals alike tend to behave, they try their luck, but when it doesn't work, they accept that they've found a limit and don't try to cross it again. Secondly, you're seriously underestimating psychological damage if you think having people film you and laugh while you're punched (especially at this stage of development) isn't at least comparable to getting a broken bone. It was pretty serious abuse.



I think you're speculating just as much as I am regarding his future reaction to this. There is a major difference between the way humans and other animals think, one being the human tendency to go after revenge and redemption. If we do poorly on a test, we don't accept our limitations. We try harder to pass it the next time. If we're on a football team that loses a game, we don't throw in the towel and let the rest of the season go. We try to get better and win the next one. Assuming that the bully is either remorseful or cowardly, he very well could drop the grudge and move on to being a little prick to someone else, but given that he has a group of friends to stand up for him while the fat kid has few-to-no friends, I don't have trouble imagining a situation that the bully simply chooses to go after the fat kid with a group instead of alone. The fact that this video went viral would also suggest to me that the bully will want to record it, so he can try to attain the same level of internet fame for injuring someone. ..but like I said, neither of us can actually determine the exact thoughts going through either child's head. I just wanted to give you my take on what a future scenario could realistically be.

I can see how you would think that I'm underestimating psychological damage, but I think you're underestimating the risk of spinal damage and potential paralysis or level of brain damage that could have occurred if the bully were dropped slightly differently. Psychological damage is very serious, I agree. However, I still think that if the fat kid put himself into a position where an adult was looking out for him, it would deter the other child sufficiently enough to avoid most, if not all, of the psychological damage that occurred. At the same time, if the bully hadn't harassed the fat kid, he could have avoided the amazing dangerous attack that happened to him. That's why I think they're both at fault. 

It may seem like over-analysis, but it could realistically all be simplified on the fat kid's childish mental capacity. If he goes to an adult, they should do their part to stop the violence. As a caretaker and authoritative figure, I would presume that is part of their duty.


----------



## maj1n (Mar 23, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:


> I can see how you would think that I'm underestimating psychological damage, but I think you're underestimating the risk of spinal damage and potential paralysis or level of brain damage that could have occurred if the bully were dropped slightly differently. Psychological damage is very serious, I agree. However, I still think that if the fat kid put himself into a position where an adult was looking out for him, it would deter the other child sufficiently enough to avoid most, if not all, of the psychological damage that occurred. At the same time, if the bully hadn't harassed the fat kid, he could have avoided the amazing dangerous attack that happened to him. That's why I think they're both at fault.


It is not the onus of the fat kid to restructure his life to shield himself from bullies, it is on the bullies responsibility to not harm people.

The fat kid shouldn't have to put himself in any position for anything, your advocating the fat kid changing his life due to the influence of the bullies.

In which case, the bullies have already won.




			
				stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> It may seem like over-analysis, but it could realistically all be simplified on the fat kid's childish mental capacity. If he goes to an adult, they should do their part to stop the violence. As a caretaker and authoritative figure, I would presume that is part of their duty.


An adult would lash out with violence if he was repeatedly harmed throughout his adult life by the same person then punched in the face.

The sheer amount of support for Casey by adults themselves, attest to that.

Even our law has provisions for this, in the case of self-defense.

So please don't boil this argument down to him being a child hence his action is expected, virtually every adult would react in a similar fashion.

Whether or not it is the duty of teachers and parents to protect Casey is irrelevant to the issue at hand, just as it is irrelevant of whether  police should protect me if i end up physically defending myself on a rainy day in a back alley when someone is trying to stab me to death.



All in all, what your advocating is that Casey actually change his life because of the bullies, that is grossly unfair, Casey should not have to do anything, your focus should be on the bullies themselves.

But of course that is not your position, hence you are unreasonable.



			
				stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> ...This is why a fair portion of the 'debate' section in these forums is a joke. Clearly, you don't want to actually discuss this issue, but in case you do, I'll respond when you can write more than two paragraphs in a row without immaturely attacking me. With the exception of Santeira (sorry for dropping your name, I honestly hope it doesn't get you unwanted attention), I have yet to discuss this topic in here without being flamed.



Looking at your past statements.



			
				stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> I'd suggest that you may have behavioural issues of your own.
> ..
> If you are as I perceive you (given my very limited personal knowledge of the way your mind works) I'd highly suggest that you get professional help.


Don't try to pretend your being civil in this thread discussion, you have insulted people, and refused to apologize.

You have insulted people purely for having a different stance to you on this issue, big words coming from you on 'constructiveness' of discussion.


----------



## stomponfrogs (Mar 23, 2011)

maj1n said:


> It is not the onus of the fat kid to restructure his life to shield himself from bullies, it is on the bullies responsibility to not harm people.
> 
> The fat kid shouldn't have to put himself in any position for anything, your advocating the fat kid changing his life due to the influence of the bullies.
> 
> In which case, the bullies have already won.



By this logic, the bully already won. The fat kid had no previous history of violence, and the bully put the fat kid in a situation where he had to restructure his life to commit an act of violence. He, by his own account, blacked out, and during his black out, he could have caused permanent damage to another child. You're condoning an act that could have made a child suffer for the rest of his life due to him being mean to another child. The bullying absolutely had to be stopped, but the way it was done was not appropriate or healthy.



> An adult would lash out with violence if he was repeatedly harmed throughout his adult life by the same person then punched in the face.
> 
> The sheer amount of support for Casey by adults themselves, attest to that.



A rational adult, in my opinion, would take another adult to court for assault if he was repeatedly harmed. The fact that adults (at least those who find themselves 'brave' enough to post their support) support the fat kid is what I find surprising and disappointing. The support of people, by itself, has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not an act is appropriate or healthy.



> Even our law has provisions for this, in the case of self-defense.
> 
> So please don't boil this argument down to him being a child hence his action is expected, virtually every adult would react in a similar fashion.



I disagree. Maybe _you_ would react like that, but I feel that most (if not all) rational adults wouldn't allow a situation to escalate to the point of blacking out and body slamming another adult.



> Whether or not it is the duty of teachers and parents to protect Casey is irrelevant to the issue at hand, just as it is irrelevant of whether  police should protect me if i end up physically defending myself on a rainy day in a back alley when someone is trying to stab me to death.



Your analogy doesn't really apply to this situation. The fat kid was not being attacked with a sharp object and defending himself in a spur of the moment conflict. This was not the first time that he was being bullied by these same people. Clearly the fat kid had survived previous bouts of harassment, and judging by the lack of blame on authoritative figures, he didn't ask for help when it was available. Instead, he took it upon himself to pick up the bully, flip him upside down, and drop him without a second thought. 



> All in all, what your advocating is that Casey actually change his life because of the bullies, that is grossly unfair, Casey should not have to do anything, your focus should be on the bullies themselves.
> 
> But of course that is not your position, hence you are unreasonable.



Ignoring the last statement in here which is solely put here to flamebait me, the fat kid was going to have to change his life if he wanted the bullies to stop. He changed it by turning to violence, and my whole point in this discussion (am I allowed to call it a discussion when you replace my arguments with strawmen?) is that his choice of violence over informing his teachers is ill-advised. If his parents didn't teach him how to deal with conflict without resorting to violence, I would definitely put some of the blame on them, but the fat kid needs to be taught that his actions could have seriously injured another human, and that is completely inappropriate and mentally unhealthy.



> Looking at your past statements.
> 
> 
> Don't try to pretend your being civil in this thread discussion, you have insulted people, and refused to apologize.
> ...



For anyone else reading what you said: He took what I said out of context completely. To be insulted by my concern that you may have a behavioral disorder would be the same as being insulted if I show concern over you having lung cancer. It is a disease, and it isn't necessarily a learned habit. Your lack of understanding regarding behavioral disorders, which is apparent to me by your feeling that it is an insult, helps me to understand why you have been taking so much offense to me saying that.. So let me apologize again (yes, I did give this same apology before, and at no point did I "refuse to apologize".. I have no idea from where you created that straw man).

I am sorry if you feel that anything I have said in here was out of aggression or if you found offense in my posts. It was neither my purpose nor my desire to make you so angry that you or anyone else would riddle your posts with belittling comments and inflammatory insults. 

With that said, I understand that I said I wouldn't respond to you if you did this again, and I went back on that. However, I honestly am finished being trolled by you, so either tone down your senseless anger, or don't expect me to respond to you again.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Mar 23, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:


> A rational adult, in my opinion, would take another adult to court for assault if he was repeatedly harmed. The fact that adults (at least those who find themselves 'brave' enough to post their support) support the fat kid is what I find surprising and disappointing. The support of people, by itself, has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not an act is appropriate or healthy.



So the kid being punched in the face should have "taken him to court"?  The equivalent I guess being talking to a teacher?

Talk to half the people who were bullied growing up and you'll learn that that often accomplishes nothing other than pissing off the bully even more.

I remember going to high school with a kid who was picked on on a nearly daily basis.  To the point where people who never bullied anyone else would shove him as he walked by or ridicule him when he was just sitting around reading or talking with a friend.

Not only did he tell teachers but I personally saw instances of the ridiculing occurring right in front of a teacher.

Do you know when the school stepped in?  They stepped in when he made a threat against one of the bullies and he was suspended from school.

Also if an adult walks up to you on the street and starts punching you in the head repeatedly and you fight back and injure them you can usually make a good case for self defense in court.


----------



## maj1n (Mar 23, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:


> By this logic, the bully already won. The fat kid had no previous history of violence, and the bully put the fat kid in a situation where he had to restructure his life to commit an act of violence. He, by his own account, blacked out, and during his black out, he could have caused permanent damage to another child. You're condoning an act that could have made a child suffer for the rest of his life due to him being mean to another child. The bullying absolutely had to be stopped, but the way it was done was not appropriate or healthy.


Yes i condone the act because it is understandable reaction given how he was pushed.

Unlike you, i empathize with the fat kid, and don't dictate he act in a fashion outside what is reasonable.



			
				stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> A rational adult, in my opinion, would take another adult to court for assault if he was repeatedly harmed. The fact that adults (at least those who find themselves 'brave' enough to post their support) support the fat kid is what I find surprising and disappointing. The support of people, by itself, has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not an act is appropriate or healthy.


In your opinion you are wrong, the sheer amount of support by people for Casey attests to the fact most adults actually understand what he went through and would have done the same thing.

Don't begin to use an argument of 'what other people would do' without looking at what other people are saying.



			
				stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> I disagree. Maybe _you_ would react like that, but I feel that most (if not all) rational adults wouldn't allow a situation to escalate to the point of blacking out and body slamming another adult.


Your disagreement doesn't follow what people are saying, you want to argue on what 'other adults would do'? then go and look at the tremendous and near uniform support for Casey by adults.

You have no argument, as pure evidence countradicts you, you merely repeat your stance as if that alone justifies it.



			
				stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> Your analogy doesn't really apply to this situation. The fat kid was not being attacked with a sharp object and defending himself in a spur of the moment conflict. This was not the first time that he was being bullied by these same people. Clearly the fat kid had survived previous bouts of harassment, and judging by the lack of blame on authoritative figures, he didn't ask for help when it was available. Instead, he took it upon himself to pick up the bully, flip him upside down, and drop him without a second thought.


A fat kid being mistreated his while life and then being punched in the face twice.

Is perfectly acceptable as being interpreted as an attack on his life.

To say otherwise is to say the fat kid must endure mistreatment, and that is what you are doing.



			
				stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> Ignoring the last statement in here which is solely put here to flamebait me, the fat kid was going to have to change his life if he wanted the bullies to stop. He changed it by turning to violence, and my whole point in this discussion (am I allowed to call it a discussion when you replace my arguments with strawmen?) is that his choice of violence over informing his teachers is ill-advised. If his parents didn't teach him how to deal with conflict without resorting to violence, I would definitely put some of the blame on them, but the fat kid needs to be taught that his actions could have seriously injured another human, and that is completely inappropriate and mentally unhealthy.


No, your whole argument is arguing that his reaction is morally wrong, which is why almost everyone in this thread is calling you out on it.

*you go far further then that, and state that people who support Casey have a mental illness*.

The fact your trying to re-frame your position, shows your retreating.

Its one thing to advocate perhaps a better solution, its another to say what he did is morally wrong and he has a mental health problem as are people whom support him.


			
				stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> For anyone else reading what you said: He took what I said out of context completely. To be insulted by my concern that you may have a behavioral disorder would be the same as being insulted if I show concern over you having lung cancer. It is a disease, and it isn't necessarily a learned habit. Your lack of understanding regarding behavioral disorders, which is apparent to me by your feeling that it is an insult, helps me to understand why you have been taking so much offense to me saying that.. So let me apologize again (yes, I did give this same apology before, and at no point did I "refuse to apologize".. I have no idea from where you created that straw man).
> 
> I am sorry if you feel that anything I have said in here was out of aggression or if you found offense in my posts. It was neither my purpose nor my desire to make you so angry that you or anyone else would riddle your posts with belittling comments and inflammatory insults.
> 
> With that said, I understand that I said I wouldn't respond to you if you did this again, and I went back on that. However, I honestly am finished being trolled by you, so either tone down your senseless anger, or don't expect me to respond to you again.


One again, i'll just re-quote you.



			
				stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> I'd suggest that you may have behavioural issues of your own.
> ..
> If you are as I perceive you (given my very limited personal knowledge of the way your mind works) I'd highly suggest that you get professional help.


This is pure insult, don't bother trying to mask it behind genuine concern, want to see your hypocrisy?



			
				maj1in said:
			
		

> But of course that is not your position, hence you are unreasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you believe me merely saying your position is unreasonable is tantamount to flamebait, what you have done is FAR worse.

You talk so much of being civil, of what society considers right, of what rational adults would do.

A rational civil person would at least apologize for their insulting behaviour, calling someones mental attitude a disease and needs help is an insult, especially considering its just because of their differing stance on the issue, you talk of being flamed in this thread, why do you take offense if people call you stupid or a jackass? its the same thing.

You talk of acting civil and rational adult? you don't do that, no common civil discussion discourse in real life would have someone say to the other 'you need your mental health checked'.

You want to argue for civility and rationality? practice it first yourself before you go and say a person who has been mistreated severely throughout his life and punched in the face repeatedly is wrong and unreasonable when they react back physically.


----------



## Santeira (Mar 23, 2011)

To add to what I've said in this thread: to me, something is not merely dangerous just because it is physical. 

To me, someone like the small kid is even more dangerous to the society. There are children who committed suicide, or suicidal because of the action of bullies such as the small kid. 

Just because it's not something that is done not through violence (mental attack is more like it), doesn't mean it's not dangerous.


----------



## butcher50 (Mar 23, 2011)

*stomponfrogs 

you has no fucking idea what it's like getting your dignity stripped away in front of the crowd, while being stuck to playing by the idealist's moralism-shmoralism rules of dis-engagement.

you have not a fucking single clue about the consequences of even thinking about reporting about what the bullies (with whom you share the school/class every single day) have done to you, it only gets a hundred times worse.

teachers are fucking incompetent about putting an effective stop to bullying because their hands are tied beyond anything other then pussyfooting around the issue and only reprimanding victim, because the bully-target is such an obedient, good-behavior command drone.

**stomponfrogs get the fuck out.*

your idealist fantasies are grossly incompatible with the reality that our children have to endure and survive through every fucking day of their miserable lives in the darwin's hell called "schools".


----------



## Federer (Mar 23, 2011)

People underestimate what kind of consequences bullying causes.

Columbine High School massacre for example, though it's not certain what really caused it, but the two suspects were said to be bullied for years. 

It's an extreme example, but every human being has a limit and when someone reaches that point, he/she will snap. Whether it's rational or not, we are not machines.


----------



## butcher50 (Mar 23, 2011)

Federer said:


> People underestimate what kind of consequences bullying causes.
> 
> Columbine High School massacre for example, though it's not certain what really caused it, but the two suspects were said to be bullied for years.
> 
> It's an extreme example, but everyone human being has a limit and when someone reaches that point, he/she will snap. Whether it's rational or not, we are not machines.



*stomponfrogs expects Casey to be an obedient, good-behavior drone to everyone, regardless of circumstances, regardless of how people take dumps of shit upon these qualities.

obedience/good-behavior should not be angelically INFINITE just so bullies can get away without paying with their broken teeth and cracked skulls for it.
*


----------



## stomponfrogs (Mar 23, 2011)

Santeira said:


> To add to what I've said in this thread: to me, something is not merely dangerous just because it is physical.
> 
> To me, someone like the small kid is even more dangerous to the society. There are children who committed suicide, or suicidal because of the action of bullies such as the small kid.
> 
> Just because it's not something that is done not through violence (mental attack is more like it), doesn't mean it's not dangerous.



I agree that the bully acted completely out of line and deserves to be disciplined. Hopefully, his parents and teachers will somehow guide him to cease in his harassment of other students. His emotional damage is absolutely a dangerous attack, and I really do hope that the proper actions are being taken to discipline him. Whether or not it is more dangerous to society is arbitrary speculation, and unless I find compelling proof otherwise (which I'm not sure is possible judging by the nature of this topic), I might have to disagree. Continuous emotional attacks can be more harmful than a punch, but an attack that could lead to spinal injury and life-long paralysis is worse than a couple of years of harassment. 

However, for the most part, I agree with what you said. I haven't been arguing against the idea of the bully being punished, because it seems as though most people in here are in agreement on that subject. I was only arguing against those who said that the fat kid should also be suspended for his actions, which you apparently disagree with while I continue to stand by.



Federer said:


> People underestimate what kind of consequences bullying causes.
> 
> Columbine High School massacre for example, though it's not certain what really caused it, but the two suspects were said to be bullied for years.
> 
> It's an extreme example, but every human being has a limit and when someone reaches that point, he/she will snap. Whether it's rational or not, we are not machines.



I agree that when someone hits their limit, they will snap. What I feel, however, is that reaching his limit in this situation was completely avoidable, and even beyond that, his reaction in snapping, whether you understand the cause or not, should not be acceptable. I would argue that most people have been pushed to their limit at some point in life. We didn't all react by blacking out and throwing the object of our momentary contempt. By my understanding of human development and superficial psychology, actions like that being supported at such a vital developmental stage will not create a healthy minded adult.


----------



## butcher50 (Mar 23, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:


> By my understanding of human development and superficial psychology..........



your scientific moralism understandings have no value in the Darwinian Construct (school yards) which we force our kids into.

Bullying will stop through "peaceful" methods when teachers/advisors will start taking a REALLY ACTIVE role at pre-emptively punishing everyone and anything that tries anything funny (camera surveillance plastered in every corner will be a good start)

when primitive creatures like Richard the rat-face and his bodyguards start bullying you, you don't go down  on your knees and start sucking their cock.  

You use Contempt Of Engagement tactics to viciously pull their  arms behind their back so they cannot fight back at all.

It's long past time since Casey stopped playing angel with these damn primitives.  

he is smarter than they are and by nature's rights directed the flow and conditions of battle until Ritchard the rat-face decided that he will rather not bleed for nothing again any time soon, and his big bodyguards shivered in fear.


----------



## Detonator_Fan (Mar 23, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Not only did he tell teachers but I personally saw instances of the ridiculing occurring right in front of a teacher.
> 
> Do you know when the school stepped in?  They stepped in when he made a threat against one of the bullies and he was suspended from school.



Yup.
Sometimes it feels like some people are there to protect the bullies instead of the victims.


----------



## Terra Branford (Mar 24, 2011)

> Not only did he tell teachers but I personally saw instances of the ridiculing occurring right in front of a teacher.
> 
> Do you know when the school stepped in? They stepped in when he made a threat against one of the bullies and he was suspended from school.


Its really sad when this happens.  My best friend was being bullied and harassed by older boys and telling the teachers did _nothing_.

Yet she got in trouble for pushing one of the boys away from her.


----------



## Sanity Check (Mar 24, 2011)

I wonder if anyone remembers this...

*Scenario*: parents and students at a high school repeatedly warned police and school staff 2 students were planning a shooting massacre.

Police and staff repeatedly ignored the warnings

Name of the school?  Columbine.

Ironically, school staff and police did such a great: "*NOBODY COULD HAVE PREDICTED THIS DISASTER*" PR campaign, very few seem to realize parents and students warned them for a very long time before the fact..


----------



## Eki (Mar 24, 2011)

MEANWHILE IN THE KANTO REGION OF POKEMON...


----------



## maj1n (Mar 24, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> What I feel, however, is that reaching his limit in this situation was completely avoidable,


Indeed it is completely avoidable, provided the bullies don't bully.

It is not on the responsibility of a VICTIM to AVOID BEING MISTREATED, it is the responsibility of the perpetrator to stop acting wrongfully.

Something you do not understand.



			
				stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> and even beyond that, his reaction in snapping, whether you understand the cause or not, should not be acceptable


Rofl.

The judgement on someone 'snapping' is acceptable or not depending on the circumstances that lead to it.

*this is why we have such a thing as self-defense in law as a defensible position to use force and violence against someone trying to take my life*


----------



## Santeira (Mar 24, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:


> I agree that the bully acted completely out of line and deserves to be disciplined. Hopefully, his parents and teachers will somehow guide him to cease in his harassment of other students. His emotional damage is absolutely a dangerous attack, and I really do hope that the proper actions are being taken to discipline him.


Agreed.



> Whether or not it is more dangerous to society is arbitrary speculation, and unless I find compelling proof otherwise (which I'm not sure is possible judging by the nature of this topic), I might have to disagree. Continuous emotional attacks can be more harmful than a punch, but an attack that could lead to spinal injury and life-long paralysis is worse than a couple of years of harassment.



We have to look at the bigger picture here. Remember Columbine? What happened after years of bullying to those two kids, who grew a lot of hatred for the society, leading them to commit massacre of 12 people? You can probably say it was a case of Schizophrenia, but there were two people involved, and they both came to mutual agreement to plan and commit the massacre, it would have been too co-incidental for both to be suffering from such. 

There is more probability as adults that they eventually snapped and bam!--twelve people killed, some might even had nothing to do with it. Looking at the quantity of casualties (still there were cases where children committed suicide from the act of the bully)--I think it's more logical to say that the bully is more harmful to the society than Casey.

And those who survived, who didn't commit suicide or massacre, exuded low-confidence as adults as the result of being bullied. I think you're placing your concern wrongly. 

I'm still not sure that you understand that many cases of bullying don't stop overnight just by reporting  them to the authority, and I have given you a case which demonstrated such with the Walker-Hoover kid. Your concern that Casey is temperamental and will harm others in the future--but he doesn't display that he is. I would consider that he is temperamental if he slammed the kid out of nowhere, out of no provocation and no physical and mental assault. But he was provoked, he even hesitated to retaliate for some minute and he was being attacked both physically and mentally by more than just one kid nonetheless for many years. 

It's easy you see: _this and this_ are the right thing to do. But Casey has faced this problem for years. It's as easy as reading a  manual on how to operate a machine, but the machine will only operate if the there is nothing wrong with the technical aspects of the machine.

From the video, it's clear that the father knew Casey was being bullied. But he didn't face it himself, he didn't realize to what extent and how much damage it was causing his son. Casey could have realized that it wouldn't have made the bullying stop. In the end he would be forced to think that he himself should man up and face it. 

And what can parents actually do? With the Walker-Hoover kid, the parents called the school for six-months. The school tried something to make the bullying cease, and it didn't cease. The bullied, and the parents, and authority in most cases did something to contribute so the bullying stop. But what if the bullies didn't  co-operate, as in Walker-Hoover case? If the authority tells them to stop bullying, will they stop? If the authority sends the bully to detention, when the detention is over will the bullying cease?

What if Casey didn't fight, continued to wallow in self-pity and low self-confidence, and decided to commit suicide (he admitted he entertained the thought) a year before. What would be your analysis then? Will you blame Casey for being two-weak minded? I guess you wouldn't worry that Casey would cause long-term injury to his bully that he's dead. 



> However, for the most part, I agree with what you said. I haven't been arguing against the idea of the bully being punished, because it seems as though most people in here are in agreement on that subject. I was only arguing against those who said that the fat kid should also be suspended for his actions, which you apparently disagree with while I continue to stand by.



And I never said I disagreed for him to be suspended. I just said I condone his act of self-defense. If I were him, I wouldn't mind paying my price for what happened. The responsibility here is not just upon Casey, but on the bully himself. Which one that could have easily avoided the bully from catching long-term injury? Casey wouldn't have done it if he wasn't being bullied for years. So the lesson here, don't bully. If the kid hasn't messed with Casey, he would have been fine. We don't normally go looking for trouble you know, and it is normal to self-defend.

Maybe Casey had appeared to the bully that he was someone who wouldn't fight, who feared something or anything would happen if he fought. 

That is what actually bullies do. They feed on fear, the feel of helplessness. They'd even think--Casey was helpless enough to need to get a teacher to stop them. That would have escalated the bullies, and not stop them.


----------



## stomponfrogs (Mar 24, 2011)

Santeira said:


> We have to look at the bigger picture here. Remember Columbine? What happened after years of bullying to those two kids, who grew a lot of hatred for the society, leading them to commit massacre of 12 people? You can probably say it was a case of Schizophrenia, but there were two people involved, and they both came to mutual agreement to plan and commit the massacre, it would have been too co-incidental for both to be suffering from such.



Columbine is a more extreme form of what the fat kid in this instance did. He was pushed and bullied for years, and he snapped. I agree that when someone is pushed to their limit, they will snap. I disagree with the action he took when snapping, which was to violently attack the bully in a way that could have permanently paralyzed the bully.



> There is more probability as adults that they eventually snapped and bam!--twelve people killed, some might even had nothing to do with it. Looking at the quantity of casualties (still there were cases where children committed suicide from the act of the bully)--I think it's more logical to say that the bully is more harmful to the society than Casey.



I'm not sure if I ever argued whether the bully was more or less harmful to society, but if I did, I'll concede on that. Bullying is absolutely A cause of this situation, but the fat kid's handling of the situation (along with the parents and teachers if they were unaware and didn't act) are also to blame. 



> I'm still not sure that you understand that many cases of bullying don't stop overnight just by reporting  them to the authority, and I have given you a case which demonstrated such with the Walker-Hoover kid. Your concern that Casey is temperamental and will harm others in the future--but he doesn't display that he is. I would consider that he is temperamental if he slammed the kid out of nowhere, out of no provocation and no physical and mental assault. But he was provoked, he even hesitated to retaliate for some minute and he was being attacked both physically and mentally by more than just one kid nonetheless for many years.



Stopping bullying and general conflicts like this are the job of any teacher or authoritative figure. Any failure to do so, which can lead to this violence, is absolutely on their heads. The fact remains that he didn't properly inform any form of authority that anything to this extent was happening. I feel that he displayed his lack of ability to handle his temperance by blacking out and viciously attacking back. His hesitation showed that he consciously may not have a malevolent personality, which is why I didn't say that he absolutely has any sort of behavioral disorder, but I still feel that a mental examination is in line for anyone who goes this far in an attack. If he pushed back and tried to walk away, or even if he raised his voice before throwing a jab, I probably wouldn't suggest anything of the sort, but he didn't. He almost threw a child on his head onto concrete.



> It's easy you see: _this and this_ are the right thing to do. But Casey has faced this problem for years. It's as easy as reading a  manual on how to operate a machine, but the machine will only operate if the there is nothing wrong with the technical aspects of the machine.
> 
> From the video, it's clear that the father knew Casey was being bullied. But he didn't face it himself, he didn't realize to what extent and how much damage it was causing his son. Casey could have realized that it wouldn't have made the bullying stop. In the end he would be forced to think that he himself should man up and face it.



The video of the actual fight, to me at least, shows that the fat kid didn't consider his options or repercussions to his actions at the time at all. He was being pushed and was scared while pushed against the wall, and he suddenly lashed out and went overboard with his violence. I can't say whether or not his father failed to prevent this by taking necessary action, because I don't know the full extent of what he knew or what was going on behind the scenes, but in either case, the fat kid has to learn that violence like this isn't acceptable, much less commendable as many in here seem to suggest.



> And what can parents actually do? With the Walker-Hoover kid, the parents called the school for six-months. The school tried something to make the bullying cease, and it didn't cease. The bullied, and the parents, and authority in most cases did something to contribute so the bullying stop. But what if the bullies didn't  co-operate, as in Walker-Hoover case? If the authority tells them to stop bullying, will they stop? If the authority sends the bully to detention, if the detention is over will the bullying cease?



I don't know about the Walker-Hoover kid, but from what you're telling me, the parents did everything they should other than talking to the bully's parents. The school apparently didn't, however. I feel like you make it sound like schools should tell the bully to "stop" or put them in detention for a day, and if the bully doesn't comply, they just throw their hands up and say "better luck next time." 

As you and many have stated, bullying can cause serious emotional damage that can persist through the life of a child if it is allowed to persist. For this reason, I feel that the job of a school in a situation like this should be to stop the bullying by any means necessary, even if it involves the eventual expulsion of the bully in question. The Walker-Hoover case sounds tragic, and I hate to hear about things like this, but it sounds like the child in it did everything he could and the school failed to do its part. 

If this same situation presented itself to the fat kid, although I see no evidence that it has, I would take back almost everything that I said. However, I would still feel that he should be told by parents and teachers that, in the future, this shouldn't be an act that he resorts to as an early reaction.

I absolutely feel as though parents and schools have the power to stop any bully who isn't suddenly trying to kill another child (like with a knife or gun, in which case it actually would justifiably called self defense). If you'd prefer, I can come up with a list of ways that various adults could stop this, but I'll leave it open for now to save time.



> What if Casey didn't fight, continued to wallow in self-pity and low self-confidence, and decided to commit suicide (he admitted he entertained the thought) a year before. What would be your analysis then? Will you blame Casey for being two-weak minded?



If this exact situation presented itself and the fat kid killed himself, I would say almost the exact same thing. I would feel absolute pity for the child's circumstance, his parents, and his peers for all of their losses, but he absolutely should have informed authoritative figures that this was happening before making such a rash decision. Again, if he did do that, and no adult did everything necessary to help, I wouldn't blame him at all. I would blame the bully, the parents, and the school.



> And I never said I disagreed for him to be suspended. I just said I condone his act of self-defense. If I were him, I wouldn't mind paying my price for what happened. The responsibility here is not just upon Casey, but on the bully himself. Which one that could have easily avoided the bully from catching long-term injury from the act? Casey wouldn't have done it if he wasn't being bullied for years. So the lesson here, don't bully. If the kid hasn't messed with Casey, he would have been fine. We don't normally go looking for trouble you know, and it is normal to self-defend.



I agree that the lesson here is to not bully, and I hope that the fat kid taught it with the throw, but I still feel as though there are less harmful ways for that lesson to be taught. The bully did start this problem, and again, I don't dispute that fact at all. If he hadn't committed the first wrong, none of this would have happened. However, since it did, and since the fat kid retaliated in the way that he did, they should both be in trouble. To self-defend is normal, but there are a few ways that he could have self-defended without causing bodily harm to another child.



> Maybe Casey had appeared to the bully that he was someone who wouldn't fight, who feared something or anything would happen if he fought.
> 
> That is what actually bullies do. They feed on fear, the feel of helplessness. They'd even think--Casey was helpless enough to need to get a teacher to stop them. That would have escalated the bullies, and not stop them.



Regardless of what the bully thought, if an adult involved stopped them, the bully should no longer be able to bully. I really feel as though you are underestimating the extent and effect of disciplinary action, when it it used to handle a conflict properly.


----------



## maj1n (Mar 24, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> The video of the actual fight, to me at least, shows that the fat kid didn't consider his options or repercussions to his actions at the time at all


You obviously didn't watch the video since the fat kid was punched in the face twice repeatedly in front of people ridiculing him.

Usually when someone is punched in the face repeatedly, they don't calmly weigh up the options of their actions, we humans have such a thing called emotion?

Which makes all your arguments of psychology laughable.



			
				stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> but the *fat kid's handling *of the situation (along with the parents and teachers if they were unaware and didn't act) *are also to blame.*


This is why your getting such harsh objection in this thread, everyone understands that the fat kid was pushed far past the limits of any sane and reasonable person, given a lifetime of mistreatment and *getting punched in the face repeatedly*

Your argument that he is morally wrong for lashing out because he should have rationally and civilly and calmly alerted the authorities, shows how out of touch you are with basic human nature, and a total lack of empathy.

*
I remember when i said that it is reasonable that i would attempt revenge on a person who tortured and burned my family, you actually stated that was unreasonable and i should mourn but not have any hatred.*

Nice ignoring however of the fact you made these statements.



			
				stoponfrogs said:
			
		

> I'd suggest that you may have behavioural issues of your own.
> ..
> If you are as I perceive you (given my very limited personal knowledge of the way your mind works) I'd highly suggest that you get professional help.


Funny how you keep speaking of what the fat kid should have rationally done, when you have spoken in this thread of people supporting Casey as having a mental illness, a very unreasonable and insulting comment.

The absolute ignoring and failure to apologize for your insulting remarks, makes your comments that Casey should have done this or that rationally, hypocritical.


----------



## Kage (Mar 24, 2011)

video has been removed 

did he suplex him or something?


----------



## Santeira (Mar 24, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:


> Columbine is a more extreme form of what the fat kid in this instance did. He was pushed and bullied for years, and he snapped. I agree that when someone is pushed to their limit, they will snap. I disagree with the action he took when snapping, which was to violently attack the bully in a way that could have permanently paralyzed the bully.
> 
> I'm not sure if I ever argued whether the bully was more or less harmful to society, but if I did, I'll concede on that. Bullying is absolutely A cause of this situation, but the fat kid's handling of the situation (along with the parents and teachers if they were unaware and didn't act) are also to blame.
> 
> ...



I feel like I'd be repeating arguments if I answer this, so I don't think it's necessary.

But here's something I'd like to highlight:



			
				Monk Pierre said:
			
		

> A brief reply to Susan ? Understood, and yes, no one wants either of the boys to have been hurt. That said, having a conjoint doctorate in theology and developmental psychology, let me say: Many Autists when thrust into in a potentially life-threatening situation, if they cannot extricate themselves or know how to extricate themselves, can split consciousness, and a dissociative state may take over. That dissociative consciousness either leaves the ?normal personality? unaware of what is going on, or as if they were outside themselves watching on. To suggest self-control in such a state is total ignorance of Autistic psychology. Where the neurotypical mind has more ?executive control?, the Autist has this self-survival ?switch? that can be tripped. What happens afterwards is blind reflex, not reflective. Momentarily, there is no volition.



Google for source, thank you.


----------



## stomponfrogs (Mar 24, 2011)

Santeira said:


> I feel like I'd be repeating arguments if I answer this, so I don't think it's necessary.
> 
> But here's something I'd like to highlight:
> 
> ...



I agree with everything you said in this post. We could just keep repeating the same arguments back and forth, but we clearly disagree on a simple fundamental  level here. While I still feel that you are wrong, I can't imagine what else to say to convince you otherwise, and I can only assume that you feel the same way.


----------



## Codi Kenhai (Mar 24, 2011)

[YOUTUBE]sUdQc9UiPEY[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Kage (Mar 24, 2011)

Codi Kenhai said:


> [YOUTUBE]sUdQc9UiPEY[/YOUTUBE]



that was more like a power bomb. 

good stuff. 

that shrimp was only bothering because he was getting away with it.


----------



## Santeira (Mar 24, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:


> I agree with everything you said in this post. We could just keep repeating the same arguments back and forth, but we clearly disagree on a simple fundamental  level here. While I still feel that you are wrong, I can't imagine what else to say to convince you otherwise, and I can only assume that you feel the same way.



You can't convince me otherwise, because arguments of rationality shouldn't justify what Casey did as unacceptable/ununderstandable, as explained in the quote I highlighted by Monk Pierre.

Quoting again because you seemed to ignore it:



			
				Monk Pierre said:
			
		

> A brief reply to Susan — Understood, and yes, no one wants either of the boys to have been hurt. That said, having a conjoint doctorate in theology and developmental psychology, let me say: Many Autists when thrust into in a potentially life-threatening situation, if they cannot extricate themselves or know how to extricate themselves, can split consciousness, and a dissociative state may take over. That dissociative consciousness either leaves the ‘normal personality’ unaware of what is going on, or as if they were outside themselves watching on. To suggest self-control in such a state is total ignorance of Autistic psychology. Where the neurotypical mind has more “executive control”, the Autist has this self-survival ‘switch’ that can be tripped. What happens afterwards is blind reflex, not reflective. Momentarily, there is no volition.


----------



## xpeed (Mar 25, 2011)

I applaud the fat kid.  I too, was a fat kid that got picked on.  Let's just say, one punch to the face < KO < Never got bothered.  End of story, and oh, I got away with it.  

It's true what they say, fat kids are quiet, but when you mess with them, you better put your game face on.


----------



## stomponfrogs (Mar 25, 2011)

Santeira said:


> You can't convince me otherwise, because arguments of rationality shouldn't justify what Casey did as unacceptable/ununderstandable, as explained in the quote I highlighted by Monk Pierre.
> 
> Quoting again because you seemed to ignore it:



Yes yes, I feel as though I understand your argument, and I hope that I'm correct in my assumption that you understand mine. Word it however many different ways you want, but if you keep giving the same points, I'll keep disagreeing. Just as if I keep giving my same points in various new wordings with various examples, you'll keep disagreeing with me. I don't understand the significance in further discussion with this being the case.

Your quotation is irrelevant to any point I saw you make. If you're suggesting that the child may be autistic, that falls in line with my earlier suggestion that he may have a disorder. Even in that case, it is not a healthy or acceptable reaction. It it just explained by the fact that he has a pre-existing disorder. However, the fact remains that he caused physical harm that could have lead to paralysis for the rest of the bully's life. If the fat kid is suffering from a mental disorder, such as autism, he should be put into separate classes from students who aren't. If he isn't, he needs to be properly disciplined by adults, as he was by being suspended. 

A suspension as such would hopefully act to educate the fat kid in not commuting acts of violence, just as the same punishment for the bully will hopefully serve to stop the bully from ceasing in bullying. If either of the students continue their acts, they should be further punished with longer suspensions or expulsion. I've stated that this is my stance on the issue, and I have yet to see evidence or an argument that successfully can make me feel as though I am being irrational in these judgement. Unless you have something new and compelling to argue here, I think our discussion, for all practical purposes, may be over.


----------



## impersonal (Mar 25, 2011)

Santeira, there's absolutely no reason to assume that the kid was autistic. Next you'll be invoking the possibility that he was possessed by a war God... I mean why not? We can't completely exclude the possibility.

stomponfrogs, I think you are ignoring the overwhelming evidence that violence works. It is thus healthy behaviour for Casey to react violently -- as far as his own health and well-being is concerned at least.



			
				xpeed said:
			
		

> I too, was a fat kid that got picked on. Let's just say, one punch to the face < KO < Never got bothered.



The theory that violence doesn't solve anything is wishful thinking; teaching that to kids just makes them unable to fend for themselves. It makes them dysfunctional as individuals. The inability to resort to violence is what I would call a mental health issue... Or at least, an abnormality.

What is abnormal and sick, in the video, is that the fat kid didn't react immediately to the very first punch. Fighting back as soon as they get hit is what normal, healthy individuals do.


----------



## Santeira (Mar 25, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Santeira, there's absolutely no reason to assume that the kid was autistic. Next you'll be invoking the possibility that he was possessed by a war God... I mean why not? We can't completely exclude the possibility.



Actually, during my course in child psychology, which wasn't long, but it was a comprehensive course facilitated by the best child psychologists in my country. I was told that many autism cases are not usually visible ones, you now, ones that are easy to detect, it requires some expertise. I think a fair guess can be made, especially when Casey admitted "he wasn't thinking when he did it". What is intriguing though, when experts diagnose some children with autism, the parents deny it. 

There is a certain merit to what the person is claiming. It wasn't originally my claim. I still think Casey acted out of self-defense, which was justified.



stomponfrogs said:


> Yes yes, I feel as though I understand your argument, and I hope that I'm correct in my assumption that you understand mine. Word it however many different ways you want, but if you keep giving the same points, I'll keep disagreeing. Just as if I keep giving my same points in various new wordings with various examples, you'll keep disagreeing with me. I don't understand the significance in further discussion with this being the case.
> 
> Your quotation is irrelevant to any point I saw you make. If you're suggesting that the child may be autistic, that falls in line with my earlier suggestion that he may have a disorder. Even in that case, it is not a healthy or acceptable reaction. It it just explained by the fact that he has a pre-existing disorder. However, the fact remains that he caused physical harm that could have lead to paralysis for the rest of the bully's life. If the fat kid is suffering from a mental disorder, such as autism, he should be put into separate classes from students who aren't. If he isn't, he needs to be properly disciplined by adults, as he was by being suspended.
> 
> A suspension as such would hopefully act to educate the fat kid in not commuting acts of violence, just as the same punishment for the bully will hopefully serve to stop the bully from ceasing in bullying. If either of the students continue their acts, they should be further punished with longer suspensions or expulsion. I've stated that this is my stance on the issue, and I have yet to see evidence or an argument that successfully can make me feel as though I am being irrational in these judgement. Unless you have something new and compelling to argue here, I think our discussion, for all practical purposes, may be over.



That is totally irrelevant with the kind of disorder you were suggesting. If you read what the person said, the *pure reflexive *reaction to a life-threatening situation--meaning that happened when he was provoked and brought to his limit. 

You're suggesting that children with autism are a danger to society? You take some things into account, and completely disregard the other key elements that are related to them, which have been your kind of arguments from the start.

Let's just say I am acrophobic, which is a kind of a disorder. Does that mean I am a danger to society? You were first suggesting that Casey i_s temperamental_. Read back: 



> Many Autists when thrust into in a *potentially life-threatening situation*, if they cannot extricate themselves or know how to extricate themselves, can split consciousness, and a dissociative state may take over. *That dissociative consciousness either leaves the ‘normal personality’ unaware of what is going on, or as if they were outside themselves watching on. To suggest self-control in such a state is total ignorance of Autistic psychology.
> 
> Where the neurotypical mind has more “executive control”, the Autist has this self-survival ‘switch’ that can be tripped. What happens afterward is blind reflex, not reflective. Momentarily, there is no volition.*



Read the bolded sentences. What the person is suggesting is psychologically, self-control in the kind of state where he was brought to his limit was impossible, and he therefore shouldn't be held responsible for the damage occurred from the reflex triggered in the kind of situation he was in. No amount of efforts to 'discipline' him would work. 

The blame should solely go to the bully; or anything / anyone that made the bully bully or anyone who failed to stop the bully, who put the autistic kid in a situation he deemed to be life-threatening. Sure, if Ritchard had been seriously injured or was paralyzed for life, it was unfortunate. But hey, there are things in life that are beyond our control. Ritchard shouldn't have entertained the idea to bully anyone. 

And I have to admit, I'm somewhat a realist, and the ideals you are suggesting sometimes make me think you are trolling.


----------



## impersonal (Mar 25, 2011)

Santeira said:


> Actually, during my course in child psychology, which wasn't long, but it was a comprehensive course facilitated by the best child psychologists in my country. I was told that many autism cases are not usually visible ones, you now, ones that are easy to detect, it requires some expertise. I think a fair guess can be made, especially when Casey admitted "he wasn't thinking when he did it". What is intriguing though, when experts diagnose some children with autism, the parents deny it.
> 
> There is a certain merit to what the person is claiming. It wasn't originally my claim. I still think Casey acted out of self-defense, which was justified.


Or instead of making such far-fetched assumptions based on child psychology, you could just say that Casey experienced an adrenalin rush (this is the expected response in that kind of situation). If you have ever been through one, you know how it feels.

You can't feel pain, you are more energetic, you hear and see more acutely, your reflexes are faster, you do not think in the long term but rather about the absolute here and now. "I wasn't thinking" seems like a perfectly natural explanation given that kind of mental state... a strong adrenalin rush yields about as much difference to your normal mental state as a good bottle of vodka.

No need to be autistic to experience that. Most animals and humans go through this; it's the body's natural response to fight-or-flight situations. If tomorrow, in the street, some unknown guy pushes you against a wall and starts punching your face like the small bully does... Well chances are you "won't be thinking" when you react; it's a fairly stressful situation and there's not much time for a critical analysis. So instincts (hormones) take over.


----------



## Greed (Mar 25, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Or instead of making such far-fetched assumptions based on child psychology, you could just say that Casey experienced an adrenalin rush (this is the expected response in that kind of situation). If you have ever been through one, you know how it feels.
> 
> You can't feel pain, you are more energetic, you hear and see more acutely, your reflexes are faster, you do not think in the long term but rather about the absolute here and now. "I wasn't thinking" seems like a perfectly natural explanation given that kind of mental state... a strong adrenalin rush yields about as much difference to your mental state (compared to the normal) as a good bottle of vodka.
> 
> No need to be autistic to experience that. Most animals and humans go through this; it's the body's natural response to fight-or-flight situations.



I completely agree with this...

As for the topic, I'd say the Kid did the right thing. I'm pretty sure the Bully is gonna think twice about pulling the same mess with him again, infact, he might think twice about doing it with anyone

It's all about sending a message really. You see it here. You see it in sports. You see it just about everywhere. The message is usually sent via aggression


----------



## Santeira (Mar 25, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Or instead of making such far-fetched assumptions based on child psychology, you could just say that Casey experienced an adrenalin rush (this is the expected response in that kind of situation). If you have ever been through one, you know how it feels.
> 
> You can't feel pain, you are more energetic, you hear and see more acutely, your reflexes are faster, you do not think in the long term but rather about the absolute here and now. "I wasn't thinking" seems like a perfectly natural explanation given that kind of mental state... a strong adrenalin rush yields about as much difference to your normal mental state as a good bottle of vodka.
> 
> No need to be autistic to experience that. Most animals and humans go through this; it's the body's natural response to fight-or-flight situations. If tomorrow, in the street, some unknown guy pushes you against a wall and starts punching your face like the small bully does... Well chances are you "won't be thinking" when you react; it's a fairly stressful situation and there's not much time for a critical analysis. So instincts (hormones) take over.



I am myself not sure about it, but I believe that Casey as autist isn't far-fetched. This is because children with autism have a pattern to be more prone to being bullied by the peers, as we have news about it. 

Sure, Casey is bigger than most kids, but there are many big kids who are not bullied. So there may be a big chance that Casey's size wasn't the reason he was bullied and ostracized. Think about it. 

Aside from that, there are claims in the Net that Casey _is_ autistic. I'm still finding evidence or anything solid about it. But to say that autistic children need to be separated from the normal ones (you were not the one who said it though -_-). Autism is not a psychopathic illness for the record.

Whether he is or he is not though, I condone his action of self-defense.


----------



## stomponfrogs (Mar 25, 2011)

impersonal said:


> stomponfrogs, I think you are ignoring the overwhelming evidence that violence works. It is thus healthy behaviour for Casey to react violently -- as far as his own health and well-being is concerned at least.



I think you're ignoring the overwhelming evidence that violence causes more violence. As far as Casey's well-being and own health, and this goes moreso for the health and well-being of the other child, this act of violence was neither healthy nor should it be tolerated by authoritative figures. 



> The theory that violence doesn't solve anything is wishful thinking; teaching that to kids just makes them unable to fend for themselves. It makes them dysfunctional as individuals. The inability to resort to violence is what I would call a mental health issue... Or at least, an abnormality.



The theory that violence is a universal necessary action to fend for yourself in developed and modern countries is outdated and barbaric. Where numerous nonviolent pathways to 'fend for yourself' exist, violence should be an absolute last resort. Even then, a child who acts violently even as a last resort should be evaluated to determine that it will not become an earlier reaction in a future conflict. 

I didn't mean to suggest that he should have some kind of mental inability to resort to violence, as there are always extenuating circumstances, such as a sudden attack in an alley by what could be a murderer, rapist, or other sociopath. That is self defense. Allowing someone to bully you for years until you snap and attack THIS violently isn't acceptable when you have made little-to-no effort to involve available authoritative figures. It may seem like self-defense on the surface, but there are less malignant ways in this case for the fat kid to have defended himself.



> What is abnormal and sick, in the video, is that the fat kid didn't react immediately to the very first punch. Fighting back as soon as they get hit is what normal, healthy individuals do.



No, that's not what normal, healthy individuals do in developed areas of the world. A normal and mentally stable individual warns the person who punched them and informs whoever is in charge that this has been going on. 


---------------------------------------------------



Santeira said:


> That is totally irrelevant with the kind of disorder you were suggesting. If you read what the person said, the *pure reflexive *reaction to a life-threatening situation--meaning that happened when he was provoked and brought to his limit.



These punches were, by no standard, a life-threatening situation. It could be argued that the overall emotional damage incurred by years of bullying may have put him in danger of suicide, but I'd be willing to bet that the quotation was meaning 'life-threatening' to be taken more in a physical sense.



> You're suggesting that children with autism are a danger to society? You take some things into account, and completely disregard the other key elements that are related to them, which have been your kind of arguments from the start.



No, I'm suggesting that a child who is unable to socially interact properly with other children shouldn't be put into a position where he or she is left alone with them. If that were the case, and I honestly don't think the fat kid actually is autistic, I would place the blame on the administration or parents, and I would keep the child under constant observation or separate from other children for his and their safety. The second half of your paragraph is a mindless attack that is off the topic and doesn't deserve a response.



> Let's just say I am acrophobic, which is a kind of a disorder. Does that mean I am a danger to society? You were first suggesting that Casey i_s temperamental_. Read back:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the bolded sentences. What the person is suggesting is psychologically, self-control in the kind of state where he was brought to his limit was impossible, and he therefore shouldn't be held responsible for the damage occurred from the reflex triggered in the kind of situation he was in. No amount of efforts to 'discipline' him would work.



The problem I see with this is: the fat kid wasn't brought to his limit in the matter of a day. He should be held responsible for his actions, because he hadn't taken the ample amount of time before the incident to report the ongoing nature of this bullying. This built up and escalated, to the obvious fault of the bully, without the fat kid doing anything to even make a legitimate attempt at stopping it. 



> The blame should solely go to the bully; or anything / anyone that made the bully bully or anyone who failed to stop the bully, who put the autistic kid in a situation he deemed to be life-threatening. Sure, if Ritchard had been seriously injured or was paralyzed for life, it was unfortunate. But hey, there are things in life that are beyond our control. Ritchard shouldn't have entertained the idea to bully anyone.



Yes yes, you've said this, and I get it. I understand your stance that the blame is solely on the part of the bully, or at least the fault of anyone that isn't the fat kid.



> And I have to admit, I'm somewhat a realist, and the ideals you are suggesting sometimes make me think you are trolling.



I'm fairly certain that the act of accusing someone of trolling is, in-and-of itself, trolling. I'd rather not give a proper response to your baseless accusation beyond saying that.


----------



## impersonal (Mar 25, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> I think you're ignoring the overwhelming evidence that violence causes more violence.


There is no such evidence. Also, ask yourself whether muggings occur more often within a population who resists on the spot, or a population who lets it happen then complains to the police. It's common sense.


			
				stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> Where numerous nonviolent pathways to 'fend for yourself' exist, violence should be an absolute last resort.


Numerous inefficient pathways exist, sure.


			
				stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> No, [fighting back] is not what normal, healthy individuals do in developed areas of the world. *A normal and mentally stable individual warns the person who punched them *and informs whoever is in charge that this has been going on.


Seriously? :/ I'm probably not mentally stable, because if someone punches me, I punch right back. You just declared most human beings mentally unstable.


			
				Santeira said:
			
		

> I am myself not sure about it, but I believe that Casey as autist isn't far-fetched.


 I understand where you're coming from, the primary symptom of autism is social ineptitude, and people get bullied because of that. But in that case, there was no diagnosis of autism and I don't think the fight provides any additional evidence of it.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 25, 2011)

Violence has its place and does work, to think that there is no situation where violence works or is right is just retarded.


----------



## Mael (Mar 25, 2011)

stomponfrogs: You wouldn't happen to be an idealist, would you?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Mar 25, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:


> No, that's not what normal, healthy individuals do in developed areas of the world. A normal and mentally stable individual warns the person who punched them and informs whoever is in charge that this has been going on.



Ok, lets do a fun little experiment.  Walk up to 10 or 15 random people on the street one at a time, anyone you like.  Corner them up against a wall like this kid was.  Start punching them in the face repeatedly.

See how many of them stop and say "excuse me sir but if you keep hitting me I'm going to have to him you back, fair warning" or how many of them wander off to find a cop to tell on you.

What kind of results do you expect to get?


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Mar 25, 2011)

It's like saying if someone is beating you to death with a pipe you warn them before trying to fight back.

Obviously this wasn't as extreme, but fatty had every right to kick that little shit's ass. He turned the other cheek a couple times, then powerbombed him.


----------



## Aokiji (Mar 25, 2011)

If the bully had been a girl, people would call the fat kid a pussy. :ho


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Mar 25, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:


> I think you're ignoring the overwhelming evidence that violence causes more violence.



I swear to god, stop taking philosophy lessons from Naruto.


----------



## Aokiji (Mar 25, 2011)

I wish you could take all those people and put them in the schools I grew up.

Sure, you can avoid alot of trouble by behaving properly, but not battering a bully who is already crossing the lines is an open invitation for people to stomp on you.

"He who does not punish evil, commands it to be done." - Leonardo da Vinci


----------



## Bleach (Mar 25, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Violence has its place and does work, to think that there is no situation where violence works or is right is just retarded.



But... but... what about peace and love  ?


----------



## Santeira (Mar 25, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:


> These punches were, by no standard, *a life-threatening situation*. It could be argued that the overall emotional damage incurred by years of bullying may have put him in danger of suicide, but I'd be willing to bet that the quotation was meaning 'life-threatening' to be taken more in a physical sense.


It doesn't matter if you think it wasn't a life-threatening situation, if Casey thought it was, it was. 




> No, I'm suggesting that a child who is unable to socially interact properly with other children shouldn't be put into a position where he or she is left alone with them. If that were the case, and I honestly don't think the fat kid actually is autistic, I would place the blame on the administration or parents, and I would keep the child under constant observation or separate from other children for his and their safety. The second half of your paragraph is a mindless attack that is off the topic and doesn't deserve a response.



Obviously there is no need to do such, because it takes provocation for him to react the way he did. Separating him after what happened will likely make him feel things he shouldn't feel. Casey needs support.



> The problem I see with this is: the fat kid wasn't brought to his limit in the matter of a day. He should be held responsible for his actions, because he hadn't taken the ample amount of time before the incident to report the ongoing nature of this bullying. This built up and escalated, to the obvious fault of the bully, without the fat kid doing anything to even make a legitimate attempt at stopping it.



You don't know if he hasn't reported it. If you watch the video, he said the bullying since he remember (started at primary school, all the way to high school). His sister said she feels like walking him to school everyday to make sure it would be a normal day for him. His father and sister are aware of what happened. I doubt that the school doesn't know it as well. The video interview doesn't tell a lot of things. Now I watch the interview and I feel we are not told everything, even the _cause_ of bullying.

Autistic children are often bullied because many other normal children don't understand Autism and are not educated enough to understand that autism isn't some sort of mental incapacity or illness. Children like Casey need support, and I like the way people are supporting him, for once, gives him some sort of confidence boost as visible in the video. It will help a lot because some children do grow out of autism.  



> Yes yes, you've said this, and I get it. I understand your stance that the blame is solely on the part of the bully, or at least the fault of anyone that isn't the fat kid.



Yes.





> I'm fairly certain that the act of accusing someone of trolling is, in-and-of itself, trolling. I'd rather not give a proper response to your baseless accusation beyond saying that.


I said 'because I'm a realist so your ideals sometimes make me think you are trolling'. _But I'm not accusing you of trolling_. There's a difference.


----------



## stomponfrogs (Mar 25, 2011)

impersonal said:


> There is no such evidence. Also, ask yourself whether muggings occur more often within a population who resists on the spot, or a population who lets it happen then complains to the police. It's common sense.


To start with, this is nothing like a random mugging that blindsides an unfortunate victim. If you want to relate my point to a mugging, however, who is more likely to be mugged by the same person twice: someone who has previously been mugged and does nothing about it, or someone who has been previously mugged and reports it by giving the name of his mugger to the police?

I'm sorry if your common sense leads you to believe that there is no evidence regarding the idea that "violence begets violence", but certain historical figures might disagree. Maybe I was just raised on different values from you.



> Numerous inefficient pathways exist, sure.


That's not conducive to discussion. Explain what you say, or just don't bother saying anything at all.



> Seriously? :/ I'm probably not mentally stable, because if someone punches me, I punch right back. You just declared most human beings mentally unstable.



Before you expect me to believe as far-fetched a point as this, I'd appreciate if you would provide evidence that most human beings react the same way as you. I would be far more willing to believe that most human beings would try to escape. In either case, this is not the first time the fat kid had been bullied by the same kids. This isn't the case of a child randomly punching another child with no previous history. 

Given that there was a previous case where the fat kid was bullied and he survived with apparently not a scratch or bruise severe enough to be evident to a teacher or his parent, he should have reported it rather than risking it happening again. It is the bully's fault that he lashed out, because he was being a bully. At the same time, it was the fat kid's fault that he allowed himself to reach this breaking point, because he didn't handle his business properly beforehand. 



Tsukiyomi said:


> Ok, lets do a fun little experiment.  Walk up to 10 or 15 random people on the street one at a time, anyone you like.  Corner them up against a wall like this kid was.  Start punching them in the face repeatedly.
> 
> See how many of them stop and say "excuse me sir but if you keep hitting me I'm going to have to him you back, fair warning" or how many of them wander off to find a cop to tell on you.
> 
> What kind of results do you expect to get?



This comparison has no bearing on the situation that presented itself. 

What about we try a more relevant experiment: Go into your office space and harass a co-worker for a few years. Assuming you do this and he doesn't inform one of the higher-ups that this is going on (which, I'd hope, would have gotten you fired if not at least a few unpaid days off), start punching him about a year after you start regularly harassing him. Assuming he throws you through a window, see what boss will fire you and not him.



Aokiji said:


> Sure, you can avoid alot of trouble by behaving properly, but not battering a bully who is already crossing the lines is an open invitation for people to stomp on you.
> 
> "He who does not punish evil, commands it to be done." - Leonardo da Vinci



In this case, not dealing with the bully before the fat kid got to is breaking point is what caused the fat kid to "stomp on" him. This wasn't his last resort due to uncontrollable circumstances. His violence was a last resort, because he didn't take action to solve this problem beforehand. 

As for your quotation, I agree that the bully's actions should be punished. I don't feel as though anyone has disputed that at any point in this discussion.





Santeira said:


> It doesn't matter if you think it wasn't a life-threatening situation, if Casey thought it was, it was.



It doesn't matter if the fat kid feels that his life was threatened. It wasn't (at least by physical means).




> Obviously there is no need to do such, because it takes provocation for him to react the way he did. Separating him after what happened will likely make him feel things he shouldn't feel. Casey needs support.



Again, under your questionable assertion that the fat kid is autistic, special education is common practice for a reason. It is to individually help the child to develop more socially acceptable behaviors, social skills, and just to generally operate day-to-day. Also, special education serves the child's safety, as well as the safety of other children who could commit acts that the autistic child perceives as "life-threatening". 



> You don't know if he hasn't reported it. If you watch the video, he said the bullying since he remember (started at primary school, all the way to high school). His sister said she feels like walking him to school everyday to make sure it would be a normal day for him. His father and sister are aware of what happened. I doubt that the school doesn't know it as well. The video interview doesn't tell a lot of things. Now I watch the interview and I feel we are not told everything, even the _cause_ of bullying.



I've already addressed and responded to the possibility that adults were well-informed and didn't take the proper actions to prevent this situation to reach this point. I'll give you the cliffnotes, so you won't have to look through to find it: in that case, I would still suggest that the fat kid is mentally evaluated and taught that violence like this may have helped him in that situation, but it should never be used in that way outside of an absolute last resort. 



> Autistic children are often bullied because many other normal children don't understand Autism and are not educated enough to understand that autism isn't some sort of mental incapacitation or illness. Children like Casey needs support, and I like the way people are supporting him, for once, gives him some sort of confidence boost as visible in the video. It will help a lot because some children do grow out of autism.



If he truly is autistic, I truly do agree with this. Given what I know, I actually do agree with the actions taken thus far, and that was my original point in here. I support the suspension of both children (which was the first point I was making before getting pulled into the rest of this) with the bully flirting with the possibility of expulsion and the fat kid being mentally evaluated due to the sudden shift to violence.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Mar 25, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:


> This comparison has no bearing on the situation that presented itself.



How exactly do you figure?  It is the exact same thing.



stomponfrogs said:


> What about we try a more relevant experiment: Go into your office space and harass a co-worker for a few years. Assuming you do this and he doesn't inform one of the higher-ups that this is going on (which, I'd hope, would have gotten you fired if not at least a few unpaid days off), start punching him about a year after you start regularly harassing him. Assuming he throws you through a window, see what boss will fire you and not him.



In what way exactly is that situation at all different from mine?  In both situations someone is attacking someone else unprovoked and the person retaliates.  Unless that window is closed and more than a few feet off the ground its exactly the same.

The fact that the person "harassed" me for years doesn't somehow make it _less_ understandable or justifiable to fight back.  If anything it makes it more justifiable.


----------



## impersonal (Mar 25, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:


> I'm sorry if you think that there is no evidence regarding the idea that "violence begets violence", but maybe I was just raised on different values from you.


This is not about values but about facts. You are not talking from a rational standpoint based on experience, but from an ideal standpoint based on how things _should_ be. Violence begets violence, bad people are not happy, effort is rewarded, parental love is unconditional, every individual is a unique snowflake, romantic love is invincible, and each of us just has to find his "path" to find _happiness_.

We would all love the world to be like that. It's not. Believe me, I'm sorry.



stomponfrogs said:


> Before you expect me to believe as far-fetched a point as this, I'd appreciate if you would provide evidence that most human beings react the same way as you. I would be far more willing to believe that most human beings would try to escape.


You're calling me and most of the other posters "mentally ill" for thinking a punch is an appropriate response to another punch. At the very least, you have to acknowledge that, in this thread, the mentally healthy are a minority; and mental illness is severe and widespread. I believe this alone is sufficient to put the burden of proof on your shoulders regarding which argument is "far-fetched".


----------



## stomponfrogs (Mar 25, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> How exactly do you figure?  It is the exact same thing.



No, being mugged is a random, one time event that can happen to anyone without the presence of an overseeing authority nearby. 



> In what way exactly is that situation at all different from mine?  In both situations someone is attacking someone else unprovoked and the person retaliates.  Unless that window is closed and more than a few feet off the ground its exactly the same.
> 
> The fact that the person "harassed" me for years doesn't somehow make it _less_ understandable or justifiable to fight back.  If anything it makes it more justifiable.



My main point in that was made parenthetically. Are you suggesting here that the person you harassed would not be fired for his actions?



impersonal said:


> This is not about values but about facts. You are not talking from a rational standpoint based on experience, but from an ideal standpoint based on how things _should_ be. Violence begets violence, bad people can never be happy, effort is always rewarded, parents always love all their children equally, every individual is a unique snowflake, romantic love can survive anything and each of us just has to find his "path" to find _happiness_.
> 
> We would all love the world to be like that, only it's not.



I counted six points in your post that I didn't make. The idea that violence begets violence isn't idealistic. Try to look at it on a wider scale. Wars (WW1), racist crimes (not pure evidence, but similar to in the movie American History X), and even terrorism (Jerusalem/Palestine seemingly every other week) have all been cyclical in large part due to continued violence on both sides. 



> You're calling me and most of the other posters "mentally ill" for thinking a punch is an appropriate response to another punch. At the very least, you have to acknowledge that, in this thread, the mentally healthy are a minority; and mental illness is severe and widespread. I believe this alone is sufficient to put the burden of proof on your shoulders regarding which argument is "far-fetched".



You are misrepresenting me completely in this. I never diagnosed anyone as mentally ill, and I would appreciate you not jumping to such ridiculous accusations. Whereas I contended that a mentally stable person would attempt to escape bullying before physically fighting back, that does not necessarily imply that everyone who acts against that that assertion is suddenly mentally ill. 

However, I would argue that everyone who would throw a punch back as a first reaction may learn alternative and less harmful ways to deal with conflict by taking an anger management course.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Mar 25, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:


> No, being mugged is a random, one time event that can happen to anyone without the presence of an overseeing authority nearby.



Where was the overseeing authority when this kid was being punched in the face?  I don't see them nearby.



stomponfrogs said:


> My main point in that was made parenthetically. Are you suggesting here that the person you harassed would not be fired for his actions?



Depends entirely on your boss.  Most bosses would say "what the hell just happened here?".  If you have video evidence (like this kid did) that you were just standing around minding your own business and someone walked and started punching you repeatedly in the head before you responded, many bosses would find retaliation perfectly reasonable.


----------



## impersonal (Mar 25, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:


> I counted six points in your post that I didn't make. The idea that violence begets violence isn't idealistic. Try to look at it on a wider scale. Wars (WW1), racist crimes (not pure evidence, but similar to in the movie American History X), and even terrorism (Jerusalem/Palestine seemingly every other week) have all been cyclical in large part due to continued violence on both sides.


 I love how you conveniently ignore World War 2. Do you think an aggressor stops attacking when you stop fighting back? Really?



stomponfrogs said:


> You are misrepresenting me completely in this. I never diagnosed anyone as mentally ill, and I would appreciate you not jumping to such ridiculous accusations. Whereas I contended that a mentally stable


Okay, so let me rephrase: you are not calling the majority of people "mentally ill" but merely "mentally unstable". I rest my case.


----------



## stomponfrogs (Mar 25, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Where was the overseeing authority when this kid was being punched in the face?  I don't see them nearby.
> 
> 
> 
> Depends entirely on your boss.  Most bosses would say "what the hell just happened here?".  If you have video evidence (like this kid did) that you were just standing around minding your own business and someone walked and started punching you repeatedly in the head before you responded, many bosses would find retaliation perfectly reasonable.



The overseeing authority is in the school, which is where the bullying began years before the fat kid hit his limit.

I disagree. Most bosses, even with video evidence, would berate the victim for not having reported a year's worth of bullying before violently retaliating, whereupon the boss would fire you immediately and most likely fire, if not indefinitely suspend without pay, the victim.



impersonal said:


> I love how you conveniently ignore World War 2. Do you think an aggressor stops attacking when you stop fighting back? Really?



WW2 was a completely different Germany that was out for revenge/money/power against the Jewish population and the world for "bullying" them after the events of WW1. Again, in response to German attacking the "bullies", the allied powers fought against Germany, thus continuing the cycle. Even if that weren't the case, I supplied other examples, and I'm not trying to participate in a prolonged historical discussion here.



> Okay, so let me rephrase: you are not calling the majority of people "mentally ill" but merely "mentally unstable". I rest my case.



No, I didn't say that at all, but I'd appreciate if you kept your case rested rather than trying to villainize me, which is all it seems you are trying to do with this argument at this point.


----------



## maj1n (Mar 25, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:


> No, I didn't say that at all, but I'd appreciate if you kept your case rested rather than trying to villainize me, which is all it seems you are trying to do with this argument at this point.


Yeh you did.



			
				stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> I'd suggest that you may have behavioural issues of your own.
> ..
> If you are as I perceive you (given my very limited personal knowledge of the way your mind works) I'd highly suggest that you get professional help.


You stated these things to people whom merely support Casey.


----------



## Sanity Check (Mar 25, 2011)

Liger bomb!


----------



## impersonal (Mar 26, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> No, I didn't say that at all


It's on display for all to read. It's rather pointless to deny it.


			
				stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> if you kept your case rested rather than trying to villainize me, which is all it seems you are trying to do with this argument at this point.


Villainize you? I am merely trying to show that you have a skewed vision of normality, or if you prefer, "mental stability". You make lots of arguments about what "most bosses", "most people" would do. But "most people" here think you are wrong.


			
				stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> WW2 was a completely different Germany that was out for revenge/money/power against the Jewish population and the world for "bullying" them after the events of WW1. Again, in response to German attacking the "bullies", the allied powers fought against Germany, thus continuing the cycle. Even if that weren't the case, I supplied other examples, and I'm not trying to participate in a prolonged historical discussion here.


That is the most biased (and factually incorrect) reading of WW2 I've ever seen. Germany, for starters, was not bullied by the Jews (what the hell?). Nazi Germany was allowed to do this much damage because the allies let the first violent outbreaks pass, fearing an escalation. They acted like cowards; but their non-violence served only to encourage Germany. Eventually, nazi Germany was violently crushed and - surprise - nazism disappeared.

It is easy to find countless other disagreements solved with violence. Consider the American civil war, lots of decolonization independence conflicts, revolutions, etc. People use violence as a means to an end. It doesn't always produce immediate results, sometimes it doesn't produce any results. However, thinking it never works requires a borderline hallunicatory perception of the world.

Violence is just another step of a conflict. A conflict usually starts verbally (though not always) and if it cannot be solved verbally, escalates to "sanctions" of different forms, and this still isn't enough, escalates to violence. The conflict can be successfully solved at any of these stages. Most people agree that the earlier stages are the better, but the latter stages work just as well. Cycles of retaliation can also occur at the verbal or sanction stages, even though "verbal dispute begets verbal dispute" or "sanctions beget sanctions" hasn't become a hippie motto.


			
				stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> I counted six points in your post that I didn't make.


I'm trying to get you to see the ideological bias you're suffering from regarding violence. You referred to non-violence as a "value" earlier. This is what I'm talking about: you are not having a factual approach. You would rather rewrite history than reconsider your values.


----------



## little nin (Mar 26, 2011)

Epicness down 

Guess you lot saw that they expelled the kid that was filming it and then he was plotting almighty revenge on Casey


----------



## Bleach (Mar 26, 2011)

^link                .


----------



## stomponfrogs (Mar 26, 2011)

impersonal said:


> It's on display for all to read. It's rather pointless to deny it.



If you are referring to the quotation that majin keeps taking out of context, it absolutely is on display. Again, I never diagnosed anyone in here, or the fat kid, as being mentally unstable. Furthermore, I apologized on more than one occasion to anyone who took it offensively when I asserted that it may be a possibility. 



> Villainize you? I am merely trying to show that you have a skewed vision of normality, or if you prefer, "mental stability". You make lots of arguments about what "most bosses", "most people" would do. But "most people" here think you are wrong.



You are implying that I feel most people who posted in here are mentally unstable, which serves more to galvanize posters in here against me as a person than to "show that I have a skewed vision of normality" whether you realize it or not (although as you seem to show a level of intellect, I would guess that you realize that).

"Most people" debating a topic in an anime forum do not really constitute a normal or realistic sample group regarding general population. I enjoy being part of these forums, and I've met plenty of interesting and fun individuals here, but normal? I'd put normal in the minority here. Ask any therapist or psychiatrist whether allowing this apparent anger to cumulate is a healthy reaction (or non-action, as it were), when there were other pathways to prevent it from getting this far.



> That is the most biased (and factually incorrect) reading of WW2 I've ever seen. Germany, for starters, was not bullied by the Jews (what the hell?). Nazi Germany was allowed to do this much damage because the allies let the first violent outbreaks pass, fearing an escalation. They acted like cowards; but their non-violence served only to encourage Germany. Eventually, nazi Germany was violently crushed and - surprise - nazism disappeared.



*facepalm* You are simplifying WW2 just as blatantly as I was. Let me clarify what I said. As the Germans perceived it, the Jews and the rest of the world were preventing their country from flourishing. They reacted violently, and as you said, the allied powers allowed it to go on for too long. Eventually, they reacted to the attacks by attacking back rather than calming political unrest in Germany early on in numerous ways. With that said, there were many circumstances that led to WW2, and we are only touching the surface of it, but this is not a historical debate. If you don't agree with this, that's fine, but I provided other examples of violence causing more violence, evidence of which you claimed did not exist. 

On a side note: no, Nazis do not only exist in the past. Germany lost the war, but Nazis are still in the world and still commit hate crimes that lead to minorities reacting with violence of their own. 



> It is easy to find countless other disagreements solved with violence. Consider the American civil war, lots of decolonization independence conflicts, revolutions, etc. People use violence as a means to an end. It doesn't always produce immediate results, sometimes it doesn't produce any results. However, thinking it never works requires a borderline hallunicatory perception of the world.



I don't recall ever claiming that violence does not produce results. In fact, I expressed the hope that the fat kid's violence in the example of this topic (remember, that's the point in this thread) would stop the bully from continuing in his ways, especially now that the administration and parents are finally involved. At the same time, I feel that murder or genocide can end violence if employed in a certain way. There are those who have, and they probably always will, use violence "to a means to an end," but that does not in-and-of itself make it an acceptable course of action.



> Violence is just another step of a conflict. A conflict usually starts verbally (though not always) and if it cannot be solved verbally, escalates to "sanctions" of different forms, and this still isn't enough, escalates to violence. The conflict can be successfully solved at any of these stages. Most people agree that the earlier stages are the better, but the latter stages work just as well. Cycles of retaliation can also occur at the verbal or sanction stages, even though "verbal dispute begets verbal dispute" or "sanctions beget sanctions" hasn't become a hippie motto.



In this situation, as far as I know, the step of sanctions was skipped. If it wasn't skipped, this has nothing to do with the point that the fat kid needs to be educated in that while this case may have temporarily caused peace through violence, violence should never be a reaction outside of an absolute last resort. This is also one of the reasons that officers are forced to seek therapy after shooting a criminal. It may have solved this crime, but it shouldn't be evidence that "all crimes should be stopped by shooting the criminal."



> I'm trying to get you to see the ideological bias you're suffering from regarding violence. You referred to non-violence as a "value" earlier. This is what I'm talking about: you are not having a factual approach. You would rather rewrite history than reconsider your values.



The ability to solve a conflict without violence is a value that I will not part with. Ignore my personal values for a second. This thread has to do with a bully being a bully and inflicting emotional damage, and a victim reacting after years of depression with violence that could have critically injured the bully. My only on-topic arguments in here that seem to disagree with other posters are:

1) The bully and fat kid should be suspended for their actions (I agree that the disciplinary action against the bully should be more severe than to that of the fat kid).

2) The fat kid could have prevented this sooner by reporting the severity of these acts to his parents or the school administration (where they would be responsible or liable if they allowed the bullying to reach this point)


----------



## maj1n (Mar 26, 2011)

stomponfrogs said:


> The ability to solve a conflict without violence is a value that I will not part with. Ignore my personal values for a second. This thread has to do with a bully being a bully and inflicting emotional damage, and a victim reacting after years of depression with violence that could have critically injured the bully. My only on-topic arguments in here that seem to disagree with other posters are:
> 
> 1) The bully and fat kid should be suspended for their actions (I agree that the disciplinary action against the bully should be more severe than to that of the fat kid).
> 
> 2) The fat kid could have prevented this sooner by reporting the severity of these acts to his parents or the school administration (where they would be responsible or liable if they allowed the bullying to reach this point)


no, what people have a problem with you is you saying the fat kid is morally wrong and that people who support him have a mental illness which is an insult



			
				stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> I'd suggest that you may have behavioural issues of your own.
> ..
> If you are as I perceive you (given my very limited personal knowledge of the way your mind works) I'd highly suggest that you get professional help.



I'll go ahead and quote even more of your statements where you clearly state the *fat kid has a mental  problem* and that posters in this thread whom support him have a mental illness.



			
				stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> *fat kid to indulge more into his obvious temperamental issues.*





			
				stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> If you're saying that a kid can throw another kid like that without obvious issues controlling their actions, *I'd suggest that you may have behavioural issues of your own.* Beyond that, I don't know how else to help you understand rationally why it is wrong to throw someone with no regard for their health onto concrete. *Plenty of people with mental issues* show remorse or know how to fake it in the public eye. *The fat kid is a danger to society, *and the fact that THIS could be what makes him popular increases the likelihood of it happening again.





			
				stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> it would imply that you'd do something similar. With that being the case,* I stand by my opinion that you may have a disorder that could be helped or studied by medical attention.*





			
				stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> I apologized on more than one occasion to anyone who took it offensively when I asserted that it may be a possibility.


No you didn't, this is your reply when i called you out on your insults.



			
				stomponfrogs said:
			
		

> please at least have yourself evaluated. Depending on your health insurance, it could be covered, and it wouldn't really take THAT long in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 26, 2011)

As the post-count of a particular thread approaches an arbitrarily large number, the probability that DERP will occur approaches unity.  Therefore I am closing this thread due to off-topicness, and users' inability to behave themselves.

Thread over.  Go watch ponies.


----------

