Where did I say that you had an absolute responsibility to assault someone who was attacking you? I said that "There is nothing wrong with being non-violent, but when you are being attacked, I don't think that its civilized to simply take the beatings and do nothing". I never said you had to specifically assault the attacker. I just believe you shouldn't limit yourself as to what possible recourses are.

Every bullyin is the same.

if u wanna b tht way then u may gt singled out a lil bit more but ppl who act stupid gt bullied, n a lot ov people like that act stupid so gt bullied. n 2 b honest a lot ov them kind ov ppl deserve it

So gays deserved to be bullied because they act 'stupid'? The only person I can think of who deserves to be bullied for acting stupid is you for writing this incoherent post.

You know what, I didn't say anything against people's right to defend themselves. I think it's actually stupid that people are punished for defending themselves. What I said that people shouldn't have to defend themselves, outside of extraordinary situations (e.g. someone spontaneously attacking you and trying to take your life).

Like Rath, I think you're essentially saying that people have the responsability to solve their own conflicts when it comes to bullying. And this kind of thinking gives a huge advantage to the bully, as it's well known that bullies pick on people they know are weaker than themselves. Are you actually gonna call a kid a 'wuss' for not defending himself against someome twice his size who would probably leave him half dead on the floor if he tried to hit back? Typical blame the victim mentality of the 'good old days'.

I know you Americans have this whole 'wild west' mentality, but society has evolved and now we have authorities whose role is to solve such conflicts, and protect victims from aggresors. And schools have the obligation to provide the safety of their students.

And I've heard stories from Americans who went to school in decades gone by. These stories included scenes like teachers making kids fight to 'settle their conflicts'. Really smart strategies people had back then.

Sorry if I misunderstood, I just felt it was implied by this "The student should of fought back, and beat the living crap out of the bully. "

(In this case at least I don't think the bullied kid had any real opportunity to fight back anyway)

Seriously??
Well... Honestly maybe when I'm still in highschool I will do the same thing... Attack the gay!!!
I don't know for now, cos I feel not right for mocking, attacking, beating a gay.

People who complain about the existence of Hate Crime Laws are like people that complain about the existence of the Congressional Black Caucus.

That said, despite the attempts to derail, this bully should have gotten a swift and harsher punishment even if homophobia wasn't his motivation. This was a calculated and premeditated beating, giving him a couple of days off isn't going to do much to keep him bullying again. I don't know what it is about our school systems but they always seem to be built in favor of the bully, and it's been beyond time to change this.

Where do you draw the line?  Pretty soon anyone that gets beat up can call it a hate crime.  You know what?  They all are hate crimes because the person obviously dislikes the person based on something hence them beating them up.  Might as well include every race, sex, religion, sexual preference, etc into hate crimes...   Looking for equality right?  Then why not treat everyone equal and not make it more serious of a crime based on what race, sexual preference, religion, etc you are.  I'll probably draw some flak on this but I just want to know where the fuck do you draw the line?

It's clearly stated in the laws where you draw the line.

It could theoretically become a hate crime actually.