By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - High School Gay Bashing Caught on Video. Bully Got Off with a 3 Day Suspension.

Tagged games:

Smashed on 29 October 2011

Lol @ his voice.

I'm sorry... I had to.

But anyways, this is sad to hear.



Around the Network
Slimebeast on 29 October 2011
sapphi_snake said:
Zlejedi said:
sapphi_snake said:

There are several types of bullying. Not all types are criminal activites (e.g. teasing). However it's absurd that things like physical assault go unpunished.

And bullying someone because of their race/religion/gender/sexual orientation etc. is worse than bullying someone because they're wearing glasses or because they don't like Justin Bieber.

And why would that be the case ?

Is someone who got bullied for watching wrong cartoons less of a victim that someone being bullied for being gay ?

Yes. When you bully someone for being gay/jewish/black etc. you're targetting entire communities, not individuals. This type of individual is the same kind that thought the Holocaust was a good ideea. Actually, there's no difference between that kid and a Nazi.

lol



Kasz216 on 29 October 2011
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:

Actually for most schools a 3-day suspension is about the second worst thing that happens to you short of expulsion.

Expulsion isn't gonna happen unless someone brings in a weapon/uses a weapon or puts someone in an extended hospital stay.

I mean shit, someones ignorant and a bully, you your respond by permanently removing them from education from a school?

Doesn't really send the right message. 

EDIT: And I went to school in ohio.  So yeah, a 3 Day suspension is pretty serious.

Usually a punch gets you one day...

if Your in a two way fight, the agressor gets 3 days, the person defending themselves gets 1.

Or at least that was standard MO when I was in school way back when.

Yeah, I guess the bully is more important than the victims and their safety, right? It's more important to send out the message that you can beat someone up, and you'll get 3 days off from school for it, than that school is a place where you're suppose to feel safe, and if someone beats you up they'll be taken care of, no?

Great way of thinking. Guess that's why bullying is such a minor problem in American schools these days.

And punishing the victim for defending him/herself. Way to go! You guys have such a way with dealing with these issues.

Hey, the kids mom is perfectly free to press charges via the police.

Holding a kid out of school for a long period of time is only going to make him dumber, angrier and even more dangerous, and considering that schooling is MANDATORY until like 16 or 18... that just means things would be even wrose for whoever he bullies.



Kasz216 on 29 October 2011
sapphi_snake said:
Zlejedi said:
sapphi_snake said:

There are several types of bullying. Not all types are criminal activites (e.g. teasing). However it's absurd that things like physical assault go unpunished.

And bullying someone because of their race/religion/gender/sexual orientation etc. is worse than bullying someone because they're wearing glasses or because they don't like Justin Bieber.

And why would that be the case ?

Is someone who got bullied for watching wrong cartoons less of a victim that someone being bullied for being gay ?

Yes. When you bully someone for being gay/jewish/black etc. you're targetting entire communities, not individuals. This type of individual is the same kind that thought the Holocaust was a good ideea. Actually, there's no difference between that kid and a Nazi.

Ok... i'm just going to assume your drunk at this point.  I mean really?

Aside from which, if it's more wrong to target someone for their race, rather then say, their haircolor, or what tv show they watch... how much worse is it?

Can you kill two people and it's like killing one person because he's black?

Or is it like killing one person plus shoplifting or what?

(Nevermind the fact that by targeting someone who watches pokemon because they watch pokemon your targeting the Pokemon community.)



kain_kusanagi on 29 October 2011
sapphi_snake said:
kain_kusanagi said:
sapphi_snake said:
kain_kusanagi said:
All bulling are "hate crimes". I'm glad the mother is pressing charges and I hope the bully goes to juvi. But I can't stand the term "hate crime". Everyone who perpetrates violence is motivated by hate of some kind, so why do we segregate certain crimes as worse then others. If a bully beats up a nerd and gets a 3 day suspension it wouldn't make the news, but if the nerd was gay it is suddenly worse? That's what I don't understand. We should treat punish bullies harshly no matter who or why they beat them up. Their motive should only be used as evidence to convict them, not decide a sentence.

This is actually not true. There are several reasons why people can commit violent crimes. For example desperation (e.g. robbing someone because you need money), or even love (e.g. crimes of passion). And I'm not sure if you know anything about the legal system, but motive is mandatory when deciding how to sentence someone. This is the case with basically every crime. This is the difference between 1st degree and 2nd degree murder for example. And it's the best way to decide how dangerous a criminal is.

The prosecution uses motive to define the culpability of the defendant. The motive is a kind of evidence in convicting the defendant. Once you have a conviction the motive is irrelevant. Some crimes have minimum sentences. Take Murder 1 for example. The motive was used to convict, but the sentence is determined by the crime.

As for the reasons for violent crimes. I am very much aware there are many motives for committing violence. I was obviously talking about bullies not robbers.

My point was always that hate for a nerd or a gay or a minority are equal. Hate for someone who bumped your shoulder is just as irrational as gay bashing. I don't like the term "hate crime" becuase is segregates and we need less segregation and more equality in this world.

Nope, it's not. The motive is used to decide what charges you're bringing against someone. And whether a crime is murder 1, or murder 2 or something else is determined by the motive.

And no, hate for someone who bumped your shoulder isn't the same as hating a minority. It's actually more rational than hating a minority (mainly because you're hating a single individual who actualy did something to you - albeit by accident - as opposed to an entire group of people, where you don't know any of the individuals, and simply hate them due to a trait they share that is neutral and not harmful).

Conviction and sentencing are two different proceedings. Motive is used to prove culpability, to define the crime, (murder 1, 2, etc.(, and to get a conviction. Once the court has a conviction it schedules a sentencing hearing. At the hearing either a judge or jury decides a fitting punishment based on the crime defined in the previous conviction. If it's murder 1 then there is usually a minim sentence unaffected by pc terms like "hate crime".

And no, hating a group for a shared trait is not worse than hating someone who did something minor to you. Neither is more rational than the other. Nobody has the right to do harm to another person unprovoked. Why should we punish some who beat up a gay person more than someone who beat up a Cardinals fan or a Playstation fanboy, or a PETA member, or a democrat/republican, or a Occupy Wall Street protester/Tea Party member? The fact is people hate all kinds of people, but the law states that if you hate a non-white or a homosexual than your hate is worse. that's just stupid. Use the motive to convict, but we don't need a law on the books that separates groups of people and defines them by how others hate them.



Around the Network
sapphi_snake on 29 October 2011
Kasz216 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:

Actually for most schools a 3-day suspension is about the second worst thing that happens to you short of expulsion.

Expulsion isn't gonna happen unless someone brings in a weapon/uses a weapon or puts someone in an extended hospital stay.

I mean shit, someones ignorant and a bully, you your respond by permanently removing them from education from a school?

Doesn't really send the right message. 

EDIT: And I went to school in ohio.  So yeah, a 3 Day suspension is pretty serious.

Usually a punch gets you one day...

if Your in a two way fight, the agressor gets 3 days, the person defending themselves gets 1.

Or at least that was standard MO when I was in school way back when.

Yeah, I guess the bully is more important than the victims and their safety, right? It's more important to send out the message that you can beat someone up, and you'll get 3 days off from school for it, than that school is a place where you're suppose to feel safe, and if someone beats you up they'll be taken care of, no?

Great way of thinking. Guess that's why bullying is such a minor problem in American schools these days.

And punishing the victim for defending him/herself. Way to go! You guys have such a way with dealing with these issues.

Hey, the kids mom is perfectly free to press charges via the police.

Holding a kid out of school for a long period of time is only going to make him dumber, angrier and even more dangerous, and considering that schooling is MANDATORY until like 16 or 18... that just means things would be even wrose for whoever he bullies.

You don't have to hold him out of school. Just send him to some juvenile institution. The victims are more important than the bully, and schools are obligated to protect their students (the school should've called the police in the first place). As I said, this is why bullying is so widespread in your country and it isn't in others. Haven't you ever thought that your approach of doing nothing against the bullies, and giving harsher punishment to victims is the problem?



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

sapphi_snake on 29 October 2011
kain_kusanagi said:
sapphi_snake said:
kain_kusanagi said:
sapphi_snake said:
kain_kusanagi said:
All bulling are "hate crimes". I'm glad the mother is pressing charges and I hope the bully goes to juvi. But I can't stand the term "hate crime". Everyone who perpetrates violence is motivated by hate of some kind, so why do we segregate certain crimes as worse then others. If a bully beats up a nerd and gets a 3 day suspension it wouldn't make the news, but if the nerd was gay it is suddenly worse? That's what I don't understand. We should treat punish bullies harshly no matter who or why they beat them up. Their motive should only be used as evidence to convict them, not decide a sentence.

This is actually not true. There are several reasons why people can commit violent crimes. For example desperation (e.g. robbing someone because you need money), or even love (e.g. crimes of passion). And I'm not sure if you know anything about the legal system, but motive is mandatory when deciding how to sentence someone. This is the case with basically every crime. This is the difference between 1st degree and 2nd degree murder for example. And it's the best way to decide how dangerous a criminal is.

The prosecution uses motive to define the culpability of the defendant. The motive is a kind of evidence in convicting the defendant. Once you have a conviction the motive is irrelevant. Some crimes have minimum sentences. Take Murder 1 for example. The motive was used to convict, but the sentence is determined by the crime.

As for the reasons for violent crimes. I am very much aware there are many motives for committing violence. I was obviously talking about bullies not robbers.

My point was always that hate for a nerd or a gay or a minority are equal. Hate for someone who bumped your shoulder is just as irrational as gay bashing. I don't like the term "hate crime" becuase is segregates and we need less segregation and more equality in this world.

Nope, it's not. The motive is used to decide what charges you're bringing against someone. And whether a crime is murder 1, or murder 2 or something else is determined by the motive.

And no, hate for someone who bumped your shoulder isn't the same as hating a minority. It's actually more rational than hating a minority (mainly because you're hating a single individual who actualy did something to you - albeit by accident - as opposed to an entire group of people, where you don't know any of the individuals, and simply hate them due to a trait they share that is neutral and not harmful).

Conviction and sentencing are two different proceedings. Motive is used to prove culpability, to define the crime, (murder 1, 2, etc.(, and to get a conviction. Once the court has a conviction it schedules a sentencing hearing. At the hearing either a judge or jury decides a fitting punishment based on the crime defined in the previous conviction. If it's murder 1 then there is usually a minim sentence unaffected by pc terms like "hate crime".

And no, hating a group for a shared trait is not worse than hating someone who did something minor to you. Neither is more rational than the other. Nobody has the right to do harm to another person unprovoked. Why should we punish some who beat up a gay person more than someone who beat up a Cardinals fan or a Playstation fanboy, or a PETA member, or a democrat/republican, or a Occupy Wall Street protester/Tea Party member? The fact is people hate all kinds of people, but the law states that if you hate a non-white or a homosexual than your hate is worse. that's just stupid. Use the motive to convict, but we don't need a law on the books that separates groups of people and defines them by how others hate them.

Ummm, if a crime was deemed a hate crime, then the sentence is increased. You're suppose to give a sentence depending on the type of crime it was determined to be.

And in your example (guy bumping into you) you can consider that the attacker was provoked. And it's people part of the majority group (white heterosexuals) who are most dangerous, while minorities are most likely to be victims of hate crimes.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Marks on 29 October 2011
sapphi_snake said:
kowenicki said:

what happens in this state if you bully someone for some other reason other than sexual orientation? 

Obviously you'd get more than a 3 day suspension. It was premeditated violent assault after all.


lol are you kidding? What makes you think the suspension would be longer if the victim was straight? That's just ridiculous. 



blkfish92 on 29 October 2011

Well did he beat him up because he was or gay or he just beat him up because he didn't like the kid?



           

Kasz216 on 30 October 2011
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:

Actually for most schools a 3-day suspension is about the second worst thing that happens to you short of expulsion.

Expulsion isn't gonna happen unless someone brings in a weapon/uses a weapon or puts someone in an extended hospital stay.

I mean shit, someones ignorant and a bully, you your respond by permanently removing them from education from a school?

Doesn't really send the right message. 

EDIT: And I went to school in ohio.  So yeah, a 3 Day suspension is pretty serious.

Usually a punch gets you one day...

if Your in a two way fight, the agressor gets 3 days, the person defending themselves gets 1.

Or at least that was standard MO when I was in school way back when.

Yeah, I guess the bully is more important than the victims and their safety, right? It's more important to send out the message that you can beat someone up, and you'll get 3 days off from school for it, than that school is a place where you're suppose to feel safe, and if someone beats you up they'll be taken care of, no?

Great way of thinking. Guess that's why bullying is such a minor problem in American schools these days.

And punishing the victim for defending him/herself. Way to go! You guys have such a way with dealing with these issues.

Hey, the kids mom is perfectly free to press charges via the police.

Holding a kid out of school for a long period of time is only going to make him dumber, angrier and even more dangerous, and considering that schooling is MANDATORY until like 16 or 18... that just means things would be even wrose for whoever he bullies.

You don't have to hold him out of school. Just send him to some juvenile institution. The victims are more important than the bully, and schools are obligated to protect their students (the school should've called the police in the first place). As I said, this is why bullying is so widespread in your country and it isn't in others. Haven't you ever thought that your approach of doing nothing against the bullies, and giving harsher punishment to victims is the problem?

Says who?

For that matter what makes you think Europe is harsher on bullying?

 

Outside that, a Juvenile institiution really isn't going to have the socialization nessisary to stop bullying and if anything is only going to refine it and other criminal acts further.

It's they say about Jail.  Jail teaches criminals how to be better criminals

Expulsion should be held off as a last choice until it's found the person is beyond the help of counsuling and schooling...

and somehow i doubt Western Europe, which has less harsh sentences for everything is suddenly all gung ho on student punishment.

I really doubt schools anywhere expel on a first offense unless there is serious permanent damage or it's something like brining a gun to school or setting a bomb or something.