Bully Victim stabbed Bully to Death

IRL_Sinister

Hi,

Not sure if this is the right place to post this (sorry mods), but I just came across this article and I found it a fascinating read.

A Florida teen who stabbed his classmate to death last year will not face murder charges, a judge ruled on Wednesday.

Collier County Judge Lauren Brodie agreed that 15-year-old Jorge Saavedra acted in self-defense when he knifed Dylan Nuno, 16, after a fight at a bus stop, WINK-TV reported.

"(He) had more than enough reason to believe he was in danger of death or great bodily harm," she wrote in her decision.

Saavedra, who was 14 at the time of the killing, was protected under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, which stipulates that people can defend themselves if they feel threatened by any means necessary, NBC 2 reported.

Brodie heard from multiple witnesses who testified that Nuno initiated the fight and had been harassing Saavedra for more than a year.

"The facts were consistent. There was a group of boys harassing Mr. Saavedra, repeatedly threatening Mr. Saavedra, on the day this incident happened,” Saavedra's attorney Donald Day said. “Not one boy, but a group of boys had threatened physical violence."

In his testimony at the trial, Saavedra testified that Nuno told him, "Today's the day" — meaning they were going to fight — when he got on the bus. Nuno then followed him off the bus and a group of students circled the two, egging them on, according to reports.

Saavedra said he told Nuno he didn't want to fight, but Nuno hit him in the back of the head and continued to punch him.

Saavedra's team also had anti-bullying experts testify.

"There were no winners today, and the Saavedra family is devastated over the tragedy. The family's hope is that the schools take a more active role in stopping the escalating bullying violence that is occurring across the country," Saavedra's family said in a statement.

Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/florida-teen-jorge-saavedra-won-t-charged-murder-bus-stop-stabbing-article-1.1001277#ixzz1j04WQeLu

Just wondering what people's takes on this are? There is a huge background story to it, too. I've been following the discssion here if you want to check it out.

Couple of things I found interesting:

1) The fact that, under law, a 14-year-old was allowed to carry a knife to school and use it.
2) The father of the "murder" victim said something along the lines of "i wish my son had a gun that day so he could still be here" -- is he f*cking serious?
3) How serious is bullying getting? I know when I was in school bullying was around, it always will be, but just how fricking bad is it?
4) The judge ruled in favor of the "murderer" without any punishment
5) The fact that a group of boys stood around their friend (the bully) and watched him be stabbed while moments before they were egging him on.

I found it interesting at least!

pirelli

IRL_Sinister wrote: »

Hi,

Not sure if this is the right place to post this (sorry mods), but I just came across this article and I found it a fascinating read.



Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/florida-teen-jorge-saavedra-won-t-charged-murder-bus-stop-stabbing-article-1.1001277#ixzz1j04WQeLu

Just wondering what people's takes on this are? There is a huge background story to it, too. I've been following the discssion here if you want to check it out.

Couple of things I found interesting:

1) The fact that, under law, a 14-year-old was allowed to carry a knife to school and use it.
2) The father of the "murder" victim said something along the lines of "i wish my son had a gun that day so he could still be here" -- is he f*cking serious?
3) How serious is bullying getting? I know when I was in school bullying was around, it always will be, but just how fricking bad is it?
4) The judge ruled in favor of the "murderer" without any punishment
5) The fact that a group of boys stood around their friend (the bully) and watched him be stabbed while moments before they were egging him on.

I found it interesting at least!

Where are you getting these additional facts?



I was just listening to Michael Sandel - The harvard Justice and humanities Professor.

Based on the Philosophy of Locke and in my interpretation oF Sandels explanation then: Essentially the Bully is an enforcer and therefore not part of society and therefore can be killed.

However since this was the first act of violence, and since it is unclear whether the 'homicide victim' was really an enforcer; then my question is: Was the bully an enforcer according to John Locke theory?
That is a Question. I doubt he was, but he was certainly cast at the very least as a bully.

In my opinion; the person bullied may have carried a knife in fear of The Bully or was there a rumour of a fight by the bully; and then the knife brought in defence of that?

How vicious would the beating have been on the person 'bullied' ?

As he was encircled by a threatening crowd then we know he could not retreat from the attacker so he did in theory have the right to defend his life, but it really comes down to how bad the beating would have been, and how vulnerable the young man was to serious harm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGyygiXMzRk

The philosopher John Locke believes that individuals have certain rights so fundamental that no government can ever take them away. These rights—to life, liberty and property—were given to us as human beings in the the state of nature, a time before government and laws were created.
Starts at 30 minutes - 40 minutes

I wrote the following so please read it.

John Locke the Philospher believes that individuals have certain rights so fundamental that no goverment can ever take them away from you.We are executors of the state of nature, and any one who violates the state of nature is an aggressor, and unreasonable, and; you can punish him, and even kill him; and you can certainly kill someone who comes after you to take your life, and you can even kill a thief.

However as executors of the state of nature there is one inconvience, and that is everyone can do the punishing...you can kill people who pose a threat to life, or thiefs that steal from you or even Thief's that steal from third parties ( as violations of the state of nature is seen as acts of aggression) can be chased down and killed..we alone are the judges and executors of the state of nature, and as such there are no juries or police forces or judges; and therefore people are the judges of their own cases.

The inconvience of this, John Locke observes; is that people who are judges of their own cases tend to get carried away, and this gives rise to the inconvience in the state of nature. People overstep the mark, and there is aggression, and there is punishment; and quite soon their is insecurity in the enjoyment and inalienable right to liberty etc . Locke describes in harsh and grim terms of this benign law which if you look more closely is fierce and rules by violence; where you kill them before they kill you.

Consent

So the only way to escape from the state of nature is to undertake an act of consent where we agree to give up the enforcment power, and create a goverment where there will be a legislator, and where everyione agrees in advance to to abide whatever the majority decides.

What can the majority decide?

The majority can not violate your inalienable rights. If we all have unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, how can a government enforce tax laws passed by the representatives of a mere majority? Doesnt that amount to taking some peoples property without their consent? Lockes response is that we give our tacit consent to obey the tax laws passed by a majority when we choose to live in a society.

Lockstep

Under Irish law it would presumably come under provocation, reducing the charge from murder to manslaughter.