Honestly if you believe survival of the fittest, then I believe Jorge showed everyone who was the most fit for survival.
Yep exactly what I said. He let his anger get the best of him and “won” that round. But like I said, unless he adopts a more “dominant” mentality he will be ripped to shreds by the lions of this game called life.
Bullying can be looked at like a robbery, once you start shit you can’t just go “oh shit wait I’m sorry I didn’t mean to do it, I won’t do it again”. If you break into someones house and didn’t expect them to have a gun, tough shit.
Maybe if Jorge had written him poetry, none of this would have ever happened. 
“Hey kid! Let’s fight at the end of this week.”
“Okay! I’ll practice martial arts now.”
Yeah, I can see that scenario really working out.
Also, for people who suggest pulling the kid into another school or district - what prevents bullies from those schools to pick on him? How can his parents find the time to drive him to said schools? And it’s so easy to find a job nowadays that they should be able to pick up and live somewhere else.
It’s not that the bully deserved to die, but the kid had a right to defend himself.
Columbine is a horrible extreme to turn to - innocent victims who probably didn’t even knew the kid died (do you know every bullied kid in your high school? I didn’t) and it wasn’t in self defense.
At first seeing the news made me sad, but then seeing the inhumanly cold-blooded replies made me feel even worse. =/
I don’t agree with this idea of “He deserved to die”; these kids were so young, and hardly anyone is the same person as an adult that they were as a young teenager. There was still plenty of time for this bully to redeem himself in the long run.
This is probably the most terrifying implication of them all.
Teenagers already have a tough enough time as it is being open and seeking help for their problems, and all this ruling does is tell them “Don’t bother talking to anyone, all you need to do is secretly carry a knife and murder anyone who bothers you!” That’s… a rather disgustingly psychotic solution.
People, quit using Columbine as an analogy: that was two psycho/sociopathic-ass BULLIES (nobody ever picked on them, they harassed and tormented freshmen and students that they thought were gay) killing fellow students. They didn’t give a shit about anyone around them and thought it would be awesome to see how many people they could kill. They just wanted to be famous. Had any fool believing they were bullied tried to reach out to them, they’d have gunned your silly ass down as well while laughing at you.
http://www.newsreview.com/reno/newsview/blogs/post?oid=3971036
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-04-13-columbine-myths_N.htm
http://blogs.knoxnews.com/books/2009/03/book-columbine-shooters-mental.html
They were just 2 crazy fucks, and you shouldn’t feel anything for them other than relief that there’s 2 fewer potential serial killers out there.
They were just two crazy fucks, and you SHOULDN’T feel anything for them? Yeah in the same way Jews were nothing but a bunch of lower beings who were all just trash and in the way and deserved to be disposed to the Germans.
Like I said get your trash artificial man made ethics and morality out of here. Your bitch ass is not different than the Nazi’s who followed the moral standard of Hitler. Yea keep thinking your morality is less atrocious than them. But in reality morality as a whole is a FALLACY!!! A FALLACY!!! Now ALL OF YOU STOP WITH YOUR PETTY ARGUMENTS OF WHO’s ETHICS OR WHO’S ACTIONS ARE MORE MORALLY SIGNIFICANT THAN ANOTHER. YOU DELUSIONAL FOOLS WITH YOUR DAMN FALLACIES. WE NEED NO MORE MEANINGLESS MORALS FOR A MEANINGLESS PURPOSELESS WORLD, THROW AWAY THOSE FOOLISH INHIBITIONS AND LET ALL LET LOOSE!!!
So I asked this earlier and no one answered. You think the ruling should have been different. How should it have been different, do you disagree with the self defense law, or with the interpreation of it, or do you feel he failed to follow the self defense law at some point?
Wow, vocal troll is vocal.
Troll? What about my post was wrong? Plz inform me? I’m just telling it like it is.
So what was the bully? A cub that couldn’t wait to be king?
More like a cub who thought he was king, and acted as such so he paid the price. He was still a cub and should have operated as a cub until he had the masses and dominance on his side in his respective area (the school). Example, a freshman in High School who is on the bottom of the food chain, analyzes and sees the demeanors and attitudes that the majority population of the school gravitates towards to, and submits to them and uses relationships with others and with people on higher positions in the “food chain” to get a big standing. And when all is succesful and he has a large part of the school on his side. It is then that he can act as a king now that he has a pack that will kill/fight for him. And the weak/outcasts will be intimidated not just by the “king” but also his large dominion over his area.
Uh, okay, well thanks for putting words in my mouth. It looks like you’ve already got everything about me figured out in your head anyway, Miss Cleo, so there’s no point in giving you an actual reply. =P
Anyway… My point is that these are just kids we’re talking about here. If we were discussing an adult armed robber being killed by self-defense, that would be one thing, but this is high school drama! I’m not condoning the bully’s actions, but I hardly think it called for a death penalty by one disconnected teen who decided that he would be the judge, jury, and executioner. x_X (And yes, he did obviously make that decision beforehand by carrying the knife that day.)
My biggest problem isn’t with the verdict as it is with the precedent that it sets: It’s going to give socially isolated kids who probably need to seek mental therapy a license to kill, which again, is a disturbingly psychopathic thing to be in support of.
The bully committed repeated acts of physical violence against the kid. The only reason you’re not calling it assault, and the only reason you’re refusing to acknowledge the kid’s right to self-defense, is that the people involved happened to be high schoolers. For that sole reason, you’ve dismissed the grievance between them as frivolous. It is partly because too many authority figures in kids’ lives share your mindset, that it’s nothing but silly drama, that nobody intervenes before situations like this one are able to get this far.
Now you’re just playing dumb. The kid tried to avoid the bully. He went way out of his way to get away. He was carrying the knife because he was scared. You would have to completely ignore several publicly available facts about this case to make this out as some kind of vendetta against the bully.
What makes you think that the mental competence of kids like this one needs to be called in to question? Should he have taken a senseless, malicious beating with a smile on his face? Would that make him less disturbed in your eyes?
Again, it is plainly obvious from the circumstances that this is not a case of a vendetta against a bully. It is also clear that the nature of the bullying was seriously, maliciously violent. The law is not affirming the right to a vendetta because there was none. If anything, this ruling is affirming that kids have the right to defend themselves from having serious violence done to them, which everybody needs to have.
Translation: I don’t have an answer so I’m just going to pretend you said something offensive to me even tho all you did was ask me a simple question and not answer said question, thus washing my hands of having to back up and justify my position. WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
I apologize, I assumed when you said
**
you had a problem with the ruling. I also disagree with your assessment but goodmourning already covered that pretty well.
How about the precedent that all the other cases have been setting that it’s okay to physically and mentally harass other human beings?
You’re telling it like you THINK it is and letting your womanly emotions cloud your logic about 2 people who were a threat to everyone around them unless heavily medicated, dead, or lobotomized into some strange sort of…Idunno. You seem to think THEY were the victims. They were scum, like some villain out of a cheesy 80’s action flick. They knew what they were doing was wrong, and had no other motive for doing other than “This is gonna RAWK!”. I have nothing but contempt for anyone who defends such people or tries to rationalize (in such a wildly inaccurate fashion as the media did, which the gullible public believed, and many still do to this day) or defend their behavior based on some namby pamby feelings that there are no irredeemable people (there are, in abundance) and all life is valuable (it isn’t).
OOHH The irony of you telling me Im being riled up by womanly emotions looolz. How does life spurned by chance produce this moral law in which you can say someone is wrong or right, or good or evil. Life is valuable? HAHAHHAAHAHA. Chance is the “Father” of our existence. And Chance doesnt give value to anything. So again like I said. Stop trying to see yourself as some morally superior being when all you are is just some guy who is “good” by the standards made by those on the top of the “food chain”. Again, morality is a damn fallacy, and an obstacle that gets in the way of attaining dominance. You subject yourself to meaningless foolish morals, in a an ultimately purposeless world and you’re telling me that my logic is clouded?? HAAHAHHAAAH. Like I said you’re no different from the Nazi’s who saw Jews as evil scum that needed to be dealt with. Only difference is, is that your morals are different, not better. You have no worth, you just are. I can kill you and feel no remorse, you know why. Because I’ve done nothing wrong, so stop tryna shove your foolish meaningless morals on me and watch me reach the TOP OF THE FOOD CHAIN