My only regret is the big kid didn't pick him up and throw him down again after he got up. A pile driver on the head was certainly warranted. And then the pussy had the balls to get on international news and said it was not his fault. To late asshole. I hope you have a headache.

All of y'all "go victim" people are ignoring one crucial point. The victim could have accidentally killed or crippled the bully when he picked him up and threw him down. If that has been the result, it would have ruined his life and emotions a lot more than being bullied a bit. To me, that is why his reaction is the wrong one, his life could have been RUINED by that act far worse than any suspension. If you don't believe me, ask my mother how it feels to have your bully killed by accident, only if you just wished their death and weren't even the cause of it yourself.
When my mother was a little girl, her next door neighbor was her bully. One day my mom was outside playing, and the bully came along on her bike and proceeded to run over my mother's toes. My mother yelled at her, "I hope you die." Well, the girl did, that night she and her grandfather were stalled on a train track and hit. Mom found out the next day in school and still carries around the scar of wishing something so horrible on a person, and then actually have it happen.
Also, yes, the bully probably would not have stopped with just administrative intervention, but we have no proof that that little move won't bring the bully back with a bigger vendetta, a few friends, and a more secluded spot. Sometime standing up to the bully doesn't stop them, it only makes them that much more determined to show you that they're boss.

I don't think anyone missed that point mtp. It's been brought up a number of times.

Really? Other than my earlier mention and dana's agreement, when has anyone else addressed that issue?

Well twice is a number of times isn't it? :)

Seriously though, I think that point is central to Dana's argument - or at least, that's what I get out of her posts.

As adults posting in this thread, I think I can speak for everyone when I say that none of us would want any lasting or permanent harm to come to either of these boys.

Speaking for myself I feel very sorry for both boys and would like to see better systems in place, but then, schools already have their hands tied on what they can actually do about things like this and ultimately, we say that it's really a parents job to teach a child what the difference is between right and wrong. Clearly some parents fail, so then whose fault is it? Really?

Watching the interviews with the parents of these boys, it seems to me that none of them are particularly bright and probably don't have the best social skills themselves.

It's a sad state of affairs, but when it all comes down to it, the parents should be better guides and role models for their kids, but the truth is, sometimes they're not, so then the government should take over? We should hope the child somehow figures out where he's going wrong? What? What is the answer?

I was addressing the "go victim!" crowd. Dana is not one of those. There is no 100% right answer, I know Ali. If the bully kid's parents/guardians fail, the teachers and admins might not be much help. Then again, a school counselor might be very effective, if the school has the funding for it :(. If your kid is being bullied so horrendously, I'm sure most parents would be able to find an alternative to that school, just remove them from the situation so that they do not have turn to violence. If that is absolutely 100% not possible (which I'm unconvinced it is) and the teachers and admins are ineffective, there is probably a legal recourse, what about possibly suing the bully child's parents? Getting some sort of restraining order? Yes, even having the government step in and force the bully child/parents into counseling. I would be all for putting into place a system that makes parents get a certification for raising children, but I know that would be far too complicated to truly implement, and what would you do if a person didn't have that certification and had a child anyway? Put the child into foster? Seems a bit harsh, but maybe that is the type of system we do need to show how serious raising a child is, and thats its a privileged to be earned, not a right.

I think all the girls should just be sterilized some time before they can breed, then after they're in a stable relationship and everything's peachy and they've both done the course, then she gets unsterilized and they can have a baby. Gatica style. :) Or even stepford wives?

I know it's a serious subject, but I'm just not sure if there's an answer. Moving a child to a different school is a big step, and chances are, if their attitude or behaviour doesn't change, they'll probably still have the same issues to deal with. Kids have a pecking order as do most other social groups. Not sure what the answer is, but I can only go on personal experience with my own kids, and that has been that a bully will keep going till he finds out the hard way that you've had enough.

Why not the men? Especially since vas deferens valves might soon be a very viable choice.
Moving a child to a different school is a big step, but its better than them being forced to violence, not just because I think violence is wrong, but because things can go horribly horribly wrong. Freak accidents DO happen. Kids do have a pecking order, but at least where I grew up, it was very often not nearly to the extreme as to what that video showed. I think that in most cases it is rare and if you move your kid away from one bully, that there will not just be another like him at the next school. Bullies don't always learn their lesson, even if its the hard way. If you fight back, there is nothing to say they won't just try to find another way to exert their power over you.

Everything you say is true mtp, but in practice, it costs a lot of money to change schools. more money than many if not most families can afford. Particularly those who already have financial stresses (as I suspect the families in these videos have).

There needs to be a holistic approach showing concern not just for the victim, but for the bully also. Clearly according to research bullying is mostly (if not exclusively) perpetrated by those who feel a lack of power in some other area, so with that in mind, we need to address these issues with intensive counselling for the child and also the family.

Unfortunately, a lot of the causes of these issues are due to low socio-economic situations for the family, so the options are limited unless covered by the state, and at this stage, that's not really the case. In extreme circumstances it can be, but often the funds are channelled through ways in which the majority of the benefit is not for the child.


eta: and all of this is assuming the family is willing to accept help, and in many cases, the family simply denies the problem and refuses help.

I guess what it comes down to is that if the family wont or can't help, and any help from the state is at best ineffectual, most parents of a bullied child would condone almost any other recourse in order to protect their child from abuse, which is the sentiment expressed by many here. I know that in the situation of my kids, the school was unable to protect them, and so they decided to protect themselves, and I supported them. Surely if a parent of a bullied child who stood up for themselves then chastised the child it would cause the same, if not more harm than the bullying in the first place.

Sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils rather than what's right or wrong.

I wholly understand the financial strife issue, and that having to move a child due to bulling would not be easy, nor the perfect solution. Counseling and help to stop the bulling as you suggested probably would be, and has its own financial issues. It makes it all the more sad then that many here see the violent response as a correct reaction, when rather it is far from the ideal, or even most helpful response. No the child should not stand there and "take it" but neither should he be forced to violence, and it is simply NOT true that that is the only way to stop a bully. Just the only one that the victim might think is available, and an option that can be just as dangerous to the victim as it is to the bully.
Even if it is a difficult thing to do, but if it is still an option, if you have to move your child to protect them from that extreme choice, I would think that would be a parent's choice. Just remember, your child may commit involuntary manslaughter even if they're just protecting themselves. If you can at all reduce the chance of that happening, wouldn't you do anything within your power to do so?

That's true, so I guess if we lived in a Utopian society, it'd be easy. Unfortunately we don't, and most (if they exist) cures for bullying, the nice way, are achieved through long term aid. Sometimes the victim doesn't have a long time to wait. It's sad, but it's very true, and it's also true that until you've watched your child deflate before your eyes because of bullying, it's hard to understand why a normally passive person would condone this sort of behaviour.

So, MTP let me get this straight. I should teach my kid to run away if someone bullies him? and if that doesn't work I should help him to run further by moving him to a different school? So if the bully is in the neighborhood, should I also sell my house and move out of state?



No thanks. Conflict is rarely beneficial and it is certainly something to be avoided, but there is value in having a spine and being willing to stand up for yourself and not waiting for some benevolent authority figure to come save you. Waiting for an authority figure to come save you only works when they have the time, energy, and desire to give a shit about you. If you won't stand up for yourself in the unfortunate event it is required, don't expect anyone else to do it for you. Violence/conflict should not be desired, nor should it be feared.


and before you go further down the "he could have permanently damaged that poor bully" road, yes - you are right. A discussion on appropriate use of force and escalation would be a good idea, but no damn way would I scold the kid for standing up for himself.

I keep reiterating that it is not easy, it is just better than violence. If it is going to take too long to get them to another school and the bullying is just THAT bad, then just remove them from school for the time being.

@Lookout- It is NOT running away or teaching them to run away. It is teaching them to remove themselves from a bad situation before they accidentally make it worse. So you would rather your child be put in a situation where he could accidentally cripple or KILL another child just so they won't have to swallow their pride and walk away from a fight? One punch can kill, there is not appropriate amount of violence. Plus no one said anything about selling your house and moving states. What, you only have one school in your whole state?

And there is the philosophical difference that will prevent us from ever agreeing on this topic. You see it as a horrible evil that can and must be avoided at all cost. I know that it is sometimes unfortunately necessary because not everyone is directing gumdrops and goodwishes in your direction. I do not enjoy violence but I will not live in fear of it.