Plan B Forum

A Florida teenager who stabbed a schoolmate to death will not face any criminal charges, a judge ruled this week in Naples, Fla.

Fifteen-year-old Jorge Saavedra was facing a second-degree murder charge in the death of Dylan Nuno, 16, after a judge ruled the boy’s action against a bully amounted to self-defense, naplesnews.com reports.

(Collier County Circuit Judge Lauren) Brodie based her decision this week on the findings from a two-day December hearing, during which students who witnessed the events Jan. 24, 2011, testified that several teens announced the fight on the bus, and Saavedra got off several stops early in Golden Gate Estates. …

In a nine-page document released Tuesday by the State Attorney’s Office, Brodie stated that by getting off the bus several stops before the location where the fight was to happen, Saavedra “demonstrated that, with or without a knife, (he) had no desire to fight with Dylan Nuno.”

According to testimony, Nuno, a junior, followed Saavedra, a freshman, off the bus and punched him in the back of the head. Saavedra tried to get away.

He then stabbed Dylan Nuno 12 times in the chest and abdomen. Two of the blows caused fatal wounds, including one that nicked his heart.

For the full story, go here.

Whoa, I'm stunned. My gut reaction is that even bullying shouldn't be answered with extreme violence. The judge says his actions were warranted, but twelve strikes? That's NOT self-defense, that's explosive rage.

There are a few things about this that trouble me. The kid was fearful for his safety and has the right to defend himself, blah, blah, blah. Score one for the victims against the bullies, fine.

BUT...12 times? I get that Florida law says he can continue to defend himself so as to not require him to retreat, but after the first 3 or 4 stab wounds, was the other kid in any condition to be posing any risk at all, or at that point would he have been the one trying to run away?

And what level of threat does there need to be to justify deadly force? It doesn't appear that the other kid was armed. Was it justifiable to kill in order to avoid getting a black eye, or did he need to be in danger of at least having a few ribs cracked before it would have been ok to direct the knife straight into the heart?

The kid was a 14 year old freshman (up aginast someone older and bigger than him), and you want him to make adult decisions instantaneously. I would assume he was scared out of his mind for something he wanted to avoid. How would he know enough was enough, because of his vast previous stabbing experience?

Well, first, his case was being tried as a juvenile, so unlike many other 14 year olds who have been treated like adults in criminal cases, he was already not being expected to have acted with an adult's sense of judgment in the circumstances, ...

But, scared 14 year old or not, once the other guy was showing absolutely no sign of being able to put up any sort of resistance at all (which I suspect happened long before the 12th thrust was made) might have been a clue that enough was enough.

Scooter wrote: But, scared 14 year old or not, once the other guy was showing absolutely no sign of being able to put up any sort of resistance at all (which I suspect happened long before the 12th thrust was made) might have been a clue that enough was enough.

True, but in the heat of the moment, and after all that time being bullied, the kid probably decided to make sure the bully was dead.

What lookss brutal or excessive to us in this one situation doesn't take into consideration everything that led up to it.

the kid probably decided to make sure the bully was dead.

Who's the kid to decide that? Is that what we're teaching kids these days?

loCAtek wrote:

the kid probably decided to make sure the bully was dead.

Who's the kid to decide that?

The kid that believes that once he started fighting back and knew he had done serious damage to the bully - that if he didn't kill the bully then, the bully would surely come back and kill him later.

I dunno, when/where was threat to life demonstrated, rather than just further bullying?

loCAtek wrote:I dunno, when/where was threat to life demonstrated, rather than just further bullying?

After hearing testimony from witnesses, the judge ruled that the boy "had more than enough reason to believe he was in danger of death or great bodily harm."

after all that time being bullied, the kid probably decided to make sure the bully was dead.

Making "sure the bully was dead", was not something he had any right or legal justification for doing.

I'm with LoCa and Scooter on this one. This went way beyond any reasonable interpretation of self defense; it was a rage killing.

For the kid to get off scot-free sends a terrible message.

I'd like to see this witness testimony, are there more transcripts available? So far, there is evidence of bullying, but not of a fatal nature.

Lord Jim wrote:

after all that time being bullied, the kid probably decided to make sure the bully was dead.

Making "sure the bully was dead", was not something he had any right or legal justification for doing.

The judge disagrees. The court ruled that under the circumstance he had the right to use deadly force because he believed he might be killed.

Lord Jim wrote: For the kid to get off scot-free sends a terrible message.

It might if one were to take it out of context. I don't really expect to see a surge in bully killing in Florida.

Florida.....again.

For the kid to get off scot-free sends a terrible message.

Only to bullies

Liberty1 wrote:

For the kid to get off scot-free sends a terrible message.

Only to bullies

Oh please...

I'm not certainly not going to defend bullying, but I don't believe it's a Death Penalty offense...

You honestly don't think sending the message that if you're being picked on, it's perfectly acceptable to deliberately kill the person picking on you is a bad message to send?

Lord Jim wrote: You honestly don't think sending the message that if you're being picked on, it's perfectly acceptable to deliberately kill the person picking on you is a bad message to send?

This case wasn't as simple as someone just being 'picked on'. It was about a 14 yr old had been physically bullied for a long time and it when it happened once again the kid finally fought back.

You honestly don't think sending the message that if you're being picked on, it's perfectly acceptable to deliberately kill the person picking on you is a bad message to send?

Never said that.

It was judged to be self defense.

And some of us are questioning whether that judgment was correct.

I would imagine you would be among the last people to claim that, just because a judge says something, it must be correct. It's not as if it would be the first nudge nudge, wink wink ruling to ever be issued.

Perhaps the facts did bear out the scenario that the kid was in legitimate fear for his own life right up until he stuck his knife into the other kid for the 12th time. But on its face, for the purposes of stopping an attack, it would appear to be, if you will pardon the expression, overkill.

Scooter wrote:Perhaps the facts did bear out the scenario that the kid was in legitimate fear for his own life right up until he stuck his knife into the other kid for the 12th time. But on its face, for the purposes of stopping an attack, it would appear to be, if you will pardon the expression, overkill.

I agree.

That's why if this judgement is viewed as one individual case and you accept that all facts were considered, it shouldn't be assumed that anyone being picked on in Florida will now be allowed to kill the bully and not be charged with a crime (and convicted).