Bully for Him!!

[loCAtek]

Is there any access to these facts?

[Lord Jim]

Never said that.

Well, actually Lib, here again is what you said, in response to my assertion:

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

Only to bullies

So obviously, your position is that the "only" terrible message sent by the kid getting a walk on this was to bullies...

Given that, my question:

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?

Was an entirely appropriate follow up question, and your reply, "I never said that", was non-responsive and misleading, since you had taken the position that the "only" message the judge's decison sent was to bullies.

Joe:

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.

Actually, this case isn't as simple as "the kid finally fought back". what he did was stab someone who was unarmed 12 times.

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.

Yeah, maybe the other kid was like the psycho killer in a horror movie, who no matter how many times he's shot or stabbed, he just keeps comin'.....

If not, this was a rage killing.

[Joe Guy]

Actually, this case isn't as simple as "the kid finally fought back". what he did was stab someone who was unarmed 12 times.

"Unarmed" is irrelevant if that person is bigger & stronger and has the ability to kill you without a weapon.

btw - was the bully unarmed 12 times or stabbed 12 times?

[BoSoxGal]

I don't think the kid necessarily made a determination to kill the other kid. Nor do I agree it was a rage killing. I think in his fear and anxiety, he could very easily have just kept thrusting the knife well beyond the point necessary to stop the attack. Especially given his youth and level of brain development.

He tried to retreat, which isn't even required here in Montana. He made it very clear that he had no desire to engage in a physical altercation with the older, bigger boy.

He didn't get off "scot free" - he has to live with having killed another human being for the rest of his natural life. Given his age, I'm guessing he's likely to be pretty damned fucked up by that event.

[Liberty1]

So obviously, your position is that the "only" terrible message sent by the kid getting a walk on this was to bullies...

Given that, my question:

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?

]

Let's get rid of the term bully for now, the term is used in this case only because they were of high school age and it trivializes the crime. A couple of months later the attacker would be 18 and considered an adult.

Instead of bully substitute stalker/attacker and you may have a slightly differnt take. I have seen no evidence that this kid had ever had any issues with the school or law before. I don't know if he was truely justified in what he did or not, I was not there (neither were you) nor did I hear the testimony. But I am more than willing to give the victim and the judge in this case the benefit of the doubt.

[Lord Jim]

A couple of months later the attacker would be 18 and considered an adult.

A judge’s ruling, made public Tuesday, granted a motion to dismiss the second-degree murder charge against Jorge Saavedra in the death of 16-year-old Dylan Nuno

When did 16 years old become a couple of months short of 18?

Lib, have you actually read the article?

Joe:

everything that led up to it.

a 14 yr old had been physically bullied for a long time

Again, from the article:

During that hearing, students recounted for the judge previous altercations between the two teens, including one instance on the bus when something was lobbed from the back, where Dylan Nuno sat, to the front, where Saavedra was.

"Altercations between the two teens" and something being lobbed from the back of a bus appears to be the sum total of what is presented in that article as evidence of bullying.

Is there some other source that you've read that has led you to conclude that the killer had been "physically bullied for a long time"? (by the kid he killed?)

Because the information presented in the linked article sure doesn't support that conclusion....

(He) was under attack from the first punch to the back of his head until he stabbed Dylan Nuno.”

Until he stabbed Nuno the 12th time Your Honor?

I can not begin to tell you how unimpressed I am with the "reasoning" and conclusions of this judge based on the information presented. It looks to me like a case where a judge decided to make an ideologically driven point about "zero tolerance for bullying" facts be damned....

[loCAtek]

Roger that.

[Guinevere]

Of course, you weren't in the courtroom and have no idea what the evidence actually presented was. I'd wager the author of the article may not have been there for the entire proceeding either.

Lately, I've been involved in a case that has gotten a lot of local attention and press. Every time we are in court, the reporter is there. I'm on his speed dial. I answer his questions after every hearing. And in every single article he always gets things wrong. Mostly I think its because he has his own idea of what he wants to present, and damn the facts, and partially because he is always on deadline and never actually has time to think about what he writes.

Reporters, proceed with caution.

[Lord Jim]

Of course, you weren't in the courtroom and have no idea what the evidence actually presented was.

And of course, neither were the folks who are saying things like this:

a 14 yr old had been physically bullied for a long time

A claim for which at the moment we have before us absolutely no proof whatosever, not even the account of a possibly sloppy or lazy reporter....

[Joe Guy]

Of course, you weren't in the courtroom and have no idea what the evidence actually presented was.

And of course, neither were the folks who are saying things like this:

a 14 yr old had been physically bullied for a long time

A claim for which at the moment we have before us absolutely no proof whatosever, not even the account of a possibly sloppy or lazy reporter....

Actually, I got that information from Ronn Owens on KGO, who discussed the case yesterday and gave me the idea for the thread. He was quoting an article that said the kid had been bullied by the older kid for over a year. You can listen to it here. (choose 'Friday' 9 - 10 am) The part where he quotes the article is less than 10 minutes into the show.

Meanwhile, consider this; We've read that he stabbed the bully "12 times, two of which were fatal." Would you have a different opinion if it was determined that the last two stabs were the fatal ones?

[Guinevere]

My "you" was generic LJ, and not address specifically at, well you (as opposed to "you").

[loCAtek]

Having listened the KGO report up to 12 minutes in, there wasn't much more information given other than Dylan Nuno, the 'bully' made the threat that, "Today is the day."
All the indications are that prior to that day, Dylan and Jorge hadn't physically fought. The threat was that they would fight, but there were no statements of a wish to kill Jorge, that we know of.
The way in which Dylan 'attacked' Jorge, wasn't particularly life-threatening, I've seen kids do that as more of a taunt than an attack. Unless Dylan was using a weapon like a bat or a pipe, a bare fist blow to the back of the head hurts the puncher more than the one being punched. Therefore it's likely Dylan was open-handed slapping the back of Jorge's head to spare himself the pain, while taunting him, making his blows even less likely to be fatal. I'm speculating on that of course, based on how I've seen other kids try to intimidate each other, but so far what Dylan said, and the manner in which he attacked Jorge, suggest more a desire to fight, than to kill.

The video on this page, is of interviews of a few witnesses, who don't make any statements to the effect that Dylan threatened Jorge's life. They also describe the previous altercations as occasional, not constant, and petty. [trash talk and throwing paper balls] So, I don't understand why Jorge thought his life was in danger.

Apparently, Jorge thought he wasn't physically up to fighting Dylan, and so brought a weapon to use in self-defense, but the witnesses describe Jorge rapidly stabbing Dylan, without warning. No brandishing of the knife, which probably would have stopped the attack right there; but making strike after strike, when one also probably would have stopped the punching. Just as an exercise, I thrust my arm out 12 times; discovering that that takes a lot of time and effort. It feels like you have to want to continue stabbing for that long.

I'm surprised by this verdict because by carrying a deadly weapon, and demonstrating the intent to use it; Jorge sounds more like the one with a desire to kill.

Here in California, the youth in the gangs threaten each other fairly often, but if they act violently, even in self defense, they will be prosecuted. If we let the gangs stage all the battles they wanted to, for that excuse, then there would be a lot more young men dead.

[BoSoxGal]

I'm truly sick of listening to folks defend a culture of fighting, both in my work and in the media.

Before minimizing the aggressor's attack in this case, spend ten minutes researching injury science and the prevalence of 'one-punch' deaths. The bottom line is that punching someone just once CAN result in serious bodily injury and/or death, and this kid wasn't asking for it or provoking it - he tried to run away! The aggressor pursued him!

It doesn't matter how old they were - the kid HAD EVERY RIGHT to defend himself. He wasn't required to run, but he tried. He certainly wasn't required to say, 'if you don't stop attacking me, I'll use any means at my disposal to defend myself'. And he was just a scared kid, so it's no wonder he struck out more than once or twice.

I'm tired of being PC - IMHO, the aggressive bully who felt he had the right to physically attack other human beings for his own amusement was not likely to evolve into a highly productive member of society. I feel far worse for the survivor, who skipped school and avoided riding the bus to avoid this 'kid's' bullying, and will be psychologically scarred for life by the act of defending himself from harm.

I really don't get the defense of the aggressor.

[dales]

"A Polite Society Is An Armed Society"*






*I still have both mine that I was born with.

[Lord Jim]

the kid HAD EVERY RIGHT to defend himself.

That's a complete strawman. No one in this discussion has disputed that.

I'm tired of being PC - IMHO, the aggressive bully who felt he had the right to physically attack other human beings for his own amusement was not likely to evolve into a highly productive member of society.

Gee, BSG, if I'm reading that correctly it appears like you seem, well, pleased that this resulted in the death of this kid....

This from a person who believes that giving the death penalty to proven stone cold killers is immoral and barbaric....

Wow...

So it's morally wrong to execute serial killers, but laudable when a 14 year old goes on a rage killing of another kid, so long as bullying is alleged....(the extent of which, I again point out has not been shown, despite repeated claims about it)

Well, no one is certainly ever going to accuse you of being a slave to consistency....

[BoSoxGal]

I cannot fathom how you could possibly come to that ridiculous conclusion, LJ.

From someone who posted in rejection of the displays of rejoicing over Osama bin Laden's death, you draw such a conclusion because I pointed out that the attacker was likely headed for a lifetime in the system?

I've never rejoiced in any death, except that which brings peace to the long-suffering, such as when my dear friend succumbed to cancer. I still didn't rejoice, wasn't 'pleased'.

I really didn't deserve that 'interpretation' from you, and rightly resent it.

[Joe Guy]

So it's morally wrong to execute serial killers, but laudable when a 14 year old goes on a rage killing of another kid, so long as bullying is alleged....(the extent of which, I again point out has not been shown, despite repeated claims about it)

You're stretching things a bit to make your point, Jim.

My opinion on this subject is based on what has been reported, both in print and radio. If there is more (or less to it as you seem to believe) and something else is reported, my opinion could change.

However, a judge ruled after hearing witness's testimonies and getting the story directly from the people involved.

We have only read (and I've also heard) the story.

The thing you seem to be hung up on most is the 12 stabs from the defendant. I don't know if you read my earlier question, but would your opinion be any different if it was the last two stabs that were fatal?

The reason I ask is that the kid used a "pocket knife." It was most likely a one or two inch blade and not always likely to kill someone, but could certainly cause a lot of pain & damage.

So, the bully was very likely fighting back while being stabbed. The kid probably kept stabbing so the bully would stop.

Was it rage?

Probably.

But we often see similar responses from battered wives and we always seem to not blame them for their actions.

[Lord Jim]

Ok, perhaps "pleased" was the wrong word...

"Indifferent to" would certainly seem appropriate:

I feel far worse for the survivor, who skipped school and avoided riding the bus to avoid this 'kid's' bullying, and will be psychologically scarred for life by the act of defending himself from harm.

In other words, you feel sorrier for killer, who was bullied, (the extent of which I again point out no one here has provided any proof of) and his assumed "psychological scarring" (again, no proof of this either; for all we know the kid could be proud of himself and happy about what he did) than you do for the kid who was brutally stabbed to death in a rage killing. (who I'm sure, given the option would be delighted to be "scarred for life" since he, well, doesn't have any life)

BTW, I'd also like to say that among the many things we don't know, (though we certainly don't seem to have any shortage of Amazing Kreskins in this discussion who seem to think they can some how divine all the facts with no evidence) is whether or not the killer ever tried any other course in trying to get the problem solved before stabbing the other kid 12 times.

Did he go to his parents? Did he or they go to school authorities or police? If so, what did they do? If not why not?

[Lord Jim]

So, the bully was very likely fighting back while being stabbed.

I'm sorry, but I see absolutely no reason to believe that...

It seems much more plausible to me that the reason the killer was able to get in 12 stabs was because the other kid wasn't effectively putting up a fight.....

It seems far more likely to me that a teenager bleeding from multiple stab wounds is going to be more likely to be freaked out about their own condition, than methodically trying to carry out a beating....

I don't know if you read my earlier question, but would your opinion be any different if it was the last two stabs that were fatal?

To be honest Joe, I didn't respond to that because I thought "were " might have been a typo....

To my mind, if it was the last two stabs that killed the kid it is worse....

That means, that if the killer had been satisfied with stabbing the other kid only ten times, there would have been no killing....

[loCAtek]

Exactly, Jim, the witnesses say, It appeared Jorge 'was punching [Dylan] in the stomach', then he fled. There's no report of a struggle, that would suggest Dylan had the time to defend himself. The reports suggest all the strikes were in his abdomen and chest.

If you listen to the witness testimony of one girl sitting right beside Jorge on the bus, she says when he was called out with the phrase, 'One on one' his physical reaction was, "He clenched his fists, he seemed really upset." ...that's an expression of anger, not fear.

Also, these were kids fighting, not professional boxers; while a punch to the back of the head may, if done exactly correctly may harm you (If you strike right at the top of the neck, the skull actually shields that area a little so, it's better to hit that spot with edge of the hand as in a 'karate chop'* ...which Dylan wasn't seen doing. There's no evidence that Dylan was trained in killing strikes. ) ...this sounds like very common male teenager behavior. We've all seen kids fight, if Dylan had faced Jorge without that knife, do you really think he would have the time, strength and inclination to beat Jorge to death with his bare hands? Or, was he just going to establish his dominance and maybe pop him a few times then stop?

I agree that Jorge had a right to defend himself, but his life was probably not at stake, so taking another life albeit accidentally was excessive use of force, and he deserved to be charged with manslaughter.

*One punch deaths are usually the result of knocking the person unconscious and when they fall their head hits a hard surface, like concrete. That's why boxing rings have padded floors. Kids in schoolyard brawls, rarely knock each unconscious; they are not professionals. In the advanced kickboxing class, I used to be in, you are routinely taught, you are trying to knock the other person out, but it's a lot harder than it looks.