12-year old dies from bullying (community, accidents, death, racist)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Two black boys beat up a white boy and he dies . Now were is Al Sharpton? Oh , that is right if it was reverse Al would be marching and it would be a racist crime.
I'm not sure, I can't find the posting that came from.
I said " What has been reported is that he suffered a concussion from falling down. If you are punched and fall over and hit your head, then you were not beaten into a concussion. You were beaten into tripping. The tripping led to a concussion. You keep skipping the falling part. That's not a trivial part. That speaks to intent. There is no evidence that there was an intent to seriously injure him."
I don't see why the sentence "You were beaten into tripping" is a problem in that context. I mean sure the wording "you were beaten into tripping" is ridiculous, but in the context of following "you weren't beaten into a concussion" I think the point is valid. If you smack someone and they fall and hit their head, you weren't intending a serious brain injury. Bailey died as the result of an altercation, which means the people involved in that altercation should be held responsible, but does not mean they intended for him to die.
The broken nose - intention.
The death - not intention.
They are guilty of unlawfully causing the death of someone else, but not guilty of murdering him. They didn't beat him to death.
I said " What has been reported is that he suffered a concussion from falling down. If you are punched and fall over and hit your head, then you were not beaten into a concussion. You were beaten into tripping. The tripping led to a concussion. You keep skipping the falling part. That's not a trivial part. That speaks to intent. There is no evidence that there was an intent to seriously injure him."
I don't see why the sentence "You were beaten into tripping" is a problem in that context. I mean sure the wording "you were beaten into tripping" is ridiculous, but in the context of following "you weren't beaten into a concussion" I think the point is valid. If you smack someone and they fall and hit their head, you weren't intending a serious brain injury. Bailey died as the result of an altercation, which means the people involved in that altercation should be held responsible, but does not mean they intended for him to die.
The broken nose - intention.
The death - not intention.
They are guilty of unlawfully causing the death of someone else, but not guilty of murdering him. They didn't beat him to death.
Two black boys beat the hell out of him. Now that is a big problem with me. They are animals when they gang up on one person. Savage . Common sense will tell you that.
I said " What has been reported is that he suffered a concussion from falling down. If you are punched and fall over and hit your head, then you were not beaten into a concussion. You were beaten into tripping. The tripping led to a concussion. You keep skipping the falling part. That's not a trivial part. That speaks to intent. There is no evidence that there was an intent to seriously injure him."
I don't see why the sentence "You were beaten into tripping" is a problem in that context. I mean sure the wording "you were beaten into tripping" is ridiculous, but in the context of following "you weren't beaten into a concussion" I think the point is valid. If you smack someone and they fall and hit their head, you weren't intending a serious brain injury. Bailey died as the result of an altercation, which means the people involved in that altercation should be held responsible, but does not mean they intended for him to die.
The broken nose - intention.
The death - not intention.
They are guilty of unlawfully causing the death of someone else, but not guilty of murdering him. They didn't beat him to death.
I agree that they probably did not have the intent of killing Bailey. It does sound though that the attack was quite vicious. It does not seem to me that smacking someone would lead to a broken nose and concussion. Luckily there is surveillance video, and I hope it clearly shows what happened.
However it doesn't seem like killing someone (even inadvertently) in a fight qualifies as manslaughter. The definitions I find on the internet seem to indicate that would still be murder, unless there is some exception due to the offenders being juveniles.
From what I've seen a lot of kids do lie about bullying. They don't let their parents or anyone else know that they are being bullied at school. In fact, I would bet that's true for the majority of bullied students. I think many parents would be horrified if they knew what their sons and daughters went through every day at school.
What exactly have you seen??
They probably don't do anything because if they fight back they will get in trouble. Way to protect the children liberals. Good work.
Two black boys beat the hell out of him. Now that is a big problem with me. They are animals when they gang up on one person. Savage . Common sense will tell you that.
Actually, common sense tells me that them being black is irrelevant.
Not at all. I simply refuse to be politically correct. I call it as it is. You don't like it, and call it misandry.
You're calling it as you want it to be --- boys and their rw, rich, powerful fathers are responsible for bullying. Putting aside your ideological extremism, anyone who knows about bullying knows that girls are many of the bullied and bullies.
In fact, if you take feminist shrinkology about domestic violence --- name-calling, verbal taunts, isolating victims, non-physical 'violence' can be worse than physical violence --- typical girl bullying can have longer negative effects than typical boy bullying.
They probably don't do anything because if they fight back they will get in trouble. Way to protect the children liberals. Good work.
I 1st thought that blaming zero tolerance policies was wrong, a conservative way to bring political views into a non-political story. I didn't think a 12 year-old would have school policies in mind while being threatened by another student. Then I saw the victim's parents' quotes about their child being afraid of getting into trouble or being suspended if he fought back. Getting into trouble for protecting oneself ? Something very cockeyed about that.
Because we're not all liberals who want government to solve our problems. I was bullied in school. My friends were bullied in school. I got in schoolyard fights. It has been going on for thousands of years. It's a normal part of growing up. We do not need federal anti-bullying legislation. We do not need Zero Tolerance policies. It's nanny state meddling. We have existing laws for assault and harassment. If the bullying progresses to that stage, then use those laws.
Bingo! Enforce the damn laws that you already have, and stop making new ones!
Actually, common sense tells me that them being black is irrelevant.
It should be irrelevant. If it was two white kids killing a black kid, race should still be irrelevant. Would it be, though? Probably not. That was the point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
