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.
Easy for you to say.
How about instead we make common sense adult decisions regarding the intent of the rules, not just blindly apply them to the good guys as well as the bad.
`
That's what I said in my first statement. The law is tempered with justice in a court of law. It's up to the school to decide if this rule can be tempered according to the circumstances.
To literally blindside a visually impaired person with a punch they can't see coming (and therefore can neither brace nor block nor in any way prepare for) is a Hell of a lot much more dangerous, violent, despicable and unforgiving than anything the bully got in return.
If the bully suffers from the punch he received, then too F'in bad!
I apologize for posting "stupid, absurd logic."
However, you do realize why it is called "blind-sided"? Because you don't see it coming, whether you have 20/20 vision or visually impaired.
A tough guy is not going to sucker punch (either way), he would pull the a-hole kid off from the blind kid and then beat up the sucker.
My point was only that a blindside sucker punch to the head is extremely dangerous. Numerous people die or sustain brain damage every year from this type of situation, and the attackers also get imprisoned or sued. How is that "stupid, absurd logic"?
The kid who threw the sucker punch could have diffused the situation in a different manner..a sucker punch is dangerous and he's lucky he didn't kill the bully. There is a always a question of degree in matters, a nuance that internet tough guys who troll CD forum fail to be incapable of grasping.
However, you do realize why it is called "blind-sided"? Because you don't see it coming, whether you have 20/20 vision or visually impaired.
A tough guy is not going to sucker punch (either way), he would pull the a-hole kid off from the blind kid and then beat up the sucker.
My point was only that a blindside sucker punch to the head is extremely dangerous. Numerous people die or sustain brain damage every year from this type of situation, and the attackers also get imprisoned or sued. How is that "stupid, absurd logic"?
Mick
Let's make this perfectly clear... even someone of your limited logic and reason should be able to understand this...
When you go at someone with the intention of doing them harm - physical harm - like this bully did, it is a clear, implicit understanding that someone will do harm right back in order to protect themselves or their friends or loved ones.
IOW, if you plan to dole out violence, you'd better damn well expect to get it back on you. What this bully gave is exactly what he got back, and I, nor anyone with at least 6 brain cells, is gonna fault the guy who defended his friend from harm. The bully learned a harsh lesson here, and I have zero sympathy for someone who would stoop so low as to hit a defenseless person who couldn't see it coming and therefore defend himself. This was the equivalent of donkey punching a 75-yr old man while walking down the street.
If someone comes at me with the intent of doing me or my loved ones harm, I will defend myself in whatever manner is needed - up to and including ending the life of my opponent to save me and mine. And no one is going to stop me, or has the right to question that judgement.
It's this simple: if you plan on bringing harm to others, then don't be surprised if you reap what you sow. This b@stard got what he deserved.
Let's make this perfectly clear... even someone of your limited logic and reason should be able to understand this...
When you go at someone with the intention of doing them harm - physical harm - like this bully did, it is a clear, implicit understanding that someone will do harm right back in order to protect themselves or their friends or loved ones.
IOW, if you plan to dole out violence, you'd better damn well expect to get it back on you. What this bully gave is exactly what he got back, and I, nor anyone with at least 6 brain cells, is gonna fault the guy who defended his friend from harm. The bully learned a harsh lesson here, and I have zero sympathy for someone who would stoop so low as to hit a defenseless person who couldn't see it coming and therefore defend himself. This was the equivalent of donkey punching a 75-yr old man while walking down the street.
If someone comes at me with the intent of doing me or my loved ones harm, I will defend myself in whatever manner is needed - up to and including ending the life of my opponent to save me and mine. And no one is going to stop me, or has the right to question that judgement.
It's this simple: if you plan on bringing harm to others, then don't be surprised if you reap what you sow. This b@stard got what he deserved.
Now that's logic!
In short and to add to that logic, it helps to live by one of my favorite phrases... "don't start no s*** won't be no s***!" The bully started it, and someone else finished it for him. No sympathy from me for what happened to this idiot.
However, you do realize why it is called "blind-sided"? Because you don't see it coming, whether you have 20/20 vision or visually impaired.
A tough guy is not going to sucker punch (either way), he would pull the a-hole kid off from the blind kid and then beat up the sucker.
My point was only that a blindside sucker punch to the head is extremely dangerous. Numerous people die or sustain brain damage every year from this type of situation, and the attackers also get imprisoned or sued. How is that "stupid, absurd logic"?
Mick
He used the most expedient method to protect the person being assaulted, safer for both the person being assaulted as well as the person coming to his defense. Violence is a reality of self defense.
This boy is legally protected and should have no cause for worry beyond school no tolerance BS. Defense of self and others is a fundamental right. If this kid died it would not matter in the legality of his act of defending others.
The kid who threw the sucker punch could have diffused the situation in a different manner..a sucker punch is dangerous and he's lucky he didn't kill the bully. There is a always a question of degree in matters, a nuance that internet tough guys who troll CD forum fail to be incapable of grasping.
If the bully died the kid may have been sad about it but would have no cause for legal concern. Coming to the defense of another person is not a sucker punch. Punches can carry lethal force, this makes his action perfectly justified.
Punching someone who is assaulting a blind person falls well within the reasonable person standard. Stopping the assault immediately was the goal, he succeeded.
You call other people tough guys yet are claiming you could have done better. Any other manner would have put the defender at unnecessary risk. A KO is safer.
My point was only that a blindside sucker punch to the head is extremely dangerous. Numerous people die or sustain brain damage every year from this type of situation, and the attackers also get imprisoned or sued. How is that "stupid, absurd logic"?
Chicken sh*t sum bit^h needs more that one punch to the head. Very brave to beat on a blind boy.
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.
The bully started it, and someone else finished it for him. No sympathy from me for what happened to this idiot.
