# Self Defense in Public Schools



## artist89 (Feb 27, 2005)

With my school( HIgh School) they give suspensions in school so you stay in a room and do all your work all day or you stay at home for a certain amount of days and do your work all day. So my question is how do you defend yourself if they give suspenion to both people?


----------



## TonyM. (Feb 27, 2005)

You don't. I was assaulted in the lavatory of a public school by an assailant with a knife and was able to shove him out an open first floor window and escape. I was suspended for a week as well. The more things change the more they stay the same.That happened in the sixties.


----------



## rutherford (Feb 27, 2005)

In 4th grade, a big kid punched me in the face.  I didn't do anything but go tell a teacher and we both got 5 days out.  The was the last time I didn't fight back, in school.  

In my experience, fighting in schools is really not at all about the teachers or the rules.  It's more like fighting in prison, and has to do with establishing dominance.  For boys, at least, there's often no other choice.

However, it's also my experience that no matter how rough the school, you shouldn't have to fight very often if it's not your thing.  If you're not easy prey, you should get left alone unless somebody has a specific grudge against you.

My advice is to let the other guy hit you first.  Then, try not to hurt them too badly.  Don't worry about the time out.  It's not such a big deal.

(I won't talk about the fights I started, because I don't recommend you go that route.)


----------



## TigerWoman (Feb 27, 2005)

That's why I thought it was good that everyone in our high school, class of 450 x 3 knew my kids were black belts, actually really good ones.  Never once were they threatened.  But they were teased, taunted, and talked about behind their backs.  Words aren't anything but if it comes to physical danger, I told my kids to defend themselves.  Better to be suspended than to be dead.  But it is most important to avoid situations altogether.  TW


----------



## BrandiJo (Feb 27, 2005)

i only got in one fight and when i got suspended my mom took me shopeing cus i was right, the kid hit me frist i hit her back and then the teacher showed up. It wasnt a big deal to me it was befor i ever started TKD so i didnt have to worry about what my TKD school would say about me fighting either


----------



## GAB (Feb 27, 2005)

Yes Siree.

Schools you have to love their way of teaching, creating bullies and snitches.

My Sons and oldest Grandson (16) got suspended for fighting, once apiece. Then with the damage done to the others, they were left alone...

I remember going to a meeting with the VP back in the 70s. Your son did not start it, but he broke the other kids nose and caused him to have 5 stiches in his face he needs to be suspended. 
Yes, I agree. But he is only a 10th grader and the other was a 12th grader, I will talk to him... Big Kids and Grand Kids...

I did, and he did not go to school for a few days and he practiced with his ATC, worked out and beat the bag he was pumped, went about his normal life and he is a very nice human being today, still practices everyday at Martial arts of some kind...
All three of his children go to the Dojo, one is an Orange belt and the others are Yellow belts... I personally tell them they are gold, but hey, its not my school, that is what they are called in Okinawan karate...Good youngsters program, when they get older they will go into Kosho...

Regards, Gary


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 27, 2005)

I found it Ironic that my school had, as an Option for Phys Ed class, a Self Defense class, but would issue an 8 Hour Saturday Detention if you did defend yourself in school.

:idunno: 

School policy is stupid anyhow...

I had a teacher threaten to shove a tennis racket down my throat, for hitting tennis balls out of the court.  So I walked out of class and to the office and explained what happened, I got a "Im sure the teacher did not mean it" and a 3 day suspension for leaving class without permission.

Damned if you do, Damned if you don't.

That was in the 80's... I hear they are worse now.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Feb 27, 2005)

I was in a few fights in school back in the 60's  but they happened in the locker room and everyone involved played football so the coach handled the problem.  Most of the time back then we would just agree to meet off the school grounds after school and settle things.

Now in my town if your in school and get caught fighting even out of school your suspended. What ever happened to being able to defend yourself? Why punish both the aggressor and the victim?
I think schools have gone way overboard with the way they handle fighting in school. Some things need to be looked at as seperate cases and delt with that way.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 27, 2005)

artist89 said:
			
		

> With my school( HIgh School) they give suspensions in school so you stay in a room and do all your work all day or you stay at home for a certain amount of days and do your work all day. So my question is how do you defend yourself if they give suspenion to both people?




When you get into a fight as an adult, typically both parties are arrested, just as both parties in your school are arrested.  In the situation of a adult altercation, the person claiming self defense better have their ducks in line, if not some reliable witness who claim he did EVERYTHING to avoid the altercation and had no choice but to defend himself.

In your situation it is far more common for two young men to fight...just to fight.  Self defense isn't usually the situation.  If you want to plead self defense, you might want to hold yourself to the public standard and do EVERYTHING you can to defuse the situation...including running.

Not likely, eh?

If you're getting harrassed on a daily basis, build up a record for the harrasser by reporting it duly.  Have your parents start a paper trail of complaints of violence against you.  When you do in fact defend yourself you can then refer to the complaints you've made as proof you tried to get the administration to intercede.  BTW...defending yourself isn't:

1.  Mouthing off to someone or antagonizing him somehow, getting hit, and then "defending yourself."
2.  Pre-empting the attack by hitting him first...and by that I mean like first thing in the morning or from behind.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## GAB (Feb 27, 2005)

HHJH,

That is a good one do it early and have the whole day off, not or but and...

Good one...

Regards, Gary


----------



## rutherford (Feb 27, 2005)

There's never a point to the "meet me at the park and we'll fight it out" kind of stuff.  It's also extremely dangerous.  Too many people will bring their friends . . . or a pair of guys named Smith & Wessen . . . Heckler & Koch . . . you get the idea.  Don't ever agree to this.

The only smart way to do this is to invite them to a boxing ring, or an open sparring session.  And I'm sorry to say you're unlikely to meet anybody with enough maturity to accept those terms.  The kind of people with something to prove always want to do it on their terms.

If you get time to talk, say something like "Look, you're totally cool with me.  I don't want to fight you, but if you hit me I'm going to hit you back."  Mean it and project it with your whole self.  Say it matter of factly, and with no malice.  It might work, depending on how smart the other guy is.

Lots of times, especially when somebody just loses their cool for a second, attacks will come without followup.  Somebody will throw a punch, and then start regretting it as soon as they do it.  The best thing to do here is just to block it, dodge it, or just take the punch and laugh. Hell, say thank you afterwards and just go about your day.  No point to these kind of fights either.    

Conversely, if you do get into a fight, or if you lose your cool and start one, don't think for a instant that there's a way out.  Once you make an attack, don't stop until the fight is over or you have a clear means of escape -  and watch out for the other guy's friends!  The key here is to survive, and I'm not joking.  An untrained kid is totally capable of lethel force.

I don't know how you'll ever tell the difference.  The best I can say is good luck, and keep a good heart.

This kinda stuff never goes away.  Keep your head up.  Try to rise above it.  Hopefully it all works out.


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 28, 2005)

I think our society in general has gone too far with the "violence is never an answer" and "zero tolerance" stuff.  In schools it creates bullies, in the real world it encourages predators.  

In this type of situation, you should do everything you can to avoid trouble, don't let your ego affect your judgement.  There is a difference between a childish fight (mutual combat) and a real self-defense situation (being targeted by someone with violent intent).  HHJH's suggestion about building a paper trail is an excellent idea, If you complain everytime you are threatened there will be a record if/when you ever do have to use force to defend yourself.  

Yeah, it's kind of a blow to the ol' ego to walk away when some punk is calling you out but it's better than getting the S*** kicked out of you (or worse) because you couldn't just walk away.  If you absolutely have to fight then preempt their attack and get away.



			
				rutherford said:
			
		

> *My advice is to let the other guy hit you first*. Then, try not to hurt them too badly.
> 
> The best thing to do here is just to block it, dodge it, or just *take the punch and laugh.*


  I've got to say that I totally disagree with these statements.  If you have let the situation get to the point where punches are being thrown (if you haven't done the mature thing and walked away from the childish BS fight) then you have screwed up.  At this point: defend yourself, put the other guy down, and get the hell out of there.  How do you know he's only going to throw one punch and that he's going to "start regretting it as soon as they do it" ???  You don't!  as far as taking the punch, what happens when you get knocked down and split your skull on the floor or the pavement, or his buddies decide to practice their tap-dancing skills on your face?  That's not good self-defense.  In fact, that's just plain stupid!  Like I said earlier, there is a difference between a fight and a self-defense situation.  As far as I'm concerned, if I find myself in a fight, it's because I've failed to handle the situation properly.  I'm not being a "touchy-feely pacifist" here, if I feel that I'm really in danger, I'll put the guy in a body bag as fast as the next man.  I'm just saying that whatever the case, you should never LET someone hit you.  If they try, do whatever you have to do to keep them from succeeding whether it's blocking, shoving them back and walking away; or putting them down for keeps.


----------



## artist89 (Feb 28, 2005)

Well thanks but last year( not that I was trying to I was just showing that what some people think is impossiable is possiable) I broke boards with a front snap kick and an elbow strike. The year after no one would tease me  or some wouldn't even look at me. Then one day somone bumped into me and ran off and I said o sorry. But I usally I can talk myself out of arguments and walk off before it escalates even more. but on the boad breaking I will NOT do that again becuase I don't won't people to fear me or be worried that I'll use TKD if they make me mad. So I always tell people try not to fight. :CTF:


----------



## masherdong (Feb 28, 2005)

> But I usally I can talk myself out of arguments and walk off before it escalates even more. but on the boad breaking I will NOT do that again becuase I don't won't people to fear me or be worried that I'll use TKD if they make me mad. So I always tell people try not to fight. :CTF:


I agree with that!


----------



## loki09789 (Feb 28, 2005)

artist89 said:
			
		

> With my school( HIgh School) they give suspensions in school so you stay in a room and do all your work all day or you stay at home for a certain amount of days and do your work all day. So my question is how do you defend yourself if they give suspenion to both people?


The basic premise behind suspension or administrative action for any and all parties involved in a HS fight is to send the message that NO violence is acceptable in a school. Period.  As a microcosm of the larger culture, you 'should' be learning to read people in social settings, learn proper communication skills to avoid fighting...blah blah blah...  So, when you are the 'defender' the point of 'punishment' is that you could have taken steps (in a perfect world) to avoid it.  Of course there are cases where this is not ideal.

I say, and have told my son the same thing, if you are in danger of physical violence (Whether you 'had it coming' or 'saw it coming' or not) then defend yourself to the appropriate level and face the music after.  Holding back or taking a beating so you can avoid detention is not wise or healthy given the extremes of violence that can happen even in the 'ego fights' of a HS the 'average' HS or even worse in a school with a bad track record.


----------



## rutherford (Feb 28, 2005)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> I'm not being a "touchy-feely pacifist" here, if I feel that I'm really in danger, I'll put the guy in a body bag as fast as the next man.  I'm just saying that whatever the case, you should never LET someone hit you.  If they try, do whatever you have to do to keep them from succeeding whether it's blocking, shoving them back and walking away; or putting them down for keeps.



And your talk of bodybags and putting folks down for keeps is something that totally disturbs me and I find wholly inappropriate for these type of situations.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> I say, and have told my son the same thing, if you are in danger of physical violence (Whether you 'had it coming' or 'saw it coming' or not) then defend yourself to the appropriate level and face the music after.  Holding back or taking a beating so you can avoid detention is not wise or healthy given the extremes of violence that can happen even in the 'ego fights' of a HS the 'average' HS or even worse in a school with a bad track record.



Taking a beating will usually only lead to more and stronger beatings later.  Once you make yourself a target, it doesn't end until you do something about it.

And I want to be totally clear that this is not at all what I'm advocating.

But, I also want to make totally clear that sometimes a punch is just a punch and requires no follow-up.  I think anybody who worked as a bouncer or fought a lot in school will agree with me.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 28, 2005)

Most of my daughter's friends know that she, at 100 lbs sopping wet with clothes on, can lift me on her back (I'm 150+) with no problem and that she trains. This has thwarted most possiblities and even many potential boyfriends. 

   However...

 The rougher circuit has now made a game of her. They like to test her senses and try to sneak up behind her, get to her backpack, etc. It's a game with them and I'm not happy. Security ignores it, teachers don't care and admin provides canned answers. I realize she must learn to deal with these more real threats, so she, at eleven, has begun tactical training, since the crowd who has targeted her carries knives and fistpacks.

 I have put the admin at her school on notice that she has been trained to defend herself, to know which situations she must defend herself against, and that I will morally and legally back her up in any situation she feels necessary to use self-defense.

   Security follows me around all the time when I'm there.  Stupid, cuz I'm not the one dealing meth to the 7th graders.

 Frankly, I don't give a good gosh darn whether they suspend or expel her. If she's alive and whole at the end of the day, I'm happy.


----------



## rutherford (Feb 28, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Most of my daughter's friends know that she, at 100 lbs sopping wet with clothes on, can lift me on her back (I'm 150+) with no problem and that she trains. This has thwarted most possiblities and even many potential boyfriends.
> 
> However...
> 
> The rougher circuit has now made a game of her.




Why are you sending your daughter back every day?

If you're not going to get her out of the situation, have you considered suggesting to her that she try and play back?  This situation is about respect, and if she's going to get through it she may have to make friends with them.

It's a dark road.  Believe me, I strongly suggest you move.  I did, when I had kids, because I didn't want them to be in the situations I was in.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 28, 2005)

rutherford said:
			
		

> Why are you sending your daughter back every day?
> 
> If you're not going to get her out of the situation, have you considered suggesting to her that she try and play back? This situation is about respect, and if she's going to get through it she may have to make friends with them.
> 
> It's a dark road. Believe me, I strongly suggest you move. I did, when I had kids, because I didn't want them to be in the situations I was in.


Move, because eleven year olds are acting their age? You have got to be joking. Children learn by living, and by sorting out their own difficulties. If Shesulsa were to be the Mother Hen here and move around every time her daughter encounters a problem, her daughter will never move out of the house after highschool! :rofl: As any parent knows, this is the ultimate goal. :rofl:


----------



## loki09789 (Feb 28, 2005)

rutherford said:
			
		

> Taking a beating will usually only lead to more and stronger beatings later. Once you make yourself a target, it doesn't end until you do something about it.
> 
> And I want to be totally clear that this is not at all what I'm advocating.
> 
> But, I also want to make totally clear that sometimes a punch is just a punch and requires no follow-up. I think anybody who worked as a bouncer or fought a lot in school will agree with me.


In the short term, I agree with you, but - according to the 'anti-bullying' crowd as well as the soft stylists of martial arts - 'yielding' in a tactical sense (not necessarily taking a beating per se) or the old 'not giving them a fight to push against' can make it impossible for them to get what they want - a struggle/situation where the bully can 'prove himself superior.'  If you don't give him that fight, he may find other targets.

If you do 'fight back' in a bad way (untimely, humiliation...) it may also lead to other fights because he/she has to get back on top psychologically - only now the game is on and the tactics will be meaner, sneakier and more brutal.

Based on your response, it does seem that you are differentiating between 'standing up for yourself' and 'defending yourself.'  The first is a 'pride' fight, which will only extend the situation - and prove that you are not capable of finding alternatives to violence when faced with violence.  The second is the attempt to stop someone from causing you harm only - which might (but not automatically) mean that you need to work on some 'street smarts' so that you can read the signs and diffuse the situation before it gets to that self defense phase.

NOTE:  THe "you" I am using in this case is not "you" R-man, but the "you" as in generic person in these situations.


----------



## rutherford (Feb 28, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Move, because eleven year olds are acting their age? You have got to be joking. Children learn by living, and by sorting out their own difficulties. If Shesulsa were to be the Mother Hen here and move around every time her daughter encounters a problem, her daughter will never move out of the house after highschool! :rofl: As any parent knows, this is the ultimate goal. :rofl:




Knives and fistpacks in school is typical behavior for 11-year olds?

Admittedly, many 11 year olds own a gun in my new area - far more than where I grew up, but I also see them being more responsible about weapon use.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 28, 2005)

I send her back at this point because she is quite mature for her age, feels that the situation is under reasonable control at this point and has a good feel for when it might get out of control or might be escalating to something more than she can handle.  She has a good feel for karma and knows when to take and leave opportunity.  

 There are many nuances to dealing with people that she understands and employs for a girl her age.

 We will be moving, but motivated by a better school educationally speaking, not because the kids there are necessarily nicer.


----------



## rutherford (Feb 28, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> NOTE:  THe "you" I am using in this case is not "you" R-man, but the "you" as in generic person in these situations.



It would be fine if it was the "you" in particular, because I totally agree with you.

There's definitely a lot of depth to the topic of self defense, and what's appropriate in a situation.  And, I haven't done a lot of thinking about it and trying to put it into words.  I'm finding a lot of value in this discussion in forming my own ideas, based on the experiences of my own life.


----------



## KenpoTex (Mar 1, 2005)

rutherford said:
			
		

> And your talk of bodybags and putting folks down for keeps is something that totally disturbs me


Oh well.



			
				rutherford said:
			
		

> and I find wholly inappropriate for these type of situations.
> 
> But, I also want to make totally clear that sometimes a punch is just a punch and requires no follow-up.  I think anybody who worked as a bouncer or fought a lot in school will agree with me.


 This is where we disagree, you say "these types of situations" and that "sometimes a punch is just a punch."  True.  However, this is because we have the benefit of being able to "monday morning quarterback" past incidents.  You don't know going into an altercation whether it's going to be like the majority in which nothing serious happens; or whether it's going to be like the handfull of incidents where someone ends up dead.  As a result, you have to have the good sense to walk away from the stupid stuff, and if you are cornered, treat it like a serious threat.  I'm NOT saying to "whack" every person that looks at you cross-eyed, but to be prepared to respond with whatever level of force is necessary.  Whether that means parring a punch or push and walking away, or taking more drastic measures will be determined by the situation and the behavior of your assailant.


----------



## GAB (Mar 1, 2005)

rutherford said:
			
		

> Knives and fistpacks in school is typical behavior for 11-year olds?
> 
> Admittedly, many 11 year olds own a gun in my new area - far more than where I grew up, but I also see them being more responsible about weapon use.


Hi All,

Eleven year olds don't own guns, they might possess one, but they certainly can not own one...

Something is terribly wrong with this picture, It is way out of line.

Regards, Gary


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 1, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> In the short term, I agree with you, but - according to the 'anti-bullying' crowd as well as the soft stylists of martial arts - 'yielding' in a tactical sense (not necessarily taking a beating per se) or the old 'not giving them a fight to push against' can make it impossible for them to get what they want - a struggle/situation where the bully can 'prove himself superior.' If you don't give him that fight, he may find other targets.
> 
> If you do 'fight back' in a bad way (untimely, humiliation...) it may also lead to other fights because he/she has to get back on top psychologically - only now the game is on and the tactics will be meaner, sneakier and more brutal.
> 
> ...


 That's like telling the gazelle "Just ignore the lion if he bothers you, that way you won't encourage his violent behavior". Bullies don't need someone to "fight with", they need someone to brutalize and intimidate. If you'd seen how most fights on the street or in a school start, it's usually some predatory bully who invents pretext to assault and beat a weaker, smaller opponent. He doesn't want him to fight back, he just wants to give out a beating. Your advice will only insure that the beating takes place. 

Further, it's the sheep myth, perpetuated by fear, that fighting back will make the bully more dangerous. I've found that a beating that renders the bully unconcious, with a level of violence he never imagined, usually avoids any further violence. I've seen this type of fight on the street, and the guy that gets that type of beating doesn't come back like you imagine. He avoids that kind of situation for the rest of his life. 

Of course, that's just me. Sheep can handle the situation however they want, which usually consists of creating myths around human behavior that justify their pacivity. Violence and aggression are in-born aspects of human behavior, millenia old, and it can't simply be placed in a box and ignored.

There are rules to conflict. "Street smarts" and avoiding violent situations is good advice, but part of that is knowing when pro-active violence needs to be applied. Look at nature, it's the grass eaters who live constantly in fear of attack, watching over their shoulders, and honing their "street savy". The lions just bask lazily in the warm sun, and play with their children. Why? Because the male is ready to engage in extreme violence on their behalf. He doesn't spend his life necessarily looking for conflict, but he doesn't avoid it either. When the hyenas come calling, he wades in with intent and will. 

It's the irony of the world that sometimes those who look for peace the hardest, are the ones who have a hard time finding it.  In fact, it is the threat of violence itself that holds our society together.

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum


----------



## rutherford (Mar 1, 2005)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> Oh well.
> 
> This is where we disagree, you say "these types of situations" and that "sometimes a punch is just a punch."  True.
> 
> ...



In fact, I find little in your statement with which I disagree.  I've bolded the part I want to speak to.

The use of force is a continuum, and for people with no requirement to make an arrest or fight a war or protect somebody weaker, the primary goal should be survival.  In High School, it is a reality of the situation that respect, both having it and getting it, is often key to survival.

However, this can be accomplished effectively without simply escalating the use of force to one level higher than that of your attacker or, as you seemed to do in your first post, going straight to the top and treating every altercation as a combat situation.  As a trained fighter, that is a sure way to get somebody killed and this is contrary to the primary goal - even if the punk deserves it.

I don't believe that we can only make these decisions in hindsight.  I've certainly made the correct ones as they happened.  Although in my case this took experience, and the road that took me there involved many poor decisions and several trips to the hospital.  

I've tried to point out some of the more interesting cases so that people can be aware of them, and I think I've been upfront about the difficulty in making these decisions and the split-second nature of them.  

Thank you for making clear the penalties for making poor choices.


sgtmac_46, you and I have fundamental differences in our opinions, and I believe you're attacking a staw man but I'll let loki09789 speak to that if he so desires.  However, yours is definitely the philosophy I followed as a teenager.  And, I must admit I regret some of my actions.  


Gary, in High School I went to French class one day only to find that the guy who normally sat next to me would never be back to school.  He'd shot a cab driver the night before during a robbery.

That kid had easy access to an illegal weapon, and used it.  Where I live now, there are even more kids with easy access to guns they obtained as gifts from parents, family members, or other people.  In the vast majority of cases, I find these kids to be far more responsible about gun ownership and use than those I grew up around.

Personally, I keep my head down and don't let my kids or even my dog go into the woods anywhere near hunting season.  But, I respect others who make different choices.


----------



## lvwhitebir (Mar 1, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> That's like telling the gazelle "Just ignore the lion if he bothers you, that way you won't encourage his violent behavior".



Actually it's telling the gazelle that he has other outlets to stop the violent bahavior.  There're teachers, principles, parents, and the police if necessary.  There is usually no need to attack back.  Go ahead and defend your life, but to "fight" in defense of your ego is wrong and is punished by society.  Why not teach your children that.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Bullies don't need someone to "fight with", they need someone to brutalize and intimidate. If you'd seen how most fights on the street or in a school start, it's usually some predatory bully who invents pretext to assault and beat a weaker, smaller opponent. He doesn't want him to fight back, he just wants to give out a beating. Your advice will only insure that the beating takes place.



If you're assertive in your behavior, there is no intimidation and the bully will move on to more available targets.  Yes, if you're passive the bully is given exactly what they want.  But, if you're aggressive, there is ample evidence to believe he will strike back in revenge or has the right to bring the law down on you.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I've found that a beating that renders the bully unconcious, with a level of violence he never imagined, usually avoids any further violence.



If I had a child who was rendered unconcious or was attacked with the level of violence which you describe, I would file both criminal charges and a civil lawsuit.  I know that there is little that a child can do to warrant that type of reaction.  This is similar to the Columbine incident where the kids took so much abuse that they struck back with everything they had.  That's not the proper response to a situation like this.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Violence and aggression are in-born aspects of human behavior, millenia old, and it can't simply be placed in a box and ignored.



I don't want to ignore it.  I want to teach children and adults that there are other ways of dealing with people.  Violence should be only used as a last resort.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> There are rules to conflict. "Street smarts" and avoiding violent situations is good advice, but part of that is knowing when pro-active violence needs to be applied. Look at nature, it's the grass eaters who live constantly in fear of attack, watching over their shoulders, and honing their "street savy". The lions just bask lazily in the warm sun, and play with their children. Why? Because the male is ready to engage in extreme violence on their behalf. He doesn't spend his life necessarily looking for conflict, but he doesn't avoid it either. When the hyenas come calling, he wades in with intent and will.



But in our society, there's something bigger than the lion that can reign him in and punish him for his actions, it's called the law.  Not so with the gazelles.  Society is not based on the law of the jungle.  The belief that it is is what spurs on bullys.  Your analogy makes it sound like being the bully is the best thing; everyone else lives in fear.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It's the irony of the world that sometimes those who look for peace the hardest, are the ones who have a hard time finding it.



I believe that if you truly look for it you'll find it and have it.  I believe that many that proclaim to look for it actually have a block on their shoulder and are just waiting to unleash hell when someone knocks it off.

WhiteBirch


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 1, 2005)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> Actually it's telling the gazelle that he has other outlets to stop the violent bahavior. There're teachers, principles, parents, and the police if necessary. There is usually no need to attack back. Go ahead and defend your life, but to "fight" in defense of your ego is wrong and is punished by society. Why not teach your children that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You hit all the things I was going to respond with....one thing I would like to say in my own words though:

Bullies do need prey if they are the predatory and true predators don't seek out tough prey, they seek easy pickings.  In the long run, simply demonstrating that you are not afraid to go to the administration, police, parents...and that you are not going to be intimidated WITHOUT resorting to 'counter bullying' as a first resort will usually encourage the bully to move on to another target... unfortunate that someone else is there but "gee whiz better than me" at a basic survival level mentallity.

Laying a beating on anyone, even a Bully, to the point of unconsciousness is illegal, excessive and just as wrong as the bullying your responding to when you do it.

THere are ways of being confident, calm and mature about your responses that don't make you look sheepish.  If pride and ego put you in a position where you feel less 'manly' because you don't use violence in response....then you're a potential bully to someone else...

Again the 'you' disclaimer applies here.


----------



## GAB (Mar 1, 2005)

rutherford said:
			
		

> In fact, I find little in your statement with which I disagree. I've bolded the part I want to speak to.
> 
> The use of force is a continuum, and for people with no requirement to make an arrest or fight a war or protect somebody weaker, the primary goal should be survival. In High School, it is a reality of the situation that respect, both having it and getting it, is often key to survival.
> 
> ...


 
Hi All,

Kenpotex you are a security person and that is a different cup of tea, when I was on the job pre-emptive strike was the name of the game..They don't get the first hit or the first shot off they do the wrong move at the wrong time I hurt someone that simple...

I remember a time when I had the job of covering and I did not like what I saw I ran up crashed into the other officer (my junior) grabbed the suspect pulled him out of the car and slammed him to the ground smashed his face into the ground put my knee into him and we looked over and there was a 1911a1 hammer back...took it out and one was in the snout and ready to go... 
The suspect would not keep his hands in the air, I just had a feeling 
and followed it...

I saved myself and my partner that day, at the reunion I went to last year it was still brought up in a conversation....The good old days I miss them...

Now School is a different matter, guns in school you don't go back you are gone. 

Responsible 11 year old with a gun who is a responsible person who takes a gun to a school???

Even a penknife will get them out...but you know they still carry sharp pencils and pens and books and notebooks and other things, when in my hands are a deadly weapon...

A key with an extended holder, I'd push that so far into their eye, they would have a hard time getting it out...(doctor) not the person who I placed it in there with a definite purpose...

A pencil into the ear drum that will get their attention..

I think you get the idea...

Kids going to school need to do that, go to school and have a good life.
If it is not in the area you are in, move...

Find a spot that is better...Lots of people have done it, it just takes guts "go west young man"...was that an easy decision...I don't think so...look at all the stories of the pioneers strewn across the country going some place and not making it...

We are in a different time and place...It has gotten better not worse...

Make good decisions, think and then make the decision. Pull them out of school, home study... You only have to think, then make the decision...

Regards, Gary....


----------



## still learning (Mar 1, 2005)

Hello, It's terrible that fights in schools is so common. Most kids know they will be either suspended or kick-out of the school.

 Who is to blame?  I believe we(parents) teach our kids how to behave from our own actions.  Kids learn from us,friends,TV,peers.etc.  Teach'em to always fight back...they will.   What do we do about the "bullies" ?  Schools cannot control them.  Is our society teaching this to kids to fight?  Must be?.

 We live in a world where there is all kinds of people, some nice and not so nice.  How do we control those tempers of ours?  

 We are all to blame....because of what we had learn before?  It can be change?  How long? maybe another 100 years before we realize fighting isn't the answer.   .....Just my thoughts....Aloha


----------



## KenpoTex (Mar 2, 2005)

rutherford said:
			
		

> *The use of force is a continuum*, and for people with no requirement to make an arrest or fight a war or protect somebody weaker, *the primary goal should be survival*. In High School, it is a reality of the situation that respect, both having it and getting it, is often key to survival.
> 
> However, this can be accomplished effectively without simply escalating the use of force to one level higher than that of your attacker *or, as you seemed to do in your first post, going straight to the top and treating every altercation as a combat situation*. As a trained fighter, that is a sure way to get somebody killed and this is contrary to the primary goal - even if the punk deserves it.


If you look at my previous posts, you will see that in each of them I alluded to the "continuum of force" idea


			
				kenpotex said:
			
		

> If they try, do whatever you have to do to keep them from succeeding whether it's blocking, shoving them back and walking away; or putting them down for keeps.


 and,


			
				kenpotex said:
			
		

> Whether that means parring a punch or push and walking away, or taking more drastic measures *will be determined by the situation and the behavior of your assailant*.


  Let me try to clarify what I meant.  I'm not saying that getting shoved or having someone take a swing at you is justification to smash his knee, hit him in the throat, and stomp his head when he hits the floor.  Your responce should be dictated by the context of the situation.  However, like I mentioned before, you should not ASSume that this is just going to be another run of the mill shoving match.  You should be prepared to escalate if necessary.  
  In my case, this is the voice of experience, I tried the "just walk away approach" once (I made the mistake of turning my back on him), the problem was that my assailant took this as the signal to jump me from behind and try to choke me out with a rear naked-choke and I had to put him down a lot harder than I probably would have if I had handled the oringinal situaion differently.  On positive note, I had no further problems with this person.
The problem with this type of discussion is that there is not a simple "this is what you do" answer.  You just have to handle the situation to the best of your abilty and if force is required, use only that which you feel is necessary based on the situation.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 2, 2005)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> Actually it's telling the gazelle that he has other outlets to stop the violent bahavior. There're teachers, principles, parents, and the police if necessary. There is usually no need to attack back. Go ahead and defend your life, but to "fight" in defense of your ego is wrong and is punished by society. Why not teach your children that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You only find peace because others stand ready to do violence on your behalf. The fact that you acknowledge that something bigger than the lions is required to reign the lions in is an acknowledgement of my point. It isn't "coping skills" but the threat of a larger stick that helps kids get through a school day without being attacked. That larger stick are adults willing to intervene. Without that threat of violence, those coping skills would mean nothing. However, every day we erode societies ability to control some of it's more violent elements. 

Violence and it's implied threat is what keeps society from tearing itself apart. Don't kid yourself into thinking that it is your reasoning power that keeps you safe. It's only the threat of violence implied by someone else that keeps you safe. The fact that adults are willing to intervene is the only thing preventing what i've described from being necessary. The fact that you and those like you believe that communication skills are all that is required is nothing more than proof of the effectiveness of the systematic threat of violence that our society uses to enforce order. 

My statements aren't meant so much as a suggestion on how a school kid should respond to violence, as it is a general discussion of the role of violence in the social order. I believe there is a great deal of naive wishful thinking involved in suggestions of non-violence in many cases. Labeling something "Ego" is a reductionist way of dealing with a much more complex evolutionary process. Also, simply saying "It's a school fight" is a bit reductionist as well. I've seen school fights that have resulted in hospitalization. 

Unfortunately, there are kids out there who are more than willing to beat another child senseless, and those kids have parents who do nothing but play attorney for their child whenever that child faces consequences. I've seen several boys and girls during the course of my career who saw it as their right to beat anyone they want with impunity, and they always seem to dodge any real consequence for that. And yes, those same parents would sue another child for attacking their baby. They'll also sue a school for holding their child responsible for his actions. In this society everyone sues for everything. You can be perfectly right and be sued.

Of course I guess it is a good sign that society has evolved enough that most people think that non-violence is the key. Not everyone is that evolved, however, and thinking so is wishful thinking. I do know a thing or two about it. I've spent the last 10 years of my life studying violence and the evolutionary psychological underpinnings of violence. In that time i've concluded that much of what most people think they understand about violence and it's causes are not true.

Further, our "Legal system" is very poor at punishing and dealing with the truly violent. It's usually only after an extreme act of violence, long after numerous other violent incidents, many truly violent individuals are dealt with. Society is only as peaceful as it's defenders are effective at dealing with it's most violent elements. In places where law and order have nearly broken down, such as the inner city, violence is endemic. 

Of course, this is probably a topic better reserved for a different topic, as the issue of schools and children aren't the core of my point, and they tend to bring an emotionality to this type of discussion not prevelent when discussing adults. It does bear noting, however, that perhaps teaching children that there is always a peaceful solution to problems is a double edged sword. On the one hand it does teach them how to solve minor inter personal problems without the use of violence, which is good. There is a certain falseness in the statement "Violence never solved anything" or "Violence isn't the solution". 

As for bullies being the "best thing", that's never what I said. Bullies are usually cowards who predate on the weak. What I suggest is that it's ideal to be strong, powerful and assertive people. That's the ideal. If a bully feels that you are willing to do anything to avoid a confrontation with him, he wins. If he feels that there is a limit to how far he can push you, he'll usually leave you alone. It is important to teach children to respect others, but it is also important to teach them that they are not someone else's door mat. The "Ego" game may seem silly to those who think of themselves as enlightened, but it is also a key aspect in interpersonal human behavior. To dismiss it as childish is and refuse to deal with it for what it is, is a misunderstanding of it's larger role in human affairs.

Finally, as for your comment about Columbine, 

"If I had a child who was rendered unconcious or was attacked with the level of violence which you describe, I would file both criminal charges and a civil lawsuit. I know that there is little that a child can do to warrant that type of reaction. This is similar to the Columbine incident where the kids took so much abuse that they struck back with everything they had. That's not the proper response to a situation like this."

it is based on the myth of Columbine. Harris and Klebold, contrary to popular myth, did not commit the crime they did because they were "picked on by the jocks". The fact is that they did not even seek out the jocks who allegedly tormented them. They fired their shots at individuals who had never engaged in any kind of ridicule of them. They knew where the "jocks" would be at that time of morning, and stayed far away from there, because their act was about power, not revenge. They were not wronged, they were not tormented, they were simply defective human beings. Further, they also weren't "children". They committed a cold and calculating act that showed adult sophistication and they did it for power, not revenge. It was the evil act of two sociopaths.

At any rate, using violence as a last resort is a good thing.  Eliminating violence as an option at all isn't.


----------



## GAB (Mar 2, 2005)

Hi all,

I remember when I had an employee (horse ranch 28 head).

We are walking by an area and he sees a black widow spider.
He said to me I can't wait till, "Paradise comes" and we will all get along. 
The Spider and the and Rattle Snake and all of gods creatures.

I looked at him and said where do I fit in (agnostic)??? 
You won't be there he said...I said, hey kill that *******black widow!
She probably just finished killing her mate...He did...

We had many discussions he worked for me a couple of years...He was going to college, was going to be a computer tech. Last I heard he was working 
for Sacramento Utilities. One of his elders got him the job...

When he left and went on with his hopes and rewards, I gave him bonus money and wished him well...Takes all kinds to make up a civilization...

Regards, Gary


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 2, 2005)

Gary, what, may I ask, does your post have to do with the topic of the thread?


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 2, 2005)

The school system is a mess, do what is right and accept what comes.

 Sadly that is the way of the schools.

 Punish both people regardless of who was in the right or wrong. 

 Unless of course it is a teacher or staff, then just punish the student.

 Doesn't do much to deter bullying and fighting though, cause by punishing everyone that doesn't say "Starting a fight is wrong" that says we don't like it when people fight and will punish anyone that is involved.

 The fact that teachers can get away with anything and student complaints just get the student in trouble doesn't help either.  Which to me says "If you got the power you can do what you want, it's not about right and wrong, it is about dominance."

 There have been studies (not any more due to "ethics") where teachers where biased grading was prooved.  

 - Give a bunch of tests to the teachers and attach random photos, the boys do better in math and sciences, the girls do better in english and social studies and the natives do bad in everything...

 - Give a student a good history and they will get good marks, give them a bad one and they will get bad marks.  Say they are a good student and they won't get in trouble, say they are a trouble maker and they will.... regardless of what the student actually does.   Those files that follow students around are not just what has happened but what WILL happen...

 Not to mention the fact that it is made out to be the most important thing ever.  If you do bad on a test it could ruin the rest of your life...  It won't.  Marks aren't as important as work ethics and social skills.   At the end of the day you got to get the piece of paper saying you graduated, thats all.  

 Fighting, while not good, does have its benefits.  Hence the reason that martial arts is a good thing   People that never fight are always letting people walk all over them.  The one thing school doesn't teach you ithat it should s how to fight... well maybe not physical fighting... but Critical thinking and arguing should be in there.  I can't rememebr doing too much in school that basically didn't come down to "Your essay is to right out my (the teacher) opinion on this ....  Any opinion other then my own (again, the teachers) is wrong. "


----------



## lvwhitebir (Mar 2, 2005)

Before I start, I understand that bullying in general is a huge issue that isn't being dealt with correctly in schools.  



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> You only find peace because others stand ready to do violence on your behalf.



I find peace because others are willing to stop violence on my behalf, not perpetrate it.This is the same in life as well.  My point is to teach kids the lessons of proper use of the law and not use violence in its stead.  Unfortunately, too many people think that physically fighting back is required no matter what, where the law says it's not.  The law in the real world says that a violent reponse is only OK in self-defense, not in fighting.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> However, every day we erode societies ability to control some of it's more violent elements.



Oh how I agree.  But we must try to bring it back without resorting to violence ourselves.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Labeling something "Ego" is a reductionist way of dealing with a much more complex evolutionary process. Also, simply saying "It's a school fight" is a bit reductionist as well. I've seen school fights that have resulted in hospitalization.



I don't mean to say that the potential for damage isn't there because it's a stupid fight over someone's tennis shoes.  Any time physical contact is made on another there is a potential for hospitalization, no matter what the reason was.  My point is that because of that, you should have a darn good reason for making the contact and that should be for more reason than your feelings were hurt.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, there are kids out there who are more than willing to beat another child senseless,



Because they've been taught that a violent response is appropriate in any situation.  Where do they go next?  In the adult world, this will only get them into further trouble.  Their parents help perpetuate this, that's why the parents stick up for their children.  We need to break the cycle with today's kids.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> You can be perfectly right and be sued.



Yes, but you're saying that a child whose offers up "a beating that renders the bully unconcious, with a level of violence he never imagined" is always right?  IMO, it's extremely rare that it's right.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Of course I guess it is a good sign that society has evolved enough that most people think that non-violence is the key. Not everyone is that evolved, however, and thinking so is wishful thinking.



I agree that not everyone is that evolved.  But should I lower myself and become violent in response when there are better procedures in place?  Your response ("a beating that renders the bully unconcious, with a level of violence he never imagined") makes me think that you don't believe non-violence is the key.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Further, our "Legal system" is very poor at punishing and dealing with the truly violent. It's usually only after an extreme act of violence, long after numerous other violent incidents, many truly violent individuals are dealt with.



Many are dealt with at the lower levels, but they just continue their behavior.  It's after the extreme act that we try to completely remove them from society.  According to recent statistics, our legal system is doing better.  Violent crimes are on the decline.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> There is a certain falseness in the statement "Violence never solved anything" or "Violence isn't the solution".



I agree.  But violence should not be the first response.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It is important to teach children to respect others, but it is also important to teach them that they are not someone else's door mat.



I agree.  But violent responses aren't the only way to declare you're not a door mat.  Being assertive is not the same as being aggressive.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> At any rate, using violence as a last resort is a good thing.  Eliminating violence as an option at all isn't.



I agree, I would never advocate that it never has a place.  But I also don't think a 7-year-old knows when violence is appropriate without being taught.  And I think they need to be taught the steps to be tried before resorting to violence.

WhiteBirch


----------



## GAB (Mar 2, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Gary, what, may I ask, does your post have to do with the topic of the thread?


Post 31.

Regards, Gary


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 3, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> it is based on the myth of Columbine. Harris and Klebold, contrary to popular myth, did not commit the crime they did because they were "picked on by the jocks". The fact is that they did not even seek out the jocks who allegedly tormented them. They fired their shots at individuals who had never engaged in any kind of ridicule of them. They knew where the "jocks" would be at that time of morning, and stayed far away from there, because their act was about power, not revenge. They were not wronged, they were not tormented, they were simply defective human beings. Further, they also weren't "children". They committed a cold and calculating act that showed adult sophistication and they did it for power, not revenge. It was the evil act of two sociopaths.


 This is *Untrue*, and not the "Myth" of Columbine.  TAG Investigators spent a lot of time interviewing people and recreating what happened with those boys, building up what caused their mental state, and all the evidence pointed to the fact that the "Jocks" WERE beating them and the school was made aware, and chose not to take action, becuase the athletic department was more important in their views. In the words of one of their friends: "I know its wrong to think this way, but all I could think was Its about time SOMEONE did somthing"...  Granted TAG found this was not the ONLY factor, but it was the MAJOR factor.

 I suggest you check out "Investigative Reports: Bullied to Death" and "Columbine, Investigating Why"  before you make up your mind what their motive was.


----------



## GAB (Mar 3, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> This is *Untrue*, and not the "Myth" of Columbine. TAG Investigators spent a lot of time interviewing people and recreating what happened with those boys, building up what caused their mental state, and all the evidence pointed to the fact that the "Jocks" WERE beating them and the school was made aware, and chose not to take action, becuase the athletic department was more important in their views. In the words of one of their friends: "I know its wrong to think this way, but all I could think was Its about time SOMEONE did somthing"... Granted TAG found this was not the ONLY factor, but it was the MAJOR factor.
> 
> I suggest you check out "Investigative Reports: Bullied to Death" and "Columbine, Investigating Why" before you make up your mind what their motive was.


Good one techno.

I saw a lot of this when I was LEO...We knew what was happening and the system finally caught up. Late as usual..
The idea don't fix til it's broke, is the major malfunction regarding all of this..Better to do prementative maintenance then replace the engine or car...

I just finished a short story by Elmore Leonard that fits this to a tee called "40 lashes minus one" I liked it...

Regards, Gary


----------



## Drac (Mar 3, 2005)

I have no real comment.. Anything that I was going to post already has already been posted..I got so sick of all the BS in school that I quit and went to work and discovered the MA..A year or so later I was able to extract some measure of satisfaction when a few of my serious tormentors came to the club where I was a bouncer and assumed that I was still the same person they use to beat the crap out of..Surprise, surprise,surprise..


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 3, 2005)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> Before I start, I understand that bullying in general is a huge issue that isn't being dealt with correctly in schools.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


First of all, you fail to understand violence and from where it springs. Second of all, you took my "beating unconcious" analogy out of context. I wasn't suggesting that a kid beat another kid unconcious, however, someone stated that fighting just results in more fighting, and I took issue with the technical accuracy of that statement. A beating that results in the bully being rendered unconcious most often results in an end to further conflict. Your argument about that being right or wrong is irrelavent as it was only meant as a statement of technical reality, not one that makes a decision about the morality of the act. I am factually correct on my statement, and whether or not that act is right or wrong is a different topic, as it was a purely academic point.  I will be teaching my child effective conflict resolution skills, but in that tool box will include the ability to physical defend herself.  When I teach her those skills, though, i'll teach her the truth about human behavior, not what I wish human behavior should be.  Much of human behavior is controlled as much by our genes as by our environment.  And because of that, we will never eliminate our "Teach out" violence entirely.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 3, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> This is *Untrue*, and not the "Myth" of Columbine. TAG Investigators spent a lot of time interviewing people and recreating what happened with those boys, building up what caused their mental state, and all the evidence pointed to the fact that the "Jocks" WERE beating them and the school was made aware, and chose not to take action, becuase the athletic department was more important in their views. In the words of one of their friends: "I know its wrong to think this way, but all I could think was Its about time SOMEONE did somthing"... Granted TAG found this was not the ONLY factor, but it was the MAJOR factor.
> 
> I suggest you check out "Investigative Reports: Bullied to Death" and "Columbine, Investigating Why" before you make up your mind what their motive was.


Again, you're factually wrong. Nothing about the Columbine incident shows any kind of revenge for bullying by anyone. They did not shoot or try to shoot one single person that had allegedly bullied them. In fact, the truth is that they themselves were known to bully other children. And if you want to support that asinine assertion, show me where they walked in to the gym and started shooting jocks. The FBI and it's behaviorial science unit reached a far different conclusion. http://slate.msn.com/id/2099203/

Here's a test. Check this link and pick out the bullies who allegedly bullied Harris and Klebold. http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/pines/6097/chs_n.htm
Not jocks, not bullies, these guys went after the weak, like they did when they were living. They weren't the victim of bullies, by all accounts they WERE the bullies. They liked the power they got from victimizing others, they liked attacking the weak. They didn't just snap because they were victims, they did what they did because they WANTED victims. These guys were predators, pure and simple. If not, they would have gone down to the gym, where all these alleged jocks were, and shot them. That's not what they wanted. "Someone did something"? LMFAO. They hated the jocks, so they shot a bunch of non-jocks? hahahaha. I suggest you open your eyes and use some critical thinking skills. This myth of the victimized school shooter needs to be dispelled before it does more harm than good. These guys WERE bullies, they weren't defending themselves. 

I also think it's time to stop power hungry highschool boys from glorifiying this type of cretins. The worst thing we ever did was broadcast their image around the world, as if they were heroes. It made me so angry when Time magazine put Harris and Klebold on the cover, big color pictures, with all the victims lined up on the border in little black and white pictures, as if the Killers were the most important thing, and the victims were just a footnote. Pathetic. 

These guys should have had their bodies tacked up to utility poles for a month after the crime as a message, and then been buried in unmarked graves so their mothers could never visit them. That's the right message to send. Not the bizarre hero worship I see from some morons.


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Mar 3, 2005)

*MOD. NOTE.*

*Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.*

*-MJ  *
*-MT Moderator-*


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 4, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Again, you're factually wrong.


 I see. You are more knowlageable than an entire FBI task force who were actually there, actually interviewed witnesses, and actually worked closley with psycologists to paint a picture of what happened.

   Go you.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 4, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> These guys should have had their bodies tacked up to utility poles for a month after the crime as a message, and then been buried in unmarked graves so their mothers could never visit them. That's the right message to send. Not the bizarre hero worship I see from some morons.


 This has got to be the most morally reprehensible thing I've read in a while.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 4, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> This has got to be the most morally reprehensible thing I've read in a while.


You mean more morally reprehensible than killing 13 people. Or more morally reprehensible than suggesting that killing 13 innocent people was justified by claiming that you were bullied? I think people's morals may be out of wack if that's the case. What I think is morally reprehensible is the idea that killers deserve empathy while the victims are lost in obscurity. Here's a test. Try actually naming some of the victims of Columbine. I bet most people can't do it without looking it up. But the killers names are right at the front of people's minds. That's morally reprehensible. Here, take a look at the time magazine cover that I was talking about, it's purely sickening. http://columbine.free2host.net/after/timemag.jpg. These two killers, in large colored pictures, while the victims get consigned to little black and white borders, as if their lives were nothing more than footnotes in the much larger lives of these two cretins. That's why these idiots are emulated and have such a following. It's truly bizarre. 

Now, if the idea that holding people accountable for their actions offends people, i'm sorry, but just as you are entitled to state your opinion, so am I. I think it's time somebody spoke for the victims of Columbine, and stop trying to make these two monsters either A) Heros or B) Victims, which is what i've been reading over the last several posts.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 4, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> I see. You are more knowlageable than an entire FBI task force who were actually there, actually interviewed witnesses, and actually worked closley with psycologists to paint a picture of what happened.
> 
> Go you.


You might want to read what the FBI concluded, which is exactly what I said. Read the link I provided. The FBI concluded that Klebold was "hotheaded, but depressive and suicidal" while Harris was "cold, calculating, and homicidal", a pure "Psychopath". The FBI also concluded that bullying was not a factor, significant or otherwise.  Bullying was an idea that popped up after the killings as a way to "explain" the situation.  The reality was that Harris and Klebold were seeking to gain the notoriety of committing the greatest mass murder in US history. 

A far cry from the innocent victims' of bullying. This myth that these two were "victim's" needs to be dispelled before it causes any more harm. What kind of sick society identifies with these two murderers?

Now, that having been said, I'll cease any further discussion of this as I'm sure a continued argument over this topic will probably irritate the moderators and it really doesn't have much to do with self-defense. Suffice to say, I'm definitely pro-victim/anti-murderer on this and all related topics and leave it at that. Anyone who wants to have a further debate over the topic with me is more than welcome to do so in a forum more suited to the subject matter.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 4, 2005)

I wonder what made them psychopaths.  I notice the article does not go into that.  Repressed anger / supressed rage and it's damage on the teen psyche is also a classic study in psychology.

 I don't think understanding what drove these boys to violence is excusing them, but I feel it is important to look at causes and try to understand them so that we can address these issues as a society, which it seems is the general concensus.

 Now, slap a label all over these kids if you want to.  I noticed the FBI reports you link to did not refute by proof that these boys were not bullied and ignored by their school, they just slapped labels on them, used a few key words to incite YOUR anger and placed a judgement call.  Whoopdeedo.  Anyone can do that.  Let's not learn from this experience at all, let's just ostracize them and torture their memory even more than it already is.

 Did you miss the part where the teens who survived the shooting talked about how everybody put these boys down and called them names and treated them as outcasts?  They should know.

 Here's some links for you to read:

http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20000901-000038.html

 http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20010501-000015.html


----------



## MJS (Mar 4, 2005)

Haven't really posted much on this topic, but I have been reading it.  One thing that I find amazing, especially when talking about the shooting, is that nobody seemed to intervene prior to this.  I mean, you would think that if someone is being picked on, harrassed in school, beat up, etc. that they would show some signs, ie: not wanting to go to school, a decline in grades, etc.  Now, I do not know all of the ins and outs of that particular school shooting, but you would think that someone, be it a parent, or someone from the school would have noticed that these kids are obviously being treated differently.

IMO, going to school is a learning exp. not a battle for survival on a daily basis.

Just my .02.

Mike


----------



## lvwhitebir (Mar 4, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> you took my "beating unconcious" analogy out of context. I wasn't suggesting that a kid beat another kid unconcious, however, someone stated that fighting just results in more fighting, and I took issue with the technical accuracy of that statement. A beating that results in the bully being rendered unconcious most often results in an end to further conflict. Your argument about that being right or wrong is irrelavent as it was only meant as a statement of technical reality, not one that makes a decision about the morality of the act. I am factually correct on my statement, and whether or not that act is right or wrong is a different topic, as it was a purely academic point.



Actually it's not so academic because people believe that this is the correct action in response.  To be academic about it you might as well say that killing him stops him too;  he can still attack you when he wakes up otherwise.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I will be teaching my child effective conflict resolution skills, but in that tool box will include the ability to physical defend herself.



I think that's important as well.  Everyone should know some form of self-defense.  We need to know its lawful definition and that the physical part is only a small part.  Finally we need to teach when a physical response is appropriate, according to the law, and at what level.  I hate to see good people go to jail for truly acting in self defense but going over the line.

WhiteBirch


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 4, 2005)

SgtMac, 

  I did read your link, It was to an article by a Times Reporter, he said:

  "But the FBI and its team of psychiatrists and psychologists have reached an entirely different conclusion."

 But it doesnt specifically state what their findings were, and this also goes against what I heard "From the Horses mouth" so to speak, in the two reports I suggested you watch.

Most of the Article you cited was about the findings of a single Psychiatrist, Dr. Robert Hare.  Hare labels them as Psychopaths, citing work in their journals and on the web, had no real meaning, but the truth was in the fact that their letters to show remorse were written for effect, because their angry writing about the same subject was serious. but there was no specific information as to WHY he decided that the remorse was fake, but the anger about being caught was not.... unless you count the fact that he claims you have to ignore their hate speech as irrelevant, which he then goes on NOT to do. he also cites the fact that they lie, for pleasure, and if that is the case, could the entirty of what they wrote then be a lie, and if so, how does that effect his findings since what they wrote was a big part of what he used, at least as far as the article you sent me indicates?

 Also, one other thing I noticed when I read that, which makes me question Dr Hare's "findings" in favor of the other reaserch I saw, was the fact that he claims they do not care about their victims or why they are and what they feel... I have to ask, if that is the case, how these "Psychopaths" managed NOT to kill or injure any of their other friends in the "Trenchcoat Mafia" when they were "indescriminatley" killing victims in theri psychosis driven rampage?

 Watch the two reports I cited, as a basis for comparsion, and see if they dont, at the very least, seem more comprehensive and well thought out, as opposed to the findings of one Psychiatrists "beliefs" about what happened.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 4, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> I wonder what made them psychopaths. I notice the article does not go into that. Repressed anger / supressed rage and it's damage on the teen psyche is also a classic study in psychology.
> 
> I don't think understanding what drove these boys to violence is excusing them, but I feel it is important to look at causes and try to understand them so that we can address these issues as a society, which it seems is the general concensus.
> 
> ...


I hear a lot of pseudo-psychology when these type of discussions come up. The fact is that modern research suggests that sociopaths are as much born as built. Trying to claim these boys were victims IS excusing their behavior. I know exactly why these boys did what they did....power. If you can't understand that, i'm not sure what else to tell you. There is a psychological effect going on here, though, and you and many other people have fallen victim to it. The modern media is driven by images of killers, and we focus our energy and time trying to understand "them". The effect that happens is that, after repeated viewing and discussion of the killers, they are humanized and we build empathy toward them. The result is that the killer is humanized and the victim is dehumanized. Most people lack a sufficient understanding of these powerful psychological processes to defend themselves against it, as we've seen illustrated in this forum. Many here are exemplifiying that kind of Killer Humanization/Victim Dehumanization that I have outlined. Your response is purely an emotional response, based on the empathy forced upon you by a media pushing the image of victimized "killers". Try using some critical thinking skills, and stop letting your heart do the thinking.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 4, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> SgtMac,
> 
> I did read your link, It was to an article by a Times Reporter, he said:
> 
> ...


You still haven't pointed to one single victim that allegedly victimized these killers. Without that, you've already lost this argument. I've read the two reports cited, and they are driven by the worst kind of pseudo-scientific thinking. Try using some critical thinking skills. Number of "Jocks" killed 0 Number of innocent people killed 13. It's not that difficult, hard as you try to obfuscate the point. Don't fall victim to the trend I outlined in my last post. This type of victim dehumanization must end. Several people in this forum are already trying to defend Harris and Klebold as if they were victims, protests to the contrary that that's not what they are doing. Use your minds people. Understanding from an intellectual level is good, understanding of killers from an empathetic level is bad. It's mommy thinking. Hitlers mother loved him, but that didn't make him a good person. I would be willing to bet that almost every evil person who ever lived was loved by his mother if no one else. Remember, rational good, empathy bad, when it comes to understanding killers. 

Of course this argument will go no where because I am coming at it from a purely rational point of view, and several of you have obviously got a lot of emotionalism and empathy invested in this, so this will likely deteriorate. It's obvious that my suggestions about these two sociopaths angers you more than the idea that they killed 13 people. That's truly bizarre. 

What created these two monsters wasn't that they were bullied, it was that they were coddled. Brought up in upper middle class homes with parents they snowballed. They avoided consequences for all previous actions, they were given everything they wanted and told that nothing was their fault. Now the same treatment they received before they did this, they are receiving afterwards. We are teaching our children now that they are not responsible for their actions, they are the victims...victims of ADHD, victims of society, victims of poverty, victims of everything. Is it any wonder they act as if they are not responsible for their own actions. I see kids like Harris and Klebold every day, they aren't bullied, they are coddled and given every excuse by parents who are willing to give them everyting but discipline. I am called to these kids homes when they are 13, 14, 15, by the parents who never disciplined them, but now don't know how to make the child that has run amuk go to bed, do his homework, stop tearing up the house. So they want ME to discipline their spoiled child. The same child they will AGAIN make excuses for when he starts getting arrested at 16, 17 and 18. They will bail him out, they will hire him an attorney, they will rationalize that his is being bullied by the police, influenced by his friends, and is NOT responsible for his own actions. Oh, they are angry at 17, but it's not angry that they are BULLIED, they are usually angry when, at 17, after years of getting their own way, they finally run in to the realization that the rest of the world isn't going to coddle them the way their mothers and fathers did. 

When people say "We need to understand them, so we can keep it from happening again" they really mean "We want to keep it from happening again, without having to actually teach our children that there are consequences and boundaries". Some people want simple answers that don't force them to have to reevaluate what they believe about themselves and the world around them. So we come up with "Bullying". We just claim that these poor, 17 year old kids, were the victims of a faceless entity, so we can have our power back. We can continue to believe the world is a wonderful place and discipline isn't really required. Just give your kids everying, and when you run in to a problem, call a psychologist to tell you what's wrong with your child, get a prescription of paxil, ritilin, some group therapy, and presto, all better. And we did it all without blaming little Johnny for his behavior, because, as we know, blaming him would be bad for his self-esteem.

It isn't bullying that created Harris and Klebold, it was excuses. Someone might want to write a new book "EXCUSED TO DEATH" or maybe "MOTHERED TO DEATH". Some of you folks might want to read it, before you forget that these poor, innocent, cherubic faced boys, cold bloodedly murdered 13 innocent people. People who's mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and friends will NEVER see again. Who's families and friends will mourn for the rest of their lives, because these two boys wanted to know what it felt like to have the power of life and death in their hands. Lets look past the natural mother instinct that causes us to see the faces of these two young, handsome, WHITE middle class boys, and want to simply forgive and forget. It's pure emotionalism at it's worst.  What's more, I still haven't heard any of you mention the name of ONE SINGLE VICTIM.

That having been said, it's not my intention to offend anyone. I DO feel very strongly about this subject, as it is a trend I see occurring in American (I'll go so far as to say Western) society, and it is media driven. Things like the Time Magazine cover are prime examples. We spend our time trying to understand the killers, and we tell people subconciously that it is the killers life that is important. Some people are more succeptible to this suble power of suggestion than others, notably truly empathetic people (like my wife) who tend to wear their emotion on their sleeve. They tend to allow their mind to be clowded by their emotions.


----------



## TonyM. (Mar 5, 2005)

Gee, if getting bullied in school is justification for mass murder, Myself and thousands of other people should have been up on the roof with the magnum a long time ago. Sociopaths are generally created by their parents or lack thereof.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 5, 2005)

Again, being bullied does not a murderer make.  These boys talked to their parents about it, they talked to school administration about it and sought help repeatedly.  No one answered.  Their pain turned to anger and it began to manifest outwardly ... this is a classic cry for help.  No one answered.  Their fascination with explosives, firearms, darkness and death were screaming that they were unable to cope with what was going on around them.  Teachers let jocks skate when they didn't study, but failed these boys.  Their parents shrugged their shoulders as did everyone else and said 'boys will be boys.'

 Most people who are bullied do not turn out like these boys did - but more and more are as we continue to claim survival of the fittest is deemed by some an appropriate means of population control for God's most gifted creature and ignore cries for help.

 Are you your brother's keeper?

 So I suppose, sgtmac, that you would rather let kids like this grab a label, continue to be ostracized and devalued and just hang 'em high and risk collateral damage than have teachers, parents and counselors do their job and step in potentially saving lives.

 Bully for you.


----------



## MJS (Mar 5, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Again, being bullied does not a murderer make.  These boys talked to their parents about it, they talked to school administration about it and sought help repeatedly.  No one answered.  Their pain turned to anger and it began to manifest outwardly ... this is a classic cry for help.  No one answered.  Their fascination with explosives, firearms, darkness and death were screaming that they were unable to cope with what was going on around them.  Teachers let jocks skate when they didn't study, but failed these boys.  Their parents shrugged their shoulders as did everyone else and said 'boys will be boys.'
> 
> Most people who are bullied do not turn out like these boys did - but more and more are as we continue to claim survival of the fittest is deemed by some an appropriate means of population control for God's most gifted creature and ignore cries for help.
> 
> ...



Well said! :asian:   I have to agree though...IMO, these kids were showing signs of abnormal behavior and nobody seemed to do anything.  I think that just about everyone can say that at some point during their 12 yrs of school, that they were picked on by someone.  Parents are the ones who should be the first to see any problems that begin to happen with their kids.  Its not the job of the Police to take charge of discipline of kids..again, its the parents!!  As a dispatcher, I have taken many calls of parents saying that their kids are out of control, won't go to school, etc., and I sit there, shaking my head as I dispatch an officer, thinking "If you can't control your kids, maybe you shouldn't have had them!"

I'll say again, it is the job of the parents to recognize problems and address them.  It is the job of the school admin. to provide a safe environment for kids to learn and get an education.  Apparently, someone was not doing their job.

Mike


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 5, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Again, being bullied does not a murderer make. These boys talked to their parents about it, they talked to school administration about it and sought help repeatedly. No one answered. Their pain turned to anger and it began to manifest outwardly ... this is a classic cry for help. No one answered. Their fascination with explosives, firearms, darkness and death were screaming that they were unable to cope with what was going on around them. Teachers let jocks skate when they didn't study, but failed these boys. Their parents shrugged their shoulders as did everyone else and said 'boys will be boys.'
> 
> Most people who are bullied do not turn out like these boys did - but more and more are as we continue to claim survival of the fittest is deemed by some an appropriate means of population control for God's most gifted creature and ignore cries for help.
> 
> ...


What i'd prefer is that you stop making excuses for mass murder and pretending that you can change a sociopath with a counseling session. Sociopathology is not an illness of the mind, it is an ill mind. I know of what I speak, i've dealt with hundreds of sociopaths in my line of work, i've spent the last ten years studying sociopaths, and i'm not just a laymen, i'm working on my masters in psychology, with an emphasis on aggression and sociopathology. I plan on spending the rest of my career studying this type of behavior from a realistic point of view. This is a subject matter that I take very seriously, and the idea that you can treat a sociopath as if he has an "illness" is absurd and usually spouted by people who have never had the "honor" of dealing with this type of person.

Sociopaths are not sick, they are not in need of help, they are predators. These boys weren't bullied to committing mass murder, that is the most idiotic idea i've ever heard. These boys did not even grow up in a bad environment. They had parents who gave them everything, nice clothes, money, video games, everything. It wasn't that they were different that created conflict in school, it's that they thought they were superior to everyone around them. That is what brought them in conflict with others. 

Harris exhibited clear signs of sociopathology with the kind of narcissistic thinking typically encountered in this type of person. He believed he was superior, not inferior, to those he killed. The problem isn't that these boys were bullied and ignored, the problem is that these boys thought that they were superior to everyone around them, and that they had the right to murder whoever they wanted for their own perverse pleasure. They were sheep to him, they were victims in his power fantasy. I'm still waiting for the name of one of the bullies they murdered.

Further, many of these types of personality traits show increasing evidence of having genetic root causes. The Narcissism displayed by Harris is very typical of most narcissists, over-inflated sense of self, pathological lying, power fantasies, a sense of "specialness" and "uniqueness", a feeling that you have some sort of lofty purpose. Basically narcissistics are self-centered, egotistical, and have an exaggerated sense of self-importance and the expectation that they should be considered superior without any commensurate achievements. Grandiosity and preoccupation with POWER is a hallmark of Narcissists. Add sociopathology, the idea that others are not worthy of compassion, do not matter, and are only important as objects, and you have a killer like Harris.

You want to understand what created these two, you need to study the sociopathic (called by the DSM IV, anti-social personality disorder) and narcissistic personality disorder, and you will come much closer than this stupid idea of "repressed rage" over bullying. These two were predators, not victims, and i've gone further toward understanding them than the "they were bullied" crowd ever will. It was the reinforcement of Harris' narcissism, not bullying and low self-esteem, that aided Harris in to the thinking that he and Klebold needed to commit the worst mass murder in history so that the world could see how special and unique they both were. 

Don't you find it ironic that the more well intentioned people like you try and fulfill the self-esteem needs of this type of person, the more counciling sessions, the more we tell kids them are not really responsible, that they are victims, the MORE school shootings we have. At some point you might want to consider the possibility that maybe you have the wrong idea.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 5, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> What i'd prefer is that you stop making excuses for mass murder and pretending that you can change a sociopath with a counseling session.


 Causation does not equate excuse. I have stated this repeatedly. Allow me to make an analogy. A young man decides to start smoking cigarettes because he thinks it's cool. He takes health class and finds out how bad it is for him and he doesn't care. His parents find out and think, ah well, at least he's not doing drugs. Later he finds he doesn't really want to be a smoker any longer but finds the addiction too tough to break. He tries nicotine gum, the patch, hypnosis, but nothing works because he only tries half-heartedly and, after all, he's an adult male and has made his own bed. He develops cancer and sues the tobacco company because they made cigarettes addictive by adding nicotine and other chemicals to the tobacco ensuring the smoker will need to feed their habit and ensure the flourishing profits.

 Now, are the illegal and morally reprehensible actions by the cigarette company responsible for his cancer? No, he is responsible because of his choice to smoke. However, did the actions of the tobacco company aide in his addiction and, therefore, the deterioration of his health? Yes. What about the man's parents when he began to smoke? Are they responsible? Yes. Rather than address the issue with the boy they thanked heaven he was not engaged in drug use.

 Some folks, I suppose, are far more comfortable pointing fingers, naming names and finding an excuse as to why they don't have to lift a finger to help another human being. Keep studying sociopathic behavior.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Sociopathology is not an illness of the mind, it is an ill mind.


 And you perceive the difference to be what, exactly?



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> ... i'm working on my masters in psychology, with an emphasis on aggression and sociopathology. I plan on spending the rest of my career studying this type of behavior from a realistic point of view.


 ... as opposed to a clinical point of view?



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> This is a subject matter that I take very seriously, and the idea that you can treat a sociopath as if he has an "illness" is absurd and usually spouted by people who have never had the "honor" of dealing with this type of person.
> 
> Sociopaths are not sick, they are not in need of help, they are predators.


 Indeed. So a sociopath is just a monster, right? A born abbhorition of nature, a whacko who cannot be helped? Goodness. Shall we just line up the entire prison population and just gun them all down? Why not? They're monsters and cannot be helped or rehabilitated, then why the heck are we spending money on them having them pay their debt to society? Let's just off them all and rid our nation of all the sociopaths? Hmmmm??



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> These boys weren't bullied to committing mass murder, that is the most idiotic idea i've ever heard.


 Again, you refuse to read my statement and insist on twisting its context. Isn't this is a sociopathic trait?



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> These boys did not even grow up in a bad environment. They had parents who gave them everything, nice clothes, money, video games, everything.


 You don't see this as a form of neglect? They were given things, not love or time or consideration or an ear to bend. Anyone can dole out presents. Apparently what some of us lack is the ability to give heart.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It wasn't that they were different that created conflict in school, it's that they thought they were superior to everyone around them. That is what brought them in conflict with others.


 When the young mind encounters unfairness, neglect in spite of good intention, it becomes quite twisted and will defend every shred of its own truth. They put others down because that's how their damaged minds came to deal with the ostracism. It is a dangerous shift in mentality that, when caught early, may be treated - not always successfully, but even one saved life is worth the effort ... that is, in my opinion it is.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Harris exhibited clear signs of sociopathology with the kind of narcissistic thinking typically encountered in this type of person. He believed he was superior, not inferior, to those he killed.


 This is the sickness of the mind taking over. A child with narcissistic thinking is very typical of the child who has everything but what he needs.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Further, many of these types of personality traits show increasing evidence of having genetic root causes. The Narcissism displayed by Harris is very typical of most narcissists, over-inflated sense of self, pathological lying, power fantasies, a sense of "specialness" and "uniqueness", a feeling that you have some sort of lofty purpose. Basically narcissistics are self-centered, egotistical, and have an exaggerated sense of self-importance and the expectation that they should be considered superior without any commensurate achievements. Grandiosity and preoccupation with POWER is a hallmark of Narcissists. Add sociopathology, the idea that others are not worthy of compassion, do not matter, and are only important as objects, and you have a killer like Harris.


 You were a popular kid, weren't you? When one is ostracized and no one else feels you're worth the breath they used to speak your name you take one of several roads. One of those roads is self-devaluation. This means you buy into what others say about you and demonstrate to you in that you are worthless, mindless and not necessary of being alive. These are the ones who self-mutilate, self-denegrate. Some find drugs, some find violence some find both. Some find peace at the end of a rope or on the business end of a gun. Another road is to so intensely defend oneself as to aggrandize one's own worth, hence narcissism. When one travels far down this path the mind does twist enough to incur violence upon others and, sometimes, eventually on oneself. The middle path is those who have a taste of both - a bit of an inferiority complex accompanied by the knowledge that most people are pretty uncaring, self-centered, label-slapping sons-of-bitches who don't give a good goddamn who one is, whether they have anything special to offer to the world. The middle path and the externally violent path both scratch at finding some sense of self-worth, hence the narcissistic traits. Those on the middle path understand both sides that pull them. 



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> You want to understand what created these two, you need to study the sociopathic (called by the DSM IV, anti-social personality disorder) and narcissistic personality disorder, and you will come much closer than this stupid idea of "repressed rage" over bullying.


 I have studied the DSM-IV. Thanks.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> These two were predators, not victims, and i've gone further toward understanding them than the "they were bullied" crowd ever will. It was the reinforcement of Harris' narcissism, not bullying and low self-esteem, that aided Harris in to the thinking that he and Klebold needed to commit the worst mass murder in history so that the world could see how special and unique they both were.


 That, sir, is your opinion.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Don't you find it ironic that the more well intentioned people like you try and fulfill the self-esteem needs of this type of person, the more counciling sessions, the more we tell kids them are not really responsible, that they are victims, the MORE school shootings we have. At some point you might want to consider the possibility that maybe you have the wrong idea.


 I have no possible way of fulfilling the self-esteem needs of this type of person, it is far too late for that. Further I have never stated that the real victims of Columbine were the two that did the killing. If we are not human enough to analyze the criminal mind and its causes (which, in this case we must do forensicly) then we are no better than the monstors you purport to walk the earth. I don't think looking at a murderer straight in the eye and telling him all he ever needed was love and giving him a big warm fuzzy is going to do any good. You have never asked me what I think the answer is to the problem of youth violence, only told me that I'm wrong to think it, whatever it might be because it does not conform to your ideas. It further sounds to me like you are not interested in hearing any other opinion but your own and therefore, not worthy of my opinion.

      As I said before ... bully for you.


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 6, 2005)

Almost the reason to stay in a group or "gang"


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 6, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Causation does not equate excuse. I have stated this repeatedly. Allow me to make an analogy. A young man decides to start smoking cigarettes because he thinks it's cool. He takes health class and finds out how bad it is for him and he doesn't care. His parents find out and think, ah well, at least he's not doing drugs. Later he finds he doesn't really want to be a smoker any longer but finds the addiction too tough to break. He tries nicotine gum, the patch, hypnosis, but nothing works because he only tries half-heartedly and, after all, he's an adult male and has made his own bed. He develops cancer and sues the tobacco company because they made cigarettes addictive by adding nicotine and other chemicals to the tobacco ensuring the smoker will need to feed their habit and ensure the flourishing profits.
> 
> Now, are the illegal and morally reprehensible actions by the cigarette company responsible for his cancer? No, he is responsible because of his choice to smoke. However, did the actions of the tobacco company aide in his addiction and, therefore, the deterioration of his health? Yes. What about the man's parents when he began to smoke? Are they responsible? Yes. Rather than address the issue with the boy they thanked heaven he was not engaged in drug use.
> 
> ...


If you had studied sociopathology you would know what the difference is. An illness is something wrong with a person who, if not for the illness, would be well. Sociopathology is an illness of the complete mind. In other words, it is what the person IS not what they have. In that sense they ARE a monster. And it's not me who seems hellbent on ignoring the opinions of others. I listened to you, and your argument is nothing knew. As for lining the monsters in prison up and shooting them, that's probably a pretty effective idea, and one I would subscribe to. 

"A child with narcissistic thinking is very typical of the child who has everything but what he needs"...discipline. A social order that believes no one is responsible for nothing created these two. That's what you seem to be trying perpetuating. You have said nothing that suggest that you are saying otherwise. You are proposing to empathize with these monsters, what I propose examining them dispassionately. The problem with everything you've said is that it is tainted with emotionalism and empathy, and that clouds your ability to look at this subject objectively.

Also, why must I have been the popular kid in school, because I don't understand massacring 13 people? Give me a break.

"They're monsters and cannot be helped or rehabilitated, then why the heck are we spending money on them having them pay their debt to society? Let's just off them all and rid our nation of all the sociopaths?" Well, considering rehabilitation is a joke and the majority of violent crimes are committed by the same small group of people...YES!!! You just don't get it do you? Every sarcastic question you ask, in reality, defeats your argument because the real answers to those questions aren't the ones you believe. 

It's obvious you are a good, caring person. That's very obvious. I just think you're a bit naive. It's also obvious that you believe the whole rest of the world, deep down, is just like you. The truth is, however, that sociopaths exist,and if you ever come face to face with one in his natural habitat, you will come back in this forum and apologize for everything you've said to me. Lets both hope that doesn't happen. We are not all born with the same needs, the same desires. We are not all born caring, kind creatures. Some of us are born a little darker, and those people are willing to rip what they feel they deserve from you if it suits them to do so. Your attempts to empathize with them only aids them.  Empathy is not true understanding.  I know criminals that spend their whole lives manipulating the empathy of well intentioned people just like you.  Those people think they are getting "understanding" from the criminal, but the criminal is merely manipulating their emotions to get what they want.


----------



## MJS (Mar 6, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> What i'd prefer is that you stop making excuses for mass murder and pretending that you can change a sociopath with a counseling session. Sociopathology is not an illness of the mind, it is an ill mind. I know of what I speak, i've dealt with hundreds of sociopaths in my line of work, i've spent the last ten years studying sociopaths, and i'm not just a laymen, i'm working on my masters in psychology, with an emphasis on aggression and sociopathology. I plan on spending the rest of my career studying this type of behavior from a realistic point of view. This is a subject matter that I take very seriously, and the idea that you can treat a sociopath as if he has an "illness" is absurd and usually spouted by people who have never had the "honor" of dealing with this type of person.



If a counseling session(s) will not help these people, then they need to be taken from the general population.  Look at Michael Ross.  This guy killed 8 women.  Now, you're not going to tell me that during the course of his life, he was not showing any signs of a troubled person.  I'm pretty sure that he was, unfortunately, nobody noticed these signs and 8 people got killed.  There was a story about a guy that was renting a house from a family in CT.  That family had a litter of puppies.  This guy wanted one, but the family said no, due to the fact that they did not feel that he could properly care for the dog.  He proceeded to take a knife, and slit the throats of all 6 puppies.  5 died, and one was able to be saved.  Now, this guy is showing no signs of an illness??  I think he is!!!



> Sociopaths are not sick, they are not in need of help, they are predators. These boys weren't bullied to committing mass murder, that is the most idiotic idea i've ever heard. These boys did not even grow up in a bad environment. They had parents who gave them everything, nice clothes, money, video games, everything. It wasn't that they were different that created conflict in school, it's that they thought they were superior to everyone around them. That is what brought them in conflict with others.



Clothes, games, etc...all material things.  Did these kids get love from their parents?  Did the parents take time out of their day to socialize with their kids?  If they had, they might have noticed that they were showing signs of being troubled.



> Harris exhibited clear signs of sociopathology with the kind of narcissistic thinking typically encountered in this type of person. He believed he was superior, not inferior, to those he killed. The problem isn't that these boys were bullied and ignored, the problem is that these boys thought that they were superior to everyone around them, and that they had the right to murder whoever they wanted for their own perverse pleasure. They were sheep to him, they were victims in his power fantasy. I'm still waiting for the name of one of the bullies they murdered.



So Harris was showing some signs of being controlling??  I'm sure a man that is controlling of his wife did not just wake up one morning and say, "Ya know, I've been nice to my wife for the past "X" number of years of our marrige.  I think today I'm going to start being a control freak, not letting her have any money unless she asks me, not let her go out unless she asks me, etc."



> Further, many of these types of personality traits show increasing evidence of having genetic root causes. The Narcissism displayed by Harris is very typical of most narcissists, over-inflated sense of self, pathological lying, power fantasies, a sense of "specialness" and "uniqueness", a feeling that you have some sort of lofty purpose. Basically narcissistics are self-centered, egotistical, and have an exaggerated sense of self-importance and the expectation that they should be considered superior without any commensurate achievements. Grandiosity and preoccupation with POWER is a hallmark of Narcissists. Add sociopathology, the idea that others are not worthy of compassion, do not matter, and are only important as objects, and you have a killer like Harris.



Again, it looks like they are showing this obsession with Power.





> Don't you find it ironic that the more well intentioned people like you try and fulfill the self-esteem needs of this type of person, the more counciling sessions, the more we tell kids them are not really responsible, that they are victims, the MORE school shootings we have. At some point you might want to consider the possibility that maybe you have the wrong idea.



Speaking for myself only here, all I'm simply saying is that something, anything, should have been done for these kids.

Mike


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 6, 2005)

_Speaking for myself only here, all I'm simply saying is that something, anything, should have been done for these kids._

I agree, so you had spoke for me also


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 6, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> As for lining the monsters in prison up and shooting them, that's probably a pretty effective idea, and one I would subscribe to.


 You have just revealed yourself. Thank you, you have made my point. 



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> You are proposing to empathize with these monsters, what I propose examining them dispassionately. The problem with everything you've said is that it is tainted with emotionalism and empathy, and that clouds your ability to look at this subject objectively.


 No, I am proposing looking at these young men for what they are - humans who went wrong - and finding out why so that we can keep it from happening again. Problem is, there are more people who seem to not care than there are people who do. It's the ones who care who belong in the psychoanalytical fields because they have the potential to do something about it.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Also, why must I have been the popular kid in school, because I don't understand massacring 13 people? Give me a break.


 No, because you haven't a clue what the mind does to cope from the other side of the coin, nor do you care.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> "They're monsters and cannot be helped or rehabilitated, then why the heck are we spending money on them having them pay their debt to society? Let's just off them all and rid our nation of all the sociopaths?" Well, considering rehabilitation is a joke and the majority of violent crimes are committed by the same small group of people...YES!!! You just don't get it do you? Every sarcastic question you ask, in reality, defeats your argument because the real answers to those questions aren't the ones you believe.


 I suggest that anyone who so passionately argues that those who are not of sound mind should be massacred is a monster himself and you inability to see that suggests your own neurosis.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It's obvious you are a good, caring person. That's very obvious. I just think you're a bit naive. It's also obvious that you believe the whole rest of the world, deep down, is just like you. The truth is, however, that sociopaths exist,and if you ever come face to face with one in his natural habitat, you will come back in this forum and apologize for everything you've said to me. Lets both hope that doesn't happen. We are not all born with the same needs, the same desires. We are not all born caring, kind creatures. Some of us are born a little darker, and those people are willing to rip what they feel they deserve from you if it suits them to do so.


 I was born into a family of monsters. I lived among them, was raised among them, ate with them, slept with them. I have fallen victim to them repeatedly. I almost became one. I know more about monsters than your books and study and misguided analysis can ever hope to afford you. 



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Your attempts to empathize with them only aids them. Empathy is not true understanding. I know criminals that spend their whole lives manipulating the empathy of well intentioned people just like you. Those people think they are getting "understanding" from the criminal, but the criminal is merely manipulating their emotions to get what they want.


 Empathy is not true understanding, I agree. And yes, they do manipulate the emotions of others. After all my experiences with monsters and sociopaths I have been able to find a road where I could heal my mind and maintain a spiritual perspective as well.

 You seem to think I would waste my time trying to convert hopeless cases. You know not of which you type. You do not want to know what I have done personally to extracate myself from a very dark world.

 What I have is the desire to prevent tragedys from happening and raise awareness so that the ignorant masses who think buying their children many things and plopping them down in front of the television or the X Box is "cool parenting," and how to discern the difference between normal teenage behavior and cries for help. 

 What I am saying is that these boys are not the only culprits in the tragedy. Kids will be bullied. Big deal. But for adults to join in the ostrcism of these young boys is what pushed them over the edge. If you decide to not subscribe to that idea is your business. You go right ahead and practice your convenient, ignorant, new sociopathology and Hitlerism.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 6, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> You still haven't pointed to one single victim that allegedly victimized these killers. Without that, you've already lost this argument.


 They took their anger out on the Instution that allowed it to happen.

 The School.  The Other Students.  

 To put it more plainly... EVERYONE THAT WASNT ON THEIR SIDE. 

 Lemme use your argument for a moment... 

 If they were just psychopaths, they would have killed anyone they came across...

 You still haven't pointed to one single victim that was a friend to these killers. Without that, you've already lost this argument.


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 6, 2005)

So is self defense needed or self-awareness? What is to be done?


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 6, 2005)

I'd like to read your opinion expressed in more than one fast sentence, MartialMan.


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 6, 2005)

Actually my opinion is divided and inconclusive.


----------



## MJS (Mar 6, 2005)

47MartialMan said:
			
		

> Actually my opinion is divided and inconclusive.



Well, this is a forum, designed for friendly discussion, so I, like Shesulsa, would like to hear your thoughts.

Mike


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 6, 2005)

Again, I must state, my opinion is divided and inconclusive. In other words, per this matter, I can go either way of the discussion because of the information thus far, but the info is not enough to have a particular standpoint. So far, both opposing views have good points. This is like my study of Christianity and martial arts. Very hard to come to a single conclusion. Although I enjoy reading and learning.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 6, 2005)

So then, could you please express to us your feelings on both sides of the matter, MartialMan?


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 6, 2005)

Most of us live in a society that problems or situations arise in life. Such as many were not thought about decades ago. Now, don't misconstrue this as they did not exist. These new societies want to "point fingers" and/or take no responsibility or action. When certain ones finally take action, they are criticized from others, that form counter-groups. From continued oppositon and counter-points, (like US governement per Democrats/Republicans, which the founding father had not dreamed or wanted to be this way), progress is not made soon enough or not at all. Given this a "self defense in public schools" turned into issues of morality, or moral character, education is the key. Not emotional responses and/or finger-pointing. 
So my question stands:
Is self defense needed or self-awareness? What is to be done?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 7, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> If a counseling session(s) will not help these people, then they need to be taken from the general population. Look at Michael Ross. This guy killed 8 women. Now, you're not going to tell me that during the course of his life, he was not showing any signs of a troubled person. I'm pretty sure that he was, unfortunately, nobody noticed these signs and 8 people got killed. There was a story about a guy that was renting a house from a family in CT. That family had a litter of puppies. This guy wanted one, but the family said no, due to the fact that they did not feel that he could properly care for the dog. He proceeded to take a knife, and slit the throats of all 6 puppies. 5 died, and one was able to be saved. Now, this guy is showing no signs of an illness?? I think he is!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Like what?  Those who usually say "Something should be done" usually don't have a clue what.  I'm open for realistic suggestions.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 7, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> They took their anger out on the Instution that allowed it to happen.
> 
> The School. The Other Students.
> 
> ...


That's hillarious. You argument is that this wasn't a massacre of 13 innocent people, it was an act of protest? So shooting innocent people is fine, the fact that they didn't shoot anyone they personally liked is good enough for you? That is the stupidest thing i've heard in a long career of hearing stupid things.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 7, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> You have just revealed yourself. Thank you, you have made my point.
> 
> No, I am proposing looking at these young men for what they are - humans who went wrong - and finding out why so that we can keep it from happening again. Problem is, there are more people who seem to not care than there are people who do. It's the ones who care who belong in the psychoanalytical fields because they have the potential to do something about it.
> 
> ...


Sounds like you're too caught up in your own personal story to view the world through dispationate lenses. Get help for yourself, but don't pretend to have any answers. 

I may be a bit of a monster myself, but it takes a little bit of a monster to deal with monsters. As you've demonstrated, most sheep refuse to acknowledge they even exist. So i'll continue to deal with the monsters, and you can continue to represent the ungrateful grasseaters of the world who have a fantasy that simply caring hard enough will make the world a better place. Sounds like a cartoon. As far as my knowledge of monsters being academic, I can assure it is not. I've arrested men who've boiled the skin off babies because they wouldn't stop crying. If you want to sit in your ivory tower and pretend those people don't exist, or, that they aren't really evil, you do that, but don't pretend you do it from any real understanding. My empathy for killers ended when I had to start knowing them and their victims. Further, it isn't your empathy that protects you from monsters, it's "monsters" like me. 

The real failure of Columbine is that the police response was outdated for an active shooter incident, and was geared toward a classic hostage situation. Not the fault of the officers, but it was outdated. Had the responding officers directly engaged Harris and Klebold, either wounding them, killing them outright, or forcing them to commit suicide prematurely, more lives could have been saved. I train my officers that neutralizing the active shooter if possible is the appropriate response to this type of situation, as active shooters will continue to kill until they run out of targets. I could care less if these kids had rough childhoods while they are killing innocent people, it doesn't matter to me. Neutralizing the threat is what is important. I also teach my officers that, yeah, going home at the end of your shift is important, but it's not the most important thing. If they're not willing to place themselves in harms way to protect innocent people, they should find another line of work. The difference between my type of monster and the type that kills innocent people is...i'm willing to place my monster body in between those monsters and their innocent victims, and i'm prepared to die to keep innocent people alive. Selfish of me huh? You might want to point that empathy glass inward before you start acting as though you care so much. Because I find it kind of bizarre that you can justify the murder of 13 innocent people so easily, but decide to get angry at me for suggesting that maybe they are responsible for what they did.  You talk about defaming two monsters as wrong, but call me Hitler just for disagreeing with you.  You might not have come out of your experiences as alright as you let on, because it seems your empathy stops with the killers of innocent people.


----------



## MJS (Mar 7, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Like what?  Those who usually say "Something should be done" usually don't have a clue what.  I'm open for realistic suggestions.



Go back and re read my posts.  I have given many suggestions.

Mike


----------



## Shogun (Mar 7, 2005)

Not to stray back on topic or anything.....

These two kids got into it really good, verbally, a couple years ago, when I was in high school. One day, one of the guys decided to push the other over a 5 foot wall, then stomp on his head. the other got up in a daze and started swinging. he ended up just glancing the other kid, but got a longer suspension because he was seen "punching" the other guy.

Personally, I think if you have the choice between fighting and not fighting, for the same punishment, go ahead and fight. I did.


----------



## MJS (Mar 7, 2005)

Mod. Note. 
Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-MJS
-MT Moderator-


----------



## Michael Billings (Mar 7, 2005)

An additional Note: The sarcastic tone in posts needs to be monitored a bit more closely.  That is part of MJS's "polite and respectful" Mod Note.

 Thanks,
 -Michael Billings
 -MT Super Moderator-


----------



## lvwhitebir (Mar 8, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I've arrested men who've boiled the skin off babies because they wouldn't stop crying.



This is a thread about self-defense at school.  I believe your view would be more correct for a prison setting.  We're talking about 13-year-old kids, not 33-year-old hardened killers.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I could care less if these kids had rough childhoods while they are killing innocent people, it doesn't matter to me.



I'm sorry I brought up Columbine.  No one here has said they were innocent in what they did.  The point is we need to understand how to prevent future acts of atrocities, which I think is usually possible.  Not everyone is a born mass-murderer.  Sometimes society makes them.  In this case, the school environment was a huge influence on these kids; if we remove the influence that made them violent, maybe we can prevent future violence.  If we don't try, we won't prevent anything.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Because I find it kind of bizarre that you can justify the murder of 13 innocent people so easily



I haven't read anything that someone said that justifies their actions, so I think your response is misdirected.

WhiteBirch


----------



## lvwhitebir (Mar 8, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I've arrested men who've boiled the skin off babies because they wouldn't stop crying.



This is a thread about self-defense at school.  I believe your view would be more correct for a prison setting.  We're talking about 13-year-old kids, not 33-year-old hardened killers.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I could care less if these kids had rough childhoods while they are killing innocent people, it doesn't matter to me.



I'm sorry I brought up Columbine.  No one here has said they were innocent in what they did.  The point is we need to understand how to prevent future acts of atrocities, which I think is usually possible.  Not everyone is a born mass-murderer.  Sometimes society makes them.  In this case, the school environment was a huge influence on these kids; if we remove the influence that made them violent, maybe we can prevent future violence.  If we don't try, we won't prevent anything.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Because I find it kind of bizarre that you can justify the murder of 13 innocent people so easily



I haven't read anything that someone said that justifies their actions, so I think your response is misdirected.

Let's bring this thread back on track.

WhiteBirch


----------



## lvwhitebir (Mar 8, 2005)

Shogun said:
			
		

> Personally, I think if you have the choice between fighting and not fighting, for the same punishment, go ahead and fight. I did.



Accounting for the fact that fighting alone can get either you or him killed or seriously injured, I think that's incredibly bad advice.  Defend yourself from harm, negate the attack by escaping it, but to willfully and intentionally fight back for no other reason than you're going to get a suspension anyways is silly.  That's the reasoning that get's you put in jail later on in life.

WhiteBirch


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 8, 2005)

First, I apologize for veering off topic.

 Second, clearly the administration at public schools is too broadly spread to really track students who are vulnerable.  Though most of them will survive without a great deal of intervention, enough will not to raise the eyebrow.  

 I have seen kids punch, kick, trip and choke other kids right behind the recess duty's back.  I almost think awareness training is more needed for the supervising adults (at least in elementary school, anyway).

 What worries me more is the rampant carriage of pocket knives in public school starting at about 5th grade. So when we think about the need for self-defense in this situation, we need to think kid vs. kid or kid vs. teacher.  Not too many elementary school-aged kids are really going to know much about how to weild a knife, but most teachers nor other kids know how to clear their bodies of the weapon, either.  And now, in the entitlement decade, tempers seem to flair more quickly as does the lack of respect for authority, rules, and common decency.


----------



## Shogun (Mar 8, 2005)

> Accounting for the fact that fighting alone can get either you or him killed or seriously injured, I think that's incredibly bad advice. Defend yourself from harm, negate the attack by escaping it, but to willfully and intentionally fight back for no other reason than you're going to get a suspension anyways is silly. That's the reasoning that get's you put in jail later on in life.
> 
> WhiteBirch


Yes, for no other reaon than your going to get expelled anyways is bad advice.  Let me tell you what I meant. I say "I did" because two years ago I had a Forestry and Natural resuources class in high school. I didnt know before joining, but the reason the other kids joined this class is so they could run off into the woods, and try Meth, Marijuana, shrooms, and other drugs. we were supposed to be surveying land and making trails, but I was attacked by a kid with a Machete. If I would have said "naw, I'll get suspended if I defend my self" I wouldnt be telling you this right now. My friend was beaten and pissed on, by the way. The kids were expelled, but I think if you are in danger, fighting should cross you mind. sometmes running isnt possible. (ever try running in a clear-cut?) 

My attitude is very law-friendly. I am a Sheriff Explorer, and I have been told my thoughts on fighting are such by LEO from different fields.


Kyle


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 9, 2005)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> This is a thread about self-defense at school. I believe your view would be more correct for a prison setting. We're talking about 13-year-old kids, not 33-year-old hardened killers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually, no, the topic changed when we started talking about Columbine, and they were not 13 years old. They were, for all intense and purposes, adults. Further, i've read about a couple dozen posts that tried to justify the attacks. I think we've all changed the topic at this point. You and I weren't discussing 13 year old kids defending themselves, we're discussing Harris and Klebold, a topic I did not bring up. If you want to change the topic back, that's fine, but don't pretend i'm the only one off topic.  I wasn't discussing 13 year old kids fighting amongst each other, I was discussing the premediated murder of innocent people.

As for people not being born a mass murderer, fine.  I suggest you try and prevent them from becoming one by all means available.  I'll applaud that effort, and i'll congratulate you if you are successful.  Because at the point at which they do become one, they deserve nothing but societies wrath and eternal hatred, and they no longer deserve our mercy.  So try to prevent them from turning in that direction, because once they do they get to deal with people like me, and I have no sympathy for them once they've crossed that line.  That's all i've really got to say about this topic as it seems to have run it's course.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 9, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> They took their anger out on the Instution that allowed it to happen.
> 
> The School. The Other Students.
> 
> ...


This type of argument is what I meant by an attempt to justify. I could be wrong, but it seems as if a couple of people are trying to validate Harris and Klebold, and it's that that makes me angry, because I know there are families and friends of 13 people who will never see their loved ones again, all because Klebold and Harris thought they had the right to kill them. So, when someone seems to be suggesting that Harris and Klebold DID have the right to kill those people, simply because, as the author above said, those people weren't a "friend to these killers", it makes me more than a little angry. So not knowing someone or being their friend is justification for murder? If you've mistated your point and that's not what you're saying, then fine. But if this is really your point of view, there's a problem.  These two posts will be my last word on this matter as this debate has about run as far as it's likely to go in this forum.  So, to each their own.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 9, 2005)

Shogun said:
			
		

> Yes, for no other reaon than your going to get expelled anyways is bad advice. Let me tell you what I meant. I say "I did" because two years ago I had a Forestry and Natural resuources class in high school. I didnt know before joining, but the reason the other kids joined this class is so they could run off into the woods, and try Meth, Marijuana, shrooms, and other drugs. we were supposed to be surveying land and making trails, but I was attacked by a kid with a Machete. If I would have said "naw, I'll get suspended if I defend my self" I wouldnt be telling you this right now. My friend was beaten and pissed on, by the way. The kids were expelled, but I think if you are in danger, fighting should cross you mind. sometmes running isnt possible. (ever try running in a clear-cut?)
> 
> My attitude is very law-friendly. I am a Sheriff Explorer, and I have been told my thoughts on fighting are such by LEO from different fields.
> 
> ...


I personally have no problem with the self-defense situation you described above. I'd have arrested the machette wielder and charged him with unlawful use of a weapon and let the school do what it wants seperately. It probably wasn't these kids first rodeo anyway, so to speak.  Here's what you have to remember when defending yourself.  You have to make that choice on your own, and not everyone will agree with every decision you make.  

But you know what choice you had, live with it and move on.  If I make the right choice, even if I have to answer to people who are clueless about the dynamics of the choice, I can live with it, even if those people place consequences on me for it.  Being right and being accepted are two different things.


----------



## lvwhitebir (Mar 9, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Actually, no, the topic changed when we started talking about Columbine, and they were not 13 years old. They were, for all intense and purposes, adults.



I didn't mean to imply Harris and Klebold were 13.  My statement was that most school-age kids are 13-year-olds and not hardened killers.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> but don't pretend i'm the only one off topic.



I did not mean to imply you were the one that took us off-topic.  I only suggest that there were off-topic responses and we needed to pull it back.  This is a very good discussion.  I think school-age kids have an incorrect  mindset when it comes to what's self defense and what isn't.

WhiteBirch


----------



## lvwhitebir (Mar 9, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I could be wrong, but it seems as if a couple of people are trying to validate Harris and Klebold, ..., all because Klebold and Harris thought they had the right to kill them. So, when someone seems to be suggesting that Harris and Klebold DID have the right to kill those people, simply because, as the author above said, those people weren't a "friend to these killers", it makes me more than a little angry.



I believe you misinterpreted the authors intent.  IMO it's not that they weren't guilty, it's that there were a lot of steps that could have been taken earlier that could have prevented the killings.  That is to say, there's a lot of "guilt" to go around.

WhiteBirch


----------



## lvwhitebir (Mar 9, 2005)

Shogun said:
			
		

> but I was attacked by a kid with a Machete. If I would have said "naw, I'll get suspended if I defend my self" I wouldnt be telling you this right now.



I agree with the situation you described.  But that's far different than your previous post implied.  I believe you should defend yourself.  I have a clear distinction between the definition of "fighting" and "self-defense", however.  It all boils down to the intent of your fighting back.

If you fight back against an imminent, credible threat to your safety, from which you can't escape, and you stop at the earliest opportunity to escape, then I believe it's self defense.  

All other situations are fights.  Which means:
1) You could have fled before the threat arrived (e.g., you "took it outside")
2) The threat isn't credible (e.g., a 3-year-old threatened you)
3) You chase him after he flees or beat him after he's down and unconcious.

Legally, you are culpable for fights, but legally justified for self-defense.

WhiteBirch


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 9, 2005)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> I agree with the situation you described. But that's far different than your previous post implied. I believe you should defend yourself. I have a clear distinction between the definition of "fighting" and "self-defense", however. It all boils down to the intent of your fighting back.
> 
> If you fight back against an imminent, credible threat to your safety, from which you can't escape, and you stop at the earliest opportunity to escape, then I believe it's self defense.
> 
> ...


Well said.  I don't think there is a single school that would tell a student to take a beating to avoid suspension.  I DO think that schools are leaving the message that violence is not going to be tolerated and, even in the case of self defense, the 'victim' is partially responsible because of a failure to use other options to resolve/report/flee/avoid the majority of situations.

It comes down to choice, sort of a school version of 'tried by 12 not carried by 6.'  Personally, I would trade a few days of suspension because I laid a kid out in a fight where I had to defend myself....

of course as a hot blooded, testosterone laden youth I might be too short sighted to see what I could learn for future situations or what I might have done better in this one and focus on "Hey I was the victim here!"  Comes with the age.  THere are even medical reports about the 'concrete' and 'ego centric' personallity of teens.  This is not a negative judgement.  It is just a statement of how teens are developmentally as they grow into adulthood.  I am sure there are many 30+ males that remember how they 'use to be' and aren't that way anymore.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 10, 2005)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> I believe you misinterpreted the authors intent. IMO it's not that they weren't guilty, it's that there were a lot of steps that could have been taken earlier that could have prevented the killings. That is to say, there's a lot of "guilt" to go around.
> 
> WhiteBirch


I understand the point you are trying to make.  However, I come at this whole conversation from a different point of view.  If we are referring to bullying at school being a problem, than yes, i'll agree that it should not be tolerated.  Further, if steps can be put in place that prevent school violence, I endorse those as well.  I just disagree that much could have been done short of seperating them from other children in the Harris and Klebold case and other similar school shootings.  But that's a topic for a much different forum.  

I personally plan on sending my daughter to a private school.  I heard it once said that public school is the only place and time of your life when you will be exposed directly and intimately to people from all strata of society.  From the poorest to the wealthiest, future doctors, lawyers, factory workers, murderers, rapists, etc, all under one roof.  Further, if we want to discuss one of the worst places kids are congragated, and where the worst violence and bullying takes place, we have to discuss school buses.  School buses have got to be one of the most traumatic places for young children to have to endure.  Imagine you're a 6 year old child and this occurs in front of you OR TOO YOU.  http://www.wftv.com/education/2620828/detail.html.  That's why I feel that private schooling is a much better alternative as it tends to weed out a great deal of the kind of individuals that perpetrate this kind of violence.  Further, it's easier to get permanently removed from private school.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 10, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I understand the point you are trying to make. However, I come at this whole conversation from a different point of view. If we are referring to bullying at school being a problem, than yes, i'll agree that it should not be tolerated. Further, if steps can be put in place that prevent school violence, I endorse those as well. I just disagree that much could have been done short of seperating them from other children in the Harris and Klebold case and other similar school shootings. But that's a topic for a much different forum.
> 
> I personally plan on sending my daughter to a private school. I heard it once said that public school is the only place and time of your life when you will be exposed directly and intimately to people from all strata of society. From the poorest to the wealthiest, future doctors, lawyers, factory workers, murderers, rapists, etc, all under one roof. Further, if we want to discuss one of the worst places kids are congragated, and where the worst violence and bullying takes place, we have to discuss school buses. School buses have got to be one of the most traumatic places for young children to have to endure. Imagine you're a 6 year old child and this occurs in front of you OR TOO YOU. http://www.wftv.com/education/2620828/detail.html. That's why I feel that private schooling is a much better alternative as it tends to weed out a great deal of the kind of individuals that perpetrate this kind of violence. Further, it's easier to get permanently removed from private school.


I think that a generalization about public schools like this is stretching reality. The tax base, economic status and general feel of a community will dictate how much scum factor your child will be exposed to in public school. Exposure/socialization is part of the school experience and I have spent some time with students that went to private schools and public schools in college. Admittedly, one of the hardest working classmates I knew was a private school grad (but was a scholarship case and not the norm at her private school either). BUT, she was also the WORST savvy girl I have met. No street sense, no solid 'people skills' outside of school. She wasn't a ditz, just ignorant/naive.

Just recently, in a school district that has lured families away from the local private schools, there was a Halloween Arson of a housing development under construction....the minors were three of the local golden boys who had fathers/mothers as lawyer/doctor type professionals and were attending a local private school....

the money just changes the costume and at times makes it more convenient for the families to 'cover up' or sweep the issue under the table....poorer families that have kids in trouble can't afford to do that. In that same community, a middle/middle class 50 something man that lived in a million dollar home shot and killed his wife...

Sometimes 'priviledge' translates to 'excused from the rules' or a lack of 'responsibility' in the mind of children/teenager.

I think there are only two true advantages of a private school:
1.  Smaller classes sizes mean more time with each student and more class control.

2.  The power to truly 'kick a student out' that the public schools are not allowed to do as easily.  Private schools can 'weed out' the ones that don't know how to play the game during the day....but that doesn't mean that these kids are 'better kids' than public school kids.  It just means they know when to be Eddie Haskel's when the grown ups are watching....but some of these 'good kids' are drug dealers, date rapers, thugs/bullies....when they are hanging out away from adults..


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 10, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I think that a generalization about public schools like this is stretching reality. The tax base, economic status and general feel of a community will dictate how much scum factor your child will be exposed to in public school. Exposure/socialization is part of the school experience and I have spent some time with students that went to private schools and public schools in college. Admittedly, one of the hardest working classmates I knew was a private school grad (but was a scholarship case and not the norm at her private school either). BUT, she was also the WORST savvy girl I have met. No street sense, no solid 'people skills' outside of school. She wasn't a ditz, just ignorant/naive.
> 
> Just recently, in a school district that has lured families away from the local private schools, there was a Halloween Arson of a housing development under construction....the minors were three of the local golden boys who had fathers/mothers as lawyer/doctor type professionals and were attending a local private school....
> 
> ...


Apples and oranges. Parents who excuse their childrens behavior are another topic, and one that i've already covered. At no point did I say "scum", I did point out that schools are the biggest melting pot we have in society, and that for the rest of our lives after leaving public school, we tend to congregate with people who share our interests and lifestyles. That is why there seems to be a lack of tolerance in schools, because we put every type of person together in one small community. 

I think you misunderstood my comments as far as the different strata of society and assumed I meant poor people were the only ones who commit crime.  As a police officer, i'm fully aware of the spectrum of criminal behavior, and wealthy teenage boys are often the worst offenders, mostly because they know mommy and daddy can afford good attorneys (or are good attorneys), so they believe they are above the law and can do whatever they want (i.e. pick any Kennedy). 

My point about private schools is that problem children are booted out rather easily compared to public schools who are forced to take everyone until problems arise serious enough to warrant expulsion.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 10, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Exposure/socialization is part of the school experience and I have spent some time with students that went to private schools and public schools in college. Admittedly, one of the hardest working classmates I knew was a private school grad (but was a scholarship case and not the norm at her private school either). BUT, she was also the WORST savvy girl I have met. No street sense, no solid 'people skills' outside of school. She wasn't a ditz, just ignorant/naive.


 Being someone who came from private elementary and middle school, I can tell you that truer words have yet to be spoken.  There is little need to defend oneself at the kind of schools I was brought up in - Private, protestant academies where devotion is a school subject you get a grade in, attendance at Chapel, Sunday school and Church are counted as part of your grade as well.  Conflict is dealt with quickly and seriously, long before it gets out of hand.  

 FEAR rules the roost in private schools.  Fear of expulsion, fear of the Board of Education (a paddle with holes drilled into it and a picture drawn on it of a man spanking a boy hard), fear of a bad grade, fear of being ostracized.

 When I transitioned to public high school it was the hardest thing I ever did and I never really fit in.

 I saw two knives on different kids my first day of 9th grade.  I learned what a gang was from first-hand experience.  Book learning and world learning are entirely different.  I had a new fear when I went there - fear for my life.

 My kids are WAY more savvy than I was at their ages and good for them!  What they are truly lacking from public education is they are not as advanced as private schools would have them be.  And they are exposed to far more things than I was at their age, such as sex, drugs and violence.  But they work it out.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 10, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Apples and oranges. Parents who excuse their childrens behavior are another topic, and one that i've already covered. At no point did I say "scum", I did point out that schools are the biggest melting pot we have in society, and that for the rest of our lives after leaving public school, we tend to congregate with people who share our interests and lifestyles. That is why there seems to be a lack of tolerance in schools, because we put every type of person together in one small community.
> 
> I think you misunderstood my comments as far as the different strata of society and assumed I meant poor people were the only ones who commit crime. As a police officer, i'm fully aware of the spectrum of criminal behavior, and wealthy teenage boys are often the worst offenders, mostly because they know mommy and daddy can afford good attorneys (or are good attorneys), so they believe they are above the law and can do whatever they want (i.e. pick any Kennedy).
> 
> My point about private schools is that problem children are booted out rather easily compared to public schools who are forced to take everyone until problems arise serious enough to warrant expulsion.


Never said you said 'scum' it was my term for 'trouble makers' (basically because it was shorter than spelling out 'trouble makers').  I did not assume that YOU meant that only poor people committed crimes.  As a former LEO/MP type myself between training, shop talk and direct experience, I was simply making the point that the 'priviledge mentallity' of a private school format can create problems that are the same in nature as public school but may look different in scenario.  I remember the havoc that the 'Preps' or the 'Beautiful People' in school caused because they thought they could either get away with more or that they deserved more and how that behavior was learned by family upbringing ("Suzy didn't get the lead in the musical, I'll sue).  So, there is an Apples and Apples link between a priviledge minded student and the excusing parent IMO.

the two advantages of Private school from my previous post are right in line with your idea about discipline and private schools.  That toesn't mean that a child in private school is not going to face more subtle but still very damaging forms of emotional/physical attacks.  Under tighter restrictions kids can get very sneaky and tricky....If they would only use their power for good 

Another one I was thinking about is the possibility of more parental invovlement/supervision when Mom and Dad are watching the money leave the checking account and little Jonny/Janie is not providing a behavioral or academic return on that investment.  "We are paying good money for you to ...." sort of stuff.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 10, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Another one I was thinking about is the possibility of more parental invovlement/supervision when Mom and Dad are watching the money leave the checking account and little Jonny/Janie is not providing a behavioral or academic return on that investment. "We are paying good money for you to ...." sort of stuff.


My point exactly.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 10, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> This type of argument is what I meant by an attempt to justify. I could be wrong, but it seems as if a couple of people are trying to validate Harris and Klebold, and it's that that makes me angry, because I know there are families and friends of 13 people who will never see their loved ones again, all because Klebold and Harris thought they had the right to kill them. So, when someone seems to be suggesting that Harris and Klebold DID have the right to kill those people, simply because, as the author above said, those people weren't a "friend to these killers", it makes me more than a little angry. So not knowing someone or being their friend is justification for murder? If you've mistated your point and that's not what you're saying, then fine. But if this is really your point of view, there's a problem. These two posts will be my last word on this matter as this debate has about run as far as it's likely to go in this forum. So, to each their own.


You make me giggle.


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 10, 2005)

But has violence really changed in the school system, or has it surface whereas teacher, principals, parent, and the law now want to pint at each other instead of combing the issue and take in on as a group


----------



## lvwhitebir (Mar 11, 2005)

From the statistics I've seen recently, school violence has actually decreased.  I don't think the type of violence has really changed (usually just fist fights or whatever).  

I don't see teachers, parents, and law enforcement really blaming the other.  I think they're all just not addressing the issues and are putting it off as "boys being boys" or whatever.  It's not until a major school event happens that people even look at the issue.  And then the reaction is generally to clamp down on the violence at the school by shoving the kids out the door instead of dealing with them (solve the problem by moving it off school grounds).

The problem is extremely complex with no easy answers, but it has to be looked at.

WhiteBirch


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 11, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> My point exactly.


But, your point does not address the fact that the violence/bullying/problems that happen openly in a public school will still happen. It will just happen after school in places and ways that the school will not report, know about or be liable for....

Sometimes there is a confusion because public schools are required to report so much more than private schools....some private schools simply don't report these things publically so that an honest side by side comparison can be made.  And it would really impact enrollment/money if they did.

One of the highest number of teen pregnancies was at a local all girls private catholic school. That was compared to ALL the schools in the district short of the city schools. That means that this smaller population of all girls had MORE pregnancies than larger populated public schools did.

It is like comparing domestic violence and admitting that it may only look like it is 'on the rise' because it is simply being reported more than in the past. It is/was happening, just not made public or discussed.


----------



## Deuce (Mar 11, 2005)

I agree with the many posts which suggest self-defense should be accepted in cases where no other alternative is conceivable, such as avoiding altercations all together. I do however have a problem with the standard no violence clauses which result in both parties being subject to suspension for a pre-determined amount of time. As such, something similar should be inbedded within the rules and school policy, but I think each situation should be looked at individually, taking into account past occurences and performances of all involved. It seems unfair that a kid who is mild mannered, good in school, and no history of violence should have to incure punishment because he was jumped, pinned to the ground, and used force in self defense to escape the situation.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 11, 2005)

Deuce said:
			
		

> I agree with the many posts which suggest self-defense should be accepted in cases where no other alternative is conceivable, such as avoiding altercations all together. I do however have a problem with the standard no violence clauses which result in both parties being subject to suspension for a pre-determined amount of time. As such, something similar should be inbedded within the rules and school policy, but I think each situation should be looked at individually, taking into account past occurences and performances of all involved. It seems unfair that a kid who is mild mannered, good in school, and no history of violence should have to incure punishment because he was jumped, pinned to the ground, and used force in self defense to escape the situation.


The idea is not just a punitive action.  It also removes BOTH parties from the building for a period of time to let themselves and their friends (who might be interested in retaliation or something along those lines) cool off.  It also sends a message to the REST of the school that the behavior is not tolerable.

The policy has gone under scrutiny many times and the 'cooling off period' logic is the one that seems to be the most rationally and widely accepted justification.

The thing to remember isn't how a teen or outsider percieves the suspension as much as the intent (and how well that intent is communicated to the parents and students involved) of the administration that is implimenting it.

Another benefit is it gives the administration time to sift through the details to figure out fault/culpability.  I have heard of cases where the obviously less 'guilty' party got a reduced suspension or was given chances to shorten their time through some community service type of option AFTER THE INITIAL administration action was taken.


----------



## Han-Mi (Mar 12, 2005)

Moral of the story:   If you're gonna get suspended, it might as well be worth it.

FIGHT BACK


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 13, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Another benefit is it gives the administration time to sift through the details to figure out fault/culpability. I have heard of cases where the obviously less 'guilty' party got a reduced suspension or was given chances to shorten their time through some community service type of option AFTER THE INITIAL administration action was taken.


Which is fine, provided that there is no other school policy dictating that after a certain number of suspensions, (say 3, for example), that an automatic expulsion or other punishment is not levied.  Specifically, the suspensions received by the victims in these circumstances should not count as applying toward that total.  That would be unjust, and run counter to the intent of the suspensions applied to the victims.


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 13, 2005)

I cannot count the number of detentions, suspensions, and expulsions that I had.......geez, if I had a dollar (or two) fir each.........


----------



## lvwhitebir (Mar 14, 2005)

Han-Mi said:
			
		

> Moral of the story:   If you're gonna get suspended, it might as well be worth it.
> 
> FIGHT BACK



Are we reading the same thread?  I don't think I got that moral at all.  I thought I mentioned this already, but... Fighting for no other reason than just because you're going to get a suspension is stupid and potentially life threatening.  That's like saying you're going to prison anyways so you might as well shoot the clerk on the way out the door.

WhiteBirch


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 16, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> But, your point does not address the fact that the violence/bullying/problems that happen openly in a public school will still happen. It will just happen after school in places and ways that the school will not report, know about or be liable for....
> 
> Sometimes there is a confusion because public schools are required to report so much more than private schools....some private schools simply don't report these things publically so that an honest side by side comparison can be made. And it would really impact enrollment/money if they did.
> 
> ...


That's because parents don't take responsibility for their children.  If a 17 year old girl gets out and gets drunk and pregnant, that's her fault.  If a 12 year old girl does it, it's the parents fault.  There is a degree of accountability tha needs to be taken.  Your statements don't really alter anything.  My statements on the matter were about my child and my decision that private school is a better environment.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 21, 2005)

Thought those interested in our earlier discussion about Harris/Klebold and Columbine might be interested in reading an indepth discussion on the Gene Expression website. http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002115.html

The conclusion of many experts was that Klebold, without Harris, might have received help.  Klebold fit the pattern many here were claiming of an angry young man that needed help.  Harris, however "was not a wayward boy who could have been rescued. Harris, they believe, was irretrievable. He was a brilliant killer without a conscience, searching for the most diabolical scheme imaginable. *If he had lived to adulthood and developed his murderous skills for many more years, there is no telling what he could have done. His death at Columbine may have stopped him from doing something even worse."*

*I found it pretty interesting. *


----------



## Martial_Maniac (Mar 22, 2005)

In my school district, if any contact is made, it's fair to suspend both parties.  So basically, i would get suspended (not as severe as the other guy) if I blocked a punch.  This is what happened to my insructor's son.  A guy was picking on him cuz of his size and ended up trying to hit him.  So he blocked the punch, and he got suspended for a week.  This world is just not a fair place.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Mar 22, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Thought those interested in our earlier discussion about Harris/Klebold and Columbine might be interested in reading an indepth discussion on the Gene Expression website. http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002115.html
> 
> The conclusion of many experts was that Klebold, without Harris, might have received help.  Klebold fit the pattern many here were claiming of an angry young man that needed help.  Harris, however "was not a wayward boy who could have been rescued. Harris, they believe, was irretrievable. He was a brilliant killer without a conscience, searching for the most diabolical scheme imaginable. *If he had lived to adulthood and developed his murderous skills for many more years, there is no telling what he could have done. His death at Columbine may have stopped him from doing something even worse."*
> 
> *I found it pretty interesting. *





There is a book out now called "The Sociopath Next Door," by Martha Stout.  Sounds like you and I both would find it an interesting book.

One in 25 American males are estimated as sociopathic.  That is a higher rate than colon cancer and other "alarming" diseases.

Jonathon Kellerman has one out about this too, called "Savage Spawn."  He's not just a fiction writer, as it turns out.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 22, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> There is a book out now called "The Sociopath Next Door," by Martha Stout. Sounds like you and I both would find it an interesting book.
> 
> One in 25 American males are estimated as sociopathic. That is a higher rate than colon cancer and other "alarming" diseases.
> 
> ...


Sounds like an interesting book.  Retired Colonel Dave Grossman has an excellent book on the subject of aggression in general, and touching on sociopathy in particular, in his book "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society" and he has an excellent website http://www.killology.com/.

It's an interesting subject and there are many people who don't even believe true sociopaths exist because they've never encountered one or never knew what they were looking at.


----------



## Skitzo (Mar 27, 2005)

I'm a teacher in a public school.  In the past year I have seen two kids attack teachers,  One of the two kids has now physically attacked 3 teachers at my school and has been suspended 28 days so far.  But guess who the "Child Abuse Service" was called against?  The teacher!!!  In the past 2 years we have had SEVEN teachers investigated by C.A.S and everyone found innocent.  In four of the cases, the teachers were not even in the same room as the kid!!!  (they just gave them a poor test score).  

 We are not permitted to touch a kid (even to pat them on the shoulder and say _"Hey, Good job on the test"_ is considered assault)  If a fight breaks out, we are to walk up to the fight with our hands behind our back and say 3 times "Please stop!" "Please Stop!" "Please Stop!"

 If a little kid tries to hug us (you know how they grab your leg) we have to avoid contact at all costs and if we can't, we put our hand on their forehead and keep our arm straight so they can't get near us.  

 Parents and students are upset because teachers will not intervene.  Well, think of it:  If two kids are fighting and I step in to stop them, one may say I hurt him and point to a injury caused in the fight; AND his friends will back him up.  So, now I would have lost my job, I can't pay my mortage and my family (new baby) is in REAL trouble, I would have just blown 5 years of University including a Masters Degree, I would be shamed in the community, I would never be able to teach again, how would I eat?!?!?..... all because a couple of kids are fighting over who has a better pair of shoes?!?!?!  

 Teachers do not have the same rights as other adults in our society.  If a kid makes a false claim, nothing will happen to him; but the teacher is sent through the ringer.  If anyone is inerested, Pick up a book called "Guilty until proven Innocent".  Two lawyers in Colorado have made a career of defending teachers from false accusations.  Many kids have seen TV shows where students get a teacher ousted and think it's funny - but in reality, when they do this, they are messing with our future and our ability to put food on the table.


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 27, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> That's because parents don't take responsibility for their children. If a 17 year old girl gets out and gets drunk and pregnant, that's her fault. If a 12 year old girl does it, it's the parents fault. There is a degree of accountability tha needs to be taken. Your statements don't really alter anything. My statements on the matter were about my child and my decision that private school is a better environment.


Yes, a private school is a better environment-but why?


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 27, 2005)

Martial_Maniac said:
			
		

> In my school district, if any contact is made, it's fair to suspend both parties. So basically, i would get suspended (not as severe as the other guy) if I blocked a punch. This is what happened to my insructor's son. A guy was picking on him cuz of his size and ended up trying to hit him. So he blocked the punch, and he got suspended for a week. This world is just not a fair place.


It gets more unfair if you dont plan a good carreer. So try to go to college or trade school.


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 27, 2005)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> Are we reading the same thread? I don't think I got that moral at all. I thought I mentioned this already, but... Fighting for no other reason than just because you're going to get a suspension is stupid and potentially life threatening. That's like saying you're going to prison anyways so you might as well shoot the clerk on the way out the door.
> 
> WhiteBirch


That was a good analogy. But one must realize that it will seem there are a lot of juveniles here whom make blatant remarks based upon their stimulus and environment. However, there maybe those here that have a lot of logical thinking and common sense.


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 27, 2005)

Skitzo said:
			
		

> We are not permitted to touch a kid (even to pat them on the shoulder and say _"Hey, Good job on the test"_ is considered assault) If a fight breaks out, we are to walk up to the fight with our hands behind our back and say 3 times "Please stop!" "Please Stop!" "Please Stop!"
> 
> If a little kid tries to hug us (you know how they grab your leg) we have to avoid contact at all costs and if we can't, we put our hand on their forehead and keep our arm straight so they can't get near us.
> 
> Teachers do not have the same rights as other adults in our society. If a kid makes a false claim, nothing will happen to him; but the teacher is sent through the ringer. Many kids have seen TV shows where students get a teacher ousted and think it's funny - but in reality, when they do this, they are messing with our future and our ability to put food on the table.


I know what you mean. The whole thing had turned "topsy turvey". Gone is the idea of teachers giving strict discipline. I had always like the idea of _mild_ corporal punishment.

I remember teachers grabbing me to stop a fight or something I was doing wrong many times throughout the years. I remember trying to get them in trouble with my parents, by showing bruises and tears. My parents, like parents should be, said "that's what I get for misbehaving". Then a paddle will follow from them. 

You are saying teachers don't have the same rights as adults? No way, adults and parents get into trouble by kids bearing falsehood the same. I had a good friend whom actually was incarcerated for at least 6 months. Maybe a teacher may be suspended, loose a job, hopefully the school board would back them up with legal support-I dont know. But a adult on the outside is in for it as well.

Social workers "egg on" the child in order to get things into the legal system. This is a way for them to justify their jobs. There was a special on TV, I can't remember which program, that had shown these kids bearing falsehood upon a parent or guardian. These parents or guardians, all were incarcerated. Later, the court reversed the decision and realesed them-after years!

What had happened is-society became sue and court crazy. Morals went away when liberalism came in. One can't blame the lawyers but the judges who find in favor of these estranged cases.

I can state, without a doubt, that a public school teacher has a rough job.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 27, 2005)

Skitzo said:
			
		

> I'm a teacher in a public school. In the past year I have seen two kids attack teachers, One of the two kids has now physically attacked 3 teachers at my school and has been suspended 28 days so far. But guess who the "Child Abuse Service" was called against? The teacher!!! In the past 2 years we have had SEVEN teachers investigated by C.A.S and everyone found innocent. In four of the cases, the teachers were not even in the same room as the kid!!! (they just gave them a poor test score).
> 
> We are not permitted to touch a kid (even to pat them on the shoulder and say _"Hey, Good job on the test"_ is considered assault) If a fight breaks out, we are to walk up to the fight with our hands behind our back and say 3 times "Please stop!" "Please Stop!" "Please Stop!"
> 
> ...


Those kids who assault teachers should be taught by a staff of retired marine drill instructors.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 27, 2005)

47MartialMan said:
			
		

> I know what you mean. The whole thing had turned "topsy turvey". Gone is the idea of teachers giving strict discipline. I had always like the idea of _mild_ corporal punishment.
> 
> I remember teachers grabbing me to stop a fight or something I was doing wrong many times throughout the years. I remember trying to get them in trouble with my parents, by showing bruises and tears. My parents, like parents should be, said "that's what I get for misbehaving". Then a paddle will follow from them.
> 
> ...


I've responded to a few calls by teenage kids trying to get their parents in trouble for discipline.  I'll tell you what I told a 12 year old boy who was out of control and threatened to call the police on his mom.  I told him that I, as the supervisor on duty at the PD, didn't really care if his mother beat him or not, as long as she didn't kill him.  Anything short of that for discipline was fine with me, and since i'm the one he'll be calling, he's out of luck.  I never got a call back to the house, but mom told me that she hasn't had to "beat" her son since then, just the threat was enough.


----------



## dmdfromhamilton (Apr 5, 2005)

When your school has a suspensions even if you don't fight back i think you should fight back. why? i'd rather not become the school joke and the teachers won't do anything unless they see the fight and if i just take a beating i've got suspended and bean beaten boy sounds like a pretty bad day. As for parents encouraging violence you could say my dad does cause he says if someone takes a swing at you make sure they don't get a chance to take another. My mom says the oposite never fight back get a teacher. well sometimes ppl don't like to admit it but once one person decided to start a fight there not gonna stop it and violence is now your only option. Now i probably should add that i agree and ppl should avoid fights when you can but sometimes when somebody decides they need an ego boost so there gonna beat on someone theres nothing you can do.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 6, 2005)

If you're going to get suspended either way, then swing away.  That's the problem with zero tolerance policies, there is no understanding of degrees.  Believe me, if pushing a guy off of me is going to get me in the same amount of trouble as breaking his jaw, then i'm breaking his jaw.  Why not, it's simple economics, AND i'll be less likely to have to do it again.  If it costs the same, get the most for your punishment.  Which isn't to say I think this is the way it should be, merely pointing out the logical consequences of having a one size fits all punishment.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 6, 2005)

...


----------



## MJS (Apr 6, 2005)

I agree.  If actually fighting ends up being your only option, then you might as well do it.  I would however, attempt to do everything I could to defuse the situation first and fight as a last resort.

Mike


----------



## Tony (Apr 6, 2005)

The main reason I never fought back against the bullies who made my life a living hell at secondary school was because i was more afraid of being punished by the teachers. I guess I have trouble with authority figures (i'm afraid of them!) Back in those days my Martial Arts experience was limited to all the books i had read and brief lessons from a friend of my sister.

I did get into many scraps at primary school without any fear, fighting with kids twice my size. But the consequence of being shouted at, given a detention or even suspended helped turn me into a emotional and physical punch bag! Looking back its better to gain a bad rep than be a coward for the rest of your life.

You hear of children taking their own lives because the bullies had completely destroyed their lives and made every day a living nightmare. But if these kids had found it in themselves to be strong and fight back they would still be alive because the schools often fail the victims of bullying.

Many a time I wished I could have banged some boy's head against a window or tried to arrange a way of fighting them after school off school premises but again i was too afraid and even now after receiving my brown sash i still don't know if i am good enough to fight back.


----------



## 47MartialMan (Apr 6, 2005)

dmdfromhamilton said:
			
		

> When your school has a suspensions even if you don't fight back i think you should fight back. why? i'd rather not become the school joke and the teachers won't do anything unless they see the fight and if i just take a beating i've got suspended and bean beaten boy sounds like a pretty bad day. As for parents encouraging violence you could say my dad does cause he says if someone takes a swing at you make sure they don't get a chance to take another. My mom says the oposite never fight back get a teacher. well sometimes ppl don't like to admit it but once one person decided to start a fight there not gonna stop it and violence is now your only option. Now i probably should add that i agree and ppl should avoid fights when you can but sometimes when somebody decides they need an ego boost so there gonna beat on someone theres nothing you can do.


True, which is why self defense or any form of martial art should nit be allowed in the first place. What is to stop a bully, or another student, from learning it there, and abusing ithers with it?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 7, 2005)

Tony said:
			
		

> The main reason I never fought back against the bullies who made my life a living hell at secondary school was because i was more afraid of being punished by the teachers. I guess I have trouble with authority figures (i'm afraid of them!) Back in those days my Martial Arts experience was limited to all the books i had read and brief lessons from a friend of my sister.
> 
> I did get into many scraps at primary school without any fear, fighting with kids twice my size. But the consequence of being shouted at, given a detention or even suspended helped turn me into a emotional and physical punch bag! Looking back its better to gain a bad rep than be a coward for the rest of your life.
> 
> ...


That accounts for most of the reasons people don't fight back. Authority is mostly wasted on the already converted. Those who don't respect authority will do what they want anyway, until enough force is brought to bear to bring them in to line. The fact is, teaching kids that they have no right to defend themselves against others is an example of what Nietzche called "Slave Morality", wherein it is moral and good to be weak, but evil to be strong. According to those hocking the slave morality, it is far better to be resentful and hurt for the rest of your life, than actually express your anger directly to another person. 

I don't buy it myself. I respond as I see fit, and move on. A lot less baggage that way. Of course I defend myself, I am my most valuable possession ("I" includes those closest to me). I have no problem being selfish, I don't feel it is my responsibility to sacrifice myself to avoid having to fight back against another person. I believe that if another person puts themselves in direct conflict with me, so much the worse for them. I believe it is IMMORAL to think that I need to take the abuse of others so that the world is a more peaceful place. Or that I must rely on a community to defend me. It doesn't always work that way.


----------



## Gin-Gin (Apr 7, 2005)

TigerWoman said:
			
		

> That's why I thought it was good that everyone in our high school, class of 450 x 3 knew my kids were black belts, actually really good ones.  Never once were they threatened.  But they were teased, taunted, and talked about behind their backs.  Words aren't anything but if it comes to physical danger, I told my kids to defend themselves.  Better to be suspended than to be dead.  But it is most important to avoid situations altogether.  TW


I was in a fight in school only once (either 4th or 5th grade).  My parents had always told me to never get into a fight unless the other person hit me first & I had to defend myself [which was reinforced on all those episodes of "Kung Fu" that I saw].  One day, after ignoring this guy's teasing remarks, he finally walked towards me & hit me on top of my head with his fist; I grabbed his arms & swung him around in a circle, & then let him go as gently as I could. _[Keep in mind that I was not in MA at the time--my father wouldn't allow me to take it.]  _ Even though the other kids told the teacher that the guy hit me first, she punished both of us & we each sat in on the floor in a corner of the room until our parents arrived.  After I told my parents what happened, they said that I did the right thing by defending myself & that was the end of it.  

So, I guess sometimes TV can be good for us!  (as well as good parents, of course) 

Anyway, I think it's a shame that martial arts aren't being taught in most public schools here in the states (kudos to Mr. Norris & his "Kickstart" program--too bad that his schools are only in "high risk" areas).  I wish that MA classes were required (or at least optional) in all schools.  I'm sure that there are political problems as well as lack of knowledge by non MA people who have their own assumptions, & liability issues, as well as how the MA instructors would be "qualified" compared to regular schoolteachers, but I honestly think that the structure & discipline (as well as the goals of achieving belts/stripes) are so needed by our youth; I know from personal experience that I would have handled a lot of things that happened in my life differently had I been exposed to that kind of education.  Perhaps in more time & with more positive exposure, more schools will be open to the idea...


----------



## 47MartialMan (Apr 8, 2005)

_Anyway, I think it's a shame that martial arts aren't being taught in most public schools here in the states (kudos to Mr. Norris & his "Kickstart" program--too bad that his schools are only in "high risk" areas). I wish that MA classes were required (or at least optional) in all schools. I'm sure that there are political problems as well as lack of knowledge by non MA people who have their own assumptions, & liability issues, as well as how the MA instructors would be "qualified" compared to regular schoolteachers, but I honestly think that the structure & discipline (as well as the goals of achieving belts/stripes) are so needed by our youth; I know from personal experience that I would have handled a lot of things that happened in my life differently had I been exposed to that kind of education. Perhaps in more time & with more positive exposure, more schools will be open to the idea..._Well, I do train kids-outside of the school system, to those that cannot afford it. It is needed by the yuoth, but then the politics in school, per whom decides "what" art to be taught and "how" to teach it per mandates, will surface.

I wonder, how many schools, commercially, would actually go out and teach for the "sake" of teaching with "education" in mind and not monetary compensation?


----------



## Suntail (Apr 11, 2005)

Okay, in school, I fight back.  And I make it good. I'm not big (135 lbs and I'm 17 yrs), so if I back down I could be a long-time target. Look, I don't like getting punished, and I like hurting people (without a reason) less.  But I like being made into a pulp the least.
      I disagree with school taught self-defence though.  It would be a good thing to know, but I don't think people can effectivly learn martial arts in school.  My only experiance with it was a few lower level (I hope) Kung fu students tried to give a demo.  I don't like people look like a fool either (I've gotten my fair share of it and it can hurt too) but these people were showoff-ish, and stuff.   Theortically it could help, but I don't think it would be practical.


----------



## 47MartialMan (Apr 12, 2005)

Suntail said:
			
		

> Okay, in school, I fight back.


Sometimes one has to fight back, and times when one should not fight back. it depends on the situation



			
				Suntail said:
			
		

> And I make it good.


Make it good? Fighting is good? not sure what do you mean by this.


Hi Suntail,



			
				Suntail said:
			
		

> I'm not big (135 lbs and I'm 17 yrs), so if I back down I could be a long-time target.


Yes, sometimes a smaller target has to tkae a stand. But woe it will not solve anything but more ways and/or challenges fro more people to come at you. And this is not good for finally you will get hurt or someone you care about will get hurt in the "wake" of it.



			
				Suntail said:
			
		

> Look, I don't like getting punished, and I like hurting people


Somewhat not mature. I can you like hurting people with the same disposition of not wanting to get hurt yourself? Perhaps I mis-interpret this?



			
				Suntail said:
			
		

> I don't like people look like a fool either (I've gotten my fair share of it and it can hurt too) but these people were showoff-ish, and stuff.


Not sure what you mean by this also..



			
				Suntail said:
			
		

> Theortically it could help, but I don't think it would be practical.


Could you explain this a little further, I am trying to understand...


----------



## Suntail (Apr 12, 2005)

Okay, first things first I was really tired last night and my typing suffered from it.  My thoughts didn't slow down for my fingers so I skipped words.           Sorry​
I ment I make it look good.  I generally hate flashy things, but I can make it look like it was easy to win, so people don't want to fight me and hurrah that is good. 

I have no idea how to quote people so I'm just going down the list.  People were geting hurt (mostly me) before I took a stand, so I have taken a stand and haven't been in a serious fight I couldn't bluff my way out of in almost 3 years.  I try to apologize to anyone I've fought with and so far I don't know anyone who has hold a grudge.

I'm fairly sure I said I like hurting people less (In otherwords dislike it more), if I didn't, blaim it on my poor typing. 

Typing again (I'm proofreading everything at least twice from now on) I think I ment "making people look like fools"  The demonstraters (in my gym class) were talking about their superior fighting skills due to their Kung Fu training (I can't be 100% certain but I'm pretty sure they were in Kung Fu) but they didn't seem to know anything really useful, just the "look at what I can do" stuff.  So when I asked what they would do if they were fighting a grappler,  I watched them be flabbergasted, and it all went down hill, for them, from there.

If MA classes were mandatory, I think, few people would get it.  I think few would look it as something to practice on their own and they wouldn't value it all that much. It would be just another gym activity.  I think that the choice should be theirs.  It's just my opinion.

Sorry,  I've got to learn to pick my words better.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Aug 24, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> You only find peace because others stand ready to do violence on your behalf. The fact that you acknowledge that something bigger than the lions is required to reign the lions in is an acknowledgement of my point. It isn't "coping skills" but the threat of a larger stick that helps kids get through a school day without being attacked. That larger stick are adults willing to intervene. Without that threat of violence, those coping skills would mean nothing. However, every day we erode societies ability to control some of it's more violent elements.
> 
> Violence and it's implied threat is what keeps society from tearing itself apart. Don't kid yourself into thinking that it is your reasoning power that keeps you safe. It's only the threat of violence implied by someone else that keeps you safe. The fact that adults are willing to intervene is the only thing preventing what i've described from being necessary. The fact that you and those like you believe that communication skills are all that is required is nothing more than proof of the effectiveness of the systematic threat of violence that our society uses to enforce order.
> 
> ...


This is one of the finest posts I have read on MT. This weekend I saw three gang members taunting a pizza deliveryman. Why? Because they could.

Also, this idea of the Columbine killers as bullied is nonsense. I've seen video of them, and my gut reaction was that they were the bullies, not the bullied.


----------



## bluemtn (Sep 17, 2005)

I've been raised to not be a victim, nor someone who starts fights.  Growing up, I was a bit shy, and my family moved around a bit often; therefore, those made me a seemingly easy target.  I have 2 older brothers with whom we used to always used to wrestle each other, they'd show me basic boxing tech's, and sometimes their friends would show them something I'd get shown somewhere along the way.  So, that's where the "seemingly" is out-don't worry, I've got a point.  When I was a new kid in the 5th grade class, a girl wanted to prove something.  Unfortunately, she had MA training before (although from what I saw, poor), and she tried what she "learned".  Finally, I had enough and threw a punch, and she spent the next day at the dentist.  I also guess I was one of the rare cases that didn't get suspended, then again, I didn't have any formal training (at the time).

My point is self defense IS important for little kids, but not necessarily the physical aspect in the schools.  Not every child knows when a proper time is to use what they've learned.  It's up to a responsible adult to guide them.  School systems (in my opinion) aren't always the best place.  I'm sure that someone, like the girl I mentioned above, will be at the first class trying to bully everyone.  For schools, I feel they should learn how to "verbally" handle themselves, and save the rest after school in a class (not as many grudges held there).


----------



## CrankyDragon (Sep 17, 2005)

TigerWoman said:
			
		

> But they were teased, taunted, and talked about behind their backs.


Sounds like the same school everyone attends.  They tease and taunt what there skeered of, or what they aspire to become but cant make it.  Also, there imature bunch of turds.  Either way, it happens.



			
				TigerWoman said:
			
		

> Words aren't anything but if it comes to physical danger, I told my kids to defend themselves. Better to be suspended than to be dead. But it is most important to avoid situations altogether. TW


Exactly!  My daughter is only in the 3rd grade and asked me about such things.  I explained to her that Aikido is all about avoiding the conflict.  Teases and words are nothing, but if your about to be assaulted, then defend yourself to where they understand through the universal language of pain, that there assault is not welcome, and please excuse yourself from further attempts or it will hurt much worse on the next attempt, and more than that on the next, etc..  Of course, I told her in simplier terms.

Only defend when defense is needed.  Aikido is not an agressive MA, purely a defensive, use it that way.  And helping others in need is acceptable too.

If my little girl put the serious "who-do" on someone in self defense, Id take her out shopping too, as someone else mentioned.

Kids will be kids, but I dont want anyone touching my daughter in an uninvited way.  Shes only a 1st deg. white in junior, but by the time shes bigger and needs it the most/more, she should be more proficient!  

Andrew


----------



## eggg1994 (Dec 11, 2010)

i have never gotten into a fight not once because im nutorious for avoiding a fight. i agree that the school's zero tolarance polices are harsh and i believe that bullying has gotten worse with all this technology and cyber bullying. i believe we should educate the bullies about how their behavior is destroying the minds of their victums. you know im really against bullying and i learned that violance solves nothing and what solves it is showing compassion to the bully. i don't believe that all bullies have suffered from low self esteem some are just abusive and some are jerks. last year in my biology class there was this guy named brandon johnson who i was parnered up with because we were doing a science projust and he said i was pathetic and i forgot about that and then one day this was on november 8th 2009 and brandon said to this one kid that he was an idiot and i told him to stop that and i told him that i guess your parents have never taought you any manners. then he cussed at me and i cussed at him and then i asked him what he did and he said he drank alcohol and told me if i told on him he was going to beat me up. then the subitute teacher told me to stop and i started hateing that brandon person but i never had to physicaly defend myself.


----------



## xfighter88 (Dec 12, 2010)

School's 0 tolerance for self defense policy seems a bit like gun control policy to me. The bullies will keep messing with you since you are a good kid and don't want to get in trouble. So chances are you won't fight back for a good long while.

Anti-gun laws are the same. Make the good citizens feel guilty for having a gun and the know how to use it. As a result they will tend to not have one and the murderers and rapists will have no fear using their's on you.

Gun control is being able to hit your target. :biggun:


----------



## chinto (Dec 16, 2010)

ok our local schools have the same stupid zero tolerance policy's!  They are basically zero thought or responsibility policy's really.  If i had a child in any of the schools and my child was arrested and transported to juvenile hall as a suspect in custidy, ( normaly how they deal with any fight for both parties involved. ) I would be provably making several citizens arrests of the officers and staff for violation of civil rights, abuse of authority and other major felonys. 

In the United States of America, the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have NO DUTY TO PROTECT ANY ONE!  they work for the DA to collect evedance and investigate any crime already commited. then they work for the DA to assist in the prosicution of said crimes.

Self Defense was stated in all 5 rulings in the last 100 years to be your problem!!!  

that is the law of the land. This teaching children and latter when they become adults  of people to be victoms is reprehensible.


----------



## Balrog (Dec 16, 2010)

chinto said:


> ok our local schools have the same stupid zero tolerance policy's!  They are basically zero thought or responsibility policy's really.  If i had a child in any of the schools and my child was arrested and transported to juvenile hall as a suspect in custidy, ( normaly how they deal with any fight for both parties involved. ) I would be provably making several citizens arrests of the officers and staff for violation of civil rights, abuse of authority and other major felonys.


I don't know about the citizen's arrests, but the only way to stop the zero tolerance idiocy is to make it incredibly painful for the school administrators and the school board.

I tell my junior students to defend themselves.  If they get in trouble for it, I go with the parents to the school.   I tell the parents, in the presence of the principal, to accept nothing less than a clean slate for their kid.  If the principal insists on suspension, I tell the parents to contact the District Attorney's office and file criminal charges against the principal as an accomplice to the assault on their child, and for criminal dereliction of duty by a public official.  I also tell them to have their lawyer sue the principal for civil damages as well as suing the school board severally and jointly.

So far, I have had three principals who have "investigated further" and amazingly found that my student was not fighting, but was the victim of an assault.  Even though in all three cases, the kids who started the fights wound up with bloody noses, sore stomachs and in one case, a sprained shoulder.

Do not go along with zero tolerance.  Fight it at every possible opportunity.


----------

