# Student Who Stabbed Another Was Fighting Back



## MJS (Feb 23, 2012)

Saw this on FB and definately thought it'd make for an interesting discussion here.  

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/...other-Was-Fighting-Back-Police-138968174.html



> The Barbara Goleman Senior High senior who stabbed a junior in the stomach at the school Tuesday did so after the victim charged him and struck him several times on the face, and said that he fought back in fear for his life, police now say.
> Frank Acosta, 18, has been charged with aggravated battery with a dangerous weapon and possession of a weapon on school grounds after the fight with 18-year-old Mauricio Padron at about 12:17 p.m. Tuesday, the Miami-Dade Schools Police Department and court records said.
> But police said that after the two students had an argument in the cafeteria, Padron waited for Acosta by a stairwell, and after he walked through the door, Padron gestured by using his hands for the defendant to fight him.
> Acosta tried to leave but was blocked by students entering the stairwell, and Padron then charged him, police said in Acostas arrest affidavit. As they fell to the ground, Acosta took out his penknife and stabbed Padron several times, witnesses told police.
> The victim was clearly the aggressor in this incident, as captured on video surveillance and corroborated by witness statements, police wrote.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 23, 2012)

Unfortunate incident.  No winner, two losers.

A lesson for MA.  There used to be courts that would hold an MA to be a trained fighter like a boxer, and could be considered a "weapon" in and of him/herself.  During self defense, the MA might find him/herself considered to have used excessive force, just using their training.  I don't know what most courts hold these days.


----------



## MJS (Feb 23, 2012)

Yeah, its certainly a fine line.  Seems like the courts would rather have the true victim, just curl up in a ball, and get your *** kicked, rather than actually trying to defend yourself.  Sure, using a pen knife to stab someone certainly doesnt look good, but if this kid was really in fear of his life, as he claims, and getting his *** kicked, then I really can't blame him.  Hell, had he not had that, pick up and use any other improvised weapon.


----------



## chinto (Feb 23, 2012)

I would have to see all the evidence but by the sound of it, self defense is reasonable, as the one stabbed was charging him in a cornered situation.  If that is indeed the case I would find reasonable doubt and say not guilty/ justified self defense.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 24, 2012)

MJS said:


> Yeah, its certainly a fine line. Seems like the courts would rather have the true victim, just curl up in a ball, and get your *** kicked, rather than actually trying to defend yourself. Sure, using a pen knife to stab someone certainly doesnt look good, but if this kid was really in fear of his life, as he claims, and getting his *** kicked, then I really can't blame him. Hell, had he not had that, pick up and use any other improvised weapon.



The problem being there probably wasn't another weapon to use.



chinto said:


> I would have to see all the evidence but by the sound of it, self defense is reasonable, as the one stabbed was charging him in a cornered situation. If that is indeed the case I would find reasonable doubt and say not guilty/ justified self defense.



Sadly, even if a case of self defense can be made, the school will no doubt want to show how concerned they are about their rules by sanctioning the knife wielder severly.  In a way, I can understand that, but I wonder if the knife wielder had made any complaints about bullying, and if so, what was the school's response.  As *some have been reported* recently in the Washington, DC area, the schools aren't always as responsive as one would hope.  Granted the news media aren't always in possession of the full facts.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2012)

I suspect that this may revolve around what the victim 'reasonably believed' at the time of the attack.  Apparently both the video of the attack and witnesses agree that the victim was cornered by the bully and hemmed in and kept from leaving by the crowd itself (not unusual, kids love to see a fight and will prevent a person from leaving in order to see one).

In my day, having that happen meant you were about to have an old-fashioned *** whupping administered.  These days, I think a kid would be justified in fearing for his life; things are different today and I think it is entirely reasonable to think a bully would beat another child to death in front of others.

If a 'reasonable and prudent man' (the test often applied in these cases) believed he was in immanent danger of death or great bodily harm, he would be justified in many states in using deadly force, whether that would be in the form of a pocket knife or a gun or whatever.

I don't think every high school fistfight is an invitation to stab someone; but I do believe that the rules have changed since I grew up.  I even remember when a crowd would intervene in a fight if one of the fighters was not 'fighting fair'.  Those days are long gone.  The kids love violence and are desensitized to it.  It's no longer about establishing a social pecking order, now it's about seeing a human life taken in front of their eyes so they can post the video on Youtube.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 24, 2012)

The initial victim (Acoste) is going to find himself in deep trouble.  First he broke the almost universal school rule of having a weapon in school. (ie. knife)  That is going to really put him behind the eight ball.   Next, when attacked he was not attacked with a weapon and yet he drew out his knife and stabbed the other kid.  If the initially attacker had brought out a weapon it might be differenet and justified but in this case that did not happen.  In this case I imagine that this kid (Acoste) will be expelled from school, prosecuted and convicted.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2012)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> The initial victim (Acoste) is going to find himself in deep trouble.  First he broke the almost universal school rule of having a weapon in school. (ie. knife)  That is going to really put him behind the eight ball.   Next, when attacked he was not attacked with a weapon and yet he drew out his knife and stabbed the other kid.  If the initially attacker had brought out a weapon it might be differenet and justified but in this case that did not happen.  In this case I imagine that this kid (Acoste) will be expelled from school, prosecuted and convicted.



The justification for using deadly force in many if not most locations in the USA does not require that the attacker be armed.  It only requires that the victim have a fear of 'death or serious bodily harm' that a 'reasonable and prudent man' would have.

I have no doubt that he's going to be expelled from school for having the pocketknife (sad, that; I used to carry one when I was in school, from 3rd or 4th grade to high school graduation, it just wasn't a big deal back then).

Unless it is also illegal for him to have a pocket knife on his person (not likely, but possible, depending on his location), then although I agree he's in 'big trouble', I suspect it will be more in the area of legal fees for his parents than a criminal conviction.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 24, 2012)

Going to be really hard on him Bill.  First and I am assuming based on all of the school rules that I have recently seen that it is against his district for him to have a knife/weapon in class.  They also have at most schools that I know kid's sign off on this so that they know it.  Where I have seen this it has been immediate expulsion from that school. (it certainly is in Clark County, Nevada and was this way back in Michigan too)  Proving justification for using deadly force with the absence of a weapon is going to be almost impossible for this kid.  He is more than likely going to face a conviction.    Though it may be for less than the initial charges. (plead down)

It is sad that people cannot have pocket knives in school.  However, it is a reflection on our society and unfortunately it is what it is.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2012)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Going to be really hard on him Bill.  First and I am assuming based on all of the school rules that I have recently seen that it is against his district for him to have a knife/weapon in class.  They also have at most schools that I know kid's sign off on this so that they know it.  Where I have seen this it has been immediate expulsion from that school. (it certainly is in Clark County, Nevada and was this way back in Michigan too)  Proving justification for using deadly force with the absence of a weapon is going to be almost impossible for this kid.  He is more than likely going to face a conviction.    Though it may be for less than the initial charges. (plead down)
> 
> It is sad that people cannot have pocket knives in school.  However, it is a reflection on our society and unfortunately it is what it is.



I agree that he'll probably face expulsion.  But violating school rules is generally not a crime, and is completely separate from any charges he might face with regard to a self-defense claim.

I also agree that it might be harder to prove reasonable fear of serious bodily harm or death if the attacker had no weapon, but it's not impossible.

In any case, we'll see soon enough.


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 25, 2012)

When I was in high school I was assaulted in the hall way. Kicked repeatedly and punched in the face. I pushed the other guy off of me and went straight to the office covered in blood to report the incident. I was suspended for fighting. It was made very clear to my parents that the only way I could avoid punishment was to take the beating without ANY EFFORT on my part to fight back, or EVEN TO DEFEND MYSELF. The simple act of pushing my attacker away so I could escape was grounds for a three day out of school suspension.

At the same school, one student brutally beat another in the hallway to the point of needing to be taken to the emergency room with broken bones. The entire time the aggressor was screaming out that he was going to attack my brother next. My family went to the administration and insisted that the aggressor be removed from the school so that he could not act on HIS STATED INTENTION TO HARM MY BROTHER and his DEMONSTRATED CAPACITY TO DO SO. We were told that when he returned to school after his three days off nothing more would be done, and my brother wasn't in any danger. Why? Because he was on school grounds and they don't allow fighting. Despite the fact that the entire incident began WITH A FIGHT THEY FAILED TO PREVENT OR STOP. I made it clear that if I was there, I would stop it myself. And I was told that if I pulled this guy off of my brother while he was beating him I WOULD BE SUSPENDED FOR FIGHTING.

That is your school policy. Take your beatings, submit to the will of the authority, make no efforts to provide for your own defense or protection, they will also make no effort to protect you. Even in the face of open, public threats of violence and repeated reports of bullying and assault. It is clear where the schools stand. I will teach my children to defend themselves, regardless of the consequences. If they're going to be suspended either way there's no reason to take a beating on top of it.


-Rob


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 25, 2012)

Thesemindz said:


> When I was in high school I was assaulted in the hall way. Kicked repeatedly and punched in the face. I pushed the other guy off of me and went straight to the office covered in blood to report the incident. I was suspended for fighting. It was made very clear to my parents that the only way I could avoid punishment was to take the beating without ANY EFFORT on my part to fight back, or EVEN TO DEFEND MYSELF. The simple act of pushing my attacker away so I could escape was grounds for a three day out of school suspension.



Wow, that does not sound very good.  Glad it wasn't the case in my school.  I will agree that when I was in public school, everyone who was in the fight got suspended for three days.  I suspect that was because both parties will always claim to be the victim and the authorities don't know.  In your case, it should have been obvious that you were the victim, but if that's their policy...well, it sucks.

I only got suspended for fighting once; I punched out a teacher.

Basically, we normally had to wait outside the school for the morning bell to ring.  However, if it was raining, they'd open the gymnasium and let us come in and mill around until the bell rang.  This morning, it was raining, and they let us in.  For some reason, 'Frank' decided to bully me.  He tried to start a fist fight with me.  I refused to fight, but he punched me, so I went after him.  In fact, I had dropped into 'berserker' mode, and wasn't really thinking anymore; just stalking and punching him in the head without regard to how hard he was also punching me in the head.  Suddenly someone grabbed me from behind and pinned my arms at my sides in a bear-hug.  'Frank' kept punching me in the face, and now I could not fight back.  I elbowed straight back into the person bear-hugging me, heard a gasp, my arms were released, and I turned and fired a fist right into the face of my 4th-grade teacher.  She screamed and grabbed me by the hair and dragged me up three flights of stairs to the Principal's office, where my dad was called from work and I got 3 days suspension.  I tried to explain that I didn't know it was my teacher before I punched her, and I was still being hit by 'Frank', but they didn't really want to hear that.

Such is life.  It was actually kind of nice having 3 days off, and I was a hero in school when I returned for standing up to 'Bruiser' (that was her nickname, because she liked to administer spankings in the hallways that left bruises).  And Bruiser never spanked *me* again.


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 25, 2012)

Well, I don't know when your incident took place, mine was around 94. There really wasn't much discussion about the context of my assault, everyone including the aggressor more or less agreed about what happened, and there were several witnesses. The school was clear that despite that, my actions were still grounds for suspension. My understanding is that the situation since then has gotten worse, not better.


-Rob


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 25, 2012)

Thesemindz said:


> Well, I don't know when your incident took place, mine was around 94. There really wasn't much discussion about the context of my assault, everyone including the aggressor more or less agreed about what happened, and there were several witnesses. The school was clear that despite that, my actions were still grounds for suspension. My understanding is that the situation since then has gotten worse, not better.



Mine was about 1971.  It was the standard even then that both parties got suspended for fighting, no matter whom was at fault.  So I suspect it's something that's been around for awhile.  With all due respect, it's a schoolyard fight and it was a long time ago in both our cases.  Time to get over the sense of outrage and move on.  Life's unfair.


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 25, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Mine was about 1971.  It was the standard even then that both parties got suspended for fighting, no matter whom was at fault.  So I suspect it's something that's been around for awhile.  With all due respect, it's a schoolyard fight and it was a long time ago in both our cases.  Time to get over the sense of outrage and move on.  Life's unfair.


My point isn't about the fairness Bill. It's about the policy. And the underlying principle I believe it teaches. Do not attempt to take care of yourself, that is the sole purview of the state authority who may or may not at their discretion. I believe this is taught at a young age and reinforced throughout our society, and I do not believe it is by accident. By teaching people this as children, and punishing those who try to act in their own interest, it is easier to get them to accept as adults government control of every facet of their lives. From gun control to healthcare to what they can and can not eat. Because it is neither their responsibility, nor their right, to take care of themselves. -Rob


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 25, 2012)

Thesemindz said:


> My point isn't about the fairness Bill. It's about the policy. And the underlying principle I believe it teaches. Do not attempt to take care of yourself, that is the sole purview of the state authority who may or may not at their discretion. I believe this is taught at a young age and reinforced throughout our society, and I do not believe it is by accident. By teaching people this as children, and punishing those who try to act in their own interest, it is easier to get them to accept as adults government control of every facet of their lives. From gun control to healthcare to what they can and can not eat. Because it is neither their responsibility, nor their right, to take care of themselves. -Rob



Well, I'm putting on my flame suit as I type.  I think you interpretation, while perhaps understandable is a little off kilter.  At least the part of it being a big government plot.  I suspect it has more to do with teachers who wish not to be put on the spot and having to make decisions as to who was wrong.  That requires investigation and willingness to stand behind your decisions.  If you punish both participants equally, you don't have to make those decisions.  I've mentioned before my dismay that teachers aren't as involved as they were when I was a kid.  Also that I understand we don't give them the tools nor backing we used to.  But reading yours and Bill's stories, I am sort of astounded.  Especially if that was in Springfield where you say you live now.  It wasn't at all like that in northwestern Missouri when I was a kid and in high school in the mid to late 50s, unless my memory fails me.  Of course, we probably didn't have as many fights as now either.


----------



## MJS (Feb 26, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> The problem being there probably wasn't another weapon to use.



Probably not.  I was just speaking in a general fashion.   Obviously if he's in the halls, picking up a chair isn't an option, but if he was carrying a bookbag, that could be an improvised tool. 





> Sadly, even if a case of self defense can be made, the school will no doubt want to show how concerned they are about their rules by sanctioning the knife wielder severly. In a way, I can understand that, but I wonder if the knife wielder had made any complaints about bullying, and if so, what was the school's response. As *some have been reported* recently in the Washington, DC area, the schools aren't always as responsive as one would hope. Granted the news media aren't always in possession of the full facts.



I'd be interested in knowing whether or not any complaints were filed either with the school or with the police.  Sadly, some schools seem blind to bullying.


----------



## geezer (Mar 6, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Such is life. It was actually kind of nice having 3 days off, and I was a hero in school when I returned for standing up to 'Bruiser' (that was her nickname, because she liked to administer spankings in the hallways that left bruises). And Bruiser never spanked *me* again.



I like the way you find the silver lining here, Bill. Like you said in your next post. "life's unfair" ...so we have to learn to deal with it. It's not like the schools, the government, God, or the Universe are specifically picking on each of us personally (although it feels like that sometimes!). And, after all, the greater part of self defense is finding a way to avoid situations like this. If people want to complain about getting unjustly suspended from school for a few days when they were a kid, how will they feel as adults when something like this happens and they get unjustly sued or charged with assault? 

Besides, if it weren't for bullies and unfair, inept authorities who can't protect us at all times, nobody would practice the martial arts.


----------



## MJS (Mar 7, 2012)

Thesemindz said:


> When I was in high school I was assaulted in the hall way. Kicked repeatedly and punched in the face. I pushed the other guy off of me and went straight to the office covered in blood to report the incident. I was suspended for fighting. It was made very clear to my parents that the only way I could avoid punishment was to take the beating without ANY EFFORT on my part to fight back, or EVEN TO DEFEND MYSELF. The simple act of pushing my attacker away so I could escape was grounds for a three day out of school suspension.
> 
> At the same school, one student brutally beat another in the hallway to the point of needing to be taken to the emergency room with broken bones. The entire time the aggressor was screaming out that he was going to attack my brother next. My family went to the administration and insisted that the aggressor be removed from the school so that he could not act on HIS STATED INTENTION TO HARM MY BROTHER and his DEMONSTRATED CAPACITY TO DO SO. We were told that when he returned to school after his three days off nothing more would be done, and my brother wasn't in any danger. Why? Because he was on school grounds and they don't allow fighting. Despite the fact that the entire incident began WITH A FIGHT THEY FAILED TO PREVENT OR STOP. I made it clear that if I was there, I would stop it myself. And I was told that if I pulled this guy off of my brother while he was beating him I WOULD BE SUSPENDED FOR FIGHTING.
> 
> ...



Nice isn't it?  And then the schools wonder why kids bring guns to school, and go from room to room, blowing people away.  Maybe if they actually did something, to provide a safe environment to learn in, half these things wouldn't happen.


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 7, 2012)

Schools now have ZERO tolerance rules and they take them to the extreme from kids getting expelled for plastic butter knives to put butter on a bagel, to kids being expelled for having an asprin, to cops being called for every little tussle and both kids being suspended and arrested regardless of who started it and how severe or not severe it was.   They leave no room for common sense anymore.


----------



## chinto (Mar 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Schools now have ZERO tolerance rules and they take them to the extreme from kids getting expelled for plastic butter knives to put butter on a bagel, to kids being expelled for having an asprin, to cops being called for every little tussle and both kids being suspended and arrested regardless of who started it and how severe or not severe it was.   They leave no room for common sense anymore.



YES!  After all if you have a  "ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY" It means you do NOT HAVE TO THINK or Make any EFFORT to INVESTIGATE WHAT HAPPENED!!!

After all if you stopped the fight, investigated what really happened and things, you might get sued, or called on to explain yourself as to how you could "accuse my poor little darling of such a terrible thing!! After all that kid obviously did it all to himself as my little darling would NEVER do ANY THING WRONG!!" to some Idiot parent who thinks their little darling is not the bully he or she is.


----------

