Bullying Apathy by school - WHY?

[SpaceMarine93]

It almost as if teachers and principals are either complete morons, oblivious asswipes, naive clowns or apathetic dicks who simply look like they can't be bothered to do something about the menace that everyone would experience at one point. By the time they do, it is either too late or too little. Rarely does it helps.

It's a major stumbling block to dealing with serious bullying in schools. All the tragedies that happened because of bullying over the years, such as school shootings, could just be avoided. Hell, the complete monster of a bully named Bobby Kent wouldn't need to be murdered by his victims in 1993 if the school could just do something about it!

I like to think I am not a complete moron, oblvious asswipe, or naive clown. I am most certainly not apathetic, and neither are the majority of schools. I have to attend three workshops on bullying a year, and all but one education class I've ever taken has had a section on bullying and explaining to us why it is the number one problem in schools, which is mostly a reaction to public outcry and hysteria about it.

I'm going to share a harsh truth with you. I have a kid in my class, I'll see him four or five hours a week. Now, for as long as he's in my classroom, he's indisputably safe. As soon as he leaves my presence, he is no longer my direct control and protection. I can't keep him safe walking from school, I can't really prevent trouble from cropping up in the hallways or bathrooms (there are teachers who have corridor patrol to do that, but even they can't be everywhere all the time.) I can't prevent other students from sending threatening text messages or leaving rude messages on your myspace.

The fact is, if the bully doesn't try something right in front of me, there's usually little or nothing I can about it. And it is a very rare kid that's dumb enough to start something right in front of me, twice.

I sincerely apologize for any offense meant, and I will correct my statement: only SOME teachers are guilty of traits I classified that contribute to bullying problem

[Knife]

I'm going to have to agree with Faqa here. While bullying is a problem and while it is tragic for a kid, being picked on or in a fight isn't a good reason to pull out deadly force. If the kid can get away, he/she should get away and not get in a fight. Should the kid 'stand up for him/herself'? Sure but if they get in a fight they have to face the consequences of getting in a fight.

[Purple]

I'm going to have to agree with Faqa here. While bullying is a problem and while it is tragic for a kid, being picked on or in a fight isn't a good reason to pull out deadly force. If the kid can get away, he/she should get away and not get in a fight. Should the kid 'stand up for him/herself'? Sure but if they get in a fight they have to face the consequences of getting in a fight.

I don't quite agree there. Yes, deadly force or anything within several orders of magnitude of it should be a big NO. But a few cuts and bruises, maybe some broken bones to the bully should not be punished with anything more than a stern talking to. And the school should make it absolutely clear that their stance is that the bully was asking for it and that the only reason why the kid was let off was becouse of this. Something like: "Ordinarily this would be grounds for serious punishment young man. But seeing as that he left you with no choice and is a known bully we will let it slide this time. Don't let it happen again."

I am not saying this is ideal or even sort of good. But if the school will not take steps to stop such behavior it should at least not add further harm to the victim. After all, sort of evil is far less than evil squared. The last thing schools should do is go all medieval and stone the rape victim for not being nice and pouting out. (metaphor warning: think before replying)

[Norade]

That's a bullshit policy though, they need to make an example of the aggressor and council the victim. Anything less is spitting in the face of the victim. if some bully pushes too far, you think he doesn't have what he gets coming?

Ummm.... no. I deeply do not think a campaign of verbal harassment or even physical intimidation justifies retribution using deadly force. These are still kids. Yes, even the nasty bully.

I don't disagree that the aggressor in a conflict should face greater consequences than the victim, if indeed one can easily point to an aggressor (hint - there are two participants in a fight. Both typically think they're justified, given that neither are from an 80's high school movie). HOWEVER, unless the victim used minimal force to only end the fight, then yes, the victim should be punished. Not because it's "fair" or because he did something not understandable - but because violence is not an acceptable way of resolving conflicts. One should never view violence as something acceptable to inflict. And that is a lesson schools need to teach as much as any other. Yes, violence is always wrong, unless it is directly related to preventing other violence. And no, not in the Ender Wiggin school of "preventing". No matter how much your inner-ape sense of justice says otherwise.

Bull-fucking-shit. In the real world we don't charge the person who's using self defense to defend themselves. Most bullies are larger and stronger than their victims so a weapon can be justified. If the danger seems great enough many laws will even make a case for the use of deadly force. You claim that violence isn't an acceptable way of dealing with physical abuse, and I ask you what are self defense laws for then?

[Norade]

I'm going to have to agree with Faqa here. While bullying is a problem and while it is tragic for a kid, being picked on or in a fight isn't a good reason to pull out deadly force. If the kid can get away, he/she should get away and not get in a fight. Should the kid 'stand up for him/herself'? Sure but if they get in a fight they have to face the consequences of getting in a fight.

That's bullshit, you're allowed to defend yourself as an adult and can do so by whatever means you deem necessary as a youth as well. If you feel you are justified in using a weapon and could make a case for a reasonable person doing so it's called self defense and nobody can touch you... Unless you're at a school where they let things escalate and then punish the victim equally if not worse for self defense.

[Bluewolf]

Bull-fucking-shit. In the real world we don't charge the person who's using self defense to defend themselves.

I can understand you are talking from a North American perspective and the presence of self defence laws there and elsewhere help prove your point but please note that this is not universal. For example in the UK, self defence laws are a real legal grey area with "reasonable force" required. This means that self defence can be prosecuted in this country if deemed "unreasonable" (another grey area). Any punishment will likely be mitigated but you can still get charged for self defence essentially. So yes, in the real world we do charge people for it. It depends on the nation in question. Please don't presume North America's view is an accepted one across the world.

To give an example of what I had to deal with at my school relating to anti bullying. Often if you hit first, no matter how much abuse you got-you were in the wrong and would get a harsher punishment than the person that bullied you. If they hit first and you'd hit back, you'd still get (if lighter) punishment. The schools attitude was basically that violence was unacceptable, no matter what.

[Norade]

Bull-fucking-shit. In the real world we don't charge the person who's using self defense to defend themselves.

I can understand you are talking from a North American perspective and the presence of self defence laws there and elsewhere help prove your point but please note that this is not universal. For example in the UK, self defence laws are a real legal grey area with "reasonable force" required. This means that self defence can be prosecuted in this country if deemed "unreasonable" (another grey area). Any punishment will likely be mitigated but you can still get charged for self defence essentially. So yes, in the real world we do charge people for it. It depends on the nation in question. Please don't presume North America's view is an accepted one across the world.

It's accepted in, at the very least, North America and Australia and I'd I can't speak for a shitty nation that poorly defines it's laws. Self defense laws are pretty damned easy to write and enforce, you look at what a reasonable person would consider as options in that situation and then you look at what happened. If, on the street in Canada or the US, a larger person attacked you, you would be justified in looking for a weapon and clubbing them silly. In the states you could even pump them full of rounds from a concealed weapon in some places.

To give an example of what I had to deal with at my school relating to anti bullying. Often if you hit first, no matter how much abuse you got-you were in the wrong and would get a harsher punishment than the person that bullied you. If they hit first and you'd hit back, you'd still get (if lighter) punishment. The schools attitude was basically that violence was unacceptable, no matter what.

That's like telling people not to fight back against systemic gang harassment when the police lack the resources to help. Bullies are protogang members who often extort people, run in groups, use threats, and make examples of certain people to cow others. There is no way anybody is going to say that you're no justified in defending yourself against these assholes by any meas you have on hand. If you live in a place where they would punish you for this, try lobbying a local leader to get change started.

[Bluewolf]

I'd I can't speak for a shitty nation that poorly defines it's laws.

Excuse me? Was that some sort of thinly veiled attack on the UK?

The issue is not the idea of writing them, it's the debate surrounding what it is reasonable that's causing massive problems. Some people wouldn't consider say, hitting an intruder with a cricket bat acceptable while some would disagree. Some thing that the individual shouldn't be engaging an intruder if possible until it's a last resort. Some would say that you should have near American style defence laws. It's not a clear cut issue. There is a massive disagreement. Remember this country is already one that doesn't see guns as a valid self defence tool. So yes, easy to write but not easy what to agree on.

In the states you could even pump them full of rounds from a concealed weapon in some places.

Again, UK gun laws would forbid this. Firearms are for recreation and hunting here, not for blasting someones head off. The last time someone tried to defend his property by shooting people got thrown in prison (it was a high profile case though).

[Norade]

I'd I can't speak for a shitty nation that poorly defines it's laws.

Excuse me? Was that some sort of thinly veiled attack on the UK?

The issue is not the idea of writing them, it's the debate surrounding what it is reasonable that's causing massive problems. Some people wouldn't consider say, hitting an intruder with a cricket bat acceptable while some would disagree. Some thing that the individual shouldn't be engaging an intruder if possible until it's a last resort. Some would say that you should have near American style defence laws. It's not a clear cut issue. There is a massive disagreement. Remember this country is already one that doesn't see guns as a valid self defence tool. So yes, easy to write but not easy what to agree on.

No, but I could speak about your ineffective government, massive debt load, wasteful royal family if I was so inclined...

Funny that most nations have had this solved for a long time. The fuck took you guys so long to figure it out when other places have a working system in place? Was it seen as not important enough to be a major consideration when they wrote the modern assault and battery laws?

In the states you could even pump them full of rounds from a concealed weapon in some places.

Again, UK gun laws would forbid this. Firearms are for recreation and hunting here, not for blasting someones head off. The last time someone tried to defend his property by shooting people got thrown in prison (it was a high profile case though).

The US might be gun happy, but Canadian officers all have guns and it's not an issue. Canadians do have to justify use of deadly force more so than Americans as well, but you can make a case for waking up a night and blowing a guy who you think is armed away.

[Bluewolf]

While you enjoy cheap digs at my country for no reason other to ruffle some feathers, remember that our legal system is old and evolved over time as did our country and it's attitudes as a whole. This means that what may have been clear cut in the 60's would be nebulous now. There are a lot of old laws and areas that need to be updated but are not just due to the lack of time available. However consider that again, the attitude to self defence is mixed. Some abhor violence of any sort, some see the US style system as an ideal. This means our laws on it have been vague as various governments and legal experts, as well as the public as a whole have taken different positions. This will of course make for vague law.

Onto the actual subject of bullying. As others have mentioned, it can actually be very hard to deal with because bullies can do things easily without bringing too much attention to themselves. Flicking paper at someone or singling people out of a group can be very simple, small things that people don't notice, are hard to properly punish or even recognize as bullying sometimes. A lot of the worst bullies out there don't even have to raise their fists. This makes noticing and tackling bullying a lot harder.

[Norade]

Note that I wasn't insulting Britain there, I was trying to say that if I was I'm blunt enough that you'd know.

[Bluewolf]

I changed my post anyway because I was starting to delve into the very juvenile insult games that ruin this forum sometimes. There is no need to go down that road I am sure.

[Norade]

While you enjoy cheap digs at my country for no reason other to ruffle some feathers, remember that our legal system is old and evolved over time as did our country and it's attitudes as a whole. This means that what may have been clear cut in the 60's would be nebulous now. There are a lot of old laws and areas that need to be updated but are not just due to the lack of time available. However consider that again, the attitude to self defence is mixed. Some abhor violence of any sort, some see the US style system as an ideal. This means our laws on it have been vague as various governments and legal experts, as well as the public as a whole have taken different positions. This will of course make for vague law.

Yes I know you're an old nation, it doesn't excuse dragging your feet on writing clear self defense laws be they draconian and limited or free and violent. Having an ambiguous law hurts everybody. You can't defend yourself so you get screwed. People think violence is everywhere so they get screwed. Cops can't arrest people without being accused of being too hard or soft in relation to the law so they get screwed as well.

Onto the actual subject of bullying. As others have mentioned, it can actually be very hard to deal with because bullies can do things easily without bringing too much attention to themselves. Flicking paper at someone or singling people out of a group can be very simple, small things that people don't notice, are hard to properly punish or even recognize as bullying sometimes. A lot of the worst bullies out there don't even have to raise their fists. This makes noticing and tackling bullying a lot harder.

Teachers should notice such things especially if the student being hit raises a hand. They shouldn't even have to say anything, the bits of paper/eraser/whatever around them should be enough to raise an eyebrow. If teachers can't pay enough attention to the students as they do to teaching they're shit teachers and should be retrained, then reprimanded, then fired for missing this shit.

[Norade]

I changed my post anyway because I was starting to delve into the very juvenile insult games that ruin this forum sometimes. There is no need to go down that road I am sure.

I'll agree and say that I have been a bit over the top in past dealings with you.

[Faqa]

Bull-fucking-shit. In the real world we don't charge the person who's using self defense to defend themselves. Most bullies are larger and stronger than their victims so a weapon can be justified. If the danger seems great enough many laws will even make a case for the use of deadly force. You claim that violence isn't an acceptable way of dealing with physical abuse, and I ask you what are self defense laws for then?

Ooooooookay, let's break this down:

A - "Self defense" is a very narrow definition. Merely being "the guy who didn't hit first" is not it, not even for adults. If you did anything other than the minimum necessary to break free and run, you crossed the line from self-defense into fighting.

B - Go ahead. Try to fit a weapon into that definition. Were you carrying a screwdriver around? Now, why the hell were you doing that? Cause you knew a fight was coming? One in which you would have a weapon and they would not? That sounds just a teensy bit like planning to escalate the fight. You are not allowed to prepare to "win" the fight just because you know it's coming.

C - Self defense laws are precisely what they say. To permit you to escape a violent situation by committing the violence necessary to escape that specific situation . Not the general situation, but the specific incident, in a specific place, at a specific time.


Jesus. Destroying the idea that violence is an acceptable way to resolve issues is a bedrock of society. It is one of the few pieces of history I believe humanity can actually point to an unblemished record of constant improvement on (*awaits raping on that point by History mods* ) - as civilization has progressed, violence has lessened. It is one of the primary definitions of being civilized. Why are you so eager to turn back the clock? Because of some imbeciles in your school days? That's no reason.

[Norade]

Bull-fucking-shit. In the real world we don't charge the person who's using self defense to defend themselves. Most bullies are larger and stronger than their victims so a weapon can be justified. If the danger seems great enough many laws will even make a case for the use of deadly force. You claim that violence isn't an acceptable way of dealing with physical abuse, and I ask you what are self defense laws for then?

Ooooooookay, let's break this down:

A - "Self defense" is a very narrow definition. Merely being "the guy who didn't hit first" is not it, not even for adults. If you did anything other than the minimum necessary to break free and run, you crossed the line from self-defense into fighting.

Not everywhere it isn't. If you can demonstrate that you felt threatened to the point where either due to a single event or repeated events that violence was the only way to end it then, in North America at least, you're likely to get off.

B - Go ahead. Try to fit a weapon into that definition. Were you carrying a screwdriver around? Now, why the hell were you doing that? Cause you knew a fight was coming? One in which you would have a weapon and they would not? That sounds just a teensy bit like planning to escalate the fight. You are not allowed to prepare to "win" the fight just because you know it's coming.

You are in some places. If you could make a case for carrying it for another reason and using it in a fight then you'd be fine. In many places as an adult you can carry even a concealed handgun and be justified in using it.

C - Self defense laws are precisely what they say. To permit you to escape a violent situation by committing the violence necessary to escape that specific situation . Not the general situation, but the specific incident, in a specific place, at a specific time.

Wrong, look at the US and even some cases in Canada. If it's on going escalating violence you can use the reasonable person clause to end it forcefully.

Jesus. Destroying the idea that violence is an acceptable way to resolve issues is a bedrock of society. It is one of the few pieces of history I believe humanity can actually point to an unblemished record of constant improvement on (*awaits raping on that point by History mods* ) - as civilization has progressed, violence has lessened. It is one of the primary definitions of being civilized. Why are you so eager to turn back the clock? Because of some imbeciles in your school days? That's no reason.

Self defense can save lives, and property. That thief's life, to me, is worse less than my property, safety, and piece of mind. Many people agree that if you are a threat they should be able to stop you with a reasonable amount of force. What people disagree on is what that level of force is. Personally, I'd aim for the legs and call 911 to try and save the prick.

[Faqa]

Self defense can save lives, and property. That thief's life, to me, is worse less than my property, safety, and piece of mind

Wait, let me get this straight. If a guy breaks into your house and steals your shit, you feel that it is your right to shoot him?

I ask merely for information on your level of sociopathy.


The rest of your points relate to "In SOME places you can fuck someone up in order to prevent them possibly fucking you up in the future". I maintain that the true fuckup is in the law and this is not an acceptable way to behave. Schools should certainly enforce that attitude.

[Mr. Coffee]

Bull-fucking-shit. In the real world we don't charge the person who's using self defense to defend themselves. Most bullies are larger and stronger than their victims so a weapon can be justified. If the danger seems great enough many laws will even make a case for the use of deadly force. You claim that violence isn't an acceptable way of dealing with physical abuse, and I ask you what are self defense laws for then?

And your experience with "real world" self defense is what? As a matter of fact, people are quite often arrest and sometimes even face criminal charges in cases of self-defense. Just because theothe person is bigger than you doesn't justify the use of a weapon, and in fact pulling a weapon will probably violate any use of force laws your city or state have because you're now escalating the fight into deadly force territory when none was offered by the other guy.

Now that we've established that you're an internet tough guy with no fucking clue at all about what does and does not constitute "self defense", let's look at the rest of your dumbass arguments...

That's bullshit, you're allowed to defend yourself as an adult and can do so by whatever means you deem necessary as a youth as well. If you feel you are justified in using a weapon and could make a case for a reasonable person doing so it's called self defense and nobody can touch you... Unless you're at a school where they let things escalate and then punish the victim equally if not worse for self defense.

Um, no you can't. There's these things called "use of force laws" that mean if you respond to someone punching you by pulling a gun doesn't matter if they through the first punch or how provoked you were, it's going to be your dumbass that gets to become intimate with Bubba in a 6x9' cell. In most any first world western nation you can name, you are not justified in using a weapon except in response to one being used against you, and some jurisdictions not even then.

It's accepted in, at the very least, North America and Australia and I'd I can't speak for a shitty nation that poorly defines it's laws. Self defense laws are pretty damned easy to write and enforce, you look at what a reasonable person would consider as options in that situation and then you look at what happened. If, on the street in Canada or the US, a larger person attacked you, you would be justified in looking for a weapon and clubbing them silly. In the states you could even pump them full of rounds from a concealed weapon in some places.

You ar so full of shit if your eyes arent already brown they're changing color as we speak. Name one fucking jurisdiction in the US or Canada where use of force laws are defined by the attacker's size instead of if the attack is presenting deadly force or not. You couldn't be any more wrong if you tried and the fact you keep repeating this horse shit just reeks of internet toughguy horseshit and pretty much confirms to anyone who reads this that you've never been in a fight in your life, much less had any actual training in self-defense techniques or the laws governing use of force.

That's like telling people not to fight back against systemic gang harassment when the police lack the resources to help. Bullies are protogang members who often extort people, run in groups, use threats, and make examples of certain people to cow others. There is no way anybody is going to say that you're no justified in defending yourself against these assholes by any meas you have on hand. If you live in a place where they would punish you for this, try lobbying a local leader to get change started.

Yeah, this is bullshit too. You know who is going to tell you that you're not justified in taking a gun or a knife or a baseball bat into a fight unless the other guy brings one out first will be the Responding Officer as he's hand cuffing your dumbass. Don't believe me? Go present your stupid fucking argument to a cop and see if they don't just laugh in your face. Hell, I'll do one better, just tell me the city you live in and I'll google the relevant use of force laws for you area and post them here since I know you're to much of a fucking moron to go look them up on your own.

Now, I want the following things from you...

1. I want you to name one single city, county, state/province in the US or Canada where you are allowed to brandish or use weapons in self-defense on people who haven't produced a weapon first.

2. I want to either know your city so I can show you the relevant use of force laws for your area or for you to look them up and post them yourself.

3. I want to you go ask a cop what he thinks of your retarded bullshit and then come back and tell us about their reaction.

[Thanas]

Norade, speaking from a legal perspective, I'd advise you to shut up and stop betraying your ignorance any further with your baseless UK accusations.

[Zaune]

Quick point of correction. The letter of the law is somewhat vague about defining "reasonable force", but it's been defined fairly simply by precedent as, "don't shoot your assailant in the back and don't kick them when they're down". Use of weapons doesn't really come into it, but then carrying an offensive weapon in a public place for any reason is a separate criminal offence in Britain anyway.

[Covenant]

I'd also like to say that despite the horrible treatment I got and mentioned a portion of in my previous post, I would not go back in time and tell my younger self to fight back. The kids who tormented me were undoubtedly my physical inferiors and beating them up, weapon or not, is a simple thing. But it's also the wrong thing. Empowerment through violence isn't a message I want to teach children, especially since some of the people who were horrifyingly cruel to me had problems at home, were decent people just following the crowd, or were simply rather nasty teachers... and in a way I did learn something from it. Not a good lesson I'd want to repeat, but outside of the social alienation from other children nothing could be gained by combining the whole "alienated loser self-hating child" with "violent beta-bully."

When I was hurt, I told an adult. When I was heartbroken, I told my parents. Other kid's parents got called, people got detentions. If they hadn't maybe I'd have freaked out and started bringing a weapon, but I wouldn't consider that a fair or sensible next step. At no point was I going to pick up a brick or a knife and clock some kid though. That's crazy.

Anyway, I don't really feel like going over this stuff more, but despite being bullied I wanted to say that violence was not and would not have been the answer. I have no trouble fighting when it's called for, and have done so, but not between kids.

[salm]

I think a lot of bullying can happen simply because the bullies don´t get caught. I did a fair share of bullying during highschool and, well, it´s not exactly hard to do it when no teacher is around. You have plenty of time during breaks or in the changing room, at the bus stop or in the school bus when no teacher or anybody who cares is around.

There´s also a clear advantage for the bully when getting caught. If a teacher catches the bully while bullying and punishes him his self esteem won´t be blown to bits. A bully just laughs off detention or similar forms of punishment or even carries them around like a patch of honor.
The person getting bullied on the other hand already has low self esteem and if caught hitting back or if he is wrongly accused by a teacher will find his self esteem completely shredded. Bullies know that can set up traps for their victims so that they can wrongly accuse them of something.

For example it was also the at my highschool that a small group of people would do the bullying itself while the rest of the class would back them up.
Now imagine being a teacher who comes into the class room after the break, one guy accuses a bunch of other guys of something and the entire class denies them doing that.

There´s only little a school can do against the right type of bullying.

[Norade]

Bull-fucking-shit. In the real world we don't charge the person who's using self defense to defend themselves. Most bullies are larger and stronger than their victims so a weapon can be justified. If the danger seems great enough many laws will even make a case for the use of deadly force. You claim that violence isn't an acceptable way of dealing with physical abuse, and I ask you what are self defense laws for then?

And your experience with "real world" self defense is what? As a matter of fact, people are quite often arrest and sometimes even face criminal charges in cases of self-defense. Just because theothe person is bigger than you doesn't justify the use of a weapon, and in fact pulling a weapon will probably violate any use of force laws your city or state have because you're now escalating the fight into deadly force territory when none was offered by the other guy.

Now that we've established that you're an internet tough guy with no fucking clue at all about what does and does not constitute "self defense", let's look at the rest of your dumbass arguments...

I listed at least some of it in posts above if you care to read. Unless you think I would lie about attacking somebody when they didn't know it was a fight, and hitting below the belt. I'd much rather break up a fight peacefully to be honest, and I haven't needed to fight since I was in high school. I have reviewed self defense laws though as a friend wanted to be a bouncer. With a decent lawyer you can drive a truck through those holes.

Um, no you can't. There's these things called "use of force laws" that mean if you respond to someone punching you by pulling a gun doesn't matter if they through the first punch or how provoked you were, it's going to be your dumbass that gets to become intimate with Bubba in a 6x9' cell. In most any first world western nation you can name, you are not justified in using a weapon except in response to one being used against you, and some jurisdictions not even then.

You can get away with a fair bit actually. Or I'd have been charged when I nearly beat somebody with a hammer, I held back, but that is still technically assault. I'd have been in court had I hit him with it, but looking at the law and phoning around I would have walked with no charges. All you have to do is show that in that situation an average person would have reacted in the same way.

You ar so full of shit if your eyes arent already brown they're changing color as we speak. Name one fucking jurisdiction in the US or Canada where use of force laws are defined by the attacker's size instead of if the attack is presenting deadly force or not. You couldn't be any more wrong if you tried and the fact you keep repeating this horse shit just reeks of internet toughguy horseshit and pretty much confirms to anyone who reads this that you've never been in a fight in your life, much less had any actual training in self-defense techniques or the laws governing use of force.

It's related to the level of threat to a normal person would see in that situation actually. So a large person acting in threatening fashion to a smaller person who knows they have no chance unarmed will often be a case where you can get away with force. They'll investigate, but if you don't go over board after he's down you'll always walk. Conversely you can get excessive force charges using nothing but fists if you beat somebody too hard. However I've known people to have been fined as little as a single dollar for putting people who tried to mug him in hospital, so obviously the law can be interpreted.

Yeah, this is bullshit too. You know who is going to tell you that you're not justified in taking a gun or a knife or a baseball bat into a fight unless the other guy brings one out first will be the Responding Officer as he's hand cuffing your dumbass. Don't believe me? Go present your stupid fucking argument to a cop and see if they don't just laugh in your face. Hell, I'll do one better, just tell me the city you live in and I'll google the relevant use of force laws for you area and post them here since I know you're to much of a fucking moron to go look them up on your own.

We have this to start with:

41. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

Assault by trespasser
(2) A trespasser who resists an attempt by a person who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, or a person lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority to prevent his entry or to remove him, shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.

So long as you give fair warning and make other attempts to remove them you may use force to remove a trespasser who is a threat to you or even your property.

This precedent was set here in McKay v. The Queen:

In so concluding, we should not be taken as endorsing the Court of Appeal’s analysis on the scope of the defence of property. By way of clarification, we should not be taken as endorsing the view that “defence of property alone will never justify the use of anything more than minor force being used against a trespasser” or that, in all cases, “the defence of property alone will not justify the intentional use of a weapon against a trespasser.”

Now that I've shown that even a simple B&E can allow you to defend yourself and that one can use weapons to defend property.

More evidence to support me is here:

38. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, and every one lawfully assisting him, is justified

(a) in preventing a trespasser from taking it, or

(b) in taking it from a trespasser who has taken it,

if he does not strike or cause bodily harm to the trespasser.

Assault by trespasser
(2) Where a person who is in peaceable possession of personal property lays hands on it, a trespasser who persists in attempting to keep it or take it from him or from any one lawfully assisting him shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.

So you can wail on somebody for not giving something back after peaceful attempts to retrieve it. Given the precedent above you could use a weapon even.

As for asking an officer they often don't know the laws. You can get two different answers to the same question depending on the duty supervisor. Some will send officers to evict tenants, others will claim it's against the law. Police aren't the law, they just think they are. Being cuffed doesn't mean you broke the law either nor does spending time in court.

I'd also like to say that despite the horrible treatment I got and mentioned a portion of in my previous post, I would not go back in time and tell my younger self to fight back. The kids who tormented me were undoubtedly my physical inferiors and beating them up, weapon or not, is a simple thing. But it's also the wrong thing. Empowerment through violence isn't a message I want to teach children, especially since some of the people who were horrifyingly cruel to me had problems at home, were decent people just following the crowd, or were simply rather nasty teachers... and in a way I did learn something from it. Not a good lesson I'd want to repeat, but outside of the social alienation from other children nothing could be gained by combining the whole "alienated loser self-hating child" with "violent beta-bully."

When I was hurt, I told an adult. When I was heartbroken, I told my parents. Other kid's parents got called, people got detentions. If they hadn't maybe I'd have freaked out and started bringing a weapon, but I wouldn't consider that a fair or sensible next step. At no point was I going to pick up a brick or a knife and clock some kid though. That's crazy.

Anyway, I don't really feel like going over this stuff more, but despite being bullied I wanted to say that violence was not and would not have been the answer. I have no trouble fighting when it's called for, and have done so, but not between kids.

I would say that in my case I would tell my younger self to be self confident and to stand up to them. I was tougher than I knew at the time, so it wouldn't have come to a fight. If it did I would have won if I had actually fought back and that is valuable lesson if not the right way to learn it.

I think a lot of bullying can happen simply because the bullies don´t get caught. I did a fair share of bullying during highschool and, well, it´s not exactly hard to do it when no teacher is around. You have plenty of time during breaks or in the changing room, at the bus stop or in the school bus when no teacher or anybody who cares is around.

There´s also a clear advantage for the bully when getting caught. If a teacher catches the bully while bullying and punishes him his self esteem won´t be blown to bits. A bully just laughs off detention or similar forms of punishment or even carries them around like a patch of honor.
The person getting bullied on the other hand already has low self esteem and if caught hitting back or if he is wrongly accused by a teacher will find his self esteem completely shredded. Bullies know that can set up traps for their victims so that they can wrongly accuse them of something.

For example it was also the at my highschool that a small group of people would do the bullying itself while the rest of the class would back them up.
Now imagine being a teacher who comes into the class room after the break, one guy accuses a bunch of other guys of something and the entire class denies them doing that.

There´s only little a school can do against the right type of bullying.

They can do more than they are by adding cameras to places that would be legal for them to do so, this wouldn't stop things like locker room and washroom violence. It would however mean that you couldn't be forced into those places without being able to say 'they did it, look at the tapes'. It wouldn't even cost as much as the laptops they hand out like candy and it would be more useful to learning.

[salm]

I'd also like to say that despite the horrible treatment I got and mentioned a portion of in my previous post, I would not go back in time and tell my younger self to fight back. The kids who tormented me were undoubtedly my physical inferiors and beating them up, weapon or not, is a simple thing. But it's also the wrong thing. Empowerment through violence isn't a message I want to teach children, especially since some of the people who were horrifyingly cruel to me had problems at home, were decent people just following the crowd, or were simply rather nasty teachers... and in a way I did learn something from it. Not a good lesson I'd want to repeat, but outside of the social alienation from other children nothing could be gained by combining the whole "alienated loser self-hating child" with "violent beta-bully."

When I was hurt, I told an adult. When I was heartbroken, I told my parents. Other kid's parents got called, people got detentions. If they hadn't maybe I'd have freaked out and started bringing a weapon, but I wouldn't consider that a fair or sensible next step. At no point was I going to pick up a brick or a knife and clock some kid though. That's crazy.

Anyway, I don't really feel like going over this stuff more, but despite being bullied I wanted to say that violence was not and would not have been the answer. I have no trouble fighting when it's called for, and have done so, but not between kids.

I think you view this way too black and white. In some cases fighting will do everything and solve the whole problem.
A lot of bullying is about pack mentality and being an alpha, beta or delta member of the group. In some cases fighting and establishing yourself as a person who can and will stand up for himself will win yourself acceptance among the group.
It´s primitive and unfair.

In other cases fighting back will be totally useless.

[Kingmaker]

Wait, let me get this straight. If a guy breaks into your house and steals your shit, you feel that it is your right to shoot him?

Let me stop you right there. In quite a few places, in the US at least, you do have that right, so long as you have good reason to believe the intruder has broken in with intent to commit a felony. Not that it really relates to bullying, since I doubt that the kids harassing you at school are also breaking into your house at night.

I don't begrudge someone who is actually being physically harmed the right to defend them self, nor do I think that the onus is on them to back down and run away, but the solution to fisticuffs is not going to be getting yourself a switchblade. I don't really know what to do about it though, since it is observably the case that authority figures frequently can't or won't do anything unless something happens right in front of them. Panopticon surveillance doesn't really strike me as being very feasible, and I don't really know how to produce proof of sub-violent bullying without something like that, since it's just going to come down to a case of 'he said, she said.'

Also, I think it is rather facile to dismiss juvenile bullies as budding sociopaths and criminals (in fact, I generally hate the ease with which the label 'sociopath' is thrown around on this forum and the rest of the internet). I think most people, unless they were the absolute rock bottom of the social totem pole (and even then...) were probably unbelievably, thoughtlessly cruel to someone when they were in high school or middle school. It doesn't excuse the behavior, especially in the more egregious cases of bullying, but it's something to keep in mind when thinking about the problem.