Bullying Apathy by school - WHY?

SLAM: debunk creationism, pseudoscience, and superstitions. Discuss logic and morality.

Moderator: Alyrium Denryle

User avatar
Kamakazie Sith
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7555
Joined: 2002-07-03 05:00pm
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Bullying Apathy by school - WHY?

Post by Kamakazie Sith »

Mr. Coffee wrote:
Stark wrote:In that case, when they say 'up to and including deadly force', does that mean 'you can use deadly force if they are a danger to you' or 'you can use deadly force if they continue to enter your property after you warn them off/try to stop them/etc'?

Answered at the end there with "the occupant reasonably believes deadly force is necessary". Meaning you have to be able to prove that use of deadly force was reasonable given the threat.
Actually, in Utah it is assumed that the intruder was going to cause you serious bodily injury or death. It is like that in many other states in the US that have the castle doctrine and it is like that because the state doesn't want you to have to wait until a bullet flies by you before you can defend your family. So, basically if someone breaks into your home and they're facing you then you can shoot them. If you catch them with their back to you and they're heading towards your childrens bedroom then you can shoot them. If their hands are full of your property, or they're running towards your front door to get out of your home then shooting them would be unjustified.

However, evidence will be collected and a thorough investigation conducted and if it's found that you're lying, or the evidence shows you weren't in danger then you'll be charged with homicide. An example that happened in Utah is this home owner shot a man in his living room. He claimed self defense and that he was afraid for his life when the man charged him. The evidence collected against him showed that he shot the victim while the victim was sitting in a chair and the shooter was standing up over him. He was convicted...

Also, you don't have to present any evidence. The prosecution will need to show that your use of deadly force was unjustified beyond a reasonable doubt.
Milites Astrum Exterminans
User avatar
Kamakazie Sith
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7555
Joined: 2002-07-03 05:00pm
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Bullying Apathy by school - WHY?

Post by Kamakazie Sith »

Regarding using deadly force in a fight. You'd need more than the other person was larger than you to justify deadly force or what you believe his potential and intentions were. Norade is wrong about that. You'd need to show that the fight was escalating beyond just a fight that it was reasonable to believe that you were going to suffering serious bodily harm or death at the hands of this person. Basically, you'll have to be fucked up to justify deadly force in a fist fight. Having a broken lip won't cut it and you'll be in deep shit.
Norade wrote: As I have shown you can use a firearm over even simple property theft if you had good enough reasoning. There is precedent in Canada for the use of weapons to defend theft. Killing might be out, but injury is certainly in the cards as long as you make sure you try to get it back without violence first. Your local DA is also a fucking nut, and I'm glad I don't live where you do.
Actually, the DA came to the correct conclusion in that officer involved shooting. Shooting at a car coming at an officer is justified use of deadly force. HOWEVER, the investigation revealed that it was not reasonable for the officer to feel like his life was in danger. Which probably means that the car was not coming towards the officer or the officer was further away than stated.

As usual the media doesn't have all the facts.
Milites Astrum Exterminans
User avatar
Faqa
Jedi Master
Posts: 1340
Joined: 2004-06-02 09:32am
Contact:

Re: Bullying Apathy by school - WHY?

Post by Faqa »

You also get to use force to recover any missing property as well. It's easy to make a case for using a weapon to repel a home invasion and you can be justified by saying something as simple as 'I thought he had a knife'. It's really cut and dry that you have a lot of leeway to use force.
Again - you can lay hands on your property, and if HE lays hands on you to stop that, HE is guilty of assault.

You may take whatever steps the law normally allows to stop the assault, but that's it.

How you get from there to "you get to use force to recover missing property" is a mystery. Never mind being allowed to bring deadly force on an unarmed person because you "thought he had a knife".
That's all I have to prove though. It's not always illegal, and you can get away with using a weapon on an unarmed person if you can justify it. I have to prove no more than that and I have.
You have certainly not proven the second part.

What you've proven is that any physical altercation between you and a burglar at the very least ends with the burglar getting charged with assault. THIS DOESN'T MEAN YOU WALK, IT JUST MEANS HE DOESN'T.

*sigh*

All of your points come down to what you can do to defend yourself in general. No more.

And according to the law you quoted, you need to prove that the average person would have thought himself in immediate danger of grievous bodily harm or death. And the force you used is used solely to repel the assault. This means no revenge, no kicking him when he's down, no "whaling on him". It means getting him the fuck off you and ending the immediate threat.

Hell, section 37 of your quoted self-defense law specifically states that the force you used MUST be no more than necessary to end the immediate threat - and no, I don't think "repetition of it" means "repeat it, ever again". I'm pretty sure it means you can make sure the guy doesn't just hit you again five seconds later.
"Peace on Earth and goodwill towards men? We are the United States Goverment - we don't DO that sort of thing!" - Sneakers. Best. Quote. EVER.

Periodic Pwnage Pantry:

"Faith? Isn't that another term for ignorance?" - Gregory House

"Isn't it interesting... religious behaviour is so close to being crazy that we can't tell them apart?" - Gregory House

"This is usually the part where people start screaming." - Gabriel Sylar
User avatar
Ahriman238
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4854
Joined: 2011-04-22 11:04pm
Location: Ocularis Terribus.

Re: Bullying Apathy by school - WHY?

Post by Ahriman238 »

Okay, Lots has happened since I last posted here. First a bit of old business, Norade said:
Then your school fails at protecting students. You have hall monitors and break supervisors right? Shouldn't they cover much of the day? The outside of school bullying should be treated as in school if it happens on he way to or from school. Bullying would also do well to be classified as assault. Slap the bullies with assault charges that will haunt them on criminal record checks because most of the real bad bullies are a lost cause anyway if they continue past middle school. If they can keep clean through high school then wipe the records.
At any given time there are two teachers per floor on corridor patrol, there are also security cameras in half the hallways all the ones with bathrooms or conveniently accessible storerooms. I confess, I don't know who goes over the footage or how issues discovered that way are dealt with. Security is not my department, discipline for the school as a whole is handled by the VPs. For that matter, between classes all the teachers poke their heads out their classroom doors or stand just outside, it has less to do with preventing bullying than chivvying the vast human herd but if someone pulls something in the halls there's probably a minimum of six teachers watching and his ass is grass.

I only meant that any given time I only control my immediate enviroment. In other classes there will be other teachers who are maybe more lax, or stricter. Officially there is a zero-tolerance policy regarding bullies, but the enforcement can be inconsistent and a number of teachers have trouble saying precisely where the line between "high spirits" and bullying is.


WRT the rest of the thread: Norade, I don't know what to tell you. Nearly every law you've cited to support your position has, in fact, said the complete opposite.

My understanding of the law regarding home invasions, as told to me by a lawyer, is that you are required to issue one warning that you the homeowner are armed and tell them to surrender/walk away. If they walk, you let them go. If they bolt out the door of your house with a cartoonishly bulging sack 'o loot, you let them go. If they freeze or give up, you keep them covered and call the cops. If they pull a deadly weapon, or they were already holding a weapon and did not drop it when you warned them, then you can shoot them. And the cops will come, and there will be a lengthy investigation.

In, I believe the fifties, there was a case on reasonable force that is still quoted today. Three teens in leather jackets are riding a subway, and they ask a middle-aged man for some money. He refuses, and they repeat the offer. He walks into the next car, and they follow him still asking for twenty bucks. He goes into the next car, and the next until he reaches the end. When they corner him at the end of the last car, he pulls a .38 and shoots and kills the three of them. Three teenagers who never pulled a weapon, nor laid a hand on him.

Was this a reasonable level of force? Hell, no. The man in question went down for triple-homicide.

WOuld this have become a beating or robbery if he hadn't shot them? Maybe. But the law requires that you not escalate force. They use a fist, you use a fist. They pull a knife, you pull a knife. Because once a lethal weapon is pulled, it's no longer a matter of you getting a beating or getting robbed, it's a fight for your life.

Yet. Under your definitions, the man was perfectly justified in his actions, because he believed they wanted to harm him, and could so.
"Any plan which requires the direct intervention of any deity to work can be assumed to be a very poor one."- Newbiespud
User avatar
Mr. Coffee
is an asshole.
Posts: 3258
Joined: 2005-02-26 07:45am
Location: And banging your mom is half the battle... G.I. Joe!

Re: Bullying Apathy by school - WHY?

Post by Mr. Coffee »

General Schatten wrote:And in case you missed it the definition of what is 'reasonable and proportionate' is lacking.
Tom, I know you stopped reading it after the first paragraph, but try reading the rest of your state's "Stand You Ground Law". It tells you this. It's the same as pretty much every other SYG/Castle Doctrine stature in the US, that whole "you must reasonable believe the intruder intends to kill/grievously harm yourself or others".

Norade wrote:Sure, just so I can avoid being dumped on by Coffee and friends. One person is fine, but I seem to get dog pilled a bit recently.
Stop saying stupid tough guy bullshit so much, and wouldn't you know it, no one will have an actual reason for dog piling you, numbnuts. Take two of these and stop shitting up threads...

Image

Kamakazie Sith wrote:Actually, in Utah it is assumed that the intruder was going to cause you serious bodily injury or death. It is like that in many other states in the US that have the castle doctrine and it is like that because the state doesn't want you to have to wait until a bullet flies by you before you can defend your family. So, basically if someone breaks into your home and they're facing you then you can shoot them. If you catch them with their back to you and they're heading towards your childrens bedroom then you can shoot them. If their hands are full of your property, or they're running towards your front door to get out of your home then shooting them would be unjustified.

However, evidence will be collected and a thorough investigation conducted and if it's found that you're lying, or the evidence shows you weren't in danger then you'll be charged with homicide. An example that happened in Utah is this home owner shot a man in his living room. He claimed self defense and that he was afraid for his life when the man charged him. The evidence collected against him showed that he shot the victim while the victim was sitting in a chair and the shooter was standing up over him. He was convicted...
Yeah, it's the second paragraph there that's the big key, KS. If your story of "I felt threatened" don't match up to the evidence gained in that investigation the whole "reasonable and necessary" thing goes flying out the window and off to court you go, you go. It's the same reason why I've made a habit of trying to learn this shit ever since I got my CCW so if I ever have to use my handgun I'm on the right side of the Law in doing so. May or may not help if the family of who ever I had to shoot decides to get their own Trained Attack Jew and sue my ass, but at least it'll help keep the county prosecutor's office off my ass. CYA, man.

Kamakazie Sith wrote:Also, you don't have to present any evidence. The prosecution will need to show that your use of deadly force was unjustified beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yeah, I misspoke like a motherfucker there. As in most any case of possible criminal wrong doing it's up to the prosecution to prove it thanks to our wonderful presumption of innocence schtick.
Image
Goddammit, now I'm forced to say in public that I agree with Mr. Coffee. - Mike Wong
I never would have thought I would wholeheartedly agree with Coffee... - fgalkin x2
Honestly, this board is so fucking stupid at times. - Thanas
GALE ForceCarwash: Oh, I'll wax that shit, bitch...
User avatar
Faqa
Jedi Master
Posts: 1340
Joined: 2004-06-02 09:32am
Contact:

Re: Bullying Apathy by school - WHY?

Post by Faqa »

Here's what I'm confused about - doesn't admitting to the use of deadly force forfeit the presumption of innocent until proven guilty?

It is, after all, comparable to an insanity plea - "I did it, BUT....". Isn't the onus on the defendant to prove their insanity if they claim it (I think the Hinckley case led to that change)?

If so, it seems to me the onus would be on you to prove the force you used was justified and reasonable to the situation.
"Peace on Earth and goodwill towards men? We are the United States Goverment - we don't DO that sort of thing!" - Sneakers. Best. Quote. EVER.

Periodic Pwnage Pantry:

"Faith? Isn't that another term for ignorance?" - Gregory House

"Isn't it interesting... religious behaviour is so close to being crazy that we can't tell them apart?" - Gregory House

"This is usually the part where people start screaming." - Gabriel Sylar
User avatar
Mr. Coffee
is an asshole.
Posts: 3258
Joined: 2005-02-26 07:45am
Location: And banging your mom is half the battle... G.I. Joe!

Re: Bullying Apathy by school - WHY?

Post by Mr. Coffee »

Faqa wrote:Here's what I'm confused about - doesn't admitting to the use of deadly force forfeit the presumption of innocent until proven guilty?
Since there are situations where it's legally justifiable, the Prosecution has to prove that you were unreasonable or what not in using deadly force. Yeah, you shot the guy/s, but it's still up to the police to find evidence of actual wrong doing on your part and then up to the prosecutor to make it stick.
Image
Goddammit, now I'm forced to say in public that I agree with Mr. Coffee. - Mike Wong
I never would have thought I would wholeheartedly agree with Coffee... - fgalkin x2
Honestly, this board is so fucking stupid at times. - Thanas
GALE ForceCarwash: Oh, I'll wax that shit, bitch...
User avatar
Knife
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15769
Joined: 2002-08-30 02:40pm
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Re: Bullying Apathy by school - WHY?

Post by Knife »

Faqa wrote:Here's what I'm confused about - doesn't admitting to the use of deadly force forfeit the presumption of innocent until proven guilty?

It is, after all, comparable to an insanity plea - "I did it, BUT....". Isn't the onus on the defendant to prove their insanity if they claim it (I think the Hinckley case led to that change)?
No, a justified shooting is legal, thusly you'd be innocent of murder or man slaughter, whatever the charge happened to be.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong

But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
User avatar
Luke Skywalker
Padawan Learner
Posts: 376
Joined: 2011-06-27 01:08am

Re: Bullying Apathy by school - WHY?

Post by Luke Skywalker »

Because many school administrators are ignorant assholes?

I remember once when I had issues with a bully way back in elementary school, and the school's principal denied my request to suspend the bully. Her reasoning was that many of the bullies' parents were lawyers, and could threaten to school the school district, in which case the higher ups would come around full circle and just put the bully back into school to "resolve" the issue.

What's more infuriating is that if you get into a fight with a bully, even if he/she instigated it without provocation, you get disciplined too, even if you only hit back in self defense. Why? Because administrators are the masters of the Golden Mean Fallacy.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and consciencious stupidity."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.

Liberals opposed slavery, supported labor protection laws, supported civil rights, supported Womens' right, opposed the spoils system, supported Scientific advancement and research and support gay marriage. Conservatives did the opposite. Guess which side has the intellectual, forward thinking progressives, and which side has rich fundamentalist anti-gay white slave owners?
User avatar
TheFeniX
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4869
Joined: 2003-06-26 04:24pm
Location: Texas

Re: Bullying Apathy by school - WHY?

Post by TheFeniX »

Luke Skywalker wrote:I remember once when I had issues with a bully way back in elementary school, and the school's principal denied my request to suspend the bully. Her reasoning was that many of the bullies' parents were lawyers, and could threaten to school the school district, in which case the higher ups would come around full circle and just put the bully back into school to "resolve" the issue.
There was an article I read a while back talking about how the tiered school system works. Essentially, unlike every high-school "coming of age" movie, those at the top don't bother with physically bullying, maybe only making short jabs at "their lowers." It's the kids a tier or two down the list that hassle those even lower as a way to garner respect from the highest tier. But the administration still views them as "popular" and those being bullied as "outcasts and weirdos," this information being taken from interviews with teachers and administrators.

Also taken from these interviews is that administration and teachers themselves look for approval from the "High School Elite" and actually look down upon those who let themselves be bullied. Another component of this is either the adult was part of this upper echelon in High School or they were bullied themselves and believe these outcasts should defend themselves, making up for the adults own short-comings in school. It's a shit-cycle to be in as allowing yourself to be bullied makes everyone look down on you, but fighting back still has administration on your ass because you're fighting back again your social "betters." Essentially, you're a "lower class," so you must be the bully.

I've done a great job butchering the information and really wish I could find the case study. It was very revealing... and depressing. The conclusions was that Public Education has more in common with the U.S. prison system than anything else. And has become increasingly like this, especially as school police have more in common with "gang-bangers" than actual police officers. I did work in more than a few Texas schools from 2000-2006 and I have to agree with the assessment. Administrators generally don't give a shit about anyone other than those they find acceptable. You should hear (or not) about the comments they'll make about autistic kids getting fucked with.
What's more infuriating is that if you get into a fight with a bully, even if he/she instigated it without provocation, you get disciplined too, even if you only hit back in self defense. Why? Because administrators are the masters of the Golden Mean Fallacy.
They had this even back when my brother was in high school (early 80s). It was a $200 fine to both students. It had some hilarious consequences. Kids would make sure to make that fine count. My brother had a mouth, but only fought out of self-defense. This would lead to the hilarious (not) decision of him "getting his money's worth," because the school would paddle him for the fight and our parents would paddle his ass for the $200 fine (and him fighting, duh). How true all my brother's stories were is up for debate, but supposedly the school had very few, but much bloodier, fights than most.

He came home with stitches in his hand once because he punched out two of a kid's teeth for hitting him first in full view of an Assistant Principal. My brother figured he was already screwed (yes, a kid could punch you and you would both get busted), so he'd make sure the kid never touched him again. And since the system they had was some kind of weird combination of "no-fault" and "restitution paid," the kid's parents couldn't press their own charges. Essentially, the fight was a crime against the school, or something, not the kids involved. Really fucked up system.
User avatar
aerius
Charismatic Cult Leader
Posts: 14799
Joined: 2002-08-18 07:27pm

Re: Bullying Apathy by school - WHY?

Post by aerius »

TheFeniX wrote:
What's more infuriating is that if you get into a fight with a bully, even if he/she instigated it without provocation, you get disciplined too, even if you only hit back in self defense. Why? Because administrators are the masters of the Golden Mean Fallacy.
They had this even back when my brother was in high school (early 80s). It was a $200 fine to both students. It had some hilarious consequences. Kids would make sure to make that fine count. My brother had a mouth, but only fought out of self-defense. This would lead to the hilarious (not) decision of him "getting his money's worth," because the school would paddle him for the fight and our parents would paddle his ass for the $200 fine (and him fighting, duh). How true all my brother's stories were is up for debate, but supposedly the school had very few, but much bloodier, fights than most.
Sounds like my high school when we went to a no-fault zero tolerance policy backed up with lengthy suspensions. Things definitely got a lot more vicious since if we were going to throw fists we might as well "make it count", we're getting a week off anyway whether it's a bloody nose or stomping the guy's head into the concrete steps so there wasn't any reason to hold back. It did reduce the number of fights at the school, but since there were only 3 ways to get onto school property, well, you know where this is going. You gotta go home some time so they'd just camp out at the exits and wait till you ain't on school property anymore, and then you get a streetfight in the alleyway. Those got real ugly. A year after I graduated a student was killed in a fight on the grounds of an apartment next to our school.
Image
aerius: I'll vote for you if you sleep with me. :)
Lusankya: Deal!
Say, do you want it to be a threesome with your wife? Or a foursome with your wife and sister-in-law? I'm up for either. :P
Eulogy
Jedi Knight
Posts: 959
Joined: 2007-04-28 10:23pm

Re: Bullying Apathy by school - WHY?

Post by Eulogy »

TheFeniX wrote:snip
:finger: That's just fucking horrible. I'm surprised the "lower" students didn't apparently ambush the bullies and the teachers/admins, or just plain set the school on fire. This abomination of a system, sadly, is what I'd suspect to be a mere symptom of a much larger tumour.
"A word of advice: next time you post, try not to inadvertently reveal why you've had no success with real women." Darth Wong to Bubble Boy
"I see you do not understand objectivity," said Tom Carder, a fundie fucknut to Darth Wong
Bluewolf
Dishonest Fucktard
Posts: 1165
Joined: 2007-04-23 03:35pm
Location: UK

Re: Bullying Apathy by school - WHY?

Post by Bluewolf »

Eulogy
I can understand the horrible circumstances and implications of what FeniX said but please don't veer into tough guyisms. We've already had enough of it in this thread and It'd be nice if we talked about this issue without falling into childish outbrusts. You may also consider that many people who are bullied accept it, are too afraid to tell anyone or don't even recognize it as bullying. On top of that I don't think many students realise the rottenness within the school staff.
User avatar
ArmorPierce
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 5904
Joined: 2002-07-04 09:54pm
Location: Born and raised in Brooklyn, unfornately presently in Jersey

Re: Bullying Apathy by school - WHY?

Post by ArmorPierce »

Eulogy wrote:
TheFeniX wrote:snip
:finger: That's just fucking horrible. I'm surprised the "lower" students didn't apparently ambush the bullies and the teachers/admins, or just plain set the school on fire. This abomination of a system, sadly, is what I'd suspect to be a mere symptom of a much larger tumour.

There's actually been studies showing this to be true. One study I've shown, the nicest and least likely to bully were the most popular students and the least popular students in terms of social capital. The reason for this was hypothesized that the least popular did not have the social capital in order to successfully bully whilst the most poular did need or feel the need to bully in order to gain more popularity or more respect and it actually may make them look insecure in their position.
Brotherhood of the Monkey @( !.! )@
To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift. ~Steve Prefontaine
Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.
User avatar
Norade
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2424
Joined: 2005-09-23 11:33pm
Location: Kelowna, BC, Canada
Contact:

Re: Bullying Apathy by school - WHY?

Post by Norade »

Luke Skywalker wrote:Because many school administrators are ignorant assholes?

I remember once when I had issues with a bully way back in elementary school, and the school's principal denied my request to suspend the bully. Her reasoning was that many of the bullies' parents were lawyers, and could threaten to school the school district, in which case the higher ups would come around full circle and just put the bully back into school to "resolve" the issue.

What's more infuriating is that if you get into a fight with a bully, even if he/she instigated it without provocation, you get disciplined too, even if you only hit back in self defense. Why? Because administrators are the masters of the Golden Mean Fallacy.
I've seen parents buy off the school with grant money and PTA parents get rid of kids their family had issues with.
School requires more work than I remember it taking...
User avatar
Norade
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2424
Joined: 2005-09-23 11:33pm
Location: Kelowna, BC, Canada
Contact:

Re: Bullying Apathy by school - WHY?

Post by Norade »

aerius wrote:
TheFeniX wrote:
What's more infuriating is that if you get into a fight with a bully, even if he/she instigated it without provocation, you get disciplined too, even if you only hit back in self defense. Why? Because administrators are the masters of the Golden Mean Fallacy.
They had this even back when my brother was in high school (early 80s). It was a $200 fine to both students. It had some hilarious consequences. Kids would make sure to make that fine count. My brother had a mouth, but only fought out of self-defense. This would lead to the hilarious (not) decision of him "getting his money's worth," because the school would paddle him for the fight and our parents would paddle his ass for the $200 fine (and him fighting, duh). How true all my brother's stories were is up for debate, but supposedly the school had very few, but much bloodier, fights than most.
Sounds like my high school when we went to a no-fault zero tolerance policy backed up with lengthy suspensions. Things definitely got a lot more vicious since if we were going to throw fists we might as well "make it count", we're getting a week off anyway whether it's a bloody nose or stomping the guy's head into the concrete steps so there wasn't any reason to hold back. It did reduce the number of fights at the school, but since there were only 3 ways to get onto school property, well, you know where this is going. You gotta go home some time so they'd just camp out at the exits and wait till you ain't on school property anymore, and then you get a streetfight in the alleyway. Those got real ugly. A year after I graduated a student was killed in a fight on the grounds of an apartment next to our school.
We had a fight pit away from the school behind a fast food place. They'd make the fights on weekends so the school couldn't do dick.
School requires more work than I remember it taking...
User avatar
Norade
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2424
Joined: 2005-09-23 11:33pm
Location: Kelowna, BC, Canada
Contact:

Re: Bullying Apathy by school - WHY?

Post by Norade »

ArmorPierce wrote:
Eulogy wrote:
TheFeniX wrote:snip
:finger: That's just fucking horrible. I'm surprised the "lower" students didn't apparently ambush the bullies and the teachers/admins, or just plain set the school on fire. This abomination of a system, sadly, is what I'd suspect to be a mere symptom of a much larger tumour.
There's actually been studies showing this to be true. One study I've shown, the nicest and least likely to bully were the most popular students and the least popular students in terms of social capital. The reason for this was hypothesized that the least popular did not have the social capital in order to successfully bully whilst the most poular did need or feel the need to bully in order to gain more popularity or more respect and it actually may make them look insecure in their position.
That can be true, though in some schools you can't be popular without being a bully. Those tend be bad the schools where they trickle the kids who were expelled and suspended a long time back into though. The ones that the rich kids don't go to.
School requires more work than I remember it taking...
User avatar
Ritterin Sophia
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5496
Joined: 2006-07-25 09:32am

Re: Bullying Apathy by school - WHY?

Post by Ritterin Sophia »

aerius wrote:Sounds like my high school when we went to a no-fault zero tolerance policy backed up with lengthy suspensions.
Mang, you think that's something? My sister beat the shit out of a punk who pulled a knife on her in her senior year and they both got the same number of days suspended.
A Certain Clique, HAB, The Chroniclers
User avatar
TheFeniX
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4869
Joined: 2003-06-26 04:24pm
Location: Texas

Re: Bullying Apathy by school - WHY?

Post by TheFeniX »

Eulogy wrote::finger: That's just fucking horrible. I'm surprised the "lower" students didn't apparently ambush the bullies and the teachers/admins, or just plain set the school on fire. This abomination of a system, sadly, is what I'd suspect to be a mere symptom of a much larger tumour.
Like I said, it's a vicious cycle. Those without power are stopped at every turn from protecting themselves, much like in real life. People without money are punished by being poor, but also in that the country is run by rich fucks and the belief that Money is proportional to morality. Basically, you wouldn't have to deal with this if you were more popular: so be more popular, even though everyone will do everything they can to stop you from doing so. And they begin to believe this: it's their fault they are unpopular. Fix it or be content.

Kids don't firebomb the school because they understand right from wrong, usually specifically, because their parents taught them well but also because they know what it's like to be on the short end of the shit-stick by being fucked with. This kind of shit teaches them empathy and generally makes them better people (or drives them to suicide, which is still thankfully rare in this case).

This is why you see so many popular athletes from high school fall flat on their asses if their connections end with high school: they literally cannot interact with people because they've never really had to. Everyone (parents, teachers, peers, administrators) has kissed their ass so much, they try their same high-handed attitude when looking for a job or dealing with college (if they even go) and people just don't put up with that shit because who the fuck cares about high school? You may have been there: some jock at a college party (still wearing his letter jacket) makes a fucking terrible joke, then laughs maniacally at it while everyone nervously take a sip of their drink. He doesn't understand why no one is laughing because, in high school, everyone would have laughed because they were supposed to, just like you laugh nervously at your bosses shitty jokes.

But dealing with bullying as it stands now in schools is damn near impossible. Schools either deny it's existence or place the blame on the one being bullied after he finally fights back either physically or verbally, because they are upsetting the status quo.
Norade wrote:That can be true, though in some schools you can't be popular without being a bully. Those tend be bad the schools where they trickle the kids who were expelled and suspended a long time back into though. The ones that the rich kids don't go to.
Those schools are basically prisons/daycares anyway, with the emphasis being to get the kids to graduate, in any way possible, as quickly as possible. In the case of kids over the age of 18, they'll force them to "Drop out" by making them take their GED, but still counting them as graduating.

The big issue is that kids = money. Kids that keep up their grades and graduate = more money. This is why no Child Left Behind has lead to more graduates (even considering the massive amounts of fraud in the system) by just cramming kids into the most basic of classes. It wouldn't surprise me if Texas ditches it's AP (Advance Placement) classes at some point due to this problem. It takes an act of God to get a kid expelled or placed into special classes/system because that's lost money, because it's generated through kids in the "core" school system, not the extra stuff. Your kids are $$$ to administration. To be honest, I wouldn't give a shit in this day and age if public education became privatized because it's basically that way already. And, unless it's changed, Special Education (and autistic kids) don't generate money and drag down a schools performance, so administrators won't exactly cry if they can transfer them or find a way to get the parents to pull them out of school.

And personally, fucking parents need much less power over the school system. You would not believe the shit they pull, although, judging by the posts, some of you do. I single out autism because a rant by a parent about how they're eating up all the money for normal kids. I almost said it.... yea... almost just yelled out "Yea, fuck em'! How dare they be born different in America!?" But I got paid to fix electronics and it was lunch time......

"Inner City schools™" are kind of an outlier and to be honest, I have little experience with them as we never got any work with the Houston ISD. The schools we did do work for in Houston were charter schools and mostly elementary (K-5). Their tier structure isn't all that different from what I've read. Those at the top-top still don't get involved in much physical or emotional violence because it's beneath them. Like in prison, that's what lackey's and "hanger-ons" are for. These schools also aren't as violent and bloody as the movies make them out to be, mainly because campus cop will wreck your shit for looking at them wrong.
Eulogy
Jedi Knight
Posts: 959
Joined: 2007-04-28 10:23pm

Re: Bullying Apathy by school - WHY?

Post by Eulogy »

You are assuming that at least most kids bellieve that they deserve their fate, or that they do have empathy. You also assume that kids are in control of their emotions when it really counts (ha!). You also assume that some bullying fuckwads don't take it too far and the victims don't snap, or their friends/family members don't enact vengeance on behalf of them; or target the wrong person for that matter.

Bullies are a liabilty and authorites who condone or encourage it are even bigger liabilites. You don't fuck with people and not expect them to strike back sooner or later, and all it takes is one kid with the wrong knowledge or connections to get the wrong idea in his head.
"A word of advice: next time you post, try not to inadvertently reveal why you've had no success with real women." Darth Wong to Bubble Boy
"I see you do not understand objectivity," said Tom Carder, a fundie fucknut to Darth Wong
User avatar
ArmorPierce
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 5904
Joined: 2002-07-04 09:54pm
Location: Born and raised in Brooklyn, unfornately presently in Jersey

Re: Bullying Apathy by school - WHY?

Post by ArmorPierce »

Norade wrote:That can be true, though in some schools you can't be popular without being a bully. Those tend be bad the schools where they trickle the kids who were expelled and suspended a long time back into though. The ones that the rich kids don't go to.
Well I went to school in the ghetto and honestly I found bullying to be less prevelant there. You were more likely to get mugged or something but I'd consider that different than bullying. My brother went to one of the worse schools in NYC though for a year, literally ghettoest of the ghettos. Don't know how his experience was there, my school was in the ghetto but it had some gifted programs and such that attracted people city wide. Different set of issues apart from simple bullying.
Brotherhood of the Monkey @( !.! )@
To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift. ~Steve Prefontaine
Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.
User avatar
ArmorPierce
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 5904
Joined: 2002-07-04 09:54pm
Location: Born and raised in Brooklyn, unfornately presently in Jersey

Re: Bullying Apathy by school - WHY?

Post by ArmorPierce »

Now why was there little bullying? I don't know, the school did not have the 'popular kids' or whatever. It had multiple clicks of people. Various black 'gangsta' groups, the white groups, sport groups, misfit groups (students that didn't fit into the gangsta or white groups, I hung out there mostly when not with my sport group). Basically main groups were Whites (russian jews, irish, etc), gangstas and misfits with various other circles under them and some interlocking. The student body comprised of 4000-5000 students broken up with a schedule ranging from starting 7:20 in the day to 4:30-5, not including night school. I'm guessing smaller schools get a more small community behavior where everyone knows each other. In my school it was more mind your own business.
Brotherhood of the Monkey @( !.! )@
To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift. ~Steve Prefontaine
Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.
User avatar
Knife
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15769
Joined: 2002-08-30 02:40pm
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Re: Bullying Apathy by school - WHY?

Post by Knife »

Eulogy wrote:You are assuming that at least most kids bellieve that they deserve their fate, or that they do have empathy. You also assume that kids are in control of their emotions when it really counts (ha!).

Here is the problem, and what I tried to imply earlier in the thread. You're right, kids aren't in control of their emotions, and often their actions due to not being in control of their emotions. As whinny and emo as you seem in this thread about the issue, trumpeting up the victimhood; I'm willing to bet somewhere out there is some poor kid who thinks YOU are a bully because of some jackass thing you did to him/her that you probably don't even remember.

All teens are assholes a chunk of the time. It makes the problem of dealing with Bullies complicated. Sure, you can focus on the handful of actual NELSON's out there, but that won't solve the problem. If you could have reported your own personal nemesis and got him/her suspended, I'm willing to bet that kid could have outed his/her own personal bully and get them suspended, and so on and so forth. I think the fundamental attribution principle factors in here. All the assholish things you do you justify as mistakes and accidents while all the assholish things people do to you you reason that they are done out of malice. Where the truth lies in the middle somewhere. If you suspend ALL BULLIES you'll end up suspending a majority of the school.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong

But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
User avatar
TheFeniX
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4869
Joined: 2003-06-26 04:24pm
Location: Texas

Re: Bullying Apathy by school - WHY?

Post by TheFeniX »

Eulogy wrote:You are assuming that at least most kids bellieve that they deserve their fate, or that they do have empathy. You also assume that kids are in control of their emotions when it really counts (ha!).
Let me start by saying, most of what I've written is not my opinion, but that of people far smarter and more educated than I am. But people, not just kids, are easily lead to believe things not really in their control are their fault and society can help that assumption. Look at rape in many countries. No woman (or man) asks to be raped, but many blame themselves in some small part (or large part) and certain areas think to blame the victim first. Like I said earlier, if you were stronger, you wouldn't be in this position, so the more you worry about that, the more it wears on you.
Bullies are a liabilty and authorites who condone or encourage it are even bigger liabilites. You don't fuck with people and not expect them to strike back sooner or later, and all it takes is one kid with the wrong knowledge or connections to get the wrong idea in his head.
I'm not arguing with you there. On that note: one of my big beefs is people using the Columbine kids as an example of the bullied fighting back when that situation was anything but. Those kids were violent sociopaths who terrorized neighborhood kids and animals and had extremely negligent and/or naive parents.
Post Reply