9 students charged with bullying that lead to a suicide

[Hobbs]

The exact response a bulk of teachers say to those who are bullied.

Just grow stronger. Well no. Not all people can do that. That's why some snap and go to extremes, becauses its the only damn why to stop being bullied period is to fear of death into them. The exact same fear they instill into all the people they pick on. That is how one makes them to stop period.

So I take it you're willing to effect a mass-killing such as Columbine and subsequent schools? Injuring people who's only crime was that they couldn't get out of the way of the bullets? Sorry, but if that's your line of reasoning, I can't be sympathetic to you.

[Plaidman]

No, never said that. I said put the fear into the bullies. There has never been an school who entire purpose of the entire student body was to pick on one kid. So yeah, if pointing a toy gun at a bully makes him cry and hide like a coward, then yeah. Go for it. At the time I did it, I did wish it was a real gun just to shoot him in the leg, maybe it be a good reminder for the rest of his damn life that he can't pick on people just because it he's stronger then them, or cooler then them, or smarter then them, or just because its popular or fun. People have feelings.

That being said, I stress that I had said several times, I wish it was a real gun at the time.

But hey, like you said before several time sin your miltiary threads. Its ok to kill entire areas of cilivians, as long as it kills more enemies. Enemies who likely hadn't even fired at you. Or maybe all the soldiers were drafted there by force. It goes same way. I at least stopped a bully who's sole purpose at that point was to make mine and others life hell. Your the one who be ordered to mass kill people.

[Hobbs]

Oh boy, here we go. Once again, a civilian confuses civil matters with the military. It is perfectly legal, according to both International Law (LOAC) and US law (UCMJ) to attack military targets. I am a military target. It is perfectly all right for an enemy to shoot and try and kill me. That said, if we were to look at school shootings from a military standpoint, the shooters attacked unarmed non-combatants, and were indiscriminate between non-combatants and combatants. The shooters themselves were illegal combatants. Considering a military strike, there are provisions in place to lessen the impact against civilians. If you read my post in "Cult Militia" you would have read some of those provisions. Let me re-iterate them for you.

Military Necessity. Military necessity requires combat forces to engage in only those acts necessary to accomplish a legitimate military objective. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In applying military necessity to targeting, the rule generally means the United States Military may target those facilities, equipment, and forces which, if destroyed, would lead as quickly as possible to the enemy’s partial or complete submission.

As an example of compliance with the principle of military necessity during Operation Desert Storm, consider our targeting and destruction of Iraqi SCUD missile batteries and of Iraqi army and air forces. These actions quickly achieved air superiority and hastened the Iraqi military’s defeat.

Military necessity also applies to weapons review. AFI 51-402, Weapons Review, requires the Air Force to perform a legal review of all weapons and weapons systems intended to meet a military requirement. These reviews ensure the United States complies with its international obligations, especially those relating to the LOAC, and it helps military planners ensure military personnel do not use weapons or weapons systems that violate international law. Illegal arms for combat include poison weapons and expanding hollow point bullets in armed conflict. Even lawful weapons may require some restrictions on their use in particular circumstances to increase compliance with the LOAC.


A Military objective is defined as:

Military Objectives Elements
1. Effective contribution to military action by:
a. Nature
b. Location, purpose, use
2. Offers a definite military advantage by:
a. Destruction
b. Capture
c. Neutralization

Nature-inherent characteristics
Examples: tanks, fighter aircraft, combatants
Location: crossroads, etc.

Purpose: intended future use

Examples: civilian trucks or POL which can reasonably be expected to be used in the enemy’s war efforts
Use: current function

Examples: civilian tower being used an observation post, school being used as command post

The rule of war is that, without proof otherwise, a facility is to have a presumed civilian use and is off-limits (such as a car factory or mosque). When that facility begins to be used to facilitate the actions of the military (such as the aforementioned factory converted to make tanks, or the mosque as cover/concealment for an enemy unit) said civilian center loses its protection under LOAC.

LOAC and Geneva never say that it's wrong to kill civilians. What it does say is that it is wrong for the military to specifically target civilians or make them part of the military objective. That's the reason why we have smart weapons that can hit targets precisely without undue collateral damage.

Here's the rule on proportionality:

Proportionality
Elements of disproportionate
Collateral damage
Incidental loss of life
Civilian death
Rule precludes civilian casualties that are excessive (collateral damage)
Proportionality does not preclude attacks on military personnel or facilities that are not otherwise protected
Superfluous injury or suffering is not allowed

[Plaidman]

Regardless though there are still going to BE Civilian deaths. Period. As compared to my version of high school shootings, which is NOT the senseless death of innocents who didn't do anything, but to stop a bully from picking on people for no reason. To injure, not kill. Your sayings its perfectly alright to kill innocents, because they are building stuff. My version is to stop a person from bullying others, without lost of life.

[Hobbs]

You can't promise you won't kill someone when you point a gun at them. Gun Rule #1: Don't point at something/someone you don't intend to kill. Guns are intended to kill, not injure. Is your aim good enough that you can ensure 100% non-fatal shootings?

Yes, if a civilian is working in a tank factory, it is a perfectly legitimate target. Those tanks, if not blown up on the production line, will be used in the enemy war effort against me.

[Plaidman]

Unloaded guns can't kill. But pointing it at a bully will sure as hell make him/her think otherwise of bullying when they realize how close they made a person snap.


And not all civilians choose to work. Just like sweat shops, some are forced to make weapons. Perfect target practice.

[Hobbs]

You've said countless times you wish it had been a real gun, and wished you had shot him in the leg. You can't do that if it's unloaded.

Regardless, they're building weapons to be used against us. That's a legitimate military target. What part of that don't you get?

[Plaidman]

I do get it. I understand it just fine. But I always had a problem seeing shades of grey. To put it in military words.

ME: American Soldier
Bully: American Enemy Soldier.
School: Enemy Land


The bully is expert soldier, life time experenced, trained from birth, knows everything.

Me? First day in military school, I get there. (Yeah, its a scretch). What am I suppose to do? It sure as hell feels like said bully is going to kill me. Its fear. It hard fist in my face repeatedly while my own blows are inneffective. If your in a jet fighter, and plain bullets don't work at all, do you just shrug and say oh well? or do you use the next higher form of weapon, a missile.

All I did was defend myself because, being in enemy land, no-one else would help. The higher school officals, or Officers if you would, all the way to the general (aka Principal), just shrug and say they'll take care of it. But yeah, lots of red tape.

Everyone has a right to defend oneself. If one feels that said bully will not stop until your dead, then yeah, one might snap.

And yeah, I did wish it was a real gun. AT THE TIME. Do I still do NOW? Sometimes. Not always. As much as I hate them, I just much rather seen them in extreme pain then death. Just like I did at the time. I wanted them in pain. Would I shoot them? Maybe. Sometimes I do. Sometimes Not. But your talking to high school me. A mucher weaker, more stupid, and unlikeable depressed lonely person. A gunshot to the leg was livable. After all, that's what terminator said in Terminator 2. Which, movies being my only friend and books, I didn't think a leg wound would be death. Its still pretty livable.

I also understand just fine that their are a legitimate military target. But if you are fine with killing people who may or may not be willingly building said weapons, then you should be fine with people defending themselves using forceful tactics. Because you are, as every soldier, using everything possible to keep their home country as safe as possible.


Which don't get me wrong, I do respect that alot. I wanted to be a soldier, but the large list of medical problems made me enligable. Nor did I pass a psyche eval.

I was defending myself from a person I truely belived was out to hurt me as much as possible. Its human nature. You don't keep putting your hand in a fire when it hurts you. You do what you can to be safe. Everyone deserves to feel safe.

EDIT: Just trying to make it clear Hobbs, I'm not trying to cause any harm between us. I still think your a pretty good guy myself, though I think the subject of what one does to defend against bullies is something we'll both disagree with. But I still like you. Please don't think otherwise.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

There really is no suitable comparison between high-school bullying and military engagements. It's apples and oranges in the truest sense. They're both fruit (conflict) but that's more or less where it ends. Self-defense situations compare a little better, but it's still no where near a proper argumentative analogy, IMO.

What works perfect is something along the line of a domestic assault or similar non-mugging in the dark type self-defense.

In an ideal world, everyone would be capable of defending themselves from even the most outclassed threats, but we don't get to live there. If you're giving a foot of height a hundred pounds of muscle and years of experience to someone physically assaulting you, very few if any jurisdictions begrudge you the use of an equalizer. Things like pepper spray, tazers, or even a Maglite or baton are all suitable in that they help you defend yourself either by enhancing your capabilities or diminishing your attacker's. Where things do get hazy is the 'lethality threshold'. If the person under attack has a legitimate reason to believe that their attacker not only intends to cause serious injury or death, most jurisdictions allow for that person to escalate their force to potential lethality as well. Fair warning is supposed to be given, if the attacker continues to attempt injuring/killing after fair warning, well, sorry pal. Of course many backwards jurisdictions require that you try to run away first or even go the point of punishing you for any and all self defense regardless of circumstance, but by and large the attacker is responsible for causing both the situation as well as causing the escalation (by threatening injury/death) and then disregarding the warning.

In this instance I must agree with Plaidman in that not only was it not your decision to cause the situation, and that you had more than enough reason to fear serious injury which in itself can mean death. Your actions were justifiably extreme, although they pushed the bounds a bit. Had it been a real gun it would be a different story, but I for one don't judge people on what they wanted to do, or wished they did, but rather what they actually did.

Hobbs, I agree that people should do whatever they can to provide for their own protection. However, that does not mean they are in the wrong if they don't, to say nothing of the fact that many people simply can't. We aren't, nor should we be, responsible for the physical or otherwise assaults of others regardless of our ability to stop them. The fact of the matter is that it's the person who chooses to commit crime, to attack someone who is responsible for the outcome be it the injury or death of their victim or themselves.

[Hobbs]

Actually, no. In this instance, the school is more like Fallujah, Iraq in 2004. You're the US Marines and the bully is representative of the Iraqi insurgents. In this case, the school is where the enemy is, but not necessarily able to be targeted.


I am perfectly capable of accepting people using force to defend themselves, but as I've said before, unproportionate force is not acceptable. We can't carpet-bomb a town to take out a couple of insurgentsl; weapons can't be used against unarmed personnel.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Actually, no. In this instance, the school is more like Fallujah, Iraq in 2004. You're the US Marines and the bully is representative of the Iraqi insurgents. In this case, the school is where the enemy is, but not necessarily able to be targeted.


I am perfectly capable of accepting people using force to defend themselves, but as I've said before, unproportionate force is not acceptable. We can't carpet-bomb a town to take out a couple of insurgentsl; weapons can't be used against unarmed personnel.

But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about breaking out the cluster bombs because you're outnumbered (and thus out-gunned) 10 to 1. When you're conventional force isn't enough to prevent you're annihilation, you have to augment it.

And unless I'm very much mistaken, we're not talking about Plaidman burning the school down, merely fighting back against these specific tormentors. I still don't see how military ROE applies at all.

[Plaidman]

Ok, what would be an acceptable form of defense? Bats? Mace? I mean its too late now, and even now my ability to deal with my customers, which can be bullies in a verbal sense is much easier to do with. But I want to have a kid. (Granted, since getting the whole girlfriend/wife is impossible, I'm going to have to adopt). I want know what he/she can use to defend themselves. In the likely chance they aren't capable of building muscle.

[Hobbs]

Plaidman brought it up. And we're talking LOAC, not ROE.

Plaidman, the way I got through it was, simply enough, pressure points. I learned them all in 2nd or 3rd grade. Whenever someone tried to touch me, I just used my knowledge and brought them into submission. It's quite immasculating to be brought down by a simple pinch. Anyway, by middle school everyone pretty much knew that touching me would involve pain. Plus, it doesn't really leave any marks, and teachers would never believe a little thing like me could do so much damage.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

If we were talking about a contingent of students from Plaidman's school getting into a fistfight as a result from skulking around a different school LOAC may well be a potential analogy to draw. I assumed what you meant was ROE because it's a much closer fit (involving only a few people) while still addressing the basic questions. Under what circumstances can one fight back? How can they go about doing it? To what extent can they fight back? All of this being person on person as opposed to theater-scale area-based thinking along the same lines (LOAC)

May I ask who taught you how to use pressure points in 2nd and 3rd grade? And how is learning to inflict maximum damage with your bare hands any different than using an implement (I myself resorted to using a textbook on a couple of occasions) to inflict more damage? Or, in this case, psychological damage?

[Plaidman]

(I myself resorted to using a textbook on a couple of occasions) to inflict more damage? Or, in this case, psychological damage?

.... I wish I thought of that. I really didn't. Though most of the time I was shaking in my shoes.