"The school district also denied that he would be suspended"
https://reason.com/blog/2015/09/29/teen-kicked-off-football-team-because-he

[Updated at 10:00 a.m.] On Twitter, the teen clarified that he was never kicked off the football team—that story was "made up" by the media, he said. The school district also denied that he would be suspended; whether the petition influenced that decision is unclear. For me, the fact that 20,000 people expected the hero to get unfairly railroaded by the system is still quite a testament to the ubiquity of zero tolerance.

Yeah, it was way too easy to believe he'd get treated unfairly. I'm glad the cops are trying to charge the bully though. That shit, no matter WHAT the blind kid could of said or did, is just fucking troglodytic.

Yeah, it kills me how much bullies get away with; it's so enraging. What turns my heart a little whenever I encounter this mentality today is thinking about what kind of beatings the bully gets a home.

It's just too bad if you can't expect community/school/etc to step in together when there's public display of violence, there's certainly no chance to help with home domestic issues.

@lucky760 you gonna change the description now that the truth comes out that the media is really just sensationalizing this bs?

I dunno, got it to the Top 15. People have done worse on purpose to get the upvotes.

How about "Hero defends blind assault victim, media screws up again"

The "hero" actually staged the whole thing to get with the the blind kids sister.

Idk. It's hard. "violence is sometimes the answer" is perhaps an inadvisable message to give to teenagers. but yeah, if there was ever a case where it was entirely appropriate, nay, warranted, to get mad and a bit physical, this is surely it. Who would you want to be your neighbour?

I sure hope that's a j/k, or are you interning for Fox News?

Oh I know Lucky didn't do it on purpose, and that's why I waited for the upvote/down vote. He changed it properly, so upvote from me

Anyone else slightly concerned that the "bully" seems to sustain a decent head injury? Not because of the blood, but look at how he moves his hands after he hits the concrete. That to me looks like a brain trying to sort itself out. I 100% support the "hero" stepping in, but meeting violence with violence like this only puts more people at risk. Hitting your head on concrete can easily be fatal.. imagine if he died... Hero wouldnt be so cool then hey.

I'd buy him a coke.

Sorry, you throw a punch, you pays your money, you takes your chances...

The surest way to minimise the chance of getting killed in a fight is to not pick fights (particularly on blind people who have friends lurking nearby that can fuck you up with a nice blindside /lol).

And Jinx, it's a sad state of affairs but sometimes violence is the answer. What, you think they should have asked the c#nt punching the blind kid to stop nicely? \= )

He's lucky he got away with getting knocked ass over tit once, I'm surprised no one put the boot in to the little turd.

ps. Bring da ambalamps, he leakin'!!

Not. at. all. It doesn't concern me even a little.

The hero delivered a single punch to stop him, and if that blow was to result in brain damage, it's the bully's own fault. The direct, hard punches he was delivering into the blind kid's head could have caused brain damage, so if he suffered that fate instead as necessary to stop his brutal assault, too bad.

(I kind of even hope he suffered a head injury. It's more deserved than just a single punch for what he was doing. And if that was *my* kid he was brutalizing, his fate would be much worse.)

I think twitching and other weird movement is normal after getting knocked out. I've only watched a little MMA, but seen it plenty of times. You can also see it in ride-along fighter jet videos where the pilot pulls G's until the passenger blacks out. While they're out and/or waking up some weird stuff happens.

Yeah, but in the U.S. that would be a manslaughter charge. No, the kid wouldn't have meant to kill him. Yeah, the other guy started it. But he didn't have to punch the dude. He could have broken it up by pushing the guy away or physically putting himself between the attacker and the victim.

Even if the manslaughter charges didn't stick, it would almost certainly go to a civil case of the dead kid's parents suing the kid who intervened and I have no doubt they would win.

Not saying it's right, but that is the reality of the U.S. legal system. It IS dangerous to promote the message that sometimes violence is okay to teens. Things turned out okay this time because no one got permanently injured or killed. Doesn't mean the dice are always gonna roll that way though.

EDIT: To clarify my last point, what I mean is that even if someone who deserves to die gets killed, there's a high likelihood there will be serious consequences for the person who killed them. If not a prison sentence, then probably monetary damages in a lawsuit, and if not that then years spent paying lawyers to fight said charges/lawsuit.

Possibly, and I'm not familiar with US law, but I know in Australia there are laws that allow proportionate responses when either defending oneself or acting in the defense of another.

The guy was attacking a helpless person with a closed fist. He got hit (and is far more able to defend himself) with, at most, a closed fist. Proportionate. That he might die as a result of the blow could be foreseen by a reasonable person (ie. manslaughter) but the fact that he is attacking someone so incapable of defending themselves, in my mind, means that someone leaping to the defense of the blind guy has considerable latitude to remove the threat to him.

At least insofar as Aus law is concerned, might be completely different in the US, but I suspect any jury would take a very dim view (no pun intended) of someone bullying a blind kid.

Actually, no. It would be unlikely that he'd face any charges.

The law allowing for self-defense even makes killing an offender allowable if they are a grave imminent threat to you or someome else.

Repeatedly punching a blind person as hard as you can in the head falls under that umbrella. I think even if he shot the fucker he'd be in the clear.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but any DA in the U.S. worth his salt is going to look at that video and realize s/he has to press charges in the event the bully dies. Why? Because it is involuntary manslaughter.

The "hero" sucker punches the attacker, which is an unlawful act that results in a death. Sure, the "hero's" defense would be that was defending the blind kid, but self-defense in the U.S. requires the use of force to be reasonable and in proportion to the threat (see here and in particular here for the laws in California regarding the defense of others). For instance, you can't just pull out a gun and shoot someone because they punched you and then claim self-defense. You can only use enough "reasonable" force to stop the attack. It's not the DA's job to determine whether the "hero" acted in a manner "reasonable" and proportional to the threat--that's the jury's job after being presented with all the evidence.

That's where we disagree and where any DA worth his/her salt in the U.S. will agree with me.

Striking someone in an attempt to stop him from potentially killing someone else is not an unlawful act.

Cool story, bro.

Except that in this video the only person in clear and immediate danger of dying is the guy who got sucker punched and took a header into the concrete. Blind guy, meanwhile, barely got rocked by the first punch and is in no immediate danger of dying. The facts, therefore, kind of negate your whole argument while strengthening mine.

Also, I provided ample links to show the relevant laws which come into play here and would force most DAs into prosecuting. Here's another one: take a look at California Penal Code 192(b). It doesn't matter that the kid was engaged in a lawful act (defending someone else). Someone was unlawfully killed and it's the DA's job to do something about it. Your counter-argument was essentially: "Nuh-uh, cuz I say so."

...wut?

I've argued with you about stuff before and you've always been good at using evidence-based reasoning to support your position. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you were having an off-day with that reply (pressed for time in responding perhaps).

BTW, I think the fact that we disagree on this is yet another reason why a competent DA would let a jury decide rather than make the call him/herself. Their job is to determine whether there is enough evidence available that someone has broken the law to prosecute them. In this case we would have the video and multiple eye-witnesses showing a killing punch being thrown. Again, I don't see how any decent DA can NOT prosecute at that point. Their job is to represent the state and prosecute those who break the state's laws. It's the defense attorney's job to counter that the law was broken for good reason (self-defense), not the DA's job. It's the jury's job to determine if a killing in self-defense is reasonable under the circumstances, again not the DA's.

DA's do sometimes decide not to prosecute when there is overwhelming evidence that the killing was justified and a trial would be a waste of time and money, but this isn't one of those cases. For example, if the video showed the bully attacking the blind kid with a knife and then getting killed by a sucker punch from someone trying to stop him, it's unlikely any DA would take action.

At the end of the day, while I think if the kid had killed the bully he would have been charged with manslaughter, I also think it would be unlikely to actually go to trial. Especially if the kid throwing the killing punch is a first-time offender, the DA would likely offer a plea deal for a lesser charge.

Anyways, can we at least agree that it is great that no one was seriously injured in this incident?

TLDR

Fair enough. You're usually up for a heated yet friendly discussion but you seem to be in a bit of a mood this time so we'll just move on, eh?

Nope, just swamped. Overwhelmed with too much work and too little time.

Specific points aside, we're in agreement that our differing opinions and opposing crystal balls disagree.