Bullying in schools: Casey the Punisher...

[TabascoNatalie]

Casey Heynes: YouTube sensation reveals how bully's 3 years of torment left him suicidal | Mail Online

plz nevermind its DM again, but this was all over the internet for the past few days. what do you think?

 

[Xero]

Good for him!!

 

[lovebeingamum]

I'm glad he was able to stick up for himself rather than killing himself.

Good for him that he stood up to that horrid child. He didn't deserve to be treated the way he was, and hopefully he won't be now.

 

[TabascoNatalie]

i say yay to Casey... but the disturbing part of this story is -- he got suspended as well

 

[Xero]

Yeah, its really dumb they suspended him but the schools have to do it that way. They are like that around here too, with the "no tolerance" policy. Sometimes I think its great, sometimes I think it sucks. Its probably better this way, I don't know. Either way, if it was my kid, he wouldn't be in trouble with me at home at least.

 

[TabascoNatalie]

for the school itself it is no surprise. schools are meant to keep the social order and hierarchy. those who stand up against it (or complain) are a pain in the rear. that's why it is so called zero tolerance.

i just wonder, what do the hardcore pacifists have to say -- like "never fight back, ignore, walk away, violence never solves anything". certainly it wasn't the answer for Casey.

 

[mom2many]

I saw this on the Today show and I will echo what his dad said "It's not something to be proud of, but he was glad that his son finally stood up for himself." I think dad nailed it on the head.

On a side note I was surprised that kid could stand up after that!

 

[TabascoNatalie]

It's not something to be proud of, but he was glad that his son finally stood up for himself." I think dad nailed it on the head.

I wonder what was this dad was saying for all these years. where was he?

 

[superman]

i laughed so hard when that skinny little kid got a smackdown. kid's a pro<EMOJI seq="1f192"></EMOJI>

 

[emergencydentis]

</EMOJI>[/quote]

Yup, I agree. But for the "zero tolerance" thins, it's not fair. Before they issue suspension to Casey, they should have considered 3 years of his life and should also have expelled those who have been bullying him.

 

[MomoJA]

I understand why people have problems with zero tolerance, but even if such a thing didn't exist, a boy who was not in immediate physical danger but who picked up another boy half his size and body slammed him to the ground should be suspended. We can certainly understand his motivation and even feel guilty glee at his revenge, but violence should never be excused except when absolutely necessary for self-defense. So even if there was no such thing as zero tolerance, Casey should have been suspended. In this case, I think the consequences were worth the action. In other words, if I were Casey, I think I would have done what he did and been happy to accept the suspension.

 

[IADad]

I understand why people have problems with zero tolerance, but even if such a thing didn't exist, a boy who was not in immediate physical danger but who picked up another boy half his size and body slammed him to the ground should be suspended. We can certainly understand his motivation and even feel guilty glee at his revenge, but violence should never be excused except when absolutely necessary for self-defense. So even if there was no such thing as zero tolerance, Casey should have been suspended. In this case, I think the consequences were worth the action. In other words, if I were Casey, I think I would have done what he did and been happy to accept the suspension.

What? I can't believe my eyes MomoJA. You know I value you opinions, you've made a very quick valued presence here, so I hope you don't mind me taking issue with you.

"a boy who was not in immediate physical danger?" That's like saying a woman in a verbally abusive relationship isn't really being abused.

The system and it's zero tolerrance, had apparently failed this child already - where was zero tolerance at him being bullied to begin with?

I'm not saying his reaction was "right." but it was understandable and justifiable. This kid had not only been bullied he'd been punched, physically assaulted. Even a court would find his actions defensive. I think Casey showed REMARKABLE restraint in not kicking the living daylights (there's a replacement word for ya) out of the little weasel (another substitute for what I'm really thinking).

As for where was the dad not intervening sooner, we don't know what's been done before. Usually a parent just stepping in isn't going to solve a problem and could make it worse for the target. Sure parents need to equip kids with appropriate skills to cope and need to work with the schools to be sure they know what's going on, so they can enforce their rules and maintain their environment, but we can't step in and fight every battle for our kids.

Case and point: DS1 had an altercation the other day on the playground at school. He and classmates were playing soccer, when, alledgedly a first grader got in his face, announced they were there first and demanded the third graders leave. DS announce they were there first, weren't going to leave and that he wasn't afraid of him. First grader kicked him in the groin. My son did nothing immediately, was supported by his classmates and the first graders moved on. He told the teacher later, in private. Then told me. He ffelt that the teacher had done nothing about it. I counseled him that if it happens again, or anything happens with this kid, he was to follow the same course of action and I would follow up with the teacher. I reminded him that we need to give the teacher the benefit of the doubt, that we don't know what the teacher did after he reported it, she may have talked to the other childs teacher, talked with the principal, they very well might be handling it appropriately, that's not our issue, we need to give the school the opportunity to enforce it's standards wihtout us making a federal case over it. And in light of the fact that it wasn't a huge tramatic issue for him, just something that happened, I think it was tthe appropriate response.

 

[Xero]

I have a hard time agreeing with the "not in immediate danger" argument as well. I don't care what the size difference is between two people, if one person is attacking another person, that person is being attacked. Being punched still hurts (which that kid punched Casey like 3 or 4 times in a row) and reguardless of how much more you weigh than the kid punching you, you have every right to defend yourself. I mean what he did (throwing the kid on the ground) was so subtle and restrained of him, I don't know how he could have handled it better. Any other kid would attack him back, and probably pummel the crap out of him. All he did was defend himself, and not even by fighting back.

What WAS unjustified was the fact that he was suspended for his first offense, the first time he ever stood up for himself to those kids who this "zero tolerance" system allowed to get away with teasing him, putting him down, and hitting him every day. If you read the article, you saw that when asked what he would describe as a good day at school to be, he said any day that he didn't "get touched or made fun of". They had their hands on him constantly. I highly doubt it was never noticed by any teachers over the years. That is what I consider flawed. :/ If they were taking care of things the way they claim they do, Casey would have never had to resort to throwing the kid down.

 

[MomoJA]

I stand by my statement. While I felt gratified to see him do what he did, it was in retaliation. Of course Casey had every right to defend himself, but his actions were not defensive. Nor was Casey's life in danger while that little pipsqueak's life was. It is fortunate that his back wasn't broken, or at the very least, his pelvis.

The school was almost definitely at fault for not addressing the problem before it came to what we saw (I would say definitely but I wasn't around for all the other instances nor any reporting of them or responses to reports, etc., so I cannot convict them on my assumptions,) but they responded correctly in this instance.

We recently had a fight at our school that was caught on video. One girl attacked another. The other girl tried to hold the first girl off. When she couldn't, she pushed the attacker. When the attacker came at her again, she swung. The first girl was expelled. The second was not. Even so, there was an uproar among the students about how unfair it was that A was expelled while B wasn't even suspended, and one of my students said, when she was late for my class because she had to go threaten another student that "Nobody could do her nuthin' cuz B wasn't suspended." But I digress.

I don't believe in jury nullification. Nor do I accept the battered wife syndrome defense. I think the b*stards deserve to die and as an individual I might condone what the wives have done, but I don't think that society should ever condone murder. By the same token, I don't think violence should be institutionally condoned no matter how justified we as individuals might think it is.

In the case of one child retaliating after another has kicked him in the groin, off the record, I would do what IADad did. As an adult on the playground, I would probably pretend I didn't see the retaliating kick. But if another kid saw that I saw, or if I were confronted by witnesses to what happened, I would, as the enforcer of order, have to address it.

My point is that sometimes we are driven to go against what we know is acceptable. But we have to understand that there are consequences to our actions. If the results of our actions are not worth the consequences, then we should not act. If they are worth the consequences, we should accept those consequences. I'm saying the results of Casey's actions are worth the consequences, and he, and we, should accept them. He knows he is finally vindicated and I'll bet he'd do it again even knowing that he'd be suspended. I don't think he will be bothered again. And, hopefully, that little sh*t has learned his lesson for life.

 

[kathywhite]

Just a point about whether or not the guy deserved it, or whether Casey was justified the real issue for me is the whole problem of bullying. When children grow up being bullied by their parents (at the very nicest bribed or coerced) they are being modeled how to bully others. Children model what they see. That's how they learn. We as parents often are blind to how we bully our children. "you must put on your coat it's cold outside" actually is us enforcing our will on them. How about letting them walk outside in -5 and bring a coat for them. Let them decide how cold it is, don't bully them into believing us. When we do this every day we are teaching our children how to put others down, how to enforce will over others. The more overt this come across, the more down trodden they feel, the more they will need to exert themselves with others they feel power over. In my humble opinion, Teaching parents how to not bully (even in the name of kindness) would be a way to prevent such events happening.

 

[lovebeingamum]

I think it is unfair to suggest that a parent is 'bullying' their child by telling them what to do.

A bully forces someone else to submit to their will for their own benefit. A parent tells a child what to do for the child's benefit .

Children do not automatically think of the right thing to do; that is why we tell them.

Casey handled the situation well. It is too bad that he needed to resort to getting physical to sort his bully out, but it was obvious the bully wasn't going to back down when he was trying to walk away.

Good to see that he felt worth it.

 

[singledad]

"a boy who was not in immediate physical danger?" That's like saying a woman in a verbally abusive relationship isn't really being abused.

^^^ That ^^^

And everything else IADad wrote.

I stand by my statement. While I felt gratified to see him do what he did, it was in retaliation. Of course Casey had every right to defend himself, but his actions were not defensive. Nor was Casey's life in danger while that little pipsqueak's life was.

1 - it was not retaliation, it was self-defence. If you think it was too aggressive to be defensive, you need to think about what would have happened if he pushed the bully. Remember that the kid he attacked wasn't alone - there was a whole group with him, who would surely have come to their friend's rescue if he didn't scare the living daylights out of them. If he wanted to retaliate, he would not have walked away after throwing the kid on the ground.

2 - Casey's life may not have been in danger, but there are things that can happen that are worse than dying. Than being forced to live a life where every day is torture. And I don't think the little kid's life was in danger either - Yes, something could have gone wrong, but I got the distinct impression that Casey's intention wasn't to inflict as much pain as possible - he merely wanted to show the little pipsqueak that - hey, I'm bigger than you and I won't let you treat me that way any longer.

I don't believe in jury nullification. Nor do I accept the battered wife syndrome defense. I think the b*stards deserve to die and as an individual I might condone what the wives have done, but I don't think that society should ever condone murder. By the same token, I don't think violence should be institutionally condoned no matter how justified we as individuals might think it is.

You are very fortunate to never have been in an abusive situation in your life. I suggest you go and read some studies about the effect of psychological abuse and the human mind - you may be shocked.

Here in SA, our justice system is liberal (some would say screwed up) to the point where you are charged with murder if you shoot an armed robber inside your own home, but even here the battered wife syndrome stands up as a defence. It would not have been recognised if it was just something a woman had dreamt up to get away with killing her husband.

I think anyone who has been in school will understand that going to a teacher when you are bullied will only worsen the situation, and if you are going to stand up for yourself, you have to go all the way. Making a half-baked attempt to defend yourself will only earn you more ridicule. So what else was Casey supposed to do?

 

[MomoJA]

.
<U>You are very fortunate to never have been in an abusive situation in your life.</U> I suggest you go and read some studies about the effect of psychological abuse and the human mind - you may be shocked.

Who said that? I left rather than kill someone.

So what else was Casey supposed to do?

What he did, and face the consequences. It was worth it.

 

[IADad]

thanks MomoJA, I do applaud your pinciples and your ability to state and stand by them clearly, but I guess we're going to have to disagree on the one point, that I believe Casey's actions were justifiable. He made a measured reasonable response to a threat. The approach is not analogous to jury nulification, it's analogous to prosecutorial prudence. A bar brawler stopped by a victim striking bad is virtually never charged with assualt. Caey was being subjected to what was likely to be an escalating assault and he stopped it with one effective action. Had he not reacted (not retaliated, that suggests he was trying to even the score, he was reacting and defending himself.) the bullies actions no doubt would have continued annd likely escalated. Does anyone believe the bully was about to walk away satisfied? I have little pity for the poor child's back who started the trouble to begin with. I think he got what was coming to him, both my emmotional and logical sides agree.

I know you're not defending the bully, but I just can't see how Casey is any percentage of in violation of any reasonable policy society should have.

 

[singledad]

Ok, I think I'll follow IADad's example and bow out here. This is one topic I can't debate calmly, so I won't.

I'm sorry you were in a bad situation, and I'm happy that you were able to get out.