Boy stabs bully 11 times, gets away without punishment

I just feel sorry for both of the families.

Quote :

NAPLES — A 15-year-old who fatally stabbed his school mate will no longer face criminal prosecution.

A judge’s ruling, made public Tuesday, granted a motion to dismiss the second-degree murder charge against Jorge Saavedra in the death of 16-year-old Dylan Nuno on the grounds that he acted in self-defense under Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law. The State Attorney’s Office has indicated that it will not appeal the ruling.

Nuno’s family and friends criticized Collier County Circuit Judge Lauren Brodie’s decision, calling it “unbelievable” and “heartbreaking.”

“We know this wasn’t the right decision,” said Dylan’s aunt, Adriana Nuno.“(The judge) is showing those kids it’s OK to get away with murder.”

Saavedra, who was 14 at the time of the stabbing, was charged as a juvenile. If found guilty, the former Palmetto Ridge High student would have been released by the age of 21.

Brodie’s ruling concluded that Saavadra, who said he was bullied and tried avoid a fight with Nuno, did not act unlawfully. She added that Saavadra had more than enough reason to believe he was in danger of death or great bodily harm.

Brodie based her decision this week on the findings from a two-day December hearing, during which students who witnessed the events Jan. 24, 2011, testified that several teens announced the fight on the bus, and Saavedra got off several stops early in Golden Gate Estates. Saavedra showed a pocket knife to two teens on the bus that afternoon.

In a nine-page document released Tuesday by the State Attorney’s Office, Brodie stated that by getting off the bus several stops before the location where the fight was to happen, Saavedra “demonstrated that, with or without a knife, (he) had no desire to fight with Dylan Nuno.”

Accompanied by several students, Dylan Nuno, a junior, followed Saavedra, a freshman, off the bus. He then punched him in the back of the head, according to court documents and testimony.

Saavedra attempted to get away once, witnesses said. He then stabbed Dylan Nuno 12 times in the chest and abdomen. Two of the blows caused fatal wounds, including one that nicked his heart.

In her decision, signed Dec. 30, 2011, the judge said Saavedra had “no duty to retreat” and was “legally entitled to meet force with force, even deadly force.”

“The defendant was in a place where he had a right to be and was not acting unlawfully. He had more than enough reason to believe he was in danger of death or great bodily harm ... (He) was under attack from the first punch to the back of his head until he stabbed Dylan Nuno.”

Prosecutors will not be appealing the case, a move that upset Dylan Nuno’s family and friends.

“We’ve reviewed the decision,” said Samantha Syoen, spokeswoman for the State Attorney’s Office. “There does not appear to be any issues to appeal.”

Saavedra’s lawyer, Donald Day, called the case “a tragedy all the way around.” Saavedra is currently living with his family in Miami.

“My reaction is there is no winner at all in this case,” Day said. “My client’s family feels terribly for the Nuno family.”

The judge’s decision came as a surprise to Adriana Aradas, 19, a close friend of Dylan Nuno who sat with his family for the December hearing, wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with messages for the teen.

“I wasn’t’ expecting that at all,” Aradas said. “At the last hearing, there was so much against Jorge.”

During that hearing, students recounted for the judge previous altercations between the two teens, including one instance on the bus when something was lobbed from the back, where Dylan Nuno sat, to the front, where Saavedra was.

The judge also highlighted that Saavedra would skip school or find other ways home to avoid the bus.

Though the judge’s order does not mention the term “bullying,” which was heavily used by the defense, it does describe “taunting comments” from Dylan Nuno and two other male teens shortly before the fight.

Dylan Nuno’s family and friends have defended the teen, saying repeatedly he was not a bully and in fact transferred from Lely High School to Palmetto Ridge to escape taunting himself.

Their hopes for a bench trial before Brodie are now gone, weeks before the anniversary of his death and what would have been Dylan Nuno’s 18th birthday.

“Brodie’s decision is not setting a good example for children or adults,” said Kim Maxwell, Dylan Nuno’s mother. “I truly do not want this type of tragedy to happen to another innocent family.”

Yet after months of seeing Saavedra in the courtroom, there is some closure in the fact that they will no longer have to see the teen’s killer on what at times in 2011 was on a monthly basis.

“Whatever happens, whether (Saavedra) would have gotten time, it’s not going to bring Dylan back,” said Adriana Nuno. “We’ll have to move on, unfortunately without our Dylan.”

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

for some reason this story reminds me of a case I heard a couple of years ago where a woman killed her abusive husband, but didn't report it. If she had reported it right away, instead of waited a day, she would have been able to walk off scott free. instead she was charged with 5 years that (I THINK) were reversed and upturned in her favor and she only had to serve 5 months in prison.

As a former victim of bullying I hope this sends a clear message to parents and teachers that bullying is not 'just part of childhood life'. Attacking another supposedly weaker person can have consequences. The courts judged correctly.

The wrong response would be a witchhunt for bullying victims who 'might fight back'. The primary responsibility is for the parents of bullies to control their little bastards.

Never Frighten A Little Man. He'll Kill You. -- Lazarus Long By Robert A Heinlein

Quote :

As a former victim of bullying I hope this sends a clear message to parents and teachers that bullying is not 'just part of childhood life'. Attacking another supposedly weaker person can have consequences. The courts judged correctly.

... what the fucking fuck?

.... what?

.... Wait... what?

I mean, I was bullied too, I dare you to find a kid that was never bullied*. Do you really think stabbing a bully to death is an acceptable "consequence" for bullying a kid? Do you really think there was any justice here? That this sends some kind of message?

*

Spoiler:

Quote :

The wrong response would be a witchhunt for bullying victims who 'might fight back'.

The idiot punched a kid in the back of the head who had made it clear he was A:- Carrying a knife and B:- Avoiding him, what did he think was gonna happen, the guy was just gonna roll over and take it?

Idk, I'm on the fence about this one. The killer deliberately got off the bus early to avoid his victim, and instead of staying on the bus, his victim followed him and threw the first punch. So on one hand, the victim deliberately put himself in that situation. On the other hand, nobody deserves to die, and the fact that the killer had a knife with him suggests some degree of premeditation, even if it was only "I'll bring a knife to school so that if he starts shit, I can frighten him off".

Somath Cegem wrote:

The idiot punched a kid in the back of the head who had made it clear he was A:- Carrying a knife

Nowhere does it say that the victim was aware that the killer was carrying a knife. Diddle yourself to this tale of schoolyard justice all you like, but don't start making things up.

EDIT:

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Quote :

The wrong response would be a witchhunt for bullying victims who 'might fight back'.

Framing this case as "a witchhunt for [...] victims" is a bit much, I agree. But I think a history of abuse of the killer by the victim should be taken into consideration when handling this kind of crime.

zootie wrote:

As a former victim of bullying I hope this sends a clear message to parents and teachers that bullying is not 'just part of childhood life'. Attacking another supposedly weaker person can have consequences. The courts judged correctly.

No they did not. They warped the concept of "self-defense" almost beyond recognition. Self-defense allows you respond to force with reasonable force to repel the attack. Even in states with "stand your ground" laws you are only allowed to respond with lethal force if, at the instant you decide to use that force, you are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. Based on the facts presented, that does not appear to be the case - force was justified, but not deadly force.

Is it second-degree murder? Probably not. But it is imperfect self-defense at best, which would still make it manslaughter of some form.

I guess I would agree with it if it wasn't for the fact that the kid stabbed the bully twelve times. Surely that's excessive. If he was scared, stabbed him once to get him away and it was an unlucky blow, that's one thing (he was and is very young, after all), but to keep on stabbing him?

Someone who's not used to knife-fighting and has gotten fired up enough to stab somebody once is not necessarily going to be able to think about if that one shot is enough. If they are able to think, it's just as likely to be 'if he's still going he's going to be pissed', which at the time would be a good enough reason to keep attacking.

I'm with Sutremaine on this one. I'm of the 'empty the magazine' school of thought when it comes to using lethal force. Once you get to that level, you'd damn well better be sure. (Please note: Whether or not to go to that level is a separate issue.)

Spotts1701 wrote:

Even in states with "stand your ground" laws you are only allowed to respond with lethal force if, at the instant you decide to use that force, you are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. Based on the facts presented, that does not appear to be the case - force was justified, but not deadly force.

But, and I'm just asking for the sake of curiosity, would that be affected by previous incidents? I mean, if the kid getting bullied had been seriously pounded on in the past and there was an established pattern of severe injury in previous encounters, would he be reasonable for him to act based on an expectation that this could be another such episode? Would that be an acceptable justification for use of force? Or is it on a case-by-case basis--you have to judge by the current fight as to what force is necessary?

(I'm not saying this was the case. I know it's not indicated in the article. I'm just asking out of curiosity/a need for clarification in my mind.)

lemmingwriter wrote:

But, and I'm just asking for the sake of curiosity, would that be affected by previous incidents? I mean, if the kid getting bullied had been seriously pounded on in the past and there was an established pattern of severe injury in previous encounters, would he be reasonable for him to act based on an expectation that this could be another such episode? Would that be an acceptable justification for use of force? Or is it on a case-by-case basis--you have to judge by the current fight as to what force is necessary?

You have to examine the current circumstances only. The recent case in Oklahoma is a good example - when a pharmacist repelled two men who were going to rob him at gunpoint using potentially lethal force, he was justified. Coming back later to pump six slugs into the robber he had already shot and incapacitated was not - at the time he did that, the robber was no longer a threat and self-defense did not apply. The fact that the robber had posed a threat was irrelevant - the instant he pulled the trigger at a prone target, he was not in fear of his life.

I think it's a sad story on both sides. It's sad that a young boy is dead, but it's also a tragedy that it got to the point where lethal force was used. It seems like one of those cases where both sides share the blame and the sympathy.

Quote :

Dylan Nuno’s family and friends have defended the teen, saying repeatedly he was not a bully and in fact transferred from Lely High School to Palmetto Ridge to escape taunting himself.

Now, I understand the desire to defend a loved one, but just because Nuno may have escaped bullying himself doesn't leave him innocent of poor behaviour towards Saavedra. I've seen former victims, especially those who have a grudge against a person or perceived stereotype, who couldn't resist putting the boot in when they're in a position of power. Definitely not all, but some. It's a pity, but most of them at least get a chance to grow up and learn from it.


Also, they didn't choose pictures of Saavedra geared towards inspiring sympathy.

Sutremaine wrote:

Someone who's not used to knife-fighting and has gotten fired up enough to stab somebody once is not necessarily going to be able to think about if that one shot is enough. If they are able to think, it's just as likely to be 'if he's still going he's going to be pissed', which at the time would be a good enough reason to keep attacking.

I agree. Saavedra wasn't a a cop trained to apply appropriate force in a violent situation. He was just a scared untrained kid defending himself from a criminal assault from behind. And we all know even cops can use excessive force in the heat of conflict. Whats next? To expect assault victims to get certified police training before they can legally defend themselves? I have no sympathy for Saavedra's attacker. Parent's and teachers should teach kids that bullying IS criminal assault and battery regardless of age.

zootie wrote:

Whats next? To expect assault victims to get certified police training before they can legally defend themselves?

Hyperbolic idiocy does not help your argument. The kid committed a crime - force was justified. Deadly force was not. End of argument, unless you want to take 50 years of criminal law and throw it out in favor of "if the person is a dirtbag, you can do whatever the hell you want and the law will look the other way".

Sorry, no. I do not want to live in that kind of world.

I guess we don't know how rapid everything went - the fact that no one intervened suggests it happened quite quickly, so it's very possible the kid didn't realise the damage he was doing. Obviously there's a lot of information that we're missing, but I have to believe that for the judge to let him off, there must have been some pretty convincing eyewitness testimony.

Spotts1701 wrote:

zootie wrote:

Whats next? To expect assault victims to get certified police training before they can legally defend themselves?

Hyperbolic idiocy does not help your argument. The kid committed a crime - force was justified. Deadly force was not. End of argument, unless you want to take 50 years of criminal law and throw it out in favor of "if the person is a dirtbag, you can do whatever the hell you want and the law will look the other way".

Sorry, no. I do not want to live in that kind of world.

Then leave. The law did look and found his actions legally justified. This isn't the only case where the defender using lethal force was exonerated. Sorry if your own 'Hyperbolic idiocy' fails to comprehend that.

zootie wrote:

Then leave. The law did look and found his actions legally justified. This isn't the only case where the defender using lethal force was exonerated. Sorry if your own 'Hyperbolic idiocy' fails to comprehend that.

No, the law didn't get it right. A judge decided a question that is properly a jury's role to decide. That's perverting the law to meet a political end.

You seem fine with it. I don't. And I will rail against it and anyone who thinks it was "the right thing to do". And if you don't like it, you can pound sand for all I care.

Spotts1701 wrote:

No, the law didn't get it right. A judge decided a question that is properly a jury's role to decide. That's perverting the law to meet a political end.

You seem fine with it. I don't. And I will rail against it and anyone who thinks it was "the right thing to do". And if you don't like it, you can pound sand for all I care.

You can stick a rail anywhere you want as long as it in your own body. Not every legal procedure is in question. A judge has every right to determine if the case has sufficient merit for a jury trial. That's why they call them judges. Sorry if you're Nuno's arsshole buddy.

zootie wrote:

You can stick a rail anywhere you want as long as it in your own body. Not every legal procedure is in question. A judge has every right to determine if the case has sufficient merit for a jury trial. That's why they call them judges. Sorry if you're Nuno's arsshole buddy.

I'm pretty sure the law degree hanging on my wall means I know more about the law than you. Yes, I know what a judge's role is. But this is a close case, and in close cases the judge is supposed to punt the issue to a jury and let them figure it out. That's why we have jury trials in the first place.

Also, here's a little something for your black-and-white mentality: saying the decision is wrong does not mean I am on anyone's particular side. Maybe the victim was a lousy person who kicked puppies and pulled the wings off flies. Last I checked, American jurisprudence didn't include a "bad guys are excluded" exception to standard self-defense.

I think you guys are arguing about slightly different things. You can agree that the verdict was the right one but still think that the judge didn't follow procedure.

...you're confusing me :c

ETA: I have to say that I'm loving some of the comments on the original article. There are some rational and reasonable comments for both sides of opinion, but a select group of people seem to be torn between calling the kid a pussy and insisting that he's a deranged future serial killer the likes of Charles Manson.

Quote :

This kid has not killed for the last time. He beat the system. He took a knife to school, and he set up another kid to be a victim of murder. Sooner or later, this kid will be back in the news. His victory in court, is a loss for society. You will see him kill again. He knows how to beat the system. He knows how to play the victim.

someone who needs to watch a little less NCIS wrote:

I am not sure how many people you have stabbed to death, but I have to think that after the first or second stab wound, there must have been blood gushing all over Nuno, and yet the killer continued to stab him another ten times, in a murderous frenzy. At what point did he stop fearing for his life? Was it when the other kid was on the ground, bleeding to death, or was it when he plunged the knife in one more time into the kid's dead body??

in response to someone asking why no school staff were questioned about the incident wrote:

Since you brought this up, what about the killer's family life and history? Apparently, he is from Miami, a hotbed of murder and mayhem. One murder is the price of initiation to most gangs.

Quote :

Stand your ground shouldn't apply here.. this is sending a message that if you're too big of a girl to fight after school, just kill whoever's about to kick your a--, and you'll get out of it...

Because obviously it was the kid's fault for being "too big of a girl" to fight a group of older, larger boys.
And finally...

oj out of fucking nowhere wrote:

I guess this is the OJ Simpson Defense, that Money Buys Justice.

Spoiler:

Spotts1701 wrote:

zootie wrote:

Whats next? To expect assault victims to get certified police training before they can legally defend themselves?

Hyperbolic idiocy does not help your argument. The kid committed a crime - force was justified. Deadly force was not. End of argument, unless you want to take 50 years of criminal law and throw it out in favor of "if the person is a dirtbag, you can do whatever the hell you want and the law will look the other way".

Sorry, no. I do not want to live in that kind of world.

You stupid, condescending fuck. A punch to the back of the head can kill you. Therefore, by you own reasoning, deadly force in defense was justified. I know you'd rather us plebeians sit back and let the all knowing lawyer gods like you sort things out from on high after we've already been killed, but here in reality, people have a right, given by their very existence, to deal with threats to their health and their lives.

Spotts wrote:

I'm pretty sure the law degree hanging on my wall means I know more about the law than you.

1.) You don't know Zoots doesn't have a law degree himself.
2.) Once again, by your own explanation, deadly force is justified in defense when one is attacked with deadly force. It's a legitimate possibility that a punch to the back of your head (one of the more important and less protected parts of your brain) can kill you. Therefore, if one is punched in the back of the head, deadly force is justified.

This is according to your own explanation.

3.) Required reading

It's a possibility. But the law looks at probability (more likely than not), not mere chance. It is possible that getting hit with a snowball will kill you, but that doesn't make a snowball a deadly weapon.

And in your case, calling me stupid is the height of hilarity. Appeal to authority only applies if I don't have the facts to support my argument. I do, an I can bring truckloads more and bury you in them. 50 years of case law, statutory interpretation, and precedent are on my side of the argument. I just don't feel like dropping walls o' text.

Quote :

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

That's the Florida statute that's at issue here. Reasonable force. Not any amount of force. And it is not reasonable to draw a conclusion like you have.

So I just read some of the previous articles about this and there are a couple of pretty important things that were omitted or not stressed in the linked article... Whether it's because it is innacurate or what, I don't know. The acquitted and the deceased referred to as "kid" and "bully" respectively.

Firstly, according to someone they interviewed, what happened actually went down like this: the kid showed others on the bus his knife. Possibly (not sure) the knife was actually so small that it didn't qualify as a weapon under Florida law (they suggested this but didn't follow it up). Then, having been told that he was to fight at a later stop, the kid got off a long way away from his house, in order to avoid the fight. He was followed by the bully and at least 3 of his friends (all of whom were at least two years older than the kid). The bully was a pretty built guy (there are photos) and was apparently a keen martial artist and boxer. The aquitted, by all means, looks pretty small. Now, after they all got off the bus, the bully punched the kid in the back of the head. THEN, and this is a pretty crucial bit that got left out, the kid tried to run. Before attacking the bully, he tried to run away, but got held back by the bully's friends. At this point, he stabbed the bully in the stomach - however, again, according to the witness, no one realised he was stabbing him - not even the bully. Apparently it appeared that the kid was punching the bully in the stomach, until the bully stepped back and had blood on him. The minute the bully stepped back, the kid ran off.

Now that to me sounds a lot more like aquittal material. The kid repeatedly tried to avoid conflict, then only used force until the bully stopped attacking - by which point he was dying - then immediately ran away.

Also relevant is some more stuff about the background of the incident - apparently the bully had been taunting the kid for weeks, usually on the bus, to the extent that the kid would try either not to use the bus or just bunk off school. Apparently the kid refused to go to school to the extent that police had to escort him there, and he got a caution (or a warning or something) for trying to run away while he was being escorted and grappling with a police officer. The kid was a special ed student with a history of being bullied. Also, it's not actually clear whether the deceased did transfer schools due to being bullied himself, or whether he was the bully in that situation too (at the time of the back article I read).

Anyway, all in all this is just pretty tragic and awful. Having read the account of the attack though, I think that the quoted article was pretty heavily biased. I do agree that the kid's response was justified - being outflanked by four guys two years older (a pretty big deal when you're 14) and twice the size of him and having repeatedly trying to run. The fact that the bully immediately went for his head makes it feel like this was shaping up to be a pretty serious beat-down, and I can see why he would have been terrified. We can say "well of course the bullies wouldn't have killed him" but I think, if I was 14 and in that situation I'd definitely think I was in danger of being killed.


Also, for Mikey, here's some useful stuff someone wrote in the comments:

Quote :

All of these are cases of teens dieing from beatings.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Beating are just as dangerous as knives if the aggressor is bigger than you and wants to hurt you. Have you ever been beaten? attacked in any way beyond playful sparring among friends?

Died from one punch [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Also died from one punch from a rather petite woman [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Again, those are possibilities. Mere possibility is not enough to justify use of lethal force if the use is unreasonable.

It's possible to die from a punch in the abdomen. That doesn't mean you can shoot someone in self-defense who punches you there.

Again, these are issues that should have been presented to a jury. Based on the plain language of the statute as I quoted, there are questions not of law (which is what the judge determines), but questions of fact.