Boy stabs bully 11 times, gets away without punishment

Spotts, I found the actual report: it's here. It backs up what I said about the kid repeatedly trying to avoid the conflict, and there were multiple witnesses (more than 10) so I don't think that fact is all that contested here.



I think that because this is about bullying, it creates kneejerk reactions, both in sympathy and otherwise. It is easy to put down the attack by calling it "bullying", as that can seem like a soft word - it evokes images of taunting more than of the threat of being beaten to death. Likewise, it is easy to write off the death of the other boy by calling him a "bully" - he was a mean kid to beat on the first child like that, but that doesn't make his death not tragic. It's easy to say that bullies are scum, but these were kids. Two children made two stupid decisions.
I read a book once where an OAP made a "bucket list" type thing of things that he wanted to do before he died. One of them was to punch a boy who'd picked on him all throughout school, who'd made his childhood an utter misery. He tracked down the bully and visited him, only to be welcomed into the house of a humble, hardworking grandfather, with whom he spent an evening reminiscing. Needless to say, he never hit him.
I guess my point is that although it was the bully's fault to a large extent, that isn't to say that he deserved it. People do change and bullies aren't always bullies forever. Now there's one that won't get a chance to change, and that's sad in itself.

Seule wrote:

Spotts, I found the actual report: it's here. It backs up what I said about the kid repeatedly trying to avoid the conflict, and there were multiple witnesses (more than 10) so I don't think that fact is all that contested here.

The fact that he tried to avoid the conflict it is immaterial at worst, and goes to mitigation of circumstances at best. Lots of people try to avoid conflict, but that doesn't shield them from liability when the conflict comes anyway. Again, it turns on two questions:

1) Did the kid believe at that moment he chose to use force that he was in fear of death or severe bodily harm?
2) Was that belief reasonable?

That's all that matters to determine justification. Not what had happened in the past. Not what may happen in the future. Not whether he tried to avoid the conflict or had a duty to retreat (since we are talking about a "stand your ground" law). My problem with this decision is that a judge ignored the black-letter law and created an interpretation that blows tremendous holes in a half-century of criminal jurisprudence because of the circumstances.

Had a jury made the same determination, no problem because no precedent would have been set.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Seule wrote:

Spotts, I found the actual report: it's here. It backs up what I said about the kid repeatedly trying to avoid the conflict, and there were multiple witnesses (more than 10) so I don't think that fact is all that contested here.

The fact that he tried to avoid the conflict it is immaterial at worst, and goes to mitigation of circumstances at best. Lots of people try to avoid conflict, but that doesn't shield them from liability when the conflict comes anyway. Again, it turns on two questions:

1) Did the kid believe at that moment he chose to use force that he was in fear of death or severe bodily harm?
2) Was that belief reasonable?

That's all that matters to determine justification. Not what had happened in the past. Not what may happen in the future. Not whether he tried to avoid the conflict or had a duty to retreat (since we are talking about a "stand your ground" law). My problem with this decision is that a judge ignored the black-letter law and created an interpretation that blows tremendous holes in a half-century of criminal jurisprudence because of the circumstances.

Had a jury made the same determination, no problem because no precedent would have been set.

Okay, well, if you take away all the context, a person was surrounded by larger persons making a serious attempt to hurt him. That seems to be a fairly clear threat of bodily harm - they were punching him. In the head. It's hard to see how there could be any doubt that this is a serious, threatening situation.

You can even put it into other contexts if you like. A man going home from work is followed off the train, punched in the head, surrounded and then attacked by a group of other men. Is it reasonable belief of serious harm then? What about if it was a woman going home from work? What about if it was a much younger child? I would agree that the case should have been forwarded to a jury, had there been any doubt that the kid was in fear of serious injury. If you read the report, I can't see where there could be any doubt in this situation, and to be honest I don't even see how it can "set a precedent" - it's not just a case of a bullied child stabbing his bully, it is a case where a child has been cornered and attacked. There's an attitude prevelant in the comments of the article that that everyone goes through bullying, that this means just "letting bullied kids stab their bullies". No. This kid was not just teased, he wasn't even just pushed around a bit, this was a situation where he was being seriously physically attacked, and could not run away. Just because it falls under the blanket term of bullying doesn't make it trivial.

Seule wrote:

I guess we don't know how rapid everything went

I've been digging around this story myself, and according to this article witnesses testified that it looked like Nuno "was punched four or five times in the stomach". Whether those were deliberate, deep stabbings or "bam-bam-bam-bam" makes a difference IMO.

zootie wrote:

Sorry if you're Nuno's arsshole buddy.

Take your fucking smilies and shove them deep into your diseased colon, pukeface.

Seule wrote:

Okay, well, if you take away all the context, a person was surrounded by larger persons making a serious attempt to hurt him. That seems to be a fairly clear threat of bodily harm - they were punching him. In the head. It's hard to see how there could be any doubt that this is a serious, threatening situation.

Don't be ridiculous, Seule, Saavedra should've carefully weighed up his options and then tried to run again.

I mean seriously, all you hurlers on the ditch have no idea what any particular individual would've felt in that situation or how s/he would've reacted. HOWEVER if Saavedra hadn't brought a knife with him, no-one would've been stabbed. Whatever else you think about the case, that's a fact.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Seule wrote:

Spotts, I found the actual report: it's here. It backs up what I said about the kid repeatedly trying to avoid the conflict, and there were multiple witnesses (more than 10) so I don't think that fact is all that contested here.

The fact that he tried to avoid the conflict it is immaterial at worst, and goes to mitigation of circumstances at best. Lots of people try to avoid conflict, but that doesn't shield them from liability when the conflict comes anyway. Again, it turns on two questions:

1) Did the kid believe at that moment he chose to use force that he was in fear of death or severe bodily harm?
2) Was that belief reasonable?

That's all that matters to determine justification.

The answer to both of those questions is 'yes,' Spotts. Multiple witnesses testified that he was surrounded by 4 students (including the deceased) who refused to allow him to leave and actually began to abuse him. Those students had shown that they were willing and likely to engage in physical abuse at that time. The killer was perfectly justified in feeling that his life and safety was in immediate danger. And according to witnesses, the moment the deceased stopped pursuing the killer, he ran away. He did not continue to stab the deceased after the latter had backed off; he did not advance on any of the other bystanders; he did not brag about what he'd done. He ran away. This was clearly self defense and I am personally in agreement with the judge's decision.

I personally do not support a court knowingly enacting and enforcing an unjust verdict simply to avoid the possibility of complicated red-tape issues later.

zootie wrote:

As a former victim of bullying

Oh, so you've actually gone to school at some point in your life? Congratulations.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Seule wrote:

I guess we don't know how rapid everything went

I've been digging around this story myself, and according to this article witnesses testified that it looked like Nuno "was punched four or five times in the stomach". Whether those were deliberate, deep stabbings or "bam-bam-bam-bam" makes a difference IMO.

How? It doesn't take a lot of force to stab someone and with a short knife it doesn't matter much anyway.

"Sorry kid, but we've determined it wasn't self defense because you stabbed him too hard. Next time you're being attacked from behind by a mob, be more gentle when you knife someone."

Penguin wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Seule wrote:

I guess we don't know how rapid everything went

I've been digging around this story myself, and according to this article witnesses testified that it looked like Nuno "was punched four or five times in the stomach". Whether those were deliberate, deep stabbings or "bam-bam-bam-bam" makes a difference IMO.

How? It doesn't take a lot of force to stab someone and with a short knife it doesn't matter much anyway.

"Sorry kid, but we've determined it wasn't self defense because you stabbed him too hard. Next time you're being attacked from behind by a mob, be more gentle when you knife someone."

Actually, what I meant was there's a difference between

Saavedra stabs Nuno once, sees him stagger back bleeding, and then stabs him a few more times just for jolly

versus

"one-two-three-four" jabs/stabs in a couple of seconds.

If I'm reading things correctly, Spotts' issue is not so much with the decision itself, but the fact that it was a judge making it, not a jury.

Frankly, not being educated in the finer points of law and precedents, I have no problem with things as they stand. Juvenile or not, I file this under "Idiot Asking For It."

Forgive my ignorance, but can the accused waive their right to a trial by jury? I wonder if that's what happened in this case.

Aggie wrote:

Forgive my ignorance, but can the accused waive their right to a trial by jury? I wonder if that's what happened in this case.

Yes, a defendant has the right to ask for a bench trial. This is generally considered a bad idea for defendents, as judges tend to be swayed far less by emotion or "Plan B" distractions. But it looks like the judge made this ruling before the trial actually began (or very early into it).

Cynicism mode on: the fact that the prosecution refused to put forth an appeal (and forfeit the legal fees they'd earn from doing so) speaks more about how fruitless said appeal likely would have been.

Aggie wrote:

Cynicism mode on: the fact that the prosecution refused to put forth an appeal (and forfeit the legal fees they'd earn from doing so) speaks more about how fruitless said appeal likely would have been.

Prosecutors don't earn legal fees. They are officers of the state, county or municipality they serve and are paid a set salary.

And it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a prosecutor to appeal a decision because our legal system only gives the prosecutor a small subset of issues they can appeal on because they have all of the burdens of proof and (in most cases) significantly more resources to bring forth a case.