retaliation vs self defense

[Zigner]

Agreed.

The definition of self defense is violence used to prevent imminent harm to self.

He was in no further threat of imminent harm.

Well, unless another bug went by.

By the way, I would be careful here. If you go to the school and demand that the other child be disciplined, any sane educational administrator's next question to your child would be "so, Billy, have you ever hit someone in this game? How many times?"

And then "Billy" would suffer the same punishment. If you son played this game, then he overreacted...

The other child was already disciplined:

The other child got a bigger suspension.

 

[stmfitr636]

I woudn't be so quick to celebrate his inability to control himself. Instead, I would make him work during his suspension and if I didn't have any work for him to do around the house, I might do like this fella:


Hard Labor: Son suspended from school needs to learn

Hard Labor: Son suspended from school needs to learn the value of hard work.

Have some yard work that needs to be done?
Got some boxes that need moving?
Have a stack of bricks that for no reason need to be moved from one side of your yard to the other (1 at a time, of course)?

He's available October 6th and 7th from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

I'll be happy to bring him to your location.

His suspension should by no means be a vacation, and if i don't find someone who needs some hard labor performed, he'll be sitting at home flipping through the channels and eating us out of house and home.

Pay is not necessary, as he is paying his debt to his parents and the school.

serious inquiries only, please.

 

[LeeHarveyBlotto]

Regardless of what people want to call it, your child did not misbehave. Those who believe he did are the "don't keep score give everyone a trophy" pro-wussification idiots. There is no reason that anyone has to tolerate being assaulted with the only recourse being to run to mommy.

 

[CdwJava]

Your opinion not withstanding, the fact of the matter is that both children did commit the crime of battery, and school rules can and often DO prohibit retaliatory strikes in response to even a physical assault.

One can choose to believe the child did not misbehave if they choose to - that's a matter of parenting choices, mores, and beliefs. But, the law and the school rules will almost certainly find that the acts were in violation of statutes and policy even if they are not ultimately pursued.

- Carl

 

[LeeHarveyBlotto]

Your opinion not withstanding, the fact of the matter is that both children did commit the crime of battery, and school rules can and often DO prohibit retaliatory strikes in response to even a physical assault.

Until or unless convicted in a court of law, the first half of your statement is 100% inaccurate. Good luck with that. Fortunately where I'm from, the prosecution would get laughed out of court.

 

[CdwJava]

Until or unless convicted in a court of law, the first half of your statement is 100% inaccurate. Good luck with that. Fortunately where I'm from, the prosecution would get laughed out of court.

Not so ... if you read the definition of battery in any state, you will see that the elements of the offense are met. One has to assert a self defense clause to make the battery justification.

Certainly one is not guilty of the offense until found so in a court of law, and as a point of semantics, juveniles are almost never "guilty" ... instead, they have a "true finding" or are "true billed".

Again, you may consider it to be an acceptable response, but the law and the school does not have to agree with you. So, if your child were to retaliate like that and get suspended, you are free to give the kid high fives at home each day while he is suspended. In the end, he would still be suspended.

The kids in this scenario are fortunate the police did not get involved. When I was in San Diego County, the police were notified when battery occurred at school - even if it was something relatively minor like this. Something like this rarely got pursued by juvenile probation and the courts, but it was still reported and documented as battery.

- Carl

 

[LeeHarveyBlotto]

Not so ... if you read the definition of battery in any state, you will see that the elements of the offense are met. One has to assert a self defense clause to make the battery justification.

When and only when someone is convicted of a crime can someone correctly claim that they commited the offense.

Did OJ kill his wife and the waiter? Yep.

Did OJ commit murder? He did not.

May he rot in hell.

 

[Zigner]

When and only when someone is convicted of a crime can someone correctly claim that they commited the offense.

THAT is absolutely false.

 

[LeeHarveyBlotto]

THAT is absolutely false.

No, it's completely accurate. They cover that on the 2nd day of law school. Did you cut class?

 

[seniorjudge]

When and only when someone is convicted of a crime can someone correctly claim that they commited the offense.

Did OJ kill his wife and the waiter? Yep.

Did OJ commit murder? He did not.

May he rot in hell.

But was it a slugbug?

 

[Zigner]

No, it's completely accurate. They cover that on the 2nd day of law school. Did you cut class?

I'll give you an example.
I watched my son hit my other son. My son committed battery. Plain and simple. Was he "convicted", no. But he doesn't have to be. In fact, even being declared "not guilty" of a charge doesn't mean the person didn't do it.

 

[CdwJava]

When and only when someone is convicted of a crime can someone correctly claim that they commited the offense.

Okay, the kid hit another kid in violation of whatever statute covers battery. He has not been found guilty, but he did commit the action associated with the criminal offense.

No one here EVER said he was found guilty of the offense. And the semantic issue you argue is situational.

Play semantics with it all you want, but since we are not employers looking for prior offenses, it doesn't matter. However! If he were in my state, and one day goes to fill out a background PHS, he will be asked if he ever committed an act which could be considered a crime if and he would have to answer, "Yes." To try and make the semantic argument you did here would result in his disqualification if he failed to disclose it and it was required.

- Carl