Boy Assaults Student as Cellphone Captures Attack

An Ohio high school student waited in a classroom to attack a 15-year-old gay classmate, beating him repeatedly in a vicious assault captured by a bystander on a cellphone.

"I covered myself and shielded my body, and he kept hitting," the gay student, who did not want to be identified, told ABC's affiliate WSYX in Ohio. "Nobody did anything."

abcnews.go.com...

Now before this turns into a controversial post this isn't about the kid being gay. Bullying is a real issue and I'm tired of people putting gay people getting bullied above anybody getting bullied. Gay people aren't special they are just like you and me. This was a brutal assault on a child. Nothing more and nothing else.

I expect full assault charges to be brought up against the offender and for the offender to be expelled. What do you think ATS?

How can we pass a law to fix this? They're tried making bullying a crime and that clearly doesn't work. What's the fix here?

This boy committing the assault should have been arrested on the spot. "Charges being filed" my a**." He should have been arrested as soon as possible after this crime.

Now before this turns into a controversial post this isn't about the kid being gay. Bullying is a real issue and I'm tired of people putting gay people getting bullied above anybody getting bullied. Gay people aren't special they are just like you and me. This was a brutal assault on a child. Nothing more and nothing else.

The reason behind the attack isn't important? I think if motivated by the victims sexual preference it's a little different than say a random attack. It shows intent and discrimination. Simple.

It was a brutal assault on a child because he was gay.

Also, bullying will NEVER be fixed. Some people are raised by @$$holes and take their family values to the playground.

reply to post by Nurv47


I don't think the reason is important at all. Assault is assault, no matter if it was done because you were gay, or done because you talk funny. Still assault, and should carry the same weight.

No one should have more protection under the law, for any reason.

reply to post by Nurv47


Slightly off topic but I'm looking at it in the eyes of "Something happened, what should our reaction be."

Believe it or not we don't always need a motive for things. One thing I've learned in school (and I don't know how true this is. Im going to assume my textbook from the 90s is correct) is that in order for someone to be convicted of a crime the police don't need a motive. Just evidence.

We have evidence of what happened and I'm not about to go and guess if the attack was motivitated because the kid was gay. Perhaps it was but who is to say that the attacker wouldn't have attacked a straight kid as well?

Did that sense make? I tried.

As someone said above me "Assault is assault''. Though feel free to share your point of view if you don't agree.

reply to post by drew1749


No, they don't need a motive.

However, they do need to have a solid theory to why the crime was committed.

And beating up a kid because he's gay? That's pretty sickening. Sure, many kids are bullied.
But beating a kid because he's gay? That's a whole other level of neanderthal in my opinion.

Bullying has been around since the dawn of time on all levels. I hate when people try using the excuse its because they were gay! I got bullied and beaten regularly in the 80s because I had buck teeth. Nothing new here, but sad none the less whenever it happens imo.

reply to post by AllUrChips


Thank you. This is actually something we can discuss in this topic. Do you really think violence is an okay response to a bully? To me it just kind of keeps the cycle going. Not to mention that video right there I don't like at all. The small boy may be a bully but he didn't deserve to be body slammed into the ground like that.

Am I wrong in thinking like this? You should only fight to defend yourself physically. Well actually in the situation that I actually linked to I would be okay with the victim fighting back...but in most situations I don't think it's right.

reply to post by Miraj


How is getting bullied because of your sexual orientation any different from getting picked on because of your teeth or something like that? I don't really think it is. Both are cruel and aimed at things you can't help.

Now I can't finish my dinner I am so enraged.. well I was 3/4 done anyway.. but still! The attacker thinks this makes him a tough guy? Why do they pick on the weakest and least likely to defend themselves? Why do you repeatedly hit someone whose back is to you who is on the ground? It's so absurdly vicious.

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by drew1749

 

No, they don't need a motive.

However, they do need to have a solid theory to why the crime was committed.

And beating up a kid because he's gay? That's pretty sickening. Sure, many kids are bullied.
But beating a kid because he's gay? That's a whole other level of neanderthal in my opinion.

Isn't a motive the same thing as :

However, they do need to have a solid theory to why the crime was committed.

Originally posted by drew1749
reply to post by AllUrChips

 

Thank you. This is actually something we can discuss in this topic. Do you really think violence is an okay response to a bully? To me it just kind of keeps the cycle going. Not to mention that video right there I don't like at all. The small boy may be a bully but he didn't deserve to be body slammed into the ground like that.

Am I wrong in thinking like this? You should only fight to defend yourself physically. Well actually in the situation that I actually linked to I would be okay with the victim fighting back...but in most situations I don't think it's right.

Well, lets put it his way: How would you have handled that? Would you just take a beating or at least try and defend yourself? Violence is never the answer, but sometimes it the only solution.

reply to post by drew1749


I think you are looking at it in a tainted view. Imagine if the roles were reversed, and it was a bigger kid attacking a littler kid, and the littler kid defended himself? In that video, the littler one is assaulting him repeatedly, and then he defends himself. Perfectly acceptable IMO, if someone assaults me, my training gets put into action. I put down the threat hard and fast, messing around is likely to get you hurt in the real world.

reply to post by TKDRL


Well, reason separates murder 1 from manslaughter. The intent behind the crime is important in determining a person's innocence or guilt and the severity of the crime.

reply to post by drew1749


You may not always need a motive, but if you've watched enough Law and Order you'll see that the (fictional) cops ALWAYS try and establish a motive. Understanding WHY the crime happened is just as important as punishing it if you're seeking to prevent similar cases.

Originally posted by AllUrChips

 

 

Really?
2nd line.

Most gays I have seen flaunt their stuff, even when they know your straight, they flirt. How do we know the attacker wasn't a victim too? I mean I have never goten mad at a gay just because they were gay, but have goten mad when they try to push their sexual harassment on me. Either way the attacker should be criminally charged for sure.


U

reply to post by drew1749


Because I can't think of anybody that has been beat to death because their teeth weren't perfect.

But I can certainly think of a number of gay teens that were beat to death in the past.

reply to post by AllUrChips


When defending yourself I think it's okay (im going to use the video you linked as an example here) but I don't think a kid should defend himself if he's 4x bigger than the kid bullying him. It isn't fair and isn't right. I mean that video the big kid was totally out of line.

In the situation I linked to in the OP though I can totally understand the victim fighting back. Does that make sense? I just don't think if we teach people that violence might "sometimes'' be the answer it's going to help in the long run. Actually it might hurt in the long run. Violence is only okay in a fair fight and nobody should have the idea that it's okay to use physical violence against someone who is name caller or something stupid like that.

reply to post by mileysubet


Kind of.

But say you got a guy that hijacked a car and killed it's driver.


Did he want to steal the car, or did he want to kill the driver?

That's important.