“I was led to believe that this was just hearsay and rumors,” the girl’s father said, recounting a conversation he had that morning with the school counselor.
But the girl was miserable, and a police incident report showed more girls were reporting that they were victims, too. The 13-year-old returned to the counselor in the afternoon, asking to call her father. She said she was refused.
When the girl stepped onto the bus 15 minutes later, the boy was showing the AI-generated images to a friend. Fake nude images of her friends were visible on the boy’s phone, the girl said, a claim backed up by a photo taken on the bus. A video from the school bus showed at least a half-dozen students circulating the images, said Martin, the superintendent, at a school board meeting.
ITT: We leave out the reasons for things that happened to shape the narrative into what we prefer.
Fed up, she attacked a boy on the bus, inviting others to join her
She physically assaulted someone and tried to get others to join in and got punished for it. Being a victim of one thing doesn’t justify becoming a perpetrator of something else.
She went to the authorities, who did absolutely nothing, so she was FORCED to take matters into her own hands. If I were her parents, I couldn’t be prouder of her. I’d take her out to dinner anywhere she wants, then take her to a lawyer.
It was not forced. She chose to. She could have coped in ways other than violence. Failure of the system to resolve things in a way you prefer is not justification for violent assault. It’s just barbarism.
Instigation. She is not being charged because she is not responsible for the assault. His deplorable and criminal acts of harassment against her make him criminally responsible for her attack.
You do not get to harass someone so egregiously and incessantly as to instigate a physical altercation, and then call them “barbaric” for having attacked you.
She wasn’t charged because the police have discretion and the victim of her assault can still press charges. That doesn’t mean she didn’t commit a crime or that she absolved of responsibility. It is not other people’s responsibility for how you react to how you feel, it’s yours to manage your behavior, even when people hurt your feelings.
He would never be found guilty and charges would not be pressed. He absolutely didn’t do anything to satisfy incitement. Incitement is for encouraging people to do violence or commit crimes, like she tried to do when assaulting someone. This is not a circumstance where personal responsibility is abdicated. She should not have viciously attacked someone over pictures that aren’t even her.
I mean, if they’re in the ground, they won’t be making nonconsensual porn anymore. That sounds like a pretty damn effective resolution if I ever heard one. Brian Robert Thompson hasn’t murdered anyone in months, and that guy killed tens of thousands of innocent people.
Being a victim of one thing doesn’t justify becoming a perpetrator of something else.
From the article:
the female victim will not face charges in the attack.
She faces no charges; she is not a perpetrator. Let’s be very fucking clear on this point: nothing she did has been determined to have been “illegal”. Since her actions don’t violate law, we are left with discussing only morality and ethicality.
tried to get others to join in
Yes, she did. The first entity she asked to “join in” was the school itself. She asked the school for help. The school was given ample opportunity to end the harassment, and refused. Only after the school’s refusal did she ask anyone else to help stop the harassment.
As soon as the school failed to act, she became ethically justified in acting directly to end the harassment. She became ethically justified in requesting the help of others to aid her in that effort.
Your entire argument stopped being valid the moment the school failed to adequately intervene against the harasser.
She is still a perpetrator, she doesn’t need to be charged or convicted. She violently assaulted someone. That is not in dispute. That she isn’t charged is a mercy given by society because of the circumstances. The victim of her assault could still press charges if they wished.
Failure of society to address a grievance when it suits you does not justify forming a mob and violently attacking someone. She is not ethically justified violently assaulting someone because her feelings are hurt.
Do you understand the legal concepts of “Instigation” and “incitement”?
The person who throws the punch is not always the person legally responsible for the punch being thrown. When his unreasonable actions rise to the level of “instigation” or “incitement”, he becomes responsible for the actions she takes against him.
You do understand that she’s not being charged with that, right?
What I am saying is that if I deliberately try to piss you off enough for you to take a swing at me, I become criminally responsible for the violent acts you take against me. That’s “instigation”.
“Instigation” is why she isn’t being charged with assault and battery. She’s not responsible for the violence on the bus. He is.
What harm is done that is severe enough to justify violence? There was in no imminent threat of physical harm to themselves or others. Nobody is in danger. The content in question also isn’t actually them. Being violent just because your feeling are hurt is barbaric and has no place in a society. Violence is not acceptable.
As soon as society refuses to adequately intervene to stop the harm, any degree of harm justifies any level of force necessary to end that harm. Your position is only valid so long as society is willing to intercede on behalf of the victim.
The content in question also isn’t actually them.
The content in question is harassment at a minimum. It is harm. Serious harm.
Being violent just because your feeling are hurt is barbaric and has no place in a society.
So long as society is willing to intercede against the harm caused by harassers, I agree. Here, that intercession was explicitly denied. The school refused to act. The school failed to even separate or supervise the two parties. Consequently, society lost its ethical justification for criticizing the victim’s efforts to end her victimization. With the school failing to act reasonably or responsibly, we don’t get to criticize the victim’s actions.
So if a man is hurt by a woman and the world doesn’t stop that harm, is any degree of harm justified and any level of force necessary to end that harm, justified?
Society fails at justice all the time, but it will respond with force and punishment if you take justice into your own hands. The failure of society to adequately address these scenarios is one of the reasons exacting your own justice is unwise, because society will punish you for it, as it did to the girl when she tried. Violence is not acceptable.
So if a man is hurt by a woman and the world doesn’t stop that harm, is any degree of harm justified and any level of force necessary to end that harm, justified?
Yes.
Society fails at justice
I see the problem. You are conflating “stopping harm” with “justice”. There is a massive difference between the two concepts, and we aren’t talking about justice here.
Asking police to stop the woman from keying his car is an attempt to stop harm. Asking the prosecutor to charge her with destruction of property is an attempt to seek justice. You described a scenario where the woman is actively harming the man. He is, indeed, justified in using any level of force necessary to end that harm. You did not describe a scenario where the woman has previously caused harm, but is no longer doing so.
Keep in mind that the boy on the bus was actively engaged in harassing his victim at the time his victim used physical force against him. She was not attempting to retaliate for past harms; she was not attempting to seek justice. She was attempting to end the harm he was in the process of perpetrating.
It’s more than just feelings being hurt, this is illegal.
What does this oh-so-perfect system do? Punishes wrongdoing. Guess what a fist to the face does.
The harm done is trauma, that poor girl is probably traumatised for life and will most likely need hours of therapy to deal with something like this. Actions hurt people, threats in the physical realm aren’t the only ones that matter.
You know what’s barbaric? A society where this sort of antisocial, criminal, traumatising behaviour goes unpunished. This is sexual harassment and the school didn’t want bad press so they just shrugged it off. She was forced to take matters into her own hands when the sexual harassment continued.
It did naturally become worse. That’s what happens by not intervening, nature occurs. Becoming violent when you experience injustice only leads to more problems. It is not a wise or effective response.
Hard disagree. What other option did she have at this point, she tried following proper channels to get the bullying resolved and when that didn’t work, did the only other thing she could.
I would 100% go far further if this arrive to my daughter. I would go yo police reporting school sponsored diffusion of pedo pornography. And ruin the school reputation and have all parents involved. This would make me go thermonuclear.
The system not making her feel better is not justification for violence. Taking justice into ones own hands with violence is not acceptable. Period. We are not barbarians or wild animals. She could have gone to her parents, a counselor or a trusted adult to help her manage her emotions over the situation until a better resolution could be reached. While it is understandable to want to be violent when feelings are hurt, it isn’t acceptable to throw hands, or to encourage others to help you violently assault someone. Her violence will do absolutely nothing to stop the sharing of the photos, it will only appease her momentary desire to lash out, with worse consequences, like getting suspended.
It was foolish, impulsive, unhelpful and unacceptable.
She could have gone to her parents, a counselor or a trusted adult to help her manage her emotions over the situation until a better resolution could be reached.
She did. She fucking did all the things that you say she should have done. She availed herself of all the support structures you say she should have utilized, and they all failed her.
Those parents, counselors, and trusted adults could have helped her “manage her emotions” by separating her from the harasser. Instead, they put the two of them together on a bus, effectively unsupervised. She did everything right. All of the social structures that should have supported her failed, and now you’re all <pikachu face> that the most reasonable course of action she had was direct violence.
The school’s actions were foolish, lazy, unhelpful, and unacceptable. In the specific circumstances she faced, her actions were perfectly reasonable.
Managing emotions can’t be done through external acts, it is an internal act. Those systems she availed to were still working on the issue, instant gratification is not reasonable. Violence is not a reasonable or effective course of action, it is an impulsive and stupid one and it only made her life worse.
To play devil’s advocate, at that point she had photographic evidence of this happening, so she could have gone back to the school/police with it and let them handle it.
Counter devils advocate: our legal system does allow civilians to stop a crime in progress against themselves, physically, even if the crime itself is nonviolent in nature.
For instance, If i witness someone stealing my property, I am allowed to use reasonable, non-deadly force in defense of my property. She faced serious, permanent, and ongoing mental harm, which she had every right to attempt to stop as it occurred
And the police have fundamentaly agreed she was justified in her actions, and upheld this right, as shes not being charged.
(Although personally I think they should threaten school officials with charges of conspiracy after the fact and abetting the dissemination of csam for the expulsion, to force them to recant it.)
You know that psychological pain tramscends into physical pain and often leads to various illneses sometimes even causes cancer, many people cant endure it and commit suicide. You think why victims of bullies often commit suicide? Our brain doesnt distinguish much between psy pain or phys pain. You can even suppress mental pain using tylenol
You’re allowed to defend yourself from threatening behavior, such as sexual harassment. That’s why the police are charging the creep making child porn, while the girl who smacked him around is not facing legal consequences.
Only if that danger is physical in nature. Feelings are not an excuse to be violent and she was punished for doing so. Lack of charges is a mercy the police and the victim extended to her given the circumstances, either still have legal standing to charge her. Her victim being charged is a separate, but related, thing.
Then you should get your hearing checked. You’re just lashing out with insinuations because your reason is failing you. Will you also call me a doody head and storm off?
Schrödinger accountability ? Be harassed and humiliated daily : nothing. Defend yourself : punition.
She would have not strike him but the society forced her.
It 100% is: legally, you have the right to physically defend yourself from nonviolent crime- im allowed to hit the guy trying to break into my car if he doesnt stop when I yell at him to do so.
He’s damaging your property and putting your physical security at risk. Both are crimes of violence. It isn’t an emotional crime. If he says something mean, you don’t get to punch him.
If you genuinely think that breaking into a car is less violent than making and distributing child porn of someone then there is something very wrong with you.
The boy was committing a sexually violent act that was designed to intimidate, humiliate and harm.
When you say ‘society did not force her’, what exactly do you mean by this?
Can you spell out the scenario that you concocted in your head as to how a girl, harshly bullied by having faked nude material of her passed around school without her consent, in front of her, should correctly behave in this situation? Keeping in mind, of course, that she already went to the socially acceptable and correct official channels which did nothing to help her?
ITT: We victim blame.
ITT: We leave out the reasons for things that happened to shape the narrative into what we prefer.
She physically assaulted someone and tried to get others to join in and got punished for it. Being a victim of one thing doesn’t justify becoming a perpetrator of something else.
Frankly, I would support a law where someone making nonconsensual nudes of you is legal justification to literally kill them.
People support all kinds of foolish and stupid things.
She went to the authorities, who did absolutely nothing, so she was FORCED to take matters into her own hands. If I were her parents, I couldn’t be prouder of her. I’d take her out to dinner anywhere she wants, then take her to a lawyer.
It was not forced. She chose to. She could have coped in ways other than violence. Failure of the system to resolve things in a way you prefer is not justification for violent assault. It’s just barbarism.
Instigation. She is not being charged because she is not responsible for the assault. His deplorable and criminal acts of harassment against her make him criminally responsible for her attack.
You do not get to harass someone so egregiously and incessantly as to instigate a physical altercation, and then call them “barbaric” for having attacked you.
She wasn’t charged because the police have discretion and the victim of her assault can still press charges. That doesn’t mean she didn’t commit a crime or that she absolved of responsibility. It is not other people’s responsibility for how you react to how you feel, it’s yours to manage your behavior, even when people hurt your feelings.
He can be charged with assault and battery, due to his instigation of the physical altercation.
That is true only as a general condition, not an absolute one. There are certainly exceptions. “Instigation” is one such exception.
He would never be found guilty and charges would not be pressed. He absolutely didn’t do anything to satisfy incitement. Incitement is for encouraging people to do violence or commit crimes, like she tried to do when assaulting someone. This is not a circumstance where personal responsibility is abdicated. She should not have viciously attacked someone over pictures that aren’t even her.
The word I used in the parent comment was “instigation”.
When peaceful resolution is made impossible, violent resolution becomes inevitable.
There is no resolution through violence.
Tell that to over half a million Jews circa 1930s.
Okay, killing Jews wasn’t a resolution to the Nazi beleif in a “Jew problem”.
I mean, if they’re in the ground, they won’t be making nonconsensual porn anymore. That sounds like a pretty damn effective resolution if I ever heard one. Brian Robert Thompson hasn’t murdered anyone in months, and that guy killed tens of thousands of innocent people.
And you’ll be in prison for life. What a great resolution.
From the article:
She faces no charges; she is not a perpetrator. Let’s be very fucking clear on this point: nothing she did has been determined to have been “illegal”. Since her actions don’t violate law, we are left with discussing only morality and ethicality.
Yes, she did. The first entity she asked to “join in” was the school itself. She asked the school for help. The school was given ample opportunity to end the harassment, and refused. Only after the school’s refusal did she ask anyone else to help stop the harassment.
As soon as the school failed to act, she became ethically justified in acting directly to end the harassment. She became ethically justified in requesting the help of others to aid her in that effort.
Your entire argument stopped being valid the moment the school failed to adequately intervene against the harasser.
She is still a perpetrator, she doesn’t need to be charged or convicted. She violently assaulted someone. That is not in dispute. That she isn’t charged is a mercy given by society because of the circumstances. The victim of her assault could still press charges if they wished.
Failure of society to address a grievance when it suits you does not justify forming a mob and violently attacking someone. She is not ethically justified violently assaulting someone because her feelings are hurt.
Do you understand the legal concepts of “Instigation” and “incitement”?
The person who throws the punch is not always the person legally responsible for the punch being thrown. When his unreasonable actions rise to the level of “instigation” or “incitement”, he becomes responsible for the actions she takes against him.
So the way she tried to incite others to commit felony assault?
You do understand that she’s not being charged with that, right?
What I am saying is that if I deliberately try to piss you off enough for you to take a swing at me, I become criminally responsible for the violent acts you take against me. That’s “instigation”.
“Instigation” is why she isn’t being charged with assault and battery. She’s not responsible for the violence on the bus. He is.
Nobody joined her so she failed at it and that’s why.
Yeah, you used the word “incite”, but it doesn’t actually mean what you seem to think it means.
May your days be as interesting as hers.
They have been.
Hey man if you distribute porn of someone non consenting, you deserve at least a solid punch in the face.
What harm is done that is severe enough to justify violence? There was in no imminent threat of physical harm to themselves or others. Nobody is in danger. The content in question also isn’t actually them. Being violent just because your feeling are hurt is barbaric and has no place in a society. Violence is not acceptable.
As soon as society refuses to adequately intervene to stop the harm, any degree of harm justifies any level of force necessary to end that harm. Your position is only valid so long as society is willing to intercede on behalf of the victim.
The content in question is harassment at a minimum. It is harm. Serious harm.
So long as society is willing to intercede against the harm caused by harassers, I agree. Here, that intercession was explicitly denied. The school refused to act. The school failed to even separate or supervise the two parties. Consequently, society lost its ethical justification for criticizing the victim’s efforts to end her victimization. With the school failing to act reasonably or responsibly, we don’t get to criticize the victim’s actions.
So if a man is hurt by a woman and the world doesn’t stop that harm, is any degree of harm justified and any level of force necessary to end that harm, justified?
Society fails at justice all the time, but it will respond with force and punishment if you take justice into your own hands. The failure of society to adequately address these scenarios is one of the reasons exacting your own justice is unwise, because society will punish you for it, as it did to the girl when she tried. Violence is not acceptable.
Yes.
I see the problem. You are conflating “stopping harm” with “justice”. There is a massive difference between the two concepts, and we aren’t talking about justice here.
Asking police to stop the woman from keying his car is an attempt to stop harm. Asking the prosecutor to charge her with destruction of property is an attempt to seek justice. You described a scenario where the woman is actively harming the man. He is, indeed, justified in using any level of force necessary to end that harm. You did not describe a scenario where the woman has previously caused harm, but is no longer doing so.
Keep in mind that the boy on the bus was actively engaged in harassing his victim at the time his victim used physical force against him. She was not attempting to retaliate for past harms; she was not attempting to seek justice. She was attempting to end the harm he was in the process of perpetrating.
Then by your reasoning, if a woman rejects a man and she hurts him, he can beat her. Glad that’s clear.
What?
the situation didn’t just naturally become worse. it’s only worse because the school shares opinions with you.
It did naturally become worse. That’s what happens by not intervening, nature occurs. Becoming violent when you experience injustice only leads to more problems. It is not a wise or effective response.
did the school not intervene by punishing her? the problems only arose because they agree with you.
Hard disagree. What other option did she have at this point, she tried following proper channels to get the bullying resolved and when that didn’t work, did the only other thing she could.
I would 100% go far further if this arrive to my daughter. I would go yo police reporting school sponsored diffusion of pedo pornography. And ruin the school reputation and have all parents involved. This would make me go thermonuclear.
The system not making her feel better is not justification for violence. Taking justice into ones own hands with violence is not acceptable. Period. We are not barbarians or wild animals. She could have gone to her parents, a counselor or a trusted adult to help her manage her emotions over the situation until a better resolution could be reached. While it is understandable to want to be violent when feelings are hurt, it isn’t acceptable to throw hands, or to encourage others to help you violently assault someone. Her violence will do absolutely nothing to stop the sharing of the photos, it will only appease her momentary desire to lash out, with worse consequences, like getting suspended.
It was foolish, impulsive, unhelpful and unacceptable.
She did. She fucking did all the things that you say she should have done. She availed herself of all the support structures you say she should have utilized, and they all failed her.
Those parents, counselors, and trusted adults could have helped her “manage her emotions” by separating her from the harasser. Instead, they put the two of them together on a bus, effectively unsupervised. She did everything right. All of the social structures that should have supported her failed, and now you’re all <pikachu face> that the most reasonable course of action she had was direct violence.
The school’s actions were foolish, lazy, unhelpful, and unacceptable. In the specific circumstances she faced, her actions were perfectly reasonable.
Managing emotions can’t be done through external acts, it is an internal act. Those systems she availed to were still working on the issue, instant gratification is not reasonable. Violence is not a reasonable or effective course of action, it is an impulsive and stupid one and it only made her life worse.
…
Pick a lane.
They weren’t working the issue, they were ignoring her. The administrators clearly thought she was making shit up.
Now he’s facing charges because she forced the police to look into it.
To play devil’s advocate, at that point she had photographic evidence of this happening, so she could have gone back to the school/police with it and let them handle it.
Counter devils advocate: our legal system does allow civilians to stop a crime in progress against themselves, physically, even if the crime itself is nonviolent in nature.
For instance, If i witness someone stealing my property, I am allowed to use reasonable, non-deadly force in defense of my property. She faced serious, permanent, and ongoing mental harm, which she had every right to attempt to stop as it occurred
And the police have fundamentaly agreed she was justified in her actions, and upheld this right, as shes not being charged.
(Although personally I think they should threaten school officials with charges of conspiracy after the fact and abetting the dissemination of csam for the expulsion, to force them to recant it.)
You know that psychological pain tramscends into physical pain and often leads to various illneses sometimes even causes cancer, many people cant endure it and commit suicide. You think why victims of bullies often commit suicide? Our brain doesnt distinguish much between psy pain or phys pain. You can even suppress mental pain using tylenol
So everyone gets to throw hands and violently assault people whenever they feel bad, then?
You’re allowed to defend yourself from threatening behavior, such as sexual harassment. That’s why the police are charging the creep making child porn, while the girl who smacked him around is not facing legal consequences.
Only if that danger is physical in nature. Feelings are not an excuse to be violent and she was punished for doing so. Lack of charges is a mercy the police and the victim extended to her given the circumstances, either still have legal standing to charge her. Her victim being charged is a separate, but related, thing.
You sound like you make nudes of women without their permission.
Then you should get your hearing checked. You’re just lashing out with insinuations because your reason is failing you. Will you also call me a doody head and storm off?
I knew there’d be some one like you in here spreading some victim blame around.
The fact that people like the commenter would likely fare much better than me in society makes me want to unlive myself.
If you think accountability is victim blaming then your worldview is not worth listening to.
Schrödinger accountability ? Be harassed and humiliated daily : nothing. Defend yourself : punition. She would have not strike him but the society forced her.
Responding to a non-physical threat with physical violence is not acceptable. Society did not force her, she chose to be violent.
It 100% is: legally, you have the right to physically defend yourself from nonviolent crime- im allowed to hit the guy trying to break into my car if he doesnt stop when I yell at him to do so.
He’s damaging your property and putting your physical security at risk. Both are crimes of violence. It isn’t an emotional crime. If he says something mean, you don’t get to punch him.
If you genuinely think that breaking into a car is less violent than making and distributing child porn of someone then there is something very wrong with you.
The boy was committing a sexually violent act that was designed to intimidate, humiliate and harm.
When you say ‘society did not force her’, what exactly do you mean by this?
Can you spell out the scenario that you concocted in your head as to how a girl, harshly bullied by having faked nude material of her passed around school without her consent, in front of her, should correctly behave in this situation? Keeping in mind, of course, that she already went to the socially acceptable and correct official channels which did nothing to help her?
Why don’t you ask the poster above what they meant by it and then we can discuss.
Feelings are not an excuse to become violent, even if you don’t see any other option than to suffer.