[Collier County Circuit Judge Lauren] 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...
[T]he 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.”
January 5, 2012
Florida's “Stand Your Ground” law saves a 15-year-old from prosecution for 2d-degree murder.
Jorge Saavedra stabbed 16-year-old Dylan Nuno 12 times with a pocket knife.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
155 comments:
Begs the question why the juvenile was charged in the first place. Good for the juvenile who stood his ground after trying to diffuse the situation.
He took steps to avoid confrontation and then defended himself. This is most any rational person can be expected to do and the state should (and did apparently) recognize that fact.
What good would a duty to retreat law do in this case?
Jorge Saavedra stabbed 16-year-old Dylan Nuno 12 times with a pocket knife.
I got you beat,...
Sounds like the right call.
The other kid actively tried to avoid the confrontation and only responded with violence when it was clear he would be facing a gang style beat down.
Maybe stabs one and two could be justified. But... 12? I'd need to read the witness transcripts and stuff like that. But, after some point, it stops being self-defense. It is possible though, that they just kept fighting through all 12 stabs. I give benefit of the doubt to the judge's ruling, but... 12?
Maybe stabs one and two could be justified. But... 12?
Don't assume rationality when mortality is involved. I'm willing to bet adrenaline was singing through the kid's veins the second the attacker got on the bus with his posse back at the school.
Good for the judge, and good for the kid.
America would be a much better place if this was what happened every time some bully attacked a kid.
And, let's be clear: 16 year old boy attacks 14 year old boy. That's the definition of a "bully". Bigger, stronger, more friends, picking on a freshman who he thinks can't fight back.
Matthew:
Who cares? The bully started teh fight, the other guy finished it, and won't ever have to fight him again.
If nothing else, this follows under "did society a favor."
Maybe stabs one and two could be justified. But... 12? I'd need to read the witness transcripts and stuff like that. But, after some point, it stops being self-defense. It is possible though, that they just kept fighting through all 12 stabs. I give benefit of the doubt to the judge's ruling, but... 12?
--------
This ain't 2 whitebread kids from Maple Hills having a little roll on the ground over a girl.
There's a very big chance that the kid was in danger of serious harm, he was facing multiple attackers and they probably would have stomped on his head repeatedly when he was down.
A tragedy, really.
The flip-side of bullied kids who take their own lives because they can't take the pain anymore.
I can agree with this verdict.
Good for the judge, and good for the kid.
America would be a much better place if this was what happened every time some bully attacked a kid.
And, let's be clear: 16 year old boy attacks 14 year old boy. That's the definition of a "bully". Bigger, stronger, more friends, picking on a freshman who he thinks can't fight back.
-------
I agree the kid probably did the neccesary thing, but it seems like you have some serious nerd rage over some bully in your past.
Bullies down deserve to die just because their bullies. That's insane.
It is entirely possible all 12 stabs are justified; it just made me think of The Stranger, and the extra bullets. He has every right to defend himself. It just seemed strange to see that many stabs, but no more information.
If the other kid goes down after stab 11, #12 is excessive force. Being a kid, I doubt it would be more than a slap on the wrist -- it just seems an odd detail that I want more information about.
Why is this post taggef with "murder"?
Maybe stabs one and two could be justified. But... 12?
In a real fight you don't stop and consider the effects of your last action, you keep fighting until you can't anymore or the other guy stops fighting. If the attacker kept coming, even though he's slowly bleeding out, it's entirely possible to see him getting stabbed 12 times.
This is why the whole 'why does someone need hicap mags' question is only ever asked by people that have never used a gun on anything more animated than paper.
wv:badger - how oddly appropriate.
Maybe stabs one and two could be justified. But... 12?
You're in Prosser v. The Attacker territory here.
Maybe stabs one and two could be justified. But... 12?
You've got to be kidding.
If only there was a good anti-bullying program at the school.
Surely a long heart-to-heart about the terrible effects of bullying would have persuaded the deceased to forego his persistent torture of the smaller underclassman.
Oh well.
Junyo -- Actually, when I hit the people who tried to rob me, I did stop and consider that since he was on the ground it was time to beat feet instead of kicking him while he was there, and so I ran. I am also a terrible coward.
That's why I want more information; maybe he -did- keep coming. The judge thinks all 12 stabs were legit, so they probably were. It just sounds kind of jarring.
God Bless America, God bless "Stand Your Ground".
In old Blighty, the kid would be incarcerated for the rest of his life, which means 30 years.
12 stabs from a pocket knife.
That's one reason why there were twelve. Many of the wounds might have been somewhat superficial.
WV: dedness. Oh, come on!
Surely a long heart-to-heart about the terrible effects of bullying would have persuaded the deceased to forego his persistent torture of the smaller underclassman.
Nah, a video campaign should do the trick.
That's a good point EMD. I was thinking a knife-knife, but pocket knives definitely do not pack nearly the same punch.
That's one reason why there were twelve. Many of the wounds might have been somewhat superficial.
Is a laceration considered, for the purposes of a hearing, the same as a stab wound? In any knife fight, there's going to be more lacerations than stabs.
12 stabs from a pocket knife.
That's one reason why there were twelve. Many of the wounds might have been somewhat superficial.
Bingo. Actually, being 12 stabs from a pocket knife, I'm somewhat sirprised it was fatal. All it takes is one cut to the right place, though.
I'd hope not. A cut is a cut; a stab is a stab. If they count those, the whole count is screwy.
12 stabs: it's a pocket knife, not very big, not easy to stop at one or two when you are stabbing and in fear. If he stabbed once, or twice, the bully would be enraged, and would "fight back" and killed the kid. Or other kids would avenge his friend. The kid might stab 12 times, he did it in self defence, out of fear and rage. Unfortunately, his life is changed forever for having taken a human life.
As described, it appears to be a clear case of self-defense.
But that should be (and is) a matter of common law, and not subject to the whims of legislators who may or may not enact a "stand your ground" law.
This situation is exactly why I've always said, If you're going to stab someone use a butcher knife.
When the jury hears "stabbed once" with a butcher knife they can relate. If you use a pen knife and the jury hear's "stabbed 153 times" you're going to the chair.
This is very similar to what happened this week in Oklahoma.
Two thugs tried to batter down the door of a recent widow. She blocked the front door and retreated to her bedroom. Taking her baby and her 12 gauge with her.
When the thugs kicked open the bedroom door she unloaded the shotgun on the first thug.
The second thug ran away and was latter captured. The second thug is being charged with the murder of the first thug, because in Oklahoma, like in Texas, if someone dies during the commission of a felony the perp is guilty of murder.
The Cops. They showed up 21 minutes after the woman called 911.
This is a sad story all the way around.
About the only thing that could have prevented this was a) if the little bastards that followed the younger kid to attack him had had a better upbringing or b) if they'd believed the younger boy might be armed, with something more lethal than a pocket knife, like a pocket revolver.
Had the younger kid had a small pistol with a laser sight, all he would have had to do was put that little red dot on the assailant's chest, and they would have backed down. More guns, less violence.
I'm betting that Florida doesn't issue ccw permits to 15-year-olds, and these 16-year-olds knew this. They knew that only criminals carry, and their target wasn't a criminal.
his life is changed forever for having taken a human life.
Maybe. I'd like to think so. I hope so. But I'm not sure.
I'm satisfied he won't be jailed. I don't know what good that would have accomplished.
his life is changed forever for having taken a human life
His life might have also been altered forever as the disabled victim of a gang beatdown. He prevented that.
Is this another victim attacks back thread?
That can go on the list along with Pearl Harbor, 9/11, and Gingrich in Iowa.
Those are 12 wounds from a pocket knife from a defensive posture. Most likely most of the 12 wounds were not very serious at all until one cut happened to hit an artery.
A little like Bernhard Goetz. You get pushed and do all you can to avoid it. They still want to rumble, so you defend yourself.
As to the number of times, adrenalin has a way of taking over.
I don't think the "Stand Your Ground" law had anything to do with this. It was valid self-defense even with a duty to retreat principle as he attempted to retreat and couldn't.
Reading the article, it suggests that like is too often the case, there were plenty of people aware that the attacker was a bully, but he was good looking and popular and
his behavior was tolerated.
The parents claim that their son transferred because he was being bullied; I suggest he was a bully at the other school, got his ass kicked one day, and then transferred.
I also maintain that the worse bullies at school aren't students, but a small number of teachers, coaches and administrators.
@Pastafarian: As a Floridian with a CCW, I'm not in the least upset that 15-y/os can't obtain one. There are enough of them carrying illegally that I don't think we need more operating with legal cover.
Florida insists on 21 and a licensed course in gun safety to obtain a CCW.
I bet he still gets expelled from school under a zero-tolerance weapons policy.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
America’s violent heritage claims another victim. I wish we had more funding for public schools, so that we could have adequate programs to prevent this sort of violence…sadly America’s short-sighted taxpayers can’t be made to see reason. Instead, two Men of Colour are pitted against one another, rather than their REAL, Class Enemy, the Oppressive, White, Hetero-normal, Patriarchy! Of course, the Rich 1% want that, instead of Class Solidarity that would threaten thei socio-economic hegemony!
Had only there been a program for Puppetry in place in this school system, the violence might have been averted!
"... I give benefit of the doubt to the judge's ruling, but... 12?.."
Ever been in a fight? I mean a throwdown and not a shoving match. Guys tend to get their battle blood up and the fights typically end when they are broken up or someone is unconscious.
When that adrenaline kicks in and you think your life is on danger you just don't switch it off.
".. Robert Cook said... I can agree with this verdict..."
Jesus Christ the Mayans were right.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Jesus Christ the Mayans were right
My thoughts exactly….
Bullies down deserve to die just because their bullies. That's insane.
No, it's justice. And it's a desire for a peaceful life, for everyone.
If you establish the rule that attacking other people just gets you killed, then pretty soon we don't have anyone attacking other people, and everyone is better off. If we had a perfect justice system, I'd be strongly in favor of the death penalty for battery. Since we don't, I'll settle for cheering every time a mugger is killed (and that, after all, is what the big kid was trying to do).
The world is a better place for his death. What his family should be feeling is shame for having raised such a worthless son.
"Bullies down deserve to die just because their bullies. That's insane."
Why? I fail to see how the bully deserves any quarter. If you can accept the possible necessity of lethal force in self-defense against robbers and rapists, why not against bullies? An equally strong case can be made that robbers and rapists generally lack an intent to kill their victims. If a rapist, unarmed, can overpower and torment a woman, then should she be precluded from using arms to stop him?
Bullies down [sic] deserve to die just because their [sic] bullies. That's insane.
What's insane about it?
The bully has to assume the risk that his intended target may not be a passive victim, and accept the natural consequences of his actions.
SPImmortal said...
What brand of stupid pills do you take in the morning?
Criminals committing violent crimes forfeit such niceties as you would have them have while they are committing their crimes.
Maybe stabs one and two could be justified. But... 12?
I'm guessing that you're used to TV and movies, where a person is stabbed, their eyes open up wide, they freeze, and drop dead.
That's not how it happens in real life. If the knife had a short blade, then baring a lucky hit on an artery the attacker can still keep coming after ten or eleven stab wounds.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
That's not how it happens in real life. If the knife had a short blade, then baring a lucky hit on an artery the attacker can still keep coming after ten or eleven stab wounds
And even an arterial hit can take some time to manifest itself…you have to bleed out sufficiently, internally or externally, to lower blood volume and pressure for damage to be noticed…
As Nero Wolfe would say, "Satisfactory."
A good law, correctly applied in this case.
Look at the comments in the news story though. Look at all the adults in the community willing to enable the bullying behavior, and argue that the kid had a responsibility to endure a beatdown.
This wasn't the first incident involving this kid. Even on the bus. The bully could have been banned from riding the school bus prior to this incident.
You have a whole community of weak adults willing to look the other way, and that's how it got to this point.
I'm not saying that every bully deserves the death penalty. I'm just saying shit happens. It's healthy for other bullies to realize this.
Oh, and anybody making an issue of the number of wounds is a fucking idiot.
I know dead is a big deal, but I have a hard time finding compassion for anyone who went looking for a fight. He wanted a fight, and he got one.
Was I bullied as a kid? Why yes, I was. Was I badly beaten by a bully? No, I wasn't, because I always fought back, hard.
I'll cheer any kid who fights back against a bully. Killing the bully is an admirable outcome. I don't care if the bully was previously bullied, abused, whatever. If you pick on those who are weaker than you, you deserve anything and everything they can do to you.
Scott M wrote responding to Matthew:
Don't assume rationality when mortality is involved.
This is true. But also consider the definition of stab, in this case it is 'a thrust with a pointed weapon or instrument.' The lethality of the all wounds are not described in the article cited other than two were deep and one fatally so. The others may have been quite shallow and inconsequential. Fatally stabbing at a human thorax is not easy, this is why our special warfare operatives are trained to go for other targets such as the neck (carotid artery, spinal trunk) and the groin (femoral arteries) when knife fighting. If you doubt this buy a fresh rack of pork ribs, and before committing them to the grill try piercing that phalanx of bone, muscle and tendons with a small knife.
The Crack Emcee wrote:
I got you beat
Horrendous. Medieval in its cruelty. Thanks for the cheery note, Crack.
Yet consider what would have happened to poor Kristy Bamu (aged 15 years and British) if he had tried to stand his ground like Jorge Saavedra (aged 14 years and American) Something like this?
A pocket knife??
I'll guess the 12th puncture wound finally found the bullies diaphragm. Otherwise, the puncture count would have been higher.
Funny, that just yesterday after I read a story that Wisconsin officials are overwhelmed with applications from citizens seeking concealed carry permits, one click led to another and I found myself learning about the differences between "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground" laws.
I don't see that anyone addressed the effect the bully's posse had. If Nuno was alone with Saavedra he may have stopped after the first stab, but possibly to show off to his hommies, he kept going.
I wish we had more funding for public schools, so that we could have adequate programs to prevent this sort of violence
That's crazy talk. Really.
Like all problems, if only the government spent more money and more 'programs' then bad things would never happen.
What kind of person thinks that a 'program' could prevent an aggressive teenager from trying to beat up another kid?
If anything, 'programs' that abolished corporal punishment in schools are what gave the attacker the idea that he could beat up another kid without fear of serious consequences.
Funding levels were much lower in the 50s and 60s, yet schools were safer and graduates were better educated.
"A tragedy, really."
Yes. The fact that the remainder of the gang who "accompanied" Dylan Nuno is still alive to attack others is a tragedy. Otherwise, not so much...
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
What kind of person thinks that a 'program' could prevent an aggressive teenager from trying to beat up another kid
What kind of person blithely dismisses the awful tragedy of Plight of People of Colour in this nation, forced into under-funded schools, rife with violence? This case is the case of ANY Person of Colour in America, actually. Violence inflicted, structurally, blighting the lives of People of Colour and who benefits? Wall Street and certain Zionist-Imperialist Financiers, that’s who.
What kind of person so blithely misses a tongue-in-cheek comment?
Jim - Joe was being facetious.
I guess Joe can speak for himself.
Violence inflicted, structurally, blighting the lives of People of Colour and who benefits? Wall Street and certain Zionist-Imperialist Financiers, that’s who.
Are you specifically trying to raise the beast that has been successfully buried under layers of concrete?
Sounds good to me. Jorge for mayor!
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Are you specifically trying to raise the beast that has been successfully buried under layers of concrete
I just believe the OBVIOUS threat of Zionist Imperialist Financiers has not been brought to the public’s fullest attention Scott, I mean really WHATEVER reason could I have?
If these two people were adults would it be a crime?
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
If these two people were adults would it be a crime
I don’t think so. I believe the Judge was applying “adult law” to Juveniles….
gregq
Killing the bully is an admirable outcome.
You're an idiot. Go back to your cave.
Killing another person under these circumstances is not something Jorge actually wanted to do. He was defending himself and it resulted [tragically] in death. If he had purposely wanted to kill the bully then he would be in jail now.
If he had purposely wanted to kill the bully then he would be in jail now.
Whatever the legal accuracy of this statement is, not killing the bully means looking over your shoulder every single day. Hell, depending on the takeaway from the deceased's "friends" the defendant may already be doing that.
Are you specifically trying to raise the beast that has been successfully buried under layers of concrete?
What's Jimmy Hoffa have to do with this?
I wonder if Saavedra is a boy scout. Who else carries pocketknives nowadays, especially with clueless zero tolerance policies in place?
wv: hairt - it hairts when you get stabbed 12 times, even if it is a pocketknife.
From the Naples News:
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.
That Dylan Nuno was a victim of bullying does not absolve him of Jorge Saavedra's accusation, in fact it's corroborative. Most bullies are themselves the victims of similar abuse.
If someone can drown in an inch or two of water, injuries from a pocket knife can be fatal.
If a couple of 110-story buildings can be collapsed because of some box cutters, a pocket knife can be a deadly weapon.
Matt wrote regarding gregq:
You're an idiot. Go back to your cave.
Gregq made a thoughtless remark which needed refutation, but your comeback was beyond the pale of adult conversation as well. Your second paragraph made the point clearly enough.
Ann and Meade recently upgraded the commentary around here by purging a few relentless flame-warriors. Don't go there, OK?
A very interesting law. I basically approve, but worry how it could be abused and turned against people. A well-prepared young Tony Soprano type could verbally or otherwise provoke another person into taking a swing at them and then...blammo or whatever.
"I was just standing here and the guy took a swing at me. What am I supposed to do?"
I realize this is simplistic, but I just worry that a law that seem right now to empower the innocent could later prove to empower the bullies and assailants of tomorrow.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
I realize this is simplistic, but I just worry that a law that seem right now to empower the innocent could later prove to empower the bullies and assailants of tomorrow
Any law can be abused by someone so inclined….
Tarzan wrote:
I realize this is simplistic, but I just worry that a law that seem right now to empower the innocent could later prove to empower the bullies and assailants of tomorrow.
I agree, it is simplistic. All law can be wrongfully applied. That's why we have judges, who we hope are learned persons who interpret the law in light of all the relevant facts. A young Tony Soprano's background and motivations would likely get him a first degree murder conviction rather than an acquittal on grounds of self-defense.
Quaestor
Are you the bully of the board?
#;^)
Sorry, I just find someone saying that killing = admirable worse than calling someone an idiot. I've certainly been called worse - and right here in the comments section.
Scott M
Unfortunately, the takeaway from this is Jorge's life won't be easy. And it's not because of the other bully's who may come after him. It will be regret for his actions. Even though we may feel he did the right thing it is his life and he has to live with it. It's tragic all around, really.
"It's tragic all around, really."
Tragic for Saavedra, yes. Nuno? Eh.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Unfortunately, the takeaway from this is Jorge's life won't be easy. And it's not because of the other bully's who may come after him. It will be regret for his actions
And the cause for this regret? Really everyone keeps telling him that he needs to regret what he did. Why? Dylan wanted to hurt him possibly the fight could have left him broken, blind, crippled or dead. Dylan got killed instead. Why does Jorge have to feel regret? He’s supposed to be sorry that he wasn’t beaten, crippled, or killed? He’s supposed to regret having killed Dylan? Really?
+1, Joe.
It's pretty amazing that a judge came to a common sense decision like this. I'm so used to judges making rulings that fly in the face of human nature.
I'm also surprised that the prosecutors didn't announce in outrage that they were appealing this all the way to the Supreme Court.
I don't know where they found a judge like this. If he lived in Wisconsin they'd try to recall him.
And it's not because of the other bully's who may come after him. It will be regret for his actions.
Why do you seem so sure about this? I seem to recall reading an article recently (sorry, I'm struggling to locate a link) about a man who sought counseling after shooting and killing an armed intruder because he didn't feel regret. Ultimately, he came to accept that his reaction was indeed normal, and that his "guilt" was rooted in his conception of what society expected his reaction should be, and not in what was indeed the appropriate reaction. KI would imagin that killing in self-defense is an altogether different animal than killing premeditately (regardless of the circumstance).
Some people in Saavedra's position would feel regret, some wouldn't. I think either reaction is understandable.
+1, Original Mike. I think this is right. I certainly wouldn't judge him harshly if he didn't feel regret, but I could understand that he might - though I would hope it would be a short-term regret that dissipated as he matures and reflects on the event.
And if I did feel regret, I'd also be pissed for being put in that situation.
I could be wrong, not having any experience, but I can't imagine I would feel any regret. After all, it was the right thing to do.
I'm also surprised that the prosecutors didn't announce in outrage that they were appealing this all the way to the Supreme Court.. Am I wrong or not guilty veredict can not be appealed?
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
I'm not saying he needs to feel regret. He may not, actually. But it would surprise me if he didn't [or doesn't now] reflect on it and wish it had turned out differently. Also the nature of the way he killed him by tapping into a savage survival side and stabbing 12 times.
If you kill an intruder who has come into your house threatening you and your family then I can understand feeling completely vindicated in your actions. But this case strikes me as something all together different.
I'm a coward myself, and can't run very fast either.
I haven't been attacked since grade school, but if I were, and somehow managed to knock down my attacker, I hope I would have the presence of mind to give him a good kick in the ribs to slow him down and give me time to escape.
If you kill an intruder who has come into your house threatening you and your family then I can understand feeling completely vindicated in your actions.
Believe me. It's possible to feel both vindication and regret at the same time when a loss of life is at hand.
From the article: "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."
This paragraph answers a lot of the speculations that have been going around, doesn't it? As someone noted above, the Stand Your Ground law isn't really necessary since the kid tried to retreat.
I can easily see 10 out of 12 wounds not being effective in the chest and abdomen. The chest is pretty well protected by bone and the abdomen doesn't have vital organs. Add the fact of an inexperienced fighter with a pocket knife and the number of wounds doesn't seem all that unreasonable for self-defense.
Killing another person under these circumstances is not something Jorge actually wanted to do.
Even assuming you're correctly reading his mind, so?
He was defending himself and it resulted [tragically] in death.
No, it happily resulted in the death of a bully who will never again attack anyone else. With luck, it might even convince one or more members of his "posse" to get off the path he's on.
If he had purposely wanted to kill the bully then he would be in jail.
Wrong again. If the prosecutor could prove that he wanted to kill the bully, he might have been able to make a case. Not even sure of that. The fact that he acted in a way that said he didn't want the fight meant he could use "Stand Your Ground." Once the fight started anyway, I don't know of anything that requires him not to want to kill his opponent.
The rule is "don't start it", not "don't want to finish it."
JackOfClubs wrote:
The chest is pretty well protected by bone and the abdomen doesn't have vital organs.
Yes, the thorax is well-protected, but a lack of vital organs in the abdomen? Vital or not they are all well-irrigated with blood vessels. A stab wound to the abdomen can exsanguinate you mighty fast.
Gregq made a thoughtless remark which needed refutation
Wrong twice. First of all, the remark wasn't thoughtless. I've thought about this a great deal, over several decades.
Second, the "needed refutation" implies that refutation was actually provided. It hasn't been.
Matt wrote:
Sorry, I just find someone saying that killing = admirable worse than calling someone an idiot.
Agreed. But you would have done much better to have demolished his argument rather than reeling off a low-brow taunt.
Ironic, isn't it?
Sorry, I just find someone saying that killing = admirable worse than calling someone an idiot.
Killing Saddam Hussein was admirable. Killing Stalin would have been admirable. Killing jihadis who are attacking your team members is admirable (so admirable we give out medals to people for doing it). If you really "think" that "killing is never admirable" then your worldview is so screwed up you're really not worth talking to.
OTOH, it's good that we both can agree on something, which is that you're quite sorry.
Yes, the thorax is well-protected, but a lack of vital organs in the abdomen?
I think it depends upon how he was holding the knife. If the blade is coming out thumb side, the abdomen is a target rich environment (esp. with the aorta there). If the blade's coming out pinky side, it's going to be hard to get any penetration in the abdomen, unless the other guy is much bigger than he is.
I certainly agree that regret is inappropriate here. Relief that you didn't suffer lasting physical damage or worse from the assault? Of course! Anger at the dead assailant, for putting you into a situation where you had to use deadly force? Sure. But what's to regret? He didn't do anything he shouldn't have done.
Hoosier FTW at 11:17am! LOL!!!!!
Jim Howard,
That's not "crazy talk" at all; it's a completely different species of verbiage known as "satire". Really, the second paragraph with its reference to "puppetry" didn't tip you off?
gregq wrote:
[T]he remark wasn't thoughtless. I've thought about this a great deal, over several decades..
I gave you the benefit of doubt, evidently in error. For that I apologize to Matt.
Here are your words: If you pick on those who are weaker than you, you deserve anything and everything they can do to you. This strikes me as a short route to chaos, but you say you've given decades of thought to this matter, and consider a teenage bully's slaying to be admirable. Please enlighten me.
Kim Parker wrote:
Sure. But what's to regret? He didn't do anything he shouldn't have done.
I think you're confusing regret with remorse.
Scott M said...
If you kill an intruder who has come into your house threatening you and your family then I can understand feeling completely vindicated in your actions.
Believe me. It's possible to feel both vindication and regret at the same time when a loss of life is at hand.
---------------
No, that is what other peers or lawyers coach some cop or other person involved in a righteous killing to say.
Unfortunately, that promote a societal meme that people are expected!! to deeply regret each enemy, perp, or bully killed or injured in theor aggression. And you actually have liberals SHOCKED!!! to hear that a Marine "feels pretty good about personally killing 8 Talibani in a firefight, or a cop who shoots a kid waving a pellet gun in a robbery "doesn't regret putting the kid down, based on the circumstances". That the cop deems the fact the fool was 16 or the gun "was only seeming to be a real 9mm pistol - totally irrelevant. Cop will of course be coached by his peers that he is expected to say how "wrenching it was, how deeply troubled and emotionally torn up he is about ......the Great Tragedy..."
gregq
Yes, killing = admirable when dealing with the likes of Saddam and Stalin. But if you can't tell the difference between a two-bit bully and a dictator like Stalin then your worldview is beyond the pale.
Seriously. Bullying happens every day in schools across the land. You seem to be saying that all the kids who get bullied are in their rights to kill those who bully them. I find that savage and backward thinking. We don't live in a jungle. We live in a civilized society. Fighting back is one thing. Killing is another.
In this case I think the judge got it right. Stand Your Ground is legit. But taken to the point of revenge or planning the killing of a bully is not the way to go.
Note that Stand Your Ground is not a license to kill. It is a license to defend yourself which may result in someone being killed. Cheering the result of death in this particular case strikes me as odd.
No, that is what other peers or lawyers coach some cop or other person involved in a righteous killing to say.
Sorry, C4. I apologize. It's patently not possible to feel vindicated and regretful at the same time. I bow to your more intimate knowledge of human existence. I wonder just how many vets you personally know well.
Cedarford wrote:
And you actually have liberals SHOCKED!!! to hear that a Marine "feels pretty good about personally killing 8 Talibani in a firefight...
And I'm shocked that you would use the example of a Marine, a professional warrior duty-bound to destroy the Enemy, to support the notion that the killing of one teenager by another teenager over what? bullying?! isn't a regrettable incident. As if that is any analog to war. Jeez...
Maybe I shouldn't be shocked.
If you kill an intruder who has come into your house threatening you and your family then I can understand feeling completely vindicated in your actions. But this case strikes me as something all together different.
I ask sincerely: how? He TRIED to retreat. They came after him.
Matt wrote:
Yes, killing = admirable when dealing with the likes of Saddam and Stalin. But if you can't tell the difference between a two-bit bully and a dictator like Stalin then your worldview is beyond the pale...
Well said. Earlier Gregq remarked that his thesis hadn't been refuted. I thought your second paragraph after what I took to be a gratuitous insult (apologies for that, btw) did that job nicely. Gregq didn't see it that way evidently. He may now consider himself well and truly refuted.
Trivia angle: Saavedra is of course Cervantes's second surname, and not very common.
Quaestor
Thanks. We'll see. gregq and I may have to agree to disagree. It's much easier to take a hard line in blog comments. I don't understand taking a hard line on this case.
Cedarford
I am pretty certain there is not one standard way all people who kill other people feel. But I would say that there is a difference between a teenager killing a bully and a cop shooting a suspect or a soldier killing an enemy. The primary difference being that the cop and the soldier are trained in such actions and have a long line of support both historically and in their field for their actions. This kid's action is not part of his 'job'. I think that alone could make it harder for the kid.
Qaestor - "And I'm shocked that you would use the example of a Marine, a professional warrior duty-bound to destroy the Enemy, to support the notion that the killing of one teenager by another teenager over what? bullying?! isn't a regrettable incident. As if that is any analog to war. Jeez..."
Being in a situation where you have to kill or maim hapless enemy Draftees who did nothing wrong per se - is as regrettable, in a certain sense - as having to defend yourself against an armed robber or bully determined to humiliate you and beat you to a pulp for sadistic gratification.
That does not mean the "human being harm" you inflict to stop them comes with a shred of regret. Or should come with a shred of regret.
Nothing wrong in my book with a Marine getting a significant valor award for killing 8 Talibanis in a firefight and him personally celebrating it.
Nothing wrong with a store owner exulting over the dead body of an armed robber he just shot.
Or telling a kid that inadvertently killed a bully while trying to defend himself from assault - that he was justified and should have no regrets.
Or congratulating a OK mom for defending herslf and her baby from an Oxycontin hillbilly by blowing the hillbilly away in her house.
Because in all those cases, the killing took out a wrongful aggressor, and the world is likely a better place without the slain bad guys in it.
Why regret a morally defensible deed?
From misguided empathy for the bad guy?
Matt - you are a typical squishy liberal soft on crime. You probably thought Michael Dukakis' answer to Bernard Shaw's question was admirable.
I think part of the problem is people get confused between a Regrettable Situation people find themselves in and then extrapolating from that...since it is a regrettable situation...no matter what your actions or others actions ..you are obligated to have Personal Regret.
Let us postulate that like the bullied..the OK mother who shot the Oxycontin hillbilly found the Situation of him breaking in her house completely Regrettable.
But that mom also is under no moral obligation to have a shred of Personal Regret about "extinguishing a precious human life" with a 12 gauge. No need to tell her "you ought to be haunted by this the rest of your life, and so sad..". And people that inform her she has to grieve for the dead guy or she isn't a sensitive, empathetic, and good person - best told to shove it up their preachy asses.
Matt - "I am pretty certain there is not one standard way all people who kill other people feel. But I would say that there is a difference between a teenager killing a bully and a cop shooting a suspect or a soldier killing an enemy. The primary difference being that the cop and the soldier are trained in such actions and have a long line of support both historically and in their field for their actions. This kid's action is not part of his 'job'.
=================
Uniformed government employees - the "Heroes" - do not enjoy a monopoly on the legally sanctioned use of of violence. The law, despite liberals attempts to say any "non-hero" that uses violence is at least morally guilty, if not criminally guilty for doing so - allows the citizenry to defend themselves, others, their property. Even if they are not wearing government Hero uniforms.
It is a right all citizens have - and not dependent on 'government' training, job description, or donning a "heroes" uniform.
If the other kid goes down after stab 11, #12 is excessive force.
Having decided to apply deadly force, why hold back?
It just goes to show us how stupid these kids are, his posse should have pulled him away after 5-6 stabs.
Matt:
But I would say that there is a difference between a teenager killing a bully and a cop shooting a suspect or a soldier killing an enemy.
How right you are. But based on this next, it's not what you think.
The primary difference being that the cop and the soldier are trained in such actions and have a long line of support both historically and in their field for their actions. This kid's action is not part of his 'job'. I think that alone could make it harder for the kid.
Everyone has a responsibility to defend first themselves, then their family, and extended their country. The policeman and the military man have been given the authority to act on our behalf to defend us - cops here in our localities and the military outside our borders. But everyone - everyone has the responsibility to defend themselves. This young man exercised his responsibility. The fact that he may have no training in such does not mean that he does not carry the responsibility.
Cedarford
You're misunderstanding what I am writing. I'm not talking about heroes or justification or what I think he should feel.
I'm basically saying one thing and it is: there is a difference between a teenager killing a bully and a cop shooting a suspect or a soldier killing an enemy in the way it affects the person doing the killing. You seem to think this kid just walked away from the death with a grin or a shrug. I say he probably did not feel that confident and callous. I could be wrong. But I base this on the primary difference between the two. A solider is not only justified he is encouraged to kill the enemy. A teenager is perhaps justified but never encouraged. Therefore society will judge him diffently and treat him differently. That has to have an affect other than just the sheer nature of the action.
Alex
If Dukakis felt his answer was right then it is admirable for him. If Bush felt his answer was right then that is admirable for him. Sticking to ones principles is admirable. My own opinion on the matter; I'd probably kill the guy or would expect the state to do the same.
to support the notion that the killing of one teenager by another teenager over what? bullying?!
The fact that you're making light of a case of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm is utterly morally repugnant, sir.
I'm basically saying one thing and it is: there is a difference between a teenager killing a bully and a cop shooting a suspect or a soldier killing an enemy in the way it affects the person doing the killing.
Yes, there is. A suspect might be innocent of harming anyone else, and a soldier might be a draftee who has never hurt anyone. The person killed in this case indisputably engaged in a violent felony. That you hide these facts from yourself under the label "bully" does not speak well of you.
This strikes me as a short route to chaos, but you say you've given decades of thought to this matter, and consider a teenage bully's slaying to be admirable. Please enlighten me.
If you wish to see chaos, go see the schools where bullies are not harmed for their bullying.
The world is a better place when people take responsibility for defending themselves, have the ability to do so, and actually do do so. This kid did so. Good for him.
What would the world be like if, every time some thug decided to beat someone up, he ended up with his throat slit / his heart punctured / etc., dead on the ground? Would that not be a far better place? Think how much more learning could get done at inner city schools if kids didn't have to worry about bullying, because every bully got killed the first time he picked a fight.
I know that Christians believe that everyone can be saved. I'm not a Christian, and I just don't care. Kill all the thugs. Kill all the bullies. and praise the do-gooder kids who do it. Because they've made live better for every kid who won't be bullied, beaten, robbed, raped, or murdered by that thug.
RonF
That's an interesting take. I think one has a responsibilty to defend their family, yes. But 'responsibility' strikes me as the wrong word when defending oneself in this particular case.
I can't imagine a class in which a teacher says it is your responsibility to defend yourself against bullies. Yes, defending oneself is important. But a responsibility?
Seriously. Bullying happens every day in schools across the land. You seem to be saying that all the kids who get bullied are in their rights to kill those who bully them. I find that savage and backward thinking. We don't live in a jungle. We live in a civilized society. Fighting back is one thing. Killing is another.
You attack me, I kill you. World is now a better place.
What is really "savage and backward thinking" is wanting to leave those bullies and thugs free to continue harming others, to spread destruction, fear, and pain. You either hate, or at least are indifferent to, their future victims. I am not.
I am not interested in a "proportional" response to evil, I'm interested in stopping it. If you try to bully someone, then IMHO he / she should have free rein to do anything she / he wants to do to defend him / her self. Now, once you're down and clearly out, the rules change. But until you are, your choice to bully someone else makes you fair game.
Think what better places our schools would be if every bully was killed the first time he or she tried to pick on someone. It's for the children!
Steven
Waht are you talking about? You completely miss the point of my argument. Note that just about everyone is calling the kid who died a bully. I don't call him that lightly. If you want to call him a felon or a thug go ahead. But it does not change the fact that teenagers in middle school or high school are not trained to kill like cops and soldier are. So the effect that it might have on the kid is different than on cops and soldiers.
If you think killing in this case is the right thing and no big deal and that the kid will walk the streets with a steely grin and a Dirty Harry swagger then maybe it does not speak well of you. This ain't a movie, dude.
The community's adults had a responsibility to put a stop to this kid's bullying. We know from the facts as presented in the story that there had already been incidents. On the bus, no less. But the kid was still allowed to ride on the bus to terrorize the other kids.
The child's parents are understandably aggrieved...but there's nothing in the story that suggests they accept that Nuno had any responsibility for what happened whatsoever. That suggests that they at best were looking the other way on their child's bullying behavior, and enablers of it.
If you read the comments on the news site, the community is full of enablers clamoring to put Saavedra away.
Enablers, all.
Matt, your position is ridiculous. Saavedra was attacked, violently, from behind, after having attempted to avoid the conflict, by someone bigger, accompanied by a bunch of buddies, and in a position to do him grievous bodily harm.
Your idea that the victims of violent assault should not be allowed to take adequate measures to protect themselves is perverse.
You're trying to avoid "the law of the jungle." But if you deny the victim the right to defend himself - by resorting to the equalization of weaponry, if the attacker persists - you create just what you're trying to avoid.
We reject that logic among nations, we reject it among adults. There is no principled reason why it is any different among children.
Every so often we hear of another child driven to suicide because of bullying - and yet you choose to attack this kid.
WV: bless
Every whore was once a virgin and every bully was once a victim. I wish life had the clean, narrative arc of a Chuck Norris movie, but there's a good chance this is not a one act play. The dead kid has friends and relatives Maybe they'll consider this a blood debt. Maybe the victor will feel either remorse or, worse, become overconfident in his ability to negotiate a tough situation with a pocket knife.......I grew up in bad neighborhood. There were lots of sociopaths around. Whenever possible I tried to weasel my way out of physical confrontations. Discretion is the better part of valor particularly when dealing with psychopaths. I don't know if there is even any right way of dealing with some jerks. Brave or craven, the punks take a piece out of you. ......At any event, as this case demonstrates, bullying can be just as damaging for the bullies as the bullied. Abusive people can sometimes prosper, but more often than not it bites them in the ass.
Jason
Where did I attack the kid? Please don't put words in my mouth. I wrote:
In this case I think the judge got it right. Stand Your Ground is legit.
I completely support the kid defending himself.
My argument is against some people in the comments section here who think all kids should start walking around stabbing bullies. I don't think that is the answer. That's all. If you think different then that is fine.
Many can relate to being singled out by a bigger kid/bully as a young person.
I had my ass handed to me on more than one occasion, and it finally dawned on me that if I didn't stand and fight (dirty, even) I was going to be toast.
But we did it with our fists. Now I don't blame this kid for defending himself, but turning a knife on someone after getting punched in the head?
Thats where my understanding gets a bit fuzzy.
This one act was probably more effective at stopping a bully than all the anti-bullying BS that is going around, put together.
Gregg-
I'm a Christian, and I think Saavedra did what he had to do. My Christian husband thinks the same thing, and most of my Christian friends probably do too. But then, I live in Texas.
Now I don't blame this kid for defending himself, but turning a knife on someone after getting punched in the head?
I have no problem with that at all. When ELSE is a smaller person going to pull a weapon when defending themseves against a violent assault, AFTER already having been hit? You want to give the criminal the advantage of the first draw, too?
What, are you a moron?
Nuno could have desisted after Saavedra pulled the knife. He kept up the assault. Saavedra could operate under no assumption except that Nuno intended to disarm him and use the knife on him. That is the only rational assumption to make.
Nuno, at that point, got what was coming to him.
But go ahead and enjoy your hand-wringing and navel-gazing.
gregq said...
Think what better places our schools would be if every bully was killed the first time he or she tried to pick on someone.
LOL, dude, I don’t want to shatter your utopian vigilante world but if all the kids who were picked on went around with knives and guns killing bullies then the kids would become the new bullies. And could you be sure they were only singling out true bullies and not just the kids who made fun of them once or twice? It's be a killing field. Think about it.
Kicking bullies around, sure. Getting adults and the law involved, okay. Killing them all? No.
Jose_K: I'm also surprised that the prosecutors didn't announce in outrage that they were appealing this all the way to the Supreme Court.. Am I wrong or not guilty verdict can not be appealed?
You would be right if a jury had acquitted the defendant after a trial. But there was no trial. The judge never let the case go that far.
A judge's ruling before a trial is apparently something that can be appealed. In this case though, according to the original story, the state's attorney general announced that he would not do that.
I'm so proud of my country. We came very close to devolving to the same pathetic state of the once proud Brits during the Clinton administration. We've recovered quite nicely in this regard.
Now if we can just get rid of the marxism in the government that is running rampant now.
Obviously the Justice Deptartment must take action. I call on Attorney General Holder to extend the success of his Fast and Furious initiative and give this nation's hard-working bullies the tools to defend themselves from their arrogant, selfish "victims".
In these tough economic times, with more and more students partaking of school lunches, harassment delivery specialists have already seen their fees severely curtailed. They should not be expected to operate in an atmosphere of fear that their clients might employ deadly force to avoid contributing their fair share of lunch money.
"...if all the kids who were picked on went around with knives and guns killing bullies then the kids would become the new bullies"
But new bulies would be eliminated by new victims. The world is a better place with no bullies, no victims. It's better to kill a guilty bully than for the victim to bottle up and do a Columbine on the innocent.
If you kill an intruder who has come into your house threatening you
Why is that different from being physically attacked from the rear by a group of guys you know are out to get you?
He wasn't being bullied, he was assaulted.
You know -- it seems like it devolved into a "him or me" situation.
Given the choice who here would pick "me" as the answer?
That being said I don't think the victim had the intention of killing the attacker as much as scaring him off if he stabbed him.
Taking a human life is a big deal. Taking it instead of losing yours? Maybe not so much.
OK, to illuminate this a bit more.
Suppose I, a 220lb man, threaten a 100lb woman on the bus. She gets off the bus and I follow her. I hit her in the back of the head. She draws a gun, shoots me and I die from my wounds.
Crime?
Not the same? Why?
[Different J]
One punch is attempted murder.
I've heard of numerous cases where one punch killed a person (in one case the person hit their head on a rock on the ground).
You take a swing at me, be prepared not to ever wake up.
One of the results of our litigious society (thanks Ann) :-) is that a right to self protect is almost non-existant.
I frequent a few gun blogs and the discussion came up about shooting to wound someone in self defense as opposed to killing them out right. The consensus was that it is more prudent to kill the perp, for several reasons.
1) the cops only get to hear one side of the story. No he said, she said, to cloudy the issues of who was in the wrong.
2) if you have an escape route you could have used to save yourself, then you weren't in mortal danger. (see story)
3) if you have enough awareness that you can incapacitate someone by wounding them, then you weren't in fear of your life.
Be very careful if you do defend yourself. One mistake in judgement turns self-defense into assault.
This kid did everything right. He tried to flee, and he didn't show restraint. He was in fear for his life.
The older kid and his posse opened the door to violence. It's a very dangerous door to open because, once it's open one has no complaint about whomever or whatever walks through that door.
Carniflex, the stand your ground law in Florida takes away the requirement to withdraw. I think it a very enlightened law.
You take a swing at me, be prepared not to ever wake up.
Take it easy, Francis.
Matt,
You really need to spend some time doing basic math.
Let's say you've got a 2/3 chance of winning any fight. Sounds great, right?
You've got a 4/9 chance of winning 2 fights in a row, and an 8/27 (less than 1/3) chance of winning 3. Being a bully clearly has bad odds, no?
Besides, if you go around cutting up kids who aren't trying to pick a fight with you, you end up in jail (assault w/ a deadly weapon, etc.). It's only if you do it while defending yourself from someone else that you get to walk.
Finally, if you get bullied when small, and the bully gets away with it, then it's "reasonable" to decide when you're big that you're "going to get your own back." If the bullies end up dead, then there are no "positive role models" for bullying, and there are plenty of "negative role models" that saying that trying to push the smaller kids around is a bad idea.
Incentives matter. "I got bullied as a freshman, and I had to run away" -> bullying is powerful, I want to be powerful, I'm going to bully other kids when I'm a junior.
"I got bullied, and I killed the bully" -> bullying other kids is a losing proposition, I'm not going to be a bully.
"That big touch guy tried to push around a little kid, and ended up dead" -> bullying other kids is a losing proposition, I'm not going to be a bully.
I dug back in the coverage a bit and it turns out Saaveda has a learning disability. Something tells me that this wasn't the first time that he'd been bullied. For me, that helps put his response to Nuno's attack into perspective.
Carnifex,
If you guys were discussing "shoot to wound vs shoot to kill" in terms of mindset that's one thing (though still troubling--didn't "shoot to stop the threat" win the day??)
But if you were talking about practical ability in the real world, you are all (to use a technical term) fools.
@Skylar
Never trust the government not to fuck you over if they get a chance,
@Kirk Parker
No, shoot to end the threat opens you up to lawsuit. It entered the discussion and was summarily dismissed as, to use you words, foolish. As far as your second comment, What? I have no idea what the point you were trying to make. Please elucidate.
There was a recent example of these points I make late last year in a shooting. Thugs wielding guns attempt to rob a pharmacy. Store pharmacist comes out with his own gun and shoots thug #1 several times. Thug #1 goes down, pharmacist fires again into thug #1, killing him. Thug #2 exits on the run with pharmacist in pursuit, but he looses thug #2. Police come and arrest pharmacist for murder. Judge and jury convict him for murder. He is now in prison for protecting the lives of the other pharmacy workers.
The prosecution claimed that because there was a delay in the final shooting thug #1 was incapacitated and therefor no longer a threat, and therefor it was murder to shoot him.
The defense claimed that thug#1 was still aware, and still in possession of his weapon, so it was still self defense.
Store cameras didn't cover the area of the floor where thug #1 was laying, but the prosecution didn't err on the side of the righteous man, but on the side of the thug.
And you want someone to TRUST this system? When people like OJ, Mumia, et al, are held up as being innocent? Where tax cheat Terry Geithner not only doesn't pay a penalty, but gets a promotion? Where John Corzine has no idea where that billion dollars went, and everything depends on what the definition of "is" is?
I trust the system implicitly. I do not trust lawyers, cops, judges, bailiffs, reporters, or anyone else, except for my family (with a few exceptions), and my friends (with a no exceptions) I can pick friends, not family-lol
Under stress, there is no such thing as "shooting to kill" or "shooting to wound."
There is only "center of mass," and "be the first to make an aimed shot."
Nothing else matters.
Afterwards, the only thing to say to law enforcement is "I don't know. I feared for my life. I panicked and emptied the mag as fast as I could."
Afterwards, the only thing to say to law enforcement is "I don't know. I feared for my life. I panicked and emptied the mag as fast as I could."
This. There are entire books written about legally armoring yourself immediately following a self-defense shooting incident. The basic gist of all of them is "don't run your mouth".
Carnifex,
Regarding the latter: if you and your buddies think you reliably and repeatably distinguish between making shoot-to-wound vs shoot-to-kill shots in a real-life defensive scenario, my hat's off to you. Either that, or you're crazy.
Regarding your story of the pharmicist: assuming your account is an accurate description, it's certainly a troubling result. I'm in favor of giving a HUGE benefit of the doubt to those who were peacefully minding their own business and were involved in a life-and-death situation completely against their will.
However, I am also completely puzzled why you think an example of someone who shot-to-kill and was convicted of a crime for it, is somehow an argument for a shoot-to-kill mindset.
I can't imagine a class in which a teacher says it is your responsibility to defend yourself against bullies. Yes, defending oneself is important. But a responsibility?
Yes, Matt, responsibility. You are the first line of defense, and when seconds count, the cops / teachers / whoever else you think is going to protect you are minutes away. People who can't protect themselves are victims.
People who chose not to protect themselves are willing victims. Which makes them bad human beings, since having a supply of willing victims leads to a greater supply of victimizers, making life worse for everyone else.
"God made man. Sam Colt made men equal." If you want to ever be an adult, don't be a victim. If you don't want to be a victim, that's not a switch you flick on at age 18.
@ Kirk Parker
Sorry didn't make myself clearer. We were going over scenarios, and no one thought it was a good idea to shoot to wound.
On the second point. Yes it is as I described it for the pharmacist. I should have explained that the guy should have emptied his magazine into the thug. There would have been no wiggle room for over-zealous gun-grabbers to make an example of him. The pharmacist made a mistake by stopping his fire. The second he did, any further firing could be construed as murder.
Fire till your dry is the lesson.
Post a Comment