3 ms·

> run, hide, fight Can you see the order these are in? And people who think they're fighting back usually don't do the minimum to defend themselves. They very

> run, hide, fight Can you see the order these are in? And people who think they're fighting back usually don't do the minimum to defend themselves. They very quickly turn into just brawling themselves as much as the other person was. Your right to defend yourself means doing the bare minimum to stop the threat against you or others. It doesn't mean 'standing your ground' and 'fighting back' like they think it does. You can see how when a teacher comes around the corner someone who's decided to fight back looks just as bad as the person who started it in many cases.

giantg2 5y ago
"people who think they're fighting back usually don't do the minimum to defend themselves" Do you have any data on that? I rarely see people become excessive in defending themself. "Your right to defend yourself means doing the bare minimum to stop the threat against you or others. It doesn't mean 'standing your ground' and 'fighting back' like they think it does." It does mean doing the bare minimum. Who decides that? Usually great deference is given to the individual in the situation because it's not possible to cover the nearly infinite factors under legislation. There are states where you can 'stand your ground' in that you do not have to prove that you tried to run from a place you were legally allowed to be before defending yourself. Just because the words are in order does not mean that you have the option to do the first two. Things happen fast. You can skip levels in the force continuum if the lower levels are no longer an option. With all the cameras in schools, I would think a review of the tapes should give a pretty idea of who struck first. Depending on the location, if neither party can be confirmed to be the aggressor, then both parties can be charged with a lesser grading or offense. So it would seem that treating both students under the harsh no tolerance policy would be inconsistent with the laws of the real world and society's views.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > I would think a review of the tapes should give a pretty idea of who struck first But this bit is exactly it - you can have not struck first and still be in the wrong by fighting.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Generally, not true.

giantg2 5y ago

"people who think they're fighting back usually don't do the minimum to defend themselves" Do you have any data on that? I rarely see people become excessive in defending themself. "Your right to defend yourself means doing the bare minimum to stop the threat against you or others. It doesn't mean 'standing your ground' and 'fighting back' like they think it does." It does mean doing the bare minimum. Who decides that? Usually great deference is given to the individual in the situation because it's not possible to cover the nearly infinite factors under legislation. There are states where you can 'stand your ground' in that you do not have to prove that you tried to run from a place you were legally allowed to be before defending yourself. Just because the words are in order does not mean that you have the option to do the first two. Things happen fast. You can skip levels in the force continuum if the lower levels are no longer an option. With all the cameras in schools, I would think a review of the tapes should give a pretty idea of who struck first. Depending on the location, if neither party can be confirmed to be the aggressor, then both parties can be charged with a lesser grading or offense. So it would seem that treating both students under the harsh no tolerance policy would be inconsistent with the laws of the real world and society's views.

chrisseaton 5y ago
> I would think a review of the tapes should give a pretty idea of who struck first But this bit is exactly it - you can have not struck first and still be in the wrong by fighting.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Generally, not true.