Colorado Boy Says He Was Suspended For Standing Up To Bully Who Was Attacking Him

 

A 9-year-old Colorado boy claims he was suspended from his elementary school after fighting back against a bully who was beating him.

 

Nathan Pemberton, a third-grader at West Elementary School in Colorado Springs, was suspended Tuesday following a physical altercation with another student, Fox affiliate KDVR-TV reported.

 

"One kid kicked me in the back, then punched me in the face. Then I punched him in the face and then I got in trouble," the boy told the station.

 

Read the full story here.
==========

 

Actually, this isn't new. Defending yourself against physical attacks was punished even when I was in middle school, and that was around 1990. But is this what we want to teach our children?

 

Everyone gets picked on, everyone has to deal with unpleasant people and unpleasant situations. Rather than trying to coddle our children and place them in protective bubble-wrap where they can't learn how to handle themselves under duress, we need to make sure they know how things really are and how to deal with Reality. And the reality is, bullies are just predators.

 

 

The cruel, delusional notion that we can reason with unreasonable people has been propagated by incompetent leaders in our society who don't really like dealing with the harsh reality of their situation. There will always be bullies, and talking with them doesn't usually fix the problem. Before he passed away, my father taught me the value of dealing with people honestly and fairly, but he also taught me that while I was never to be the one to start a fight, I'd better be the one to finish it.

 

Views: 1034

Replies to This Discussion

Not too surprising.  "Zero tolerance" has been going that way for a long time.  To some, there is no such thing as justified violence -- in war, in self-defense shootings, or in the schoolyard.

 

Earlier this week, a Congressman introduced an amendment to deny Federal funding to any States with "Stand Your Ground" laws.

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76045.html

 

Apparently, he was alarmed at the statistical rise in self-defense shootings in those States ... because, apparently, dead criminals bother his sensitive soul.  Personally, I think a rise in justified self-defense shootings is a good thing.  Better for criminals, instead of victims, to catch a bullet.

 

The "bully" thing is exactly the same thing on a smaller scale ... part of a larger debate about whether violence is ever justified.  The utopians seem to think there is no problem that can't be talked through, and no fight that shouldn't be run from.  They're wrong.

JB

Jacob Bauer wrote:
Punishing a child for defending himself will leave a mark on his mind that might well last a lifetime.
==========

 

Such a lifelong impact would be very suitable for a government wishing to subjugate its people and impose its will without that people speaking out.

I wouldn't doubt that hitting someone gets you a suspension. Hopefully the others were suspended as well. If all were suspended I wouldn't have a problem. If my son were being bullied I would inform the principal and tell him that when my child has had enough there could be an altercation. At that point the principal can do something about it or let it go. I would not tell my son not to fight back but I would also tell him that he needs to be prepared for the consequences of his actions which could include getting beat up and or getting in trouble with the school.

Paul of TX wrote:
If my son were being bullied I would inform the principal and tell him that when my child has had enough there could be an altercation. At that point the principal can do something about it or let it go. I would not tell my son not to fight back...
==========

 

Did you notice the picture I included in the original post? If not, feel free to scroll back up and check it out. I'll wait.

 

Now then, if you honestly have children, male or female, go feed them to a mountain lion right now. It's a lot less cruel than the life you're setting them up for.

 

Females have a much better chance of not being raped - or raped and murdered, if that's the offender's intent - if they fight back. Males and all individuals in general, by being taught at a young age that it IS appropriate to take care of yourself, learn the importance of self-sufficiency.

 

Petty criminals want easy targets, and people who have been disarmed by their government as well as people who have been discouraged from fighting back both make very easy targets. The rainbow-and-butterfly liberals can imagine that violence in defense of one's self is just as evil as violence against innocent individuals, but until they can invent world peace, you're going to have violent people wanting to do violent things to your children, both now and when they're older. Give them a good foundation and teach them not only how to beat the ever living snot out of someone, but teach them RESPONSIBILITY, maturity, self-control, patience, kindness, and gentleness. There's a time and a place for everything - including self defense. If you're going to teach them to be opossums, you're just putting them on the bottom of the food chain and setting them up to be easy victims later.

 

It also doesn't hurt Big Brother's feelings to have a populace that doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up for itself.

Apparently Ryan thinks we should teach our children that as soon as someone looks at them crossways to punch them in their pretty mouth.

Maybe Ryan is the type of guy who lives in fear of his own shadow and attacks anyone who walks toward his front door. Ryan it only the mailman calm down.

A mountain lion is more of an assassin than a bully. Almost all mountain lions that have attacked me didn't spend months or years tormenting me and making my cry everyday.

Paul of TX wrote:
Apparently Ryan thinks we should teach our children that as soon as someone looks at them crossways to punch them in their pretty mouth.
==========

 

This is why I included the admonishment regarding teaching children RESPONSIBILITY, maturity, self-control, patience, et cetera. No, you don't attack someone if they look at you cross-eyed, or call you names, or comment on your mother's ever expanding girth, or put rainbow stickers on your locker, or any of thousands of other ways so-called "bullies" torment their "victims."

 

The inclusion of the sign giving instructions on how to deal with mountain lions was not a careless addition to an otherwise calculated post. Notice that the instruction to fight only comes when the condition of the lion's attack comes first. Prior to that, the lion is just posturing and/or attempting to intimidate you. Maybe you're lunch, and maybe you got too close to the cubs. Motive, rationalization, and other mental variables will differ between your average predator and a human being, but the overall application of avoiding physical altercations when possible - and fighting back violently when impossible - are the same.

 

I'll be sure to spell out points like this in the future. Sorry for any confusion.

Titus Techera wrote:
I'm not sure you've got the gist of the man's point.
==========

 

I do, and I cut the quote short because I wanted to address the mindset that is raising generations of spineless doormats.

 

Paul of TX wrote:
At that point the principal can do something about it or let it go.
==========

 

So the principal lets it go. Then what? Considering the circumstances of my original post, I'm assuming the hypothetical situation we're talking about is someone physically tormenting the child. So if the principal doesn't do anything about it, Paul Jr. is being instructed not to fight back?

Yeah, that sounds about right. My brother got jumped by two guys in high school and all he did was push them off. He got suspended for three days. I don't remember what happened to the other kids.

Usual "only one side of the story" TV news leader posted on the 'net.

The whole "zero tolerance" business has made it way too easy for folks totally wedded to "the process".  Nobody has to ask questions beyond, "Did you hit him?" Nobody has to figure out if there's a troublemaker.  Nobody actually has to deal with it.

Back in the day, there was a school punishment that was far better than a suspension.  You got to police the school yard, after school, and show the trash you'd picked up.  Dog the job, and it was "See you tomorrow, after school.  And give your Mom or Dad this note."

 

Second paragraph gets it quite right. It's not about peace loving hippie liberals. It's about a litigious society.

The movies and websites are probably more liberal based but in all fairness kids did kill themselves.

I bet many if not most of those billboard lawyers are wealthy enough to vote Republican.

Either way, I doubt it has anything to do with liberal or conservative. Or maybe it does, which way does opportunistic trash vote?

RSS

Latest Activity

DHO updated their profile
11 minutes ago
Clinton R. Ausmus replied to Pale Horse's discussion AG Sessions in the group The Great Debate
"You know I really don't know what you're trying to prove here Shane. But I think you might have missed a dose this morning man. You seem to be itching to just nail someone for a comma being out of place or something so you can celebrate…"
20 minutes ago
Clinton R. Ausmus replied to David R.'s discussion Transgender Persons in the Military in the group The Great Debate
"Dude seriously? What is the title of this discussion? Or, I see what you're doing...I shouldn't say bill, I should say policy. Thanks for pointing out my folly."
23 minutes ago
Clinton R. Ausmus replied to Sir's discussion Transgenderism and optical illusion in the group The Great Debate
"I'll read the article later when I have a break at work, but already you could simply say: Is it more transgender that have schizophrenia or is it more schizophrenics who are transgender? This looks like either it's already being spun to…"
25 minutes ago
Shane replied to Pale Horse's discussion Proverbs 18:24 in the group Christian Men
"Compose noun "Create" synonym "Invent" The Hebrews did not invent a good chunk of Proverbs. They transcribed them from oral traditions."
28 minutes ago
Shane replied to Pale Horse's discussion AG Sessions in the group The Great Debate
""Pretty close to the exact wording" Useless."
33 minutes ago
Shane replied to David R.'s discussion Transgender Persons in the Military in the group The Great Debate
"What bill?"
34 minutes ago
Clinton R. Ausmus replied to Pale Horse's discussion AG Sessions in the group The Great Debate
"Since PH asked the question, don't you think he should be the one to open it up. Takes 2 minutes on google to get pretty close to the exact wording that Mueller has given really. So I'm not real sure what you're going to do when…"
37 minutes ago

© 2017   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service